The FIXED TERM website is now live. If anyone has any material they think would be useful to post on it, please let me, Stephen Tall or Anthony Barnett (Our Kingdom Blog) know. You can also join the Fixed Term Facebook group HERE. In four days it's attracted more than 550 members. Not bad. This is a cross party campaign, so whoever you support politically, I hope you will sign up, if you agree with the aims of the campaign.
UPDATE: Here is the graphic to add to your own blog's sidebar... The code is in the phot section of the Facebook Group HERE. I can;t seem to add it to this post without it appearing as the graphic.
30 comments:
You, the Lib Dems, and Kevin Rudd all want this. Why? Why now, and why in unison across two countries?
I thought this was going to be your relaunch announcement and we would have to pay for a fixed term of your pearls of wisdom!
Phew! What a sillt billy I am. By the way - did you notice that England beat the French in the rugby? No, didn't think so. Too busy pouring over the latest polls results, I suppose? But you have to admit that moments like this in sport are more important than politics, don't you? No?
OK, I agree it's been a bloody fanatastic week in politics too. Brown's nose rubbed in his own dirt and Labour on the backfoot where ever we look. I'm loving it too.
Now the Conservatives are back to where they were - or even better - they have to start to look at the details of these polls.
Why is Brown still still seen as a stronger leader than Cameron?
Why are Brown/Darling still seen as more competent than Cameron/Osborne at handling the economy?
Surely, after the events of the last couple of weeks the balance should have tipped in favour of the Conservatives? After all, the MSM has been pretty good at reinforcing the disastrous choices that Labour have made. At the moment they are content to ridicule Labour. But they are not taking it that little bit further and saying the Tories have a competent team to lead the country.
Some more effective "jabbing" while Brown's bouncing on the ropes is needed by the Cameron Team - helped by the Blairites too - so he's softened up for the sucker punch!
Over to you Messrs Coulson and Hilton - ably assisted by Arnold Swartenegger, of course!
Fixed terms remove the only thing the general public has going for it - against the career political elite - that is the element of surprise.
Fixed terms allow politicians to time their lies and delude the electorate, all to a nice predictable time table. ( The hollowness and bankruptcy being exposed with New Labour under Brown would not have been exposed under fixed terms .)
Nobody I know has a guaranteed job for 5 years, but thats not the case for MSP's, Euro MPs, and Welsh AMs. And being convicted of fraud doesn't stop you being a Euro MP these days.
Sorry Iain, hope you didn't think my typo about you "pouring" over the poll results was intentional. It should, of course, read "poring".
Wouldn't like to suggest to your esteemed readership that you would pour anything over a pole result. I'm sure you're not like that. Not even remotely like that. Apologies.
Bloomin' heck! Done it again. I didn't mean you poring over a "pole". What I meant was.... OK.
I'll get my coat!
Man in A Shed - You make a fair point, but I would advance that five years is much too long for anyone to be in power without a re-endorsement by the electorate. Four years is about right, in my opinion. And no chance of standing for a third term.
Mexico has just a three year term, with the President able to fight for a second term. No third term.
As Mexico's first ever conservative president, President Fox wrought huge changes in the system in his six years, although this was too short to accomplish all the changes Mexico needed. However, having completed his two terms as chief executive, he is continuing to serve by forming a conservative think tank.
This is the way to go.
His successor, the even more conservative President Calderone (with two MAs, one of them from Harvard) knows he has six years to accomplish his own programme (on which he was elected).
A fixed term concentrates the mind.
Otherwise, by the end of four years, they're scampering all over the place.
Verity - I've taken my coat off!
Your example of Mexico is fine - as far it goes. In the UK we do not have a president - we have a prime minister who is the leader of the party who has won the largest number of parliamentary seats in a general election.
In theory it is possible for such a leader to form a government with the support of another party so they can take foward the business of government with the support of the majority. (In practice, it doesn't work - for very long at any rate.)
If the government can't command the confidence of the House of Commons a new election has to be called.
If there was a "fixed term" parliament in the UK what would happen in these circumstances? It happened in 1974 - it could happen in 2008 or 2009.
I'd be interested to learn what this new website has to say.
Diabolo - Parties get stale and corrupt.
Personally, I think four closely scrutinised years at a whack, for two whacks max, is as good as it's going to get.
The five year deal, with a skittish prime minister in control of when the electorate will be allowed their vote, on polls favourable to the administration, is Victorian. We move on.
We live in a faster, vastly more democratic world now than the creaking Labour/One Worlder communist party of the 1920s.
(A world that would never have come about if the Labour/One Worlders had been in control.)
Fixed term. Four years.
Verity, in Mexico the President is elected for a SIX year term and is barred from re-election.
Iain, just checked the website. Was hoping to find the text of a specific proposal and/or a list of FAQs that would provide answers to some basic questions such as Diablo's.
For example, if 4-year fixed-term parliament was elected in 2010 but if majority voted against govt in 2012, would scenario be:
a) Tough titty, govt stays in until at least 2014; or
b) Govt falls and new election is held, but whatever the result there would still have to be an election in 2014.
AND would the fixed-term be for just the goverment (under either a or b above)OR just for the government? And if the answer is the latter, how would this work?
Enquiring minds want to know!
Shed, under the current UK system, isn't it the VOTERS who get the surprise, not the politicos, who tend to be well-attunded to the nuances of election timing? Though fixed terms would help parties & candidates by making it easier for them to plan ahead to the next electoral donnybrook.
However, the main impact of the current "unfixed" system is that it gives whomever is PM control of the clock (within the five year limit) which is a TREMENDOUS advantage over the opposition.
Iain, the other day you were jeering at the title of a GLA report.
"Ken Livingstone's Daft Draft
Spot the problem in the title of this document published by Mayor Ken Livingstone on 18 September.
Draft Mayor's Housing Strategy
Well we might have a daft Mayor but its impossible to have a draft Mayor. Perhaps he'd had a few when he came up with the title."
Aren't you falling into the same trap with Fixed Term Website?
fixed terms will solve nothing. the system we have is fine. you should be focussing your efforts on making sure politicians stick to the rules of the current constitutional framework not looking for short term fixes.
In the forty eighth month of their term they should be compelled to declare an election date falling within 6 months of the declaration date.
A vote of no confidence could trigger an election at any time.
I really think this fixed term thing is something of gimmick. Iain raised it when I was on Doughty Street and it seemed to me had little to say for the idea except that its different and , at the moment , attractive to the opposition.
The economics argument is wrong ,as I mentioned, the government is far better placed to engineer a boom to coincide with the election year we may rest assured that is exactly what Brown is planning to do . In general this government from Blair onwards have used the machinery of government to stay in power and that is the true problem behind all of this . English votes / Britishness for example , and the use of the teasuery to attack Conservative Tax plans show the way the land lies .
My feeling is that Polling is so good now that it does seem odd that the government can dash for any blip that comes along .This effect, however, is far less important than it appears In a general election campaign you have a years coverage in a month and people engage on a completely different level. Polls at the beginning can be very different by the end. Perhaps there is some marginal improvement to be made but hardly worth getting your undergarments in a state of torsion about ..
Is this one of those Dale things , in the tradition of English votes where he , quite laudably ,see an advantage for the Conservative Party in a constitutional change and also an issue he can attack from his snipers eyrie. I would prefer he stuck to English votes as his own pet issue . Its more important , more credible and eventually more corrosive of New Labour’s false hegemony.
Ater all the lack of a fixed terms has just saved and revitalised the Conservative Party ? Its not broke . Don`t fix it .
No way for fixed term polls. The current 'R-prorogative' is just fine. Heaven help us if we ever have a hung parliament leading to NO coalition- what fun THAT would be! Plus , if a government loses it's Parliamentary majority and is defeated in a 'Vote Of No Confidence'- it is quite proper a GenElec is called. We have election overload at the minute- Euro, Council( district & region), Scottish, Welsh, NIrish,London Assembly, Mayors! If we want TRUE representative democracy should we not have more referenda and less parasitical politicians? But then again , the political elites would not like that would they? Letting the people decide on Capital Punishment, Immigration, the EU, the method of taxation- after all the political parties on the above topics are all behind the 'majority' of the people in this country!
The Constitution has suffered enough unthought- through alteration by Executive diktat in the last 10 years; unintended consequences have included the collapse of judicial independence and ensconced its answerability to the executive, the forcing of a change of government by the use of micro-control of a political party without any consultation of the electorate (or the party for that matter), the elimination of the mechanisms that defend our civil liberties....
Fixed term parliaments will do what Man in a Shed said. And open the way to more disastrous unintended consequences too.
The Constitution is organic - keep lopping and chopping at it and it will become a basket case, or die.
Call me conservative but I don't see why such a change is necessary. I am aware this isn't a practical argument but I'm against any reduction in the eccentricities of the British political system unless its necessary and the result would be obviously preferable. Far better to concentrate on creating new eccentricities through the East Lothian solution or other similar arrangement.
I'm all for the Conservatives stealing Lib dem policies but think they should concentrate on the more interesting ones such as a local income tax.
A convention that apart from those called after votes of confidence elections should onlt be called in the last 18 months of a term is a better approach.
Faulkner trying to re-write history!!! It's not the system that's biased against Conservatives but the media.Faulkner saying that Brown must espouse his 'vision' and that 'drift' is not acceptable.We saw Brown's 'vision' in Darling's pre-budget announcements - THERE ISN'T ANY! THAT's why the polls have crashed on Labour.Cameron should point that out every day!Or Labour's media friends will quitely ignore the facts during the 'accepted fact' stage of opinion forming and re-write history yet again.Brown has been seen for what he has always been.DON'T LET THEM GET HIM OFF THE HOOK! WHEN BLAIR WAS IN TROUBLE,HE WOULD LET THINGS GO QUIET FOR 2 WEEKS (GO ABROAD).DURING THE 'ACCEPTED FACT' PERIOD OF OPINION FORMING.THEN RETURN AND MAKE A BLIZZARD OF POLICY ANNOUNCEMENTS (MOST OF WHICH WERE SUBSEQUENTLY WITHDRAWN).FAULKNER IS NOW DOING THE EQUIVALENT OF THE POLICY ANNOUNCEMENT PHASE.WHY AREN'T THE CONSERVATIVES WISE TO THIS BY NOW FGS! YOU CAN COUNT THE TIME-TABLE TO THE NEAREST DAY!!!
Each individual MP should serve for a fixed term, their pensions being based on the number of terms served. In time due to deaths, retirements etc General Elections would be replaced by a series of Bye Elections. The power of the main parties would be reduced as individual constituencies would be more likely to appoint minority parties representing their local interests. There would be a tendency towards coalition government as large majorities would be unlikely. These advantages are why the current MPs are unlikely to vote for it.
A convention should be established whereby a sitting Prime Minister who wishes to retire asks the monarch for a dissolution of Parliament and a general election before handing in their notice. The incumbent would remain PM until their party has elected a new leader (which should only take a couple of weeks thanks to internet voting), and would remain PM until the day of the election.
We already have a fixed term of five years, no need to confuse the issue when all that is required is to ask our leaders to act in a responsible and democratic fashion. If Gordon wants to leave a legacy, this is probably the best he could do.
HG makes the best argument against fixed term. I would argue with her on this one point, though:
She writes: "The Constitution has suffered enough unthought- through alteration by Executive diktat in the last 10 years; unintended consequences have included the collapse of judicial independence and ensconced its answerability to the executive...".
You do not, surely, think the One Worlder fascists did not foresee the consequences? I would say it was the well thought out consequences that prompted the move.
Biased, Moi makes a good point.
Crap idea under our majoritarian system. Very small majorities can't be sustained for four years, but removing the power of the PM to go to the country in such circumstances would simply give the opposition carte blanch to do what they want and make the country ungovernable.
Very bad idea as it means that low majorities can be sustained for many years leading to unstable government. I don't agree with maximum terms for prime ministers, bu8t 15 years is plenty of time to be an MP. After that time they should be kicked out. That would stop any would-be career politicians standing for parliament at 25, knowing that they will be kicked out at 40.
Alex - Good point. Agree.
GB loathing of DC and GO is a reflection of the fact that he cant stand anyone questioning his authority or standing up to him shame about the democracy bit, ie classic bully.
his tretament of Darling is appauling if the man had any dignity at all he would resign.
blackadder and baldrick spring to mind
I think fixed terms are a bad solution to a real problem.
The problem is that parties act in their own interests, which often can be actually against the interests of the country. So, we got cash for honours, even when there was a law against it!
The solution is for political parties to remember why they exist. Passing a law won't take away the urge to screw the public that so many politicians seem to possess; that's not really good enough.
Verity, What went on in the dismissal of Lord Irvine, the temporary retention but eventual abolition (to all intents and purposes) of the office of Lord Chancellor, the weakness of the then Lord Chief Justice and the other senior judges in not resisting the subjugation, indeed dismantling, of a pillar of the Constitution, the setting aside of Wolf's Concordat deal which was supposed to excuse and substitute for this lack of resistence, the handing over of judicial appointments to the Executive, is an almost ignored and wholly destructive chapter in Blair's career through the stuff of all or civic and political lives.
You must be right, it wasn't a series of errors and unintended consequences, they went for the office pretending they wanted to go for the man (and a spurious notion of the 'impropriety' of having the judiciary represented in the cabinet, or a member of the cabinet, ie the executive, acting as a member of the judiciary).
Andrew - the public has an urge to screw the politicians as well, thank goodness!
I have no fixed conviction on whether fixed terms would make anything better - in my opinion, any new law creates new opportunities for corruption of the intention behind it.
Labour has always tended to make as many new laws as possible, and it follows that opportunities to benefit from corrupt practices will always follow Labour governments more keenly.
hatfield girl,
The unintended consequences of Blair forcing NATO to intervene in the Balkans, of joinging George W in his (domestic-politically, not morally) damaging invasion of IRAQ and of threatening to do the same wherever ruthless dictators emerge are that ....
Gaddafi acquiesced.
Milosevic caved in.
The World's leaders' attention is focussed on combatting extremism.
For that I give him credit. Unintended or not.
Thank goodness those who elected our leaders in the 20's and 30's are now dead, along with their appeasement ideas.
This is a proposal for a semi-fixed term. A fixed term system is impossible to marry to the doctrine of responsible government. This might seem a semantic trifle however the difference is vital under our constitution.
Semi-fixed terms have worked well enough in Scotland and beyond the UK. However, I think you have to make the case in terms of constitutional principle rather than political expediency, advantage or point scoring. Your new website does not. How would the government of the United Kingdom be improved by such a change? And why should Parliamentary terms be shorted to four years? Those who advocate changing the rules of the constitutional game need to make a compelling and principled case. At present you don't.
Post a Comment