Cookie Notice

WE LOVE THE NATIONS OF EUROPE
However, this blog is a US service and this site uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and analyze traffic. Your IP address and user-agent are shared with Google along with performance and security metrics to ensure quality of service, generate usage statistics, and to detect and address abuse.

Thursday 21 February 2019

More than ever, voters need a Power of Recall

The first eleven movements in a long-building political reshuffle of bums on green benches are in - but don't imagine that will be the end of it. Like a little clump of cells flobbling under the microscope, our political class will continue to realign themselves into what they imagine are the groupings to which voters will adhere. As Allister Heath puts it in the Telegraph
Logically, we would end up with four groupings: a pro-capitalist, libertarian Eurosceptic party, an economically Left-wing but socially conservative Eurosceptic party, a pro-EU social democratic party and a neo-communist party.
Apart of course from the SNP and the Irish, who have issues of their own right now.

The prime problem for voters, who generally but not always vote for parties and manifestos in general elections, is that they're left with a cuckoo in the nest. However noble and virtuous a shape-changing MP may believe themselves to be, you can be sure that many of their voters think it would be more virtuous if they didn't squat in the constituency on false pretences - and for the current eleven turners, that means squat until 2022.

Labour have already voiced support for a constituency Power of Recall and it's time for the Conservatives to add their support. The motion should be very simple, and universal:- 
"The electors of Broxtowe no longer have confidence that Anne Mary Soubry can adequately represent their interests in Parliament" 
As for the threshold - I have no fixed figure in mind. There must be a precursor trigger, and the hurdle to dismiss an MP should be sufficiently high as to deter vexatious attempts, but not so high that the number who voted for them in the GE cannot later vote them out. 

Let's see a government Bill for this - now.

42 comments:

terence patrick hewett said...

We are now well into one of England/Scotland/Wales/Ireland's periodic political re-alignments of every hundred years or so and it is amusing to read accounts of all this in foreign newspapers - we've all gone insane etc and crowing at our well merited demise. Well once we have rid ourselves of the rotting corpse of the EU: boy-oh-boy are they going to be in for a shock.


This being England of course in the end it is all about snobbery - and ever so slightly ridiculous.

jack ketch said...

I disagree entirely, and for once it has nothing to do with Brexit. To us today the idea of not paying MPs would seem totally fucking insane yet it was only in 1911 that we started doing so. Seems such an obvious thing; unpaid MPs, unless they come from money themselves, tend to be nothing more than puppets for their richer constituents, representing the interest of a handful of rich landowners or factory owners.

Same applies to the electorate being able to 'sack' an MP. MPs must be able to do what they think is in the best interests of their constituents without fear or favour. For example, many constituents might welcome, say, the jobs and investment in infrastructure that the building by some third world corporation, of a new nuclear waste storage plant in their constituency might bring. It might well even be mandated government policy but the MP must know he can stand against it if he sees good reason. I believe a certain former Foreign Minister knows exactly what I'm talking about.

I despise, for reasons other than Brexshite, Soubry more than I can say but If she is convinced that Brexit will do her constituents more harm than good then she is duty bound, as an MP, to stand agin it.

Raedwald said...

Jack -

Paying MPs, like universal suffrage (which didn't come until 1928), were both the demands of the Chartists from the 1840s - democratic reform takes a long time in the UK.

Only one of the orginal demands of the charter has not yet been met - that MPs should sit only for a year, to ensure that their loyalties to their constituents were not diluted by being corrupted at Westminster.

What happens is that incumbent MPs get settled to the extent that they believe their personal opinions - or the position taken by their party - are more important than representing their constituents. And since fixed-term Parliaments came in, we're stuck with them.

I also believe in MPs as representatives rather than delegates - in my case, I hope they can continue to resist popular demands to return to capital punishment - but I still believe we need a Power of Recall, with the bar set sufficiently high to ensure they've *really* pissed off their constituents.

jack ketch said...

but I still believe we need a Power of Recall, with the bar set sufficiently high to ensure they've *really* pissed off their constituents. -Raed

If the recent referenda have taught us anything at least then that any 'bar' would need to be at a 'constitutional' height ie 60%-70% majority and an even higher 'turn out' figure otherwise there would be rifts, legal challenges, resentments and 'undermining' of any new candidate. The only places where a poll of voters would see those kinds of majorities would be, perhaps, in muslim constituencies....for example. Would anyone want to see our current excuse for a Home Secretary feeling he must allow Begum back into the country for fear of pissing off his constituents, because otherwise he might be felt to have acted 'un-islamically' (it being the religion of peace and forgiveness an' all, blood)?

DeeDee99 said...

Ketch says: "but If she is convinced that Brexit will do her constituents more harm than good then she is duty bound, as an MP, to stand agin it."

Not in the circumstances of a national Referendum, a subsequent Manifesto which pledged to implement the result and her own frequent statements that she respected and would vote to progress the result. Under those circumstances she should not "do what she considers to be in the best interests of their constituents without fear or favour." She should vote how her Constituency want her to. Basically put herself up for re-election as the Conservative candidate in 2017 on false pretences.

Selecting and possibly de-selecting an MP is part of the democratic process. Or would be, if Conservative Central Office hadn't stitched it up so they could impose their choice. Soubry's local Association are dissatisfied with their MP and they have every right to de-select them. No MP in a safe seat should expect to be an MP for life regardless of their performance.

As for recall as Raedwald proposes, there is no way that a Conservative Government will support this. They are not going to do anything which gives the electorate more control.

Sackerson said...

Perhaps you could dub it a Power Of Rascal.

DiscoveredJoys said...

I'm in favour of a wider power of recall, despite the possible risks, as long as it is a deliberate process taking several months. A period long enough to allow social media frenzies and media outrage to cool.

I'll suggest that if you squint and look hard enough much of the current political ferment is about the balance of local/national/global control. The UK government (of all political stripes) has been about the centralisation of control for the last 50 years or so, and the emotional attraction of 'bigger and safer' is a very powerful urge... except it leads to the famous 'elites' and neo-liberalism over time. That time is now ended, Brexit or not, Trump or not, two party machine politics or not, although The Powers That Be are resisting strongly.

There is an English generational aversion to too much political upset at once, but a wider power of recall might be enough to keep our politicians (more) honest, especially if every parliament had a few examples. I could name a few...

Stephen J said...

I am sure that there will be many shuffles and moves by these scoundrels, all carefully choreographed to ensure that the ignorant hoi-polloi (the voter) doesn't gain any real power over their laws.

Anonymous said...

We have the Act, we just need an amendment.

Anonymous said...

Terence, you say "rotting corpse of the EU", but by most metrics those 450 million people generally have it better than the UK.

The pro-rata EU crime rate is about half the UK's. Health outcomes and educational attainments are better. For rates of suicide, divorce, unwanted conception, STIs, alcohol and drug abuse, the UK is pretty well top of the league, on the other hand.

The signs are not good.

jack ketch said...

but by most metrics-Anon

Or perhaps the UK's metrics are a more accurate reflection? There are lies, damn lies...
No idea, just saying.

Anonymous said...

Well Jack, according to the ONS, in this last year there are 61,000 fewer workers from the EU, but 130,000 more from elsewhere, largely from Asia and Africa.

Do you believe that?

I do.

Do you think that it's for what people voted Leave?

Raedwald said...

Ah yes, the 430m without a single University in the global Top 20, with a per capita GDP down there with South Korea

GDP - PPP 2018 $000s

USA - 61.7
Canada - 49.6
UK - 44.8
Japan - 43.9
EU27 - 41.8
South Korea 41.2

If EU27 crime rates are lower, it's because they can't afford the bus fares to go out robbing.

RAC said...

From an above comment....
" MPs must be able to do what *they think* is in the best interests of their constituents without fear or favour."
Disagree, many of the devious bastards keep their real thoughts hidden till after they're elected. I prefer to choose myself what I think is in my best interests. If an M.P. jumps ship an immediate by-election should be mandatory.

Anonymous said...

I think it is fair that an MP votes with their conscience on matters that were not in their manifesto. In the case of a Referendum, the majority vote has to override what individual MPs feel about the issue.

There's another issue about crossing the floor, and that is that it rubs the noses in the shit of all those party activists who gave up their time to raise money, deliver leaflets and go canvassing. It's a form of theft to take that support under false pretences.

jack ketch said...

Well Jack, according to the ONS, in this last year there are 61,000 fewer workers from the EU, but 130,000 more from elsewhere, largely from Asia and Africa.

Do you believe that?
-Anon

Not really, I suspect the real figures are lesser/greater on each side of that equation respectively but I have long argued that 'Brexit means Brexstan'.

Anonymous said...

Yes, eight weeks annual leave and forty hours a week does knock per capita GDP a bit, compared with the worked-to-death poor blighters in the US, Raed.

Anonymous said...

Indeed Jack.

Trade deals with India, Pakistan, African countries etc. all come with three conditions: more visas, more visas, and more visas.

"But we didn't vote Leave for that" whimper the Leave voters.

Maybe not, but it's what you'll get, like much else, so smile about it at least eh?

Raedwald said...

Trade deals with India, Pakistan, African countries etc. all come with three conditions: more visas, more visas, and more visas.

Total bollocks.

"The World Trade Organisation (WTO) supports different means for the liberalisation of services, based on its General Agreement on Trade in Services. Part of this framework, known as [Mode 4], refers to the movement of people providing services across borders.

Such movement of people to provide services refers to two broad categories: key employees transferred on an intra-company basis, including managers and technical staff; and business visitors or independent foreign professionals in selected sectors. However, the vast majority of “Mode 4” movements remain restricted to short-term visits, and do not allow for gainful employment in the host country. It is also telling that only some 1-2% of all trade in 2005 was accounted for by the “Mode 4” services trade, according to WTO statistics."

Incidentally, a Trade agreement between the UK and EU27 will also allow specified UK workers to work in the EU and vice versa; the 3m already here under free movement rules will gradually tail-off and fall as EU citizens return home, but many more young, qualified EU staff will want to come here to work - but until the EU signs a trade agreement, they will be restricted to WTO 'Mode 4' rules.

Honestly, it would be quicker deleting your silly bollocks than having to refute it, but such is our British tolerance. It's elasticity is not infinite, however.

Anonymous said...

Raed. Really. It's not just about what people might be permitted to do. It's about what they want to do too.

For German doctors, French architects etc., the Leave-voting UK is not a place to which they now want to come. They have said so in number, and the applications have fallen to near-zero.

Raedwald said...

Uhm, the actual cause of a slowdown in EU migration is the £ falling from €1,30 to €1,12 - Bulgarian fruit pickers are now doing better in Germany, and the UK is short of agricultural / horticultural labour from the EU.

But ... guess what?

As the labour shortages bite, wages are going up. Unlike most of the EU, the UK is a full-employment economy. So British workers enjoying the best increase in their pay packets for decades as Brexit rolls out are unlikely to complain.

Right - now I'm plastering so here's a fair warning:

Any further comments OFF TOPIC i.e. unrelated to the post will be deleted

jack ketch said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jack ketch said...


Any further comments OFF TOPIC i.e. unrelated to the post will be deleted

Sorry, i only saw that after I posted. I've deleted.

mongoose said...

Just heard the usual nonsense from Radio 5 about MPs owing their judgment rather than their obedience. As if everyone's local MP were Pitt the Younger rather than Jimmy PPE Buttons. He who blagged a safe seat because Buffy was on the selection panel and they went to school together. I remember a time - at least, I think I do - when the candidates party was not on the ballot paper. At least then you had to remember the bugger's name.

Those who use the colour of a rosette to fund their entire lives have a moral duty to abide by the election manifesto upon which they are elected. If they cannot continue to support that - and this might happen in some Damascene moment - they say so, stand down and make their case for re-selection and then, if successful, re-election.

The other notion - that these people are suffering the torments of St Augustine over the Withdrawal Agreement - is fatuous.

EU tactics since the beginning of time:
1) Ignore disagreement.
2) Play the man not the ball.
3) Complicate and obfuscate.
4) If you must have a vote, ignore the result.
5) If you cannot ignore the result, make them vote again.
6) Call it something else
7) Do some more of 2) and 3).
8) Hum a little until somebody loses office.
9) Goto 1)

The Tiggers are 8)

jack ketch said...

they say so, stand down and make their case for re-selection and then, if successful, re-election.,- Mongoose

Actually MPs can't stand down/resign/quit. They can 'cross the floor' or resign from a party but they have no right to resign from being an MP.
And I don't know how many stewards and bailiffs of the Chiltern Hundreds and of the Manor of Northstead there can be at any one time.

mongoose said...

Technically, Jack, that is correct but resigning is what it effectively is. I think they hold the silly hat for ten seconds and then get on with their lives.

Recall is just a negative election. The other lot would vote against but mostly people wouldn't vote at all. Perhaps one should be required by law to face re-election if one resigns the whip - or has it withdrawn?

Anonymous said...

Oh, I don't know. It's a way of kick-starting a new party.

Look at ukip v. the SDP. Formed in 1993 but has never managed to hang on to a single MP.

The SDP were well into double figures straight off, and for a few years.

Not that that was a good thing in that particular case, perhaps, mind you.

JohnRM said...

David Davis resigned his seat in 2008 in protest at the erosion of civil liberties, stood in the subsequent by-election as a Tory and regained his seat. So yes, MPs can resign

Dave_G said...


I get annoyed at MP's that use the 'we're doing this in your best interest' line when the greater majority of them have zero business or industrial experience whatsoever.

They haven't an effing clue.

Their experience comes from reading their own in-house reports - like on the supposed cliff edge of a no-deal Brexit - when such facts are seriously biased to the Goverments own intentions/aims. The Global Warming bollox is another prime example of policy being led by fake facts.

Politicisation of data/facts is ruinous for both the country and so-called independent-thinking MP's who declare 'they know best'. Best based on what?

It would be wonderful to think we could develop a truly independent, unbiased and honest system of presenting FACTS untainted by bribery, corruption or self-service such that any statement based on them could be trusted.

As it stands we have to go out and find out as much as we can ourselves and even that has its problems.

Anonymous said...

You need better sources than Infowars though, Dave.

You also need to confront facts which are not as you would like them to be.

jack ketch said...

So yes, MPs can resign JohnRM

No , not they can't. Any 'silly hat wearing' (as mongoose so aptly described it) disqualification is something that requires the Chancellor's agreement (he awards the office). As John Bercow recenty demonstrated, it pays to not just assume that something understood to be a 'technicality' or 'the way it is done' is carved in parliamentary stone.

Just because the Chancellor hasn't refused to appoint such an Office Of The Crown since 1840something......

terence patrick hewett said...

It is a contest between the risk averse and the risk takers: a contest between those with a slave mentality and those who value liberty: a contest between the jobsworths and the innovators: a contest between the cowards and the courageous.

A contest with those who in the words of W S Gilbert “love every country but their own” or as Palmerston put it: those who propagate the view that “everything that was English was wrong, and everything that was hostile to England was right."

And it is a contest all the more vicious because there is social class involved: and ultimately those that wish to sell their country know in their hearts that what they do is shameful.

And they will suffer the age old fate of the turncoat: they will never be trusted again by those whom they betray or ever be trusted by anyone else: friend or foe.

Anonymous said...

From your first paragraph I deduce that you are on the side of the defectors, then, Terence?

RAC said...

Well said that man ...............

terence patrick hewett said...

It is a contest between the risk averse and the risk takers: a contest between those with a slave mentality and those who value liberty: a contest between the jobsworths and the innovators: a contest between the cowards and the courageous.

...........and their twattery is not going unnoticed
https://qanon.pub/data/media/87b3e600aa381ab96439ffc88508ded7f9dff34ad8d51f48316f6dfb550cfcb5.png

Dave_G said...


Anon - don't you presume to attribute something to me that you have zero knowledge of (amongst many other things you're clearly clueless about). Where did I invoke Infowars? Knob.

At least I'm not taking Soros's money - or s*cking EU **ck.



Budgie said...

Parliament legislated for a Referendum asking the question whether the electorate wanted to Remain in or Leave the EU. There were no conditions attached either on the ballot paper or in the EU (Referendum) Act 2015, nor any provision to overturn one of the results.

Leave must mean abrogating (leaving) the EU treaties. Anything less is Remain.

Consequently the Leave result supercedes MPs "judgement". Personally I would jail MPs that oppose the will of the people expressed in the legal manner prescribed by Parliament, not "recall" them. Malfeasance in office would do, or treason if they argued.

Sackerson said...

@Budgie: I would go further, I think. We were assured not just by public statements from leaders and other prominent Parliamentarians, but in the Referendum leaflet itself, that the result of the Referendum would be acted on. So I would argue that it was a binding plebiscite.

I would go even further. I say that our original entry into the EEC - given that insiders, but not the general populace - knew where it was tending, was ultra vires.

terence patrick hewett said...

We are conducting a political civil war and there will be only one winner: and the loser will lose utterly and completely because after that there will be a constitutional change to make sure this never happens again.

“Treason doth never prosper, what’s the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason.”

Both Prime Ministers Blair and Major know that the winner writes the history and they know what their fate will be if they lose.

terence patrick hewett said...

Of course we have been here before:

George Canning set out his "most serious, vehement and effective onslaught in verse" on the values of the French Revolution in a long poem, New Morality, published in the last issue of the Anti-Jacobin (No. 36, 9 July 1798). Canning considered these values as "French philanthropy" that professed a love of all mankind whilst eradicating every patriotic impulse. He described anyone in Britain who held these values as a "pedant prig" who "...disowns a Briton's part, And plucks the name of England from his heart...":

"No – through th'extended globe his feelings run
As broad and general as th'unbounded sun!
No narrow bigot he; – his reason'd view
Thy interests, England, ranks with thine, Peru!
France at our doors, he sees no danger nigh,
But heaves for Turkey's woes the impartial sigh;
A steady patriot of the world alone,
The friend of every country – but his own"

George Orwell from his essay The Lion and the Unicorn:

'....the English intelligentsia are Europeanized. They take their cookery from Paris and their opinions from Moscow. In the general patriotism of the country they form a sort of island of dissident thought. England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality. In left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution, from horse racing to suet puddings. It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably true that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of standing to attention during ‘God save the King’ than of stealing from a poor box...'


Sackerson said...

Good quotations, Mr Hewitt.

Saito said...

Anybody calling for Mr. Farage to be recalled based on zero MEP work while trousering a boatload of euros and roubles?

Budgie said...

Saito, MEPs are figleaves with no power, so there is no work to do for the fake EU "parliament". However Nigel Farage worked extremely hard and long in the interests of his Leave supporting voters.