Skip to main content

"Real" Recall

There is a debate going on about whether the Recall Bill is "Real" or not.

As usual there is a lot of confusion about what alternatives are proposed.

Zac Goldsmith put forward proposals for a different system.  The government proposal is triggered by one of two options either a criminal conviction or a decision by the Standards Committee.  Zac Goldsmith's is triggered by 5% of constituents signing a petition.  The government proposal then looks for a petition signed by 10% of constituents whereas Zac Goldsmith's then goes to a petition signed by 20% of constituents.

The first point is that the government's proposal happens to be what is in the manfesto.  Although I rebel on some issues they are generally not issues which were in the manifesto.  I am making it clear to my constituents that I take a different view to the party on some issues (such as the EU referendum) hence I am not going to be bound by what it says in the manifesto on that.

The second point is that the Goldsmith proposal has a trigger of just getting 4,000 signatures (actually 5% which is around 4,000 signatures).  Although Zac's proposals would make it difficult to recall an MP as there are second and third stages, the first stage is really easy. For example his father James Goldsmith could have paid for canvassers to collect the 4,000 signatures.  There are no seats I am aware of where there are not 4,000 people who oppose the sitting MP.  Hence it makes it very easy to start the process.  Imagine the situation if Winston Churchill had faced a recall petition whilst negotiating the end of the Second World War.  It would have damaged the country's credibility at a key time.

Thirdly, there is a problem with the current bill in that it does not have  an independent step for initiation.  The Lib Dems are working on  proposals to change the bill to enable the first step not to involved MPs at all, but
instead a judicial decision about Misconduct in Public Office.  This may be brought in in the House of Lords.



Comments

Sailesh Patel said…
So you would have supported Zac Goldsmith's amendments if the threshold for the inital stage was higher?

If that was the case, why didn't you vote for the amendments, then get the threshold higher at committee stage?

I'm quite cynical about the intentions behind you not voting for the bill.
John Hemming said…
Firstly, I should stick to the manifesto. Secondly, the manifesto is right in requiring a threshold other than some people not being happy with their MP.

Popular posts from this blog

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…

Gender Issues comparison of candidates

John Hemming believes that an MP should represent everyone in their constituency.  This should be regardless of their race, religion, gender, abledness, sexual orientation or anything else.  It should be everyone.

When he was an MP he worked on issues relating to men, those relating to women and those relating to non-binary people. Everyone.

For example here is John Hemming on a demonstration outside the courts with the campaign group Women Against Rape (it related to the case of a mother who had her child removed from her because the mother was raped).




Jess Phillips, who campaigns on women's issues, notwithstanding the questions asked about her appointments in her parliamentary office, had the following response when asked for a debate on issues specifically relating to men:

The Labour Candidate's Book Promotion Tour and Why It Matters

In the 2015 General Election the Labour Candidate criticised John Hemming for having an external interest and made a pledge that she would be a "Full Time MP for Yardley and my only other job will be mom & carer ...".  Here is a copy of that pledge:


Since that point she has been working on paid Television Programmes and has also written a book. John Hemming has made no secret of the fact that he chairs the board of the company he founded in 1983. This involves one meeting a month. When he was the MP for Yardley he was a full time MP and the Job of being MP for Yardley came first. The Labour candidate has reported 1,274 hours of work other than being an MP in the two years she has been elected and her income in the last year was over £131,000.

Ignoring the question as to how she reconciles that with her "pledge" the question is raised as to what extent her external activity conflicts with the role of Member of Parliament for Yardley. She is supposed to de…