Maybe she shouldn't have been so sniffy about the day job

I generally think Oona King is a good thing, and certainly infinitely preferable to the odious demagogue who displaced her.

The Guardian review of her newly published diary (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/bookshelf/story/0,,2167902,00.html) reveals though a rather sniffy attitude to the pretty vital role of being a backbench MP, complaining:

"My job, from a parliamentary perspective, could not be more dull, repetitive or low-skilled. In fact, the more correct term is unskilled."

Oh dear. Sorry, Oona, most people would regard it as a privilege to be one of the nation's legislators and particularly to be representing and doing casework for a deprived community like Bethnal Green.

If the Commons was such a bore, it might have made sense to spend every spare minute campaigning, as by the time the above quote was written Mr Galloway was a clear and present danger in the constituency.

Not every MP can be a Minister. Maybe selection meetings need to ask prospective MPs if they will enjoy and be able to sustain enthusiasm for the slog of back-benchery and sustaining the party in a marginal seat. If people aren't up for that then maybe they should look to make a political contribution in other ways that are less "dull" or "repetitive".

Possibly the revelation that Oona actually turned down the first PPS job offered her may also explain the lack of subsequent meteoric promotion.

The bulk of the PLP who get on with being good constituency MPs and would be delighted to make it to being a PPS must be seething to have the job they have struggled to acheive dismissed as "dull, repetitive ... unskilled."

My instinct would be we need fewer prima donnas and more grafters.