I’d agree with this, although I am in favour of proportional representation so am a bit biased here. What form that should take, I’m open to suggestions, but I’m sure we could have larger multi member constituencies which might be a good compromise. Anyone who has worked in local government will also know how infuriating it can be when residents involve their MP, even over frivolous matters.
I do work in local government as it so happens and I remember once occasion I had to carry out a piece of work regarding a service user. A very standard process, in my then role it was something I would do for a relatively large number of people every week. When we complete it, we would inform the service user by e-Mail (or post if not available) of what has happened and if there are any changes. In this case, all was well, nothing needed changing, carry on. For literally no reason at all, this person responded and copied in their MP. When this happens, management typically loses their s**t and everything has to be dropped to deal with it. A waste of everyone’s time at the authority and the MP will have better things to be doing.
I don't think there's anything wrong with the constituency link, and I actually think it's really important. That MPs come to parliament reflecting the different perspectives of different places. Even within neighbouring constituencies of the same party, there can be subtle differences of what people want, and a parliament that reflects the desires of the whole is a good thing.
But on the one hand, MPs seem overly concerned with the re-opening of Post Offices and collecting laptops for charity, and on the other hand, they all seem to be very similar in perspective about policy. They all seem to be comfortable with the high level of tax, the lack of reform to public services, the failure to address immigration. This is going to lead to Reform winning or being the opposition in many seats after this election.
The election pamphlet from my local conservative candidate only discussed local issues, other than a brief mention of illegal immigration. If you didn't know there was a general election on you would assume she was an aspiring councillor, not an MP.
I can't tell if this is a carefully considered strategy to trick voters, or them dumbly thinking this is the sort of thing they should be doing.
"Where once the constituency office was a party office, it is now a prominent and heavily branded MP’s office complete with a complement of staff. All paid for by parliament on the basis that it is essential for the MP to have such an office. And, as Tom Forth observed, the increasing centralisation of public services means that, where once it was local councillors who were the people to go to for fixing potholes or school places, now the MP is as likely a source of help. Especially with their prominent offices in the town centre."
Later;
"while MPs should listen to the public, the emphasis on what, when Blair’s government emasculated local councillors, was called ‘community leadership’ is bad for politics and results in poorly focused representatives and bad lawmaking."
Then;
"(MPs, for example, are badly paid, work too many hours and face enormous stresses)"
So, to solve the too many hours problem, re-focus upon the job description "to consider and debate matters described as 'the collective national interest'", then the solution is to sort out the local councils and re-establish the role of councillors, reversing Blair's emasculation, shirley?
Instead, you want to fanny around with the voting system?
I’d agree with this, although I am in favour of proportional representation so am a bit biased here. What form that should take, I’m open to suggestions, but I’m sure we could have larger multi member constituencies which might be a good compromise. Anyone who has worked in local government will also know how infuriating it can be when residents involve their MP, even over frivolous matters.
I do work in local government as it so happens and I remember once occasion I had to carry out a piece of work regarding a service user. A very standard process, in my then role it was something I would do for a relatively large number of people every week. When we complete it, we would inform the service user by e-Mail (or post if not available) of what has happened and if there are any changes. In this case, all was well, nothing needed changing, carry on. For literally no reason at all, this person responded and copied in their MP. When this happens, management typically loses their s**t and everything has to be dropped to deal with it. A waste of everyone’s time at the authority and the MP will have better things to be doing.
I don't think there's anything wrong with the constituency link, and I actually think it's really important. That MPs come to parliament reflecting the different perspectives of different places. Even within neighbouring constituencies of the same party, there can be subtle differences of what people want, and a parliament that reflects the desires of the whole is a good thing.
But on the one hand, MPs seem overly concerned with the re-opening of Post Offices and collecting laptops for charity, and on the other hand, they all seem to be very similar in perspective about policy. They all seem to be comfortable with the high level of tax, the lack of reform to public services, the failure to address immigration. This is going to lead to Reform winning or being the opposition in many seats after this election.
An anecdote to support your thesis...
The election pamphlet from my local conservative candidate only discussed local issues, other than a brief mention of illegal immigration. If you didn't know there was a general election on you would assume she was an aspiring councillor, not an MP.
I can't tell if this is a carefully considered strategy to trick voters, or them dumbly thinking this is the sort of thing they should be doing.
Sorry, but this seems confused.
First, you say;
"Where once the constituency office was a party office, it is now a prominent and heavily branded MP’s office complete with a complement of staff. All paid for by parliament on the basis that it is essential for the MP to have such an office. And, as Tom Forth observed, the increasing centralisation of public services means that, where once it was local councillors who were the people to go to for fixing potholes or school places, now the MP is as likely a source of help. Especially with their prominent offices in the town centre."
Later;
"while MPs should listen to the public, the emphasis on what, when Blair’s government emasculated local councillors, was called ‘community leadership’ is bad for politics and results in poorly focused representatives and bad lawmaking."
Then;
"(MPs, for example, are badly paid, work too many hours and face enormous stresses)"
So, to solve the too many hours problem, re-focus upon the job description "to consider and debate matters described as 'the collective national interest'", then the solution is to sort out the local councils and re-establish the role of councillors, reversing Blair's emasculation, shirley?
Instead, you want to fanny around with the voting system?