Seems bit naive not to think that it might have been important to mention that the Mail on Sunday was on her tail

Isn't the reason they are thinking about de-selecting her more to do with the whole imposed list thing? Which is, i believe, either a. a plan by that nice Mr Cameron to get more minorities (such as women!) past the dinosaurs at a local level or b. a cunning way to increase central control of the local parties, depending on your perspective?

I must admit, I have not been following this quite as avidly as I might, since I am most unlikely to either vote for or join the Conservative Party.

link

My view is that it takes two to tango. If they are going to deselect HER they should also deselect HIM. Its also very unair to do this some years after the affair has finished. Surely people should be allowed to get on with their lives.

Its not about who people sleep with but what sort of job they'll do representing and working for their constituents that matters. If you you wanted a lawyer, would you quiz their personal life or their professional record?

Any thoughts about this?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/6448889/Elizabeth-Trus s-to-face-de-selection-vote-over-affair-with-Tory-MP.html