Manifesto 2: I don't want my leaders to be like me!

Don't get me wrong - I think I might make a good MP. I have a degree in economics and politics, I have a professional qualification and 48 years of life-experience to draw on. All these should make me eminently suited to serve my country in the political sphere. Except that I'm too lazy for all that campaigning and I prefer a quiet life.

What I mean is - I do not require my leaders to be like me in superficial ways in order to represent me in Parliament and make decisions on my behalf.

As the build-up to the general election gets under way, it is frequently commented by politicians, pressure groups and the media that the candidates are mostly white, middle-aged males who do not reflect the wide make-up of the electorate. In recent weeks, I have heard people suggest that there should be:

• More women MPs
• More black and ethnic minority MPs
• More Christian/Muslim/Hindu/Atheist/Jeddai MPs
• More retired/teenage MPs

The implication is that the only way to have a fair and balanced government is by having the right mix of all these types of people in Parliament, representing their respective interests. The idea is superficially attractive but there are huge problems with this approach.

The first problem is practical - how do you ensure the right mix, without imposing candidates on the electorate before they vote? Women-only shortlists have been tried and found controversial, mainly because their imposition requires central party officials "meddling" with the appointment of local candidates. Where representation is based on geographical constituencies, it makes no sense to try to impose quotas in this way.

The second problem is also practical - how do you know what the "right" mix is? Who do you listen to? Do you select just one criterion - e.g. gender or age or ethnicity? Or do you try combinations of criteria? And how do you define the criteria? Will any Christian do? Or must we have quotas of Anglicans, Baptists, Catholics etc?  And what about dog and cat owners? And motorists/cyclists/pedestrians? Don't they deserve a say?

The third problem is, once elected, the "representatives" may not always behave in the stereotypical way expected of them in this carefully-balanced mix. Individuals cannot be slotted into boxes in this way, and most of the issues considered by government cut across such divisions anyway.

And where does talent fit into this equation? The big political issues - economic, legal, foreign policy - are very complex, and require talented people to understand them. By emphasising superficial qualities, it is probable that genuinely talented candidates would be overlooked because they don't fit in the right boxes.

Good leadership is a very rare quality - very few great leaders conform to a stereotype - they are usually very special indeed. By limiting the political gene pool to "people like us" we risk overlooking true talent in favour of mediocrity.