The 'power of recall' doesn’t really give constituents the right to recall their MP.
The ‘power of recall’ doesn’t really give constituents the right to recall their MP
MPs will today debate whether voters should be able to deselect them using the ‘power of recall’ if they are found guilty of serious wrongdoing.
The plan being put to a vote will mean that an MP could be unseated if 10 per cent of voters sign a petition – but only after the MP in question had been sent to jail or given a 21-day Commons ban.
Commons bans are given out by the Commons Standards Committee, which is mostly made up of MPs.
In other words, an MP would have to have committed an offence and other MPs would have to agree that an offence had taken place before constituents were given any right to recall that MP.
This really doesn’t give constituents the right to recall their MP.
1) Recall should empower voters, not committees of MPs
The bill before the House of Commons today gives a committee of MPs the power to decide if voters can attempt to recall their MP. In other words, the electorate only get the chance to recall an MP after other MPs have decided whether or not one of their colleagues should face a recall vote.
The old cliche about turkeys not voting for Christmas springs to mind. I’m not entirely sure that MPs policing themselves is the best way forward. Ultimately recall should to empower voters, not MPs.
2) Where recall already exists it is seldom used
The naysayers argue that a proper right to recall would result in mayhem, with elected representatives unable to act due to fear of making unpopular decisions – thereby triggering a recall.
Yet in those countries where the electorate already has a right to recall the procedure is seldom used. The US has had recall for over 100 years and it has been used just 40 times – a recent high profile example involved Arnold Schwarzenegger, who became governor of California in 2003 after a recall vote.
3) Recall won’t make life easier for the rich
One fear is that stronger right to recall apparatus could be used by wealthy individuals and organisations to move against MPs whom they dislike. It is, after all, those individuals who surely have the resources required to launch a campaign against sitting MPs.
Again, though, it’s worth referring back to the US – big money has a much bigger influence on politics there, yet it doesn’t have an undue impact on recall.
Similarly, a stronger right to recall bill, of the sort proposed by Tory MP Zac Goldsmith, would require the signatures of 20 per cent of voters in the constituency in question. Even if the right-wing press did manage to ‘brainwaish’ (a horrible phrase) 20 per cent of a constituency into recalling an MP, what’s to stop the other 80 per cent voting that MP back in? And if the tabloids and Lord Ashcrofts of this world could wield so much power in recall selections, what’s to stop them doing so already? Why would they have any more influence in a recall election than in a General Election?
4) Voters aren’t stupid
It’s unfortunate that we still have to say this, but representative democracy is not an excuse for ignoring the electorate. Voters do not need a vanguard, thanks very much, and nor I suspect would they want to throw out a genuinely principled MP who simply voted a way in which they disagreed. No, voters are simply sick of politicians breaking promises and taking liberties over things like expenses.
This also goes back to point three: voters are not ‘sheeple’ (another unpleasant term) who need to be shaken out of their tabloid-induced comatose. They’re not ‘brainwashed by the tabloids’ (if they are then why aren’t you?), and when a high proportion of them dislike an MP enough to sign a petition you can be pretty sure that the politician in question has done something sufficiently serious. And no, Rupert Murdoch didn’t make them do it.
5) It won’t cost the taxpayer £100m
Well it could, but only if all 650 constituencies in the UK recalled their MP at once – and that won’t happen. As 38 Degrees (who know a thing or two about collecting signatures) has pointed out, the biggest UK petition ever raised was on Post Office closures in 2006 which collected 4 million signatures. 10 million people would need to simultaneously sign recall petitions for the cost to reach £100m.
There is also something slightly sinister about the argument that democracy costs money. Can you really think of a better way that money ought to be spent? And if we really want to take this argument seriously then we might also cancel next year’s General Election – the ‘markets’ are already warning of ‘turbulence’ and lost revenue for the treasury due to political instability. Perhaps we should postpone voting until 2020? It would certainly be cheaper. (I hope you can see where this is going).
James Bloodworth is the editor of Left Foot Forward. Follow him on Twitter
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
17 Responses to “Five reasons we need a stronger recall bill”
blarg1987
It does not matter if it is a promise or not, they would still have a manifesto of policies that they would try to achieve.
If they defy the manifesto then there should be a right to recall.
Leon Wolfeson
So you’d tie the UK to absolutely inflexible five-year plans.
Again, worked so well for the USSR.
Voting reform is far more sensible.
The_Average_Joe_UK
Any ideas on how socialists drive growth and create jobs? Any examples?
blargh1987
No not necessarily as I already have given two examples e.g. tuition fees and NHS reorganisation. These were policies that were either not on the party manifesto or were pledged not to change.
Political parties are voted in on what they tell us, so if they decide to change what they are doing when they suddenly get into power then we should have the right to recall to encourage political parties to be more honest.
For example the Lib Dems have kept to part of their manifesto to increase the tax free allowance, so there is room to have certain flexibilities.
Leon Wolfeson
You are talking about every last but of referendums, though. Moreover, you’d prevent anything not in a manifesto? You’re going to utterly cripple government.
Moreover, what if something’s voted down? The government’s out for *anything*, rather than supply bills?!
This isn’t about honesty, it’s about your 100% cast-iron inflexible plans.