Forget The Terminator – when it comes to Arnie’s hit films, Johnson should worry about Total Recall
Boris Johnson quoted Arnold Schwarzenegger in the movie Terminator 2: Judgment Day in his final address to the Commons as prime minister.
“‘Hasta la vista, Baby’ – thank you”, he signed off to MPs last July.
The quotation, literally “until the view” in Spanish, is usually taken to mean “until we meet again” – a hope which Johnson wholeheartedly embraces. He makes no secret that he would like, and feels he deserves, another go in Number 10 Downing Street. Citing Schwarzenegger conjured up his other catchphrase: “I’ll be back.”
At the moment though, Mr Johnson should be more pre-occupied with another of Arnie’s greatest hits: Total Recall. Recall, in the sense that parliament meant it in the Recall of MPs Act 2015, may well be about to cut short his time as a member of parliament. For now, at least.
The Act was passed in the wake of the expenses scandal, when it proved impossible to remove members from parliament, even after they were sent to prison. The recall process has proved a quietly efficient way of dealing with wrongdoers, although not all of them have paid the ultimate price of losing their seats.
Under the Act recalling, i.e. unseating, an MP can be triggered for three reasons only:
1. If an MP is sent to prison for any length of time, once the appeals process is exhausted. (A sentence of over 12 months automatically kicks an MP out)
2. When the House votes to suspend an MP for 10 sitting days or more on the recommendation of the Standards Committee
3. If an MP is convicted of fiddling expenses and allowances under the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 – even with a non-custodial sentence
When one of these conditions is met, the speaker informs the “petition officer” in the relevant constituency. In practice the “petition officer” is the council official who acts as returning officer at election times. They must then set up polling stations, open for six weeks, where the petition can be signed (in person or by post). If 10% or more of the local electorate sign it, the MP is recalled and a by-election takes place. The deposed individual is not barred from running for re-election.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
‘Could you lose your seat over this?’
So far, half a dozen MPs have been caught up with or faced the threat of a recall petition. Of these one is still serving and has been re-elected at a general election. Two are out of parliament and three are still uncertain what their fate will be.
In 2018, Ian Paisley Jnr, the DUP MP for South Antrim, was suspended for 30 days for failing to declare hospitality from the Sri Lankan government. But the recall petition in his constituency fell 444 votes short of 10%. No by-election was triggered and he kept his seat.
In early 2019 Fiona Onasanya, Labour MP for Peterborough, was sentenced to three months for perverting the court of justice over speeding offences. Labour removed the whip from her. 28% backed the recall petition. She did not contest the by-election.
The same year the Conservative MP for Brecon and Radnorshire, Christopher Davies, was found guilty of false expense claims. 19% voted for recall. Davies was allowed to stand again as the Conservative candidate in the subsequent by-election, but he lost to the Lib Dems. The Tory Fay Jones won it back in the 2019 general election.
Claudia Webbe, the MP for Leicester East, was convicted of harassment of her partner’s female friend. Labour removed the whip and say she should resign. Her conviction was upheld on appeal but the sentence was reduced, avoiding prison. So a recall petition was not triggered and Webbe continues to sit as an independent MP.
Margaret Ferrier, MP for Rutherglen and Hamilton West, is currently going through the process following a breach of COVID travel restrictions. She was convicted and given 270 hours of community service at Glasgow Sherriff Court. In the next week or so, the Leader of the House, Penny Mordaunt, will call a debate, when the Commons is expected to uphold the 30-day suspension recommended by the Standards Committee. That would trigger a by-election for the SNP at a difficult time. The party has already said it will campaign against Ferrier if she stands again as an independent.
The Standards Committee membership overlaps with the Privileges Committee which is now investigating Boris Johnson for contempt of parliament through lying. Four Conservative MPs and the SNP member argued for a lighter, nine-day suspension for Ferrier which would not have meant a by-election. But in the end the whole committee backed the tougher measures.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Highlights of Boris Johnson’s evidence
Senior Conservatives still predict that the Privileges Committee will duck a furore if they find against Johnson by recommending a suspension of less than 10 days. But Ferrier’s punishment augurs badly for him if he is to avoid a challenge in his Uxbridge constituency. Their two offences are separate matters, of course, though both relate to breaking the pandemic rules which the prime minister introduced. Committee members are said to be less sympathetic to Mr Johnson than to Ferrier, who is a single parent with a home far from Westminster.
It is possible that Mr Johnson may prefer to face recall rather than stay on as MP for Uxbridge. He has already agreed to fight the next election there as their candidate. Based on current polls, Electoral Calculus predicts that he would lose. They give Labour an 83% chance of taking the seat.
Some MPs caught in controversy choose to fall on their swords and resign rather than go through the recall process – the Conservative MPs Neil Parish and, eventually, Owen Paterson are recent examples. If sanctioned Johnson might prefer to stand down immediately, citing the “good chap” principle. This would give him several personal advantages. Donald Trump style, he could claim political victimisation to stir up his supporters. He would have until the next election to earn as much as possible without having to declare his earnings to parliament.
He could also find another winnable seat. This week John Howell, who has served as MP for Henley since he took over from Boris Johnson, announced that he will not run in the new version of the constituency following boundary changes. Oxfordshire (South East) remains a safe seat with a 65% chance of being held by the Conservatives. Boris and Carrie Johnson own property in the area. It had been thought that Nadine Dorries’ Bedfordshire constituency might make a comfortable berth for him if, as expected, Johnson promotes her to the House of Lords. On current predictions though, Labour are favourites to capture this seat.
Some politicians from the radical right would like to use the recall process as a regular feature of political combat – as impeachment seems to be in danger of becoming in the United States. Zac Goldsmith proposed that just 5% of local voters should be able to trigger a recall for any reason. But the act passed by parliament deliberately reserves it for specific wrongdoing. It gives MPs teeth with which to police their own standards, at a time when public trust in them is low.
There are already more cases pending. Following a media sting, Scott Benton, Conservative MP for the marginal seat of Blackpool has referred himself to the standards commissioner for alleged misuse of his parliamentary email address.
Until now, media coverage of recall petitions has been quiet. This is largely because it is an offence to report on people signing the petition or to speculate on its outcome while it is taking place. The Electoral Commission has suggested some changes but neither the government nor MPs have taken them up. Those constraints on reporting are likely to be tested to the limit should Boris Johnson end up starring in his own Total Recall.
The UK’s economic slowdown gathered further momentum during the third quarter of the year with growth of just 0.1%, according to an early official estimate that makes horrific reading for the chancellor.
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) reported a surprise contraction for economic output during September of -0.1% – with some of the downwards pressure being applied by the cyber attack disruption to production at Jaguar Land Rover.
The figures for July-September followed on the back of a 0.3% growth performance over the previous three months and the 0.7% expansion achieved between January and March.
Money latest: The £110 benefit 1.1 million older Britons don’t claim
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Growth ‘slightly worse than expected’
The encouraging start to 2025 was soon followed by the worst of Donald Trump’s trade war salvoes and the implementation of budget measures that placed employers on the hook for £25bn of extra taxes.
Economists have blamed those factors since for pushing up inflation and harming investment and employment.
ONS director of economic statistics, Liz McKeown, said: “Growth slowed further in the third quarter of the year with both services and construction weaker than in the previous period. There was also a further contraction in production.
“Across the quarter as a whole, manufacturing drove the weakness in production. There was a particularly marked fall in car production in September, reflecting the impact of a cyber incident, as well as a decline in the often-erratic pharmaceutical industry.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
What next for the UK economy?
“Services were the main contributor to growth in the latest quarter, with business rental and leasing, live events and retail performing well, partially offset by falls in R&D [research and development] and hair and beauty salons.”
When measured by per head of population- a preferred measure of living standards – zero growth was registered during the third quarter.
The weaker-than-expected figures will add fuel to expectations that the Bank of England can cut interest rates at its December meeting after November’s hold.
The vast majority of financial market participants now expect a reduction to 3.75% from 4% on 18 December.
Data earlier this week showed the UK’s unemployment rate at 5% – up from 4.1% when Labour came to power with a number one priority of growing the economy.
Since then, the government’s handling of the economy has centred on its stewardship of the public finances.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Chancellor questioned by Sky News
The chancellor was accused by business groups of harming private sector investment and employment through hikes to minimum wage levels and employer national insurance contributions.
The Bank has backed the assertion that hiring and staff retention has been hit as a result of those extra costs.
There is also evidence that rising employment costs have been passed on to consumers and contributed to the UK’s stubbornly high rate of inflation of 3.8% – a figure that is now expected to ease considerably in the coming months.
Rachel Reeves has blamed other factors – such as Brexit and the US trade war – for weighing on the economy, leaving her facing a similar black hole to the one she says she inherited from the Conservatives.
Her second budget is due on 26 November.
Read more:
Chancellor’s own goals have exacerbated budget challenges
Starmer hints two-child benefit cap to be axed in budget
Will Reeves repeat Denis Healey’s 1975 horror budget?
She said of the latest economic data: “We had the fastest-growing economy in the G7 in the first half of the year, but there’s more to do to build an economy that works for working people.
“At my budget later this month, I will take the fair decisions to build a strong economy that helps us to continue to cut waiting lists, cut the national debt and cut the cost of living.”
Shadow chancellor Sir Mel Stride responded: “Today’s ONS figures show the economy shrank in the latest month, under a Prime Minister and Chancellor who are in office but not in power.”
The Scottish government and For Women Scotland’s long-running legal battle over the definition of a woman is yet to come to a close.
For Women Scotland (FWS) won the case in April when the country’s highest court ruled “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refers to “a biological woman and biological sex”.
The Scottish government was ordered to pay a portion of the campaign group’s legal costs.
FWS told Sky News the bill of costs for the Supreme Court element of the case was more than £270,000, however various parts have reportedly been disputed by the Scottish government.
That has now been submitted to the court for determination and a decision is awaited.
Pic: PA
The Outer and Inner House element of the case at the Court of Session in Edinburgh was said to be more than £150,000.
Trina Budge, co-director of FWS, said the group is also due an uplift – a small percentage of the final expenses awarded.
Ms Budge claimed Scottish ministers are yet to enter into any negotiations on settlement and a date has been set in January for a hearing before the Auditor of the Court of Session to confirm the amount the government will have to pay.
Ms Budge said: “The delay always suits the paying party but I think it’s quite unusual to decline to enter into any discussions at all.
“It’s highly likely this is a deliberate tactic in the hope of starving us of funds to prevent us continuing our latest case on the lawfulness of housing male prisoners on the female estate.
“However, it should come as no surprise to the government that we have massive support and we will, of course, be continuing regardless of any sharp practices.”
Susan Smith and Marion Calder, co-directors of For Women Scotland, outside the Supreme Court in London in April. Pic: PA
It is understood the bill of costs for the Supreme Court case was lodged by FWS in August, while the expenses linked to the Court of Session action was submitted in September.
Figures revealed by a recent Freedom of Information (FOI) request show the Scottish government has spent at least £374,000 on the case.
Final costs are yet to be confirmed but will be published once complete.
A Scottish government spokesperson said: “There is an established process to be undertaken to agree the final costs for a legal case and these will be calculated and published in due course.”
In August, FWS lodged fresh action at the Court of Session.
The group claimed Holyrood’s guidance on transgender pupils in schools and the Scottish Prison Service’s (SPS) policy on the management of transgender people in custody were both in “clear breach of the law” and “inconsistent” with the Supreme Court judgment.
The following month, the Scottish government issued updated guidance which said schools across the nation must provide separate toilets for boys and girls on the basis of biological sex.
If possible, schools can also provide gender neutral toilets for transgender students.
However, court proceedings continue over transgender prisoners.
Current SPS guidance allows for a transgender woman to be admitted into the female estate if the inmate does not meet the violence against women and girls criteria, and there is no other basis “to suppose” they could pose an “unacceptable risk of harm” to those also housed there.
First Minister John Swinney and Justice Secretary Angela Constance have both dodged questions on the case, citing it would be inappropriate to comment on live court proceedings.
Justice Secretary Angela Constance and First Minister John Swinney. Pic: PA
On Tuesday, Ms Constance was accused by former Scottish Tory leader Douglas Ross of “misleading” Holyrood, saying she could give full answers under contempt of court legislation.
Scottish Tory MSP Tess White, the party’s equalities spokesperson, added she was “spine-chillingly concerned” of a repeat of the Isla Bryson case.
The case of Isla Bryson sparked a public outcry after the double rapist was sent to a women-only prison. Pic: PA
Bryson, a transgender woman born Adam Graham, was initially sent to a women-only prison despite being convicted of raping two women.
The offender was later transferred to the male estate following a public outcry.
Speaking to Sky News, Ms White said: “John Swinney was quick to waste taxpayers’ money fighting a case which confirmed what the vast majority of the public knew beforehand: a woman is an adult human female.”
The MSP for North East Scotland urged the SNP administration to “pay up and finally respect the clear judgment from the Supreme Court”.
A Scottish government spokesperson said: “It is the Scottish government’s long-held position that it is inappropriate for Scottish ministers to comment on live litigation.
“In all cases, we have an obligation to uphold the independence of the judiciary. We do not want the government to ever be seen as interfering in the work of the independent courts.”
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024