The representation of women in politics, addressing the supply side: Public attitudes to job-sharing parliamentarians

Abstract

There is a substantial academic literature addressing the representation of women in British politics. The majority of recent work focuses on issues of demand (such as gender quotas) and issues affecting the supply of women candidates have been largely overlooked. However, more recently the use of job shares for MPs has been proposed as a possible solution to supply-side problems. This article tests what the British electorate’s reaction to such arrangements might be. It finds no great support for the introduction of job-sharing candidates but nor does it detect overwhelming opposition. Explaining the case for job sharing increases its support slightly but no argument has especially strong impact. The counterarguments have some impact but are also not very strong. When the various pro- and anti-arguments are made together, they appear largely to cancel each other out. Opposition is greatest among men, Conservative or UKIP voters, and those over 60. Support is greatest among women, Labour or Liberal Democrat voters, and younger respondents, especially those of an age most likely to be taking advantage of job shares themselves. When confronted with job-sharing candidates most of the public appear to make judgements on the basis of the candidates offered, rather than automatically rejecting job-share set-ups out of hand.

Appendix

The data in Table 1 come from two questions asked on 25–25 March 2013. Half of the respondents, chosen randomly, were shown the first question, half the second.

The various pro-job-share wordings listed in Table 2 are as follows:

• 1 Those who advocate allowing MPs to job share say it would allow people who care about making a difference in politics to do so at the same time as maintaining family relationships and/or professional expertise [Reported in Table 2 as family/professional].

• 2 Those who advocate allowing MPs to job share say it would allow people from currently under-represented groups – such as women and the disabled – who care about making a difference in politics to become MPs [Women and disabled].

• 3 Those who advocate allowing MPs to job share say it would allow people from currently under-represented groups – such as women – who care about making a difference in politics to become MPs [Women].

• 4 Those who advocate allowing MPs to job share say it would allow people from currently under-represented groups – such as the disabled – who care about making a difference in politics to become MPs [Disabled].

• 5 Campaigners for the rights of people with disabilities argue that the long hours and physical demands of MPs’ work prevent some disabled people from standing as MPs. Those who advocate allowing MPs to job share say it would give more disabled people the opportunity to stand for Parliament [Disabled, with explanation].

• 6 Campaigners for gender equality argue that the long hours and 24-hour demands of MPs’ work prevent some women from standing as MPs. Those who advocate allowing MPs to job share say it would give more women the opportunity to stand for Parliament [Women, with explanation].

• 7 Those who advocate allowing MPs to job share say the long hours and 24 hour demands of MPs’ work prevent people standing who want to maintain expertise in another area, such as running a small business or working as a GP and so it would give more people with experience of the real world the opportunity to stand for Parliament [Expertise].

• 8 Those who advocate allowing MPs to job share say it would allow people from currently under-represented groups – such as women with young children – who care about making a difference in politics to become MPs [Women, young children].

• 9 Those who advocate allowing MPs to job share say it would allow people from currently under-represented groups – such as people with young children – who care about making a difference in politics to become MPs [People, young children].

• 10 Those who advocate allowing MPs to job share say it would allow more people with local roots who want to remain active in their area and who care about making a difference in politics to become MPs [Local roots].

The data for Text 1 come from a survey conducted on 25–26 March 2013. This question option was shown to a third of respondents (chosen randomly). The other two-thirds of respondents were shown either the anti-job-share text alone (N=659, as reported on p. 5) or a combination of the two (N=721), as reported in Note 5). The data for Texts 2–4 come from a question asked on 12–13 June 2013 (the sample was split into three randomly, each being shown one of the texts); Options 5–7 from a question asked on 16–17 June 2013 (ditto); and Options 8–10 from question asked on 17–18 June 2013 (ditto). The NS are as reported in Table 2.

The data reported in Table 3 come from three questions asked in July 2013. The first tested reaction to the ‘disability’ text; the second tested reaction to the ‘women’ text; the third tested reaction to the ‘children’ text. In each case, half the sample (chosen randomly) saw the pro-argument first, followed by the anti-argument; the other half saw them reversed. NS are as reported in the table.

The candidates’ experiment reported in Table 4 draws on a survey conducted on 12–13 March 2013. Total N=1871. Respondents were split, randomly, into six sub-samples. The first sub-sample saw this text:

• (A) Julie Burns is 48 years old, and was born and brought up in your area, before going to university to study for a degree in Physics. After university Julie trained as an accountant, and set up a company ten years ago; it now employs seven people. Julie is an avid hockey fan, and a keen player in her youth; she is now a passionate advocate for sporting facilities for young people. Julie also has interests in the health service and pensions, and is married with three children.

• (B) Gemma Mountford and Lucy Edwards are offering themselves up as a job share team to be your MP. They will share responsibilities for being an MP, and each will only take 50% of the salary and expenses. Gemma is 45 years old; she lives in the constituency and studied business at university. She is a solicitor and runs a busy practice. Gemma is concerned about youth unemployment and is a trustee of a charity that supports apprenticeships. Gemma is also concerned about the environment and education. Her husband works in computing and they have two children. Lucy is 42 years old; she lives two miles outside the constituency and left school when she was 18. Lucy works in Human Resources. Her husband works for the police and they have one son in a local school. Her political interests include employment, transport, and foreign policy.

We then alternated the order of the candidates, both between A and B, and also within B. Sub-sample 1 saw Julie versus Gemma/Lucy (as above); Sub-sample 2 saw Julie versus Lucy/Gemma. Sub-sample 3 saw Gemma versus Julie/Lucy; Sub-sample 4 saw Gemma versus Lucy /Julie. Sub-sample 5 saw Lucy versus Julie/Gemma; Sub-sample 6 saw Lucy versus and Julie/Gemma.