LETTER: Who is truly representative?
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: According to Barbara Follett, to be truly democratic and representative of women, MPs must have a male/female ratio equivalent to that of the population at large; this justifies all-women parliamentary candidate shortlists - and men who object are manifesting self-interested concern for their jobs ("Women's place is in the House", 30 May). If so, then when Mrs Follett notes that the middle class may benefit disproportionately, she should argue that all-working-class shortlists are required; if she finds herself objecting, this too shows self-concern for her job.
If, in order to represent, representers must belong to the same categories as the represented, then MPs require right proportions of oyster-lovers, self-lovers, credit card debtors, alcoholics, fiddlers, those economical with the truth, lovers of bits on the side and size nine shoe-wearers. Maybe that's easy; but there are problems with securing right proportions of the meek, the poor and the down-trodden - to say nothing of the unwaged, the teenager, the non-MP and the comatose,
Reflecting further, if representers must be the same as the represented, then we should falsely conclude that signs can represent solely signs, thoughts must be about thoughts, actors can play only actors - and MPs represent only themselves. Ooops! - in some recent cases, it looks as if some MPs really believe this last one.
Yours faithfully,
PETER CAVE
London, NW3
22 April
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments