It is a long-known fact that the composition of the House of Commons (the upper house of the Westminster Parliament) is unrepresentative of the UK’s demographics, but why is this such a problem?
Socioeconomic factors in wider society, such as gender, ethnicity and class have led to a number of limitations on certain groups, stopping them from having as much of a voice in British politics as they should. For instance, despite comprising 51% of the UK population, women only take 29% of seats in the first chamber. This means that decisions that (predominantly or even exclusively) affect women are being made by people who will never understand their experiences.
There is a similar phenomenon with ethnic minorities - compared to 14% of the general population, only 6% of seats are taken by members of minority groups. Again, there is clearly lack of representation for those who are marginalised in society- ideally, MPs will have enough empathy to adequately represent the concerns of such groups, but in light of their narrow social backgrounds, implicit biases can truly affect their judgement, particularly when a disproportionate number hail from middle class backgrounds and attended private school- 32% compared to 7% of the general population, and 19% from state grammar schools. The most shocking statistic, by far is for the proportion of Oxbridge graduates in the House of Commons- 26% are alums of the two most highly regarded and selective universities in the country- compared to just 1% of the general population- and a further 28% attended other Russell Group universities, which dominate the top of league tables year after year.
This is particularly problematic because the House of Commons is involved in decisions that affect all of us, not just the top 7% or the ‘Oxbridge elite’- perhaps if the backgrounds of our representatives were more reflective of society, there wouldn’t be as many cuts to schools’ funding or the welfare state, which have affected the working class and ethnic minorities the most. In areas like Walthamstow, with relatively high levels of poverty (27% are 'low paid'), low levels of university participation (32%) and a multicultural population (48% of residents are from ethnic minority backgrounds), a representative with whom constituents can relate is of upmost importance. Having come from privileged backgrounds, many MPs simply aren't in a position to adequately understand and defend the welfare of certain groups of society.
It could be argued that the judiciary makes up for the glaring discrepancies in the House of Commons, as judges have a responsibility to ensure that the government does not act beyond its legal powers, that rights and liberties are protected and the rule of law is applied fairly to all groups and individuals. In theory, this should prevent potentially detrimental legislation from being passed. However, the judiciary suffers from an even larger representative deficit than the House of Commons- 71% of senior judges were privately educated (over ten times the national percentage) and three-quarters graduated from Oxbridge. Therefore, the same implicit biases that exist in Parliament are likely to exist in the judiciary (perhaps to an even larger extent), which limits judges' abilities to defend members of society objectively.
In a liberal democracy like the UK, the presence of numerous pressure groups should be sufficient to counteract the immense underrepresentation that occurs within the House of Commons, yet their success is usually dependent on the ideologies of the current government- the ‘post-Thatcher consensus’ has led to a governmental focus on free market ideas and subsequently, pressure groups which share those ideas are the most powerful- following the financial crash of 2008, Gordon Brown’s Labour government allowed the British Banking Association (a very small, rich pressure group) to write banking regulations. The irony here is that the banks were essentially responsible for the crash, but that didn't stop them from getting their own way. However, UK Uncut had little to no influence whatsoever following a huge effort to hold the governmentaccountable for austerity- therefore attempts to represent all sections of society have essentially failed- only the elite were truly represented.
Without a wider range of socioeconomic and educational backgrounds, true representation and fair, effective legislation will not become a reality - unless you are a white, middle class, male, Oxbridge graduate.
