Body & Soul1 min ago
Why Are They Allowed T Do This?
Why are MPs who have been suspended from their party allowed to keep their seat as an independent?
http://
http://
Answers
I share your frustration, Kathyan. Fact is, it is the MP that is elected, not the party - so if the whip is withdrawn ,they are still the MP for that constituency
14:23 Fri 15th Feb 2013
I share your frustration, Kathyan. Fact is, it is the MP that is elected, not the party - so if the whip is withdrawn ,they are still the MP for that constituency, and would be described as Independent.
What it serves to demonstrate, as if we really need further demonstrations, is that a right of recall is long overdue. The electors within a constituency should have the right to have what might effectively be a confidence vote on their MP - and if the MP loses that vote, this should trigger a bye-election. The parties hate the idea, as do MPs, but it would certainly be more democratic, and would make the MPs more accountable to their constituents.
Dorries is a case in point. She has already been investigated over expenses once, where she was forced to admit that the details of her working week, which she presented to the public in the form of a blog, was "70% fiction".
Then she swans off to Australia for a couple of weeks, trying to bolster her own public profile. I think she is labouring under the delusion that she is a celebrity.. :)
What it serves to demonstrate, as if we really need further demonstrations, is that a right of recall is long overdue. The electors within a constituency should have the right to have what might effectively be a confidence vote on their MP - and if the MP loses that vote, this should trigger a bye-election. The parties hate the idea, as do MPs, but it would certainly be more democratic, and would make the MPs more accountable to their constituents.
Dorries is a case in point. She has already been investigated over expenses once, where she was forced to admit that the details of her working week, which she presented to the public in the form of a blog, was "70% fiction".
Then she swans off to Australia for a couple of weeks, trying to bolster her own public profile. I think she is labouring under the delusion that she is a celebrity.. :)
@Kathyan Zeuhl has the right of it, but essentially - yes, you are voting for the MP, not the party. Parties will go through a selection process to find a candidate who they feel most closely matches the party position, then throw their weight behind that particular candidate come the elections - but it is the candidate being elected for the position of MP, not the party.
Should they lose the whip, as Nadine Dorries has done, they become, effectively, an Independent. There are also documented cases of MPs "crossing the floor" ie joining the opposition political party...
Should they lose the whip, as Nadine Dorries has done, they become, effectively, an Independent. There are also documented cases of MPs "crossing the floor" ie joining the opposition political party...
The simple answer is that you elect a person to parliament who happens to be a member of a particular party.
That election is not dependant on them being a member of that or any party.
They could change party and not need to be re-elected - Winston Churchill did! - Twice!!
It is a separate matter to expell members from the house of commons and although they have that power it's very rarely used - 3 times in 100 years
http://
This was generally cases of deliberate fraud.
This case is very different:
1/ You're jumping the gun she's only being investigated at the moment
2/ I don't think she's being accused of a criminal offence at this stage
3/ The party whip was withdrawn not because of this but because she appeared in a TV show.
A power of recall would not be practical - you'd have to have a by-election to determine whether the constituancy wanted it and in that case you might as well just have a full by-election.
That election is not dependant on them being a member of that or any party.
They could change party and not need to be re-elected - Winston Churchill did! - Twice!!
It is a separate matter to expell members from the house of commons and although they have that power it's very rarely used - 3 times in 100 years
http://
This was generally cases of deliberate fraud.
This case is very different:
1/ You're jumping the gun she's only being investigated at the moment
2/ I don't think she's being accused of a criminal offence at this stage
3/ The party whip was withdrawn not because of this but because she appeared in a TV show.
A power of recall would not be practical - you'd have to have a by-election to determine whether the constituancy wanted it and in that case you might as well just have a full by-election.
The problem is that the political parties want the best of all worlds (what a surprise!).
They want you to think - incorrectly - that you are electing their “party” when you vote in a General or by-election (and indeed most people do). But they also want the right to expel or suspend MPs from their party when they allegedly transgress without the need to have to fight a by-election. Hence the situation with Ms Dorries.
There is no doubt that the vast majority of MPs are elected on a party ticket. Without the backing and support of their party they would simply not be elected as individuals. So long as this prevails (and it would be far better if it did not) then voters are entitled to some redress should the member lose the party whip or “cross the floor”. They do not have such redress and it is yet another major shortcoming of the party system.
They want you to think - incorrectly - that you are electing their “party” when you vote in a General or by-election (and indeed most people do). But they also want the right to expel or suspend MPs from their party when they allegedly transgress without the need to have to fight a by-election. Hence the situation with Ms Dorries.
There is no doubt that the vast majority of MPs are elected on a party ticket. Without the backing and support of their party they would simply not be elected as individuals. So long as this prevails (and it would be far better if it did not) then voters are entitled to some redress should the member lose the party whip or “cross the floor”. They do not have such redress and it is yet another major shortcoming of the party system.
Quite, OG.
At present the electorate has a choice (realistically) of two packages. In recent years these packages have converged, with neither of the two main parties being willing to put forward anything radical for fear of upsetting a minority or two. The resulting choices suit very few people and the eventual outcome is that everybody gets what nobody wants.
The original function of electing an MP was that your chosen candidate would go to Westminster and vote on individual issues in accordance with the needs and wishes of the people in the constituency. Now they vote in accordance with the needs and wishes of their party. It was Tony Blair who famously suggested, soon after his election victory in 1997, that voters have to get used to the fact that MPs are not in Westminster to represent their interests but are there to ensure that the government’s programme is enacted. - which just about sums up the whole mess we now witness.
Party politics as practised today has seen the end to effective Parliamentary democracy and until and unless something is done to change it the electorate in the UK can kiss goodbye to having any effective voice in the control of the executive. Even the power of MPs to force a government to the polls when they are dissatisfied with its performance has been curtailed by the outrageous Fixed Term Parliament Act.
We have, in effect, an elected dictatorship which can promise the earth, gain power and then do what it likes for five years.
At present the electorate has a choice (realistically) of two packages. In recent years these packages have converged, with neither of the two main parties being willing to put forward anything radical for fear of upsetting a minority or two. The resulting choices suit very few people and the eventual outcome is that everybody gets what nobody wants.
The original function of electing an MP was that your chosen candidate would go to Westminster and vote on individual issues in accordance with the needs and wishes of the people in the constituency. Now they vote in accordance with the needs and wishes of their party. It was Tony Blair who famously suggested, soon after his election victory in 1997, that voters have to get used to the fact that MPs are not in Westminster to represent their interests but are there to ensure that the government’s programme is enacted. - which just about sums up the whole mess we now witness.
Party politics as practised today has seen the end to effective Parliamentary democracy and until and unless something is done to change it the electorate in the UK can kiss goodbye to having any effective voice in the control of the executive. Even the power of MPs to force a government to the polls when they are dissatisfied with its performance has been curtailed by the outrageous Fixed Term Parliament Act.
We have, in effect, an elected dictatorship which can promise the earth, gain power and then do what it likes for five years.
So how do you do a poll of constituents?
E-mail? that won't fly
Then there's the turnout - the last 3 general elections have had turnouts in the 60% range
If you can't get half the people out to remove someone (and I doubt you would) I think you'd be open to all sorts of legal challenges.
Unless you base it on a concrete case like a major legal transgression it's going to be pretty difficult - you could end up with people trying to recall an MP just because the local support has drained away mid term
E-mail? that won't fly
Then there's the turnout - the last 3 general elections have had turnouts in the 60% range
If you can't get half the people out to remove someone (and I doubt you would) I think you'd be open to all sorts of legal challenges.
Unless you base it on a concrete case like a major legal transgression it's going to be pretty difficult - you could end up with people trying to recall an MP just because the local support has drained away mid term
There is such a thing as an electoral roll. This is not rocket science.
There is already a draft bill kicking around in parliament somewhere.
http://
Nor would it be a unique feature. There is a right of recall for elected officials in several states within the US for example.
And,rather like someone taking a car in for a service, I leave the mechanics of the operation to a qualified mechanic - I do not perform the service myself.
I agree that it needs to be a major transgression, and I would also agree that it needs to attract a significant proportion of the constituency to trigger such an event. Again, these issues are not insurmountable, and I think they would be desirable and would improve our democracy.
There is already a draft bill kicking around in parliament somewhere.
http://
Nor would it be a unique feature. There is a right of recall for elected officials in several states within the US for example.
And,rather like someone taking a car in for a service, I leave the mechanics of the operation to a qualified mechanic - I do not perform the service myself.
I agree that it needs to be a major transgression, and I would also agree that it needs to attract a significant proportion of the constituency to trigger such an event. Again, these issues are not insurmountable, and I think they would be desirable and would improve our democracy.
Actually, I am not entirely clear what de-selection actually means, and the process differs from party to party.
If an MP was De-Selected, they would still remain the MP for that constituency until the next election wouldn't they? The local party would just not have them as their candidate at the next election.
And even were the MP de-selected by the local party, that does not automatically mean losing the party whip - that is a decision reserved for the national party isn't it?
Darn it- the stuff I do not know about politics continually amazes me :)
If an MP was De-Selected, they would still remain the MP for that constituency until the next election wouldn't they? The local party would just not have them as their candidate at the next election.
And even were the MP de-selected by the local party, that does not automatically mean losing the party whip - that is a decision reserved for the national party isn't it?
Darn it- the stuff I do not know about politics continually amazes me :)
Latest Posts
Crosswords7 mins ago
Well At Least Sir Kier Is Topping One...
News10 mins ago
Crosswords12 mins ago
Crosswords16 mins ago
