If
you want to know what is wrong with the current system then look no further than the “election that never was”,
in autumn 2007. The prime minister thought he was ahead in the polls and might be able to win a snap election, but after a
few days of feverish speculation and rushed preparations, he bottled it and put the vote off. That
decision had nothing to do with the best interests of the country. Nothing. It was purely and simply about the private self-interest
of the prime minister and the governing party. Why should we tolerate a system that serves whichever party happens to be in
power, rather than the best interests of the people?
Just imagine if the prime minister had been thinking about holding an election
when the expenses scandal broke. He would have put it off straight away, hoping the whole thing would blow over. Imagine however
if it had happened just before a fixed-term parliament was due to expire. There would be no escape hatch, no option to delay
for the prime minister. MPs would have been thrown into an election, to face the verdict of their electorates. Good. That
is how it should be. Politicians in general and the governing party in particular should not have the option of postponing
public judgement.
We
need to do a lot to refresh and rebuild our damaged democracy. It wasn't in the best of shapes anyway, but the expenses
scandal gave it a new mauling that has left it in a sickly state. We should, for example, introduce a fairer voting system
that would abolish safe seats. We should also elect the House of Lords, and not have our laws decided on by people we did
not elect and cannot remove. Westminster stands alone in having no fixed election timetable. Local councils, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the
National Assembly for Wales, the Scottish Parliament, and the European Parliament all have fixed election dates. I can tell
you, for example, that Scots will vote for a new Parliament on 5 May 2011. That gives everyone – parties, voters, officials
running the election – plenty of notice.
I will give you an example of why this is important. When I was out on the doorstep in my Plymouth Moor
View constituency last weekend a lady told me that she expected to be away on 6 May. She was reluctant to register for a postal
vote because she always liked to vote in person and the fact that the 6 May date is not yet confirmed means she does not yet
want to ask for a postal vote. The current system messes everyone about. Well, everyone except the ruling party.Our democracy is in a bad way. Let's fix it, and let's start by stripping prime
ministers of the power to call an election at a time that suits their own self-interest.
Stuart is the
Liberal Democrat prospective parliamentary candidate for Plymouth Moor View. Stuart's blog
Although
I favour changes to the voting system, a fixed-term parliament wouldn't necessarily always be in the interests of the
British people.
One of the advantages of current practice is that if a Government is unable to govern effectively
it can seek to renew its mandate at a fresh General Election without waiting to the end of a five year term. This might become
important if no single party were able to form a Government and if a Coalition arising from that was incapable of resolute
action.
Waiting five years for a new election might leave the country in a period of prolonged instability.
Mick
Castle is Labour prospective parliamentary candidate for South Norfolk. Mick's website
