Southend West should be contested, as Batley and Spen should have been

 It is too late now for Labour and Liberal Democrat party leaders now to go back on their word not to contest the by-election caused by the tragedy of Sir David Amess's assassination. (Were the constituency parties consulted, as a matter of interest?) However, it denies the electorate the opportunity of a choice in the matter and may strike many as a political stitch-up at a time when we should be trying to improve the reputation of politics. I am sure Sir David would have been appalled at this by-passing of the democratic process. It also tends to diminish the standing of whichever candidate is chosen by the Southend Conservatives as someone who was installed without clearly winning the confidence of the electorate as a whole. 

Liberals and Labour contested the seats vacated by the deaths by violence of Airey Neave, Sir Anthony Berry and Ian Gow. One suspects that there may have been a short-term grubby reason for the gesture in  Batley & Spen in that it was seen as a seat which we had virtually no chance of winning and that we might save money on campaigning, of which we are always short. Whether or not that was a consideration, I fear that a precedent has been set in Batley and now in Southend. 

Suppose that prime minister Johnson and the current leaders of the Conservative party in Westminster go over the heads of the constituency party and impose an incompetent solely on the basis of his or her reflection of Johnson's views. (Something similar has happened in the case of many cabinet appointments.) Local Conservative voters of a more liberal bent may feel that Sir David's legacy on human rights, especially those of women, is being betrayed. They would now have nowhere to go to to show their displeasure, other than by staying away from the poll.