UK General Discussion: 2019. Blackadder goes Brexit.

[BlueSwan]

Giving the executive control over the electoral calendar is actually an awful and blatantly undemocratic idea. It's in the same category of terrible ideas as letting incumbents draw their own district lines. The FTPA was obviously not perfect (5-year terms are unacceptably long), but my opinion of it has actually improved a lot with this current crisis. It's working exactly as it should, preventing a power-hungry PM from bullying Parliament into submission and opportunistically exploiting the tides of public opinion to his advantage.

It works just fine here in Denmark. The Prime Minister here can call for an election with 3 weeks notice at any time and for any reason. In certain periods of politicial instability, like the 70's, that meant an election pretty much every other year. In other more stable times, like the last two decades, we're usually fairly close to going the full 4 years. So the last elections have been in 1990, 1994, 1998, 2001, 2005, 2007, 2011, 2015 and 2019. Also the electoral advantage of picking the date hasn't really shown to matter very much in danish politics where support for the various parties is fairly stable, and rarely subject to massive swings within the space of a few months. Also, usually a party is in power for a couple of terms and then the opposition gains power. In my lifetime we've had the following prime ministers:

1975-1982: Anker Jørgensen (Social democrats)
1982-1993: Poul Schlüther (Conservatives)
1993-2001: Poul Nyrup Rasmussen (Social democrats)
2001-2009: Anders Fogh Rasmussen (Liberals)
2009-2011: Lars Løkke Rasmussen (Liberals)
2011-2015: Helle Thorning Schmidt (Social democrats)
2015-2019: Lars Løkke Rasmussen (Liberals)
2019-?: Mette Frederiksen (Social democrats)

[BlueSwan]

Giving the executive control over the electoral calendar is actually an awful and blatantly undemocratic idea. It's in the same category of terrible ideas as letting incumbents draw their own district lines. The FTPA was obviously not perfect (5-year terms are unacceptably long), but my opinion of it has actually improved a lot with this current crisis. It's working exactly as it should, preventing a power-hungry PM from bullying Parliament into submission and opportunistically exploiting the tides of public opinion to his advantage.

It works just fine here in Denmark. The Prime Minister here can call for an election with 3 weeks notice at any time and for any reason. In certain periods of politicial instability, like the 70's, that meant an election pretty much every other year. In other more stable times, like the last two decades, we're usually fairly close to going the full 4 years. So the last elections have been in 1990, 1994, 1998, 2001, 2005, 2007, 2011, 2015 and 2019. Also the electoral advantage of picking the date hasn't really shown to matter very much in danish politics where support for the various parties is fairly stable, and rarely subject to massive swings within the space of a few months. Also, usually a party is in power for a couple of terms and then the opposition gains power. In my lifetime we've had the following prime ministers:

1975-1982: Anker Jørgensen (Social democrats)
1982-1993: Poul Schlüther (Conservatives)
1993-2001: Poul Nyrup Rasmussen (Social democrats)
2001-2009: Anders Fogh Rasmussen (Liberals)
2009-2011: Lars Løkke Rasmussen (Liberals)
2011-2015: Helle Thorning Schmidt (Social democrats)
2015-2019: Lars Løkke Rasmussen (Liberals)
2019-?: Mette Frederiksen (Social democrats)

Just because it hasn't always worked doesn't mean it's not a bad principle to set.

When an election takes place is part of the "rules of the game" of politics. The players of the game should never be able to control the rules.

I just think your basic reasoning is flawed. Asking the people is NOT the same as manipulating election maps at all. Why should you ever be afraid of the verdict of the people in a democracy?

[BlueSwan]

Giving the executive control over the electoral calendar is actually an awful and blatantly undemocratic idea. It's in the same category of terrible ideas as letting incumbents draw their own district lines. The FTPA was obviously not perfect (5-year terms are unacceptably long), but my opinion of it has actually improved a lot with this current crisis. It's working exactly as it should, preventing a power-hungry PM from bullying Parliament into submission and opportunistically exploiting the tides of public opinion to his advantage.

It works just fine here in Denmark. The Prime Minister here can call for an election with 3 weeks notice at any time and for any reason. In certain periods of politicial instability, like the 70's, that meant an election pretty much every other year. In other more stable times, like the last two decades, we're usually fairly close to going the full 4 years. So the last elections have been in 1990, 1994, 1998, 2001, 2005, 2007, 2011, 2015 and 2019. Also the electoral advantage of picking the date hasn't really shown to matter very much in danish politics where support for the various parties is fairly stable, and rarely subject to massive swings within the space of a few months. Also, usually a party is in power for a couple of terms and then the opposition gains power. In my lifetime we've had the following prime ministers:

1975-1982: Anker Jørgensen (Social democrats)
1982-1993: Poul Schlüther (Conservatives)
1993-2001: Poul Nyrup Rasmussen (Social democrats)
2001-2009: Anders Fogh Rasmussen (Liberals)
2009-2011: Lars Løkke Rasmussen (Liberals)
2011-2015: Helle Thorning Schmidt (Social democrats)
2015-2019: Lars Løkke Rasmussen (Liberals)
2019-?: Mette Frederiksen (Social democrats)

Just because it hasn't always worked doesn't mean it's not a bad principle to set.

When an election takes place is part of the "rules of the game" of politics. The players of the game should never be able to control the rules.

I just think your basic reasoning is flawed. Asking the people is NOT the same as manipulating election maps at all. Why should you ever be afraid of the verdict of the people in a democracy?

You really don't see how the timing of an election has a major influence on who wins it? Sure, "asking the people" is all well and good, but as this whole Brexit story shows, what exactly is being asked, when it is asked, and how it is asked has an enormous impact on the outcome. And of course, if a government knows it's going to lose elections, it's not going to call early elections. Meaning that an unpopular government could easily cling to power for 4-5 years, but a popular government will call new elections whenever needed to maximize support. I'm sorry but you won't convince me that this isn't problematic from a normative standpoint.

A parliamentary election isn't comparable to a referendum. Everybody knows what they are voting on in a regular parliamentary election. In Denmark, basically every time we've had a way premature election, it has been because of some kind of parliamentary gridlock, in which case a new election is the natural cause of action. You think it would somehow be better to force that government to continue as a lame duck government for X more years until the period runs out?

Besides, it is not only the prime minister who can call for an election, any common majority in parliament can effectively call an election, by supporting a censure motion against the government.