[Louise Mensch] is a former MP who has resigned midterm, supposedly for the sake of her family and has, without doubt, handed her seat to Labour. A pill very hard for some to swallow when she appears on her social media site and Twitter by the minute and has no problem leaving her family, popping up on the media on a regular basis, even to condemn Prince Harry.
One of the most unprofessional and undignified comments ever heard in a select committee hearing was when Louise Mensch announced that she had to leave a crucial, televised hearing involving the Murdochs, in order to do the school run. As she left she schmoozed to James Murdoch, in the witness chair at the time, ‘I believe we have children the same age’. This was stomach turning for female MPs, who act in a professional manner in order not to be judged lacking against our male peers, knowing that hell would freeze over before any male MP would behave in the same way.
Louise has always put her own ambitions first. She has spent her entire time in Parliament void of principle, as an ultimate loyalist Cameroon, regardless of the issues, and then commented in frustration ‘what do I have to do to get promoted?’.
Someone will have to explain to me what’s so stomach-turning and ‘schmoozing’ about that comment. And blaming Mensch for the fact that her seat will now turn red seems harsh in the extreme.
Where Dorries seems right, though, is on Mensch’s blind loyalty. Anyone who follows her tweets will be subject to blatant propaganda. She doesn’t say what she thinks. She writes, quite clearly, whatever is most likely to promote her party, and that’s her guiding principle. I remember Jacob Rees-Mogg being universally attacked for a bad performance on Newsnight, until right on queue Mensch arrived with laughable praise and support. No other British politician uses social media so dishonestly.
But what I’m not sure about is Dorries’ suggestion that Mensch’s complaints about a lack of family time ring hollow given how much time she spends with the media. Sure, Mensch could no doubt manage her workload better if she acted as an average backbencher, and only performed her minimal duties. But if her ambitions are understandably greater and she sees her role as requiring more than that, I’m not sure there’s much to condemn in her deciding that doing the bare minimum would be a poor compromise. Choosing all or nothing is perfectly reasonable. Casting votes but turning down Question Time could be hugely frustrating. Attacking her on that front is unjustified.