Letter: Labour's selection

Sir: As one who took some part in the selection process for Labour candidates for the greater London Assembly I must challenge Ken Livingstone's description of this process ("Do the control freaks really want Labour to lose London?", 26 May).

It seemed to be very similar to that used by any large organisation for senior recruitment, and I can find no element of the exercise that was unfair or arbitrary.

Full job descriptions were sent out with the application forms, and when I was initially rejected, the invitation to appeal included information on the areas where my candidacy was considered weak, enabling me to focus my appeal, which was successful.

At the briefing day for candidates, it was made clear that the selection panel process ahead would include testing our ability to promote, support and defend against criticism the policies and proposals of the Government. Can that really surprise anyone, or be regarded as unfair or discriminatory?

If I were recruiting at work, I would not appoint a candidate who had gone on record as saying that a major plank of the programme they were to implement was "barmy" (Ken Livingstone on a directly elected mayor), and I would advertise for candidates in the appropriate specialist publications.

Selecting people who can't do the job is disastrous, and contributed to some of the local government mistakes of the early 1980s, including those of the GLC. Some of us have learnt from that; Ken obviously hasn't.

ANNE ST CLAIR MILLER

London N16