How they perform their constituency duties is a completely separate issue. I have asked for my MP's help several times in dealing with government departments and always been given it.

What I am talking about are their duties in Parliament.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Isn’t it possible that these Parliamentary duties have changed since Burke outlined his views on representatives v delegates? It was 250 years ago and at that time only about 10% of men could vote, and of course no women.

No. The basic tenets of their role remain unchanged by time. Parliamentary procedures and conventions evolve to suit the conditions of the day but the duty of every MP to represent their constituents, and use their best endeavours to decide what is in their best interests remain unaltered. That is the way our Parliament works and it's that which defines an MP's duty. It cannot change unless we change our Parliamentary system.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

I am really sorry but I don't understand your point. What do 10% of the electorate have to do with this?

No section of the electorate can simply decide to change the whole system. It would require a major national debate and then for Parliament to enact the change. I see no reason for that to happen and even less chance of it happening.

The only major change I can see arriving at some time in the foreseeable future is PR. It may start with a partially elected second chamber with perhaps half the seats there being filled on a county basis by PR. The other half by the most recently ennobled life peers, with strict controls over their appointment being put in place.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

At the time we had a fledgling party system so MPs who were notoriously corrupt (so no change there then)changed alliances more easily. What Burke said makes sense if you have no party system that is the big difference with today's MPs.

Back then people (sorry I mean the elite) voted for the local landowner because he was the important individual in that location and whatever he said goes so the tiny percentage of voters had no real choice in candidates.

Burke always had an idealised view of parliament that never matched the reality. Quite simply MPs gathered around the politician they thought controlled the purse strings and could dish out the pork. Those out of favour complained bitterly about corruption and Government incompetence simply because they weren't getting their share.

To sum up then MPs were voted by a tiny percentage of the population those votes were often bought so they arrived in Parliament on a tide of corruption and made decisions based on whether or not they were getting a bung. So "Yeah go Burke"...

Edited by Badger11 (18 Feb 2020 7.46am)

One more point

All true but the fact that the electorate is now much larger with a consequential increased expectation only means that the MPs have an even greater duty to be independent than before.

None of that changes the principal of representation. If we decide we want to send delegates to Parliament then we need to determine that via our current system. Our Parliament would need to take such a decision and set it in place. It must not happen by default. If it becomes such an overriding priority for a majority of the people then they need to send MPs to Parliament who agree with them.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.