On Saturday, August 26, 2023, Nadine Dorries finally stood down as the MP for Mid Bedfordshire.

This saga has been dragging on since February 9, when a PA Media report in The Guardian stated (purple emphases mine):

The former culture secretary Nadine Dorries has announced she is standing down as an MP at the next general election.

Dorries, who represents Mid Bedfordshire and has been an MP since 2005, hit out at her party’s decision to remove Boris Johnson as prime minister as she used her new TalkTV show to confirm her departure.

That day, Guido Fawkes pointed out:

Of the 19 Tory MPs who have said they are standing down before the next election she was one of the few forecast to hold on to her seat.

Mid Bedfordshire has consistently elected Conservative MPs for a century.

When she found out she was not getting a peerage in Boris Johnson’s resignation honours list in June, she announced she would be resigning immediately.

August came and, with her on summer recess along with the rest of MPs and the Lords, criticism of her non-departure mounted. Tom Brake, mentioned below, was a Liberal Democrat MP until a Conservative won his seat in 2019. On August 20, The Guardian reported:

A campaign group has written to the standards watchdog asking for an investigation into Nadine Dorries after its poll suggested more than half of people believe her absence as an MP and failure to quit has significantly damaged parliament’s reputation.

Tom Brake, the director of Unlock Democracy, called for an inquiry after the group commissioned an Opinium survey that found 55% of people thought Dorries had caused significant damage by failing to speak in parliament and delaying her decision to quit.

The survey, which involved 2,000 people, said Dorries announced she was stepping down with immediate effect in early June but has yet to officially quit. It mentioned that she has not spoken in parliament in more than a year despite being paid her full salary as an MP during this time.

Given the option of whether or not this significantly damaged the reputation of parliament, 55% said it had done so, while 22% said it had not, and 23% said they did not know.

Daniel Greenberg, the standards commissioner, had previously written to the group saying it was an extremely high bar for an investigation into an MP on these grounds and it had not been proven that Dorries’ actions had caused significant damage to the reputation of parliament.

Dorries last made a written contribution in parliament when she laid a ministerial statement in early September 2022, as Boris Johnson handed over the reins to Liz Truss. She last voted in the House of Commons in April and has been absent for most votes since last September. The Guardian has previously reported that Dorries is barely visible in her constituency.

Rishi Sunak recently criticised Dorries for failing to represent her constituents properly, telling LBC: “I think people deserve to have an MP that represents them, wherever they are. It’s just making sure your MP is engaging with you, representing you, whether that’s speaking in parliament or being present in their constituencies doing surgeries, answering your letters. That’s the job of an MP and all MPs should be held to that standard.”

Asked if that meant Dorries was failing her constituents, Sunak said: “Well, at the moment people aren’t being properly represented.”

A diehard Johnson loyalist, Dorries said she was quitting parliament to trigger a byelection when the former prime minister stood down as an MP in early June. However, she did not resign and continues to draw an MP’s salary. Justifying her actions, she said she was waiting for an explanation as to why Johnson’s proposal that she should get a peerage was blocked.

Two days later, Henry Hill of ConservativeHome wrote that the Commons could vote to expel her:

… the best thing MPs could do to preserve their right to keep their own House in order is to… keep their own House in order. Which brings us to the question of Nadine Dorries.

Having announced her intention to resign “with immediate effect”, the Member for Mid Bedfordshire has, more than two months later, not done so – and claims she will not until somebody explains why she didn’t get a peerage. She thus continues to draw her parliamentary salary.

She has, however, stopped doing her job. Dorries last voted all the way back in April. Her role as MP for Mid Bedfordshire no longer even features in her Twitter (‘X’) byline, although her TV show and newspaper column do; the email given is for her agent, not her office.

This has, quite properly, caused outrage. If we take Dorries’ case at face value, she is leaving her constituents without representation for the most trivial, shabby, and self-interested of reasons. At least were she simply delaying the by-election to cause maximum political damage to the Government, there would be some trace of a higher motive.

But the growing consensus is that no such by-election will take place, at least not of Dorries’ volition. And given that the current recall rules don’t allow the voters of Mid Bedfordshire to precipitate a by-election in the absence of appropriate sanction from the House of Commons, as our editor noted earlier this month, there’s nothing anybody can do about it.

Or is there?

Hill mentions Tom Brake’s Unlock Democracy group, then says that Labour MP Chris Bryant was also on the case:

Meanwhile PoliticsHome reports that Chris Bryant is working up a plan to disinter “an arcane parliamentary rule” – last employed in 1801! – to force Dorries’ resignation.

Now, I bow to nobody in my love of arcane parliamentary rules, especially with such an auspicious vintage. But there is no need to go digging for long-buried arcana to precipitate a by-election in Mid Bedfordshire. It can be done in just seven words:

“That Nadine Dorries be expelled this House.”

Yes, this seems to be yet another example of people staging a hunt for elaborate means of doing (or excuses for not doing) something which the constitution just allows them to do.

Hill questions whether that would be a good idea:

… is it likely? And would it be wise?

As to the former, one can well imagine why it might not happen. For all the real outrage at her conduct, the Government might never screw its courage to the sticking place and inflict on itself what would probably be a painful by-election. It may also suit the Opposition to have her linger, further poisoning the Conservative brand, than force her out.

Yet there are also plausible political cases for both sides moving such a motion.

For Sir Keir Starmer, it’s an opportunity to precipitate a by-election in which Labour would almost certainly do well, and perhaps even win. If he wanted additional cover then Labour (or indeed an independent group) could set up an independent recall petition, with the Leader of the Opposition pledging to table a motion to expel if it reached the threshold.

For Rishi Sunak, meanwhile, there would be worse ways to restore his credibility as a new broom, after the debacle of Boris Johnson’s resignation honours …

… whoever initiated it, it seems likely (at least to this author) that if such a motion were tabled, it would pass. It would be extremely difficult, given all they have said about her, for either party to actively vote to keep Dorries in post.

Which brings us to the question of whether doing any of the above would be wise.

There will be, quite rightly, wariness about breaking the seal on such a mechanism, which was in the past put to infamous effect to try and exclude Members from the Commons on political grounds …

On the other hand, that something should be used judiciously does not mean that it should never be used. MPs’ use of expulsion is discretionary and not bound by precedent. But even informally, would the precedent of expelling an MP who quit their job without actually resigning be a terrible one to set?

In the course of decades of reforms, the Commons has never divested itself of the power to expel, nor (that I know of) has it been seriously proposed that it do so. There thus seems to be little dispute that this is a power the House ought to have – and thus, by extension, to use on occasion.

Moreover, inactivity sets its own precedent, and the availability of expulsion makes the failure to do so a choice. How hollow will all the condemnation of Dorries ring, from all sides, should the electorate ever realise that the politicians have to hand a simple means to remedy the problem – but are choosing not to use it?

Doubtless the lady would protest. But she would always be free … to ask the voters of Mid Bedfordshire to return her to Parliament, if they think the quest for her missing peerage warrants it.

Early on Saturday evening, Guido Fawkes obtained the text of Dorries’s resignation letter, which he published in full. Excerpts follow:

Dear Prime Minister,

It has been the greatest honour and privilege of my life to have served the good people of Mid Bedfordshire as their MP for eighteen years and I count myself blessed to have worked in Westminster for almost a quarter of a century. Despite what some in the media and you yourself have implied, my team of caseworkers and I have continued to work for my constituents faithfully and diligently to this day. 

When I arrived in Mid Bedfordshire in 2005, I inherited a Conservative majority of 8,000. Over five elections this has increased to almost 25,000, making it one of the safest seats in the country. A legacy I am proud of …

She then went on to list her accomplishments in Parliament before turning her sights on Rishi:

What many of the CEOs I spoke to in the tech sector and business leaders really wanted was meaningful regulatory reform from you as chancellor to enable companies not only to establish in the UK, but to list on the London Stock Exchange rather than New York. You flashed your gleaming smile in your Prada shoes and Savile Row suit from behind a camera, but you just weren’t listening. All they received in return were platitudes and a speech illustrating how wonderful life was in California. London is now losing its appeal as more UK-based companies seek better listing opportunities in the U.S. That, Prime Minister, is entirely down to you. 

Long before my resignation announcement, in July 2022, I had advised the Cabinet Secretary, Simon Case, of my intention to step down. Senior figures in the party, close allies of yours, have continued to this day to implore me to wait until the next general election rather than inflict yet another damaging by-election on the party at a time when we are consistently twenty points behind in the polls. 

Having witnessed first-hand, as Boris Johnson and then Liz Truss were taken down, I decided that the British people had a right to know what was happening in their name. Why is it that we have had five Conservative Prime Ministers since 2010, with not one of the previous four having left office as the result of losing a general election? That is a democratic deficit which the mother of parliaments should be deeply ashamed of and which, as you and I know, is the result of the machinations of a small group of individuals embedded deep at the centre of the party and Downing St.

To start with, my investigations focused on the political assassination of Boris Johnson, but as I spoke to more and more people – and I have spoken to a lot of people, from ex-Prime Ministers, Cabinet Ministers both ex and current through all levels of government and Westminster and even journalists – a dark story emerged which grew ever more disturbing with each person I spoke to.

It became clear to me as I worked that remaining as a back bencher was incompatible with publishing a book which exposes how the democratic process at the heart of our party has been corrupted. As I uncovered this alarming situation I knew, such were the forces ranged against me, that I was grateful to retain my parliamentary privilege until today.  And, as you also know Prime Minister, those forces are today the most powerful figures in the land. The onslaught against me even included the bizarre spectacle of the Cabinet Secretary claiming (without evidence) to a select committee that he had reported me to the Whips and Speakers office (not only have neither office been able to confirm this was true, but they have no power to act, as he well knows). It is surely as clear a breach of Civil Service impartiality as you could wish to see. 

This is her crescendo, but it just sounds bizarre:

But worst of all has been the spectacle of a Prime Minister demeaning his office by opening the gates to whip up a public frenzy against one of his own MPs. You failed to mention in your public comments that there could be no writ moved for a by-election over summer.  And that the earliest any by-election could take place is at the end of September. The clearly orchestrated and almost daily personal attacks demonstrates the pitifully low level your Government has descended to.

What is she talking about? They certainly didn’t come from Rishi personally, and, from what I’ve heard, MPs answered questions about Dorries only when asked by news outlets, including GB News.

Dorries’s letter continues. On the matter of personal security:

I do not have security or protection. Attacks from people, led by you, declared open season on myself and the past weeks have resulted in the police having to visit my home and contact me on a number of occasions due to threats to my person. 

However, the following is what Rishi’s critics, including the Labour Party, will take away and quote, especially as the polling gap between Labour and the Conservatives is now 20+ per cent:

Since you took office a year ago, the country is run by a zombie Parliament where nothing meaningful has happened. What exactly has been done or have you achieved? You hold the office of Prime Minister unelected, without a single vote, not even from your own MPs. You have no mandate from the people and the Government is adrift. You have squandered the goodwill of the nation, for what? 

And what a difference it is now since 2019, when Boris Johnson won an eighty-seat majority and a greater percentage of the vote share than Tony Blair in the Labour landslide victory of ’97. We were a mere five points behind on the day he was removed from office. Since you became Prime Minister, his manifesto has been completely abandoned. We cannot simply disregard the democratic choice of the electorate, remove both the Prime Minister and the manifesto commitments they voted for and then expect to return to the people in the hope that they will continue to unquestioningly support us. They have agency, they will use it. 

Levelling up has been discarded and with it, those deprived communities it sought to serve. Social care, ready to be launched, abandoned along with the hope of all of those who care for the elderly and the vulnerable. The Online Safety Bill has been watered down. BBC funding reform, the clock run down. The Mental Health Act, timed out. Defence spending, reduced. Our commitment to net zero, animal welfare and the green issues so relevant to the planet and voters under 40, squandered. As Lord Goldsmith wrote in his own resignation letter, because you simply do not care about the environment or the natural world. What exactly is it you do stand for?

You have increased Corporation tax to 25 per cent, taking us to the level of the highest tax take since World War two at 75 per cent of GDP, and you have completely failed in reducing illegal immigration or delivering on the benefits of Brexit. The bonfire of EU legislation, swerved. The Windsor framework agreement, a dead duck, brought into existence by shady promises of future preferment with grubby rewards and potential gongs to MPs. Stormont is still not sitting. 

Disregarding your own chancellor, last week you took credit for reducing inflation, citing your ‘plan’. There has been no budget, no new fiscal measures, no debate, there is no plan. Such statements take the British public for fools.  The decline in the price of commodities such as oil and gas, the eased pressure on the supply of wheat and the increase in interest rates by the Bank of England are what has taken the heat out of the economy and reduced inflation. For you to personally claim credit for this was disingenuous at the very least.

Your actions have left some 200 or more of my MP colleagues to face an electoral tsunami and the loss of their livelihoods, because in your impatience to become Prime Minister you put your personal ambition above the stability of the country and our economy. Bewildered, we look in vain for the grand political vision for the people of this great country to hold on to, that would make all this disruption and subsequent inertia worthwhile, and we find absolutely nothing.

I shall take some comfort from explaining to people exactly how you and your allies achieved this undemocratic upheaval in my book … You have abandoned the fundamental principles of Conservatism. History will not judge you kindly. 

I shall today inform the Chancellor of my intention to take the Chiltern Hundreds, enabling the writ to be moved on September the 4th for the by-election you are so desperately seeking to take place. 

Yours sincerely,

Nadine Dorries

Taking the Chiltern Hundreds is what resigning MPs do and involves holding a temporary but long-since meaningless title for a brief time. Wikipedia explains:

The Chiltern Hundreds is an ancient administrative area in Buckinghamshire, England, composed of three “hundreds” and lying partially within the Chiltern Hills. “Taking the Chiltern Hundreds” refers to one of the legal fictions used to effect resignation from the British House of Commons. Since Members of Parliament are not permitted to resign, they are instead appointed to an “office of profit under the Crown”, which requires MPs to vacate their seats. The ancient office of Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Chiltern Hundreds, having been reduced to a mere sinecure by the 17th century, was first used by John Pitt (of Encombe) in 1751 to vacate his seat in the House of Commons. Other titles were also later used for the same purpose, but only those of the Chiltern Hundreds and the Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead are still in use.

A hundred is a traditional division of an English county: the Oxford English Dictionary says that the etymology is “exceedingly obscure” …

In the 17th century Members of Parliament (MPs) were often elected against their will.^{[citation needed]}On 2 March 1624, a resolution was passed by the House of Commons making it illegal for an MP to quit or wilfully give up his seat. Believing that officers of the Crown could not remain impartial, the House passed a resolution on 30 December 1680 stating that an MP who “shall accept any Office, or Place of Profit, from the Crown, without the Leave of this House … shall be expelled [from] this House.” However, MPs were able to hold Crown Stewardships until 1740 …

A number of other offices have also been used, but only the Chiltern Hundreds and the Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead are still in use.^[1]

Labour wasted no time in creating a parody Dorries site for fundraising. On Tuesday, August 29, Guido wrote about it and said (red emphasis his):

Guido’s not sure that the blue banner won’t confuse people, it is signed off “Not Nadine Dorries, Former very busy MP for Mid Bedfordshire.” Amusing even if somewhat confusing.

The Mid Bedfordshire by-election will not take place before October. The annual Conservative Party conference is scheduled for the first four days of that month.

Nadine Dorries hopes to create chaos for Rishi Sunak with her resignation. Will she or won’t she? We’ll find out in a month’s time. That said, she is not a great loss as an MP, although her consitituents must have loved her not so long ago in 2019. It is hard to imagine that they will all go rushing to Labour, but stranger things have happened.