Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[GusB]

Wow! In any other job where someone deals with the public, that sort of outburst would probably lead to a final written warning, if not summary dismissal for gross misconduct. Philip Davies should be hanging in head in shame. Clearly he has none.

 

[yorksrob]

Wow! In any other job where someone deals with the public, that sort of outburst would probably lead to a final written warning, if not summary dismissal for gross misconduct. Philip Davies should be hanging in head in shame. Clearly he has none.

Exactly, I'd be in for a disciplinary for such language, but the Tories are "born to rule".

 

[ainsworth74]

Whilst I don't disagree as an elected representative it is right the only people who can remove him, at least for things like this anyway, are his constituents. They will hopefully have the chance within the next 18 months to do so. We can only hope they take it...

 

[baz962]

Whilst I don't disagree as an elected representative it is right the only people who can remove him, at least for things like this anyway, are his constituents. They will hopefully have the chance within the next 18 months to do so. We can only hope they take it...

Trouble with that is that if you or I did that , we would likely be dismissed immediately or at least after a relatively short period for investigation purposes and not after 18 months.

 

[ainsworth74]

Trouble with that is that if you or I did that , we would likely be dismissed immediately or at least after a relatively short period for investigation purposes and not after 18 months.

Again, don't disagree, but feels a slippery slope if we start allowing elected representatives to be dismissed by people other than their constituents! I'm not sure I'd go much beyond, if at, all what is already the criteria for removing an MP:

There are several ways by which a Member’s seat may be vacated during the lifetime of a Parliament:

• A Member wishing to resign their seat will be appointed to one of two offices of the Crown – Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Chiltern Hundreds or Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead.
• A Member may die.
• A Member may be subject to a successful recall petition under the terms of the Recall of MPs Act 2015.
• A Member may be expelled by resolution of the House.
• A Member may be disqualified by becoming a Member of the House of Lords.
• A Member may be disqualified by becoming a Police and Crime Commissioner, or a Member of the National Assembly for Wales, the Northern Ireland Assembly, or a non-Commonwealth legislature (except the Houses of the Oireachtas of the Republic of Ireland).
• A Member may be disqualified by being sentenced to be imprisoned or detained indefinitely for more than a year in the United Kingdom, Isle of Man, the Channel Islands, or the Republic of Ireland; or if they are convicted of treason.
• A Member may be disqualified by the voiding of the Member’s election
• A Member may under certain circumstances be disqualified for bankruptcy.
• A Member may accept one of a number of offices which are incompatible with membership of the House of Commons.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06395/

The behaviour of the MP in question is repugnant and I hope they get smashed at the next General Election. But for an elected official I'm not sure it's wise for them to be subject to the same instant dismissal that you or I would be from our jobs.

I do think that it's another indication that the we need to revisit ways for constituents to recall misbehaving MPs however...

 

[Peterthegreat]

A member may be expelled by a resolution of the house surely means it can be done without reference to constituents.

 

[najaB]

Again, don't disagree, but feels a slippery slope if we start allowing elected representatives to be dismissed by people other than their constituents!

I would modify the Recall of MPs Act to allow for the constituents to initiate the process, provided sufficient voters signed on to the petition. Perhaps set the threshold as 50% plus one, and only once they are past 1/3 of their term to ensure that you don't end up with a revolving door.

 

[Gloster]

I have to say that, although I feel that many MPs really don’t deserve to hold the post, I do not like the idea that they could be expelled for unspecified reasons. Since the beginning of the last century only one MP has been expelled for other than the defined reasons and that case has always struck me as a bit dodgy. It is acceptable to have specific grounds for forcing an MP’s departure as there has to be a limit to unacceptable behaviour, but to effectively allow MPs to decide on a case by case basis without guidelines as to what is acceptable is open to abuse: an MP who continually upsets the government could find themselves expelled. At worst, you could have a form of coup, with one party or group abusing the system to eject everybody else and then installing themselves as the government in perpetuity. And don’t say it can’t happen: the law of unintended consequences means that once you allow it for the best of reasons, it can be used for the worst.

 

[edwin_m]

Philip Davies should be hanging in head in shame. Clearly he has none.

No head or no shame? Perhaps neither...

 

[najaB]

I have to say that, although I feel that many MPs really don’t deserve to hold the post, I do not like the idea that they could be expelled for unspecified reasons. Since the beginning of the last century only one MP has been expelled for other than the defined reasons and that case has always struck me as a bit dodgy. It is acceptable to have specific grounds for forcing an MP’s departure as there has to be a limit to unacceptable behaviour, but to effectively allow MPs to decide on a case by case basis without guidelines as to what is acceptable is open to abuse: an MP who continually upsets the government could find themselves expelled. At worst, you could have a form of coup, with one party or group abusing the system to eject everybody else and then installing themselves as the government in perpetuity. And don’t say it can’t happen: the law of unintended consequences means that once you allow it for the best of reasons, it can be used for the worst.

I get where you are coming from, but it does seem wrong that, once elected even by one vote, all an MP has to do is avoid getting caught committing a major crime and they're in for the term and there's nothing the constituents can do about it.

 

[ainsworth74]

A member may be expelled by a resolution of the house surely means it can be done without reference to constituents.

I must not be explaining myself very clearly

But anyway, I'm not trying to say that the only way that an MP can be removed should be by either resigning off their own bat or at an election. What I'm getting at is that the circumstances in which an MP can be removed without reference to their constituents should be very limited. The action of of Mr Davies are deeply troubling and in any other line of work he would be out on his ear. But it isn't any other line of work. He gets to make laws. So the power to remove him should be extremely controlled and the circumstances very limited.

Erskine May is interesting on expulsion actually (which I found by Googling, I don't know Erskine May by heart!!):

Paragraph 11.33

The expulsion by the House of Commons of one of its Members may be regarded as an example of the House's power to regulate its own constitution, though it is, for convenience, treated here as one of the methods of punishment at the disposal of the House. Members have been expelled for a wide variety of causes. In some cases, such as the last case in which expulsion was imposed, it was in consequence of a Member being sentenced to a term of imprisonment. In the previous case (and the only other since 1945), the case arose from a finding of contempt by the Committee of Privileges and the motion that the Member be suspended for six months was amended to substitute the penalty of expulsion. The Minister moving the original motion to suspend the Member concerned warned ‘Expulsion is a very serious step. It could be a step open to very great abuse.’ Much more recently, similar concerns were expressed by the Committee on Standards, which noted in 2014: ‘There is a danger that the power of expulsion could be used to remove people because their opinions were unpopular, rather than because of misconduct. Members are elected, and the decision of the electorate should be respected.’

In recent years, Members have resigned before debates on their conduct in cases where the Committee on Standards and Privileges or the Committee on Standards had recommended suspensions for terms of six months.

Expulsion, though it vacates the seat of a Member and a new writ is immediately issued, does not create any disability to serve again in the House of Commons, if re-elected. The House's attempts in the mid-eighteenth century to be rid of John Wilkes, who was three times expelled and once had his return amended in favour of his defeated opponent, ended, some years later, only in the expunging from the Journal as ‘subversive of the rights of the whole body of electors of this kingdom’ of the earlier resolution that, following his expulsion, he was incapable of being re-elected in that Parliament. In 1882, when Bradlaugh was expelled and immediately re-elected, no question of the validity of his return arose. A Member whose seat is vacated under the Recall of MPs Act 2015 is not precluded from standing in the subsequent election.

It would seem it is quite a wide ranging power and one which is actually quite open to abuse. Personally I think it might be a bit too easy for Parliament to get rid of a member by simple majority when the Governing party typically has a a majority. Feels like the sort of thing that should require some level of super majority to actually expel an MP. Then again I suppose the protection is provided in that the expelled MP is not blocked from standing in the subsequent by-election. So a rogue Government wouldn't have gotten rid of a political enemy for long! My prefered option would remain that we increase the ability of consitutents to remove MPs which they're unhappy with rather than increase the ability of MPs to be removed without referrence to their constituents views. On which point..

I would modify the Recall of MPs Act to allow for the constituents to initiate the process, provided sufficient voters signed on to the petition. Perhaps set the threshold as 50% plus one, and only once they are past 1/3 of their term to ensure that you don't end up with a revolving door.

Yeah that's roughly where I've come down on as well. An MP is protected from a voter led recall petition by proscribing a minimum period of time before they can be subject to a recall petition (I would keep the existing mechanisms alongside a voter led recall petition and those could be triggered immediately) and setting quite high threshold to trigger a by-election. Not sure I'd go as high as 50% plus one but higher than the 10% currently needed for one of the automatic triggers.

 

[najaB]

Not sure I'd go as high as 50% plus one but higher than the 10% currently needed for one of the automatic triggers.

Perhaps as many votes as they got in the initial election plus 10%?

 

[Gloster]

I get where you are coming from, but it does seem wrong that, once elected even by one vote, all an MP has to do is avoid getting caught committing a major crime and they're in for the term and there's nothing the constituents can do about it.

I have no objection to and would, if it was thought out properly, accept a system that allowed constituents, or even an entirely independent committee, to either expel or recomend for expulsion to the house of unacceptable MPs. What I am against is leaving the whole process to the MPs themselves. They probably wouldn’t self-regulate properly, but there is a risk of them acting on party political lines: the government could manoeuvre out a hard-working MP who represents his or her constituents well, but irritates and embarrasses them. Or there could be even more serious abuses as mentioned earlier.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Aug 2023 ==

It would seem it is quite a wide ranging power and one which is actually quite open to abuse. Personally I think it might be a bit too easy for Parliament to get rid of a member by simple majority when the Governing party typically has a a majority. Feels like the sort of thing that should require some level of super majority to actually expel an MP. Then again I suppose the protection is provided in that the expelled MP is not blocked from standing in the subsequent by-election. So a rogue Government wouldn't have gotten rid of a political enemy for long! My prefered option would remain that we increase the ability of consitutents to remove MPs which they're unhappy with rather than increase the ability of MPs to be removed without referrence to their constituents views. On which point..

So a rogue government rushes through a series of expulsions and then, in the depleted Parliament, changes the law so that an MP who has been expelled from Parliament may not stand again.

 

[ainsworth74]

So a rogue government rushes through a series of expulsions and then, in the depleted Parliament, changes the law so that an MP who has been expelled from Parliament may not stand again.

I did say I wasn't entirely happy with the idea that all it needs is a simple majority

 

[GusB]

Whilst I don't disagree as an elected representative it is right the only people who can remove him, at least for things like this anyway, are his constituents. They will hopefully have the chance within the next 18 months to do so. We can only hope they take it...

I'm not completely disagreeing with you here, but there should be a code of conduct that governs how MPs should interact with their constituents. If they fail to adhere to that code of conduct, there should be a mechanism in place that automatically puts them up for re-election if they fail to meet some basic standards. Treating constituents with such contempt should be viewed as misconduct, in my opinion, and parliamentary rules should allow for such odious individuals to be held to account.

Nadine Dorries is clinging on, presumably so that she can claim whatever allowance that's due when she is finally booted out by her poorly-served electorate. It shouldn't get that far, though. She's completely AWOL (absent without leave) and her constituents are left without representation in the meantime. There has to be a minimum service level for MPs, especially as the current government is trying to force it on the rest of us.

I suspect that the reason that this hasn't gained too much traction is because it would shine a very bright light upon the activities of many members from both sides of the house.

 

[nw1]

This Government is continuing to dredge new lows. This is, allegedly, an email that was sent by Philip Davies to a constituent who asked him to support the junior doctor strikes:

Ten years ago any MP of any party writing an email in those terms to a constituent would be unimaginable. But here we are.

Source - https://twitter.com/Xeon4f145d96s1/status/1695094599784485311

Regardless of your views about the junior doctors' strikes (and, while I support their right to strike, I do have doubts about the realism of the pay rise they are asking for) there is no need for that, if the email was indeed sent.
A polite email explaining how he believed that the pay demands were at this time unaffordable would have been the appropriate response, not the sanctimonious right-wing posturing which has allegedly been sent.

It's time for Sunak to purge the Tory Party of the lot of these hard-right GB News types. Braverman, Anderson, Davies, McVey and the rest - they should all be kicked out. They need to form their own party, the GB News Party, and stand on a hardline right-wing authoritarian platform where they can indulge their fantasies to their heart's content.

They have no shame. Based on what I see, no respect for people with opposing views. They are simply not fit to be in parliament.

Interestingly it appears that Davies has, in the past, shown some support for Trump:

Britain's only pro-Trump MP on the election result

Philip Davies, an MP who has been the most vocal about supporting Donald Trump’s candidacy for US President, has hailed […]

inews.co.uk

Says it all. If I was a Shipley resident I'd be deeply ashamed about how this man was dragging the reputation of my town down.

 

[Falcon1200]

Whilst I don't disagree as an elected representative it is right the only people who can remove him, at least for things like this anyway, are his constituents.

Indeed, and this MP was way over the top, but one does have to wonder what response the constituent expected in asking their MP to support a strike against the governing party of which the MP is a member?!!

 

[ainsworth74]

Indeed, and this MP was way over the top, but one does have to wonder what response the constituent expected in asking their MP to support a strike against the governing party of which the MP is a member?!!

Probably something more like:

Thank you for taking the time to write to me, I appreciate that this is an important issue for you.

Unfortunately I cannot support the strikers taking action.

The Government have made a reasonable offer to the Junior Doctors which balances the need to give them a pay rise to reflect inflation and the important work they do but accounting for the difficult situation the Country is in financially.

Thank you for taking the time to write to me, even though I cannot agree with you it's useful to understand what people within the constituency are thinking about issues of the day.

With best wishes,

I'm not completely disagreeing with you here, but there should be a code of conduct that governs how MPs should interact with their constituents.

I think fundamentally it's another sign of the parlous state we find ourselves in and the increasingly dire need for constitutional reform which would no doubt include work on an MPs Code of Conduct.

 

[Falcon1200]

Probably something more like:

Yes, far better!

 

[nw1]

Indeed, and this MP was way over the top, but one does have to wonder what response the constituent expected in asking their MP to support a strike against the governing party of which the MP is a member?!!

A polite one, for starters, rather than the sanctimonious right-wing posturing that was allegedly sent.

Something like:

"Dear constituent, unfortunately I am unable to support the junior doctors' pay claim because in my view, at this time, it is unrealistic and unaffordable."

(sorry, see @ainsworth74 has beaten me to it with something better).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Aug 2023 ==

Whilst I don't disagree as an elected representative it is right the only people who can remove him, at least for things like this anyway, are his constituents. They will hopefully have the chance within the next 18 months to do so. We can only hope they take it...

Less than 18, I suspect. Even with an October 2024 election we're talking about less than 12 months of the current government left now, as Parliament will presumably dissolve before the summer recess and then not re-convene in September. Thank heaven!

His opponents have got a lot of ammunition to use, put it this way. I suspect anyone even slightly of the liberal and/or left-wing side living in Shipley will put a lot of effort into helping to remove him. The Trump sympathies in 2016, for starters, could be used ironically: "Vote Phillip Davies!" with a big still of Trump's arrest picture from the other day.

And while I don't know the place (other than its triangular station which I once stopped at), presumably Shipley, being close to Leeds, must have a sizable liberal and/or left-leaning population. Another place where I suspect the only thing keeping him in last time was Corbynphobia.

 

[The Ham]

I would modify the Recall of MPs Act to allow for the constituents to initiate the process, provided sufficient voters signed on to the petition. Perhaps set the threshold as 50% plus one, and only once they are past 1/3 of their term to ensure that you don't end up with a revolving door.

As others have said 50% is probably too high (it's not uncommon to have turn outs of less than this for bielections) however for something which isn't illegal 10% would be too low.

There should also be a minimum duration - so if the 1/3 is less than (say) a year to stop it getting silly - unless it's 1/3 of the total term they should have had.

Let's say parliament was 60 months the first could be kicked out after 20 months, the next after 14 months, the next after 9 months, the next after 6 months (now only 11 months left), the next after 4 months, etc.

With a 1 year minimum you'd have 20, 14, 12, 12 (technically then 2 months, but you'd probably postpone the last one to the main election date once announced).

 

[Enthusiast]

It's time for Sunak to purge the Tory Party of the lot of these hard-right GB News types. Braverman, Anderson, Davies, McVey and the rest - they should all be kicked out.

I believe the border between "Left" and "Right" has shifted considerably towards the Left in my lifetime. There's nobody currently in Parliament whom I would regard as "hard right types". One or two of them say it as it is (which is a refreshing change). A few more talk a good talk but fall down miserably when it comes to the walk. But "hard right types"? Nah.

Even Brexit is now portrayed as a "hard right" version when all it is in reality is near enough (but not quite) what it says on the tin. A "hard right" version would have seen the UK leave without a withdrawal agreement and would have left Ireland and their EU masters to sort out the Irish border conundrum.

There is no "hard right" currently in UK mainstream politics and certainly not within the Conservative Party. All that exists are just various versions of left-of-centre mediocrity. The definition of "hard right" now seems readily applied to any politicians or policies with whom or with which some people don't particularly agree.

 

[AM9]

I believe the border between "Left" and "Right" has shifted considerably towards the Left in my lifetime. There's nobody currently in Parliament whom I would regard as "hard right types". One or two of them say it as it is (which is a refreshing change). A few more talk a good talk but fall down miserably when it comes to the walk. But "hard right types"? Nah.

Even Brexit is now portrayed as a "hard right" version when all it is in reality is near enough (but not quite) what it says on the tin. A "hard right" version would have seen the UK leave without a withdrawal agreement and would have left Ireland and their EU masters to sort out the Irish border conundrum.

There is no "hard right" currently in UK mainstream politics and certainly not within the Conservative Party. All that exists are just various versions of left-of-centre mediocrity. The definition of "hard right" now seems readily applied to any politicians or policies with whom or with which some people don't particularly agree.

That reads like you have positioned yourself to the right of even the most right wing Conservative MPs.

 

[nw1]

I believe the border between "Left" and "Right" has shifted considerably towards the Left in my lifetime. There's nobody currently in Parliament whom I would regard as "hard right types". One or two of them say it as it is (which is a refreshing change). A few more talk a good talk but fall down miserably when it comes to the walk. But "hard right types"? Nah.

Even Brexit is now portrayed as a "hard right" version when all it is in reality is near enough (but not quite) what it says on the tin. A "hard right" version would have seen the UK leave without a withdrawal agreement and would have left Ireland and their EU masters to sort out the Irish border conundrum.

That would be Monster Raving Loony right, not hard right!

There is no "hard right" currently in UK mainstream politics and certainly not within the Conservative Party. All that exists are just various versions of left-of-centre mediocrity. The definition of "hard right" now seems readily applied to any politicians or policies with whom or with which some people don't particularly agree.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree there, I just can't see how the UK political scene is at all left-of-centre other than to someone whose own views are a considerable way to the right. From where I'm standing, the main traits of the governing party are: allowing senior members to launch into right-wing rants, wishing to clamp down on asylum-seekers, and being perhaps a little too tight with public spending - none of which are particularly left-wing causes. The fourth trait, is of course, general incompetence but that's not a left-right thing.

Anything further to the right than the current government would be really quite intolerable.

Even Labour aren't really left-wing. Centrist and slightly small-c conservative is how I would class Starmer's current position. Left of the Tories though, which means they get my (tactical) vote.

And as for Davies' alleged email, there is absolutely no way an MP would have got away with that 10 years ago, never mind 30. The same goes with Anderson's almost weekly tirades and Braverman ranting on about "wokerati". UK Tory politicians were, for all their faults, far more civilised in the main in the days of Major and even Cameron.

 

[AM9]

And as for Davies' alleged email, there is absolutely no way an MP would have got away with that 10 years ago, never mind 30. The same goes with Anderson's almost weekly tirades and Braverman ranting on about "wokerati". UK Tory politicians were, for all their faults, far more civilised in the main in the days of Major and even Cameron.

That's because most of the time, both the major parties were not trying to defend the indefensible, - in the current Government's case by appealing to uninformed populist electorates that they rely on.

 

[Enthusiast]

That reads like you have positioned yourself to the right of even the most right wing Conservative MPs.

Obviously a matter of opinion, but I don't know of any right wing Conservative MPs currently serving. Some lean less to the left than others, but that's not the same thing at all.

From where I'm standing, the main traits of the governing party are: ....wishing to clamp down on asylum-seekers, and being perhaps a little too tight with public spending - none of which are particularly left-wing causes. The fourth trait, is of course, general incompetence but that's not a left-right thing.

Well wishing to clamp down on asylum seekers and actually doing so are two very different things. I might agree that they are right wing if they actually succeeded, but with their current policies the chances of that happening are as close to zero as can be imagined. As I said, many of them talk a good talk.

Public spending is continually increasing (in real terms, allowing for inflation) and shows no sign of abating. The tax burden, at >35%, is the highest since WW2 and government debt, at >£2,500bn, has almost trebled since 2010. Much of this expenditure is wasted and the increases show no tangible results in improved services. In fact, quite the opposite is true.

None of this points towards an government that is "a little too tight with public spending". And none of it is indicative of (what I would define as) a "Right Wing" administration.

 

[AM9]

Obviously a matter of opinion, but I don't know of any right wing Conservative MPs currently serving. Some lean less to the left than others, but that's not the same thing at all....
... None of this points towards an government that is "a little too tight with public spending". And none of it is indicative of (what I would define as) a "Right Wing" administration.

As you say, it's a matter of opinion. However in terms of UK politics, it is one of the most extreme right governments we've had since the Labour party became the main opposition party, and it's need to levy high taxes and it's not delivering what it 'promised' in terms of immigration are consequences of it's abject failure as an administration, despite it having an unassailable majority in the Commons.

 

[jfollows]

A member may be expelled by a resolution of the house surely means it can be done without reference to constituents.

Although the LibDems were threatening a motion along these lines, apparently Nadine Dorries has now actually resigned.

Nadine Dorries resigns: Conservative MP attacks PM as she quits Commons

More than two months after saying she would go, she tells Rishi Sunak "history will not judge you kindly".

www.bbc.co.uk

Tory MP Nadine Dorries resigns Commons seat, two months after promising to quit, telling PM "history will not judge you kindly"

 

[YorkshireBear]

Although the LibDems were threatening a motion along these lines, apparently Nadine Dorries has now actually resigned.

Nadine Dorries resigns: Conservative MP attacks PM as she quits Commons

More than two months after saying she would go, she tells Rishi Sunak "history will not judge you kindly".

www.bbc.co.uk

Does this mean she thinks it will judge Boris and his allies kindly!

 

[Gloster]

But can she resign while the House is in recess? You can only resign by formally applying to the Treasury for the Chiltern Hundreds, but it could be (I am not sufficiently familiar with the details) that resignation is not effective until notified to the Speaker in the House. If so, then she can keep her pay for a few more weeks.