Search

When the House of Lords Act 1999 was passed, women's presence almost doubled overnight from 8.8% to 15.8%. Yet almost a decade later, the increases have been nominal, reaching 19.9% in December 2008. This article examines the feminisation of the House of Lords in terms of numbers from the point of reform to the present day to account for increases in women's representation, and why the increases are so modest. The article identifies clear facilitators and constraints to women's presence in the Lords. Individuals with the capacity to feminise are critical to the increased presence of women, yet peerages also compensate and correct women's low representation in other political arenas. Constraints on women's representation are largely due to historical, systemic and cultural factors with the outcome that one-fifth of the House's membership is effectively reserved for male peers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There has been a notable surge in research on the shift from elected government to appointed governance. As the work of public bodies and the decisions made by their board members can impact upon the everyday lives of citizens, the extent to which their boards are both representative and diverse is of great salience. Focusing on the boards of public bodies in the UK, this article explores whether the Labour government's ambition to improve diversity in public appointments was achieved over its three terms of office, and seeks to explain why public boards have remained 'male, pale and stale'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Political representation in the UK continues to be dominated by white, middle-aged, middle-class men, but several equalities groups now have an established presence in national political institutions. This article draws on research with stakeholder organisations, lobby groups for under-represented groups within political parties, former, current and unsuccessful candidates and sitting and former elected politicians conducted prior to the 2010 General Election. It finds that where aspiring candidates from under-represented groups have been selected, it was because they were ‘acceptably different’ conforming to aspects of the ‘archetypal candidate’. We argue that increasingly dominant professionalised ‘pathways’ into national politics have allowed greater diversity, but remain narrow and exclusionary. Progress is less a reflection of a more open political system, instead representing accommodation of still under-represented groups to, and by, the existing system. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]