From today’s Guardian:
A US-style “recall” system should be introduced in Britain to force MPs who break House of Commons rules to face their electorate in an emergency byelection, the Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg, declared yesterday.
In an eye-catching attempt to rejuvenate the British political system, which he warns is on a “life support system”, Clegg said voters should be allowed to collect petitions in their constituency if an MP is expelled or suspended from the Commons.
Derek Conway, the former Conservative MP who was suspended after failing to produce evidence that his son had worked for him as a researcher, could be unseated by the proposal, which is modelled on a US system. Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected governor of California after his supporters forced a recall election which led to the ousting of Gray Davis.
Clegg told the Guardian yesterday that once an MP had been formally suspended and been through due process in the Commons, the constituency was left with a discredited representative.
“It is right for your constituents who then organise themselves in sufficiently large numbers to have a right to automatic recall and if that recall is successful then there is a byelection.” …
Clegg said Westminster should expect to see more protests from him – last week he staged a walkout from the Commons after he was denied his “in or out” vote.
“The kind of anger, noise, direct protest that you have seen from us recently – whether it is my stance on saying that I would prefer to go to court than give my data to a compulsory government ID card database or Vince Cable’s protest against the visit of the Saudi king, or our walkout of the Commons last week – far from seeing less of that, I think you will see more.”
I suspect Duncan Borrowman might quite like this policy…
Share:
29 Comments
This was suggested by the Conservatives last week:
http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2008/02/2005-tory-intake-begins-to-impose.html
Wheeeeeeeeeeeeee!
As a campaigner, direct action is something I LIKE – more of it please!
Ed Davey broke Parliamentary rules last week, didn’t he? SHoudl he face a by-election?
A little more thought on such proposals might be wise…
Not only that, but for Nick Clegg to propose a recall system for discredited politicians on the very day of the Euro-debacle … ?
He badly needs to get his pronouncements looked over by someone who doesn’t totally lack a sense of irony.
Chris Phillips
Wit and wisdom – read the post again – being asked to leave the Chamber is not the same as being suspended from the House for the abuse of public money.
But I agree with cgp about the irony of this. But knowing who was likely to have checked it I know she would have appreciated the irony too…
Well, I don’t want to get involved in a spat over this but I thought Ed Davey had been suspended and the post above does not specify that this needs to be over money.
Once again, the key issue is not who is right between us but how voters will see it: probably in the same simplistic way I tend to, which is why it may not be the best idea or the best time to suggest it.
So should breaking a manifesto promise be sufficient grounds for recalling an MP?
Yes. If it happens, do call us, won’t you.
So if yesterdays vote wasn’t in breach of a manifesto promise, should voting against the leader and a three line whip for no apparent reason be sufficient grounds for a recall?
Some silly petty political points here on an important issue. Derek Conway got away with paying money that his son shoudln’t have received in bonuses. He had a short suspension and the Tories withdrew the whip. But absolutely nothing has been done to answer to his constituents or the taxpayer at large. I have also learnt that visits to parliament by groups of constituents have been cancelled as Mr Conway is unable to blag any tickets of colleagues (I believe MPs sort of swap and pool tickets so they can bring big groups in).
I’m glad you think that a blatant breach of a manifesto promise is a ‘silly political point’, but I think you’ll find a lot of people disagree.
I popped over here because Conservative Home has a link to this story (and I’m not trolling or pretending to be a Lib Dem activist). If you ever want to achieve the levels of vibrant debate regularly seen on ConHom, you need to be a little more willing to hear arguments you might not like.
Doesn’t sound like anyone’s shouting you down, just saying you’re wrong. We haven’t reneged on any manifesto commitments and our party remains united. Thats more than could be said of the Tories on Europe since at least 1985.
Dave’s like a sticking plaster over the gaping Tory European wound. When he goes the blood and guts will spill out once more. His time of departure? Sometime later this year when the wily Gordon gets back the initiative, the polls start slipping and the Tories panic.
If I were a Tory I really would keep quiet about Europe. Bad subject for you.
Wit and Wisdon,
You certainly earn the wit part of your title. United? Not reneged on manifesto commitments? Tell that to the three from your front bench who were forced to resign. You haven’t got oversized feet have you? A button hole that squirts?
Sorry guys, but out here in the real world the LibDems are seen as having reneged on a manifesto commitment. Deal with it.
And it’s generally considered good form to credit people from whom you borrow ideas. “I agree with the Tory MPs who proposed this idea last week” would have been the gentlemanly way for Clegg to express himself.
As to the circumstances in which a recall vote could be triggered, I would say it should be any circumstances in which the electorate feel it necessary. Can we please, please start thinking “bottom up” thoughts rather than “top down”. We’re liberals after all.
The actual Tory letter was vague on what the MPs really wanted, saying perhaps this, perhaps that – and without making a firm, unequivocal suggestion. Nick’s proposals are much more specific and concrete.
6.52pm: it’s hardly an original Tory idea though, is it? It’s just what they do in the states …
Mark,
Do you mean he is taking the best bits from the Tory proposal and making them policy? Or did he just happen to come up with the same idea within a week of the Tories suggesting it totally by chance?
The Tories also want there to be, effectively, more by-elections? Excellent.
‘Perception is reality’ is an old marketing chestnut. Another one is that ‘The customer is always right’.
The perception among the electorate is that you and Labour have sold them down the river – and they will punish you at the ballot box at the next available opportunity for playing fast and loose with them.
If Ed Davey and Derek Conway faced by-elections in a month’s time, I think it is pretty clear that one would win, and won would not. Bring it on!
(from Surbiton!)
This horrible recall idea is jumping on a nasty little “anti-politician” bandwagon started by a bunch of very right-wing Tories who want to harness it for all sorts of dodgy ideas, ie. using the cover of the “silent majority” to get things like withdrawal from the EU, bans on abortion, etc.
Walking out of the Commons takes it a step further, into the realms of Bennite “extra-parliamentary action”. Not A Good Thing!
Mark,
You say that the Tory MPs’ proposals were vague: “saying perhaps this, perhaps that”.
What they actually said was:
However, we do think that consideration should be given to creating a recall mechanism, similar to that used in some US states, to enable constituents to vote on whether they remove their MP during the course of a Parliament.
That seems pretty specific to me. I can’t see any other ideas proposed which might lead you to say “perhaps this, or perhaps that”. All they say is that such a procedure would require some safeguards.
Bishop: “we do think consideration should be given” is very weak. They’re not saying for that they want it for sure, and they’re not saying how it should work.
As far as I can tell, Clegg has used the phrase ‘should be’ just as the Conservatives who proposed this first used, and he has put no more detail on the bones that they have.
The full text of the letter to the Telegraph by 27 MPs from the 2005 intake:
“Sir – At a time when trust in politicians continues to be diminished, there is an urgent need to
look again at the sanctions available when an MP has been found to have behaved improperly.
The Commons Standards and Privileges Committee is able to suspend an MP, but many members of the public feel frustration that, save for very limited circumstances, an MP disciplined by the
Commons authorities will not be answerable to his constituents until a general election is called
and, therefore, can retain his position and salary for some years.
As Conservative MPs all elected for the first time in 2005, we recognise that we are accountable to our electorate and, consequently, we do not think that a parliamentary committee should have
the discretion to expel an MP. However, we do think that consideration should be given to creating a recall mechanism, similar to that used in some US states, to enable constituents to vote
on whether they remove their MP during the course of a Parliament.
For example, in California in 2003, a petition was organised calling for the recall of the governor, Gray Davis. Once it was established that a sufficient number of electors had signed the petition, a ballot was held on whether Davis should be recalled. That ballot succeeded, and Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected to replace him.
We would want safeguards to be put in place to ensure that this mechanism was not abused, such as requiring a high percentage of registered voters in a constituency to petition for a recall ballot, or only permitting a recall ballot when the Commons Standards and Privileges Committee has recommended it as a sanction.
None the less, a mechanism of this sort used in exceptional circumstances would increase MPs’ accountability, address some of the frustration felt by a disenchanted public and help restore trust in our democratic institutions.”
So Clegg is joining Brown and Darling in waiting for the Conservatives to tell him what his manifesto should look like.
Come on LibDems – it used to be you lot who came up with radical and original proposals. Seems the momentum is increasingly with us now.
The question is, with the Iraq war no longer your defining issue, what point is there in voting Lib Dem (and I’m actually making a real point that you guys should think about, so don’t get upset – this isn’t an empty bait).
If you want to scrap ID cards, do you vote Lib Dem and risk Labour winning again – committed to compulsory ID cards? Or do you vote Conservative – pledged to abolish them as soon as we form a Government?
If you have reservations about continued EU integraton, do you vote Lib Dem who have shown they can’t be trusted over a specific manifest commitment on the subject? Or do you vote Conservative – the only party who kept their pledge, and who are clearly the party most likely to halt a further drift to federalism?
If you want localism, freedom of choice in schools, a pro-family agenda based on IDS’ excellent work on Breakdown Britain that has won acclaim from across the political spectrum, a commitment to supporting local district general hospitals and the full range of healthcare services available locally, more food cooperatives promoting locally grown produce, etc… You could vote Lib Dem and get more Brown and Darling. Or you could vote foe the Conservatives who are really making the political arguments in all of these areas.
If you’re not careful, the only reason to vote Lib Dem will be if you are strongly pro-EU and want to see greater integration (a perfectly good reason to vote for them if that is what you believe).
For any other reason, by voting Lib Dem you risk splitting the anti-Labour vote and getting more of Brown’s top down central target culture, a perverse benefit system that pays people to live apart, ‘The Days of the District General Hospital are over’ ‘The days of the local GP are over’ (both Lord Darzi – Brown’s heakth minister responsible for NHS reform), more strikes by: nurses, teachers, police, coast guard, civil servants, soldiers if they could – he’s busy alienating every group possible.
So come on Clegg – what do the Lib Dems stand for? And isn’t all the new, modernising Clegg stuff closer to the Conservatives than to Brown and his clunking fist?
Oh come come Passing Tory, you normally do better than that
You’ve left out the word “consideration” which changes the meaning of the two words you’ve plucked out of context.
That is one of the key points of difference: the Tory MPs were saying here is an area that we should talk about, Nick Clegg was saying here is something specific that should be done.
Passing Tory,
Excellent comment. If I wasn’t already a Conservative member I’d be signing up:)
(by the way, in the interests of openness – this is the first time I’ve posted on LibDemVoice. If you have a regular ‘Passing Tory’ then that isn’t me).
And Mark – rereading Clegg and the Tory letter, you’re right. But I think that’s a pretty weak argument to suggest that Clegg has come up with a shiny new idea all on his own and therefore didn’t need to credit the new Cons MPs with raising the issue first. Apart from the word ‘consideration’, the two proposals are virtually identical.
Neither can be said to have come up with a completely original proposal, as this is a system in use in the USA. But they’ve had it for decades, so proposing adopting it over here IS new.
And of course, Nick Clegg is a Party leader – he can state that something is now a policy or a priority for him and the Party. The Conservative letter was written by a group of backbenchers. They can’t state ‘this is how it’s going to be’, they can only put ideas up for discussion (or ‘consideration’), both inside and outside the Party.
I’m afraid Clegg really does look like he read the Telegraph, liked the idea, and promptly scribbled a speech.
It sounds like splitting hairs to me. The idea came from the Tories. They said “let’s think about doing this”. Then Clegg says “we should do it”. Whose idea was it?
Not Clegg’s, anyway.