if i'm following that correctly if someone were elected with say 30% of the vote, the losing side could immediately trigger a recall and another election.
i don't think anyone was proposing that and i certainly wouldn't support it.
Just caught Zac Goldsmith on the Daily Politics claiming that in all of a number of recall systems worldwide there hasn't been a successful vexatious motion.
if i'm following that correctly if someone were elected with say 30% of the vote, the losing side could immediately trigger a recall and another election.
i don't think anyone was proposing that and i certainly wouldn't support it.
And why would the losing side want another election they'd have to pay to fight and would presumably just lose again?
you think that if an MP were to become addicted to drugs or alcohol, involved in some kind of scandal like a cash for questions or fiddling their expenses, join the BNP their constituents should have to continue with that representation for upto nearly 5 years?
If they are convicted of a crime, they wouldn't be able to carry on as things stand now. They wouldn't join the BNP these days as UKIP is the more respectable face of extremism.
If they are convicted of a crime, they wouldn't be able to carry on as things stand now. They wouldn't join the BNP these days as UKIP is the more respectable face of extremism.
They are only automatically removed if they are sentenced to a year or more in prison, and there is no rule saying that they can't join any party they like (other than maybe that the party has to be registered in the UK, otherwise they'd just be classed as an independent I assume)
This pledge was in both Con & LibDem manifestos for the 2010 election.
It was originally pledged in response to the expenses scandal, to make it possible for voters to recall/sack an MP if they are found to be corrupt... i.e. not because you don't like them or you disagree with their policies etc.
They've broken the promise, thus adding to the ever increasing list from both parties.
Sure, I didn't mention the LibDems in the OP because I was just quoting The Independent article.
How are voters expected to be able to trust anything that these people pledge (or even say) again?
The fact that they also couldn't devise or agree to a method to implement it further highlights their unfitness to be in government.
The case of David Laws would be a good example to use...
In the 2010 election, David Laws was (re)elected MP for Yeovil.
A few weeks later it was revealed that he fraudulently claimed more than £40k in the expenses scandal.
What was his punishment?
He resigned from his government position as Chief Secretary to the Treasury and was banned from the Commons for 7 days.
Any normal person would've probably been sent to prison for effectively stealing £40k
He kept his seat in Yeovil and 2 years later he was back in government in the Education dept.
He's still MP for Yeovil, and the electorate can't do anything about it until the next GE.
The even worse aspect being that this type of thing can now just keep on happening.
His biggest fraud, relating to the electorate, was standing as a LibDem when he's really a Tory. I still don't think either is worth a recall system though. In what way is he not representing his constituents properly as an MP until the next election?
In this case rules were clearly broken and he was duly punished. His punishment might have been light, but he also lost months of ministerial pay. Not that he needs it by all accounts.
Comments
Just caught Zac Goldsmith on the Daily Politics claiming that in all of a number of recall systems worldwide there hasn't been a successful vexatious motion.
And why would the losing side want another election they'd have to pay to fight and would presumably just lose again?
If they are convicted of a crime, they wouldn't be able to carry on as things stand now. They wouldn't join the BNP these days as UKIP is the more respectable face of extremism.
They are only automatically removed if they are sentenced to a year or more in prison, and there is no rule saying that they can't join any party they like (other than maybe that the party has to be registered in the UK, otherwise they'd just be classed as an independent I assume)
(sorry about the last word. what should it be?)
It was originally pledged in response to the expenses scandal, to make it possible for voters to recall/sack an MP if they are found to be corrupt... i.e. not because you don't like them or you disagree with their policies etc.
They've broken the promise, thus adding to the ever increasing list from both parties.
Sure, I didn't mention the LibDems in the OP because I was just quoting The Independent article.
How are voters expected to be able to trust anything that these people pledge (or even say) again?
The fact that they also couldn't devise or agree to a method to implement it further highlights their unfitness to be in government.
what would they have to loose?
Money. I did say:
"...they'd have to pay to fight..."
And I can't see how such a move would be likely to gain them votes or goodwill.
In the 2010 election, David Laws was (re)elected MP for Yeovil.
A few weeks later it was revealed that he fraudulently claimed more than £40k in the expenses scandal.
What was his punishment?
He resigned from his government position as Chief Secretary to the Treasury and was banned from the Commons for 7 days.
Any normal person would've probably been sent to prison for effectively stealing £40k
He kept his seat in Yeovil and 2 years later he was back in government in the Education dept.
He's still MP for Yeovil, and the electorate can't do anything about it until the next GE.
The even worse aspect being that this type of thing can now just keep on happening.
In this case rules were clearly broken and he was duly punished. His punishment might have been light, but he also lost months of ministerial pay. Not that he needs it by all accounts.