EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

— The House of Commons is not a body representative of sectional interests. Members of the House are elected not to "represent" a particular group in society but to serve the interests of individual electors and the nation as a whole.

— To argue that there is a "disparity" between the representation of certain groups in UK society at large and the presence of members of such groups in the House of Commons is to betray a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of political representation in the Westminster model of democracy.

— The experience of the Jewish citizens of the UK is that, whilst Jews are (and have since the late 19th century) been "over-represented" in the Commons, their interests have been much better served by non-Jewish MPs than by Jewish ones.

— The creation or imposition of "all-black" or "all-female" short-lists for parliamentary (or local government) seats would be inherently unfair to members of groups so excluded, and would—therefore—be grossly offensive to the principle of equal opportunities.

SUBMISSION

  1.  I am by background a teacher and researcher in the broad fields of modern British history and politics. I was educated in state schools in Hackney (London) and at the University of Oxford (MA, DPhil) and as an academic have specialised in themes related to the interface between ethnic minorities and the British political process, particularly (but not only) in relation to the Jewish communities of the United Kingdom. In 1983 I published a groundbreaking study of The Jewish Community in British Politics (Oxford University Press), and the themes explored in that book were embedded in my history of Modern British Jewry (Oxford University Press, 2nd ed, 1998). In the early 1990s I accepted an invitation from the European Science Foundation to co-ordinate a series of studies which the Foundation published in 1993 as Governments, Ethnic Groups and Political Representation. I am often called upon by the media to comment on such matters. I am also the author of a standard text on the British electoral system (British Elections: Myth & Reality, published by Messrs Batsford in 1978). I currently hold an endowed chair at the University of Buckingham, having previously held senior executive positions in the University of London and Middlesex University. In 2006 the University of Oxford awarded me the higher degree of Doctor of Letters in respect of my published work on the history of the Jews in modern Britain. My full CV and bibliography are available on my website: www.geoffreyalderman.com .

  2.  I understand that the present Speaker's Conference has been called into being as a result of concerns about the alleged: "disparity between the representation of women, ethnic minorities and disabled people in the House of Commons and their representation in the UK population at large." These terms of reference seem to me to reflect, and betray, a false understanding of the nature of political representation in the United Kingdom.

  3.  The House of Commons is not a body representative of sectional interests or lobbies. Members of the House are elected, not to "represent" a particular group in society—say women, Jews, transsexuals or (for that matter) locomotive drivers and firemen—but to serve the interests of individual electors and the nation as a whole. We might argue about whether the current system of representation is fair, or equitable, in the context of the undoubted truth that (for example) the present government can claim the support of only a minority of electors and indeed of voters, and that since 1945 only one government (that elected in 1945) can claim to have had the support, at the polls, of at least 50% of the voting public.[1] We might argue—in other words—that the "first-past-the-post" system is inherently unfair and undemocratic, and must be replaced.

  4.  But such considerations (and I write as a supporter of proportional representation) are outside the remit of the present Conference. This remit is, as I understand, confined to an alleged "disparity" between the numerical incidence of certain groups in society at large and their numerical incidence in the House of Commons.

  5.  There is no disparity. Or rather, whether or not there is a numerical disparity is quite irrelevant to our system of political representation. No sexually-defined group, racial, religious or ethnic minority, or physically disadvantaged interest has any "right" to a certain quota of MPs. What an individual member of any of these groups has a right to is to elect an MP, and to expect that that MP will further her or his interests in the House of Commons. If an elector is dissatisfied in this regard, there will usually be an easy remedy: not to vote for that MP the next time an election comes around and, meanwhile, to exercise freedom of expression to make this dissatisfaction very public.

  6.  Those who take a contrary view, and who seek to bring about a state of affairs in which the social, ethnic, religious or sexual composition of the House of Commons reflects the "representation" of such groups in society at large, claim that their arguments have been bolstered by the recent election of Mr Barack Obama as the next President of the United States of America. On the morrow of Mr Obama's victory, Mr Trevor Phillips, the Chair of Britain's Equality and Human Rights Commission, saw fit to denounce the "institutional racism" that he alleged was at work within the Labour Party. This alone, Mr Phillips insisted, stood in the way of black advancement within Labour's ranks. The electorate would vote for a black Prime Minister, if only all the political parties were to take "positive action" to ensure black advancement. While ruling out the idea of all-black shortlists, Mr Phillips declared that the House of Commons should "accurately reflect the make-up of the population".[2]

  7.  But of course Mr Obama is neither black nor white. He is black-and-white. Nonetheless, his success has been seized upon by black lobbies in this country, who have asked whether a man such as he could ever become the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

  8.  Well, of course he could. The first non-white MP was elected as long ago as 1892 (he was a Liberal), and the second (a Conservative) followed three years later.[3] Currently, there are a dozen or more "non-white" MPs and, in principle, any one of them could become Prime Minister. But the likelihood of this happening depends on the willingness of the political parties to promote a non-white MP to the front bench, and on the ruthlessness (for this is what it takes) of such a high-flier to push his or her rivals out of the way.

  9.  These facts of political life seem to me to have been cast aside by certain black lobbies, especially those within the Labour movement. They are advocating, instead, nothing less than the racialisation of the British electoral system, and its reformation along racial lines.

  10.  Anyone who embarks on a more-or-less rational consideration of this scenario must rapidly discover how brainless and perilous it must be. Just how far would Mr Phillips and his supporters wish to push the concept of ethnic proportionality? Would there be a south-Indian quota? A Pakistani quota? A Caribbean quota? Or perhaps a Sikh quota, a Hindu quota and a Muslim quota? And, leaving aside the question of who is a Jew, if Mr Phillips had his way there would have to be an upper limit of (roughly) four on the number of Jews elected to any Parliament. As there are currently 26 identifiable Jews in the Commons, I am left wondering how this "cap" would be enforced.

  11.  More seriously, any attempt to reform the selection of parliamentary candidates along ethnic lines would lead, inevitably, to inter-ethnic rivalries and resentments. At the present time I cannot think of anything more socially divisive.

  12.  President-elect Obama may be half-black and half-white but he has made it crystal clear that, once in office, he will be the President of all Americans, not just of the blacks or even of the black-and-whites. Likewise, the House of Commons can be effective without "accurately" reflecting the make-up of the UK population at all, because MPs, regardless of their ethnic backgrounds and loyalties, represent all their constituents.

  13.  These arguments apply with equal force to the claims of other groups that they are "under-represented" in the House of Commons. They aren't. Nor—incidentally—is there any evidence to suggest that the real interests of these groups would be more effectively addressed if their numerical strength in the Commons did approximate arithmetically to their numerical strength in the UK population. On the contrary, the evidence of the Jewish experience is compelling here: Anglo-Jewish interests have always been much better served by non-Jewish MPs than by Jewish ones.[4]

  14.  I should add that I am firmly opposed to the creation or imposition of "all-black," "all-white" or "all-female" short-lists for parliamentary (or local government) seats. Such affirmative action is, no doubt, well-meaning, but is inherently unfair to members of groups so excluded, and is—therefore—grossly offensive to the principle of equal opportunities, which I strongly support.

2   http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/3402792/Trevor-Phillips-Racism-would-stop-Barack-Obama-being-prime-minister-in-the-UK.html [accessed 20 December 2008]; http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5110811.ece [accessed 20 December 2008]. Mr Phillips has claimed that there are only 15 "ethnic minority" MPs currently in the House of Commons. In fact there are-at least-41. Back

3   D. D. Naoroji [Finsbury Central, 1892-95]; Sir M. M. Bhownagree [Bethnal Green, 1895-1905] Back

4   Because, historically, most Jewish MPs have gone out of their way to demonstrate that their Jewishness has no bearing on their politics. Back