Appearing before the political and constitutional reform select committee today, Zac Goldsmith criticised the government's proposal for recalling MPs. Under government plans, a by-election would be held if 10 per cent of an MP's constituents sign a petition calling for one. But that petition would only be valid once an MP was sent to jail or if a Commons committee decided the MP's behaviour warranted it. Goldsmith explains to Total Politics why he objects to this parliamentary interference in the process.
What do you think the ideal function of recalling MPs is?
Proper recall [in which voters alone decide whether or not to recall an MP] breaks the stranglehold of safe seats completely, and ensures that all MPs remember, at all times, that the only 3-line whip that really matters is their constituents. MPs would be more independent, more likely to hold government to account, and more responsive. Genuine recall would electrify politics.
Should it deal only with flagrantly negligent and dishonest politicians or be something broader?
The threshold to trigger a recall should be high, and the decision should be left with voters alone. Parliament should have no involvement at all. I understand that some MPs fear vexatious campaigns by the ‘mob’, but that is really a fear of democracy itself; where recall happens, there is no evidence that it leads to perverse results.
You support recall at all levels of government. Do you think people are sufficiently interested in local government for recall to keep councillors on their toes in the way it would MPs?
People may not care about political parties, but they care about political outcomes, and if they become aware that their representative – in councils or Parliament – is failing to properly represent them, then they will take action. If they don’t, then at least they can no longer complain that their political leaders aren’t listening; they will have only themselves to blame.
Do you think you benefit from being a comparative outsider in Westminster politics?
I benefit from not seeking promotion. I am a Conservative, and my default position is to support my Party, but not where that conflicts with my conscience or constituents.
If the government’s proposal becomes law and recall polls only happen if a committee of MPs agrees, will we be left with a damaging illusion of greater accountability?
I believe the proposals are regressive and I will oppose them as they currently stand. Recall is about handing power to voters, not to obscure parliamentary committees. I can see this version of recall disempowering rather than empowering voters, because there may be a temptation to throw inconvenient or troublesome MPs to the wolves.
You’ve described British democracy as “utterly dysfunctional”. What reforms other than recall would improve the system?
Recall would be a major step in the right direction, but on its own, it’s not enough. I support Douglas Carswell’s campaign for the use of open primaries to select candidates, and I am also campaigning for the use of referendums to resolve contentious local and national issues.
Comments
Clr Ralph Baldwin / January 20 2012 11:05pm
Excellent article, its great to see some clear Parliamentary scrutiny that places the people first along with democracy. I have been a great fan of Rt Hon Douglas Carswell MP and if Zac Goldsmith takes a similar course then he'll definitely place himself as an enduring Politiican and one understands the needs of the occasion. This is good stuff as it gives the public the ability to act against those MP's who betray them by bringing Parliament and Democracy into disrepute.
Those who do bring Parliament into disrepute are also a blight on their own Party's and it's essential that a measure of justice is done to allow people to choose another candidate and give them a go in Parliament and that way no individual party suffers. Because when we keep elected reps who have defied the Rule of Law and are re-selected it leaves people with a sense of despair and frustration at the lack of democracy in the system, also means liberties cannot be taken in "safe seats".
Thanks Zac and of course Douglas ;) Best article I have read in ages.
Clr Ralph Baldwin / January 21 2012 10:24am
Oh but not Primaries.
Parties are too eager to fix selections and Primaries do not address the underlying problem also this is not the USA and Political Parties will never raise the money they do over there and no more money should come from the State to help Political Parties with their own financial incompetence, if they are losing money it is because they are spending too much and also losing support, the solution is simple, spend less and increase support.
You cannot buy elections in the UK, money is an advantage to a degree when you lack volunteers, but there is no substitute to a door knocking political activist. Money helps with delivery costs of leaflets which frees up time for activists and candidates to meet people and win voters over.