³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

With shoes polished and pencils sharpened, the boys and girls return to Westminster on Monday, nearly six months since the general election. How are they getting on? It's beyond my competence to comment on how well they represent their individual constituencies but in terms of their Parliamentary performances, the website (TWFY) provides a one-stop-shop information source which is ideal for slackers like me.

Since May, five of Cornwall's six Members of Parliament have yet to rebel against their own party on anything. Only Andrew George has recent experience of defying his whips (I therefore advise supporters of the campaign not to put too much faith in their MPs when it comes to the crucial final stages of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill.)

Andrew is also top of the class for the frequency of his contributions to debates and written questions, earning the TWFY label "well above average" for both. His voting record, 81%, is "average."

Dan Rogerson is "above average" when it comes to debates and written questions, and his 91% voting record is "above average."

Stephen Gilbert and Sarah Newton come equal third - Stephen is "below average" on debates and "average" on written questions; Sarah is the other way round, "average" on debates and "below average" on written questions. Stephen's voting record is 94% ("above average") but Sarah's is a truly impressive 98% ("well above average.")

George Eustice has contributed to only six debates ("well below average") and tabled only two written questions ("well below average.") Sheryll Murray has contributed to only five debates ("well below average") and tabled only one written question ("well below average.") Both have a voting record of 95% ("well above average.")

So apart from Andrew and Dan, Cornwall's MPs appear to be "above average" or "well above average" lobby fodder who have yet to learn how to catch the Speaker's eye. Or maybe they just don't have much to say.