‘Mandatory reselection’ would see local Labour members choosing who will stand as their MP in the event of an election. The process should prevent areas getting MPs that are:
- Parachuted into an easy seat only to never visit the area.
- Tristram Hunt (i.e. all of the above).
Most people would agree that such a democratic system is fairly uncontroversial in a democratic society. It’s also likely to pass with ease when voted on at the upcoming Labour conference. So why are outlets like the Guardian still referring to it as ‘controversial’? Who is it controversial with?
After doing a bit of digging, Off The Perch has found out who’s opposed to the idea.
It turns out the people most ardently against making politics more democratic are bad politicians. Ironically, this serves to show why mandatory reselection is needed. If a person only became an MP after several years of scratching Tony Blair’s war-loving back, they probably weren’t a suitable candidate.
One MP told us:
It’s ridiculous! I’ve spent half my life perfecting the ability to sound like I have policy ideas. Now I’m going to lose my seat to someone who openly just talks about policy. If I’d known ideas were going to be important in politics, I wouldn’t have wasted all that time aggressively not having any!
Of course, there are several things crap MPs can do to stop themselves being deselected:
- Propose a popular political programme.
- Explain how they’ll implement it and build a network of local support.
- Stop being crap.
The other option is to carry on crying to the Guardian and see if that’s any more effective now than it was three years ago.
– Join The Canary, so we can keep holding the powerful to account.
Featured image via Pixabay [IMAGE WAS ALTERED]
Since you're here ...
We know you don't need a lecture. You wouldn't be here if you didn't care.
Now, more than ever, we need your help to challenge the rightwing press and hold power to account. Please help us survive and thrive.