Here is the email exchange with my MP where I push the 38degrees approach, and below it is an email from me to 38degrees where I'm playing devil's advocate in the other direction.
---
Dear Rt Hon. Nick Raynsford MP,
The government’s new law to allow voters to sack MPs is simply not strong enough - it is unlikely to ever be usable, and then it is controlled by a panel of MPs. People’s trust in politics and democracy is at an all time low. Giving normal people the democratic, properly managed power to recall their MP could be the most significant change to the way Britain does politics in decades – and it’s within our grasp.
The government’s new law to allow voters to sack MPs is simply not strong enough - it is unlikely to ever be usable, and then it is controlled by a panel of MPs. People’s trust in politics and democracy is at an all time low. Giving normal people the democratic, properly managed power to recall their MP could be the most significant change to the way Britain does politics in decades – and it’s within our grasp.
As my MP, please will you back the only serious alternative by signing up to support the real recall law?
You can read the draft law here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2014-2015/0088/150088.pdf
Thank you for your communication regarding your support for a ‘Recall Bill’.
Please accept my apologies for the delay in getting back to you.
The right to recall MPs was an idea discussed in the run-up to the General Election of 2010. The Liberal Democrat Leader, Nick Clegg, who as Deputy Prime Minister has responsibility for constitutional reform, has since argued that the original proposals were only ever intended to apply to MPs who have been found guilty of breaching parliamentary rules. Predictably, Liberal Democrat support has waned significantly since the party reneged on several of its pre-election pledges, such as the promise to scrap tuition fees.
This highlights the difficulties of implementing a recall system. MPs have to vote on a very large number of issues throughout the course of a parliament, and the situation to which a voting issue relates may have changed since before the election. On this basis, an easy recall system, applying in any case where an MP is alleged to have broken an election pledge, would most probably affect every single present-day Member of Parliament.
To avoid this, most people believe that a threshold would need to be set, requiring at least 15 per cent of a constituency electorate to vote for such a recall.
However, this in turn poses awkward questions, such as how does that 15 per cent relate to the percentage of people who voted for the successful candidate? In cases where an individual voted for a candidate from a rival party who was not successful in being elected, would that same voter have the right to vote for the recall of an MP whose policies they did not vote for in the first place?
Whilst I have some sympathy with the idea of recalling who have flagrantly broken election pledges, I do see many problems with implementing it in practice, and it is for these reasons that I believe the current arrangements – where an MP is answerable to an electorate every four to five years, and can be stripped of office if convicted of a criminal offence – is the most appropriate arrangement to have in place. On a separate note, you may already be aware that I myself will not be seeking re-election at the next General Election, and will be standing down.
Thank you again for contacting me about this matter.
The right to recall MPs was an idea discussed in the run-up to the General Election of 2010. The Liberal Democrat Leader, Nick Clegg, who as Deputy Prime Minister has responsibility for constitutional reform, has since argued that the original proposals were only ever intended to apply to MPs who have been found guilty of breaching parliamentary rules. Predictably, Liberal Democrat support has waned significantly since the party reneged on several of its pre-election pledges, such as the promise to scrap tuition fees.
This highlights the difficulties of implementing a recall system. MPs have to vote on a very large number of issues throughout the course of a parliament, and the situation to which a voting issue relates may have changed since before the election. On this basis, an easy recall system, applying in any case where an MP is alleged to have broken an election pledge, would most probably affect every single present-day Member of Parliament.
To avoid this, most people believe that a threshold would need to be set, requiring at least 15 per cent of a constituency electorate to vote for such a recall.
However, this in turn poses awkward questions, such as how does that 15 per cent relate to the percentage of people who voted for the successful candidate? In cases where an individual voted for a candidate from a rival party who was not successful in being elected, would that same voter have the right to vote for the recall of an MP whose policies they did not vote for in the first place?
Whilst I have some sympathy with the idea of recalling who have flagrantly broken election pledges, I do see many problems with implementing it in practice, and it is for these reasons that I believe the current arrangements – where an MP is answerable to an electorate every four to five years, and can be stripped of office if convicted of a criminal offence – is the most appropriate arrangement to have in place. On a separate note, you may already be aware that I myself will not be seeking re-election at the next General Election, and will be standing down.
Thank you again for contacting me about this matter.
Yours sincerely Nick Raynsford MP
Dear Rt Hon. Nick Raynsford
MP
Thank you for your response, and I'm sorry
to hear you will be standing down in 2015.
Can I just take issue, for the record,
with a couple of points you made below. You seem to morph from breaking
parliamentary rules to breaking election pledges, which is not I think the same
thing. There is no reference to pledges or rules in the proposed Act available
through the link in my email. Nor is there any reference to how people voted at
the previous election. An elected MP represents all the people in his or her
constituency, not just those who voted for him or her. The principle of the Act
is quite simple; if a proportion of the electorate believe their MP is
performing poorly in representing them, then they can recall that MP. This is
surely democracy in action. Can you not see that this would incentivise MPs to
be far more focused on and accountable to their electorate? Surely a good
thing.
---
Nic Vine to 38degrees
I have succeeded in engaging my MP Nick
Raynsford in an email debate on this issue, starting with the form email that
you provided.
However it occurs to me there is a
problem: what if we have a prime minister who is doing something unpopular in
the short-term for the long-term good of the country ... and a powerful lobbying
organisation stirs things up sufficiently in his or her constituency that a
Recall is enacted. Is that really what we want? In other words should the
Recall not be constrained to demonstrable under-performance such as breaking
rules, not voting, not spending time in the constituency. I read through the
draft Act and perhaps I missed it but i could not see any conditions on the
reason for the Recall. If we can Recall just because we don't like what s/he is
doing, isn't that a recipe for chaos rather than improved
democracy?
