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.
