I think that people are in danger of forgetting the reason Farage gave for resigning and forcing this unnecessary by-election.
I quote from his explanation:
why should I be judged today, or in history in the future, by Sky News and their ilk? Why should they be the people that decide my fate? When, as I repeat, I have done nothing wrong.
“I thought about it hard and I have decided today I will resign as a Member of Parliament for Clacton-on-Sea, thereby forcing a by-election, which should happen, I hope, in short order.
"*Now I’ve decided that the people of Clacton should be the judges of my actions.* This will be a people versus the establishment by-election. It’s a chance to stick two fingers up to the entire Establishment to frankly tell them where to go, and that is why I will be putting my name forward to stand in this by-election.
Quote taken from here:
www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/clacton-election-taking-place-34443044
I tried to write a post about the serious anti democratic implications of what Farage said but was getting bogged down so I gave the quoted passage to AI to respond to and its response is very much what I wanted to say. So here it is:
The really disturbing thing about this argument is the suggestion that “the people of Clacton should be the judges of my actions” because Parliament is investigating an MP for an alleged breach of parliamentary standards.
No. The people of Clacton are the judges of who represents them in Parliament. They are not a substitute for Parliament's own disciplinary and standards procedures.
In our parliamentary democracy, those are two quite different functions. Parliament establishes rules governing the conduct of its members and has procedures for investigating alleged breaches of those rules. The electorate then decides who should represent them.
To portray this as “the people versus the establishment” is therefore deeply misleading. Parliament isn't some external, anti-democratic authority standing above the electorate. Parliament is itself a democratic institution, and its standards system exists precisely because MPs are supposed to be accountable to rules as well as to voters.
An MP cannot simply turn an investigation into a popularity contest by resigning, forcing a by-election and inviting voters to declare him innocent. A successful by-election would demonstrate that voters want him as their MP. It would not establish whether he breached parliamentary standards.
Otherwise, the argument amounts to: if enough people vote for me, the rules no longer apply to me.
That isn't democracy. It's an attempt to make electoral popularity the arbiter of parliamentary conduct.
I would add that at one point in his 'rationale' Farage says I have done nothing wrong. Isn't that the cry of every criminal throughout history? 