Under-Representation

PMQ’s today should have been remembered for a debate on the economy. Or for Cameron looking sheepish on the NHS reform. Instead it looks likely to be remembered for a comment made by Cameron towards Angela Eagle MP. At best it was a poorly judged joke, at worst it represents the sexist misogyny that still haunts the corridors at Westminster. It is disappointing that we now stand 14 years past the 1997 election, an election heralded as the opening of the door to women in politics but we still see women under-represented and talked down to by male counter-parts.

One good thing that may in time come of this row is a reopening of the debate around representation in this country. Not just the representation of women but across age, ethnicity and class. This is a debate that has not properly been held for a number of years. I have for example heard several people both inside the labour Party and indeed in seminar groups around campus complaining about all female shortlists. The argument is of course that they want the best people to represent them and that person may not be a woman. This argument would be stronger if meritocracy existed within politics, however we can now see that strong candidates were being held back from running for MP because of gender. We see this most profoundly in the fact that many of the all women shortlist candidates now sit on Labours front bench because they are amongst the most effective members in the PLP. 

But as I alluded to earlier under-representation is not limited to women. 90% of MP’s now have a degree whereas only 40% do in the wider population and that decreases the higher up the age scale you go. This is significant because it means that the life experiences of the people governing us are very different, it would be easy to attack the coalition government and the make up of cabinet here but I don’t feel I need to the facts are not hidden. Also all parties are responsible in part for this staggering rise in university educated MP’s and making a political point would only serve to antagonise some and mean the issues are not examined.

Perhaps though it is ethnic minorities who have the most under-presentation. It is disappointing that Baroness Warsi was given what can only be described  as a token role in government, Minister without Portfolio. It is also disappointing that the liberal Democrats have no ethnic minority MP’s.

But how do we tackle this? One way is for the party structures to dictate that all women shortlists will happen. It has after all been effective in getting women into politics. Or it can perhaps start at grassroots level, people like me and my fellow in the DMU Labour Club can play a role in getting into communities and saying how do we give these people a voice. In practical terms I believe this means no longer focusing solely on women’s under-representation but broadening the debate to all under-representation. In practical terms this means looking at the role of the Women’s Officer within the DMU Labour Club, and seeing if we can broaden the responsibilities to all under-represented parts of society, with the all encompassing title Equalities officer, and fighting for representation of all not solely women.  To highlight the need for this I would like to use one more example, I recently heard of a group called “Chinese for Labour”, in fact they have members in and around De Montfort University. Yet as a group we have not made contact with them and seen what we can do to help. This seems ridiculous, but if no one is responsible for doing it then it gets forgotten. In truth if people no longer want to see all women shortlists then politics has to change from the bottom up, because the top down answer will always be positive discrimination.    

When it comes to constitutional reform the status quo won't do!

I feared, last May when Clegg was put in charge of Constitutional reform, that it may just be about the Voting referendum. I feared, that the government no matter which way the vote went would say enough reform for this term and not complete the most urgent reforms the system needs. I am sad to say that at present it looks like I may be right. 

Let's first start with the referendum on how we vote. I am disappointed that real debate about the best system for the country, but rather which is better out of what are quite an average two proposals neither of which have a proportional element. To my mind this seems illogical, why have a referendum on changing the system if most of the choices have already been ruled out? That's not direct democracy at all but rather a gimmick.

However constitutional reform is bigger than the voting system used for the democratically elected part of our Houses of Parliament. Surely before we try to make one house more democratic we should make the other slightly democratic? It is ludicrous that in the 21st century the House of Lords is appointed not elected. The senate in America was modelled initially on the House of Lords, but one of the few reforms they have made to their constitution was to make the upper house accountable to the people. This is a much more important debate to have than which non proportional voting system we should use.

Equally important is the balance of executive, legislative and judicial powers which i'm sure most people would agree are out of kilter. We have in this country what I like to call a tyranny of the executive, that is to say because the Make up of the House of Commons determines the executive bills are passed through half the legislative without a real debate or reforming aspect. I was always told the best politics is the politics of compromise, if this is true then we have an awful system. It is left to the house of Lords (which I have already pointed out is unelected and unrepresentative) to be kind of weak check on the executives power. This system is in much more need of scrutiny than how we elect mp's who when it boils down to it have limited influence on the legislation passed.

What troubles me most is that these discussions about our countries political system are not happening. But only by becoming more reflective of the society politicians serve can politics regain any kind of trust. People can and will disagree with me, that is fine but lets at least have the debate.

Response to DMU announcing £9,000 fees

This week, De Montfort University joined the likes of Cambridge and Warwick in moving to charge the maximum fee of £9000 from 2012. This is a huge blow to the vision of a socially mobile society and suggests that universities are again becoming the bastions of an old elitism. Gifted students from an average background will, no doubt, be put off by the thought of graduating with up to £37000 of debt hanging over them.

It is important that we understand who is to blame: It is not, as it may be assumed, DMU’s fault that fees have been raised so dramatically. Funding has been almost completely withdrawn by government, and so the vast majority of the extra money is replacing funding previously given by government. To this end, the only people who can be blamed are those in government. This rise in costs, and the inevitable effect this will have on social mobility, is on the coalition’s hands alone. The Liberal Democrats and Conservatives will castigate this statement and argue that it was Labour who introduced fees in the first place.  That is, of course, correct; however, the fees introduced in 2002 were to give universities more money, and not to replace state spending. This is crucial because it means students spending £9000 in fees won’t actually get any better a service than they have now.

There is also another troubling issue to highlight. Last November, many of our fellow students, DMU Labour members and friends marched through London to voice our protest at this absurd proposal. At the time we were promised that fees of £9000 would be the exception and certainly not the rule. We were promised that most universities would charge £7500 or less, and if they wanted to charge more, would have to put a lot of effort into justifying why. This has not turned out to be true. Most universities who have made the announcement have opted for £9000 fees. Either students were lied to, or the government is guilty of complete incompetence. Which statement is true is for you to deice.
Whilst individual universities have to make a decision as to how much they charge, we should not lose sight of the fact that they have been put in this position by a government that has forsaken social mobility and the right to aim for a better life. We at DMU Labour Club know who to blame for our fee increases and he sits at the cabinet Table.

Rob Jackson, Chair of DMU Labour Club.

Gove's plans for History

it is safe too say that no one in government is more dangerous than Michael Gove to this countries future. The steps he is taking are seriously damaging our schools and pupils. I do not want to focus on cutting the EMA or building schools for the future today, although they will I suspect have dire consequences for schooling in the future. Instead the focus today is the national curriculum. More specifically the national curriculum in History.

I have a vested interest in what happens to history. I am a undergraduate studying history and politics at De Montfort university. I got an A* in history at A level last year and my dad is a history teacher. It would not be an unfair assertion to suggest I have been around history all my life. Perhaps it is this proximity to the subject that has left me' so incensed by Gove's proposals for the subject I love.

Gove wants history to do two things firstly he wants to see a return to 'facts'. Perhaps more sinisterly he also wants to focus on a 'national identity'. Both of these points are worth reflecting on.

Firstly the fact question. It seems that three problems immediately jump out.

Firstly the teaching of facts as the sole role of history negates the finest part of history. The ability to think independently (obviously caveats exist to this you cannot escape the society you live in, so as such independent thought is impossible. Really it should be the ability to think semi-independently) and critically analyse. The development of these skills are the strongest things history at school level has to offer. This development is lost when looking at history solely as the recording of fact. In a sense it matters less that William of Normandy won the battle of Hastings in 1066 and more that we remember this event because it was immortalised in a tapestry and as such the history written is heavily reliant on a peice of cloth created to celebrate the victory. It matters less what happened and matters more why it is in the public consciousness. Taking this analysis out of history then seriously weakens the role history plays in producing well-rounded individuals.

Secondly and heavily linked to the first point it seems counterintuitive at a time when government is focusing university spending on the so called economy driving areas such as science etc. That they should turn something from teaching life skills, to solely teaching little peices of information that have little relevance to everyday life unless you happen to be on a quiz show. The logic behind this seems to be lacking, so much for joined up government.

Finally on facts what constitutes a fact is interesting. Firstly by the very nature of the world we live in and the way we operate facts are subjective. As Carr rightly points out 'a fact is like a sack, it won’t stand up without something in it'. History then cannot solely rely on fact in, instead history according to Carr is 'a dialogue between a historian and his fact'. As such it would be incredibly difficult to teach 'pure fact' as pure fact does not and indeed cannot exist.

On this idea of a 'national identity' created by some kind of common history again I have concerns. It sounds politically motivated. Even if it is innocent (which I fear it isn't) it sounds like something to be hijacked by the jingoistic.

Secondly whose identity will we choose? It seems, perhaps predictably, that Gove's choice is the history of monarchs not ordinary people. To this end the identity being created for us is the identity of kings and great battles. It is by very nature a fallacious identity, one created for people, not by people.

Equally the 'British' identity created will be focused on England, particularly the pre 1707 parts, it is unlikely that the history of other areas of The British Isles will get any coverage. This is a further troubling thought.

History has always been used for political agendas, but the teaching of history should not be subjected to manipulation by politicians. Certainly it should not be manipulated in a way which claims 'objective truth' as Gove seems to be doing. History is about the interpretive process as well as facts, only doing half of this will short change students and lower the standard of historical thinking in this country, not improve it.