Would you like to be able to fire your MP

[Rupert_Baehr]

The electorate chose the MP. (Whatever the rights or wrongs of existing policy.)

 

We can hire or fire them come the next election.

 

If one can effectively fire them mid-term, then it's likely to be an angry few who become very vocal about a given issue, which forces this situation. Large numbers may well be quite happy, but are not "activists" for the want of a better word. So you end up with a tiny number of people who dictate who the MP is.

 

There are, as always, exceptions. For example in the case of an MP being convicted of a serious crime. But hopefully the MP's party would fire them anyway.

 

You can fire your MP. At an election.

 

Unfortunately too many people vote for the colour of the rosette.

 

"My grandfather voted XXXX, my dad voted XXXX and I've always voted XXXX".

 

So the electorate are given the chance to choose the party, but they are not given the right to choose the candidate which the party bosses foist on them.

 

IMO that - together with the fact that you are not electing a 'representative' (the successful candidate will probably do as (s)he is told by the party whips, even though that may directly contradict the wishes of those who elected her/him) - is a major flaw in the present system.

 

Don't hold your breath while you wait for a change. The party bosses (all of them) are extremely unlikely to do anything which would reduce their power.

 

I'm with Esmé all the way here. The electorate deserve the right to hold the individual who (ought to) represent them (as opposed to representing the wishes of the party bosses) to account.

 

If (and it's a big 'If') people could get away from the practice of voting for the pig with the right coloured rosette and if those people actually took an interest in how government was working (and unfortunately, many do not) then a recall system with all of the electorate would be feasible. If a sufficient number of people in a particular constituency were displeased with the performance of their MP, why would the party affiliation of said MP matter? The next MP would still have to get more votes than his/her opponent to be elected, so it wouldn't be a tiny minority who controlled the election - any more than it is a tiny minority (in most seats) who control who is elected under the present scheme.

 

If you lived in a Labour constituency and you were a Labour voter and you - and a significant number of other Labour voters were dissatisfied with the performance of your Labour MP, would you be upset if the Conservative voters (a minority) added their votes to the recall? - A recall would force a by-election, it wouldn't necessarily cause the seat to go to a candidate from another party.

 

4½ years ago I was living in Mississippi. The representative for my constituency was a Republican. He was a pretty good guy, too and had I had a vote, he would have got it.

 

The State had two senators. There was a senatorial election, too. Had I had a vote in that election, that vote would have gone to the Democrat - IMO, he was better at the job (in that he was more attuned to the needs and wishes of the people he represented than his opponent.)

 

Interesting topic esme. I think the basic idea that if someone blatantly lies to get elected there should be the possibility of a recall is a sound one.

 

Difficult one. Where do you draw the line between 'blatant lie' and 'forgetting to tell the truth'?

 

When I lived in the UK, the Conservative Party in one constituency were given a 'parachuted in' candidate. They were allowed to 'interview' her. I wasn't present at that interview, but the content was reported in detail in the local press.

 

I understand she was asked whether she had done anything which might harm her candidacy. (Anything which the 'other side' could pick on to discredit her.) She said 'No'.

 

It appears she had lapse of memory. She forgot one of her sexual peccadildos. - She had been involved in an affair with a married MP. (could she really not remember how many people she had slept with?)

 

It's irrelevant (IMO) who anybody sleeps with, but this wasn't a moral inquisition. The question was intended to discover whether there were any potential problems; whether her opponents would have anything to hold against her.

 

Usual charade: The local party (who weren't too happy that she had been forced upon them as a candidate) were 'outraged'.

 

IMO, they had no right to judge her sex life, but they did have a right to be upset because she had failed to disclose a potential problem.

 

It didn't matter anyway. Cameron had decided that she was going to be the local candidate and the local party had to accept her. The 'interview' was a farce. Cameron gave the local Tories a choice. ' Either you vote for who I tell you to vote for, or you vote Labour.'

 

Pigs with rosettes. Is it surprising that so many people don't bother to vote?

[walkertelecoms]

We should be able to get rid of any MP as they are our employees apparently, along with anyone working at RBS as we apparently own that little gem.

 

Notice 'apparently' pops up quite a bit.

[ECCOnoob]

How many more times.

 

We do have a chance to "fire" our MPs. We all have a say during every local election. We can decide exactly who we want to "work for us" in our areas.

 

As for RBS / Lloyds /HBOS as collective taxpayers our representative i.e. the PM will be entitled to attend the company AGM and openly criticise, complain, vote against their Chiefs. Do you think the entire country should go along too?

 

Democracy all the way. Its the only way it could work.

 

You surely dont expect it to be a quick phone call from one of the thousands of constituants and hey presto MP is gone???

[anywebsite]

What about when they break their manifesto promises? Like they seem to be trying to do here? We have to wait 5 years? Local elections are for local councils, I think you meant general election.

[anywebsite]

Labour manifesto 2010 page 60:

MPs who are found responsible

for financial misconduct will

be subject to a right of recall if

Parliament itself has failed to

act against them.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/12_04_10_labour_manifesto.pdf

 

 

Conservative manifesto 2010 page 76/77

At the moment, there is no way that local

constituents can remove an MP found

guilty of serious wrongdoing until there is a

general election. That is why a Conservative

government will introduce a power of ‘recall’

to allow electors to kick out MPs, a power

that will be triggered by proven serious

wrongdoing. And we will introduce

a Parliamentary Privilege Act to make clear

that privilege cannot be abused by MPs to

evade justice.

http://media.conservatives.s3.amazonaws.com/manifesto/cpmanifesto2010_lowres.pdf

 

 

Liberal Democrat manifesto 2010 page 45

We will:

• Give you the right to sack MPs who have broken the rules. We would

introduce a recall system so that constituents could force a byelection

for any MP found responsible for serious wrongdoing. We are

campaigning for this right of recall to be introduced to the European

Parliament too.

http://network.libdems.org.uk/manifesto2010/libdem_manifesto_2010.pdf

[gnvqsos]

What about when they break their manifesto promises? Like they seem to be trying to do here? We have to wait 5 years? Local elections are for local councils, I think you meant general election.

 

An MP is a representative,not a delegate and is under no obligation to keep to their promised agenda but are free to exercise their judgement.

[anywebsite]

An MP is a representative,not a delegate and is under no obligation to keep to their promised agenda but are free to exercise their judgement.

 

There are circumstances when an MP should be able to be removed before an election & a new by-election called. We've seen the way that some MPs can behave with the expenses scandal.

 

Besides that, it was a clear manifesto pledge by all 3 main parties, yet almost 2 years on they still haven't had time to debate it?

[maggie007]

yes from a cannon

but i do live in rotherham