Opening up the Labour debate

I BELIEVE Desmond Watkiss did his best in his letter (June 16) opposing open selection.

Unfortunately for his position, his last sentence says “the Labour Party stands for equality .... ”.

Surely any procedure which gives an incumbent an advantage automatically disadvantages everyone else?

Giving incumbents an advantage conflicts with the very principles the Labour Party stands for.

Does Desmond advocate all sitting Members of Parliament should first have a vote on whether they should have to face an election against other candidates?

The 500,000 plus members of the party will shortly elect nine members to its all-powerful National Executive Committee.

There is no preliminary stage to decide whether or not they have to face open competition.

The rules require an open election by secret ballot.

Our party is not alone in having difficulties attracting candidates to stand for political office. Especially from among younger members. Reducing competition is likely to increase the age profile of incumbents when we should be representative.

I supported democratic principles long before I joined the Labour Party.

As an aspiring candidate I was excluded from selection meetings, including incumbents, I had no say in how they voted.

Desmond refers to a once-ina-hundred-years pandemic to support his argument. Just how desperate can he get?

The ballot, these days, will be conducted by email in the comfort of members’ homes.

Desmond does not seem to be aware social and electronic media exist.

Can the opponents of open selection not come up with any better arguments?

Simply supporting the status quo will not convince a membership which seeks to change the world for the better.

LESLEY SPILLARD