how many british mp,s are lawyers or barristers?

Question

does the figure put a question mark about the three sections of government

Answer 1

39.3% are barristers and 6.2% solicitors. This link gives you a breakdown.http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/notes/snsg-01528.pdf
It might be reasonably claimed that the legal profession is somewhat over-represented, but at least these people have some notion of what properly drafted legislation should contain. It is, moreover, easier for lawyers to fit in parliamentary duties with what remains of their professional life than it would be for most people. It is always a problem as to whether a person should keep a foot in the door professionally or whether he should become a full time MP, only to find himself in the dole queue if he subsequently loses his seat and can't return to his former job.

Answer 2

In the United States and, I suspect, in the United Kingdom, we have separation of powers. U.S. lawyers are considered officers of the court. That puts them in the judicial branch, the way I look at it. But it's legal in the U.S. and it does indeed put a question mark about the three sections of government.

Answer 3

Nearly all of them.

Lawyers need to know the system as part of their job, there is a very unfair advantage in knowing the rules, procedures and structures of power, which favours them, essentially forming a well connected ruling class.

Now it's reached an absurd point where nearly every councillor or candiate is also a member of the legal profession.

I don't know many bus drivers or policemen who are chosen to be M.P's.

Peoples expectations are kept low by the schooling system.

In comprehesive schools there are no classes on the history of the british constitution and how people obtain office, how the system works etc...

In the 'public' schools (which are private schools) to which the ruling elite send thier children, they have all of this drummed into them, and they leave with high expectations.

We have a two-tier system, with bog-standard comprehensives for the many, and first-rate schools for the few who can afford it.

So we can observe this total exclusion of power from many ordinary walks of life in the poiltical system across all offices, directly due to this lack of knowledge.

Diana Abbot M.P is famous for shunning all the comprehensives in her own area, for her own kids, which as MP she is responsible for.

She would not put her own kids through the politically correct , unionised, mangled mess of comprehensive education and labour policies which she implements and inflicts on everybody else.

Her own children are sent elsewhere! The comprehensive system which she supports is not for her own kids, but is for the rest of us! Her kids will leave with high expectations...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/11/01/nabbott01.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/11/01/ixportal.html

Answer 4

I have lost count, but the fact is there are far too many.
There should be a cross section of people in parliament to represent every occupation or profession, how else are they to know or appreciate how people live unless they have first hand experience of cutting ones coat according to the cloth.

Answer 5

Many. They are usually failed lawyers, and failed barristers. Being an MP is the only remaining option for them.

Answer 6

A large number. Unfortunately politics so often is the art of giving obscure answers without taking responsibility

Answer 7

Most of them...and most of the Prime Ministers we've had.