RISHI Sunak’s sudden announcement of a General Election in just six weeks could see more candidates being parachuted into constituencies they know little about, experts have predicted.

The surprise date of July 4 has caught all the parties on the hop – including the Tories themselves who have not yet announced their full list of would-be MPs. In Scotland alone, the Tories have only 42 of their 57 candidates so far in place.

It means that they may be forced to propel people into constituencies far from their home turf, even though there is evidence voters object to the practice and it can signal that the local branch of a party is weak.

READ MORE: Is the General Election really terrible timing for Scottish voters?

Dr Lucy Beattie, who is standing for the SNP in Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, said that while she would not criticise anyone who is entering politics as it was a “bold and brave step wherever they come from”, the electorate would still consider the “provenance” of their local candidate and how they would best represent their communities’ views.

She pointed out that in the Highlands especially, people are often asked where they stay rather than where they come from.

“I think this draws a distinction and appreciation that you don’t have to be born and bred, but there’s a recognition that if you ‘stay’ in an area, you are part of the lifeblood of that area,” she said.

“Similarly, when it comes to politics, this is essential. It’s all very well to develop evidence-informed policy but how can that be contextualised with no lived experience of the place and people whom you represent?”

While a parachute candidate for a party with a secure majority in a constituency may still succeed, it could make more of a difference in marginal seats – particularly those Labour are hoping to secure in this election, according to Professor Murray Leith at the University of the West of Scotland.

“There is little doubt that there will be a fair number of parachute candidates this time as many local constituency parties have not finalised selection and the announcement caught a fair few on the hop,” he said.

“The Labour Party are clearly not the only ones caught by surprise but the situation is more of an issue for them because they are challenging in a fair number of seats and at the end of the day, you want a candidate who passes all the acceptable tests.

“We do have the data to support that the public don’t like parachute candidates. If it is a rock-solid seat for one party or another it generally does not have an impact but you need to be very careful if it is a more marginal constituency.”

Professor Leith said the rush to have a candidate in place can also lead to a lack of due diligence during the selection process.

READ MORE: Gerry Hassan: Continuity politics will not be enough, whether it's Labour or SNP

“We have seen what happens when parties don’t get their due diligence done and the candidates who go in are unsuitable,” he said.

While parachute candidates were historically quite common in the UK and other countries such as Australia and Canada, the trend over the past few decades has been for candidates and subsequent MPs to have more local connections, Professor Leith pointed out.

“In the late 1970s, the figure was a low 25% local but now it is up to the 60% range. So, clearly, people are less accepting of the practice, although it is still a fairly common occurrence,” he said.

“The rise in the dislike among the public for parachute candidates is perhaps due to the declining levels of trust people have about politics in the abstract and a lack of connection to major parties in general.”

Professor Richard Finlay at Strathclyde University said there was a “general expectation” that a local candidate would have an advantage over someone who is parachuted in.

“It can also be seen as evidence of the strength of the local party, or lack of it if someone has to be brought in,” he said.

While it wasn’t unusual for the MPs of the past to spend only two or three days a year in their constituency, this changed with the advent of mass democracy, according to Professor Finlay.

“It became expected that candidates should not only know about their constituency but were also expected to live there so that they could adequately represent their constituents,” he said.

“It was often the case that if elected, the candidate should then live there (or at least have a house there), which often happened – think about the Scottish Tories who relocated to England as MPs in the 1980s and 1990s such as Teddy Taylor and Malcolm Rifkind.”

Professor Richard Toye of Exeter University agreed that times had changed and parachute candidates were now more of an issue than they were in the past when, for example, Tony Benn first visited Bristol on the day he was adopted as a candidate for Bristol East in 1950 – he served as the MP until 1983.

“You can’t get away now with things that you could have done in 1950,” said Professor Toye.

“But it is maybe less about whether this person is genuinely local than whether they can make a case they will be present and work hard for the constituency if elected – which may of course be easier to do if you are local or have at least visited before!”