Reduce max parliamentary term to 3 or 3.5 years?
Discussion
Seems pretty clear to me that we need some serious changes to the powers that governing parties have and an obvious start would be to reduce the maximum duration of a government's period in power without reelection.
We have had 3 very different PM's this year with very different policies and levels of competence.
If their maximum term were reduced to say 3 years, it might help sharpen their minds as to whom exactly they are accountable?
We have had 3 very different PM's this year with very different policies and levels of competence.
If their maximum term were reduced to say 3 years, it might help sharpen their minds as to whom exactly they are accountable?
Ntv said:
It's not really long enough for a programme of Government to take effect and be judged. I have no problem with 5 years. Our most pressing needs from a political system are a written constitution, and at least part PR to give minority interests more representation.
I'm unconvinced about PR - The risk is a muddle of coalition that never gets anything done.A written constitution though is essential - Too many things are governed by convention, and far too open to interpretation and ignoring basic standards in government - A proper set of processes, rules and sanctions need to be codified, and the working practices of parliament brought up to date so they can't just be ignored by future governments.
Evanivitch said:
There are numerous examples of how UK government policy is too short-sighted as it is (major infrastructure projects like High Speed Rail, nuclear power etc). Reducing the parliamentary terms would not help.
That was my first thought when reading the thread title too - politics is already too short-term focused without much thought into how things will be in 15-20 years time.MesoForm said:
Evanivitch said:
There are numerous examples of how UK government policy is too short-sighted as it is (major infrastructure projects like High Speed Rail, nuclear power etc). Reducing the parliamentary terms would not help.
That was my first thought when reading the thread title too - politics is already too short-term focused without much thought into how things will be in 15-20 years time.On top of that, events of the past 6 years have shown that the entire political and rconomical situation can be turned on its head in much less than 5 years.
youngsyr said:
Seems pretty clear to me that we need some serious changes to the powers that governing parties have and an obvious start would be to reduce the maximum duration of a government's period in power without reelection.
We have had 3 very different PM's this year with very different policies and levels of competence.
If their maximum term were reduced to say 3 years, it might help sharpen their minds as to whom exactly they are accountable?
If brexit taught us one thing it was that politicians can do what they want once elected. Almost every one without fail a total tWe have had 3 very different PM's this year with very different policies and levels of competence.
If their maximum term were reduced to say 3 years, it might help sharpen their minds as to whom exactly they are accountable?
t. I despair for the future of politics.TX.
MesoForm said:
Evanivitch said:
There are numerous examples of how UK government policy is too short-sighted as it is (major infrastructure projects like High Speed Rail, nuclear power etc). Reducing the parliamentary terms would not help.
That was my first thought when reading the thread title too - politics is already too short-term focused without much thought into how things will be in 15-20 years time.Someone needs to sit the current shower of s
t in parliament down and explain in simple terms that they are elected to run the country for the benefit of the electorate and not for their own personal glory. They are playing party politics to the detriment of the country and all of them need to grow up and start acting both like responsible adults and politicians.
I won't hold my breath waiting...
The current term is fine and as others have said, we already have politicians who think too short term and if it was much shorter to say, 3 years? Then we’d be in an interminable electioneering loop and we’d all go mad.
I think we just need to beef up the ministerial code where violations quickly lead to dismissal regardless of what office you hold and perhaps a bar on them holding office again. I also think that the current system was devised when a ‘gentleman’ would fall on his sword for transgressions and the system wasn’t designed for someone like Boris who just ran roughshod over the niceties of conduct in high office.
After this recent debacle I’d also be in favour of a GE being triggered whenever there’s change of PM. Has its downsides of course but recent events mean that the current system is a bit broken.
I think we just need to beef up the ministerial code where violations quickly lead to dismissal regardless of what office you hold and perhaps a bar on them holding office again. I also think that the current system was devised when a ‘gentleman’ would fall on his sword for transgressions and the system wasn’t designed for someone like Boris who just ran roughshod over the niceties of conduct in high office.
After this recent debacle I’d also be in favour of a GE being triggered whenever there’s change of PM. Has its downsides of course but recent events mean that the current system is a bit broken.
I don't agree with arbitrary numbers. I agree with those suggesting there's a question on how to deal with longer term thinking rather than electoral calculus.
Could probably agree with limiting how many parliamentary terms are served. Not sure where I'd want it set though as if the electorate want you they want you.
Can 100% agree with no lifetime peerages or position by appointment. One of the most ridiculous leftovers of our "ruling class" and should be booted out at the first opportunity.
On the parliamentary term question, I think it's a good thing for politicians to feel under threat for their vote. Safe seats annoy me more than unsafe ones. Parachuted in annoy me more than those that worked their way up. But I'm also a realist. It's not going to change when the voting system isn't changed. Tweaking at the edges rather than proper reform is just crowd pleasing. True reform would be things like looking at an elected second house and PR. I'm not saying they have to be the answer, but debating about 3.5 vs 5 years is adjusting deck chairs on the titanic.
Could probably agree with limiting how many parliamentary terms are served. Not sure where I'd want it set though as if the electorate want you they want you.
Can 100% agree with no lifetime peerages or position by appointment. One of the most ridiculous leftovers of our "ruling class" and should be booted out at the first opportunity.
On the parliamentary term question, I think it's a good thing for politicians to feel under threat for their vote. Safe seats annoy me more than unsafe ones. Parachuted in annoy me more than those that worked their way up. But I'm also a realist. It's not going to change when the voting system isn't changed. Tweaking at the edges rather than proper reform is just crowd pleasing. True reform would be things like looking at an elected second house and PR. I'm not saying they have to be the answer, but debating about 3.5 vs 5 years is adjusting deck chairs on the titanic.
Edited by roger.mellie on Tuesday 1st November 16:56
abzmike said:
Ntv said:
It's not really long enough for a programme of Government to take effect and be judged. I have no problem with 5 years. Our most pressing needs from a political system are a written constitution, and at least part PR to give minority interests more representation.
I'm unconvinced about PR - The risk is a muddle of coalition that never gets anything done.A written constitution though is essential - Too many things are governed by convention, and far too open to interpretation and ignoring basic standards in government - A proper set of processes, rules and sanctions need to be codified, and the working practices of parliament brought up to date so they can't just be ignored by future governments.
Is it possible to "devolve" some elements into a cross-party solution so that a longer-term approach can be implemented. It feels to me that the constant flip-flop of policies relating to the NHS, education etc. cause more harm than good and we need to take a more holistic approach to these in the longer term for the good of the country
Or would this just result in the same constraints that a coalition government would suffer?
Or would this just result in the same constraints that a coalition government would suffer?
Pieman68 said:
Is it possible to "devolve" some elements into a cross-party solution so that a longer-term approach can be implemented. It feels to me that the constant flip-flop of policies relating to the NHS, education etc. cause more harm than good and we need to take a more holistic approach to these in the longer term for the good of the country
Or would this just result in the same constraints that a coalition government would suffer?
Pensions policy was one such success in the 2000sOr would this just result in the same constraints that a coalition government would suffer?
We need to do the same with healthcare costs and organisation
Pieman68 said:
Is it possible to "devolve" some elements into a cross-party solution so that a longer-term approach can be implemented. It feels to me that the constant flip-flop of policies relating to the NHS, education etc. cause more harm than good and we need to take a more holistic approach to these in the longer term for the good of the country
Or would this just result in the same constraints that a coalition government would suffer?
Tories have been in power for 12 years and counting. Previous labour government was in power for over a decade. Previous Tory government was in power for more most of my childhood to adulthood.Or would this just result in the same constraints that a coalition government would suffer?
Reducing max parliamentary terms are no guaranteed fix for the problems of ideological flip flops in who's in control.
I do think a coalition government would handle things better. Not without its limitations. But in terms of large policy swings having like the hammer of damocles over civil service departments it's a better approach than short term FPTP election cycles (IMHO etc).
Wadeski said:
Maybe having incompetent leaders chosen by party loons is the problem, not the length of parliaments....
Johnson was the leader who fought and comfortably won the last GE.The problem is, once they're elected, they can be almost untouchable for 5 years.
The schiester even nearly made it back in after being kicked out by his party once.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff