Connecting Parliament with the Public

Of course this is not always the case, but how can MPs always be so responsive? They have a duty to their constituents under the british political system, however if their constituency is far from London, or if they are not truly from that area, it is easy for them to acquiesce once gaining power.
Furthermore, once an MP joins certain select committees or is given greater responsiblity within Parliament then the attitudes of their constituents is of even less concern. This seems to be especially the case with members from a ruling party (although notable exceptions are such as Michael Meacher) who give the impression that the obsessive centralisation of power is the ultimate goal.
This is perhaps a reflection on the development of the Labour party, but also of the inherent contradictions within our political system. How to represent the people yet to combine it with strong leadership and cohesiveness within a party.

Rather than look at the responsiveness of Parliament, it is right to look more at the responsiveness of our MPs that make up parliament. I am pleased to say that Mike Hall (MP for Weaver Vale) has been great in acknowledging my correspondence and for promptly replying. Perhaps we should think about having a league table for MPs so that we know how they are performing after we have voted them in. Mike - you should be at the top!!

As a general point, I'm inclined to agree that constituent's opinions appear to be only relevant prior to an election. Once MPS have moved to London, they really only go with their own feelings rather than those of the people they represent. Little attention is given within an electoral term to constituents' needs - all we hear is national topics being discussed with a national emphasis. All regions of the country are different and it's time MPs represented their individual constituencies. To do this effectively, communication throughout a term of office, including written communication, is of paramount importance. Greater communication alongside greater concern for the areas MPs represent will then encourage higher voter turnout.

Yes please, let's start these. Unless you happen to know someone who has visited/written to your MP, you have no proof that (s)he is doing the job well or badly. Some work really hard on behalf of their constituents, but are so quiet about it that they are not really appreciated. I'd rather not trust the local press to give us a fair view of the work done by a specific MP. Number of visitors to surgery, number of letters written to constituents etc. would be a better guide. I'm sure we could draw up more guidelines here!

I'm another who feels my MP is only interested in my views at election time. I have had some (not much) correspondence with him and have got replies quite quickly, but pretty standard ones that don't really answer issues I raised. As for voting record, I am convinced that very few MPs are at all interested in representing the views of their constituents: they represent their own views and/or those of their party.

MPs should have their responsiveness formally measured, something FaxYourMP.com has been attempting for the past 2 years. As it happens, our current figures broadly match your experience:

Barry Gardiner (Brent North) reponded to 63% of messages sent via FaxYourMP.com within 2 weeks.

Paul Boateng (Brent South) responded to 49% of messages sent via FaxYourMP.com within 2 weeks.

Sarah Teather (Brent East) responded to 48% of messages sent via FaxYourMP.com within 2 weeks.

See http://www.faxyourmp.com/q_a.php3#responsiveness for more details.

The vast majority of organisations set formal targets for how swiftly one can expect a reply to correspondance. Why not Parliament? We made up the 'response within 2 weeks' target, based on the published targets of other UK public bodies.

How can we tell whether sufficient funding is invested in the running of MPs' offices if there is no definition of 'success' for an MP's responsiveness? No wonder some (very few) MPs get away with sloppy standards when it comes to dealing with correspondance from those they represent.

For interest, the average 'response within 2 weeks' for all MP's is currently 64%, up from 62% this time last year.

I think the two issues which you have mentioned highlight the problems which certain MPs face. If they are promoted (like Jack Straw - my MP) then it takes a great deal of effort and organisation on his part to keep in touch with the electorate. Though he does in fact hold the normal MP surgeries and has recently started a bi-annual public meeting with local officers of the council etc to try to keep on top of local problems.

Might it not be easier and a more effective use of his time (being that there are only 24 hours in a day!) for an MP such as him to be able to delegate this kind of work to people who are also empowered to make decisions for him.

I do get the impression that whilst he may well be having some effect locally, it cannot be all that much.

As to having an 'issue champion' - I think this is a very good suggestion. Combine that with my suggestion above and we could see MPs making real effective use of their time and efforts, instead of seming to continually chase their tails.

Owen Dumpleton
Washington, UK

Peter Woods wrote: But for wider issues (e.g. freedom of information), wouldn't it make sense to approach an "issue champion", who could be anyone in parliament, including MPs from other parts of the country ?

This would be one advantage with the adoption of Single Transferable Vote (STV) for parliamentary elections. Under STV, we get larger constituencies returning 4, 5 or 6 members each and electors would have at least the choice of one out of 5 or so members according to known interests, party or as follow-up to media mention.

My experience has been that MPs with specific interests will often respond to constructive and sensible issues and this I find a good thing, convention or no.