First Minister Alex Salmond has made it clear that he is open to the idea of the 2015 election being pushed back by a year to avoid a clash with Westminster. One could argue that he has the small matter of a 2011 election to get out of the way before contemplating four years hence but it is a fine opportunity, well
taken, to look First Ministerial as this election period rolls on.
There is of course a second solution to the problem of a UK election being held on the same day as a Scottish election – holding the UK one earlier.
Five year terms were in neither the Conservative nor the Liberal Democrat manifesto and the UK is a country that is used to four year terms. Why should changes to our democracy only ever emanate from tawdry convenience rather than the strength of an argument, backed by a public mandate? AV is not the only ‘miserable little compromise’ that the coalition is suddenly in favour of and the only discernible mandate is the shuffling silence from a disengaged public.
The Liberal Democrats wanted fixed terms to rid Prime Minister’s of the power to call a General Election whenever he/she liked but David Cameron preferred five years in the top job rather than four so that we had more time to grudgingly accept the cuts before the next election so here we are, five year fixed terms and everyone has to adjust accordingly.
The simple problem is that five years is too long for the public not to
have a say, particularly as we are movin towards a system where Governments are judged on their past term rather than deliver on promises made during the campaign. 2005-10 term saw changes in leader for all of the main parties, a financial crisis and a rapid demotion of the defining issue of 2005 – the Iraq War.
There was a tangible need for an election in Brown’s dithering fifth and final year and it’s not easy to imagine the same being the case in 2014, 2019 and beyond but the problem of course is that the people don’t care either way. You don’t win votes by talking about how long Parliaments should be and you clearly won’t face protests for selfishly tinkering with the constitutional status quo, so why not act in naked self-interest if you can get away with it?
It would be crude to prolong Malc’s comparison and suggest that the UK’s diminishing democracy coupled with Egypt & co’s capturing of it includes our move from four year terms to five year terms but there is a public carelessness at play here that is, if not dangerous, at least irresponsible.
Clegg and Cameron got their way, Holyrood and Wales are having to adjust accordingly and noone else seems to really care. I guess for those of us who still hanker for four year terms and can’t bring themselves to vote No to AV we’ll just have to hope that the coalition comes unstuck in another way – a Lib Dem wipeout in May perhaps.
#1 by Doug Daniel on February 19, 2011 - 12:07 pm
Clegg’s referendum is just a pointless little concession, breadcrumbs on the table given to him so he could tell his party that selling out their principles hadn’t been for nothing. I’ll treat it with the contempt it deserves by not even answering the question, spoiling my paper instead (going with Bella Caledonia’s “INDEPENDENCE” option). It’s typical of the so-called political reforms Clegg claims to be pushing through. Fixed terms is good, but not at 5 years. Reducing the number of MPs is good, but not if it’s just going to benefit the Tories. Where’s the main reform Westminster needs – replacing the Lords with an elected house, or just doing away with them completely – is nowhere to be found.
I’m still not sure this coalition will not last the duration of the parliamentary term. I’m increasingly hoping it doesn’t, because they’re doing more and more annoying things. Forcing the Scottish election back a year particularly annoys me, because it’s yet another example of Scotland’s elections being given secondary status. Fine, that’s an extra year for the SNP to convince people of the independence argument, andc then we won’t even have to care about how rubbish and outdated the Westminster system is.
#2 by NoOffenceAlan on February 19, 2011 - 1:17 pm
Actually wouldn’t be it better to write “Proportional Representation” on your ballot paper instead of “Independence”?
If you want independence, just vote SNP on the other ballot papers.
#3 by Colin on February 20, 2011 - 4:29 am
Why bother writing “proportional representation”, when you could just vote Lib Dem on the other ballots?
#4 by Despairing on February 19, 2011 - 12:08 pm
Am I doing the maths wrong here? Assuming the UK government survives it’s full 5 year term, it’s next election is 2015. The next Scottish govt will be 5 years (all the main parties have agreed, it just has to be rubberstamped), so Scottish election will be 2016, but then revert back to 4 years.
That means the next UK election after that cycle will be 2020, and the next Scottish election will be…2020.
So are we to have 5 year terms for the next two Scottish governments, or do Salmond, Gray, and the presiding officer think they’ll just park the problem for the next generation to deal with?
#5 by Jeff on February 19, 2011 - 6:22 pm
No, that’s what I make it too. We’re just delaying the inevitable unless it’s a 5year term followed by a 3year term, which seems unlikely. I think swinging it to the Autumn in 2014 or 2015 is the next best option after 4 year Westminster terms but it does all seem a bit of an ill-thought out mess.
#6 by Douglas McLellan on February 19, 2011 - 12:32 pm
Well I have to disagree Jeff.
First of all, 5 year terms are not that unusual – there have been 3 (1 per decade) in my lifetime. The key issues you highlight in the 2005-10 period all happened in the 2005-09 period and the public did not get a say in them.
The length of time between elections has changed several times for reasons of cost, convenience and a certain level of self-interest by the governing party.
You are not the only one to voice unhappiness but for the life of me I cant understand why a fixed parliament of five years is not as acceptable as a fix parliament of four years.
#7 by Jeff on February 19, 2011 - 6:32 pm
Hi Douglas. Yes, 5 year terms have happened before but typically only when a PM is getting pummelled in the polls and is out of ideas. Hardly a solid base on which to hold a vote.
Note that it is precisely because all those events happened in 2005-09 that I believed the public should have had their say. You say what’s the difference between 4 or 5 years but then why not make it 6, 7 or 8 years? I just think that an election twice a decade is too spaced out given the tendency for the 100 days to be the main bit of governing, a fickle public, the economic cycle and, most of all, the clear disconnect between politician promises and what they do once in power. More regular elections keeps Governments in check.
I don’t know how Nick Clegg has the nerve to shrug off low polling figures and point out the election isn’t for another 4.5 years when raising fees wasn’t a Lib Drm promise, dramatic rise in rail fares wasn’t a Lib Drm promise, tripling tuition fees wasn’t a Lib Dem promise and, here’s the kicker, 5 year fixed terms wasn’t a Lib Dem promise.
An abuse of power? It’s not far off.
#8 by Douglas McLellan on February 20, 2011 - 2:51 am
Hi Jeff. The pummelled at the polls thing seems to only be happening once the party has been in power for more than two terms, rather than the length of the poll. Thatcher in 87 won on the back of dodgy polls in 86 but had been in power for over two terms. Major in 97 had been Prime Minister for 7 years at the end of 18 years of Tory rule. Brown, although not in power long was in some respects on a hiding to nothing as Labour had been in power for a decade when he was chosen as leader. It was not the length of parliament that was the issue, it was the length of time the party had been in power and their inability to govern without looking tired or weak. Would Brown have looked so weak if he had not even been in a position to consider a snap election never mind cancelling one?
More elections do not keep governments in check. They keep them from making long term decisions. They keep them from disregarding the news cycle. I would argue that the process of elections actually detracts from governing. Governments can be kept in check without the need to go to the polls.
I would definitely disagree that Nick Clegg has come anywhere close to abusing his power. Opinion Polls are just that – opinion. But I would say that governing a country on the basis of opinion polls is not something I would endorse and I am glad that Nick Clegg doesnt either. As for manifestos – the only way to keep fares down and continue delivering improvements to the rail network would have been an massively epic increase in rail subsidies – I am pretty sure that was quite how the manifesto worded it. Fees – well that is a cross that every Lib Dem will have to bear for some time. I didnt see a campaign for four year fixed term parliaments puncture the public consciousness prior to the elections so thats why it didn’t feature in the manifesto (although I fail to see why that is the kicker – are you questioning that a government is doing something that wasn’t mentioned in the manifesto)?
All of those things that you highlighted could have happened in just two or three years following the 2007 election – should the public be given a say at every change or crisis? The could have all happened six months prior to the 2010 election – events (dear boy, events), which can happen at any point in any election cycle should not be a driver for when elections are held.
We have had some interesting pieces on this site about elections and lack of participation in them. How many times do we want to ask people to vote though? Including the 1997 election, the people of Scotland have voted in thirteen separate elections and 1 referendum. Perhaps we might get better engagement in politics if we had fewer elections and more governing?
#9 by Malc on February 19, 2011 - 12:41 pm
I’m in two minds on this.
On the one hand, I think elections are our gateway to democracy, if you like, and as such, shorter periods (4 years) between elections are probably better.
But on the other hand, a 5 year term means that governments have more time to actually govern before considerations of electioneering takes over.
Of course (on a third hand?) re-election campaigns pretty much start again as soon as a government is elected, so it might be a false hope…
#10 by douglas clark on February 19, 2011 - 12:48 pm
Blooming heck jeff!
Have we committed to five year UK parliaments and I hadn’t even noticed?
How do they push that sort of legislation through when we were all blinking or summat. It seems to me that a change in the length of a parliamentary term is something you and I should be consulted on through a referendum. Why not hundred year terms?
#11 by douglas clark on February 19, 2011 - 1:00 pm
Oops!
Apparently the five year cycle is what we currently have. Don’t quite know why I thought it was four years.
_________________________________________
Still, it seems to me that any change in that number ought to require a referendum.
#12 by Danny1995 on February 19, 2011 - 2:20 pm
Personally I’m against extending terms to get rid of conflicts, it would be far more democratic to have the next Scottish election in, say, October 2014.
#13 by Richard on February 19, 2011 - 2:55 pm
What’s wrong with (for example) having the Wesminster elections in April and Holyrood in October?
The cynical side of me suspects that certain parties would like to have the elections at the same time, not just for “convenience”, but also to muddy the waters on certain issues and as an attempt to sideline the SNP.
Or am I just being paranoid?
#14 by Marad103 on February 19, 2011 - 9:18 pm
Why does everybody assume that there will still be UK elections in 2020?
#15 by aonghas on February 20, 2011 - 10:42 pm
Mayan calendar and all that, eh?
#16 by Danny1995 on February 20, 2011 - 8:27 pm
Why wouldn’t there be? Of course there will be.