Should ‘Gorgeous’ George Galloway MP be allowed to look like a lemon on Big Brother?

Here’s a jolly debate for a Friday afternoon. :slight_smile:

UK Member of Parliament and vociferous Hitchens-baiter George Galloway decided, rather bafflingly, to be a contestant on the UK’s Celebrity Big Brother, alongside a former gameshow host, someone who shagged Sven Goren-Ericsson, and Dennis Rodman. :eek:

Now a labour politician is calling him a ‘laughing stock’ for acting like a bit of a prat in the House (to be fair, that is what BB is all about):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4608082.stm

More seriously, he suggests that GG’s appearance means that he’s not doing his job properly:

Teh Gorge has also been criticised for reportedly spending the least amount of time in the House of Commons after an MP who was on long-term sick leave and Tony Blair. :smiley:

However, Gorge says appearing on the show is a good way to improve his reputation:

My opinion: meh. He should be at the beck and call of his constituents, and in the House he isn’t. And if anyone thinks they can come out of the BB house with an improved reputation, well they haven’t seen enough Big Brother.

As MP’s are not at the beck and call of their constituents anyway I don’t see any problem. This is just the Embarassed Warmonger Party seeking revenge on a critic.

Now if they want to start a petition to keep him in there permanently, I’ll be the first to sign up.

So the Chief Whip of the Party that threw him out and then saw him trounce their own candidate at the next general election has started a petition about him not being available to his constituents. Sounds like sour grapes to me.

You can never contact an MP direct- always case workers- just done so myself about another matter. Unless you are very well connected you will not get to contact your MP and they often take weeks to answer a letter anyway. Very few MPs listen to debates. Very few MPs vote in non whipped divisions. Many MPs have massive outside interests which stop them looking after their constituents for days/weeks/months.

This is just political pissing in the wind.

The more independent MPs we have (whether like Gorgeous George, or the Doctor from Worcestershire, or Martin Bell, or even a right wing demogogue) the better parliament would be.

The trouble with parliament starts and finishes with the whips office anyway. In my perfect world, whipping MPs would be a serious offence- any party trying to enforce its will on the lower house would be acting illegally- they would be welcome to have an upper house as the government house where they could use the whip, but the Commons would be made up of unwhippable people who would have to give up the right to any government preferment for at least ten years after sitting in that house. What we need is an unwhippable and uncorruptable lower house. In fact rather than hijack this thread, I think I will start another.