A brief history of taking the constituent seriously

Andrew Blick, Professor of Politics and Contemporary History, King’s College London

Every parliamentary constituency in the UK is a geographical territory with a single representative. The relationship with the people who live in that constituency is an important part of the role of MP, but the precise form it should take is a longstanding subject of debate and has changed over time.

MPs perform a variety of tasks and act on behalf of many different groups. In part, they work for the interests of the UK as a whole. Their code of conduct tells them they are responsible for pursuing the public interest. They are normally elected as candidates for a particular party, which will influence what they do in Parliament.

MPs might have an interest in supporting particular groups or causes. They might see their own identity as important to what they do and act upon their own personal judgement at times, even if it means defying the party whip.

Finally, they work on behalf of their constituents. This group includes everyone living within their constituency, regardless of whether they can vote or who they vote for. While it contains rules that regulate their behaviour and are designed to ensure they do not abuse their position for personal gain, the code of conduct does not prescribe exactly how MPs should go about serving their constituents. Nonetheless, there are a series of powerful expectations (and resources available to help fulfil them).

It is now assumed that MPs will have an active presence in their constituencies as well as at Westminster, communicating with the people there, helping them resolve problems, and representing their collective and individual interests, for instance by tabling questions in Parliament and corresponding with ministers.

Historical debate

Debates about these kinds of functions and how they fit within the wider constitutional role of the MP have a long history. In his famous 1774 election address to voters in Bristol, Edmund Burke sought to stress that the MP does not simply follow instructions from those who elect them but applies their own wisdom to a given subject in a parliament that should act collectively on the behalf of the entire polity.

Still, Burke recognised that the relationship with the constituency was of crucial importance. As he put it:

“…it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living… Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion… parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole… You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament.”

The history of the interaction between MPs and constituents is difficult to separate from other matters, such as debates over and changes in who was allowed to vote and to sit in Parliament.

Expansions in the franchise from 1832 onwards saw increasing numbers of men (1832, 1867, 1884, 1918) being given the vote, then some women (1918), and by 1928 all people having the right on the same terms.

An MP interested in securing re-election had a lot more voters to engage with by 1928 than they did before 1832, perhaps implying a need to work harder and in a more structured way.

The overall population per constituency (voters or otherwise) has also grown larger. Between the 1870s and the 2020s, the UK population has roughly doubled from the low 30m to the high 60m. The number of MPs, on the other hand, has remained roughly the same – in the 600s.

Parliamentary reform and payment

A key group involved in campaigning for parliamentary reform in the mid-19th century were the Chartists.

Their celebrated six-point programme, first agreed in 1838, sought to democratise society, providing ordinary people with a firm place in the political system. Their objectives included an expansion of the franchise to include all adult men at a time when only a small minority had the right to vote. Another of the six changes they sought was payment for MPs. Their motive was to make it possible for people without personal wealth to be able to serve as MPs, meaning social groups previously excluded from Parliament could become a presence within it.

In this sense, this early demand for the public resourcing of MPs was part of a radical platform intended to make Parliament a more genuinely representative institution.

Like many other aspects of the Chartist programme (excluding their call for annual general elections), payment for MPs eventually became a reality. MPs were first provided with salaries in 1911.

In as far as being an MP is today regarded as a full-time job, of which engagement with constituents is a crucial part, their being paid is key.

Constituent engagement

In parallel with the payment of MPs, there was support for their activities, which might imply the possibility of interacting with local people.

From 1911, some stationery was provided, and from 1924, MPs were allowed free travel between their constituencies and Westminster. In 1945, this was extended to cover travelling to their home, using sea travel and flying.

In 1954, the Select Committee on Members’ Expenses referred to, without advocating in favour of:

  • the possibility of provision of free phone calls to constituencies

  • affordable housing near Westminster

  • spouses’ travel

  • postage

  • secretarial staff

  • (more) stationery

  • payment during elections

  • an allowance for petrol

The final item on that list was implemented in 1961. Little other progress was made, but then in 1969 a secretarial allowance was introduced.

From 1972, MPs were permitted to employ a research assistant from this budget. Expenses for office equipment were given a formal basis in 1977.

A significant later development came in 2007 with the introduction of a communications allowance that would support “the work of communicating with the public on parliamentary business”, set initially at £10,000 a year (c.£16,000).1

Professionalisation and changing attitudes

These changes made it increasingly possible for MPs to be professionals providing a service to constituents. But why might they act upon this possibility? There is a wider political and social context.2

The expansion of the public sector during the 20th century, and particularly in the post-Second World War environment, led to more contact between people and public services, giving them more reason to raise issues with their MPs.

Society became more diverse in a variety of ways, creating a more complex set of needs to be met.

From the 1950s onwards, deference was arguably in decline. People became more willing to assert themselves with respect to authority figures, including MPs, to raise complaints and to seek redress. Initiatives such as the Parliamentary Ombudsman from the 1960s and Citizens’ Charter in the 1990s channelled and perhaps heightened such tendencies. The latter in particular encouraged people interacting with public services to regard themselves as consumers with rights.

Austerity from the 2010s created a new set of reasons for complaints about the quality and availability of services, which might prompt people to turn to their MP for help.

Party influence

Voters arguably became less attached to particular parties in the way they once had been.

An MP seeking to maintain electoral support might feel an increased need to establish a personal link with their constituents rather than relying on partisan loyalties.

Power dynamics within parties could encourage a greater focus on constituency – although rather than the whole constituency, those who were activists within the party of the given MP. Divisions within the Labour Party in the 1970s and 1980s, for example, were related to efforts to decline reselecting certain sitting MPs as parliamentary candidates.

This threat could encourage MPs to focus more closely on their constituencies. Such an emphasis might be desirable from the point of view of the party hierarchy if it helped secure electoral success.

Furthermore, if MPs are more focused on local matters, they might be less prone to making difficulties for their leadership at Westminster. However, potentially a strengthened connection to a locality might lead an MP to prioritise views being pressed upon them in their constituency, perhaps giving them a reason to rebel against the whip.

Technology, the media and engagement

Technology and methods of communication have always been crucial to the way in which MPs have interacted with their constituents.

Developments in transport such as trains, cars and planes made it more plausible for MPs to travel back and forth between constituency and Westminster regularly and swiftly (especially if given financial support to do so).

Changes in media have had an impact on the way in which Parliament interacts with the outside world. From the 17th century onwards in particular, the printing press facilitated greater public awareness of what was taking place inside the legislature, including the activities of particular members. Individual constituents were therefore able to find out more about their particular representatives and potentially use printing to support campaigns intended to pressurise parliamentarians. Local newspapers (which have more recently experienced serious decline) became an important means by which MPs could communicate with their constituents.

Radio and then television created new ways in which parliamentary business could be covered and broadcast. But other technologies were more important to two-way communications between individual MPs and their constituents.

Telephones were a way of contacting MPs, as were fax machines. Then with the rise of the internet, especially from the 1990s, the means of conducting the relationship between MP and constituency transformed.3

Technology such as websites, email and social media applications including Twitter/X and YouTube created various opportunities for MPs to reach out to their constituents, and for their constituents to access them.

The mySociety project was linked to initiatives including TheyWorkForYou, which provides details of parliamentary activities including the voting records of individual MPs.

In the 21st century, the internet in its various manifestations has become the predominant mode of communication between constituents and MPs.

Between 1997 and 2000, the percentage of the population with internet access rose from two to 33. Already by 2004, research suggested that 10% of people had contacted their MP in the past two to three years, of whom 10% had done so by email.

In 2006, 57% of households had internet access. By 2019 the figure was 93%, and by 2020, 96%.4

Constituent focus

Against this general background, a substantial tilt among MPs towards constituents took place from the post-Second World War period onwards.

In a 2005 article, Oonagh Gay brought together a range of evidence pointing to this trend. During 1964, the House of Commons received 10,000 letters per week. By 1997, the figure had quadrupled to 40,000.

Constituency surgeries became the norm – already by the end of the 1960s, 90% of MPs were holding them.

Between 1971 and 1982, the number of hours per week that MPs spent on constituency business increased from 11 to 16.

Parties at constituency level took an increasing interest in whether prospective candidates intended to live locally. By 1987, for the first time, more than half of MPs confirmed they did.

A survey of new MPs conducted following the 1997 General Election found that 86% regarded their most important function as being representing their constituency well, while only 13% thought that holding the government to account was more important.5

Taking constituents seriously was now, for most MPs, the central part of the role – a position that seems firmly entrenched.

Endnotes

  1. For this overview, see: Richard Kelly, Members’ pay and allowances – a brief history (House of Commons Library, London, 2009).

  2. For example, see: Lawrence McKay (2020) “Does constituency focus improve attitudes to MPs? A test for the UK”, The Journal of Legislative Studies, 26:1, 1-26.

  3. See: Andrew Blick, Electrified Democracy: the Internet and the United Kingdom Parliament in history (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2021).

  4. Office for National Statistics figures available at: Internet access – households and individuals, Great Britain: 2020, last accessed 26 August 2024.

  5. Oonagh Gay, “MPs go back to their constituencies”, Political Quarterly, 2005.