The Commons is not sitting this week: the members are enjoying the parliamentary equivalent of half-term. The longer House Points goes on, the more we are inclined to think this is a good idea. The more time politicians spend away from Westminster, the less harm they can do. We used to believe that crusading MPs could make a difference. Now, the occasional Norman Baker apart, we are not so sure.
Another point in favour of pressing pause like this is that it gives time for a little historical reflection. Aided by one of the excellent leaflets produced by the House of Commons information office, we can look at an area where backbenchers can do some good: the private member's bill.
The leaflet in front of me lists every successful bill from a backbench MP or peer since 1948. All the way from Sir Dymoke White and his Docking and Nicking of Horses Bill to the present day.
To be honest, Sir Dymoke comes second on the list after Basil Nield's Adoption of Children Bill. But animals have done better than children out of these bills and funny names have been the order of the day. So it's hello to Sir Luke Teeling and the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Bill, Lady Priscilla Tweedsmuir and the Protection of Birds Bill, and Colonel Sir Oliver Crosthwaite-Eyre and the New Forest Bill.
There's nothing wrong with protecting animals, of course. Come to that, there is nothing wrong with funny names. You won't hear a word from us against Sir Lancelot Joynson-Hicks or Sir Hugh Munro-Lucas-Tooth. But taken as a whole the list presents a faintly depressing picture of MPs' concerns over the past 50 years.
There is another pleasure to be had from the list: spotting future stars. David Steel's 1967 Abortion Bill is well remembered, but you can find Margaret Thatcher, Roy Jenkins and Jo Grimond in the list too.
Last time House Points put forward a measure, our Rural Properties (Restoration of Original Use) Bill, we got into trouble. A letter the following week accused us of "a knee-jerk reaction that was equivalent to rearranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic". Undaunted we have now prepared a Caring Professions (Abolition) and Endowment of the Poor Bill. Any takers on the back benches?
Right, settle down. Open Hansard for...
Öpik obviously knows which page we are going to study because he busy is talking to Marsden. For the benefit of the rest of the class, open Hansard for 7 February and find an example of a liberal argument. Are there any questions? Does anyone apart from Baker have any questions?
I'm sorry to come over all schoolmasterly. Education debates have that effect on me. They raise important questions. And you won't find the answer out of the window, Holmes.
Because if you were looking for a liberal argument in the debate on religious schools, the best example came from John Gummer. Who laughed? He recalled telling the secretary of state that he did not like the "progressive" Summerhill school, would not send a child of his to it and did not like the way it ran its education. But he was willing to fight to the death for its right to teach in the way it did.
It is hard to imagine John Gummer fighting anything to the death. A medium-sized teddy bear would stop him in the second round. But we need more of his spirit and less of the approach of the Liberal Democrat front bench in the same debate. In essence it ran: "we don't much like religious schools, and if we are forced to put up them we will hedge them around with restrictions to make them as much like other schools as possible". For a party which claims to value freedom and diversity, we can sound remarkably intolerant. Go back and walk.
But the interests of parents and pupils don't always come first in education. Take Alastair Campbell's comment about "bog standard comprehensives". This shocked all education professionals. They reacted much as a ladies' tea party in 1920s' Budleigh Salterton would have done if someone had mention sex. It shocked our own Phil Willis. A year later, he still condemns it in every speech.
Was it quite so shocking to parents or to pupils who actually attend comprehensives? Some schools are very ordinary indeed, and we should not be afraid to say so.
This is your homework: "The education policy of the Liberal Democrats is neither liberal nor democratic. Discuss."
And Willis: see me afterwards.
Thursday was farming day in the Commons. Here a question, there a question, everywhere a question.
Alun Michael was urged to visit the Royal Lancashire show. To commend those who organise the Monmouth, Chepstow and Usk shows. To agree the Keighley show is a rare celebration of town and country. To remember the Surrey show had to be cancelled last year.
Then Elliot Morley was told that Bridgwater livestock market has gone completely and there is trouble opening Taunton. That farmers are anxious to reopen Leek market. That it is a matter of the greatest urgency that Chelford market in Cheshire can operate fully at the earliest opportunity.
After that there was a debate on environmental impact assessments and everyone complained about government interference in farming.
That's the strange thing about agriculture: though farmers like to present themselves as sturdy independents, in many ways theirs is the last of the nationalised industries. You don't hear ministers asked to pay tribute to the staff of Brantano Footwear in Saffron Walden or told how urgent it is that another supermarket should open in Kendal. But the tiniest details of agriculture are seen as the government's responsibility.
The state took over farming during Word War II and entrenched its position in 1947 with the Agriculture Act. This scrapped the free market in food and set up a regime of subsidies and an ethic of production at all costs. The approach was strengthened by the Common Agricultural Policy and Margaret Thatcher's determination that her supporters should get more than their share of public funds.
And the outcome? A disaster. The subsidies have been massively expensive to the taxpayer, farming jobs have all but disappeared and the countryside has been wrecked. Food has become an industrial product like any other and you can now become a millionaire by writing books telling people how to boil an egg.
The foot-and-mouth outbreak, with its enforced culls of healthy animals and attempt to close the countryside to visitors, emphasised the state's stranglehold over farming. The government has since been back to the Commons asking for even more powers. If this is nationalisation, it owes more to Stalin than Herbert Morrison.
New Labour should leave the schools and hospitals alone and think about privatising farming instead.
Last week's row over Doris Snood (or whatever she was called) and her ordeal in casualty reminded Liberals why they dislike the Labour Party.
The Tories' performance was bad. "If my poor mother had been a dog she would have been treated better" is forgivable coming from a distressed daughter, but not from a politician with time to think.
Yet the response from Labour Britain's aristocracy was more depressing. The ranks of politicians and doctors (spin and medical) closed with a mighty clang. Professionals can do no wrong, it was the relatives' fault and she was probably a racist anyway.
If you think this is unfair, look at the speech Tony Blair
made in Newcastle two days after the Snood affair blew up. It
began promisingly: "Public service is not some vague notion.
It is real. It is good. It is what binds our country together."
And what is public service? "It is the doctor willing to get
out of bed in the middle of the night to see a young child. It is
the teacher who in his spare time runs the school football team."
All politicians get out of touch sooner or later, but Blair has managed it quicker than most. The doctor probably contracted out her night calls to an agency years ago and the teacher is thinking of giving up the football team because of the all the paperwork he has to do.
What about the head? You might think that for a head teacher public service means running the school well or inspiring pupils with a love of learning. Not for Blair and his speechwriters: "It is the head teacher who stands up for his staff when they are confronted by abusive parents."
It has long been clear that New Labour's education agenda, with its home-school agreements, is as much about disciplining parents as disciplining children. "If you're on the side of the pupil, you should be on the side of the teacher," says Blair. "If you're on the side of the citizen, you should be on the side of the police."
But the voters are grown ups, Mr Blair, and they know that sometimes teachers, police – and doctors – get it wrong.