The last bell may be tolling for parliamentary candidates without a connection to the constituency they represent. Just as unacceptable is the choice of some MPs to reject localism by living a hundred miles or more away from their constituencies.
When the expenses row shined a spotlight on some of the ancient practises of MPs, one thing it brought home was the ludicrousness of a MP having a constituency home nowhere near their constituents.
As the recent by-election in Norwich North, and the open primary selection of a Conservative candidate in Totnes show, people increasingly expect to have someone represent them who knows their area.
Political parties of all persuasions may find it increasingly difficult to parachute in a clever, young in-favour candidate, who has never been near the constituency before, just because they fancy this person as a future mover and shaker. We, the public, are smart to this now, and we just don't like it.
The public expect more. They want someone who has lived there -- at some point -- before they are elected, not because of being elected.
Contrastingly, however, I would argue once elected MPs need to be wary of just becoming an souped-up version of a local councillor.
Satisfying though it may be to help solve local problems, MPs need to have a role in Westminster in crafting and testing legislation. Increasingly influential select committees have a strong place in this process, but far too often they are badly attended by MPs who have agreed to take a place on them.
With select committee reports having a more powerful voice in agenda setting (surely there have been at least five committee reports on the Today programme this week), and increased expectations on the committee to do detailed scrutiny of the work of the department they observe, MPs should embrace the opportunity of a seat on a select committee to help get the legislation we need and deserve.