OK I'll bite.
I said this about Heather Peto (who has sleeping beauty syndrome). I am all for supporting people with disabilities in politics and in parliament. But there is still a problem here, with individuals who have medical problems which make them have issues regarding reality. If its a managed condition then great, but if its something that affects you extensively and might limit / impair your ability to serve other vulnerable people in the capacity of a role of MP then, yes I have a problem with it and I do think that needs to be considered by selection panels.
This isn't about prejudice. This is about understanding the demands of the job and understanding the needs and interests of those you want to represent. And putting those people first. This is especially true if you are a Labour member as that's a huge part of the ideology.
Its about taking that responsibility seriously and being honest about what your limitations are. There are plenty of other political roles you could take and roles in which you can be an activist, without it potentially having an impact on others in the same way.
Jared O'Mara's time as MP has already been marred. His attitude and demands for support have gone down badly in Westminster primarily because of the way he has gone about it. This is Labour and other parties alike. His constituents have been left high and dry, with some turning to the LDs in desperation to get help. There are MPs with cancer who turn up in the HoC. There are women who take extremely short maternity leave who serve in the HoC. Because that's the brutal reality of the job and because people depend on them and there are parts of the job that can not be covered by other people.
There are plenty of people who have physical disabilities who would be cracking at the job. There are plenty of people who mental health issues who would be equally as good if not better than so many sitting MPs.
There does have to be a point where a party steps in and says, "is supporting this person as an individual in the best interests of the vulnerable people they might serve". If its going to create a conflict where the need of the few not the many comes first, that's an issue that needs to be said honestly, rather than being an elephant in the room or swept under the carpet. (And yes, that phrase is important if you actually believe it).
I think perhaps though, that LM popping out that they have schizophrenia today, is rather odd. Today, legal action is being seriously talked about. Having a condition where you have trouble with reality, is real handy sometimes.
Yes I'm cynical but that's a product of the bullshit that these three have been responsible for. I believe they have harmed the political interests and ambitions of other disabled people and people with mental health issues with their antics. And yes I do use that word deliberately, because I think they have trivialised and tried to silence some pretty bloody serious issues.
(If that makes me sound like a hard right winger to some, then fine. It comes from a place of believing that politics shouldn't be about the MP but the people they serve, and a similar point expressed in a different way could be levelled at numerous selfish bastards in parliament).