Gosport: a new kind of politics?

One reason folk are so fed up with MPs is the sense that many are virtually unsackable.  Or at least they can only be sacked if they fall foul of people in Westminster, not voters.

In four of the past five elections, only a tenth of seats changed hands.  Even in the 1997 landslide, fewer than three in ten shifted.  That means that 70 per cent of MPs come from fiefdoms. 

Wherever there's a lack of choice and competition, standards slide.  That's as true in politics as in business.  The result has been a steady decline in the Commons as an institution.

So three cheers to James Bethell, one of the contenders in the Gosport open primary*.  Not only will every local person in Gosport get to decide if they'd like him to be their next MP, but he's personally pledged to let folk fire him in a "recall" vote, if he fails to do what he promises in his election address.

This is a bold step - but it means that should be become your MP, James would need to keep on delivering what he promised - or step aside for someone else.

* - Gosport, like Totnes, is a proper open primary, and not an open caucus.  Everyone who lives there gets a vote on deciding the Tory candidate.

Full list of the contenders here. 

Posted on 24 November 2009 by Douglas Carswell

Comments

Good news!

What a shame it didn't happen in Devizes.

Posted on 24 November 2009 18:17 by Robert Eve

I don't think the answer is open primaries, as both you and Mr Hannan favour. It weakens party identity and allows members from other parties to skew the process by voting for unpopular candidates.


The real problem is this; the electorate don't have the option of refusal like they would in a normal free market. Because each constituency HAS to return a candidate it allows the big 3 a certain amount of complacency because they know that 1 of them will definately get in.


Its a bit like forcing the population to eat beans every for tea. Two or three big boys get in and make a name for themselves early on and subsequently start producing a bad quality product because they're legally guaranteed custom.

Abstaining and 'no suitable candidate' should really mean that. Then you guys would have to think about selling yourselves to the public.

Posted on 24 November 2009 21:35 by chefdave

Douglas,

Apols for 'harping on' about this but until MPs accept their primary duty is to country and not to party, you will still elect 'robots'. Need I remind you, (surely not?) an MP is elected to represent the views of his/her constituents not their party. What we have at the moment is democratised dictatorship in that every party decides what it will allow the electorate. It should and must be the other way round!

MPs continually tell us, the voters, that they enter Parliament out of a sense of duty, not to make money or any sense of a career. In which case why do they slavishly follow the party line?

Is this 'slavishness' due to a knowledge that to go against the party line would risk their deselection as a candidate? Is this the reason that you will not publicly acknowledge and sign up to the pledge that Albion Alliance are asking you for?

Posted on 24 November 2009 21:51 by WitteringsfromWitney

Witters, I disagree.


As always though I place my faith into the hands of the free market. If the electorate want to choose a candidate that puts country above all else then someone can offer them that. If someone isn't offering it then it must be because the market (electorate) doesn't want it.

I quite like political parties because they let me know what I'm getting. If I'm a fascist I'll vote for a fascist party with fascist policies, if I'm a communist likewise. If people have voted for a party this way then party should come before all else because doing anything else betrays those that voted for you.

The problem is that we have to elect someone, when time again the data has shown that we don't want any of them. A 33% turnout in the Glasgow by election tells me that we've had quite enough of politicians and their laws and we can't stomach any more.

Posted on 24 November 2009 22:30 by chefdave

I don't want to offend here but first off, let's just point out that the MP these guys are hoping to replace was, perhaps, the most famous MP exposed in the scandel. A Tory, no less, seeking Duck Houses.

Can I further point out, that, out of 100+ applicants the 4 runners have no link with this town. This town is playing Guinea Pig. Why is it that that Cameroon gets to choose which candidates stand for which town. If you guys want open, let the public decide which candidate should stand.

I personally know many good people that stood as candidates. Sadly, Cameron decided to use the parachute.

Have we not been shamed enough.

Mummy x

I am taking my blogging life in my hands here, with this comment. I have laid bare where I live but I am prepeared to take this risk. It is wrong that my town is used in this way. My town will always vote Tory (it is a well off town).

Posted on 24 November 2009 22:42 by Mummy

Our Democracy & our so called "FREE Market Economy" have failed us!
Hence the MPs expenses scandal & the Banking crisis with more revelations yesterday!
What is coming next? Aliens from space OR perhaps they are already in Gov't?
We do not have any real choices in UK today be it MPs or Banking.
They all look alike.
A few Supernarket Chains even control our food markets.
Choice what choice?

Posted on 25 November 2009 08:29 by eric of Walton

While I'm in broad agreement with all here there are one or two fatal errors in the arguments.
As most have pointed out, allowing the whole electorate to select a party candidate is a bit daft unless all the parties do it. Otherwise one of the main parties is going to go all out to get a no-hoper selected.
Unlike chefdave I do not like political parties, regarding them as mere conspiracies to affect the results of an election. They are therefore criminal. True, they neatly package up complex things to be offered on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, but that just encourages idleness in the electorate.
I like the idea that, if a constituency has a turnout of less than, say, 50%, then no Member is returned for that constituency for the duration of that parliament. That should a) encourage politicians to demonstrate that they actually add value and, b) effectively disenfranchise the idle and apathetic.
However, as a recent poll among turkeys failed to support Christmas, I don't see any way to there from here short of a revolution, which could get extremely sticky!

Posted on 25 November 2009 08:41 by Disputin

Well done to Mr. Bethell for proposing a *personal* remedy to the problem of trusting our politicians to represent us. It shows it does not need Party or Parliament to lead this initiative but can be done on a constiuency by constituency basis. By such means we could actually get some competition between constituencies. If a candidate pledges to be transparent and representative in specific ways and it is seen as a popular thing I would think more candidates would do likewise.

We should not wait for the majority of the incumbents to decide amongst themselves that they do not have to answer to their constituents.

Posted on 25 November 2009 12:37 by Gareth

The answer is simple. Add "None of the above" to each ballot paper. If that gets the majority vote then no MP is elected for that constituency that parliament. We have far too many MPs anyway.

Posted on 25 November 2009 15:40 by eddyh

Make A Comment