Do we need greater transparency regarding what our MPs get up to?

Let's use a fictitious case, G is an obnoxious wind bag with a very severe personality disorder (or is a planned sadist, criminality being a part of her life) she is quickly noted for her 卐 leanings and is lauded for her slaughtergirl work (which she does on a Sunday, it's a shame her neighbours don't have better police, judiciary and animal welfare ties, to quote her at her last public visit to the charity as covered by her local paper, "You mollest children, I put in the hours, I'm doing YOU a favour!") Seen as competent and praised for her complete and utter nonsense approach she is made Minister of Health and Welfare reform, citing babies as, "Useless." she starts her Glasgow initinative, taking a simple child's toy (a trolly of lettered bricks) she starts her own feral scheme to introduce competition for resources she spends on holidays, parties, clothes and cars for her horses. This kind of love of all things equestian quickly gets her prompted to Lord Chief Justice (Privy council brief) yet she sets herself the ambitious target of horse interferer with, amongst other things, a fence post. So far soo mundane, the tabloids love her, her neighbours hate her, she's penciled in for editorship of The Daily Telegraph, her network now includes the arms industry and arms manufacturers yet, defeated at the next election, she lobbies hard to ensure gun laws are reformed, "To make it easy for people within these postcodes..." (minutes to these meetings are transparently available to any newspaper (although a none aggression pact is in place) "and the public pick up the tab three times, at the least." Transparency is all the media call for, is it really adequate?