Does anyone else think...

that the concept of 5-year-fixed term parliaments, especially in a non-presidential system where there is no separation between the parliament and the head of government, is EXTREMELY undemocratic?

I could perhaps understand having 2- or 3-year fixed-term parliaments, but 5 years? Just a way of ensuring that a totally unstable coalition between Dave the Prat and Nick 'Ramsay Macdonald' Clegg can stay in office come hell or high water, when it wouldn't by the normal democratic process. (And personally that I'll be unrepresented by some Tory twit who won by *176 votes*, for the next *five years*! Though that latter sort of problem may be reduced if we do get some form of PR..)

I think this, especially being introduced now, is a way of restricting public choice and the right to sack our leaders, and that we should fight to at least have a referendum on it.

5 years is too long. I'm not opposed to fixed terms as I don't like it when the governing party can call an election when it's favourable to them.

However, there are issues about what happens in a fixed term parliament if the government loses a vote of no confidence.

To be honest I quite like the idea of fixed term parliaments in general, but 5 years is too long and it's only being pushed now so the Yellow Tories can shove their noses in the trough confident that Cameron won't pull the plug and consign them to richly deserved electoral oblivion in a few months.

when Labour was in power ? :sarcasm:

There has been a campaign for fixed term parliaments about for some time now, which did gain a bit of traction after Brown's "bottled" election of 2007.

http://www.fixedterm.org.uk/

I should also mention that when I atteneded the election hustings in my constituency all the candidates did mention their support for fixed terms in reply to my question about recall elections (possibly because they weren't comfortable with being asked questions about recall elections).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=191x4153#420

Indeed I will repeat again what I said then



I want a more representative system but not at the cost of losing local constituencies. List systems just gives the central party machine too much power and you end up with a Parliament full of Peter Mandelson look alike apparatchiks. I think the fact that local party members have a say about who stands in a given seat is important. It pleases me that Blair originally had to hang about in the car park of Sedgefield Labour club waiting to see if the area party were willing to take him on as a candidate. Full PR would also make it very difficult for Independents with strong local support to get into Parliament. Last night at least two MPs in that category were elected. I prefer the 'Champions League' scenario where the best runners up would also get into Parliament. This could be calculated on percentage of vote adjusted for total turnout within the given constituency (i.e a candidate coming second with 40% of the popular vote on a 75 % turnout would rank ahead of a candidate coming second with 45% of the vote on a 50% turnout). It would not be perfect but at least the spread of MPs would more accurately reflect the popular ballot. Personally, I think proportional representation only adresses some of the problems of the British Parliamentary system. One thing it would not change is the tendency of Prime Ministers with working majorities in the House of Commons ignoring the popular will for the next 4-5 years .At the moment the only real check on the power of the Prime Minister is the courts. Whilst the judiciary have stopped some of the excesses of Blairs last administration I am not entirely happy that the job of preventing abuse of power should lie in the hands of unelected appointees largely drawn from a tiny section of the British upper class. This problem would be better addressed by setting up an elected second chamber to replace the House of Lords. Each member would be elected for a period of say 10 years but their would be no common term of office as a fifth of the chamber would come up for re-election every 2 years. Those sitting in this chamber would have no right to introduce legislation but an absolute power of veto over all government bills except the annual Finance Acts. Members of this second chamber would be debarred for the rest of their life from holding any ministerial or other government office. This would be designed to stop this house from being used as a means for ambitious politicians advancing their careers. The aim would be to create an independently minded and democratic body that would be sensitive to changes in public mood and could curb the power of the executive.


.

#
1150: We understand that under the new agreement for fixed-term parliaments, the only way to remove the government between elections would be a vote of no confidence with the support of 55% of MPs. At present, any no confidence vote requires only 50%, plus one MP.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/liveevent/

edit to add 1150 above is a timestamp : 11.50am 12th May.

I guess it means you could start a government with the support of 51% of the MPs, but you'd have to lose a significant amount of support to be brought down, rather than just one small member of a coalition, or a few rogue MPs, leaving.

It needs thinking through and discussing fully, though.

but of course there are mid term elections where at least a third to half of the seats have to be recontested. This means that the ruling group can not take their majority for granted. I believe that this is also the case in most continental European countries where fixed terms operate. Fixed terms without intermediate elections are potentially undemocratic. In addition if the government is based on a coalition between parties which breaks down it could lead to administrative problems such as difficulties in passing finance bills etc.

Ward elections help break things up.

It should provide a fair playing field for future elections. Everyone will know well in advance when an election would be and parties and the electoral commission will be able to better plan for it (after this years cock ups that can only be a good thing)

I don't imagine that many on here would have had a problem with it if it had been introduced by the last government.

Especially as I think that Blair would have used it to stay in power throughout and not step down for Brown at all.

I think that Prime Ministers have too much power nowadays *anyway*, especially if they have a big majority. This change will mean that they will have too much power even if they don't have a big majority.

If we must have a fixed-term parliament, let's make it two years like the American House of Representatives, or three at most.

He went to the polls early twice, purely in order to keep his majority as big as possible. And then his successor "bottled" an even bigger abuse of the current system in 2007

If you suggested to the average American that their system should be changed so that the President could name the date of the election at any time I imagine they would throw up their hands, call you a commie and probably shoot you.

but that I want it to be possible for the government to face a vote of confidence at any time. It is interesting that the issue only got raised when a government was installed that was most unlikely to survive 5 years without such legislation.

In America it is quite possible, and indeed common, for a president to face a Congress where the majority of one or both houses is against him - so it's not the same as here.

In fact, I think that 5 years is simply too long between elections anyway; and that it should be a maximum of 4 even if the PM calls it.

I am not so much against fixed parliamentary terms, as I am against fixed *five-year* parliamentary terms. Make it 3, and I'll think about it.

Now let's hope it can take the message beyond the social networking sites.

http://noto55.com/

Introducing an ‘enhanced majority’ for confidence votes in the Commons may be politically expedient, but it’s not democratic.

Conservatives make up 47% of our MPs. This change in the law would make it impossible for Parliament to hold the government to account through a confidence vote.

Our demands are simple:

1. We believe that our government should remain accountable to Parliament.
2. If a majority votes against the government on a confidence vote, we should hold an election.

no matter what law was passed.

The monarch would almost certainly ask the leaders of such rebellion to form an alternative government.

Indeed Parliament could simply pass a bill revoking any previous legislation and pass a new bill to to force an election since no Act of Parliament can bind any successive Parliament.

On edit - Interesting that not just Labour MPs who have doubts about the proposal some Tories are not too keen on the idea either even though the Lib Dem spokesman claims that it is designed to protect Camerons government.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8681624.stm

with a year this happy ro-man-ce will fall apart. William Haugue will return as DPM, it will be an all Tory cabinet.

The Tories could kick the Lib Dems out tomorrow and every non-Tory vote in the commons wouldn't be enough to dissolve parliament. It's a disgrace.