Anthony Barnett (London, OK): Shane Greer is trying to learn to think and asks
But here's my question to advocates of fixed term parliaments: what is unfair, indeed undemocratic, about millions of voters going to the polls and expressing their desire to see the party in government returned for a further five years?
To which the answer is another question: What is democratic about millions of voters going to the polls who want to 'kick the buggers out' only to find that they are not because the buggers called a snap election at short notice in artificially created circumstances that favoured them and made people afraid of change? Those of us who support Fixed Term are not against elections! (Join the Facebook group.)
Comments
The difficulty with any of the models available to us is that there is no superior law here ... Parliament cannot bind its successors.
The Parliament Acts are difficult precedents to follow as the second of them is of doubtful force (remember is has been described by Hood Philips as a 'so-called measure' rather than as an Act in force).
I disagree that there is a problem here that will not be resolved by election. I fundamentally disagree with this Government on many things, but I don't see some fundamental flaw arising from its inability to understand and apply the conventions that exist properly. If it decided to pass an Act extending the term indefinately then I might agree with your assessment that there is something that needs fixing ... but although they could try, they won't. Politically they couldn't do it. In essence it is that political reality that is the control on excessive executive power combined with the rule of law. I cannot remember which jurist wrote it, but increasingly I am coming to the view that there is only one constitutional law that remains constant in England and Wales - that all are bound by the law and the judges will, if asked, enforce it. What the law is and how it is enforced are, in reality, matters for Parliament and it is the political reality that places the limits on what Parliament will do.
The problems with motions of no confidence is that where a party has a majority, and even where it hasn't, the whips and party systems will ensure that the Government survives ... so the reality is that unless you carry out considerable additional reform, the simple transition to a fixed term unless there is a motion of no confidence, is that you end up with a fixed term ... for so long as Parliament decides it wants it. And if a Government decided to manipulate in the manner that Gordon Brown was thinking of doing last Autumn, it could be achieved simply by the governing party using its majority to vote for an election when it chose to do so.
Just because GB decides to act stupidly (as it turns out) does not mean that the system itself is at fault ... it means that GB decided to act stupidly. As we saw in 1997 and as I believe we will see now in 2010, the voters do get fed up and the pendulum swings and governments get punished ...
What's artificial about millions of voters turning up to the polls to express their desire to see a government returned for five more years? Moreover, why are the wishes of millions who wish to "kick the buggers out" more valid than the wishes of millions more who outnumber them?
Best,
Shane
I see this argument for fixed term parliaments as an argument against democracy. If the collective memory of the British people doesn't stretch beyond a year or so, is it really sensible to allow them to make decisions for themselves? If we can be so easily manipulated, it is probably best that we are.
If you trust the electorate to make a decision there isn't much difference between a 5 year maximum and a 4 year manditory term.
Far more democatic to set up a mechanism allowing for a public vote to call an early election if confidence in the government disappears.
Interesting debate -
The autumn fiasco and Gordon Brown's subsequent fall in the polls (that temporarily gave him a bounce) is interesting to look at, but of no real utility in asserting that it demonstrates a reason for fixed term Parliaments. The reason is that an election was not called - because GB, despite his protestations to the contrary, was almost certainly advised that he would not win.
The electorate don't like being manipulated. If they think that they are being manipulated, then they will not vote for the manipulator (the 1992 election result could be looked at from this perspective).
The problem for fixed term parliaments is that their introduction into the UK system fails to recognise that our Government only exists within Parliament and for so long as it maintains a majority within Parliament. Fixed terms are fine where there is a physical separation of powers, where the terms for each house and for the executive don't coincide and where there are complicated rules and laws governing the relationship between the various parts of Government (in the sense of the legislature, the executive and judicary combined).
Without the creation of a complex set of superior laws, effectively changing our constitutional history, convention and inheritance, fixed term parliaments could not operate. Unless there is a clear benefit to a change, my view is leave well alone ... the voters will wake up and realise that they are being led astray, misled, or incompetently governed and will act on their thoughts when given the chance - 1997 proved it and, I suspect, 2010 will prove it again!
Thanks Shane:
1. If you don't think that the manipulation of the Autumn was "manufactured" you did not see what was going on. Badly manufactured it turned out, but manufactured.
2. I don't think votes in a snap election are "somehow worth less than they would be following an election at the end of a fixed term". I don't even understand what that means. I think that elections should not be manipulated. If they are they are still elections.
3. When I say that for politicians winning and keeping power is a duty they have to their parties I don't mean that I approve of this. I am simply recognising the huge force on them to win and hold power by any means they can.
4. I see that you have not responded to my point about the childish dependency that our system creates. If you want to know, this is the most important reason for having fixed term parliaments on, say, the German model.
I look forward to responding to this last point
best wishes
Anthony
Thanks Evan: You say "leave well alone". Well! Did you write "well'? Leave the sick to die, more like. It's like those who say "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" about the British constitution. At least in his new book Anthony King has taken the argument a stage further and says, in effect, it is because it is broke that we should not try to fix it.
On your point about the difficulty of having fixed terms parliaments where there is not a separation of powers as in the US, you are right. That's why I said the German model. This is fixed for four years unless there is a motion of no confidence. We want to avoid a Norwegian situation (as I understand it) where a parliament that is hung and deadlocked and can't operate also cannot dissolve itself.
There would be no problem passing a Parliament Act that stipulated that the Commons sits for four year periods which can only be shortened by a motion of no confidence.
Anthony
I will address each of your points in turn:
1: In answer to your questions a) the contention that there exists an increased power of manipulation implicitly suggests that the increase is relative to the power of manipulation that would be available to the governing party under a system of fixed term parliaments. Such a contention is problematic because it ignores the fact that any manipulation under the current system is circumstantial, whereas under a system of FTP it would be manufactured. Political systems where fixed terms are in place, as we know, often fall victim to one systemic problem. The politicians facing a known election date spend significant amounts of time prior to that date playing to the electorate (in other words manipulating them). You may argue that our system allows for ‘increased’ manipulation relative to a system of fixed terms, I however would prefer not to speculate on a hypothetical of such staggering proportions.
Focusing on the thrust of your first point I am more than happy to cede that voters are influenced by short-term considerations. I cannot however follow you to the conclusion of your argument which is essentially that because voters are influenced by short term considerations, their votes in a snap election are somehow worth less than they would be following an election at the end of a fixed term. I simply can’t bring myself to hold the political sovereignty that resides in the people with such contempt.
I would add that I find your belief that it is a politician’s duty to win and retain power deeply troubling. It may be their prerogative or strong desire to win and retain power, but the idea that it is their duty surely conceptualises the role of a politician in a manner far more at odds with the idea of democracy than a system that allows for snap elections could ever be.
Yea, sorry you thought it was patronising I thought I was reaching out to you. You seem to assume that the citizen is the equal of the Prime Minister. The point of a general election is that it is a moment when to some small degree we have a bit of power over him or her. I don't want that moment manipulated by the more powerful. I want the timing to belong not to me but to a shared and agreed process.
Of course I am not saying that the wishes of those voting for the governing party in a snap election are less valid than those voting against. What I am saying is two-fold;
1. That the power to call a snap election is undemocratic, it allows the premier in power to time the election to his party's advantage. This can successfully and effectively mislead people. Do you think you and other voters are not influenced by short-term circumstances? Fixed elections don't prevent this, but they make it fairer for all parties. (Of course those in power always have an advantage.) Politicians have one duty above all others, to win and retain power. This is what they owe their tribe. If a politician knows that his economic policies are about to lead to disaster, for example, but can declare an election before this becomes clear, then snap! Afterwards voters may say, 'If only I had known". Of course, this capacity will be exploited and will influence voters. It is a genuine power of manipulation. Why you can't see this beats me.
The questions for you Shane on this point are: a) do you think the power to call elections does give the PM an increased power of manipulation? b) Do you think this is fair?
2. There is a larger cultural issue. This country (especially those who dream of membership of its political class) loves the myth of strength that dates back to royal power. One result is that our papers and TV and political circles adore the gossip of 'Will he, won't he?' But this is humiliating for the rest of us. It generates an inescapable childish dependency. I think that general elections should belong to us not them. Currently they belong to 'them'. I don't want to sound patronising but just feel whether or not this is true - I assure you that those who have enjoyed the privilege enjoyed this!
Thanks for replying
Anthony
That was quite a patronising opening sentence. But turning to the meat of the issue the reality is that regardless of when an election is called, the voters get the go to the ballot box and vote (whichever way they choose to). If an individual votes for the party in government they do so knowing that if re-elected that party can remain in power for a further five years. The voters choose, and their choice is as valid at that time as at any other.
To clarify though, are you saying that the express wishes of people voting for the governing party in the event of a snap election are in some way of less value than those voting against that party? If so, who, in your opinion, has the power to determine when an individual's vote is the 'right' one?
Best,
Shane
Shane, you are not giving yourself time to think. The whole point is that an election does not see a government returned for "five more years" as you put it. It sees a government returned for as long as it likes so that it can manipulate the economy and hold a snap election when it thinks it can get away with it.
What happened last autumn? The Prime Minister knew that 2008 would be a dreadful year for the economy and 2009 almost certainly so as well. He had an 11 point lead because of fortunate circumstances and so he ordered his party to prepare for a snap election when things could not have been better. He nearly got away with it. Then he discovered that he'd have lost. Election over. Don't you feel humiliated at being manipulated in this fashion? Don't you feel any sense of shame that no other country allows its premier to treat its voters in this way?
Cheers!
Anthony
Post new comment