Does there need to be a new by-election rule?

If an MP crosses the floor there definitely should be a by-election in my opinion.

I think the reasons given by NF for the Clacton by-election are questionable.

He offered to pay for the costs out of his/Reforms pocket, I can only assume that he knew that under English law that is not permitted.

Despite my feelings regarding the circumstances of the Makersfield by-election, it was not illegal under current laws.

I dont think it is media led, I think it is to do with quality of politicians, I am glad the media are there to be honest to highlight the likes of Mandelsson etc.

DaisyAnneReturns

mum2three

It does seem an odd thing to do, but Farage wanted to give people the chance to get rid of him if they so chose. Instead it has confirmed the support he has.

That's a very kind way of looking at it mum2three

Yes. It shows that he was capable of beating a dustbin …

A lot of this deterioration I'm standards is media led.

MaizieD

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?

I agree completely with both Mazie and AI.

mum2three

It does seem an odd thing to do, but Farage wanted to give people the chance to get rid of him if they so chose. Instead it has confirmed the support he has.

That’s so not the point.

This isn’t at all what Farage did, his gripe is with being investigated. The investigated has restarted.

Until this has been completed, none of us, including Farage, know if he’s done anything wrong, either unintentionally or intentionally.

He’s not the only one in his tiny “party” being investigated for financial irregularities.

The political circus he caused is a complete disgrace and extremely expensive and time consuming.

I feel the same way about Burnham, even though that’s the party of my choice.

I utterly abhor our politics currently, from Badenoch’s ridiculous ideas, to Farage’s dramatic hissy fits, to the way Starmer was replaced, to Polanski’s stunts.

They should all feel thoroughly ashamed and get on with the jobs they are all paid to do. (In my opinion)

If any of us had behaved in these manners in our own jobs I would wager we’d have been fired, and rightly so. 🤬🤬🤬

Wow MaizieD

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?

A beautiful summary Casdon- is it not hot where you are?

Maremia

They should have had a by-election without him.

So you are in favour of controlling who can stand as an MP.

What should the criteria be?

On another thread a couple of people are in favour of limiting it to people who have high levels of money or financial backing.

Quite a hark back to the days when only the rich could make our laws.

Makerfield was manipulative in a different way, but I don’t see that a new rule to stop one MP stepping down and another from the same party standing instead would be feasible.

I do think that an MP who is currently under investigation for serious misconduct should be barred from standing down and seeking re-election whilst the investigation is ongoing.

I totally agree regarding MPs (and councillors) not being permitted to change party, part way through an electoral term, because people voted for them on the basis of which party they represented at the election. They can either resign or stand for a different party the next time there is an election instead.

That’s why it’s tricky isn’t it because of the basic right of constituents to be represented.Like so much ( everything ?) in life fundamentally we need people to have a moral/ethical code to have a decent society.

mum2three

It does seem an odd thing to do, but Farage wanted to give people the chance to get rid of him if they so chose. Instead it has confirmed the support he has.

That's a very kind way of looking at it mum2three

They should have had a by-election without him.

Tuliptree

Agree with all of that Lucky. This NF case is beyond the pale. He should have resigned and then stood at the next GE.

Wouldn’t that have left people without an MP.

I suppose it’s one way to disenfranchise.

Going back to the OP, and one of the responses, I would suggest that MPs jumping ship to another party, merits the prospect of a by-election.

I do not disagree at all with you Galaxy. Means and ends and all that and why at heart I’m a Kantian.

I think Makerfield was deeply manipulative as well. It made me ashamed to have once supported them ( and I was no Starmer fan by the end)

You’re completely right on all counts

JaneJudge

I don't suppose 250k is much to Nigel Farage but to an ordinary person it could buy you a flat or house

He did not pay - we all did.

Perhaps I have this wrong, but I thought that Farage resigned to stop the investigation into his 'donations' issue.
Not to prove that the people who voted for him would do so again?
He, and his expert advisers, thought this would put an end to the process.
They were wrong, about this parliamentary procedure. (Does that not demonstrate how inept and unfit they actually are, for important office?)
and now the investigation will resume.

No having thought a bit more, none of it would work in reality would it?

Tuliptree

Galaxy

What about if they organise a by election for the sole reason of becoming primeminister.

Indeed - under Lucky’s suggestion that could well be ruled out. I wouldn’t argue with that at all.

I did not agree with that as a tactic, but it was a totally different scenario. The MP who resigned in Makerfield did not restand.

So so far 3 examples - if you change party, there has to be a by-election,, if you want to stand again in the by election for the same party you can’t and then the AB example - I think that’s trickier because you can’t really stop someone resigning even if you know what the reasons are . So what could happen? An MP resigns - a by election has to be allowed. Tricky

I don't suppose 250k is much to Nigel Farage but to an ordinary person it could buy you a flat or house