The irony is that Nadine Dorries, for all her fame-seeking vanity, is basically right that having a month off to bicker with Brian Conley over the dunny rota probably won't make much difference. What are they supposed to do if you're out of work or have noisy neighbours or don't want a betting shop opening at the end of your road? Table a private member's bill? Or just write to the minister concerned to justify their publicly funded headed notepaper? I know people are exhorted to write to their MP about problems but it never seriously occurred to me that it did much good. I detected the self-importance in their assumption that ordinary constituents need their MPs for anything on a day-to-day basis вЂ“ as if there were jobs, like notarising wills or unblocking sinks or transubstantiating wine, that only an MP can do. Do they really think they seem helpful by saying that? Are they stupid enough to believe that will make people like them? Perhaps not вЂ“ in which case, maybe they're just being sincere. We haven't jetted off anywhere to eat balls.' It just seems so opportunistic and swotty.

'Yes, we're both still getting on with vitally important constituency business. Too poisoned by suspicion, I was repelled by what I assumed was a mixture of self-publicity and self-importance.

A perfectly nice and constructive gesture, you might think. They're jostling to be 'supply MPs' for the people of Mid Bedfordshire.

Andrew Selous and Alistair Burt both offered their services to Dorries's constituents last week, should they find themselves in need of an MP while she's away appearing on I'm a CelebrityвЂ¦ Get Me Out of Here!. I also found myself sceptical of the goodwill of the two MPs who represent the constituencies bordering Nadine Dorries's. Any 'watch out for this crumbly cliff/ startled deer/ emerging elderly couple' signs are always put up in considerable doubt as to whether the promised rockfall, stag or wizened duo is going to turn up at the right time to terrify a car. Nobody thinks the alert is definitely required, that the disaster being warned of will certainly come to pass, or the road would be closed. Doubt is the presiding emotion whenever a safety sign is installed. However, I think he lost his head a bit later on in the speech when he said: 'My message to highways engineers is: if in doubt, don't do it.' I'm not sure that's the right approach to the provision of road signs. 'I know I'll never sort out the Middle East,' he's saying, 'but I can at least bring some common sense to the UK's road signage system.' Maybe his is an honest, modest goal that more megalomaniacal politicians could learn from. Maybe he's barely aware of the vote-securing appeal of his remarks. Maybe he feels that more strongly than I give him credit for.

He made the remarks in a speech to a Campaign To Protect Rural England conference and, when I read them, all I could hear was the subtext: 'I wish to shore up a section of the Tory vote by crowd-pleasingly joining in with your grumbles.' But I accept that's not mutually exclusive with his also genuinely thinking that there are lots of unnecessary road signs. So, to be consistent, I must accept that it's perfectly reasonable still to want to sort out unnecessary and ugly signage even when Syria's having a civil war and the eurozone's in recession. I was quick enough to scoff when ministers cited the fact that most people are more worried about the economy as an excuse for shelving gay marriage. It's not the most pressing issue facing government but governments can do more than one thing at a time. Is that perfectly reasonable? I think it might be.

Suspicious observer