cross-posted from: https://feddit.uk/post/791723
An open letter reads: "Rather than representing constituents, the Council is concerned that your focus appears to have been firmly on your television show, upcoming book and political manoeuvres to embarrass the Government for not appointing you to the House of Lords."
I wonder how many people would be willing to sign a recall petition if they were aware of what a recall petition was?
I’ve got to think that’s hindered by the fact that many have no idea what they are.
Almost like we should be teaching this sort of thing in our schools.
A recall petition is only available under very limited circumstances.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn05089/
Nadine has neither been suspended nor convicted of a crime. So there’s no petition.
Even if there were, the threshold for the petition succeeding is only 10% of registered voters. And you can bet that opposition parties would easily he able to drum up that level of support.
So if an MP was to go rogue and say, I dunno, decide to completely ignore their responsibility as an MP there’s no way for the people of the constituency to get rid?
That’s what the law says.
The MP might not be selected by their party to stand in the next election. But there’s no law about MPs behaving in a way contrary to the wishes of their electorate.
Indeed, how could an MP do their job properly if there was? If they’ve got a slim majority there would be almost endless recall petitions from opposition parties.
If they voted against their party, they could be fired by the party against the wishes of the voters.
What bar so you want to set for voters’ votes to be invalidated? At the moment we have criminal acts and suspension. What other thresholds would you add - and how would you stop people from abusing them?
