General Election: Political parties need to be a lot more professional

Not necessarily the description that jumps to mind for some of those who grace the House of Commons with their presence, but perhaps it should be. These are the people who shape and pass the laws that tell us what to do and how to do it.

They’re supposed to represent their local constituents, to hold the Government to account, or – if they’re lucky – to be a part of it and take on even more powerful and highly paid ministerial roles.

READ MORE: Mhairi Black: ITV debate shows Labour and Tories in a race to the bottom

None of these are responsibilities to take lightly, and most of us would surely want to grant them only to the most committed and capable. So why do political parties repeatedly fail to reflect the seriousness of the role in their selection processes?

Whether it’s candidates who are off the rails and should never have been selected in the first place, or candidates being hung out to dry as part of a political powerplay, the entire spectacle undermines any notion of a rigorous, fair, and thoughtful process.

It may be anachronistic or simply naive to expect our political leaders to set an example, but considering that politicians are – based on annual polling – the least trusted profession, and haemorrhaging trust by the minute, maybe it’s something they should try to do, at least for the sake of preserving democracy, if that’s still a reasonable goal.

As it stands, from an outsider’s perspective, our politics appears to be conducted in a more unprofessional and chaotic manner than just about any other industry.

Imagine for a moment that Diane Abbott had worked in another field, giving nearly 40 years of her life to one organisation, at times in prominent roles, and leading the way for many women of colour to follow in her footsteps.

Regardless of anyone’s opinion of Abbott or the newspaper letter that saw her suspended from the Labour Party, to keep her hanging for more than a year, only to reinstate her after an election was called then play a ridiculous game of hokey cokey in public over whether she was in or out as a candidate, is frankly obscene. In any other line of work this behaviour by an organisation’s management would be outrageous.

Imagine that Faiza Shaheen (below) was a candidate for a role in some other workplace, a place she had volunteered her time to support, and gained the praise and endorsement of its leader (as Shaheen did from Keir Starmer when she ran in 2019).

Picture any normal organisation waiting until the 11th hour to summon someone in this position to a meeting that same day, pulling them up about their social media use over a number of years, alleging engagement with antisemitic content, and then swiftly emailing a decision to cut ties with them while simultaneously briefing the media about their rejection.

Even if you accept the premise that Shaheen expressed views that made her (rightly or wrongly) unelectable, this is not a good look. It either speaks to a lack of due diligence in the first instance, or a decision to disingenuously take issue with a person’s comments when it feels expedient to get rid of them.

It seems common sense that, if social media activity is now such a vital determinant of someone’s suitability to stand for election, parties should conduct their own research and have open discussions with potential candidates about this well in advance of selection.

More than anything, this is a protective measure for candidates so that their late-night Twitter commentary or “liking” history doesn’t end up as front-page news. Instead, the approach taken by Labour gives the strong impression that the timing and publicity of these decisions are designed to cause the individuals in question the greatest stress and reputational damage possible.

READ MORE: There’s only one route back to full EU funding – choose indy

I don’t expect that approach to inspire people to want to put themselves forward for the party in future – nor can I see how it’s inspiring to voters.

Just because a political party isn’t legally bound to treat their candidates and MPs as an employer must, this doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have a duty of care to their people. And if they don’t feel that moral imperative – if this is how cold, how calculated, they can be in their treatment of their own representatives – it raises the question: what will they do with the rest of us?

This isn’t only about Labour though. The Conservatives have been scrambling just to find enough people to stand for them, despite the fact that their own party called the election. The words “piss-up” and “brewery” come to mind.

But this is part of the problem: a system where a government can choose to call an election at any moment only serves to undermine the ability of parties to find the best people and prepare them. In previous years, the SNP have had their own share of embarrassing candidates and, indeed, MPs – the fine people of Kirkcaldy, and East Kilbride, who voted SNP and now have representatives from entirely different parties, might have an idea of what I’m talking about.

For smaller parties like the Scottish Greens, candidate selection for a General Election might seem a less significant task, given the remote possibility of their election. But standing as a parliamentary candidate is in and of itself a high-pressure and high-profile endeavour.

Thus the Greens have found themselves in their own deselection drama this year, because of a candidate’s choice remarks about author JK Rowling.

The now dumped candidate, who is a trans woman, had been engaging high-profile “gender critical” individuals on the subject of trans rights on Twitter/X – which is a perilous activity at the best of times.

It struck me as disappointing that a party which speaks so strongly about the advancement of the rights of marginalised groups would throw a trans person into an undeniably vulnerable position without providing sufficient training, support and advice to ensure they were equipped to handle the campaign process and everything that might come with it.

Parties might be able to wash their hands of people and pretend like it never happened, but I expect that for the individuals involved, the reverberations of these media storms will be felt for much longer.

Across political parties, claims of seeking to improve diversity are common. But the barriers which keep under-represented groups out of politics can’t be broken down by last-minute efforts to tick the boxes – it’s a much longer process, which requires support and skills development so that people feel confident to step forward and run for office.

Given the way that some prospective candidates have been treated during this election cycle, it’s no wonder more people don’t want to stand.

And considering the cavalier attitude with which some parties seem willing to select and deselect candidates for one of the most important jobs in the country, it’s going to be a long road back before voters’ trust in our political system can be rebuilt.