Chewed finger nails and a cancelled election

Underlying Brown's dithering is the possibility of the governing party virtually to dissolve Parliament at any time to their best advantage. In theory the monarch could refuse but.....

There is a movement towards a fixed term for Parliament, and the LibDems are apparently are likely to bring forward a bill to this effect.

Most of the component parts of our country have one - the Scottish Parliament, The Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly, and all the various councils at various levels throughout the UK. Why should the National Parliament be any different? (It should also be said that most of the countries of similar age and sophistication to us also have fixed terms.)

It has to be said that since 1945, of the fifteen parliaments, only two, 1959-64 and 1992-97, have run their full course. Others have been foreshortened for one reason or another, usually because of polling returns, but not always. Eden in 1955 sought a personal mandate, when the parliament was over 3 years through, but unlike Gordon Brown did it immediately on coming into office, and in 1974 Heath after a similar period went to the country because of the severity of the miner's strike.

(What is virtually unique about the situation created and then rejected by Gordon Brown is both the size of his present majority, and the apparent trailing and disarray of the Tories. In vainglory he could have been returned with a much larger majority, and be praised as the equal or Blair, and perhaps just as enticing he could have banished the Tories from power for several more years or even permanently. The stakes were high.)

It has to be said that even fixed terms do not prevent one of the built in advantages to the party in power - of a favourable budget just before the election. Earlier this year we had the spectacle of the Labour control at Telford & Wrekin, already suffering from its association with Blair, was largely discredited by its bias and incompetence. It accordingly tried to buy votes by keeping rates down by plundering financial reserves. This would cause problems in the future but the immediate goal was re-election. When you hear a politician talking of "for the good of the nation"(Brown), or "for the sake of the community", beware - it's almost certainly the opposite!

Another advantage of the controlling party at Westminster is the ability to go before unpleasant events known to them become known and experienced by all. The hope is that although they may be seen as rats, many people will forget after another five years.

It has been objected that there may be a "hung parliament", or the controlling party may lose seats in by-elections and struggle. But if this is the will of electors, then shouldn't our elected representatives just get on with it? Gordon Brown's big tent should include everyone, and the LibDems are always ready for coalition - they want PR because they would be likely to be a junior party in government almost permanently.

If all politicians knew that they were there for Four(five?) years, they would get on with things and not deceive the electorate.

Published by Veritas