Ben Summerskill, Stonewall's Chief Executive, writes in tomorrow's Observer:
"Pious political parties (that is, all of them) whisper privately that there are more gay MPs than the public imagines."
"But how can anyone 'represent' a community of interest if they're entirely unable ever to admit that they belong to it?"
"Some of us hope for a Britain where one day Westminster is grownup enough to select and promote politicians from all sorts of backgrounds."
I'm very fond of Ben, with whom I had cordial dealings when in the Conservative Shadow DCLG team. (He must think my views are dotty. He was too polite ever to show it.)
But the assumption behind his words - namely, that there are too few gay MPs and that, once elected, they necessarily represent "a community of interest" - is, to say the least, questionable.
I don't know whether or not there are too few openly gay MPs in the Commons. (What's the right percentage? And if it's exceeded, are there then too many?)
But I'm suspicious of the idea that candidates must be selected on the basis of group identity to meet a quota, rather than on individual merit to serve a constituency.
None the less, I concede that the Party's candidate base had to be widened. (And needs to be widened further: what about the shocking shortage of Conservative MPs from a working-class background?)
However, Ben has presumably noticed that the Conservative Party is now "grown up" enough to ensure that more openly gay candidates are "selected and promoted" - and elected to Parliament - than previously. It's odd that he didn't acknowledge this. Perhaps the Observer cut that bit of his quote from its news report?
His main point, however, is unambiguous - that gay politicians must "admit" they they "belong to" a "community of interest" which they "represent".
But does a gay politician really "represent" a "community of interest"? I thought that he represented his constituents.
And what is this "community of interest", anyway? The gay people I know, like other people I know, vary - in views, temperament, disposition, opinions.
Let me none the less concede, for the sake of the argument, that there's a very rough "community of interest" - just as there's a very rough Roman Catholic "community of interest" (to take an example from close to home).
Even so, why does Ben believe that David Laws, or any other gay MP, should "admit' to belonging to it? Why shouldn't he be free to live his private life as he pleases? (Within the law and Commons rules, of course.) Why shouldn't he be out and loud if he wants to be, or be in and quiet if he prefers? Why - borrowing a phrase from Martin Amis - should he stand to attention the moment he hears the beep of Ben's politically correct pager?
I can only think of one explanation. Namely, that if one admits to belonging to such a community of interest, one has - in consequence - to ensure that government recognises the role, and that one follows the view, of those who claim to speak for that interest, such as, in this case... Stonewall. But Ben surely can't mean that, can he?
Paul Goodman