Not the only gay in Westminster village

Democracy is a simple premise, people vote for the decision they most agree with. Everybody votes, and everybody has one vote. Simple. Apparently though, this is too simple for modern Britain, where it seems that we are destined to have proportional representation.

Speaker fights Harman plan for big increase in gay MPs | Mail Online

Controversial Government backed plans for a massive increase in the number of gay MPs are being opposed by Commons Speaker Michael Martin, it was revealed last night.

Yes, for people like Harriet Harman, voting people in based on there ability is simply too democratic and us Briton’s should have as little choice as possible in who we vote for. 


Democracy quite literally means ‘rule by the people’  and the Athenians were the first civilisation to use a democratic system in its truest form. All male Athenian citizens were able to speak, and vote in the Assembly and the government and court positions were open to all citizens and were decided by a lottery. Therefore it is fair to say that the Athenians were able to completely govern themselves.

Since then the populous around the world has been hoodwinked throughout history into various forms of democracy so that, as far as I know, there is no true democracy anywhere in the world today.

Today we are told that we need to elect representatives to argue for ‘us’ in parliament. Our chosen champions are supposed to fight our corner for us, and represent our wishes, although it seems they really only suit themselves.


Democracy does have its flaws, getting everyone together to discuss and vote on issues just isn’t possible with 65 million people, so some other form of representation is needed. Also, there is no real way of knowing whether the ‘democratically elected’ MP is really representing the views of his constituency, without trying to get them all together. An MP can always claim to be voting for the majority of his constituents, safe in the knowledge that this can never be disproved.

Even in the face of overwhelming opposition from his constituency, MPs can always fall back on the tried and tested ‘voting for the right choice, rather than the popular one’ as they are better placed than Joe Public to make such decisions.

The only real option for the voters is to vote out someone who they don’t like and vote someone else in, but the Government seems hell bent on removing even this last vestige of democracy.

The Gays

Apparently Government estimates place the gay population of Britain at around 6%, Stonewall placed it at around 3-7%, reality TV has it at about 40-60%.  Personally I think that this is very high but even so this apparently equates to around 39 MPs in parliament.  Harriet Harman claims that in order for Britain to be more democratic, we in fact need to be less democratic by having gay only elections to ensure to requisite 39 MPs are elected.  Currently there are only 11, which by my estimate is about right.

Those who may not want to vote for a gay MP, either due to personal or religious beliefs are left with no option, presumably because the government believes that they are discriminating, are wrong and should be punished. Those who wish to vote for a gay MP simply because they are gay, are apparently not discriminating at all.

the inevitable conclusion

Presumably this idiocy isn’t going to just be restricted to homosexuals but rolled out across the board. We can expect that 50% of seats will also be reserved for women, 2% for black MPs and 3% for Muslim MPs, and 0.007% of seats for Jedi. God only knows what will happen if a black, female Muslim is elected, would they get three seats?

But why stop there, what about the smokers vote? How many MPs need to be smokers to be representative? Whether smoking is right or wrong is irrelevant, it is surely about representation? What about tall people, short people, fat people, thin people,  men with beards, men without beards, blonde haired folk, gingers, blue eyes and green eyes, pagans, enviro-mentalists….the list is quite literally endless and I feel for those that have to divvy up the seats.

The Grey area

Perhaps the most ridiculous part of all of this is just how each person is placed into a pigeon hole. Is a person who is half white and half black, black or white? Or are they perhaps part of a mixed race section? What about the gay MPs, what if a gay MP turns out to be bisexual? What if all the gay seats are taken, can a bisexual MP still run for a non-gay seat as they play for both teams?

What about men who have had a sex change? Religious converts, Michael Jackson?

It would of course be an absolute joke were it not about to become law. Thankfully it seems the electorate are likely to be spared the ins and outs of it, surely this is the first step toward a mayoral like parliament, where MPs just select themselves for seats. After all, following these sorts of strict guidelines will mean that ability is not really a consideration, merely how many boxes the candidate can tick.

The cabinet

Surely the same rules should also apply to the cabinet and Prime Minister? The Cabinet has 23 members, currently five are women, one (Mandy) is gay, that I know of and none are black, or any colour other than white.  At least 11 should be women, one should be black, one Muslim, one and a half should be gay, and one should have slight leanings towards the force. Also surely 1 in every 10 Prime Ministers should be non white and every other one a woman?

The most shocking lack of representation in the Cabinet is age. 5 members of the Cabinet should be under 16, another five should be over 65.


I am old enough to remember when Viv Anderson became the first black player to play for England, and also when John Barnes scored that goal against Brazil! But I digress. From Viv Anderson up to the late 90s I could probably name every black player to have played for England, today though it is almost impossible to keep track.  The England vs Germany game contained many black and mixed race players, because fortunately in football ability is what is paramount, not which specific pigeon hole the players fits into.

The England team also demonstrates that the best players will float to the top, regardless of colour. Surely this should be the same with MPs or is that what they fear the most? Ensuring that the England team was truly representative of England would mean that only one non white player would be able to play for England at any one time. And that Fabio Cappello would also have to find a gay professional footballer to come on as a sub.  This may not be the best team, but to people like Harriet Harman, it seems that ability is not important, not even when the welfare of 65 million people is at stake.


The issue here is not really about ensuring that gays are fairly represented, but ensuring that all minorities have more than their equal say. Some would argue that minorities are already over represented, most have their own exclusive, taxpayer funded clubs and federations that fight for the rights of their members, while the majorities are forced to rely on their own cognizance or finances. Minority lobby groups also get the financing to be far more vocal and drown out the majority, just look at the Global Warming Scam. Britain really is fast becoming the land of the silent majority, who are only able to use their vote as their voice. A right which Harriet Harman seems intent on removing.

As Aristotle said:

…the popular principle of justice is to have equality according to number, not worth, and if this is the principle of justice prevailing, the multitude must of necessity be sovereign and the decision of the majority must be final and must constitute justice, for they say that each of the citizens ought to have an equal share…

The removal of choice in choosing an MP is just the first step toward removing all choice.


2 responses to “Not the only gay in Westminster village

  1. Well argued. I would have no issue voting for a gay MP, a woman, a coloured person etc, provided they achieved their position in spite of their sexual orientation, colour or gender, not because of it. Will people like Harriet Harman, who quite clearly did not earn her position on merit, ever realise that they do no promote the couse of minorities by introducing positive discrimination.

    Harman is in charge of a non-department trying to look for something to do and justify her existence. Well at the risk of being completely un-PC, I would suggest she puts the kettle on, surely she can’t screw that up as well?

  2. Thanks UK Voter.

    I agree Harman is useless and pointless, so pointless in fact that I called her Jacqui Smith all the way through the post! Going to have to change that…

Please feel free to add your own thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s