Inequality in Britain

[david_carnell]

From my favourite current blog, Left Foot Forward:

The inequality in new VAT hikes

[Loz]

Speaking of QT, did anyone else feel the urge to punch the guy from the New Statesman? Very well informed, but *really* grating way of saying things. Never thought I'd cheer for Heseltine.

[????]

We will never know, and of course they'll use it to bash, but I'm pretty sure a Labour government would have to have raised VAT to 20% in current circumstances....I know 'progressives' keep wanting it not to be true the creek we are right up at the moment, but it is.

[Ladymuck]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Actually, a Labour MP now is most likely to be

> teacher or Lecturer. Their representation is

> pretty narrow white collar, middle class public

> sector or legal/journalist.

Well, if that's the case, then that situation has to be equally as wrong as that of the Tories/Lib-dems. It's not so much about the profession (or where they are educated) but more about the fact that party members are not representative of their constituents. As ???? put it - too "narrow". This cannot be good for the country.

[????]

2005 backgrounds of MPs

...for anyone interested. Don't suspect it's got any more representative.

[Ladymuck]

Hmmmm...not exactly inspirational data. Interesting though ????.

Didn't see a single postman or ship-steward though - Mitchk;-), though the Labour Party did have 10 remaining miners at the 2005 General Election.

We've got a long way to go.

[MitchK]

Alan Johnson was a postman for a while, although he did briefly attend Sloane Grammar School in Chelsea so not a complete oik. John Prescott was a steward and a waiter in the Merchant Navy. That was why Nicholas Soames used to taunt him in the Commons by saying 'Mine's a gin and tonic, Giovanni'.

[Ladymuck]

I never knew that.

Thank you for those snippets!

[Ladymuck]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Speaking of QT, did anyone else feel the urge to

> punch the guy from the New Statesman? Very well

> informed, but *really* grating way of saying

> things. Never thought I'd cheer for Heseltine.

Actually I thought Mehdi Hasan of the New Statesman put over his points very well. His knowledge on the situation in Europe in particular is impressive. He is clearly very passionate and - yes - well informed. Weirdly though, something about him reminded me of the Miliband brothers:-S.

If anyone grated on me it was Daily Mail columnist Melanie Phillips. I found some of the things she said dismissive and, frankly, silly. Far from adding to the debate, she simply failed to respond to the issues being raised in the programme.

My favourite was Labour peer Lord Falconer. He certainly struck a chord with me when he pointed out that you would have expected that, with a coalition government in particular, there would also have been a coalition of more people of different gender and colour. Made me laugh when he pointed to the fact that the head of the coalition (i.e. DC, NC, GO, VC) all look as though they come from a very similar narrow social background.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Now THERE is a bat out of hell

[MitchK]

Melanie Phillips is dreadful but she is a Daily Mail columnist and probably reflects some of the opinions of her readers. I thought the New Statesman chappie was extremely disrespectful to Lord Heseltine and generally rather odious.

But it was good of Lord Falconer to point out how similar all the leading lights of the government are. This is the ex-barrister, Oxbridge-educated, kids at Westminster school (Clegg's alma mater) Lord Falconer that we are talking about, right?

To get to the top in politics you need intelligence and ambition, as well as good contacts I would think. Anyone who is super intelligent and ambitious at 16 will probably end up at Oxbridge.

There are plenty of candidates, including the Tory one in Dulwich, who come from different backgrounds but you lot chose not to vote her in.

[Ladymuck]

Telling me!!!!!

[Ladymuck]

Damn...cross-post...the "Telling me" comment is in response to Sean's latest post.

[Loz]

Melanie Phillips would only be worth commenting upon if her views weren't completely odious. She was brilliant at contradicting herself - often in the one sentence.

[Ladymuck]

She was - hee hee.

But how utterly presumptuous of her to suggest that women/ethnic minorities might not want to run the country.

*raises fist*

[Huguenot]

"It's not so much about the profession (or where they are educated) but more about the fact that party members are not representative of their constituents."

There's a clear irony here.

MPs do represent their constituents, as a consequence you have to go with whoever they have elected. If race or gender was a priority, then this would reflect itself in the results. It doesn't, so it's not a priority for voters.

The only way you could impose a demand for a more mixed candidate profile would be by employing proportional representation and imposing this as a regulation on parties.

The problem with PR is that by definition, MPs would NOT represent their constituents. In fact they wouldn't have a constituency.

Geddit?

[Ladymuck]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Representative government means more

> than just gender issues. For instance, I haven't

> seen to 2010 figures, but the previous parliament

> had a grand total of 5 black MPs. Five! What has

> Harman's law done in that area? Sweet FA.

I agree that increasing the diversity of Parliament shouldn't just be about gender. But it is unfair of you to suggest that HH has done "sweet FA" about the lack of ethnic minority candidates. Her Act does actually include specific provisions which effectively make it legal for political parties to reserve a specific number of places on candidate shortlists for applicants on grounds of race ? in an attempt to make Parliament more representative of the country's population.

[Ladymuck]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> MPs do represent their constituents, as a

> consequence you have to go with whoever they have

> elected. If race or gender was a priority, then

> this would reflect itself in the results. It

> doesn't, so it's not a priority for voters.

Oh gawd! When I said that "party members are not representative of their constituents", I was meaning that they don't typify their constituents (e.g. in appearance or social/ethnic background etc.). So apologies for not being clear there.

As for race/gender, no-one is suggesting that these factors should be a priority. Clearly, candidates should be selected on the basis of merit/competence etc. (though I do believe that many women voters actually voted for Mrs. T on the basis of gender - and look what happened there).

> The only way you could impose a demand for a more

> mixed candidate profile would be by employing

> proportional representation and imposing this as a

> regulation on parties.

No - it isn't the only way (sorry). Positive action, for example, has the potential to reverse undesirable results by making legal something which would otherwise be deemed illegal (e.g. positive discrimination). Indeed, the Equality Act specifically provides for positive action in the areas of gender, race and disability in an attempt to redress the current imbalance in respect of Parliamentary candidates.

(Apologies for fisk - twas easier that way)

[Huguenot]

Understood about the fisking, but you're quite wrong on everything else.

Each election is an independent local activity, not a general one. If you want to create a general balance in ethnicity or gender you have to foist a candidate that might not be the population's chosen representative onto a constituency.

Which one are you going to choose? Let's impose a black representative in Tunbridge Wells, and a female one in Dagenham?

That's not blinking democracy, that's tyranny.

[Ladymuck]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Understood about the fisking, but you're quite

> wrong on everything else...

You are indeed audacious to taunt me so Huguenot. Singapore is not that far away (certainly, I believe it to be closer than Vietnam)!

Audacity aside, I can (you heard correctly) see where you are coming from. In particular, I would agree that a proportional system of voting would, in all probability, yield more women and ethnic minorities in Parliament. However, given the huge imbalance evident in our House of Commons at present, I doubt such a change to our system of voting would suffice to redress that imbalance. More is needed. Harriet Harman's law, which allows for positive action in favour of women, ethnic minorities and people with disabilities - whilst not ideal - recognises this.

Society has changed (and continues to do so) - one just has to look around to see this. At present more than 50% of the country's citizens are women and (roughly) around 10% of citizens are from minority ethnic groups for example. But this is not reflected in the House of Commons. A significant increase in the proportion of - e.g. - women and members of ethnic minority communities in Parliament is therefore required in order to make Parliament more representative of its people. Why should the House of Commons be different?

A Parliament comprised of virtually white, middle/upper-class, public school, Oxbridge-educated men has had its day in modern Britain. To continue the tradition is neither desirable nor acceptable if we are to strive for a fairer society.

[Ladymuck]

PS: I cannot help but wonder at what Harriet Harman might think of the implication that her law might be tantamount to tyranny!

:))

[Huguenot]

Audacious I am ;-)

It absolutely is tyrannical. Her ideology is trumping her clarity.

She is removing the rights of the electorate to select whoever they choose. It is the end of democracy.

We would all like to see a parliament that more closely reflects the population, but you cannot do this by removing democratic rights. You must instead educate the electorate in the benefits of diversity and ensure the opportunity to learn the necessary skills are open to all.

[brum]

I'm slightly amused by the term 'tyrannical' being used as a superlative in relation to something that aims to encourage a fairer representation within our democracy. Tyranny? We are a long long way from that, Huge.

[Ladymuck]

brum Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm slightly amused by the term 'tyrannical' being

> used...

I wonder if Harriet Harman will feel the same?

[Ladymuck]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> She is removing the rights of the electorate to

> select whoever they choose.

I beg to differ. She is only, by her law, permitting positive action if it is a proportionate means of addressing under-representation of certain groups in Parliament. I.e. where representation of that group is disproportionately low. The electorate will still be able to select whoever they wish from, what is hoped, will be a more diverse political ring. A purported "choice" of mainly WUPOMs is effectively no choice at all.

That said, I think I can (ever so slightly) see where you are coming from. Presumably you view positive action in this way as "manipulating" the democratic process and it is perhaps this which you find so undemocratic? Personally, I would refer to it as "tweaking". Moreover, if such manipulation/tweaking alleviates political exclusion, leads to a fairer democracy, and is conducive to the public good, then I don't have a problem with "it".

>It is the end of

> democracy.

This, to me, smacks of melodrama and scare/doom mongering. Her reforms are aimed at fairer representation. Fairer representation = fairer elections = fairer democracy = fairer society. They will not prevent a fairly elected Government through fairly elected representatives.

Parliament should be a microcosm of the general populace. If we continue to have a parliament comprised of mainly WOPUMs as the make-up of society continues to change, then people will become more and more disengaged with politics until, eventually, few will bother to vote.

As it stands, the UK has a relatively low voter turnout compared with other countries. One reason for this is that people are less likely to vote if they feel that they, and what matters to them, are not reflected in those selected to "represent" them. Studies/surveys consistently demonstrate that where people choose not to vote that it is often because they view politicians as all being the same or because of an inability to relate to them because, e.g. (as is the case with the black community) politicians are perceived to be ignorant of what concerns them. If we don't have democratic engagement within our political system how on earth can we then assert that it is truly democratic? For me, it is this lack of both democratic and political engagement which undermines and is the real threat to our democracy not, as you appear to be saying, Harman's law.

> You must instead educate the electorate in the benefits of

> diversity and ensure the opportunity to learn the

> necessary skills are open to all.

Ha! If life were that simple, this thread wouldn't be in existence and I would instead be playing away to my heart's content in the Lounge instead of...erm...playing away to my heart's content...erm...in this room...or something...

But you are right in saying that education and equality of opportunity are key - I'll grant you that.:))

(Fisk entirely deliberate and executed without a hint of remorse).