As the lugubrious examination of UK MPs and their expenses drags on, the way new Parliamentary candidates are chosen attracts keen interest.

The Bracknell constituency has been selecting the Conservative candidate to run for Parliament next time round, using an Open Primary format.

Uber-blogger Iain Dale was one of the seven people who made it through the selection process to this stage. In the end he came third, behind Rory Stewart (fiercely accused by Craig Murray of being an ex-MI6 crusading neo-Con, no doubt the reason he did so badly) and the winning candidate, local doctor Phillip Lee.

Iain writes generously about the whole process here.

He links to Bracknell Blog which gives a full and fascinating account of why the different candidates appealed or not. He describes Phillip Lee’s leaflet:

The front was very clear with 3 points all starting with local (local doctor, local man, local man loyal to his constituents). In his speech too I hear Local, Local, Local.

This and what was evidently a solid if not polished performance on the day won the event for Dr Lee.

What do people want from an MP? No clear answer, as different people will focus on different aspects of what the job involves (and what they think it involves and should involve). This ‘open primary’ process no doubt has its flaws, but it does compel candidates to put themselves forward in public in a way not done before. As Iain notes, the questions ranged wide:

We covered a huge range of issues including nuclear power, working with the local councils, Europe, Heathrow, how we would split our time between Westminster and the constituency, Trident, the euro, our personal priorities and the NHS…

Basically, there are two sorts of MP. …

Those who arrive in Westminster to champion local interests with not necessarily much knowledge of the way Big Government in the UK and Brussels work.

And those who arrive in Westminster with a pretty good idea of how Big Government works, but less of a feel for the purely local side of things in the area they represent.

I’d be in the latter camp.

And plausible/credible/effective – or not – for that reason?