ALL-BLACK shortlists designed to increase the number of ethnic minority MPs at Westminster are being considered by ministers.

A report commissioned by Harriet Harman, the equalities minister, recommends a change to the race discrimination laws. It proposes introducing the shortlists for four consecutive general elections to redress the underrepresentation of ethnic minorities at Westminster.

 

Although the proposals could face a challenge in the European court of human rights on grounds of racial discrimination, officials are confident that they would stand up to scrutiny. At present only 15 of the 646 MPs are from ethnic minorities, and only two of those 15 are women.

 

Harman’s paper claims that without positive discrimination it would take more than 75 years for parliament to reflect the racial make-up of Britain.

 

The document suggests that 2% of seats in each election be contested by ethnic minorities until black, Asian and other groups are fairly represented.

 

Under the plans, which would enable all political parties to discriminate in favour of ethnic minorities, white candidates would be barred from standing in about 10 winnable seats at each election.

 

Instead, shortlists would be made up of people from groups such as blacks, Chinese, Asians, Jews and Roma gypsies.

Ministers fear that underrepresentation of ethnic minorities in parliament is harming race relations. They are particularly concerned that alienation from the House of Commons may encourage some young Muslims to turn to extremism.

 

Supporters of the shortlists include David Lammy, the skills minister, one of the few black MPs. But Khalid Mahmood, the Labour MP for Birmingham Perry Barr, called the idea “divisive”, saying: “You need someone who embodies the whole community. I do not believe in segregation, and shortlists might isolate the white electorate.

 

“We need to empower BME [black and minority ethnic] people within the parties,” he added.

Harman’s proposals were written by the lobby group Operation Black Vote.

Its director, Simon Woolley, said: “The introduction of all-BME shortlists will once again give Labour the initiative in regards to the black vote.”

 

The plans would require the race discrimination laws to be changed and parliament to agree an exemption to allow positive discrimination for parliamentary candidates.

 

A similar exemption to sex discrimination laws allowed all-woman shortlists and led to a huge increase in the number of female Labour MPs.

 

 

Source: Sunday Telegraph

 

Maybe I'm being idealistic, but I believe that prospective candidates should be selected on their merits rather than on their sex or the colour of their skin.

Maybe I'm being idealistic, but I believe that prospective candidates should be selected on their merits rather than on their sex or the colour of their skin.

 

again you are 100% correct.

 

how can this be right? the minister for equality has an 'unequal' list!!!! stupid.

how can this be right? the minister for equality has an 'unequal' list!!!! stupid.

 

And how can it be right for only 15 out of 645 MPs to be of ethnic minorities then (if we go by the supposition that 10% of the country is made up of ethnic minorities, then all things being equal, ethnic minorities should number 64/65 MPs. Ethnic minorities are under-represented), how "equal" is that then.....? It aint, and anything which redresses this balance, I'm all for.... There's no absolute guarantee they'd even be elected anyway (Parliamentary seats DO tend to have more than one candidate.... :lol: ).

 

And frankly, I seriously doubt that having 65 black or asian MPs would make the House of Commons any worse than it is.... Probably the opposite.....

 

 

I believe that prospective candidates should be selected on their merits rather than on their sex or the colour of their skin.

 

Well, what "merits", exactly, are MPs selected on at the moment anyway...? The correct procedure in shagging your secretary? Their ability to accept "donations" or "loans" without being caught...? Doing dodgy deals with multinational corporations....? The ability to tell a plausible lie...? The ability to hide the fact that you're shagging two rent boys every night while at the same time voting against Gay Rights legislation.....

 

Absolute bloody shower the overwhelming majority of 'em...... <_< Like anything would actually be worse if around 65 MPs were black or asian.....

And how can it be right for only 15 out of 645 MPs to be of ethnic minorities then (if we go by the supposition that 10% of the country is made up of ethnic minorities, then all things being equal, ethnic minorities should number 64/65 MPs. Ethnic minorities are under-represented), how "equal" is that then.....? It aint, and anything which redresses this balance, I'm all for.... There's no absolute guarantee they'd even be elected anyway (Parliamentary seats DO tend to have more than one candidate.... :lol: ).

 

And frankly, I seriously doubt that having 65 black or asian MPs would make the House of Commons any worse than it is.... Probably the opposite.....

 

but it isnt as simple as that and you know it. its also the wrong equasion... ethnic minorities are only a large population in (?) constituencies, its those constituencies that need to put up candidates for nomination and may the best man/woman win. you cant force an ethnic mp on a white rural constituency, just to be 'equal'.

 

last time i looked we were still a democracy, where people are nominated by their constituents and voted for. IF an ethnic wins the candidacy then fair do's, if they dont then try again.

 

you cannot have quotas, that would be undemocratic.

but it isnt as simple as that and you know it. its also the wrong equasion... ethnic minorities are only a large population in (?) constituencies, its those constituencies that need to put up candidates for nomination and may the best man/woman win. you cant force an ethnic mp on a white rural constituency, just to be 'equal'.

 

last time i looked we were still a democracy, where people are nominated by their constituents and voted for. IF an ethnic wins the candidacy then fair do's, if they dont then try again.

 

you cannot have quotas, that would be undemocratic.

 

 

Last time I looked there were considerably more than 65 areas within the country which were largely made up of an ethnic population, mainly inner cities in major metropolitan areas.. Of course you wouldn't send a black PPC to a white rural community, dont be bloody facetious.... <_< I could easily turn that one around and ask why should a mainly black or asian community be represented by a white MP...?

 

And you actually think we live in a "democracy"....? :lol: :lol:

Last time I looked there were considerably more than 65 areas within the country which were largely made up of an ethnic population, mainly inner cities in major metropolitan areas.. Of course you wouldn't send a black PPC to a white rural community, dont be bloody facetious.... <_< I could easily turn that one around and ask why should a mainly black or asian community be represented by a white MP...?

 

And you actually think we live in a "democracy"....? :lol: :lol:

 

point stands.... the local party selects the local candidate and the democratitcally elected candidate goes foreward to reprisent the party in the election for that constituency. if there aint an 'ethnic' up to the job, being beaten by a better candidate then thats just how it goes.

 

best man/woman for the job... period.

 

positive discrimination is simply WRONG.

point stands.... the local party selects the local candidate and the democratitcally elected candidate goes foreward to reprisent the party in the election for that constituency. if there aint an 'ethnic' up to the job, being beaten by a better candidate then thats just how it goes.

 

best man/woman for the job... period.

 

positive discrimination is simply WRONG.

I agree entirely!

point stands.... the local party selects the local candidate and the democratitcally elected candidate goes foreward to reprisent the party in the election for that constituency. if there aint an 'ethnic' up to the job, being beaten by a better candidate then thats just how it goes.

 

best man/woman for the job... period.

 

positive discrimination is simply WRONG.

 

 

I agree with this also. It's just like affirmative action in the US and all the failures it has. I mean an average African-American student getting to a straight a student university and then failing and getting booted out instead getting into average university and getting through the education. That makes loads of sense. The same here: Why is it that in an area where there are, lets say a majority of black voters, they still elect white person? Do the blacks actually think a white candidate is actually the best one to present them (and if so then so be it) or maybe the black voters are too lazy to vote (and that really is then their own problem) or whatever the reason is they shouldn't change anything since every adult does have that one equal vote in every election. So whoever gets the most votes is considered to be the best by most of the voters and therefore elected. I mean if these kinda new laws get passed why not just cancel all elections? What's the use for elections if people cannot vote someone they like just because they need to elect someone of a certain ethnic background.

Edited February 12, 200817 yr by JackJones

Why is it that in an area where there are, lets say a majority of black voters, they still elect white person? Do the blacks actually think a white candidate is actually the best one to present them (and if so then so be it) or maybe the black voters are too lazy to vote (and that really is then their own problem) or whatever the reason is they shouldn't change anything since every adult does have that one equal vote in every election.

 

You're confusing "laziness" with 'wilful non-participation'.... If people genuinely feel that no one is there to represent them, then they aint gonna vote... Unfortunately there's no "none of the above" option on a ballot paper. If there was....... :lol: :lol: I think we all know what the results would be...... A landslide victory for the "none of the above" party.....

best man/woman for the job... period.

 

And you honestly think that's the political system we have now the moment...?

 

Bullsh!t it is... It's more like "Best Man/Woman who can ass-kiss the leadership and schmooze their way into a safe seat" <_< The political system in this country does NOT serve the interests of the people, which is why you barely even get much over 30% of those eligible to actually vote.....

This is a racist move, it may be full of good intentions by Labour but if they started demanding white only shortlists the outcry would be heard on the moon so it is not right that a racist decision like this should be tolerated

 

I am against all forms of racism be they discrimination against blacks or discrimination against whites both are racist to me

 

This is a racist move, it may be full of good intentions by Labour but if they started demanding white only shortlists the outcry would be heard on the moon so it is not right that a racist decision like this should be tolerated

 

Well, there pretty much are de-facto "whites only" shortlists mate... Would a black guy from an inner city be selected to be an MP in a rural white community....? I rather doubt it....

 

 

 

Well, there pretty much are de-facto "whites only" shortlists mate... Would a black guy from an inner city be selected to be an MP in a rural white community....? I rather doubt it....

 

what are you saying?... that there should be a 'black rural quota'? thats riddiculous.

 

maybe, just maybe , the rural constituencies are white ones ... so there is no black candidate!

 

best person for the job.... period.

what are you saying?... that there should be a 'black rural quota'? thats riddiculous.

 

maybe, just maybe , the rural constituencies are white ones ... so there is no black candidate!

 

best person for the job.... period.

You are assuming that most MPs come from the area they represent. Not true.

 

As for your last point, in an ideal world, yes. But we don't live in an ideal world. Without Labour's all-women shortlists in 1997 we would probably still only have about 40 or 50 women MPs instead of around 100. That is still well short of the figure of over 300 if the Commons was a true reflection of Britain as a whole.

 

Of course, if we had a fairer voting system, we might have more women and non-white MPs but that's a separate issue.

You are assuming that most MPs come from the area they represent. Not true.

 

As for your last point, in an ideal world, yes. But we don't live in an ideal world. Without Labour's all-women shortlists in 1997 we would probably still only have about 40 or 50 women MPs instead of around 100. That is still well short of the figure of over 300 if the Commons was a true reflection of Britain as a whole.

 

Of course, if we had a fairer voting system, we might have more women and non-white MPs but that's a separate issue.

 

fair point (mp's not coming from the area they reprisent)

 

but so what if the number of women mp's dont reflect the population?... you are right, it isnt an ideal world, nothing in this world IS 'equal', but thats the very nature of the world.

 

women and men ARNT equal in as much that we are designed by nature (or god) to perform slightly differing roles in life.

As for your last point, in an ideal world, yes. But we don't live in an ideal world. Without Labour's all-women shortlists in 1997 we would probably still only have about 40 or 50 women MPs instead of around 100. That is still well short of the figure of over 300 if the Commons was a true reflection of Britain as a whole.

 

Of course, if we had a fairer voting system, we might have more women and non-white MPs but that's a separate issue.

 

Exactly... The political system has to reflect the population of this country, the current state of affairs is simply ridiculous and it's the main reason I reckon that the majority of people dont vote, because they know that the system does not represent them or their interests..

 

PR would be a much fairer system, and it would probably see a higher proportion of female or non-white MPs...

 

And Rob, your rather lame mantra of "best person for the job" is simply not true and you know it... We DONT live in a Meritocracy, we still very much live by the rules of "old Etonians" and the "Oxbridge" mafia, funny handshakes and "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours"..... It's not what you know that gets you anywhere in this country.....

 

You're confusing "laziness" with 'wilful non-participation'.... If people genuinely feel that no one is there to represent them, then they aint gonna vote... Unfortunately there's no "none of the above" option on a ballot paper. If there was....... :lol: :lol: I think we all know what the results would be...... A landslide victory for the "none of the above" party.....

 

As far as I know if there ain't any candidate they like, let' say in a dominantly black area, what is stopping these blacks getting involved into politics, trying to get people they like nominated and so on. I mean if they are the majority in the area that shouldn't be too hard. If you are not willing to get up and actually do something then it is useless to complain there aren't any good candidates. Laziness equals wilful non-participation if you have the chance to participate but decide not to. And if you participate and still loose it just means most of the voters in your area disagreed with you. You can try to get them to change their mind and so on but in the end if the voters in a black area decide to vote a white candidate, then so be it. Isn't this like politics 101?

You are assuming that most MPs come from the area they represent. Not true.

 

As for your last point, in an ideal world, yes. But we don't live in an ideal world. Without Labour's all-women shortlists in 1997 we would probably still only have about 40 or 50 women MPs instead of around 100. That is still well short of the figure of over 300 if the Commons was a true reflection of Britain as a whole.

 

Of course, if we had a fairer voting system, we might have more women and non-white MPs but that's a separate issue.

 

 

But who is to say a woman is a better person to represent other women than a man? Or a black representative is a better for other blacks than a white? They might be but not necessarily. Let' say there are two candidates in a very poor dominantly black area. The two candidates are a white blue-collar man who has lived his whole life there and knows the problems and so and a black candidate from a rich family who has just a while back moved there to get the seat easier here against the white candidate. I think people stare too much for gender/race/age and so on and are missing the point that whoever gets the most votes in a democratic fair election should get the seat.