Should candidates live local to the constituency that want to represent?

IMO, yes. So they are visible to those whom they are meant to represent and “serve”, so they can actually experience and see what’s happens not just rely on hearsay and media reports, so they are kept aware of any issues as and when they happen.

Yes, they should.

We've just lost a very proactive local Conservative in favour of a young Labour man who lives and works as a parliamentary intern. His parents don't live in the ward!

Yes, I think so.
Each area has it's own issues, so how it impacts someone from elsewhere, I don't know.

Yes, without doubt. Fully understand if you stand and loose stay at your current address but if it's your new constituency move there, and rent a place for Mon - Fri.
Local Councillors have to live in their patch so why not MP's?

Yes, I think that sounds sensible, paddyanne. You sometimes wonder whether MPs (particularly cabinet ministers) have even visited their constituencies before they take over. I wonder how often Rishi Sunak visits Richmond, or Tony Blair Sedgefield? That can't be good for the locals, and having a rule to prevent it would stop parties from finding a safe seat for people who have made a mess of representing people in their own area but need to be kept on the books so they can stay in the cabinet.

I've always thought that. To understand their constituents local issues, they really need to imbue themselves in their area. I think it should be incumbent upon MPs to do that if they want to fully represent their public, otherwise they are to all intents and purposes a visitor when they merely flit in out for surgeries and that kind of smacks of not being committed to their public. More of a career politician and we need less of that ilk. Ed Miliband, would be one that springs to mind, but he won't be the only one. I believe he lives in an affluent area of London when his constituency is in Doncaster and his constituents are made up from an entirely different demographic.

Yes, I definitely think they should. If they are going to represent the area and constituents properly, then they should live locally.

Ideally, but not exclusively.

If someone with genuine talent and commitment but not "born and bred" has the ability to really engage locally then they should move there and take it from there.

Being from the area doesn't automatically make them good constituency MP's

Our former (Tory) MP lived locally, and was in fact a very good constituency MP - he frequently held informal meetings in e.g. local pubs, where constituents could raise any issues.

Yes, they should, and it would help to stop the use of safe seats for those to be favoured for cabinet or senior positions. While we are discussing this subject, I also fail to see how MPs (party not relevant) who live in/represent a constituency with a large proportion of the electorate commuting into London, can somehow qualify for taxpayer funded accommodation. Like everyone else, on the occasions when they are working very late, they can book a hotel room.

It's surely far better if they do, isn't it. A local person who knows local issues. Although I do agree with what Wyllow3 says.

Yes definitely, our MP lives locally and I often see him around town shopping , or having lunch in a coffee shop. He isn't originally from this area, but him and his wife seem to have settled into the community. Our local councillors and Sennedd member are also local. I would not vote for someone who doesn't live locally . Although it didn't seem to be a thing years ago.

Yes they should have a home in the constituency unless there are very good reasons why not. I think most MPs do that, if they can’t for a salary of £90k plus expenses, you have to ask why not, any other employer would.

I am not a fan of my MP but he does live locally as they all should.

I think in this instance it's been done as a distraction to give the SNP something else to moan about. She's no chance of winning.

It does depend - no, I don’t think they need to be a native of the place they represent, that would be impossible unless you appointed any numpty who just happened to live in the constituency and put their name forward as the only local candidate, but I do think if they are elected that they should move to the constituency.

This is one of my biggest dilemmas with PR, because if that happens candidates probably won’t live locally to the area they represent.

I think they often do have homes in the constituency, but they are investments rather than residences. There should be a minimum number of nights that have to be spent there. I also think that PMQs and other debates should be held peripatetically so that MPs from everywhere can easily get there, and it's not just the Londoners (MPs and the public) who can access everything. The HoC (and Lords) should stay where it is - ie should be the government HQ - but its business should take place across the country, with all constituencies represented.

Members of Parliament are public servants (and not the masters of the universe which they appear to consider themselves) so its time we got back to that understanding. Being obliged to live in the constituency and/or spend a minimum amount of time there would go a long way towards re-establishing the lost trust which many citizens now feel towards the current crop of politicos.

I wonder how often Rishi Sunak visits Richmond,

Sorry, Doodledog, but Sunak has a very nice place in Richmondshire and is known to go out and about locally. In fact my DD swears we saw him at a local Horse Trials in the autumn. I'm not so sure but it was certainly someone who looked very like him..

(Doesn't make me like him any better, though)

Tony Blair had a house in Sedgefield. I think he was there quite often.

My MP lives locally, as did my MP where I lived before - both very visible and available (and Conservative ).

I don’t think this has anything at all to do with which party MPs represent, it’s the luck of the draw. The selection process doesn’t require them to live in the constituency they want to represent.
It’s up to them if they choose to live there afterwards. The official line is ‘MPs do not have to live in their constituency. In fact, there is no residency qualification at all - an MP could even live outside the UK. There are, however, nationality and age qualifications and a number of other disqualifications for MPs.’

My Labour MP in my old constituency lived not far from us, just opposite the park. He certainly had a good handle on what was going on locally as does his daughter who is now MP for the adjoining constituency.

My current, also Labour, MP lives locally too. He will drop in to local events - such as a sale in a church hall - and go around the stalls chatting to people. No fanfare or fuss, just a supportive, interested presence.

I feel I have been very lucky with my representatives so far! Where a candidate lives is certainly something I factor in when considering who to vote for.

I would say "yes" they should .

I don't think my MP even knows where her constituency is. She turns up occasionally for a photo op when somebody else has campaigned for something the area needs. She even lied at a hustings before she was originally elected and promised to move from her south London home to somewhere local. She's far too busy churning out rubbish about gender neutral toilets and a pupil allegedly identifying as a cat to bother about anything which concerns her constituents - and being mentored by Michael Gove.

She was on the Police and Crime Committee of the Greater London Assembly - she lied about police numbers. In fact, she seems to have a flexible interpretation of truth as a concept.

She knows so little about her constituency that she thought we're all in favour of fox hunting (well, it is rural and she must have read somewhere that rural people support fox hunting) and declared her support for a repeal of the ban - until she discovered that even the local Conservatives want to keep the ban and had to backtrack post haste.