This issue brings to mind the frequently repeated mantra that we need more women MPs and more "ethnic" MPs for Parliament to be truly representative.
Each constituency has a single MP in parliament. For the vast majority of areas the most representative (i.e. the median) racial characteristic is a white person. There are very few constituencies where there are more than 50% of non-whites (are there any?). Therefore, based on the principle of "representation", we actually have the most racially appropriate MP for most constituencies.
I also believe this to be racist nonsense.
The whole criticism of Parliament and political parties is based on the presumption that a white male MP is incapable of representing the women and ethnic minorities of his constituency. Yet, apparently, an asian woman would better be able to represent men and white people. That is a racist and sexist view.
If an MP isn't capable of representing their constituents completely, then they aren't fit for the job - it is as simple as that.
An equal and fair society has to be based on merit. The best person for the job should be chosen. A minimum requirement must be the ability to represent everyone regardless of sex or race. The race or sex of the MP is completely irrelevant.
By constantly bringing up race and sex, the establishment is directly endorsing both racism and sexism. It also undermines the professionalism of those MPs already elected.
Anyway, bringing it back to the topic of the last post, UKIP shouldn't need more members of any race or sex, as long as our party policy is to treat everyone fairly. What we need are a lot more high calibre candidates.
|