Should MPs have to get to know a seat before standing there?

[backontrack]

With the news that Esther McVey is standing for election in George Osborne's old seat of Tatton, and the fact that Arron Banks was parachuted in and then out of Clacton-on-Sea, between which he stated that he knew 'absolutely nothing' about the constituency, should there be a rule preventing a member of parliament from standing for a seat without 'getting to know' it first?

And, if so, how would you draw the boundaries. Would you include a 5-year residency? 10-year residency? If you'd fulfilled that proviso but had since moved away, would you be allowed to be 'parachuted in' again?

 

[AlterEgo]

It's been going on for years and it doesn't seem to be the reason our politics is fundamentally broken.

 

[meridian2]

Hypodermic candidates are one of the few remaining causes of genuine political mirth. Seeing an Old Etonian stalking the streets of an industrial wasteland while attempting to engage youths with their hats on backwards, highlights the political process in all its absurdity.

 

[Cowley]

Hypodermic candidates are one of the few remaining causes of genuine political mirth. Seeing an Old Etonian stalking the streets of an industrial wasteland while attempting to engage youths with their hats on backwards, highlights the political process in all its absurdity.

Very good

 

[Howardh]

With the news that Esther McVey is standing for election in George Osborne's old seat of Tatton, and the fact that Arron Banks was parachuted in and then out of Clacton-on-Sea, between which he stated that he knew 'absolutely nothing' about the constituency, should there be a rule preventing a member of parliament from standing for a seat without 'getting to know' it first?

And, if so, how would you draw the boundaries. Would you include a 5-year residency? 10-year residency? If you'd fulfilled that proviso but had since moved away, would you be allowed to be 'parachuted in' again?

Personally, I'd rather the electorate knew "something about politics" before they vote

 

[Qwerty133]

Hypodermic candidates are one of the few remaining causes of genuine political mirth. Seeing an Old Etonian stalking the streets of an industrial wasteland while attempting to engage youths with their hats on backwards, highlights the political process in all its absurdity.

And that's just the Labour party...

 

[Western Lord]

The answer to this is no. As a voter you don't have to serve a five year or ten year residency before you can vote! Many politicians begin their political career by fighting no hope seats to gain experience. I see no problem in somebody standing for a seat that they had no previous connection with, although they should preferably take up residency there afterwards.

 

[northwichcat]

With the news that Esther McVey is standing for election in George Osborne's old seat of Tatton

So far in Tatton we have three candidates:
Gareth Wilson (Lib Dem) - Lives in Tatton
Nigel Hennerley (Green) - Lives in Tatton
Esther McVey (Conservative) - No connection to Tatton

The Lib Dems and Greens have just announced their candidates, while the Conservatives made their shortlist public. The list also contained Alex Williams who lives in a town in a neighbouring constituency. I think you could argue if there was no-one actually from or living in the constituency who wanted to stand for election then someone who lives just outside is better than someone who lives further away.

 

[talltim]

Why do candidates stand in seats anyway?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

A rule saying you have to know a constituency would be impossible to frame and enforce in a way that accurately captures the intention. A residency requirement would be too crude, and would miss things such as: someone might be very familiar with a constituency because they live just across the constituency boundary, or because they regularly come and stay with their parents/girlfriend/etc. who lives in the constituency, or they work there, or so on.

Besides it's perfectly possible for someone who isn't familiar with a constituency before the election to nevertheless work hard and become a good constituency MP, and it's equally possible for someone who's lived in a constituency all their life to turn out to be lazy/not particularly care.

In the end, this is probably the sort of question that's best left to voters. It's generally accepted that parachuting someone into a constituency will cost parties maybe a few hundred votes there (not enough to make a difference in Tatton, but would be in a marginal seat). It often also leads to local party members being less keen on helping out during the election, so you end up with a less effective campaign. I think that's probably enough deterrent to fielding candidates with no connection to a constituency.

 

[Kite159]

A rule saying you have to know a constituency would be impossible to frame and enforce in a way that accurately captures the intention. A residency requirement would be too crude, and would miss things such as: someone might be very familiar with a constituency because they live just across the constituency boundary, or because they regularly come and stay with their parents/girlfriend/etc. who lives in the constituency, or they work there, or so on.

Besides it's perfectly possible for someone who isn't familiar with a constituency before the election to nevertheless work hard and become a good constituency MP, and it's equally possible for someone who's lived in a constituency all their life to turn out to be lazy/not particularly care.

In the end, this is probably the sort of question that's best left to voters. It's generally accepted that parachuting someone into a constituency will cost parties maybe a few hundred votes there (not enough to make a difference in Tatton, but would be in a marginal seat). It often also leads to local party members being less keen on helping out during the election, so you end up with a less effective campaign. I think that's probably enough deterrent to fielding candidates with no connection to a constituency.

It will be interesting to see if Kit Malthouse manages to keep as much majority as he got in 2015 seeing as he doesn't seem* to do a lot for this constituency (compared to George Young).

He was someone who was dropped into a safe seat after retirement, and I'm pretty sure he still lives in London.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I think that's probably enough deterrent to fielding candidates with no connection to a constituency.

Only in marginals. If it's a safe seat, it makes no difference. Look at the likes of Shaun Woodward, parachuted into ultra-safe St Helens after he defected from the Tories.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why do candidates stand in seats anyway?

Because they are supposed to be the local representative. In our system, broken though it is, we vote for local representatives who form a Government.

FWIW, I'd go further with a rule like you can only be a local representative for an area when you have lived there (actually lived, not just owned property) for a minimum of 5 years, subject to a few exceptions regarding boundary changes specifically. Take the system back to its roots.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Besides it's perfectly possible for someone who isn't familiar with a constituency before the election to nevertheless work hard and become a good constituency MP, and it's equally possible for someone who's lived in a constituency all their life to turn out to be lazy/not particularly care.

Sort of. You can't, for example, fully appreciate social problems in an area unless you *actually* live there and experience them directly.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Why do candidates stand in seats anyway?

Because they are supposed to be the local representative. In our system, broken though it is, we vote for local representatives who form a Government.

I think there was a humorous intent behind talltim's post that you may have missed. Relevent words bolded.

 

[Ianno87]

Sort of. You can't, for example, fully appreciate social problems in an area unless you *actually* live there and experience them directly.

I suppose that's not an issue per se, providing you demonstrate a willingness to listen and understand and will to do something about it.

But most people 'new' to an area would struggle to generally not arrive without some pre-conception of what the area is like.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I suppose that's not an issue per se, providing you demonstrate a willingness to listen and understand and will to do something about it.

To some extent, but I think to *truly* appreciate it it's best if you live there. It would also mean a much bigger range of social backgrounds in Parliament - a very poor constituency would most likely have no practical choice but to elect a very poor representative, who would, because of shared experiences, be a much better one. It would go a long way to derailing the proverbial gravy train.

I see that there are downsides, but I see far, far more benefits, and it seems to me to more properly follow the ethos of how FPTP is supposed to work.

But most people 'new' to an area would struggle to generally not arrive without some pre-conception of what the area is like.

That too.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

To some extent, but I think to *truly* appreciate it it's best if you live there. It would also mean a much bigger range of social backgrounds in Parliament - a very poor constituency would most likely have no practical choice but to elect a very poor representative, who would, because of shared experiences, be a much better one. It would go a long way to derailing the proverbial gravy train.

Are you not making the mistake of assuming that constituencies are homogenous? Most constituencies contain a variety of different areas each with their own individual issues that a good MP would hopefully understand. It's perfectly possible, for example, that you could have lived all your life in the leafy suburbs at one end of a constituency and still have zero understanding of the problems faced by people in the gang-crime-ridden, high unemployment, communities a couple of miles away but still in the same constituency. Any residency test is going to completely miss that kind of problem.

And - as a completely different example of the problems of a residency test: What happens if you're the MP for a constituency, and then boundary changes come along, leaving most of the constituency unchanged, but just removing a tiny corner of the constituency, which happens to be the corner that you live in. In that situation, would you have the MP banned from standing again to represent the area that she/he has been working for possibly many years?

 

[AM9]

... And - as a completely different example of the problems of a residency test: What happens if you're the MP for a constituency, and then boundary changes come along, leaving most of the constituency unchanged, but just removing a tiny corner of the constituency, which happens to be the corner that you live in. In that situation, would you have the MP banned from standing again to represent the area that she/he has been working for possibly many years?

To be fair to Neil, in post #13 he did actually cite boundary changes as an exemption to any rule for residency.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

To be fair to Neil, in post #13 he did actually cite boundary changes as an exemption to any rule for residency.

Ah yes, he did. Sorry, I missed that.

 

[507021]

I think it's important a candidate knows the constituency they're planning to stand in, but I don't think there should be a set period of residency prior to standing for election. However, I think if a candidate stands to be an MP, then they should agree in advance to take up residence in the constituency within a set amount of time in the event they win that seat.

My local MP was "parachuted in" from the south, and he's been living in the constituency since he was elected.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Why do candidates stand in seats anyway?

They're standing in front of the seat while the voters decide which one gets to sit in it. Then after the election one of them becomes the sitting MP

 

[backontrack]

Why do candidates stand in seats anyway?

Very good

 

[dcsprior]

There are various things that may be desirable for people seeking election to bring to it - for instance:

• An understanding of the area (may not mean living there - someone who'd lived 2 miles outside a constituency for the last 45 years but travelled into it 5+ times a week for, socialising, etc may well have more of a connection to it than someone who lives in it but works, socialises, etc, elsewhere)
• Relevant real-life experience outside politics, whether in business, trade-unionism, the traditional professions, academia, etc...
• Political experience at a more junior level - e.g. being a councillor before standing to be an MP

Surely it's for the election to weigh up the importance of each of these and many other things besides, rather than choosing one of them and setting an arbitrary threshold.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Surely it's for the election to weigh up the importance of each of these and many other things besides, rather than choosing one of them and setting an arbitrary threshold.

I certainly choose on that basis, I certainly do recall an election when I preferred to vote Lib Dem but that candidate was from well outside the area so I instead voted for the Labour candidate. I consider it really very important.

 

[47802]

I certainly choose on that basis, I certainly do recall an election when I preferred to vote Lib Dem but that candidate was from well outside the area so I instead voted for the Labour candidate. I consider it really very important.

Well some people look at that way, but I look at it largely from the viewpoint of which government am I voting for hence however good my local Labour MP might be there is no way I am voting for a Labour government run by Corbyn.

 

[DarloRich]

I don't really care where someone comes from. Surely what matters is the quality of representation, life/professional experiences, personal qualities and the ability to deliver local benefits from national programmes.

What happens with a massive constituency like, say, Richmondshire. When I lived in Northallerton should I not have voted for the candidate because they came from Leyburn or Stokesley.

This is just parochialism on a grand scale