Should we have a General Election?
Over two years ago, I blogged that the next General Election would be on 7 May 2009. That was when I thought that Tony Blair would stay on for three years and that Gordon Brown would want a year to establish himself as the new Prime Minister. In the event, Blair was forced to go a year early and Brown has won more support more rapidly than anyone imagined.
Until a week ago, I would have said that a General Election this Autumn was out: when the Government has three years of its mandate left and that mandate is backed by a significant majority in the Commons, why go to the polls so soon? However, in politics, events have a way of taking over from everybody – including th Prime Minister.
There ‘s now so much speculation about an early election – much of it whipped up by the media who love elections because it makes the news more interesting – that, if Brown doesn’t go, he will be accused of chickening out. But really there is no need for an election now and I simply don’t believed that Labour’s lead is anything like that suggested by some of the most recent polls.
All this feverish discussion of a General Election reinforces my view that there is a lot to be said for fixed-term parliaments. To leave this decision essentially to one person is fundamentally anti-democratic and not good for the stability of the economy. After all, every other level of our political system has fixed terms between elections and many other national parliaments have fixed terms.
October 5th, 2007 at 12:09 am
We want an early election to get rid of Barry Gardiner.
October 9th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
I would not have made the mess Brown made. It was either yes or no and tell the world straight away, not make your self look a pillock.
I think Labour are now looking like Major’s bunch before the curtains came down.