A central claim of democracy is that every citizen’s preference, no matter what their status, should count equally. There are, however, good reasons for supposing that the principle of political equality and democracy are under threat and that politics is increasingly becoming the preserve of the affluent and the powerful (see Gilens 2012).

In Britain, there is a growing public consensus that some segments of the British population are better represented politically than others, giving rise to a widespread suspicion that the policy preferences of a few are given special priority by the governing elite. This accusation came to the forefront last month when comedian Russell Brand explained to BBC news presenter Jeremy Paxman his reasons for refusing to vote – his rationale that voting “changes nothing”.

Our recently published report at the Institute for Public Policy Research shows that Russell Brand is wrong to think that abstention from the electoral process will instigate change. Worryingly, we show that he presents a far greater danger to young people as they’re the group most likely to take note of his advice.

It’s well documented that over the past several decades voter turnout in national and local elections has been on the decline. The overall turnout rate however isn’t the only thing that should worry us. The far greater problem facing British democracy is the growing inequality within voter turnout as electoral participation is falling fastest among younger and less affluent people, therefore giving older and more well-off voters disproportionate influence at the ballot box.

In the 2010 general election just 44 per cent of 18–24-year-olds voted, compared to 76 per cent of those aged 65 and over. This gap in turnout rate has grown at an alarming rate in recent years jumping from 18 percentage points in 1970 to 32 points in 2010. A striking social class divide has also expanded in recent decades. In the 1987 general election only a four-point gap in the turnout rate existed between the highest and the lowest income quintiles; by 2010 this grew to a staggering 23 percentage points.

If certain groups are less likely to vote than others, governments have less of an incentive to respond to the interests of those who don’t show up to polls. To demonstrate the preferential treatment of voters over non-voters, our analysis investigates the 2010 spending review in conjunction with the 2010 British Election Study. We find that those who did not vote in the 2010 election on average faced cuts worth 20 per cent of their annual household income, compared to just 12 per cent of those who did vote.

This disproportionate political favouritism greatly affects the young and the poor, precisely the two groups mentioned above which vote less frequently. Individuals aged between 16–24 years old faced cuts to services worth 28 per cent of their annual household income, compared to just 10 per cent for those aged 55–74, while those with annual household incomes under £10,000 stood to lose an equivalent of 41 per cent of their average income in services compared to just 3 per cent for those who earn greater than £60,000.

Unequal turnout reinforces a viscous cycle of disaffection and under-representation among those groups where electoral participation is falling. As government policy becomes less responsive to their interests the less inclined they will be to vote. The less they vote, the less likely governments will respond to their interests; thus establishing a downward spiral excluding these groups from electoral life.

To contest this we recommend first-time eligible compulsory voting. Research has shown that voting is a habitual action (see Dinas 2012, Inglehart 1990, Gerber et al 2003, Franklin 2004).

Those who vote at their first eligible election are considerably more likely to vote throughout the duration of their life. Obligating young people to turnout at to the ballot box would go a long way in breaking the non-voting habit plaguing the youth and have a substantial impact on voter turnout as each generation ages. First-time compulsory voting alone would not conquer public disaffection or disengagement from political life but it would present a radical institutional step towards reinvigorating politics. An extreme problem may require a radical solution – but waiting for Russell Brand’s revolution shouldn’t be one of them.

Glenn Gottfried is Quantitative Research Fellow at IPPR and an Honorary Research Fellow in the Department of Politics at the University of Sheffield

Malaika Cunningham

For my Year 12 work experience I worked for the Outreach Department of the House of Lords. I was obviously thrilled to have secured myself such a great placement, but I went in with plenty of vague biases against what I believed to be an outdated, undemocratic and elitist house. I, like many others, believed the House of Lords to be full of elderly, white men with an outdated birth right to their place in government. I imagined it would smell a bit like a combination of pipe tobacco and old money. I remember that my excitement for my placement was largely due to its proximity to the Commons. It did not take me long to realise that I was wrong about the Lords. On my first day of trailing after the staff of the Outreach Department I had already met two peers: Baroness Young and Baroness D’Souza.

The first public event of the Sir Bernard Crick Centre for the Public Understanding of Politics invited Baroness D’Souza to the University of Sheffield to launch ‘Parliament Week 2013’. The Baroness reaffirmed my ideas of the Second House: a place transformed from an aristocratic hangover into a house of individuals who are there because of what they have achieved in their professional careers. The majority of hereditary peers have now been removed.

It is not an elected chamber, and this has led to the argument that it is an illegitimate hangover from previous centuries that continues to cast a surprisingly long shadow over twenty-first century politics.   However, Baroness D’Souza has argued that making the House of Lords an elected chamber would only serve to put the house into direct competition with the House of Commons thereby risking constitutional grid-lock and further undermining public confidence in politics. It might also be suggested that having a chamber full of professionals who – in the large part – do not owe their position to the government of the day provides a healthy counterbalance to the well-known dominance of the executive over the House of Commons. (The Whips in the Lords are far weaker than their counterparts in the Commons.) As Russell Brand has recently pointed out, the majority of the public feels that politicians are ‘disconnected’ from the electorate and therefore, in theory at least, the Lords offers a more diverse spectrum of people who may have taken a different career path to ‘the professional politicians’ (interestingly, now a firmly pejorative term) in ‘the other place’. As one audience member pointed out on Twitter: “Not all political legitimacy should depend on a cross in a box’ and it was in exactly this vein that Baroness D’Souza argued that the House of Lords can ‘hold the government to account from an /issue driven /perspective, rather than a party political viewpoint.’ //

The question is whether the social representation provided by the Lords can really be viewed as legitimate when compared with the wider population it claims to serve?
Matthew Flinders has argued that we needed a broader range of people in politics and the Lords Speaker conceded that the membership of the Lords was possibly too narrow
(http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/politics/speaker-says-lords-is-lacking-expertise-in-key-policies-1-6248044). Limited terms, a clear retirement age, the capacity to ‘throw the rascals out’ when members of the Lords break the rules or the law, a limit on the number of members, different appointment procedures…the possible reforms to alter the role, nature and perception of the Lords are numerous but the problem is that reform seems to move at a glacial pace.
And yet what last Thursday’s event really revealed was that the public do not ‘hate’ politics. On a fairly damp and cold November night around 500 people came along to take part in a debate about democratic change and reform in an environment that was as friendly as it was enlightening.