You're a capable MP who was elected in the 2001 intake. You've been loyal to Brown throughout Blair's reign, having dutifully answered the phone calls from his office and attended the meetings he arranged. You even backed down over the top up fees vote at his behest.

Now you read that Brown is going to appoint ministers that don't even make the pretence of being members of the Labour Party. He even approached members of the Liberal Democrats, the party that posts nasty leaflets around your constituency claiming credit for the hard work you've put it. 

One year later....

You walk into a meeting with the new minister for children, an extremely bright expert in the field. The meeting was productive, yet rather formal. At the end you attempt some small talk about the next election, party business and the events of party conference, but you're met with a blank stare. She doesn't know, and perhaps doesn't care, what you're talking about.

Later that evening you speak to a few other MPs, and they have experienced the same thing. Capable ministers, but they might as well have been talking to a permanent secretary. You and your colleagues agree that it wasn't this way when the minsters were MPs, at least you got on with them on a personal level.

So, you start to behave more independently than before, rebelling on some votes, questioning ministers and asking more difficult questions than you would normally.

If you were that MP, you would be in a position where you would be starting to question your unswerving loyalty to Brown. Your hope of becoming a junior minister is diminished and you don't share any particular bond with ministers. In short, the patronage and the collegiate atmosphere has almost gone. Why should you support Brown unswervingly when the incentives are less to do so? Also, let's not forget you've been spurned at the outset by being looked over for someone who hasn't put the hard work in that you have. You're angry.

Back to reality....

To consider the question of MPs relying on patronage, I would admit that there are other reasons why MPs are loyal, but patronage is clearly important to some MPs. Look at the increasing ranks of ex ministers and how it correlates to the amount of rebellions in the later period of Blair's premiership.

As for the collegiate atmosphere of parliament, I have personally witnessed the attitude in the Westminster village towards outsiders within the Labour tribe. Certainly, people in the tribe, having worked with the same circles, sharing many of the same values and having experienced the same highs and lows tend to stick together. Outsiders would certainly be more likely to be questioned, and less likely to be given the benefit of the doubt.

If Brown keeps the policy of promoting outsiders in the long term, it will lead to a more independent Parliament with more independent Labour MPs in the near future. Also, let's not forget that there will be a cadre of bitter ex Blairites on the back benches, there will be plenty of opportunity for sedition.

Maybe we're moving to a real separation between legislature and executive.

Just something to think about....