Corrupt Practices

I would imagine the answer is three-fold, with all three answers fundamentally linked to one another as well.

1: People from higher socioeconomic classes tend to be better educated, and better educated people tend to be more politically engaged. So there are potentially more votes in looking after the well off even if they comprise a smaller proportion of the population than other groups - they comprise a disproportionally higher electoral presence than other groups.

2: People from higher socioeconomic classes are likely to have a social circle which comprises primarily of other people within the same demographic. Not always, but very often. Family, friends, colleagues, business contacts are likely to share one's socioeconomic background - so there's an element of traditional Irish nepotism, IE, "looking after your own", even if far more people suffer as a result - they're not part of our clique and are still unlikely to upset the electoral balance, so who cares? Which brings me to...

3: The "looking after your own" thing cuts both ways - quid pro quo is endemic in supposedly democratic systems, and those of higher socioeconomic classes are likely to have more to offer in terms of quid pro quo. In other words, if I'm a millionaire businessman with a lot of connections to other people of a similar demographic, I'm a more valuable "friend" to the sitting government than some random student on the minimum wage - I can look after people in government in various ways if they help me out, anything from campaign donations to introducing them to potential business partners, media personalities, celebrities etc who might boost their chances of re-election.

Basically, the only way this changes is if people from lower socioeconomic classes become more vigorously engaged in politics. But all of the above leads me to a rather depressing conclusion: You know how a lot of working class people are becoming totally disillusioned with politics? I mean you'll hear it any day of the week from a bus or taxi driver for example, that the system is totally rigged and that voting itself is barely worth anyone's time. Now, as much as this might sound tinfoil hat-ish, I am totally convinced that this is entirely deliberate on the establishment's part. They have a vested interest in keeping political engagement and electoral turnout subdued among those who don't fit the quid-pro-quo bill - it would be a tremendous shame if the revolving door, mutual back-scratching conveyor belt was to be disrupted by those pesky ordinary people actually becoming a large enough electoral presence to force politicians away from favouring their own clique.