Far be it from me to speak on this matter for all concerned but, in the absence of any other voice articulating this argument I will write just this once upon a subject area I steer clear of wherever possible, namely “diversity” – in its politically correct pigeon hole sense – and in particular but not exclusively a group known as “disabled people” of which I am considered a member.
My route to this article begun with the announcement that the Conservatives have promised £1m to fund a four year programme that would help more disabled people become MPs, councillors and civil servants. The money would come from efficiency savings in existing budgets and would be administered by the disability charities who devised the best ways of increasing access.
As a “disabled person” I've got mixed views on this. Whilst I understand the desire to get a broader range of experience into politics I do not think pigeon holing people then throwing money at them is a good idea and could unintentionally sound rather patronising. At worst these charities often have their own agendas, and channelling money through them for the explicit purpose of politics could lead to terrible and far reaching consequences.
So what to do if, like me, you think Parliament lacks diversity but rule out all forms of “positive discrimination”, “affirmative action” or whatever euphemism is currently in vogue for treating people not as individuals but based on a single two-dimensional physical attribute? Labour have tried all women shortlists, the enforced option that ended so acrimoniously in Blaenau Gwent, and the Conservative A-List was similarly unpopular. Labour talk of all “non-white” shortlists are likely to prove even more unpopular, not least because – like the many women who objected to all women shortlists – people would rather not be judged by the colour of their skin, or gender, or physical ability, but by the content of their character.
The answer, in a rather philosophical manner, lies in another question. What do we actually want MP to be? What is the job description? And, importantly in terms of diversity, could this job description be a major factor in encouraging self-selection? We know already that far fewer women and disabled people apply to join the Party’s Candidate List. My opinion – that what we expect MP to do actually puts off many people – was reinforced by this article by Iain Dale urging the whips to make candidates realise that that, if elected, it's going to be noses to the grindstone.
Now I am by no means advocating lazy MP, or indeed significant change, but if the job description requires needlessly unsociable hours and “hanging around” in the bubble of Westminster simply to walk through whichever door the Whips tell you to, you’re ruling out most people before you even start. As odd as it may sound, some people like to see their families, have outside interests, health issues, or don’t fancy loitering around what feels like a co-ed gentleman’s club.
For too long there has been a strange resistance to simple reforms. For example electronic division voting (as I understand is available to MSPs) would mean all MPs could vote on all motions, whether in Parliament at the time or not, freeing up time for proper legislative scrutiny and making the job an option for more people, particularly those who put their family first. It would also end the lunacy of unwell Members being taken to divisions in hospital beds! More normal hours (i.e. 9am-5pm) would also be particularly attractive to potential applicants with families, and have the added benefit of reducing the numbers needing second homes!
Surely then we should be looking not at throwing money at those in certain pigeon holes but instead at increasing applications, from all walks of life, by eliminating the unnecessary factors that lead to severe self-selection?
