In the wider debate around BAME issues in Liverpool, one aspect of the Diversity Motion seems to have slipped through largely unnoticed. The motion, as amended, called for the Federal Executive to commission a review into “structural” barriers to participation in politics faced by under-represented groups.
As the drafter of this part of the motion, my thinking was simple. With Nick Clegg as Deputy Prime Minister in charge of political reform, Liberal Democrats have a once in a generation opportunity to change the way we do politics- and widen the political talent pool.
Because the case for diversity is not just about equality and representation – it’s also about talent. As John Stuart Mill said, “In all things of any difficulty and importance, those who can do them well are fewer than the need, even with the most unrestricted latitude of choice; and any limitation of the field of selection deprives society of some chances of being served by the competent, without ever saving it from the incompetent” (The Subjection of Women, 1869).
The Speaker’s Conference earlier this year recognised that it is systematically difficult for certain groups of people – irrespective of merit – to become and remain parliamentarians. This is to the detriment not only of individuals, but also politics and society as a whole. We are simply not harnessing the full spectrum of talent that could be available to us.
In 1911 a Liberal Government opened up the possibility of becoming an MP to working class men. It did this through the radical – but simple – step of introducing parliamentary salaries.
One hundred years later, Liberal Democrats in Government have an opportunity to be equally radical.
Over the next five weeks I’ll be leading the review that Liberal Democrats voted for in Liverpool. I’m posting the consultation document here and look forward to hearing how you think Liberal Democrats can put diversity at the heart of political reform.
Diversity Opportunities in Political Reform
Purpose and Scope of Review
1. To consider political reforms aimed at addressing structural barriers to participation in politics affecting under-represented groups.
2. To provide the Party Leader, Nick Clegg, and Party President, Baroness Ros Scott, with recommendations for how Liberal Democrats in Government can mainstream diversity objectives through any programme of political reform.
3. In particular, to consider how impending reform of the House of Lords can provide an opportunity to pilot political reforms aimed at substantially increasing the participation and retention of groups currently under-represented in Parliament.
The Review will make specific recommendations for attracting and retaining a more diverse talent pool of parliamentarians. While this logically implies a wider talent pool of candidates, internal party issues such as candidate selection are not the focus of the Review.
The Review will be undertaken by Dinti Batstone who will submit a written report to the Party Leader and Party President by close of business on 1st December 2010. The report will also be presented orally to the Liberal Democrats’ Federal Executive.
Submissions
Submissions are now invited from individuals and organisations within and outside the Liberal Democrats with an interest or expertise in diversity and/ or political reform.Submissions are limited to 1,000 words and must be received no later than 5th November 2010. Please send submissions to: Vicky Booth, National Diversity Officer, Liberal Democrats, 4 Cowley Street, London SW1P 3NB ([email protected])
Guideline Questions for Consultation
1. What barriers are there in the way Parliament (and politics more generally) operates that make it difficult for people from under-represented groups to become and remain parliamentarians?
2. Do these barriers operate in the same way in both Houses of Parliament?
3. What external (as opposed to internal party) mechanisms or other practical changes could help to overcome ‘structural’ barriers to participation in parliamentary politics?
4. What can Westminster learn from other Parliaments and Assemblies (in the UK and abroad) about attracting and retaining parliamentarians from under-represented groups?
5. What can Westminster learn from diversity initiatives in business and professional workplaces?
6. How are forthcoming political reforms such as fixed term parliaments, boundary reviews, reductions in the number of seats, reform of the House of Lords and possible reform of the electoral system likely to affect parliamentary diversity?
7. What pro-active measures could Government take to ensure that the cumulative impact of political reforms is positive for diversity?
Appendix
On 22 September 2010, Liberal Democrat Party Conference passed a motion which, among other provisions called on the Federal Executive in consultation with the State parties to “Commission a wide-ranging Review of political reforms aimed at removing structural and other barriers to participation in politics”. The motion as amended states that “the Review shall be submitted to the Party President and Leader no later than 1stDecember 2010 for consideration in the context of proposals for a reformed second chamber” and further specifies that “Among other issues, the Review will consider the viability of parliamentary job-shares and other forms of flexible working which have successfully increased the participation, retention and promotion of women in many private and public sector workplaces”.
Dinti Batstone is Vice-Chair of Campaign for Gender Balance
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Six council by-elections, spread over two days
Carers remain forgotten in government's welfare overhaul
Steffan Aquarone's Commons debate on coastal communities
Getting things done - Saggar Street - an update #dundeewestend
Loving our neighbours
Getting the basics right
Stephen Nash
Margot Wilson
Suzanne Fletcher
Mick Taylor
Mary Reid
8 Comments
The most obvious barrier which holds back candidates not just from ethnic minority backgrounds, but inner-city backgrounds, working class family backgrounds, non-english speaking backgrounds etc… is the expectations about how an MP should behave.
MPs are expected to know everything – saying ‘I don’t know, I’ll get back to you’ in a debate is seen as a weakness, not having that arrogant, pompous manner of speaking renders you a ‘lightweight’ or ‘out of his/her depth’. The yah-boo childish behaviour of the commons only entrenches the idea that MPs should be arrogant, pompous snide characters with queens english and a combatitive debating style.
More civilised parliaments abroad, at regional level and in Europe have a place for members who don’t conform to the westminster stereotype because they generally respect the speaker and don’t jeer Her/Him mid-speech. The semicircle layout also helps candidates who aren’t your typical Westminster brute by eliminating the hooliganism which derives from the 2 sides layout. It’s like a bunch of home fans booing the away fans.
In addition, many people are put off Parliament because of the Tabloid press trawling through the private lives of MPs, reporting on everything from previous boyfriends to where your kids go to school to the clothes you wear. Again, for people not from your typical MP background, this is a barrier. Look at the abuse Teresa May gets in the press for what she wears, or the abuse David Laws got for not wishing to make his sexuality a public issue.
Until there’s a culture change, we’ll always have the same type of person putting themselves up for selection. Somebody who is prepared to have their private live ravaged by the tabloids, somebody who is combatitive in their speech and manner, and somebody who can appear they know everything.
Individual minority groups have their own additional problems to address, issues about role models, not believing a black person CAN win in a white area etc… but westminster has made a rod for it’s own back in the way it behaves, and this must be addressed first.
As a man under 30 from a low-income background, my own demographic is not represented, but there’s no way I feel I could go into parliament and still retain a degree of privacy and integrity. I’m sure this feeling must be shared by many women, and many people from working class and minority backgrounds.
Sorry, Mike this may be a barrier, but another huge hurdle (and intensified by current cuts) is the lack of money / time to do this role effectively. We are hearing a renewal of the old “has he / she got money to put in?” revived, which is going to make those hurdles even higher. Having performed this role three times now, the opportunity cost lost is enormous.
Totally agree. I think this is a serious issue, in the Oldham court case we heard that Elwyn Watkins put in about £38k of his own money into the campaign. Other candidates across the country have to give serious amounts of money if the local party has few wealthy donors. Even at council elections my local party cannot afford to put a leaflet out in more than 2 wards, so any further materials often rely on candidates own money.
To do the role properly, in a target seat, candidates often give up work or take a sabbatical and many can’t get straight back into work after the election. It’s a huge gamble even where you’ve got a chance of winning, as there’s no such thing as a really safe Lib Dem seat. Campaigning is everything for us, and we have no union money or Ashcroft money to pay for offices, literature, advertising, posters etc….
I’m fine with diversity as long as we don’t just pick a candidate because they’re a woman or are from an ethnic background even if they are less qualified. There is after all no such thing as Positive Discrimination, it’s a contradiction in terms. Also as a woman I rather get the job because of my credentials and not just because of my gender. Also we can’t just drop candidates on local parties and say you will have this candidate because central office say so.
If people are to become MPs then they need to train for the job and have the necessary qualities to do it. It’s really no different than what is required to become a consultant surgeon or a football international. The role of an MP is to represent constituents – regardless of their attributes, and the role of a member of government requires that they have a good understanding of their area of responsibility and act in national interest. Perhaps the question ought to be why is the education system not inculcating these values among BAME pupils and students. A second question is why is diversity only measured down a narrow vector of the equalities agenda, rather than considering diversity of knowledge and expertise, and independence of mind rather than being mindless lobby fodder that regurgitates the line to take like a performing seal to be more important. Part of the answer is that Labour only survives through having lobby fodder, and that most Tories can be coerced by whips into being part of a herd too.
@ it doesn’t add up
The bit I don’t understand is why the Conseravtives – let alone Labour are able to find enough people of the right calibre from Diverse backgrounds including BME communities capable of being MPs and why Liberal Democrats have consistently failed to do the same
And as for why Diversity in a representative democracy needs to be measured in terms of Racial and Gender Equality terms, it is because unless those who make our rules have amongst them a cross section of people who have to live by those rules we will end up with sections of community being disadvantaged – which indeed sections of the British community are
@Aleandra White
I agree we need to ensure the people we pick for the job are up to the job. Problem is too often people from BME backgrounds and to a certain extent women are subjected to a higher level of scrutiny than their white male counterparts. In other words the presumption is that they are unlikely to be up to the job – whilst no such presumption is made about white males aspiring to be MPs
I’m really not feeling the quote from John Stuart Mill: “Any limitation of the field of selection deprives society of some chances of being served by the competent, without ever saving it from the incompetent.”
When we have no BAME elected candidates beyond councillors and so few women, why is the point about “the incompetent” relevant to this debate?
Dinti, you are looking through the wrong end of the telescope, and therefore not seeing the stars – all the talent we’ve been missing out on.
As the mover of the diversity motion I told conference that the proposals to change the way we selected candidates did not “limit” choice but increased it. It would have put MORE talented hopefuls in winnable contests.
Dinti – I’ve no idea how accurately this was reported but it was suggested on here that one reason Duwayne Brookes wasn’t on the the Assembly shortlist was because he wasn’t approved – and a possible reason for that was that there was a shortage of approval dates for potential candidates.
If that is the case it will be a significant barrier to finding new candidates (and by effect a limitation on increasing the no of candidates from BAME and other under-represented groups).