An election before 2015 could soon be illegal
George Trefgarne 3:02pm
Amazingly, the forces of conservatism derided by Tony Blair, are in the ascendant, their
enemies scattering and in retreat. Bin Laden is dead, the oil price tumbling, the Royal Wedding was a triumph and now Labour and the Lib Dems beaten at the ballot box. Surely, we tell ourselves,
this is an alignment of the stars, a Conservative moment. David Cameron must seize the day, or at least the year, by abandoning the Coalition and calling a general election soon. Landslide, here we
go!
Hold your horses. Britain’s electoral machinery is off the road, its parts all over the workshop floor. Thanks to the constitutional tinkering of the Coalition, the procedural and practical obstacles to holding a general election in the next four years are substantial and rising. Indeed, before long, if Clegg & co have their way, it could actually be illegal.
To understand why, go along to the House of Lords on Tuesday, May 10th, where business will be dominated by an abominable piece of legislation called the Fixed Term Parliament Bill. It is at Report Stage, which means the Lords will be considering amendments. Top of the list, I imagine, will be changing the second sentence, which reads: “The polling day for the next parliamentary general election after the passing of this Act is to be 7 May 2015”.
Although, the country is not ready for another election just yet, the local elections and referendum both go to show that holding one in the next year or two could be reasonable. Labour certainly thinks so, and the shadow cabinet is reportedly on standby. Why should we have to wait, by law, until 2015? And why, in future, should we always be forced to make do with any Government, however bad or unpopular, for five years? The answer is that this is a commitment in the Coalition Agreement, which now looks terribly out of date.
I suspect that these thoughts will be uppermost in the minds of Parliamentarians of all parties in the weeks ahead, and when the amended Bill returns to the Commons there will be an almighty row. If it was intended to prolong the life of the Coalition, the Fixed Term Parliament Bill could soon become the disease for which it was supposed to be the cure.
Tories – instinctively against this measure at the best of times – will think, “Hang on, why do we need to hitch our wagon to the Lib Dems for another four years?”. Lib Dems will think: “We are being used, we would be better off getting out of this Coalition as soon as possible.” And Labour will think: “Ah good, an opportunity to cause trouble. And we don’t like this constitutional outrage either.”
That is not all. The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act, which reduces the number of seats in the Commons from 650 to 600, and redistributes them towards the growing populations of the south, has already received Royal Assent but has yet to be implemented. The Boundary Commission, which will merge and redraw constituencies, is not due to report until September 2013. And when it does, the scope for disputes and judicial reviews of its findings are, well, boundless. Even when the new constituencies are settled, nearly all MPs will have to be reselected and local party machinery redesigned.
In practice, that means that the next election, even if it could take place before 2015, would likely be fought using the old seats, giving an inbuilt Labour bias of some 10-20. So any election result would feel even more unsatisfactory than the last one. That said, politics must go on and many MPs of all parties will believe – rightly – that an imperfect election would be better than keeping the Coalition artificially alive. The words "dog" and "breakfast" come to mind.
Previous
Rhoda Klapp
May 7th, 2011 3:14pm Report this commentWell, HM can dissolve parliament any time she likes, and install someone who could change that law. That evil law. It is not for parliament alone to decide how long it sits, or when it may be got rid of. Some latter-day Cromwell would do whatever was necessary.
TrevorsDen
May 7th, 2011 3:33pm Report this commentLets wait until the fall out from the recession has worked through.
It will be in the coalitions joint interest to work together at the next election
stereodog
May 7th, 2011 3:36pm Report this commentThis article perfectly illustrates why the fixed term bill is necessary. The power to call an election is a hugely powerful weapon in the Prime Minister's armoury. The perogative to dissolve parliament is invariably used when it suite the Prime Minister best, not when it suits the country. Mr Trefgarne thinks that an election should be called because 'the forces of conservatism' are in the ascendant because it suits his political agenda, not because the country particularly needs or wants it.
FeatherPlucker
May 7th, 2011 3:44pm Report this commentHold your horses Mr Trefgarne. Do you really think that the results of last Thursday point the way to an overwhelming Conservative victory? If you do, you live in a different world to me. Your first paragraph is ridiculous. More specifically, leaving aside the wisdom, or otherwise, of going for an election in the next two years on partisan grounds (especially as GS's economic strategy envisages little of the fruits of recovery until the latter part of the Parliament), without the boundary changes, therebye shafting the Lib Dems by going back on the coalition agreement will not go down too well with the greater public (who have a sense of fair play and do not like unnecessary elections). Furthemore, the Fixed Terms Bill provides for an early dissolution if there is a motion of no confidence passed but without prospect of another government being formed, or if two thirds of the House votes for early dissolution. If Most Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem MP's want the dissolution, as you suggest, then it will be possible.
Sov_Res
May 7th, 2011 3:57pm Report this commentYou are confusing Tories with conservatism. This is a common mistake at the Speccie, though one rarely made outside Westminster.
Publius
May 7th, 2011 4:07pm Report this commentThis piece of constitutional tinkering should be rejected as the last one has just been rejected.
Once again it is an attempt to give us "European style" politics -- which we do not want.
Norman Dee
May 7th, 2011 4:10pm Report this commentBut we are stuck in a Europe we don't like, so use the same rule book as them, "if the law is inconvenient, ignore it"
GDT
May 7th, 2011 4:33pm Report this commentWhy have an election before 2015? The results from this week show most Conservatives are perfectly happy with the performance of the Government. If the economy is back motoring and the standard of living on the increase in 2015 then many floating supporters will vote Tory. Perhaps DC may even get the magical 40%.
nonny mouse
May 7th, 2011 4:54pm Report this commentMany countries survive very well with fixed terms. America springs to mind.
It is time to end the game where the media guess the date of the next election, making the story about the state of the government of the day instead of about governing our country.
Media types like those at the Specator may sell more copies but it does not lead to better government. For the good of the country, fixed term parliaments are here whether it suits your business or not.
Barry Bilge
May 7th, 2011 5:02pm Report this commentIs the Fixed Term bill actually seeking to fix the term in concrete - it cannot be less than five years - or merely to fix the maximum time a term can be?
Could the language defining when the next election will be be the mechanism by which Parliament can prematurely force an election - by amending the legislation?
I thought we already have nominally fixed term parliaments, it's just that they rarely reach the end of their term before the PM decides to have one or loses command of the Commons.
Publius
May 7th, 2011 5:10pm Report this comment@GDT
"Why have an election before 2015?"
If you don't want one, then don't have one. But there is no need for further constitutional tinking.
Mark my words, there will be endless unforeseen consequences if this silly scheme is enacted.
Fergus Pickering
May 7th, 2011 5:16pm Report this commentWhat happens if the government is repeatedly defeated in the House of Commons, in fact so repeatedly that it can enact no legislation? I only asked. Do you know?.
TrevorsDen
May 7th, 2011 5:17pm Report this commentMs Klapp if HMQ dissolved parliament at her own whim it would be the last act of the monarchy in the UK. The queen only does what the PM tells her and parliament has voted for a 5 year parliament. What on earth is wrong with that?
The 5 year parliament was a master-stroke; labour were relying on tough decisions an unpopular split coalition and sneaking in with a quick election victory.
A 5 year parliament gives the parties to the coalition security.
And with a non coalition govt we the nation are spared a govt manipulating the economy and cutting and running at a time suitable to them or running before the economic mess unfolds.
The PM and governing party have quite enough power as it is. A set term parliament is an asset to democracy.
Over the next 4 years we will see if the centre and right of the LDs like the idea of govt and realise what a good thing working with the tories could be.
If they simply nark the tories they will get what they deserve, but if they 'court' the tories, make themselves useful, then they have a future.
David Dee
May 7th, 2011 5:34pm Report this commentSo the Tory party, only in government because of some shoddy deal by their pantomime leader which, I must add, he was extremely quick to renege on when it looked, at one time as though the AV vote would not go his way, have, in some obscure and as of yet, not explained way, been responsible for the death of Bin Lader, the success of the Royal wedding, and tumbling oil prices (even though it is still 136.9 at my local garage). You forgot about Paul McCartney's engagement !!!!!
Now how our Pantomime PM, who could not win a general election when everything was in his favour and it was easier to win than lose, could be expected to call an election now,presumably with people going to the polls just when the unnessarily speedy cuts will be producing their results of job losses,nhs cuts etc, is pure fantasy.Particularly for our risk averted PM, and quite beyond belief.
However if he wishes to do so, go for it. It is about time that this loser was confined to the Bin !!
Peter From Maidstone
May 7th, 2011 6:26pm Report this commentGDT, on what basis does the latest election show that most Conservatives are happy with the Government? I don't believe that you have any evidence to show that. The fact is that there is generally not any alternative at present to voting for the non-conservative Conservative Party, and also that locally there may also be support for local Conservative Councils.
As a conservative I was willing to vote UKIP in this election but there was no UKIP candidate in my ward. I am happy that the Conservative Party increased its lead over Labour and the LibDems. But there was no choice. I had to vote Conservative or not at all. As a conservative I don't support the Conservative Party very much at all and would not want my vote in the local election to be considered an endorsement of anything they have done and not done.
Rhoda Klapp
May 7th, 2011 7:08pm Report this commentTD. of course the Queen would not dissolve parliament to get a tory advantage. In my clumsy way I was trying to point out that parliament is not the sole arbiter of terms.
Does anyone think the loony fringe (about two-thirds of 'em) of the lib-dems won't break this coalition some time before 2015?
TomTom
May 7th, 2011 7:25pm Report this comment"Well, HM can dissolve parliament any time she likes,"
Can she indeed ? I think you might find She has mislaid "The Royal Prerogative" like much else in her reign
cityboozer
May 7th, 2011 7:29pm Report this commentThe bill is stupid. They should have legislated to tie the hands of DC for just this parliament but not imposed fixed terms for future parliaments.
Easy peasy.
Fergus Pickering
May 7th, 2011 7:35pm Report this commentDave Dee, our pantomime PM is in power and appears likely to remain in power for the foreseeable future. I would be prepared to bet now that he will win the next election and continue as pantomime PM until 2020. Some pantomime. What a SILLY post.
EC
May 7th, 2011 8:08pm Report this commentI cannot remember either of the coalition partners campaigning on the issue of fixed term parliaments during the 2010 election.
Parliament must be the sole arbiter. If the government of the day loses the confidence of parliament then there has to be an election.
Any attempt to introduce fixed term parliaments by this coalition of the backroom boys would surely be unconstitutional and HM Queen would be quite within her rights to dissolve parliament and call a general election. [She got rid of Gough Whitlam without too much difficulty]
How about a referendum? You can forget that! After the decisive AV result the British public will never be allowed a referendum on anything ever again. Too much democracy for politicians - it scares them.
denis cooper
May 7th, 2011 9:24pm Report this commentRhoda, from the Explanatory Notes:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldbills/040/en/11040x-.htm
"5. The Queen does not retain any residual power to dissolve Parliament, which will occur automatically under the provisions in the Bill."
Hackney Jon
May 7th, 2011 9:51pm Report this commentThe 5 year fixed term simply has to be one of the most unpleasant pieces of political skulduggery yet devised. If, as other contributors note, it has been dreamed up as a 'tactic' then that makes it worse.
It means, dear electors, that our already limited recourse to the ballot box becomes even less frequent. It is also worth remembering that most of the governments that have struggled on for 5 years - Brown, Major and so on - have been dead on their feet and clean out of political legitimacy.
Charles Barry
May 7th, 2011 10:03pm Report this commentWhat a stupid article.
1) Fixed term parliaments have been Lib Dem policy for ages.
2) Britain is in the tiny minority of countries where the Head of Government can choose the time and place of his election
3) Non-fixed term parliaments strengthen the hand of the government against the opposition, weakening democracy
4) The idea that Labour is ready to fight a general election is mistaken. Ed Milliband is not even halfway through his farcical 'blank sheet' policy review, and the party is hugely indebted. All politicians say they're on election standby - what sort of idiot would confess they're asleep at the wheel? Political journalism 101
5)The total non-point about boundaries is silly. The boundary changes and their reviews are all perfectly capable of being implemented before 2015. Otherwise the Tories wouldn't have demanded they be rammed through with the AV referendum to avoid delay.
John
May 7th, 2011 10:24pm Report this commentDesperate Dave is not the master of timing and his support for first past the post will ensure when the cuts start to bite, now, it is already too late for that "landslide" except for the others of course. Remember first past the post allows us to get rid of governments we don't like and the hatred of Clegg can be morphed to a hatred of Cameron in a trice.
david
May 7th, 2011 10:36pm Report this commentAmazingly, the forces of conservatism derided by Tony Blair, are in the ascendant, their enemies scattering and in retreat. Bin Laden is dead, the oil price tumbling, the Royal Wedding was a triumph and now Labour and the Lib Dems beaten at the ballot box. Surely, we tell ourselves, this is an alignment of the stars, a Conservative moment.
Errr Bin Laden is dead? whose death was ordered by a President that most on the right think of as a socialist. Oil price is tumbling, are high oil prices left wing? The Royal wedding a triumph, just like the last two Royal weddings, how is Diana doing, oh and Fergie, their weddings were triumphs too. Labour beaten at the ballot box? well Labour did gain 800 councillors, but could have done better. As for the referendum, surely if anyone can take credit for the NO vote its John Reid who delivered Labour voters into their camp. As for the Libdems, (the real losers) if they are on the left, why is Dave so in love with them?
Fergus Pickering
May 7th, 2011 11:06pm Report this commentI gather that a vote of no confidence nullifies all this, so your initial premise is untrue.
strapworld
May 8th, 2011 7:36am Report this commentI love the arrogance of 'Charles Barry' "What a stupid article", it starts, "Fixed term parliaments have been Lib Dem policy for ages"
Mr Barry, The people have just spoken. They do not want anything to do with the Lib Dems. They are as dead as the Monty Python Parrot. This ridiculous bill should be dumped.
As for the constitutional expert Trevors Den- the man who told us all he was going to vote YES- he is wrong. Obviously the Queen would act, at the moment, but if this insidious bill becomes law, as Peter from maidstone points out above, it will take away any function our Sovereign may have had.
This bill is another attempt by the hard left Lib Dems to bring us into line with the communistic EU.
Watching and listening to the pathetic attemps by the Lib Dems to take the moral highground- blaming the conservatives for their own problems- how can anyone trust or work with them?
Cameron is a fool if he does not ditch the Lib Dems and call a very early general election and stand on Conservative Policies. I reckon if Osborner were the leader he would.
Andrew Fletcher
May 8th, 2011 9:27am Report this commentI'd agree with many above .
There is hardly a conservative revolution sweeping the country
They couldn't even privatise the Forestry Commission!!!
They are seen by most as pretty safe pair of hands to get the deficit down but surely the whole idea was to get serious reforms going and role back the state!!!???
A couple of dozen free schools and a few disability benefit fraudsters exposed isn't quite what many if us had in mind
?
Rhoda Klapp
May 8th, 2011 9:41am Report this commentDenis, there you go confusing me with the actual facts. I did not realise that one of my constitutional protections was going to be trashed by some pathetic paragraph in a bill disguised as something else. I deplore this constant fiddling with constitutional matters. There is no mandate for it. And witness the pea under the shell. We vote on AV, but they slip this one past us without any significant mention.
Publius
May 8th, 2011 9:43am Report this comment@Andrew Fletcher
"There is hardly a conservative revolution sweeping the country
They couldn't even privatise the Forestry Commission!!!"
There is a fallacy in your thinking here. You think that all privatisation is necessarily conservative. Even a shallow understanding of history demonstrates that this is not true.
I suspect however that you, like many others, associate all politics with economics.
James
May 8th, 2011 10:20am Report this comment"Perhaps DC may even get the magical 40%."
He may even get 45%, like Alex Salmond!
Publius
May 8th, 2011 10:25am Report this comment@Rhoda
I suspect that once the implications of these constutional changes (fixed terms, the HOL) become apparent, opposition will grow.
As for Simon Hughes' recent claims that their cosy little private coalition agreement somehow commits the Tories to delivering Lords reform, that is not the case, and even if it were, it is not in the government's gift to deliver parliament on a plate.
Andrew Fletcher
May 8th, 2011 11:34am Report this commentPublius - you've lost me... No really you have. If this government isn't about reform then what is the freaking point???
Publius
May 8th, 2011 12:10pm Report this comment@Andrew Fletcher
I'm sorry to be blunt, but your recent posts suggest a hopeless confusion on your part. I think you should write less and think more. Or are you just a troll?
David Dee
May 8th, 2011 12:25pm Report this commentFergus Pickering, your Pantomime PM is not really in power in as much as he has no control over the present government without the support of another party who can, at any time, bring hin down.
And they will just as soon as they have built up a reputation for moderating the excesses of the nasty party and pick the issue that they wish to go to battle on. They have and will have plenty of opportunities.
Presumably your assumption that the Nasties would win the next election is based on this shared government running its full course and the economy, which at best is flatlining and at worse is heading for a double dip, picking up.
That may be so, however this topic is about an earlier election and,at present, if an election was called immediately I would take any money on the Tory party not winning.
It would either be a Labour Government or a Labour Government supported by the Lib Dems because the Lib Dems will never again support a party that they deem to be ruthless and calculating.
My money would be on a Labour Government with a working majority.
However we will see how our pantomime PM reacts to the concessions that the Lib Dems will now be asking for.
Will he topple over (as he did with Grammar schools) or will he have the guts to call an election.
In view of the way I would expect him to react I should stop referring to him as the Pantomime PM and rename him Humpty-Dumpty !!!!
Axstane
May 8th, 2011 12:42pm Report this commentDavid Dee
I know you pop up every now and then on various blogs. Are you actually Dolly Draper as some have said?
Andrew Fletcher
May 8th, 2011 12:57pm Report this comment@ Publius - you still don't seem to have much to offer apart from bitter personal abuse. Suggest you try a different forum as most folk on here are decent /positive and don't appreciate this type of thing
David Dee
May 9th, 2011 10:25am Report this commentAxstane, you may well be correct but just who is Dolly Draper ??
Of course there is another approach and that is either to respond to my comments or otherwise remain on topic !!!
Back to top