Just when voters thought Westminster politics could not appear any more cynical, the rumours surrounding former Makerfield MP Josh Simons and the incoming Burnham administration have raised yet more uncomfortable questions.
Only weeks ago, Mr Simons resigned his parliamentary seat, triggering a by-election that allowed Andy Burnham to return to Westminster and launch his successful bid for the Labour leadership. At the time, the public were told the decision was about putting constituents first.
Now reports suggest Mr Simons is being lined up for one of the most influential jobs in Government – head of Downing Street’s policy unit.
Perhaps there is a perfectly innocent explanation. Perhaps Mr Simons is simply the best candidate available. Perhaps discussions about such a role only began after he resigned.
But if Labour expects the public to believe there is no connection whatsoever between surrendering a safe parliamentary seat and subsequently receiving one of the most powerful unelected positions in British politics, they may be underestimating voters’ intelligence.
The optics are dreadful.
Millions of people already believe politics operates as a closed shop, where insiders reward one another while ordinary voters are expected to nod along and accept whatever explanation is offered. This episode does little to challenge that perception.
Makerfield voters elected Josh Simons to represent them in Parliament. Instead he walked away, forcing constituents back to the ballot box at great public cost so that a senior Labour figure could return to Westminster.
That decision alone attracted criticism. The prospect that the former MP may now be rewarded with a senior Downing Street appointment only fuels suspicions that the entire exercise was carefully choreographed from the beginning.
Labour insists it represents change. Yet this looks remarkably like the same old politics that voters have grown tired of: favours for friends, advancement for insiders, and decisions that appear to place political careers above the people who cast the votes.
The questions become even more pressing given Mr Simons’ recent controversies. Earlier this year he resigned as a Cabinet Office minister following criticism over a report commissioned into journalists who had written critically about his former think tank. While he was cleared of breaching the ministerial code, the episode hardly enhanced public confidence.
Yet despite that history, and despite the extraordinary circumstances surrounding his resignation from Parliament, he is reportedly being considered for a role that would help shape the direction of the country.
Why? What exactly qualifies someone who voluntarily abandoned a parliamentary seat after only a short period to help determine national policy from the heart of Downing Street?
Most importantly, were discussions about a future role taking place before he resigned from Makerfield?
These are entirely legitimate questions. They deserve clear answers.
For all Labour’s talk of transparency and integrity, the public are entitled to know whether this was an act of selfless political sacrifice or simply a career move that happened to benefit everyone involved.
Until convincing answers are provided, many voters will draw their own conclusions.
And those conclusions are unlikely to do much for public trust in politics.
