The Fixed-term Parliaments Bill received its Second Reading in the Lords yesterday. It attracted over twenty speakers. Very few of them, though, expressed support for the Bill. Some objected to the principle whereas others felt that it was badly constructed. The Opposition line was that it favoured fixed-term parliaments but did not believe that this Bill was the best way to achieve that goal (though not saying exactly what was the best way). I have yet to be persuaded of the case for change, but in my speech my focus was the process involved – not least the haste with which the Bill was being introduced – and the specific provisions, not least that covering votes of no confidence. The Commons can express its lack of confidence in different ways, but the Bill assumes the elephant definition – that is, you know one when you see one. It is not that simple. We shall be busy in committee….
I’ve always been Anti-Reform and more for restoration. Honestly our Constitution lasted for centuries as it was, and wasn’t reformed to meet some nee Challenge but rather to bring it in line with modern Theories of Democracy. Its as if they said “You know, modern Political theories look at this and think we need that, an America does it that way, and isn’t Democracy wonderful? Lets Change Parliament”. No one could cite any actual problem with how Parliament functioned prior to 1999, it was simply not Democratic and “its hard to believe in the 21st century we have an Unselected chamber’ is somehow seen as real argumentation.
Nothing practical was offered as a reason for reform, just “more Democracy” as if this is an end unto itself.
The same exists here. We have to have fixed terms simply because “That’s how its suppose to be done these days”. Its reform base don a fad, not because the current system is really shown to be bad.
I’d like a Moratorium on Reforms for a while, if its all the same.
Fixed term parliaments could cure nothing; very likely would increase both the complacency of the comfortably-seated and the unwillingness and inability of Britain’s governance-class to construct a lifesupports-timespan strategy for Britain’s longest-term soils, flora & fauna, and natural-assets;
namely to plan for the next five-thousand years, instead of super-shortsightedly to focus solely upon getting elected for the next mere five years at a time.
2103W020311.JSDM.
milesjsd, the Short-sightedness of Politicians is one good argument for why I like Aristocracy. Those who own care for something better or than tenets, and those who will leave a legacy for heir heirs are more likely to take a long view than those who can leave nothing of it to inherit, and to whom no actual personal risk is taken.
I recommend the book by Hoppes “Democracy: The God That Failed”, for all interested parties.
God Save The Queen, we know Parliament Won’t.
Democracy: The God That Failed”,
Pluralist democracy: ” Many Gods Who Succeeded”
Pluralist Democracy: A Fantasy that never was.
Its like “The Will Of the people”. In Wisconsin, people are protesting Governor Walker’s plan to introduce to Public Workers a new insurance scheme that makes them pay for it themselves and that makes them pay into their own retirements. They Famously claim that they are what Democracy looks like. They represent “We, The People”. Well, others such as the TEA party support Governor Walker, and Governor Walker himself was Democratically Elected by the people. They claim they are “We, the People”.
So whose right? Who is “The people” and who is “the power hungry elite” trying to suppress “The real Wisconsinites, and real Americans“?
Both claim to represent the people and drape themselves in the Authority of Democracy and being what the People want.
I see it as proof that there is no such thing as a General Will of the People, only rival factions motivated by self interest trying to usurp power and suppress those with alternate needs or desires which run contrary to their own plans.
I don’t see it as a Unifying force for good.
Like Schedule 7, Public bodies, by which the noble lord placed so much store to delete, fixed term parliaments are something and nothing.
There are times when one’s lobbying seems to have had an effect and my own personal intervention request to Rt Hon Tony Blair, to
set the term of office for five years by declaring that is what it would be, had an effect in 2005. He declared it, ok by co-incidence, and it ran for the longest term possible.
If the parliamentary term of five years is mandatory then the government has to form a different alliance to complete the term.
With the newness of Co-alition government it might be better to leave it as it is for now.
Again it is a trivial detail.
I’m rather agnostic about this bill. My rough calculation, looking through all the various gaps between general elections since the 1800’s, is that there has been an average parliament-length of 3.7 years. So a set-time of 5 years seems a bit too much .. Could we come to a compromise deal of 4 years and 6 months??
The Prime-Ministerial privilege of calling an election seems to be such an imprecise tool, as to bring barely any advantage at all to the incumbent government. Nevertheless, this is not a good-enough reason to oppose a move towards more openness and codification in how these things are done.
if we ha a Fixed Term, I’d rather ist be fixed at the year, not inconsistent. “three years and 6 months’ is rather silly to me. lets let it take office every year, say on an appropriate day like April First.
Still, our constitution is a Monarchy, and the Queens majesty is the only Authority by which parliament is summoned, and it is by he decree that it is dissolved.
Cameron seems to have forgotten this in his later attempt at reform as his bill forgot to even mention the Queen, and he acted s if we were a republic. its a habit of the mind these days to not think of the Crown, but I think we ought, and the Crown invited to a broader role in Governance.
So I’d rather there be no such limit or reform.
Fixed term is a necessity. Blair/Brown was an insult to the people of this country and to Democracy.
There should be a four year fixed term, not five. With the right to enable the public to call for a ‘no confidence’ vote after 2.5
years.
Or better, the Swiss system.
I am reminded by Clovis Maksoud the former AL rep to the UN, that pluralism is not the answer but that diversity is.
He was speaking in the context of the “Arab Nation” which is suffering so much at the moment.
Their revolution is certainly the “Will of the people” would Zarove not say?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralism_(political_philosophy)
This wiki link may be helpful to Zarove.
The noble Lord Hylton sets a good example in “conflict resolution” even if like all mortals,he spouts tommy rot, from time to time.
Tim, the link doesn’t mean anythign to what I’ve said. I am a Monarchist who favours limited and mixed Governance, and who is critical of Democratic Theory. I don’t think that such a thing as the General Will of the People actually exists, and its very rare to get a clear majority thats over 55 to 60%.
Gareth, the Middle Eastern Uprisings are not all encompassing to all the peoples. Lybia may be one where the people are Tired of Ghaddaffi, but some there want the King Restored, and others want a Republic, and amongst those who want a Republic there is so much dissension on exactly what sort of Republic to establish that it’s pretty well a divisive topic in its own right. The reason for Unity now is becuase they all agree on only one thing: Ghaddaffi must go.
But in Egypt not all Egyptians supported the Protesters, and in Jordon not all people really back Reform plans either. Many are Loyal to the King and prefer their current arrangements. Look at Omar, where fighting recently broke out. Its not all the people, but some.
Bahrain is another example of “The people” being more or less just a faction. Do you really think the Sunni people of Bahrain want rid of the Sunni Monarchy in Favour of a Shiite Republic?
Which brings me back to my Wisconsin example, only now applied to each. Which is the real “Will of the People” we speak of?
Often “The people” is just an angry mob. Sometimes the anger is justified, other times its not. Even when Justified, “The people” AKA the Mob tend not to be overly rational, they are driven by passions and emotion runs high. And it happens in boiler situations. Most of the time no unity at all exists and its just one faction against another in endless campaign slogans and rhetoric.
Democracy is abotu stirring a crowd of people to a frenzied excitement in the hopes they back your plan, and that theres more on your side than the other guys, or if not that yours are more willing to be visible and possibly violent.
While I am not a supporter of Ghaddaffi and can actually applaud those lookign to remov him, I am still troubled over the uncertain outcome of that Revolution. If they install another Republic thats just as oppressive but now is Baptised in the Blood of the Martyrs for Democracy, and thus Sanctified and made holy in the eyes of the Modern World, what good is it?
Some further thoughts on the matter; after having watched highlights of the Lords Second Reading on BBC i player …
Allowing the PM a two-month ‘leeway’ either side of the fixed term (in extraordinary circumstances, and with the consent of both houses) is very sensible.
As Lord Wallace Of Tankerness pointed out, the ‘two-thirds’ mechanism calls for a clear consensus to be reached. It is also reasonable, following a No-Confidence vote, to have a 14-day ‘breather’, to see if a viable government can be formed.
Thar said, one has to wonder why the tories have dropped their previous idea of having to have a general election within 6 months of a change of PM? There was something very straightforward about that.
It was pointed out that the devolved assemblies also have fixed terms; but in their (as yet, un-tested) case the ‘clock’ would not be re-set. A ‘re-set’ must be the better option for Westminister, so that people aren’t voting for MP’s who will just be serving for the remaining ‘bit’ of a parliament (leave that for by-elections).
Lord Falconer made some robust counter-points, but strayed into exaggeration and over-statement, in the process…
The bill is not an “utter disaster”! No doubt a lot of the committee stage will focus on the definition of confidence/no-confidence motions. I gather that the bill only talks about a successful No-Confidence motion (as put by the opposition) (??). If so, then that seems to me to be a good limitation on it’s use. I could not work out why Falconer thought there would be ‘no inhibition’ placed on a PM to manufacture an early election. A great fuss was made about the motion not being explicit, thereby causing difficulties for the Speaker; or a vote being so crucial that it could/should be construed as a confidence-matter. Surely all that needs to happen in those cases is to have a second and separate motion which was explicit?? This presents no practical problems.
Falconer also wanted effect to be given to Government-tabled confidence motions, going so far as to maintain that it was right for a PM to be able to specify anything at all as a confidence vote. Doesn’t that defeat the purpose of the bill?! It felt ‘out of order’ to me, for example, when John Major made his Europe-deals a matter of confidence. Let’s just vote on the matter in hand.
The general preference seems to be for a 4-year, not a 5-year term. Curiously, the goverment has chosen a length which enables the Lords to veto the proposal outright! (4 years and 10 months would not have done this). I was interested to hear Lord Grocott say that the average tenure of prime ministers in the 20th century has been 5 years. Given that the average parliament-length has been 4 years, maybe it would not be such a bad idea after all and ‘spilt the difference’, at 4 and a half years. This would also avoid clashes with other elections.
Lord Falconer rightly remarked that experience has shown the ‘democratic mandate’ to be exhausted, by the fifth year. But – given this – why hasn’t there been a bigger push over the years to get the maximum term length lowered???
Tim, the link doesn’t mean anythign to what I’ve said. I am a Monarchist who favours limited and mixed Governance, and who is critical of Democratic Theory.
I am sorry about that. Try reading it again.
Tim, it won’t do any good. I neither thing Democracy and Freedom are the same thing, nor do I think Democracy breeds Pluralism and Diversity. Democracy mainly creates a Monolithic cultural expectation that breeds an enforced conformity, for it must, too many rival factions an it falls apart.
Democracy is, quiet simply, the decision making process that rests strictly on Numeretic superiority. if 100 people vote one way and 101 vote another the 101 wins, and gets to claim to be “The Will Of The people” even if just by one Vote.
Democracy is also all about the people acting in Unison yet produces division as votign is inheranrly divisive.
That, and how can you have a system of communal rule focusing on the will of a majority and still have really much room left for individuality?
The process itself breeds a sort of need to create cultural normalcy and to bring everyone into it. Thats why people are now saying Multiculturalism doesn’t work.
I much prefer Individual Liberty to Democracy.
@Zarove:
Can you tell me which form of government you will find that supplies individual liberty and at the same time, not be Democratic?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty
And, I am not being facetious.
Maude, I prefer Sark’s system, before the Barclays came along and the Democratic switch in 2007.
But to clarify, I don’t think its impossible to have Individual Liberty in a Democracy, I just recognise that Democracy is no guarantee of Individual Liberty, and often we see Democracies removing our Freedom rather than giving us more.
I don’t think any system of Governmetn will all on its own be Free, or Tyrannical. Even a Dictatorship with one man possessed of absolute power could allow Individual Liberty if the dictator allowed it. The problem with Dictatorship is that its too easy for the Dictator to not allow Freedom.
But I’d argue the same is True of Democracy which is nothing but a Dictatorship of the Numbers.
I believe hat, contrary to what most think about History, it reveals that a Mixed Government headed by a Monarchy with Hereditary and Appointed Lords (though not appointed by Politicians from a stock of Politicians) with only an elected Lower Chamber served the balance better.
I am a Monarchist after all.