So what does the new Cabinet say about the role of CLASS, gender and race in UK politics

I emphasise CLASS because it has been the issue that dare not speak it name during the past 13 years of Labour government. They were far happier promoting Blair babes and the vision of the UK as a multicultural paradise rather than mentioning the awkward fact that a persons future in Britain socially, politically and economically is still very much dependent into which class they were born.

The issue is now highlighted again by the fact that 16 of the Cabinet went to public school and that 20 out of the 29 are Oxbridge graduates.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/05/13/16-of-cabinet-ministers-went-to-public-school-115875-22254681/

It is noticeable that some of the major political figures from the electoral campaign who did not got public school such as Vince Cable and Kenneth Clarke have been put into roles with relatively little political clout. Indeed Cable had to endure the ignominy of his new department being stripped of its banking supervisory role before he even took his seat in his office.

I suppose my question is does this government really express the will of the people as expressed by their votes on May 6th or is it just a coalition of toffs from the parties exploiting the existence of a hung Parliament to roll the political scene back to the Edwardian era when the masses knew their place and were tended to by their betters. Is it not not just the same old people using the excuse of a hung Parliament to stitch up government so the same old elite groups can continue to prosper as before ?

On edit - I can not help noticing that my local Tory MP Tim Loughton (Lewes Comprehensive and the University of Warwick) has been beaten to the role of Children's Minister by Liberal Democrat Sarah Teather (independent Leicester Grammar School - day fees £10,012 per annum - and Clare College Cambridge). Instead he has been shoved into the undersecretary of state role. Rich reward for nearly 7 years as shadow Children's minister with the Conservative opposition.

http://www.cypnow.co.uk/news/1003176/Sarah-Teather-appointed-children-families-minister-Tim-Loughton-junior-minister/

As always, very white, very male, very public school and in this government, not only very Oxbridge, but as a friend pointed out, very *Magdalen College, Oxford*. Obvious Old Boys network there.

Nevertheless, better to have Sarah Teather as Children's Minister than yet another Tory (and at least that's ONE woman who isn't Theresa May; they're thin on the ground in this government). I only wish that the dreadful Nick Gibb had also been replaced by a LibDem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keir_Hardie

Or even another Jim Callaghan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Callaghan

Lets be honest the current Labour Party is not exactly full of the hard handed sons of toil either.

Where are the true political representatives of the poor ?

Unfortunately, the crushing of the trade unions' political power has had this predictable effect of marginalizing poor/working-class people politically even more than they had been.

Of course, even when a politician does come originally from a poor background, they often pull the ladder up from beneath them once they come to power (e.g. Norman Tebbit, David Blunkett).

Perhaps all MPs should, be required to change places with a low-paid person for even just a week (like Portillo - but far too late in his case) before being allowed to take office.

is the biggest indictment of the last government.

The University Tution fees system is an obvious example of the system going into reverse as it is clearly deterring the poorest sections of society from going into further education as they are least able to bear the debt burden ((assuming credit will be available in the future which is far from certain).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/feb/14/highereducation.accesstouniversity

The problem is that the Labour Party' sole reason for existence now appears to be to get and to keep Labour politicians in office. Obviously this is a truism since no party can effect change without getting into power. Unfortunately, the Labour Party's original function as a campaigning political entity to get the poor out of poverty has largely been forgotten in the process. As a consequence British politics has been reduced to a squabble about the top jobs amongst a tiny social., political and economic class. The party names are just the banners they compete under.

Is that we have too many people who've selected politics as their career, and have been working towards being an MP through PR, media, management consultancy, working as special advisers to ministers and so on. Such people tend to lack life experience outside of politics, and that's a disadvantage.

What's needed more then anything else is more people coming into politics through other professions. To my mind it's not the gender or race of politicians that matter so much. I would however like to see a parliament made more representative through people who've had experience outside of politics, be it Doctors, Soldiers, Teachers, Businessmen, Farmers, Trade Union officials and so on.