Dumb and Stupid Quotes Thread: Idiotic Source and Context are Key.

[Flying Pig]

That's probably true. But it's precisely that which brings into question how important a "personal" relationship to constituents actually is; the shared Anglo-American insistence that national representatives should be strongly tied to some narrowly specific locality seems to be a relic of the era in which elections consisted of local elites delegating one of their number to the capital, it really has very little to do with modern mass-democracy. The fact that the US can employ districts so vast and, often, so bizarrely-defined as they do and nobody really seems to notice or care just highlights how archaic that whole logic is.

Expand the House, like Antilogic says, introduce multi-member constituencies (state-wide were necessary, regional where possible), the whole system begins to make a lot more sense.

Indeed. I can't remember the statistic offhand but only something like 10% or fewer of British people can actually name, let alone recognise, their own MP.

 

[Antilogic]

Indeed. I can't remember the statistic offhand but only something like 10% or fewer of British people can actually name, let alone recognise, their own MP.

That's pretty common over here too. Senators tend to be a bit more well-known because they are on TV news more often than the House Reps, but I don't think the House of Lords fills the same role in Britain.

I'm sad to say that I had to look mine up. I knew four other representatives from Massachusetts, but none of them represented my district.

 

[Traitorfish]

That's pretty common over here too. Senators tend to be a bit more well-known because they are on TV news more often than the House Reps, but I don't think the House of Lords fills the same role in Britain.

If you asked people to name Lords, you'd probably get "Alan Sugar, John Prescott... err... Thatcher's dead, so that's her out... Is Peter Mandelson a British lord, or just the Sith kind?"

And that isn't a slight on my countrymen, either, just a reflection of the fact that the House of Lords really does not matter. Only redeeming feature the miserable institution has.

 

[The_J]

Indeed. I can't remember the statistic offhand but only something like 10% or fewer of British people can actually name, let alone recognise, their own MP.

Guess the statistics are probably worse in Germany.
Or just talk about the MPs of the European parliament .

 

[Borachio]

Indeed. I can't remember the statistic offhand but only something like 10% or fewer of British people can actually name, let alone recognise, their own MP.

According to this, the figure is 25%.

I find this very suspicious, though. People who go to the trouble to vote in a general election at all, are highly likely to know who their MP is, I think. Wouldn't you want to know the result of your voting? And whether you'd managed to pick the "winner" or not?

Additionally, most seats are safe seats, so it's not like there's a constant turnover of one's local MP.

Still, maybe I'm biased because I know who my MP is. And I don't like her politics. Though otherwise she seems a perfectly respectable kind of person. Who'll very likely be re-elected in May.

 

[Flying Pig]

If you think about it, you have a voting slip with several great big party logos on it and the candidates' names. You're much more likely to think 'I'm voting Labour' or 'the Conservatives won' than 'I'm backing John Smith', unless you're already more involved than average in politics. Hence our system's fixation on the individual (rather than the party) as the representative and the resulting alleged personal connection is outdated at best.

 

[Borachio]

Indeed. There's something in that. I'll be voting Green again this year, but I can't tell you the name of the local Green candidate.

The incumbent MP's name, though, I do know.

As I say, I think a lot depends on whether you're a resident of a safe seat or not.

 

[Traitorfish]

It probably varies by the politician in question. If your local MP is quite a prominent local or national figure you're more likely to remember them than if your they're just some seat-filling party hack.

 

[Borachio]

Absolutely; and their prominence probably correlates very well with how safe their seat is.

 

[Flying Pig]

There's two different phenomena at work - one is parties moving valuable candidates (eg. ministers or shadow ministers) to safer 'party' seats (eg. a Labour minister being selected to stand in an inner-city constituency, or a Tory one moving to an affluent rural one), and the other is figures with particular local reputation having an advantage. The second is not entirely transferable; you can't move somebody who is a familiar face in Gloucester to the middle of Powys and expect his majority to move with him, except inasfar as he's generally good at politics.

 

[Arakhor]

The second is not entirely transferable; you can't move somebody who is a familiar face in Gloucester to the middle of Powys and expect his majority to move with him, except inasfar as he's generally good at politics.

Particularly if, as I recall, said MP was of Asian descent.

 

[Antilogic]

There's two different phenomena at work - one is parties moving valuable candidates (eg. ministers or shadow ministers) to safer 'party' seats (eg. a Labour minister being selected to stand in an inner-city constituency, or a Tory one moving to an affluent rural one), and the other is figures with particular local reputation having an advantage. The second is not entirely transferable; you can't move somebody who is a familiar face in Gloucester to the middle of Powys and expect his majority to move with him, except inasfar as he's generally good at politics.

Is there a carpetbagger (or some UK-equivalent term) effect? Does anyone run on "hey, that jerk moved here 3 months ago, he shouldn't represent us!"

 

[Arakhor]

That's why I never voted LibDem in my local constituency (even before they sniffed at power and murdered their credibility) - the local candidate didn't even live here!

 

[Flying Pig]

Yes, but in the seats where a party would try that, the safe voters won't be sufficiently angry to elect the other side - the good citizens of Tunbridge Wells may harrumph in their letters to the Telegraph, but they'll never vote Labour.

Arakhor, do I remember correctly that you're a Forester? I couldn't have imagined a Liberal ever taking there while it was still mining country.

 

[Arakhor]

Flying Pig refers to this phenomenon.

 

[Traitorfish]

Yes, but in the seats where a party would try that, the safe voters won't be sufficiently angry to elect the other side - the good citizens of Tunbridge Wells may harrumph in their letters to the Telegraph, but they'll never vote Labour.

It also varies with the party. I think Labour voters are usually more forgiving, because there's a sense of class-solidarity that trumps localism- although, in practice, that's challenged by the increasing scarcity of working class Labour candidates. Conservative candidates are traditionally drawn from local elites, especially in rural seats, so there's a stronger demand that they achieve some sort of local respectability.

 

[Arakhor]

Arakhor, do I remember correctly that you're a Forester? I couldn't have imagined a Liberal ever taking there while it was still mining country.

I actually live in the Five Valleys, so, no, not the Forest of Dean, but Gloucester is my "local" city.

 

[Kyriakos]

Eh... This is super-dumb.

 

[PhroX]

I agree. Calling something that awesome a "monstrosity" is pretty stupid.

 

[Arakhor]

And there I was thinking it was one of the awesome new Greek thorikta.