There may be two reasons that one might give for not using Alan Williams as the archetypal Parliament man. First, he is one of the few voices that still speaks out against the debacle of devolution, and he does so with consistency and clarity such that I may be tempted to put him in the ‘policy advocate’ section of the ‘maverick’ pile. Second, he’s really only so active in committees because he’s already done all the front bench malarkey; he’s spent 15 years on government and opposition front benches, so that might be considered a function of his age, rather than personality.

That said, I can’t think of one that exactly fits the bill, which is a problem of their species. I take the categorisation from Donald Searing’s study of political roles under the Westminster model, which is the standard in political science and which found that, in 1972-3, 10% of backbenchers were ‘Parliament men’ as I have described them (and their lack of utility). That idea, that there are 65 MPs that concern themselves primarily with work that is better done by canteen staff, does chill my perception of our democracy. Maybe someone that doesn’t notice only people that actualy do things could point out a few pieces of deadwood floating on the surface of the parliamentary sea!

I assume you are thinking of the current Father of the House (Alun Williams) when you gave your description of ‘The Parliament man’? He does offer a good example of such creatures but, I still find it hard to believe a single constituency from any party would select a man/woman who made it clear their passion was the codification of conventions within the Houses of Parliament.

Stuart, your description of an ideal MP sounds very sensible to me. I would like my representative to augment his willingness to rebel over local issues with an fairly open mind when it came to national issues though. In conclusion, any MP who votes against his party line should not do so lightly.

However, there are always occasions when you disagree with the party, and in such situations, I would want my MP to rebel against the party. This of course assumes general support in his constituency. I take Oliver Cooper’s point about splitting up the ‘Mavericks’, and obviously refer to those who represent the views of their constituents here.

I would also say that the ‘back benchers’ can act as a form of regulation on the party, and can stick to the traditional party beliefs. So surely they are useful in this sense in ensuring that a leader doesn’t try to move his party too much from the electorate.

So, I would want a politician who is mainly a ‘Whip’s friend’, but on major issues which affect his district to represent them rather than just agree with his party.

There is one last caste into which MPs can fall that you have overlooked:

The Parliament man: A true Parliament man does the nitty-gritty work that facilitates the workings of the House, and of Parliament as a whole. Some of these tasks are vital, such as sitting on select and standing committees, without which, neither the executive nor the legislature could be properly scrutinised. Other tasks contribute nothing to the general well-being of either constituency or country, but help give the individual MP the feeling that, by setting the House of Commons canteen menu, have helped the abstraction of democracy. These are the people of which you’ve never heard, and are never likely to want on your side, unless you really don’t like chicken kiev.

You make it clear that you would like to have an MP with attributes from all of my categories. Is that possible? Can a careerist really have an open mind over issues when he/she always has a clear eye on the ministerial limo?

There is also the other factor of the nature of the particular seat. Can MPs in marginal seats afford to tow the party line when it is unpopular? This is brought sharply into focus when the national issue has a local bearing on the constituency being represented.

I would hope though for an MP who supports the Party, but would put his constituents first; even if that is against the Party line and considered “Maverick”.

I do think you have summed up the MP’s categories well Stuart overall although I am not so sure about the title Maverick; by listing Skinner and Winterton as the examples I think it diminishes it when an MP does actually vote for what he believes to be right. The Party may think he/she is a maverick, but is it fair for us to?