Time and MPs

Several people are now advocating a reduction in the number of MPs at Westminster.

I have already suggested that the existence of devolved parliaments in Scotland and Wales, etc, and the fact that the vast majority of our legislation comes from Brussels, supports this. In addition, sofa government at number 10 means that the governing party is involved only in obeying whips and voting what the executive has decided. (This may even extend to the Cabinet, where you might imagine there is some debate before decisions.)

We know that MPs are part time, many staying in Westminster no more than three and a half days a week , having a shorter day by virtue of a decision by the Blair government, and this year sitting on even fewer days than for a long time.

Now we hear many of those on select committees cannot even be bothered to turn up for meetings.

MPs will say in their own defence, are but we hold the Government to account, by asking questions, oral and written, which reveal things that the government is trying to conceal. (So do journalists, using the Freedom of Information mechanism.) "We have full case loads with constituents, and work hard at week-ends at events in the constituency!". They certainly do, opening shows, attending events, and seeing electors. The appearance at events and pressing the flesh is genuine, but it is largely the way to be re-elected. The same applies to the causes they fight.

Ah but electors have problems! They do, but many of these should be the province of the local councillors, and in many cases the MP will do no more than throw his or her weight at the local council.

So what is really vital in their work? It ought to be that they represent us in the decision making nationally. This is done increasingly in Downing Street and Brussels. Do they have any really vital work?