Total Recall
One of the many proofs that, if there is a God, He has a sense of irony came when the lead actor from the original "Total Recall" film became governor of California in a recall election, replacing a previous governor who had become very unpopular.
A number of US states have recall laws, generally, as in California, they are used from time to time but not every five minutes, which is probably a good sign, as it means that they can be used to give elected politicians an additional reason to listen to the electorate without making the state ungovernable (or at least, not more ungovernable than it already is!)
Today British MPs are debating the "Recall of MPs" bill, and if you think that sounds like a conflict of interest you have a point.
The bill proposes that, if an MP is given a prison sentence of up to 12 months or a ban from the Commons lasting more than 21 sitting days, a petition could be set up calling for a recall election. The petition would be open for eight weeks and, if by then 10% of eligible voters have signed it, the seat would be declared vacant and a by-election called.
What some people might see as a catch is that bans from the Commons are only imposed by a Committee of MPs - so you can argue that this law gives too much power to MPs and makes the legislation too difficult to trigger.
David Cameron has described the powers in the bill as the "minimum acceptable" and promised to look carefully at any amendments. His spokesman said he was "very keen" for the debate "to be as wide as possible".
Backbencher Zak Goldsmith is planning to move an amendment which would allow MPs to be recalled if 5% of voters in a constituency sign a "notice of intent to recall" and 20% then sign a "recall petition".
I know not all the readers of this blog share my belief that there is a lot to be said for representative democracy as extolled by Edmund Burke, but if you are going to have representative democracy at all you need, at the same time, to be able to help the electorate deal with those who abuse their position without making it impossible for MPs to make brave stands on issues where they may be unpopular for reasons which do them credit.
I don't necessarily agree that this applies to the Goldsmith proposals, but Nick Clegg does have a point about the need to avoid the type of recall system which might, quote,
"give a field day to very-well-funded vested interests who do not like what someone has done on gay marriage or the environment or abortion or fox hunting to basically hound MPs they don't like".
If it is too easy to trigger a recall election at the drop of a hat, it will be used all too often against MPs precisely because they have done their jobs properly, rather than because they have betrayed the public's trust (though of course that is not how the petition organisers will present it.)
However, if you are going to require a large number of signatures - something like the 20% of the electorate in the Goldsmith proposals, or I would prefer 25% - then you are only going to get a recall election set up if the MP really has done something which merits putting the case to the whole electorate.
A number of US states have recall laws, generally, as in California, they are used from time to time but not every five minutes, which is probably a good sign, as it means that they can be used to give elected politicians an additional reason to listen to the electorate without making the state ungovernable (or at least, not more ungovernable than it already is!)
Today British MPs are debating the "Recall of MPs" bill, and if you think that sounds like a conflict of interest you have a point.
The bill proposes that, if an MP is given a prison sentence of up to 12 months or a ban from the Commons lasting more than 21 sitting days, a petition could be set up calling for a recall election. The petition would be open for eight weeks and, if by then 10% of eligible voters have signed it, the seat would be declared vacant and a by-election called.
What some people might see as a catch is that bans from the Commons are only imposed by a Committee of MPs - so you can argue that this law gives too much power to MPs and makes the legislation too difficult to trigger.
David Cameron has described the powers in the bill as the "minimum acceptable" and promised to look carefully at any amendments. His spokesman said he was "very keen" for the debate "to be as wide as possible".
Backbencher Zak Goldsmith is planning to move an amendment which would allow MPs to be recalled if 5% of voters in a constituency sign a "notice of intent to recall" and 20% then sign a "recall petition".
I know not all the readers of this blog share my belief that there is a lot to be said for representative democracy as extolled by Edmund Burke, but if you are going to have representative democracy at all you need, at the same time, to be able to help the electorate deal with those who abuse their position without making it impossible for MPs to make brave stands on issues where they may be unpopular for reasons which do them credit.
I don't necessarily agree that this applies to the Goldsmith proposals, but Nick Clegg does have a point about the need to avoid the type of recall system which might, quote,
"give a field day to very-well-funded vested interests who do not like what someone has done on gay marriage or the environment or abortion or fox hunting to basically hound MPs they don't like".
If it is too easy to trigger a recall election at the drop of a hat, it will be used all too often against MPs precisely because they have done their jobs properly, rather than because they have betrayed the public's trust (though of course that is not how the petition organisers will present it.)
However, if you are going to require a large number of signatures - something like the 20% of the electorate in the Goldsmith proposals, or I would prefer 25% - then you are only going to get a recall election set up if the MP really has done something which merits putting the case to the whole electorate.
Comments