'Churn' for all of you in business means staff turnover. Common sense suggests that extremes of churn are not good - one no more wants a wholly ossified, but highly happy workforce than a young, new but dissatisfied one. So just how much churn is good for Parliament? The Chartists for example wanted one-year terms for MPs with members standing only once, in an attempt to make the Commons a representative assembly rather than a private members club.
Peter Oborne is delighted that 9 out of the 147 Tory intake of 2010 are quitting after 5 years, but says it should be more. And so it should - but not, perhaps, all 147. For there are those so valuable and useful to Parliament, fishes in water, orators and selfless persons, those loving their nation over their purse, that to rob Parliament of their contribution by limiting them to a single term would do us no justice. 100% churn is not healthy, but neither is the death, illness or incapacity grounds of most Parliamentary vacancies.
I'd suggest therefore that any reform that limits MPs' terms of office must allow for a number of MPs to return for a second or subsequent term - perhaps as many as a quarter of them. And those permitted to stand again should be selected by fellow MPs, by secret ballot, towards the end of each Parliament. The Speaker should not be immune from the process.
Such a scheme would rid Parliament of the asinine idea that politics is a profession, give far more activists a crack at a term in the House and ensure that MPs are people with jobs who are taking five years out for public service rather than thieves, liggers and deadbeats.