|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Sept 20, 2018 15:31:13 GMT
Some of these had constituency parties who had lost confidence in the member, only partly as a result of the scandal. That was certainly the case in Mid Bedfordshire, and I think also in Old Bexley and in Windsor. If the recall petition is successful, it's a simple byelection; the previous MP has no automatic right to be defend their seat, and certainly no automatic right to keep their party endorsement.
|
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Sept 20, 2018 15:39:13 GMT
Since the Standards and Privileges Committee was set up, the following MPs would have been eligible for a recall petition if the legislation had been in place. 1999 - Ernie Ross (Lab, Dundee West) - 10 sitting days - leaking select committee report 2000 - Teresa Gorman (Con, Billericay) - 1 month - non disclosure of interests 2001 - Geoffrey Robinson (Lab, Coventry North West) - 3 weeks - non disclosure of interests 2002 - Keith Vaz (Lab, Leicester East) - 1 month - breaches of code of conduct & contempt of the House 2003 - Michael Trend (Con, Windsor) - 2 weeks - misuse of additional costs allowance 2005 - Jonathan Sayeed (Con, Mid Bedfordshire) - 2 weeks - misuse of access to the House 2007 - George Galloway (Resp, Bethnal Green & Bow) - 18 sitting days - non disclosure of interests 2008 - Derek Conway (Con, Old Bexley and Sidcup) - 10 sitting days - employment of family members 2018 - Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim) - 30 sitting days - non disclosure of interests In most cases I imagine that even if a recall petition had been successful, the member concerned would have been re-elected anyway as long as the party continued to support them. The most interesting one would have been Bethnal Green & Bow - I am sure the petition would be successful. Blair had just resigned so I suspect Labour would have won the by-election in the Brown honeymoon period. IMO Billericay would have changed hands. Quite possibly Windsor, too. |
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Sept 20, 2018 16:51:24 GMT
Maybe voters decided to save money. A by-election would have cost tens of thousands of pounds and the result would have been an easy DUP hold. I think it would have been a fairly easy hold for Ian Paisley, either as the DUP candidate or as an independent if the party had been foolish enough to jettison him. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Sept 20, 2018 17:28:56 GMT
Coventry North West would have been an easy Labour hold, in the event that the by-election had been forced. Geoffrey Robinson was, and is, inexplicably popular in his constituency.
Interesting to see the big gap between Conway and Paisley. Before that point, there's an average of just under one MP per year who would have been eligible for a recall petition, and then there's a decade-long gap.
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823 
|
Post by timmullen1 on Sept 20, 2018 18:18:25 GMT
Coventry North West would have been an easy Labour hold, in the event that the by-election had been forced. Geoffrey Robinson was, and is, inexplicably popular in his constituency. Interesting to see the big gap between Conway and Paisley. Before that point, there's an average of just under one MP per year who would have been eligible for a recall petition, and then there's a decade-long gap. There’s a couple who didn’t get as far as the Standards Committee that may make an interesting hypothetical discussion: If the Electoral Courts had ruled in favour of Phil Willis and against Alastair Carmichael? A number of Tories - most obviously Neil Hamilton - held their seats in 1997? |
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Sept 20, 2018 18:34:54 GMT
Coventry North West would have been an easy Labour hold, in the event that the by-election had been forced. Geoffrey Robinson was, and is, inexplicably popular in his constituency. Interesting to see the big gap between Conway and Paisley. Before that point, there's an average of just under one MP per year who would have been eligible for a recall petition, and then there's a decade-long gap. There were also several MPs who received prison sentences during the expenses scandal (plus Chris Huhne), but they had all resigned already. |
|
johnloony
Conservative
Posts: 24,560
Member is Online
|
Post by johnloony on Sept 20, 2018 19:10:23 GMT
I predict that the number will be way below the threshold. Good prediction. No - it was a bad prediction. I thought it would be way below - perhaps about 2,000 rather than 7,000. |
|
CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,722
|
Post by CatholicLeft on Sept 20, 2018 22:20:52 GMT
No - it was a bad prediction. I thought it would be way below - perhaps about 2,000 rather than 7,000. I assumed he was being sarcastic. |
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Sept 20, 2018 22:36:57 GMT
Since the Standards and Privileges Committee was set up, the following MPs would have been eligible for a recall petition if the legislation had been in place. 1999 - Ernie Ross (Lab, Dundee West) - 10 sitting days - leaking select committee report 2000 - Teresa Gorman (Con, Billericay) - 1 month - non disclosure of interests 2001 - Geoffrey Robinson (Lab, Coventry North West) - 3 weeks - non disclosure of interests 2002 - Keith Vaz (Lab, Leicester East) - 1 month - breaches of code of conduct & contempt of the House 2003 - Michael Trend (Con, Windsor) - 2 weeks - misuse of additional costs allowance 2005 - Jonathan Sayeed (Con, Mid Bedfordshire) - 2 weeks - misuse of access to the House 2007 - George Galloway (Resp, Bethnal Green & Bow) - 18 sitting days - non disclosure of interests 2008 - Derek Conway (Con, Old Bexley and Sidcup) - 10 sitting days - employment of family members 2018 - Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim) - 30 sitting days - non disclosure of interests In most cases I imagine that even if a recall petition had been successful, the member concerned would have been re-elected anyway as long as the party continued to support them. The most interesting one would have been Bethnal Green & Bow - I am sure the petition would be successful. Blair had just resigned so I suspect Labour would have won the by-election in the Brown honeymoon period. Almost all of these are trivial matters that certainly don't justify something as idiotic recall petitions. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
|
Post by The Bishop on Sept 21, 2018 10:28:15 GMT
Coventry North West would have been an easy Labour hold, in the event that the by-election had been forced. Geoffrey Robinson was, and is, inexplicably popular in his constituency. Interesting to see the big gap between Conway and Paisley. Before that point, there's an average of just under one MP per year who would have been eligible for a recall petition, and then there's a decade-long gap. There’s a couple who didn’t get as far as the Standards Committee that may make an interesting hypothetical discussion: If the Electoral Courts had ruled in favour of Phil Willis and against Alastair Carmichael? A number of Tories - most obviously Neil Hamilton - held their seats in 1997? One fairly obvious name missing from that list is Eric Joyce..... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2018 12:45:04 GMT
Since the Standards and Privileges Committee was set up, the following MPs would have been eligible for a recall petition if the legislation had been in place. 1999 - Ernie Ross (Lab, Dundee West) - 10 sitting days - leaking select committee report 2000 - Teresa Gorman (Con, Billericay) - 1 month - non disclosure of interests 2001 - Geoffrey Robinson (Lab, Coventry North West) - 3 weeks - non disclosure of interests 2002 - Keith Vaz (Lab, Leicester East) - 1 month - breaches of code of conduct & contempt of the House 2003 - Michael Trend (Con, Windsor) - 2 weeks - misuse of additional costs allowance 2005 - Jonathan Sayeed (Con, Mid Bedfordshire) - 2 weeks - misuse of access to the House 2007 - George Galloway (Resp, Bethnal Green & Bow) - 18 sitting days - non disclosure of interests 2008 - Derek Conway (Con, Old Bexley and Sidcup) - 10 sitting days - employment of family members 2018 - Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim) - 30 sitting days - non disclosure of interests In most cases I imagine that even if a recall petition had been successful, the member concerned would have been re-elected anyway as long as the party continued to support them. The most interesting one would have been Bethnal Green & Bow - I am sure the petition would be successful. Blair had just resigned so I suspect Labour would have won the by-election in the Brown honeymoon period. Almost all of these are trivial matters that certainly don't justify something as idiotic recall petitions. I don't think disclosure of interests or misleading Parliament are "trivial". |
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Sept 21, 2018 13:14:31 GMT
Almost all of these are trivial matters that certainly don't justify something as idiotic recall petitions. I don't think disclosure of interests or misleading Parliament are "trivial". I’m surprised also to see misuse of expenses, i.e. taxpayers money, condoned as “trivial” as well. I see suspect had the culprit been a welfare recipient the response would have been somewhat different. |
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Sept 22, 2018 11:37:44 GMT
Almost all of these are trivial matters that certainly don't justify something as idiotic recall petitions. I don't think disclosure of interests or misleading Parliament are "trivial". Well of course, like most people involved in British politics you are obsessed with trivial nonsense rather than things that actually matter. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2018 12:45:45 GMT
I don't think disclosure of interests or misleading Parliament are "trivial". Well of course, like most people involved in British politics you are obsessed with trivial nonsense rather than things that actually matter. I'm interested in MPs not getting away with every little misdemeanor because of some weird sense of "tradition" that they can because they always have before. |
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Sept 22, 2018 18:58:19 GMT
Well of course, like most people involved in British politics you are obsessed with trivial nonsense rather than things that actually matter. I'm interested in MPs not getting away with every little misdemeanor because of some weird sense of "tradition" that they can because they always have before. While completely ignoring the major problems in our misgoverned country. How very Lib Dem of you. |
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Sept 22, 2018 19:48:34 GMT
I'm interested in MPs not getting away with every little misdemeanor because of some weird sense of "tradition" that they can because they always have before. While completely ignoring the major problems in our misgoverned country. How very Lib Dem of you. Some people are capable of multitasking whilst still prioritising. |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Sept 22, 2018 21:10:20 GMT
I'm interested in MPs not getting away with every little misdemeanor because of some weird sense of "tradition" that they can because they always have before. While completely ignoring the major problems in our misgoverned country. How very Lib Dem of you. I'm half with doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on this one: I don't really care about non declaring interests but I really dislike misleading the house. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Sept 22, 2018 21:21:36 GMT
While completely ignoring the major problems in our misgoverned country. How very Lib Dem of you. I'm half with doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on this one: I don't really care about non declaring interests but I really dislike misleading the house. I really do care about declaring interests. We want our elected representatives to be open about anything which might deflect them from legislating on the basis of our common interest. |
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Sept 22, 2018 22:02:26 GMT
Some people are capable of multitasking whilst still prioritising. Does it burn as many calories? Judging by my midriff no  |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Sept 23, 2018 12:33:38 GMT
I'm half with doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on this one: I don't really care about non declaring interests but I really dislike misleading the house. I really do care about declaring interests. We want our elected representatives to be open about anything which might deflect them from legislating on the basis of our common interest. Just to note- several of these offences would not be sackable offences if committed in other jobs. Non-declaration of interests exists in accountancy as well, and would probably lead to a reprimand depending on circumstances (indeed, I am aware of this occurring). I fear that we consistently expect standards of behaviour from MPs that we would not want to see enforced on the rest of us. |
|
