When should an MP resign?

It is possible — and even necessary — to hold two beliefs simultaneously: to wish Michael Payne a full and swift recovery from his illness, and to insist that Gedling must not suffer a democratic deficit due to his absence. I want to firstly recognise the seriousness of Mr Payne’s health; he has described it as “dealing with a period of severe physical illness” and is under medical orders to rest. I’m sure everyone in Gedling, including myself, wishes him a speedy and full recovery. This does not conflict, however, with insisting that Gedling and its residents deserve active, present representation in Parliament and in the constituency.

Michael Payne’s announcement — that he is “currently dealing with a period of severe physical illness” and will be unable to vote or attend to parliamentary duties — is deeply humanising. Seeing an elected official step back to prioritise their well-being inevitably evokes empathy. Nobody wants Michael Payne to be in this position. We wish him well.

Rightly, Gedling and its residents have expressed hope for Payne’s recovery, and this is the right and compassionate thing to do. Choosing health treatment over professional obligations is an entirely legitimate, even necessary and very brave decision – more of us should do it.

However, empathy for Mr Payne should not overshadow the democratic imperative at play. Gedling remains one of 650 important constituencies in the UK — each designed to be fully represented in Parliament, with one vote per MP to ensure fairness. When an MP steps back for an undisclosed period, constituents are left without a direct voice during votes, debates, or decision-making — tens of thousands of voices going unheard and unrepresented.

Mr Payne asserts that his office remains open and staffed. Yet no matter how capable his aides are, they cannot fill the constitutional and practical role of an MP. They cannot cast votes on his behalf, participate in legislative committees, or rise for urgent questions in the Commons. Their support can never substitute for actual representation in Westminster.

Payne’s public statements emphasise frustration at being absent: “This is incredibly frustrating for me. I care deeply about representing our community…” This caring intention underlines that he can prioritise his health. However, it also reveals a tension: how deeply does can we prioritise Gedling’s democratic continuity?

If the MP places personal recuperation above being present in Parliament, that choice is understandable — and right for him to do. But if he truly “cares deeply” about his community, does he not also owe the constituency the chance for full parliamentary presence? There are two questions to ask, and they are allowed to have different answers: What is right for Michael Payne? And what is right for Gedling? A politically significant constituency like Gedling deserves an MP who is present — especially when major votes, debates, and legislative scrutiny await.

If Michael cares about Gedling being represented, then he should and can prioritise Gedling’s representation. If Michael cannot fulfil his role as an MP, he should step aside and resign. I’m sure he has already thought about this. I do not envy being put in that position.

Some of Michael Payne’s supporters may be tempted to invoke emotional appeals — urging silence out of respect, or framing any call for a by-election as insensitive. While compassion is essential, it must not be weaponised to suppress legitimate democratic demands. The people of Gedling are not being callous in asking for consistent representation; they are simply defending a core democratic principle. It is not an attack on Payne’s character to say that no individual’s personal situation — however serious — should indefinitely override the right of constituents to be fully represented in Parliament. If we allow emotional narratives to silence civic scrutiny, we risk turning parliamentary seats into personal possessions rather than public trusts. Be warned: Labour could do this. True respect for Payne should involve holding fast to the values he was elected to serve — not quietly accepting a vacuum in representation.

Look, hopefully we don’t get to this position where we need to consider these things. We hope Payne is fully recovered when Parliament returns in the autumn. But if weeks turn into months, it is legitimate and correct to ask — when are Gedling and its residents going to get their voice back?

I think it is fair, to both Gedling residents, and Michael Payne if we are open, honest and transparent from the beginning with regards to how long is an acceptable amount of time to be away from this position - lets be clear from the outset. What is wrong with that? Surely it suits both parties? We don't want to be in a position months or years down the line arguing about when and if there should be a a by-election.

We need to remember the role of an MP is not like any other job. In any other job, if someone was off for 6 months or a year, you would be able to bring in cover. We cannot do that here. If people think it is ok for an MP to be away from their position for 3, 6 or 12 months - what they are really telling you i actually they don't think the role of an MP is not that important and that your democratic representation is not that important. I think differently. I think your democratic rights are critically important. I also think the symbolism of neglecting people's democratic rights is a stain on our whole democracy.

It is possible to prioritise Payne's wellbeing and democratic representation of Gedling residents. Let us be clear from the beginning. For me, and I know it is arbitrary, 4 months is that maximum all us residents can go without a voice. Our representation is more important than someones job. We wish him well and we wish to have our voices in our parliament.