Last week, the Senedd’s Standards of Conduct Committee published a report recommending the introduction of a recall procedure, allowing voters to remove and replace Members of the Senedd (MSs) who have seriously breached the Code of Conduct.

On the surface, this seems like a positive step. After all, there have been a number of cases where MSs have broken the rules without facing meaningful consequences. However, a closer look at the proposed process reveals a system that could undermine accountability rather than enhance it.

What is recall?

Recall is a mechanism which allows voters to remove politicians who have committed serious misconduct. Many will be familiar with recall from Westminster, where a procedure was introduced in 2015.

Under that system, MPs can face a recall petition for offences such as criminal convictions or fraudulent expenses claims. If a petition is triggered, constituents have six weeks to sign it. If 10% of them do, the MP is removed, and a by-election is held, giving voters the opportunity to elect a new representative.

At its core, recall is about accountability. Just as in any other job, if someone engages in misconduct, they should face consequences. Recall provides a democratic mechanism for this to happen.

Voters robbed of choice again

However, the Senedd’s proposed system differs significantly from the Westminster model. Under these proposals, an MS who has seriously breached standards would face a recall petition that voters would have just one day to sign. If a plurality of voters support the recall, the MS would be removed. However, instead of triggering a by-election, the vacated seat would simply be filled by the next candidate on the party’s list from the previous Senedd election – regardless of how long ago that election was.

This raises serious concerns about voter choice and accountability. In the Westminster system, recall petitions often lead to by-elections where voters can express their dissatisfaction not just with an individual but with their party as well. In three out of the four by-elections triggered by recall petitions in the 2019-24 parliament, the incumbent party lost the seat. This demonstrates that voters can hold the party accountable for its representative’s misconduct, not just the individual member.

Under the Senedd’s proposed system, voters would be denied this opportunity. Instead, the same party would automatically retain the seat, regardless of how the electorate feels about its role in the MSs conduct. This could allow parties to shield themselves from the electoral consequences of their MSs’ behaviour. Just as the soon to be introduced closed-lists stystem concentrates power in the hands of political parties and takes choice away from voters, this recall system would do the same.

The principle behind recall is sound: voters should have the power to remove politicians who fail to uphold ethical standards. However, if recall is to be introduced in Wales, it must be done properly. That means ensuring that voters—not political parties—determine who represents them after a recall. Otherwise, this system risks becoming yet another mechanism that prioritises party interests over public accountability.

You can support the work of ERS Cymru by joining the Electoral Reform Society

Members support our work in the Senedd and beyond, in the press and online – making the case, and backing it up – for how we can fix Westminster’s broken system.

Support us from just £2 a month

A spate of recent controversies has renewed demands for ‘full recall’ – where ten percent of voters can sign a petition, triggering a local referendum on whether an MP should lose their seat and a by-election held. MPs need to be held accountable for their actions, but around the world, where full recall exists, it has led to a swathe of unintended consequences.

The lesson from America has been that big business, trade unions and tech-savvy campaign groups can plot and bankroll the collection of a few thousand signatures and then the pro-recall campaign. The goal of a recall campaign could simply be wasting the time and money of your opponent, or distracting them from the job they were elected to do.

The lesson from America has been that big business, trade unions and tech-savvy campaign groups plot and bankroll recall campaigns against their opponents Click To Tweet

Full recall could easily become a free for all, as religious evangelicals and women’s rights organisation would target MPs for their view on abortion, energy companies and environmental activists persecute MPs for their views on fracking, and the RSPCA and Countryside Alliance hound MPs for their views on fox-hunting. Any group could do this whenever they wanted to settle vendettas against an MP with whom they disagree, whether local people wanted them to or not.

As well as being used by interest groups, full recall can be a partisan tool. Due to the broken electoral system we use in Westminster, many MPs get elected with less than 50% of the vote. In over half of constituencies in 2015, a majority of voters didn’t vote for the winner. With full recall, unsuccessful parties and their supporters could continually trigger recall votes before losing again at the by-election. Each attempt would cost the taxpayer, parties and candidates a lot of money, while voters get fatigued – resulting in lower turnout each time. Those who are not content are likelier to vote than those who are content, further skewing the result.

Nationally, full recall is complicated by the United Kingdom’s parliamentary democracy. Voters who live in a given seat would be able to recall for example the fisheries minister, the shadow home secretary or even the prime minister, whereas voters in the rest of the country could not.

What’s more, MPs would be less likely to act with a long-term view or in the national interest if they feared the backlash of a short-term local recall campaign. They would be less likely to stick to their principles, speak their mind on controversial issues or take on powerful interest groups.

There are many ways someone can serve their constituency and country as a good MP. Developing government or opposition policies as a frontbencher; scrutinising the government in select committees; banging the drum for the local area in the chamber; banging heads together of local stakeholders to secure local improvements; doing casework to help constituents with personal problems. A minority of constituents who think an MP has this balance wrong shouldn’t be able to trigger a recall vote.

Finally, an MP who is campaigning against a recall vote—to convince their voters that they have been making the right decisions—has less time, resource and energy to get on with their job.

Full recall would not improve our democracy – and in many ways would harm it. We are always going to have unpopular MPs when you don’t have to be popular to win a seat. Introducing full recall would just add an extra level of chaos to Westminster’s already volatile electoral system.

Full recall would not improve our democracy – and in many ways would harm it. Click To Tweet

The long-term solution is to deal with Westminster’s safe seat pandemic. In hundreds of constituencies across the country, if an MP keeps a few members of a tiny party selectorate happy they have a job for life. With a fair system like the one they use in Ireland, we wouldn’t need recall in the first place. The Single Transferable Vote would end the days of unpopular local MPs and give the power back to voters.

Photo from the unsuccessful attempt to recall Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker – Creative Commons Marctasman. Candidates and outside groups spent more than $80 million in the governor’s recall race. 

The lobbying scandal is yet more evidence of the corrupting power of money in our politics. But as ministers fall over themselves to look decisive, it’s time for a reality check.

The Government doesn’t seem to know if it’s dealing with a discrete lobbying problem or a bigger issue of political corruption. And in the rush to prove their decisiveness they risk missing the real issue.

The rules that govern our MPs and Peers are simply not fit for purpose. Is taking cash for questions a faux pas or a criminal offence? We should seize this opportunity to set rigorous standards for our politicians.

We have some of the toughest anti bribery laws in the world. Shouldn’t we use this opportunity to tighten existing laws to ensure rigorous – and enforceable – legal standards clearly apply to all politicians.

And yes, a lobbying register would bring much needed transparency, but it offers no protection against brown envelopes.

The support for the register among larger lobbying firms shows that parliament needs to tread carefully. We don’t want to do big commercial lobbyists a favour by making it impossible for small competitors to break their hold on the industry.

As for recall, we’ve made our position on this abundantly clear.

Recall does seem a good idea until you see it in practice. Today the Deputy Prime Minister says recall needs to be ‘done right’, but there is simply no example of recall in practice that hasn’t handed more power to the already powerful.

The Government has fallen for the myth that recall empowers the public. All the evidence shows it is a partisan tool wielded by powerful interest groups to promote sore losers. Recall is not the great leveller, it would simply give moneyed elites an even greater grip on our politics.

Recall would be a sign of this parliament’s failure to police itself. Our lawmakers shouldn’t be law breakers. The Government needs to forget recall, and ensure MPs are subject to the law of the land, properly enforced.

Governments rarely receive praise for inaction – but that is precisely the right move on recall.

In today’s Queen’s Speech there was no reference to the pledge to legislate for recall. This is a system familiar in America, where citizens can petition to boot out naughty politicians between elections – or at least that’s how the theory goes.

The recall myth tells that it empowers the public. In reality it is a partisan tool wielded by powerful interest groups – to promote sore losers.

Recall is not the great leveller. It would give moneyed elites an even greater grip on our politics. No one wants to see the Taxpayers’ Alliance and Unite spending millions chasing signatures on their latest recall petition.

Let’s make sure our Members of Parliament are properly subject to the laws of the land. Let’s make sure MPs found guilty of criminal offenses trigger automatic by-elections. But let’s pass on recall.

It has polluted American politics. And it’s time its British proponents looked long and hard at the evidence. The Government have passed on recall for now, but any attempts to introduce it via the back door must be strongly resisted.

Four good reasons to oppose recall

1) It’s a partisan tool

Recall has become a conventional partisan campaign tool at every level of government in the US – which has allowed forces on the left and right the chance to re-run political battles after Election Day.

The 2012 Recall initiative against Wisconsin’s Republican Governor Scott Walker was a straight rerun of the 2010 gubernatorial election – and proved the most expensive contest in the state’s history. According to the advocacy group Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, candidates and outside groups spent more than $80 million in the governor’s recall race. This compares to $37.4 million spent on the 2010 gubernatorial election

According to USA Today, $30 million of Walker’s donations came from outside the state with Democratic opponent Tom Barrett receiving $20 million from labour unions.

Tit for tat recall bids in the Wisconsin State Senate in 2011 saw Democratic and Republican opponents attempt to tip the chamber’s political balance in midterm.

Kathleen Dolan, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee commented: “Wisconsin has become in some ways a microcosm of the partisan wars that have been raging nationally.”

2) It rewards Big Money

Recall rewards established groups who are organised enough – and well resourced enough – to deliver petitions.

US academic Dr Elizabeth Garret has expressed her concern over the role of money in recall contests – following the successful recall of California Democratic Governor Gray Davis. She notes that “a group seeking ballot qualification can be certain of success if it is willing to pay enough”.

Many US recall drives rely on paid ‘circulators’ to generate signatures. Garret observes that a “sophisticated initiative industry” has grown up in California, including “companies which “offer clients a money back guarantee if they don’t produce enough valid signatures.” In 1999 these companies received an average of $1.50 per signature.

3) It’s expensive

The high costs of recall contests have led to unintended consequences.

In 1993 five members of the city council of Covina, Los Angeles County, were recalled because a 6% utility tax. As a result of the revenue being lost from the utility tax the library and fire station came under threat of closure and 42 city employees faced redundancy. The councillors who were elected as replacements then introduced an 8.25% tax.

4) It’s ineffective

In almost all cases US recall isn’t based on any allegations of criminal wrongdoing.

Johnstown, Colorado Mayor Mark Romanowski survived a recall election in 2011 that was prompted, in part, by residents’ opposition to a plan to switch from diagonal to parallel parking spaces. Ogden, Kansas, Mayor Jimmy Bonds lost a recall election in 2010 after firing two lifeguards. Opponents said he overstepped his bounds.

American states have varying signature thresholds to initiate recall at different levels. The problem is a higher bar rewards money; a lower bar opens the door to frivolous bids.