Anyone who watched Andrew Neil's recent documentary Posh & Posher can't help but be dismayed at the fact that the majority of people in Westminster today are Oxbridge Graduates and public school educated. Whilst this has always been the case with the Tory's and Lib Dems, what many found more shocking is that it's also true of the Labour party.
Some blame the media - in an age where politician's every word and action is scrutinised by press and TV journalists alike, is the pressure to be an uber professional, whiter than white public figure too much for 'real' people to sustain? Those with life experiences before politics are sure to have a few too many skeletons in their closets perhaps?
Others have blamed nepotism - the old school tie (or college scarf) network demanding a route of Oxbridge (which you've a much higher chance of attending if you're privately educated,) unpaid internship, think tank, Special Political Advisor (SPAD), safe parliamentary seat. As career routes go it has it's advantages - you get a thorough grounding in parliamentary and political ways, you understand policy design, and you develop networks of supporters along the way. In a world where people keep their friends close and their enemies closer, knowing someone is loyal and can be trusted not to let slip important political secrets is invaluable.
I suspect however that the reality it's a little more pragmatic and less conspiritorial than some suggest. I think it's a combination of people at the top recognising the demands of the role of MP these days - to have a combination of sharp grasp for details, an understanding of how to 'sell' a policy to the general public and the universal fact that people like and therefore trust people who are like them. This works in subtle ways - common language, shared experience, connections and networks. It's how many organisations work, so it's unsurprising that politics is similar. With the stakes so high, it's no surprise that those deciding on PPC's, SPADS and the like, choose to play it safe.
BUT-and it's a huge one, politicians are there to represent the people of their constituencies. Whilst it's perfectly possible, it's surely much more difficult to have empathy and understanding of how 'real' people live if you a) have little knowledge or contact with 'real' people prior to becoming an MP and b) have never lived in their world in the first place.
Whilst we're all diverse in experience and knowledge, the fact that so many top MPs have never had 'real' jobs, worried about bills, what school their kids will go or how they will be able to get to work on time if their car doesn't pass it's MOT, is a cause for concern.
MPs are not paid some of the vast sums given to top executives, celebrities or premiership footballers but their basic salary, plus expenses, plus whatever their improved income earning abilities are outside of politics are means that they are way above the median wage for the UK and fall firmly in the top 5 % of earners (and in the top 1% for those with select committee or ministerial duties.) So whilst they may have a theoretical knowledge of how it might feel to be poor, or disabled, or young, or old, or black, or female - if they've no actual experience of being those things it's difficult to see how they can really take some steps in their metaphorical shoes.
Of course we want those at the top to be bright and have a clear grasp of the issues and challenges facing the UK community as a whole. But we also need them to have empathy and understanding of what those policy decisions will mean on a human level. Would the coalition's deficit reduction decisions have been made with so much swagger if the majority of the cabinet ministers are millionaires who've never had to rely on benefits, the NHS or struggle to find a job in their lives? Being rich and coming from privilege doesn't prevent people from having empathy-but it does make it harder for them to understand just what a cut of £30 EMA allowance would mean to a young person from a deprived background. If £30 to you is the price of a half decent bottle of wine, it's not going to seem significant to cut that amount per week from a young person. If it's the difference between getting to college, gaining qualifications and therefore having a future away from the minimum wage - it makes all the difference in the world.
I'm not advocating quota systems but I am suggesting we really look at the reasons why so many of our MPs are now Oxbridge educated, white and male. The Labour party has a far better record on equality and inclusion that any of the other main parties and that's something to be very proud of. But it's not enough to say we're better than the others - we have to be truly representative of the people of this country. We have to have politicians who share the values, hopes, fears and common understandings of the people who voted for them - or who might vote for them in the future.
I have to be honest and say I've been surprised at Labour's timid response to many of the cuts announced by the coalition. The main message is repeated over and over - they're too deep and too soon. And they are. But they're also perniciously targeted at the poor, the already vulnerable, women, children and the North. They're unfair. They seem to be prioritising the theories of a few economists and a lot of City boys over the lifelines and quality of life of those in the other 90% on the income scale. And yet Labour rarely points this out.
I know that this is more than likely part of their policy not to alienate those to the centre ground and the disaffected Lib Dems. It's possibly also a conscious move away from the tub thumping image of old Labour (in this post New Labour, just Labour.)
I know that the cuts are also tricky ground for the party as they too would have had to have made significant cut backs too. I hope that these would have been very different from the once's the Tory led coalition are making. But without some stronger messages on what these could potentially have been it's difficult to be sure.
The party has it's roots as the party of ordinary working people and yet it's politicians represent those people in culture and experience less and less. This is not to say they aren't great MPs - far from it. But if Labour is to truly become a diverse and representative voice of the people, and to reconnect with those voters who turned away from the party, then I think there has to be some changes to accommodate this.
As a Labour party activist, I know that in many CLPs there is a disconnect between the demographic of the constituency and the majority of activists. And a further disconnect with what's happening nationally and what occurs locally. I also know that Ed Miliband and his team are working hard to change this.
Labour party membership, like the public's voting patterns for the party, have become increasingly white and male with a reduction in the number of women, young people and people from Black and Ethnic minorities participating. This isn't a result of some white, male conspiracy or overt prejudice against new members. Far from it - in my experience many of the activists are extremely keen to have a greater range of people actively involved. The big question is, how to do it?
I believe that many of the barriers that people face becoming actively involved in the party, and in getting into influential positions (either as councillors or MPs) are practical. There are some very simple things that as a party we can do to shift this position and make accessing the higher levels of influence easier for a broader range of people. There are also some attitudinal discussions that need to take place - a reclamation and redefinition of what our values mean and how they play out in practice.
In my next post I'll lay out some suggestions for how the party can become more representative of the population and how we can harness the intelligence, experience and passion that's out there in the non Oxbridge crowd.
Sorry David, I just couldn't resist including this one.
The problem is mostly due to money. If you have the money then you can afford to become a politician, if you don't have the money you cannot get off the starting blocks.
For example, standing for Parliament. To me, an MP must be a community leader, and that means for at least a couple of years before the election the candidate should be active in local politics and actively canvassing and actively campaigning for local issues. How many people with a full time job can do that? How many people without a job can do that (how do they eat)?
Now that we have fixed term Parliaments it will mean that the final *year* of Parliament will be the election campaign. This will give an advantage to the incumbent because they will be on an MP's salary and will legitimately be allowed to campaign. How many people will be able to afford to take a year off to campaign in a constituency? Only the very rich.
The problem is that a candidate has to eat and pay rent during the campaign, and at the moment that money mostly comes from out of their pocket. I suggest a new way (I submitted this to the policy forum, btw).
The idea is that candidates who need it will be paid a living wage for two years before the election by the Labour Party. Let's say this is £15k pa (say). If the candidate is successful they will get a salary of £64k as an MP, so over the first two years they can easily pay back the £30k they were paid (but note: only if they are successful, they should not be liable if they fail to be elected).
The issue comes if a candidate is not successful. First, if they have done their job correctly (they were a community leader for two years, campaigning to improve their constituency) then they would have been a benefit to the constituency and most likely increased the local party membership, so the money is not wasted. Second, they should not be personally liable. This is important. The money needs to be paid by someone, so I suggest that all MPs should pay a levy of say 5% specifically to pay for those candidates that fail to be elected.
I am not suggesting that the party should reject candidates who can self pay (that will reduce the costs of this scheme). However, it will mean that a lot more people will feel confident to stand as candidates because they know that they will effectively have a job for two years (albeit a low paid one). This, I think, will increase the number of women, BAME and people from low incomes to become candidates.
Posted by: Richard Blogger | 09/21/2011 at 10:19 AM