A REGULAR commenter, an SNP supporter, recently criticised his (Labour) MP for having served as a councillor in another part of the country before being elected as MP in the constituency where he was born and raised.

The implication was all too evident: if you’ve ever lived or worked outside a constituency, your legitimacy as a potential representative is suspect. It reminds me of a joke on a panel show recently, where a resident of Cornwall was forever known to the community as “the Traveller” because he had once visited London. (On a supplementary and entertaining note, this same commentator once claimed in a thread that he was a “thorn in the side” of his MP. When I asked my colleague if this was true, he had no idea who I was talking about.)

You come across this nonsense a lot: only someone who has lived in a constituency all his life is deemed suitable as its MP. All other qualifications – political beliefs, ability to string a sentence together, personal honesty, track record of commitment to the party – are of less importance than the shining, glorious Holy Grail of having a politically correct postcode.

Certainly, if the choice is between two candidates who are broadly equal in terms of ability and experience, then the local person (if there is one) would have an understandable advantage. But it’s hardly the most important qualification. And when a local candidate is roundly beaten in a fair and open democratic vote, then local members obviously agree.

"This is a LOCAL constituency, for LOCAL candidates..."