Academia.eduAcademia.edu

The House Is Not a Home: MP's and Their Constituencies

Abstract

How might the British parliamentary system thwart the pursuit of personalized constituency strategies? Perhaps M.P.'s do not think that constituency activities make much difference. Donald Stokes (1975), after decomposing the variance of the party votes in Great Britain and the U. S., argues that the local component is.less important in Great Britain than the national one and smaller in magnitude than the local component in America. But then again, Stokes does find a measurable local component, so perhaps the explanation is that M.P.'s are not sufficiently strategic to take advantage of it. An example of this view is P.G. Richards' comment about M.P.'s and constituency work: "There is political benefit to be gained from 'being a good constituency man', but it is quite wrong to suggest that members bestir themselves to deal with problems of electors out of a shrewd calculation of advantage ." (1964, p. 169) M.P.'s it seems, are above scrounging for votes. Similarly, Rose and Kavanagh (1972, p. 27) inform us that "The lack of consistent and compulsive concern with winning elections also implies that it is unrealistic to expect elected officials to make policy decisions in accord with the changing whims of voters, or changing figures in opinion polls." So, perhaps the British system works differently from the American because its members are motivated by nobler goals than electoral ones. Perhaps. A second reason M.P.'s might not actively pursue personal constituency strategies is that such activities are precluded by the resource constraints members face. Without the staff, research facilities, and the independent power base of committees, M.P.'s