On BBC Breakfast this morning Quentin Letts of the Daily Scum said
"I'd cull 20% of MP's"
Okay, he might have an argument that MP's should have bigger seats, which would mean more constituents and more casework. But then less than a minute later he said
"I'd get MP's away from their constituencies. They spend too much time doing casework for constituents"
Hang on, isn't this a contradiction ? Surely bigger seats = less MP's, but bigger seats and less MP's means more casework ?
He then had a dig at the intelligence of most MPs. Never mind the intelligence of journalists.
4 comments:
Actually that sounds quite sensible.
Less MPs is something which should be considered.
MPs should definitely spend more time in Westminster, they are not local councillors, they are representatives in Parliament, they should do that and be involved in debate and voting.
I'd say lots of MPs are not that bright (look at much of the Labour and Tory front benches, let alone the back benches).
Then again, you're correct in identifying journalists as another group who are often not that bright...
He'd "cull" them? As in "slaughter"?
In my experience the very best reasons people have for voting for an MP is the casework and personal interewst they take in constituency matters.
Being an MP is not just about sitting through endless debates where you are largely whipped in to voting in a particular way anyway. It is about being an advocate for your constituents.
When so many people ahve a bad view of MP's, it is always heartening to hear from someone who speaks so positively about an MP because they have met them, dealt with them on a local issue of simply shown an interest in something they are doing.
Bigger seats for MPs? What, bigger than Ken Clarke, John Prescott, Boris Johnson or any of the other lardbucket members who have such gorgeous meals at our expense?
Surely that alone would make the obesity epidemic 50% worse??!!
Post a Comment