6 of 7

Yes

Write now Article Tools

Yes, without a shadow of doubt, fixed term re-elections should be adopted in this country, they work well enough in other countries, the U.S. and Australia being but two examples, neither of which could be accused of having a democratic deficit.
The political class in England is very much anti fixed term parliaments for the very good reason that a fixed term detracts from the power of the serving Prime Minister. As presently constituted, the timing of an election is entirely in the hands of the Premier, and an election is called when the Prime Minister thinks he and his party can win. This decision owes nothing to the well being of the Nation, the sole concern is to win at all costs.

While winning an election is of paramount concern to politicians, who are incapable of realizing that what is good for them is not necessarily good for the country, the outcome of these events is inevitably one more cut in the cycle of death by a thousand cuts which is slowly destroying our democracy.
The ability to engineer the timing of an election to suit its purpose adds immeasurably to the power of a Prime Minister, and therein lies the rub. The power of the executive has reached the point where it is a direct threat to freedom and democracy in the United Kingdom, it is if for no other reason is why we must have a fixed parliamentary cycle.

Learn more about this author, Stephen Maybery.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Should Britain adopt fixed Parliamentary terms??
We want to hear your view. Write now!