Voters did not just back a residency rule; they wanted a tougher one than the question asked. Yes won overwhelmingly, and its most-respected case went further than living there: “Had to have lived there at least 5 years”.
Other Yes voters echoed the five-year idea and aimed it at parachuting. One wanted it banned outright; another asked “How could an MP truly speak for a community it has no connection with”. One voter described an MP who lived in Chelsea and had “knocked on the door once in 15yrs”, while a more bitter voice pointed to travel claims on expenses.
The most-respected No case was practical, not hostile to local roots: a councillor who lives elsewhere was “the best one we've ever had”. Others stressed boundary changes that can leave a family home just outside a seat, with one asking whether an MP should sell up “Perhaps twice?” A softer No strand offered minimum days in the constituency and regular surgeries instead of a home address.
No voter after No voter returned to the electorate: “The voters choose and it's their choice”. Yes voters, for their part, never addressed the boundary-change problem, and the No side never answered the complaint about absent MPs beyond saying voters can punish them.
The debate ended where it began: Yes voters wanted MPs to live with the people they represent, while No voters wanted the people to decide.
51 Opinions
Not only live there Had to have lived there at least 5 years
I’d go beyond that and say that everyone who stands as an MP should have to show some sort of connection to the constituency they stand in. Either they live there (or have lived there), grew up there, worked there… something that connects them to the place.
This could benefit democracy by ensuring MPs truly come from all walks of life.
As long as they know the area and possibly have links in the area and work for it that should be fine. Nothing about living in the area makes you a better MP inherently. My local councillour does not live in the area and is the best one we've ever had andhas delivered the most change. He works hard and listens and thats what matters.
Because they have to hold their surgeries in their constituency & presumably - being MPs who know everything they're entitled to - they get to claim travel costs if they live outside said constituency. Why? God knows they cost enough anyway what with claiming "lost" iPhones on expenses or a new toaster. They live like kings & the rest of us pay for it. The least they can do is live where their constituents live - at least then they'd know what problems there are in the area
How could an MP truly speak for a community it has no connection with. They would be just words. A person needs to live and experience a community to advocate for it effectively.
Yes. Parachuting in candidates should be banned. They should have lived in the constituency for at least 5 years.
Personally I’d like every MP to live in an HMO in their constituency .
My MP lived in Chelsea! My area is the backend of London and she's hardly ever here. She's knocked on the door once in 15yrs! She's never held a surgery in my area but does for the other town. Probably because she has more in common with that town & they all vote for her. This is why the MP needs to be local so they actually do what we want... Not what they want. She's is pro eu, pro terrorist settlement of palestine & gaza, pro islam & pro illegals. She's Labour of course.
They should at least live in the same area. But not necessarily inside the actual constituency. Case in point - my former MP (many years ago) lived in the constituency. But then the boundaries were changed, and his house ended up outside it. It would be pointless to insist that he moved, too. He was just as accessible as he was before. He spent as much time at local events as he did before. The lines on the map didn't change that.