Minimum Terms for Prime Ministers
Robert Spain (London): Gordon Brown's fascinating transformation
from "Stalin to Mr Bean" has forced him to offer to stand down after the next
general election (which, following Glasgow East, may be sooner rather than later). Tony Blair made a similar promise in late 2004 after serving
seven years as Prime Minister and with a maximum of 2 years left before he had
to call an election (in the event the election was held only 8 months later). Brown
has already been forced to make this promise 1 year into his tenure and up to 2
years away from a general election. Blair's offer was intended to strengthen
his position and ensure his unpopularity did not count against Labour at the
ballot box. While the second aim was successful, the first was not. Soon
influence began to seep away from 10
Downing Street - most of it next door. There is
every reason to suspect that in Brown's case this seepage will be worse. A
lame-duck Prime Minister desperate to win just 1 general election is not an
ideal state of governance. An important question, therefore, is how to resolve
it.
A solution might be minimum terms
of office. Barring illegality or incapacity, maybe Prime Ministers should
retain their position for a minimum term, say 1 year. For some unknown reason,
new premiers are generally given 100 days of grace (an illogical but no doubt psychologically
appealing number), so why not formalise it? This would allow the newly elected
- or even the newly anointed - to get on with the case of leading, irrespective
of the short-term pressure of opinion polls. Counter-intuitively, this would
enhance democracy by allowing the opposition time to properly regroup from
their loss. Under ever-populist, inexperienced leaders with their eye on the
following day's headlines, the Tories were not able to gain such respite. This
would also maintain the sovereignty of Parliament, avoiding the constitutional
problems posed by a President.
When considering the frequency of
UK
general elections, this would merely formalise the existing situation. Since
1900 there have been 28 general elections, an average of 1 almost every 4 years.
(The data is skewed by the 8 and 10 year tenures of the Parliaments elected
prior to both World Wars, but this does not affect the conclusions.) Of these,
the only 3 Parliaments to last less than 1 year were governed by minority
administrations (those elected in January 1910, 1923 and February 1974; the 2
minority administrations elected in December 1910 and 1929 each lasted longer
than 1 year). Over the same period, occupancy of 10 Downing Street has changed hands 25
times. The only 4 Prime Minister's fated to serve less than 1 year were those
who inherited the office between elections (Alec Douglas-Home, Stanley Baldwin),
retired due to ill health (Andrew Bonar Law), or reigned with a minority
government (Ramsey MacDonald). 2 of these 4 subsequently served longer terms. It
takes a particularly unlucky set of circumstances to remove the premiership
from a man so soon after gaining it, so why not guarantee the period?
A major flaw in this idea is that
if a Prime Minister came to power less than 1 year before a general election, Parliament
could hardly extend its term to accommodate. It is hard to see how that could
be avoided without banning Premiers from resigning or even dying within sight
of the end of their term. The former would be slavery, the latter... well, not
something easily avoided.
While this might prevent a
politician receiving the baton and quickly seeking a personal mandate from the
nation, it would to some extent limit their ability to capitalise on high
approval ratings by calling a "snap election" - a minimum period would work
both ways. And if a recently launched
campaign to institute fixed terms
for Parliament (which OK is involved in, see Anthony Barnett's post below) were successful this would stop entirely. Nonetheless, fixed
terms would not prevent a party deposing its leader once safely past an
election. Minimum terms would.
