Recall of MPs

I voted with other MPs today in support of Zac Goldsmith’s Bill for the recall of MPs. We won the vote, but the three main front benches do not agree with the measure, so it is unlikely to become a law.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

25 Comments

  1. margaret brandreth-j
    Posted December 4, 2013 at 6:50 pm | Permalink

    There must be oodles of shenanigans in the 3 front benches. They should be embarrassed, however to politicians some high profile, good or bad, seems to be better than none. Perhaps they too understand that deliberate attacks on personal credibility would escalate.

  2. Nikc
    Posted December 4, 2013 at 6:56 pm | Permalink

    That’ll be because those that lie in order get elected would be in the firing line.

    e.g Tuition fees.

    Publishing the debt once people realise your plans. e.g. Welfare Cap. Oh, didn’t we tell your pension is welfare? We only cut it because you asked us to axe it.

  3. Antisthenes
    Posted December 4, 2013 at 7:02 pm | Permalink

    “so it is unlikely to become a law”

    Public servants not wanting the public to be able to censure them for wrong doing or give the public a greater say in government and politicians decision making. Par for the course I should say. Those MPs against should be wary the voters may not take it kindly to be excluded from being allowed greater say in the democratic process after being told they would be.

  4. Hope
    Posted December 4, 2013 at 7:17 pm | Permalink

    How can the Lib dumbs and Tory party dislike it, they suggested it and said it would become law introduced by early legislation. It should be in place now not after four years in office.

    It is reported DECC has paid 10 percent more than the industry asked for solar power. So who in DECC is going to be sacked in addition to Davey for this disgraceful conduct when people are likely to die from the cold this winter? Clearly Clegg and Cameron hold ultimate responsibility, but like right to recall they fail any qualities that could make them be called leaders.

  5. lifelogic
    Posted December 4, 2013 at 7:20 pm | Permalink

    Well the three front benches would not want anything that gave voters any real power would they just the current fake veneer?

    They might deselect Osborne for his IHT ratting, Cameron for his Cast Iron ratting, or Clegg for his University tuition fees ratting. No that would never do it might start to resemble a real democracy or something.

    • zorro
      Posted December 5, 2013 at 4:08 pm | Permalink

      Indeed, well done John for voting in the right way. This is the only real redress voters have to hold MPs to account during their five year tenure. It may have influenced selection procedures too….. Too much for Cast Elastic I fear…..

      zorro

  6. Brian Tomkinson
    Posted December 4, 2013 at 7:57 pm | Permalink

    JR: ” the three main front benches do not agree with the measure, so it is unlikely to become a law.”
    No change there then; the triplets rule, ok!

  7. Glenn Vaughan
    Posted December 4, 2013 at 11:54 pm | Permalink

    John – Does that mean that the will of parliament as expressed by a vote has been disregarded because the front benches disagree with the proposed Bill?

    Reply We won the vote on a minority, so we cannot win a vote to get the time needed to consider the Bill. The front benches abstained.

    • Chris
      Posted December 5, 2013 at 10:29 am | Permalink

      Another non deliverable pledge by the Conservatives. Is it any wonder that the electorate rarely believes a word a politician utters. The truth is apparently only what is expedient at the time – I blame T Blair for apparently being responsible for establishing this as accepted Parliamentary behaviour, but instead of rejecting this dishonesty when he was gone, subsequent politicians seem to have adopted this with relish. Being in the Westminster village, MPs seem to be particularly isolated from the anger that is out there amongst the electorate, and just assume that because they feel they can demonstrate that Osborne has turned the country round they can ignore the issue of trust, and that election victory is possible/likely. The debt is massive and rising, so I do not call that a success. The electorate is not stupid, and I fear they will punish the Conservatives in 2014 and 2015. However, those at CCHQ and many Conservative MPs still do not understand/appreciate the starkness of the message from the electorate, as indicated by the polls. In one of the Cons top ten target seats in the north (Great Grimsby) their share of the vote slumped from 31% to 20%, in third place behind UKIP, which had 22% share of the vote. A similar warning is given in the poll for Dudley North, where the Cons share has slumped from 37% to 25%, with UKIP a close third on 23%. The Labour lead in both places is highly significant, having an 18 point lead over UKIP at Great Grimsby, and a 20 point lead in Dudley North over the Conservatives.

      See http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/dec/03/tories-behind-labour-level-with-ukip-key-marginals
      “Tories behind Labour and level with UKIP in key target seats
      Polls show Labour with 18-point lead over UKIP in Great Grimsby and 20-point lead over Conservatives in Dudley North..”

      Reply Those polls do indeed show that Labour wins if Eurosceptics split their votes between Conservatives and UKIP. Surely there is no surprise there.

      • hope
        Posted December 6, 2013 at 11:27 am | Permalink

        We need to stop people voting for Cameron then it is our only hope.

  8. Tad Davison
    Posted December 5, 2013 at 1:08 am | Permalink

    And all the time, I thought it was a definite commitment.

    Ah well, conned again, and silly me, I fell for it.

    Tad Davison

    Cambridge

    • alan jutson
      Posted December 5, 2013 at 9:38 am | Permalink

      Tad

      Yes, say one thing do another.

      Do as I say, not do as I do.

      Many other well known phrases come to mind.

      Politicians then wonder why people get turned off by politics.

      We had exactly the same at an extraordinary Council meeting last Night over Wokingham Town Redevelopment.

      The Councillors told us the Town was dying and would die if there was no regeneration, and new development using open public space near to the centre of the Town

      Two mins later we are told we have the lowest vacancy of empty shops in the Country at only 3% and that many top brand names want premises in Wokingham.
      The car parks are constantly full and traffic is reduced to a crawl at rush hour.

      Then we are told we need to expand the Town because of the new development of housing which will increase the area population by 10-40,000, but it was the same councillors who voted for such development of housing in the first place.

      Then we are again reminded that the Town and area is dying, but Wokingham is supposed to be one of the top four places to live in the Country according to independent reports.

      Then we are Told the Town centre needs redeveloping because the growing local population shop in Reading and Bracknell and only spend a small percentage of their money in Wokingham.
      How do they know that, I have lived in the area for 35 years no one knows how, or where I spend my money, other than my wife.

      So many other contradictions its untrue.

      It never used to be like this I am sure.

      • hope
        Posted December 6, 2013 at 11:32 am | Permalink

        It appears to be the same everywhere. The grant is cut forcing local authorities to build to gain NHB (papers call it the Boles bung). Instead of the money going on infrastructure needed for the builds it makes up for the shortfall in council spending. So we get the extra housing for an artificial increase in population through immigration without the infrastructure- Cameron and Osborne need to be removed ASAP before they completely wreck our country side and country.

  9. Paul Margetts
    Posted December 5, 2013 at 8:23 am | Permalink

    “the three main front benches do not agree with the measure, so it is unlikely to become a law”

    So the government condones self-serving, troughing, incompetents.

    And yet Cameron wants us to believe that he is seeking greater democratic accountability from Brussels. When are real conservatives going to recognise the duplicity of this leader?

    • Tad Davison
      Posted December 5, 2013 at 10:18 am | Permalink

      Good point Paul! There’s something of a sham about this.

      Tad

    • zorro
      Posted December 5, 2013 at 4:09 pm | Permalink

      I haven’t met anyone who actually believes that he will fulfill his pledge…..

      zorro

  10. Acorn
    Posted December 5, 2013 at 9:06 am | Permalink

    Ah yes, that will be yet another example of “elective dictatorship”, technically called executive dominance; found in old fashioned European parliamentary semi-democracies. Defined by Lord Chancellor Hailsham 1976 me thinks.

  11. oldtimer
    Posted December 5, 2013 at 9:31 am | Permalink

    The ruling political class (the front benchers) know they have everything to lose by supporting this much needed measure. Their record of poor and bad decision making is appalling. They bear a heavy burden of responsibility for the decline of the UK. And the chuckouts (past front benchers) who have migrated to the House of Lords can be relied upon to keep it that way.

  12. Mark
    Posted December 5, 2013 at 9:52 am | Permalink

    Evidently the front benches feel more at risk of recall than the backbenches do. That rather suggests they need the threat hanging over them.

  13. ian wragg
    Posted December 5, 2013 at 10:24 am | Permalink

    And you wonder why people are leaving for UKIP in droves. t the next GE people will be fully aware that all that was promised was lies. Immigration not reduced. Deficit less than Darlings 50% plan. IHT threshold scrapped etc etc.
    I just hope this is the last hurrah for the Bilderberger ruling class that is nothing but a self serving farce.

  14. Denis Cooper
    Posted December 5, 2013 at 11:00 am | Permalink

    I find that this was the First Reading of a Private Member’s Bill under the Ten Minute Rule:

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm131204/debtext/131204-0002.htm#13120494000002

    and as Zac Goldsmith was only asking for leave to introduce his Bill isn’t it a bit unusual for that question to go to a formal division?

    The text of his Bill is not yet available on Parliament’s website but he refers to a similar Bill previously introduced by Douglas Carswell; but while the latter’s proposal correctly excludes other MPs from interfering in a matter which should be entirely between the impugned MP and his constituents, it has what I see as an unnecessary step:

    http://www.talkcarswell.com/home/what-recall-is-8211-and-what-recall-is-not/2671

    “Step One: a certain percentage of constituents (some say 10 percent, others 20) trigger a recall ballot by signing a petition demanding one.

    Step Two: the ballot they demanded takes place, asking each local voter a simple question: “Should local MP, Joe Bloggs, be recalled? Yes / No”. If over half vote “yes”, Joe is out of office and an immediate by-election is held.”

    As I commented at the time:

    “It seems pointless to have

    a) a petition demanding a ballot on whether there should be a by-election and then

    b) a ballot on whether there should be a by-election potentially followed by

    c) a by-election.

    If the MP had resolved to fight to keep his seat, then obviously he would campaign to that end during step b), when he might as well go straight through to defending himself and campaigning for re-election in step c), a by-election.

    What’s more, I think that this unnecessarily multi-staged process would actually deter people from signing the petition, once they realised that there would be the inconvenience, and the expense to the taxpayer, of having two constituency-wide ballots instead of just one.

    There is of course another factor, the attitude adopted by his local party members; they might at some point tell him that if there was a by-election he would not be re-selected as their party’s candidate, so he might as well stop fighting and resign now.”

  15. Bob
    Posted December 5, 2013 at 2:24 pm | Permalink

    Recall would mean they would have to take their election pledges seriously.
    No wonder they don’t like it.

  16. Atlas
    Posted December 5, 2013 at 3:53 pm | Permalink

    Glad you voted for the Bill John. The fact that the 3 front benches did not support it speaks volumes about their concern for integrity.

    • sm
      Posted December 9, 2013 at 11:45 pm | Permalink

      Never mind their integrity, more pointedly ,it would seriously erode the leverage they apply on MP’s whichever of the LibLabCon are in.

  17. Chris
    Posted December 5, 2013 at 4:46 pm | Permalink

    My post from earlier today seems to have disappeared. Puzzled.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

  • About John Redwood

    John Redwood has been the Member of Parliament for Wokingham since 1987. First attending Kent College, Canterbury, he graduated from Magdalen College, and has a DPhil from All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has been a director of NM Rothschild merchant bank and chairman of a quoted industrial PLC.
  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page