Voters need more chances to recall their MP
Expanding the right to recall could act as a democratic ‘safety valve’ for political dissatisfaction, giving voters a meaningful outlet between elections, writes Dr Ryan Swift
One of the key lessons from the political turbulence of the last couple of weeks is that, when given the opportunity, the public is quick to express discontent with the political status quo.
Listen to this article
Yet opportunities for them to do so are limited. Between general elections every five years, people have little say over who represents them nationally and limited power to hold their MPs to account. This feeds into a sense that politics is something done to people, rather than with them.
What if it were easier for voters to remove their MP during a Parliament?
Current recall rules, introduced in 2015, are extremely narrow: MPs can only be recalled in cases involving criminal conviction or parliamentary sanction. There have been only six recall attempts, with just four resulting in by-elections.
Beyond this, constituents have no mechanism to remove MPs they believe are failing in their duties or abandoning the principles on which they were elected.
At present, there are few consequences if MPs defect to another party, ignore overwhelming constituent opinion, engage in unethical behaviour below sanction thresholds, or neglect their Parliamentary duties.
Expanding the right to recall could act as a democratic ‘safety valve’ for political dissatisfaction, giving voters a meaningful outlet between elections. Greater public influence could also strengthen accountability, improve political responsiveness, reduce alienation, and help restore trust in democratic institutions.
The UK would not be alone in pursuing this reform. Recall mechanisms exist in various forms in countries including Japan, Peru, and parts of Germany, Canada, and the United States. The idea is also being explored by the Welsh Senedd and Scottish Parliament.
Expanding recall rights does carry some risks. However, safeguards could mitigate these concerns. The current process could remain unchanged for cases involving criminality or parliamentary sanction, while a broader system could allow constituents to trigger recall for any reason but under stricter conditions.
For example, recalls may not be initiated within 18 months of a general election or by-election, preventing repeated attempts to rerun contests. If a recall petition failed, another attempt could not be launched for at least a year, except in cases involving criminal or parliamentary misconduct.
There could also be a higher threshold for triggering a by-election than the current 10 per cent of registered voters required to sign a recall petition in misconduct cases. Setting the threshold at 40 per cent of registered voters would help prevent abuse by small partisan groups.
At a time when trust in politics and politicians is at rock bottom levels, the government should be willing to take bold steps to give ordinary citizens more meaningful democratic leverage.
Together with wider reforms called for by IPPR in our latest report, Reimagining Lawmaking, such as banning MPs from holding second jobs, clamping down on lobbying, and giving citizens more say in decision-making, implementing a general right to recall would be a positive step in the vital task of seeking to restore public trust in politicians and parliament.
____________________
Dr Ryan Swift is a research fellow at the think tank IPPR, specialising in democracy, devolution and parliament.
LBC Opinion provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest.
The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position.
To contact us email opinion@lbc.co.uk