A fixed term would be a fairer way
Wednesday, 3 October 2007
Samuel Brittan
IT could not be more trivial. Forget completely public policy. Today's British political discussion is not about the result of the next election, personalities of party leaders or even the race to become one when there is a vacancy. It is on the date, repeat date, of the next general election. The media belief is that the main choice is between some time in the next few weeks and next spring.
Labour is still haunted by the decision of Jim Callaghan not to call an election in autumn 1978, when the omens were reasonable, and hang on until spring 1979, which took us past the winter of discontent and inaugurated 11 years of Margaret Thatcher and 18 years of Conservative government. Is Gordon Brown going to wait and risk the fate of the former Labour prime minister? Or will he go to the country soon and risk being remembered as a "few months" prime minister?
The options are in fact very much wider. Suppose the polls turn against Labour in the next few months. Under the Parliament Act, Mr Brown is fully entitled to call the election any time he likes between now and 2010. When John Major succeeded Mrs Thatcher as Conservative prime minister in autumn 1990 he waited until almost the last possible moment in 1992 before calling the election, which he surprised the pundits by winning. When Harold Macmillan took over from Anthony Eden after the Suez debacle in early 1957, he chose not to go to the country until autumn 1959.
The ability of the prime minister to choose the election time is a serious issue to those of us concerned with the excessive accumulation of central government power. One sign of the ability of governments to manipulate events in their favour is the length of time that one party has been in power. The Conservatives reigned from 1951 until 1964 - denigrated by Labour as the "13 wasted years". As already mentioned, the Conservatives had 18 years from 1979, covering four parliaments, and Labour has so far had 10 years, covering three elections.
The period from 1964 to 1979 felt like part of an extended Labour period, with a four-year intermission when Edward Heath surprised political opinion by winning - partly owing to an accident in the timing of the arrival of aircraft when media opinion was obsessed with the balance of payments and the monthly trade figures.
There have been two ways in which British governments have been able to manipulate elections. One is through the manipulation of the economic cycle. The other is through election timing. The first is now wearing thin. With the shift from fiscal to monetary policy and the granting of operational independence to the Bank of England (which remains, despite recent events), the government has fewer manipulative tools at its disposal. More fundamentally, I suspect, the electorate has now become wise to such tricks and if Alistair Darling, the chancellor of the exchequer, were - out of keeping with his temperament - to announce a give-away Budget next spring, voters would see right through it.
This still leaves the government with its second weapon, the ability to go to the country at a time of its choice, largely intact. When added to the advantage that governments have through the control of a large part of the news agenda and the power of initiative, we are left with altogether excessive manipulative opportunities. The possible economic distortions are not the worst part of it. Even if there is little policy difference between the main parties, one group of people, their friends and acolytes, remain at the centre for years at a time during which electoral tactics become the name of the political game.
Many of these powers would remain if there were fixed-term parliaments. But at least governments would have to go to the country at a time laid down by law, rather than of their own choosing. The US has had four-yearly presidential elections since the time of George Washington, right through periods of civil war and world war. In Germany elections have to be held every four years, but on rare occasions have been held more frequently. In the UK the suspension of normal election timing would probably have to be part of the monarch's prerogative, advised as she is by constitutional lawyers. This is akin to her present power to refuse a prime minister dissolution if requested for insufficient or unusual reasons, a power not used for more than 100 years. Another desirable US practice, for which it is more difficult to find an analogue in parliamentary systems, is the limit to two four-year terms of the time for which an individual president can serve.
It was no surprise to find fixed-term parliaments omitted from the discussion document on constitutional reform, which Mr Brown presented soon after taking office, even though this is a radical demand going back to the time of the Chartists. Like some other reforms it will probably have to wait until the unpredictable time when there is a hung parliament - when the Liberal Democrats and other minority parties should make it part of the price of their co-operation with either of the main parties in supporting a government. It is a defect of Britain's increasingly wobbly, so-called unwritten constitution that a simple, commonsense reform looks like crying for the moon.
...........................................
— FT Syndication Service
IT could not be more trivial. Forget completely public policy. Today's British political discussion is not about the result of the next election, personalities of party leaders or even the race to become one when there is a vacancy. It is on the date, repeat date, of the next general election. The media belief is that the main choice is between some time in the next few weeks and next spring.
Labour is still haunted by the decision of Jim Callaghan not to call an election in autumn 1978, when the omens were reasonable, and hang on until spring 1979, which took us past the winter of discontent and inaugurated 11 years of Margaret Thatcher and 18 years of Conservative government. Is Gordon Brown going to wait and risk the fate of the former Labour prime minister? Or will he go to the country soon and risk being remembered as a "few months" prime minister?
The options are in fact very much wider. Suppose the polls turn against Labour in the next few months. Under the Parliament Act, Mr Brown is fully entitled to call the election any time he likes between now and 2010. When John Major succeeded Mrs Thatcher as Conservative prime minister in autumn 1990 he waited until almost the last possible moment in 1992 before calling the election, which he surprised the pundits by winning. When Harold Macmillan took over from Anthony Eden after the Suez debacle in early 1957, he chose not to go to the country until autumn 1959.
The ability of the prime minister to choose the election time is a serious issue to those of us concerned with the excessive accumulation of central government power. One sign of the ability of governments to manipulate events in their favour is the length of time that one party has been in power. The Conservatives reigned from 1951 until 1964 - denigrated by Labour as the "13 wasted years". As already mentioned, the Conservatives had 18 years from 1979, covering four parliaments, and Labour has so far had 10 years, covering three elections.
The period from 1964 to 1979 felt like part of an extended Labour period, with a four-year intermission when Edward Heath surprised political opinion by winning - partly owing to an accident in the timing of the arrival of aircraft when media opinion was obsessed with the balance of payments and the monthly trade figures.
There have been two ways in which British governments have been able to manipulate elections. One is through the manipulation of the economic cycle. The other is through election timing. The first is now wearing thin. With the shift from fiscal to monetary policy and the granting of operational independence to the Bank of England (which remains, despite recent events), the government has fewer manipulative tools at its disposal. More fundamentally, I suspect, the electorate has now become wise to such tricks and if Alistair Darling, the chancellor of the exchequer, were - out of keeping with his temperament - to announce a give-away Budget next spring, voters would see right through it.
This still leaves the government with its second weapon, the ability to go to the country at a time of its choice, largely intact. When added to the advantage that governments have through the control of a large part of the news agenda and the power of initiative, we are left with altogether excessive manipulative opportunities. The possible economic distortions are not the worst part of it. Even if there is little policy difference between the main parties, one group of people, their friends and acolytes, remain at the centre for years at a time during which electoral tactics become the name of the political game.
Many of these powers would remain if there were fixed-term parliaments. But at least governments would have to go to the country at a time laid down by law, rather than of their own choosing. The US has had four-yearly presidential elections since the time of George Washington, right through periods of civil war and world war. In Germany elections have to be held every four years, but on rare occasions have been held more frequently. In the UK the suspension of normal election timing would probably have to be part of the monarch's prerogative, advised as she is by constitutional lawyers. This is akin to her present power to refuse a prime minister dissolution if requested for insufficient or unusual reasons, a power not used for more than 100 years. Another desirable US practice, for which it is more difficult to find an analogue in parliamentary systems, is the limit to two four-year terms of the time for which an individual president can serve.
It was no surprise to find fixed-term parliaments omitted from the discussion document on constitutional reform, which Mr Brown presented soon after taking office, even though this is a radical demand going back to the time of the Chartists. Like some other reforms it will probably have to wait until the unpredictable time when there is a hung parliament - when the Liberal Democrats and other minority parties should make it part of the price of their co-operation with either of the main parties in supporting a government. It is a defect of Britain's increasingly wobbly, so-called unwritten constitution that a simple, commonsense reform looks like crying for the moon.
...........................................
— FT Syndication Service