Fixed Term Parliaments Bill

From Democracywiki

Central Lobby

Main Page | Index

---

Our View Unlock Democracy supports the Fixed Term parliaments Bill. The “election that wasn’t” last autumn is an excellent example of the instability that can be created by leaving the decision of when to call an election to one person, whoever it may be. The government has proposed limiting prerogative powers such as for the dissolution of Parliament by making them accountable to Parliament. We do not believe that this goes far enough, as this does not remove the instability from our political system. The fact that an election could be called at any time is bad for the governance of this country; there is a lengthy period of uncertainty which affects politics, government and the economy. It creates the perception that calling an election is only about political advantage and that politicians are putting party interests before those of the country. The practice of the governing party choosing the date of the election is also in contrast to other types of elections, such as for the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales, the European Parliament, and local elections. If we do not give this unaccountable power to the First Minister of Scotland why is it acceptable for the Prime Minister to have it?

Contents 1 What the Bill Does 2 Status 3 Early Day Motion tabled 4 Second Reading debate

What the Bill Does

If passed the Bill would fix the date of the next general election and all subsequent general elections and forbid the dissolution of Parliament otherwise than in accordance with this Act.

Status

This is a Private Members Bill sponsored by David Howarth MP

Private Members Billsrarely become law but give backbenchers in both Houses of Parliament the opportunity to raise issues they feel strongly about.

Early Day Motion tabled

An Early Day Motion was tabled on 9th May in support of the Fixed Terms Parliaments Bill.

EDM 1528

FIXED-TERM PARLIAMENTS

That this House supports the principle of fixing the duration of parliaments by law and removing from the Government the power to call general elections at times of its choosing.

Second Reading debate

The Fixed Term Parliaments Bill received it's second reading debate on 16th May.

David Howarth opened the debate by saying

It is difficult to believe that last year the whole political and media establishment of this country spent more than two months doing little else but speculating about whether there would be a general election and when it would occur. By the end of it, people had become experts in the most extraordinarily arcane subjects, such as the likelihood of rain on particular Thursdays in November, the hours of daylight in that month, or the details of precisely when the electoral registers were compiled.

The political system was reduced to a sort of guessing game. That seems to be a bizarre way to run a country. One has to be some kind of Hercule Poirot to work out whether there is going to be a general election.

He made the following arguments for change:

• That this would remove the unfair advantage held by the Government in calling an election at a time to suit them, and knowing before anyone else when an election is to be held

• That this would allow for better government, as election speculation would not prevent ministers getting on with their ministerial roles

• That this would level the playing field for poorer parties who cannot afford false election campaigns

• That it would remove the “macho” style and bluff from politics

Criticism came chiefly from Conservative benches, Eleanor Laing asked

Are the Liberal Democrats in favour of this Bill because for nearly a century they have not had an incumbent Prime Minister, and have no prospect of having one for the next century?

She also argued that there was a perfectly legitimate reason for a general election to be held as the premiership had changed.

If the hon. Gentleman's Bill became law, that would not be possible. Under a fixed-term system, if the leadership of the governing party changed there would be no opportunity to hold a general election, and therefore a plebiscite on the new Prime Minister.

However she accepted the fact that fixed-term parliaments would allow MPs to better plan their families, having given birth very shortly after a general election.

Bridget Prentice responded for the Government

The hon. Member for Cambridge has put his argument with great cogency. Indeed, in some ways, it would appear a neat and persuasive one. In fact, the issues that relate to the dissolution of Parliament and the timing of elections strike at the very heart of our democracy and constitution. We need to treat them seriously, so we very much welcome openly discussing possible changes to enhance the democratic process. That has been reflected in today's debate and in some of the other things that we consider, not just the timing of general elections but the other aspects of our constitution, the way that campaigns develop and so on.

she added that

The Government believe strongly in representative democracy with Parliament at its heart, and we have a long history of constitutional reform. Indeed, we have championed change in response to demands to modernise the institutions of government. As a Government, we are not afraid to consider and to implement constitutional and parliamentary reform if it better reflects the changing face of our modern democracy.

The Bill was talked out.