Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, stated this week that The House of Lords is more ethnically diverse than the Commons. This is another factor that demonstrates the increasing importance of the Lords in British politics.
He asserted that Parliament was “at the pumping heart of our democracy”, but that the Commons has fallen behind the times where, among those under 35, people are more comfortable with racial diversity than any generation in living memory.
The Lords is far removed from its remote, unrepresentative stereotype. Its growing profile in British politics – especially in areas of great concern like revoking the 42 day Terror Detention plans – shows that it is often more in touch with the British people than the Commons.
Phillips’s research showed that, if you are not white, Britain is by far the best place to live in Europe when it comes to the attitude of the majority to the minority. Polling data showed that the proportion of white people who say they would mind if a close relative married a black or Asian person has fallen from 33% to 12% in five years.
It is time that the Commons translated this data into reality. It should be representing Britain’s ethnic diversity instead of being, in Phillips’s words, “too white, too straight and male”.
There is significant evidence that while answers to survey questions like the one above have shown more tolerant responses in answers to questions about minorities in recent years, this is, in fact, driven by fearfulness of expressing one’s real attitudes rather than any change real change in attitude. When this occurs it usually means that intolerance is directed into other channels (like calling for caps on immigration in the name of protecting jobs).
An excellent article on this unusual result can be found in Frank Furedi’s discussion of the new rise of anti-semitism in Europe.
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/6117/
Sadly this result seem to be a direct effect of the criminalization of certain kinds of speech. People who hate homosexuals, for instance, don’t stop hating them when the law changes but they may stop saying they do and instead start talking about the importance of ‘family values’ or a religious upbringing. Some will, no doubt, think this is laudable. I do not. I fear that by promoting an agenda that seeks to undermine homosexuality by promoting religion or family what occurs is a set of laws that seek to work their primary aim under the cover of unintended consequences. Such laws stifle debate by presenting the agenda as one issue when it is another, and turn out to do a poor job of addressing any issue. Usually they just contribute to more bureaucracy, less liberty and failed policy.
The bitter irony to all of this is that one of England’s greatest minds, J.S. Mill, anticipated that this would be the result of criminalizing speech well over 150 years ago. He predicted that a failure to engage with and refute sinister opinions would not reduce their presence but would instead distort their effect and make them harder to confront and more pernicious overall. Now that we have hate groups meeting and trading ideas in secret we know not what they say, are ill prepared to confront them and even less prepared to realize the influence they do have. I, for one, would rather have the neo-nazi’s marching in the open down Oxford Street than the current state of things. At least then responsible citizens could count them, confront them and ridicule them and could reveal them for what they are. The current head in the sand policy is sure to net a few loud mouths but conceals the real problem from view to little benefit.
Thought-provoking article on PB.com
http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2009/01/24/will-this-help-prevent-the-backlash/
This reminds me of something Tony Blair said when discussing Lords reform:
“Of the 750 hereditary peers, only two are black or Asian, only 16 are women, and 45 per cent went to Eton.”
Leaving aside the spectrum of opinions on the hereditary principle, I’m genuinely interested in the identity of these two referred to here.
Now the hereditary peer referred to as “Asian” was undoubtedly Lord Sinha (India). But, I am wondering, who was the black hereditary peer? Has there been a black hereditary peer, by creation (negative as far as I know since the creation would have to have been pre-1964) or of mixed ethnic inheritance?
Maybe Lord Taylor would know or can find out? These little facts can often appear to be inconsequential, but can be of immense use as an example for future national cohesiveness.
Thank you ‘B’ and Bedd for providing the links to those interesting articles.
I think, ‘B’, that education is the most vital resource we have against discrimination. Fear and distrust is based upon ignorance. Over the last decade, attitudes towards minority groups has altered significantly. I believe that laws against inciting hatred are difficult to implement without the backup of education.
We are now, generally speaking, a more tolerant nation and this is due largely to the fact that different groups, especially the younger generations, are integrating socially, politically and culturally.
When I stood as a Conservative candidate for Cheltenham in 1992, some people could not believe that I was black and a high achiever. They thought that only white people could have a CV like mine. Over the last fifteen years, that narrow minded attitude has changed for the better.
There will always be some with a negative mindset but I firmly believe that we should focus on the positives and celebrate our diverse society.
I am not aware, Raveem, that there are any black hereditary Peers in the House. Mr. Blair must have been either misinformed or misquoted!
Lord Taylor: many thanks for taking the time to reply. Much appreciated.
B: it is very true that people say one thing and do another as regards their attitudes to race. There’s been a great deal of research backing this up. E.g.:
http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12926026
Curious. I’m an American, and observing this from across the pond, I have a few questions:
– Britain seems to be less outwardly of a ‘melting pot’ or ‘mosaic’ than the United States or Canada; what cultural influences do you suppose led to the greater diversity in the House of Lords than in the House of Commons?
– Is there a greater trend towards creating diversity in the holders of peerages in Britain?
– What patterns do you see in voter preferences for their MPs in the House of Commons in terms of diversity?