Talk­ing does not al­ways equate to action

Rutherglen Reformer - - Reformet View -

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

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.