You must have been thinking of that one for ages, although however jawdroppingly hilarious it might be I don’t believe it’s in any way correct: you’ve turned into a witticism something which instead rests entirely (and rather dryly, I admit) on the mandate with which a constituent MP is elected.

You’ve implicitly defined “relevant” as what you personally consider to be relevant. However, as an elected official, David Cameron is obliged to consider relevant those matters which his constituents also consider relevant.

I’m one of David Cameron’s constituents, and I consider Patrick Mercer’s office being embroiled in VIGIL, lying about that involvement, and smearing those investigating into his office’s shady dealings (to the extent that it arguably encourages through omission personal attacks on the investigators) to be very much relevant to parliamentary democracy, at the very least as much as duck houses and moats. So if David Cameron truly does not consider this relevant then I submit that he is incapable of fulfilling his mandate as my democratic representative and should resign as my MP.

[edited: John, I'm glad for your support. However, without credible references for some of what you've claimed I'm not really happy hosting it on my blog. This has been a fraught story all round and there's a limit to which I'm willing to get dragged further into it.

I'd be happy to link to any blogpost you wrote on the subject, however, and have the text of your comment still available if you want it for reference.]