The leader of the MP's party.
The other MPs in the MP's party.
The House of Commons.
Parliament.
The head of state.
The promises made in the party's manifesto.
The national apparatus and membership of the MP's party.
What is best for the world.
What is best for Europe.
What is best for countries allied through binding agreements.
(Such as the Commonwealth, or NATO.)
What is best for the UK.
What is best for their region. (Such as East Anglia, or Wales.)
What is best for their constituency.
Those constituents who voted for them.
Those constituents who voted for someone else.
Those constituents who are not allowed to vote.
Those constituents who are allowed but do not vote.
The local party.
The local party members who selected them.
Promises they personally made during the campaign.
The MP's conscience.
The rulings of the leaders of the MP's religion.
The needs of the MP's family (eg choice of school).
The personal ambitions of the MP.
Businesses and individuals who have supported the MP's campaign.
Since there are several candidates on this list, I would like to ask:
In what order should MPs place these demands on their loyalty?
(To work this out it may help to compare calls two at a time, and
consider a vote where they are at odds, and both interests would
be affected an equal amount. Obviously, real situations are
unlikely to affect just two, and have to be decided on a case by
case basis. However, by deciding which of two calls should weigh
more strongly when affected equally, you can roughly order them.)
I think an answer to this question would be important, both because
recent events have shown some MPs unashamedly hold values wildly
differing from public expectations, and because electoral promises
are meaningless without this context.
Yours sincerely,
Douglas Reay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Posted to cam-election, a service of Nexus. http://www.netnexus.org/