Talking does not always equate to action
I was interested in the comments contained in last week’s paper about Margaret Ferrier talking more times in parliament than her predecessor.
It was mentioned on your story on page 13 about the election and on the letters page from a Derec Thompson.
I’m not quite sure what this is supposed to signify.
Is she saying Tom Greatrex was a bad MP who did not work hard? If so, I would suggest she is miles from the mark. Mr Greatrex was a fantastic MP who earned respect across party lines and was well-known for his work with constituents.
Secondly, has Ms Ferrier or Mr Thompson ever heard of the saying: “all talk and no action”?
An MP’s effectiveness is not based on how often they speak in parliament, but on the work which they do in their constituency.
This is not a criticism of Ms Ferrier. She may well do a lot of good work in Rutherglen and Hamilton West. But so did Tom Greatrex. To suggest otherwise is a pretty classless approach.
But I will indulge her. If we are to take speeches in parliament as a measure of how effective an MP is, a quick search at Hansard reveals Ms Ferrier has mentioned Rutherglen only nine times in the past two years.
In comparison, she has spoken about Yemen 22 times.
Using her own logic, she is working harder for the people of Yemen than she is for the people of Rutherglen.
While that may be a worthwhile cause, I fail to see how it is sticking up for the people of Rutherglen and Hamilton West.
Anne McLaughlin, Rutherglen