More must be done to weed out contempt toward voters

Once the initial public curiosity and amusement have died down, what's left are observations that were at best ill-advised and at worst offensive and obnoxious in the extreme. His dismissal as the official Labour Party candidate – remarkably, it was not immediate but required opposition calls before the decision was taken that he should go – is a fate fully deserved. It should also serve as a warning to all candidates tempted to make foulworded comments on the circuit of Twitter friends that they would not dare to put in a document or e-mail for general circulation. "Twittering" is not some private confessional. Indeed, many would regard such comments as more revealing windows into the soul of the candidate than a considered written statement or speech from a public platform.

The Labour Party may feel the action taken is the end of the affair and that it can move on to select another candidate. But the traces cannot be so easily kicked over. First, this is an election fought in the shadows of one of the worst scandals in the history of parliament and one in which all parties said they were determined to clean up, with a new breed of decent and trustworthy candidates. The worst of the old guard – and the contemptuous attitudes towards voters – were, we were assured, swept away and a new leaf turned.

What, then, is the public to make of the worth of such assurances when they read even a sanitised account of Mr MacLennan's musings? Is it that the Labour Party in Scotland has, like the Bourbons of France, learnt nothing and forgotten nothing in its assumption that Scotland permanently belongs to it? Or if they have learnt the lesson, how on earth did a candidate of Mr MacLennan's calibre get through the net? Those are the first and immediate questions the public will ask. This would suggest that their selection procedure has, to put it no stronger, serious failings.

It may be argued that Moray is not a marginal constituency for Labour, that its candidate was unlikely to become an MP and that therefore some latitude should be allowed. But this defence is flawed on two counts. First, fighting seats with such daunting odds is an important step on the ladder for many to hone their skills in dealing with the public and representing their party as best they can. To this extent, all seats are important for all parties in grooming a new cadre of representatives and why the opportunity to fight them is valued. Second, the apologia suggests a dangerous double standard: that honourable conduct is only expected from candidates with a prospect of winning, hardly a signal any party should send to constituencies or prospective candidates.

Labour has thus much to do, both to assure the public it acknowledges the demand for the highest quality of candidates and to radically improve its selection procedures. Mr MacLennan's dismissal is just the start of the job it has to do. More incidents like this and they will certainly have plenty of time to do it.