The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Should parliament be more representative?

The Guardian has published an article focussing on the skin colour of our elected representatives. It claims that whilst non-whites are entitled to 117 MPs on the strength of their ballooning demographic presence in the UK there are a mere 27 non-white MPs in parliament. What is left unsaid is that correcting this statistical aberration would result in 90 white MPs being ousted for reasons of political correctness, however the progressive movement never acknowledges its anti-white bias so this comes as no surprise.

But what about if we examine another consequence of making parliament more representative along cultural Marxist lines (using state power to re-order its institutions not on grounds of merit but for social engineering purposes to reflect the make-up of the population).

The Jewish population of the UK is circa 265,000, or a little under 0.5%, which would entitle them on the cultural Marxist representation system to just 3 MPs.

However there are 23 Jewish MPs in Parliament, which translates to Jewish interests being eight times over-represented. This dwarfs the white vs non-white discrepancy.

Will the Guardian next call for a cull of Jewish MPs, or are whites the only identity politics subgroup it deems it acceptable to discriminate against? If so, why?
I think one of the biggest problems with parliament not being representative isn't in the barriers of race or religion but rather social class. People who come from privileged backgrounds dominate parliament and most of the major political parties - even Labour are becoming a party increasingly full of people far removed from the group in society they intend to represent.

There's something far wrong with our country if people from humble backgrounds aren't reaching high jobs in politics and it's the country that'll suffer as a result of this massive problem of ordinary people not having access to high politics. Never mind race or religion, we can't even get ordinary people in parliament to represent a country populated by ordinary people!
No because most normal people don't have this paranoia about Jewish people, it's just a few weird obsessives on the internet that go on about it.
There are a lot of undeclared Jews in Parliament. The place is full of them.
Reply 4
Avatar for thesabbath
thesabbath
OP
2
Original post by MagicNMedicine
No because most normal people don't have this paranoia about Jewish people, it's just a few weird obsessives on the internet that go on about it.


It is instructive that you single out the astonishing over-representation of Jews as being a weird obsession, and do not comment on the article published by a national newspaper calling for fewer whites in parliament (to be replaced by non-whites).
Reply 5
Avatar for thesabbath
thesabbath
OP
2
Original post by Old_Simon
There are a lot of undeclared Jews in Parliament. The place is full of them.


I suspect you are right, but took my figure from the Jewish Chronicle which cited 23 Jewish MPs following the 2010 election (they forgot Zac Goldsmith, and David Miliband has since stepped down): http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/31823/new-jewish-ministers-and-miliband-rivalry
Don't care about any of that but I think cabinet ministers should have to have some sort of experience or qualification on their CV (directorships don't count!) that indicates they actually have some clue about what their portfolio involves.
There's no point trying to 'add' non-native MPs. MPs are elected as candidates. How exactly do you do this without forcing all non-native candidates for a constituency?
there should be proportional representation (the system itself) and nothing more
It's worth asking, if we demand that parliament reflects the make up of the population, why is this just about race and religion. Why not too about sexuality? Disability? Etc.
Original post by Phoebe Buffay
It's worth asking, if we demand that parliament reflects the make up of the population, why is this just about race and religion. Why not too about sexuality? Disability? Etc.


and hair/eye colour, and height.
it's all meaningless in politics; people don't make such important choices based on things like gender and race. religion perhaps, but that's a different thing altogether because it's ideological just like politics
I'm more concerned about this idea of 'representation'.

MPs regardless of whether they are Jewish, black, male or female, represent not the public, but their party.

They are 'representatives' not delegates. A delegate would by definition only represent views proposed by constituents, whereas a representative, whether left-wing, right-wing, male or female can do what they want once elected, but are usually whipped, pressured and trained to do as the party leaders say.

In a delegate system it wouldn't matter if you had a quota system or party shortlists because they would simply voice views equally as shown in that area. The problem is not 'representation' itself, but the idea of representation and our representative democracy itself. You voting for New Labour does not mean they will represent left-wing views (they often represent right-wing views as shown by Tony Blair).

It would be tedious and silly to have parliament represent every minority grouping equally on grounds of race, religion, ethnic group, disability, sexuality, hair colour and every other possible grouping. Especially when they don't represent the people they are supposed to be representing.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Phoebe Buffay
It's worth asking, if we demand that parliament reflects the make up of the population, why is this just about race and religion. Why not too about sexuality? Disability? Etc.


Yeah I'm offended at the lack of socially anxious World of Warcraft playing white cisgender males in parliament.
The primary function of parliament is to represent the views of the population. A black woman who shares my beliefs would represent me far better than another white man with whom I disagree. That's the basis on which I vote, and on which any sensible person should vote.
God I hate this **** so much.

You elect representatives to make laws based on how far you agree with their (party's) policies and how competent you think they are. It is not a requirement that they look like you, share your gender, worship the same deities as you, have the same sexuality as you, attended the same kind of school as you, or have the same disability as you.

Could everyone please stop printing stories about how people with x random characteristic are insufficiently represented in parliament/ the cabinet/ company boards or whatever else? I don't care.
The idea that a cabinet or a parliament should be representative in this way is nonsense. Our parliament is representative in the sense that we elect it, but we don't vote based on skin colour or gender, but on competence.

Similarly Cameron's cabinet should be based on who is most competent, and not on filling it with less competent women to preempt criticism from Labour.
In principle of course Parliament should be representative, but the problem is how literally you take this principle. At its basic essence, no two people are the same, and so it is objectionable for one to represent two.

I also find it problematic to presume that Person A cannot represent the interests of person B simply because of sex, age, race, religion, etc.
Reply 17
Avatar for Kalarin
Kalarin
If you want to see what happens when you don't elect on competence just look at Sweden.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you