Should Governments terms be extended
Discussion
Bloody hell we agree on something... Wait whilst I pick myself up of the floor....
I think you are right possibly not by much but 7 maybe 9 at a push but with perhaps more capability and transparency to call no confidence votes to allow for more reigning in to go along with it and yes I think a good idea.
I think you are right possibly not by much but 7 maybe 9 at a push but with perhaps more capability and transparency to call no confidence votes to allow for more reigning in to go along with it and yes I think a good idea.
There is sense in extending it i think.
Only being in for a few years means even if you really f@ck up the next party has to fix it.
General population then hate them because of the cuts to try and fix the damage so they are back out next time. Back in and f@ck up.
Repeat until something really changes.....
Only being in for a few years means even if you really f@ck up the next party has to fix it.
General population then hate them because of the cuts to try and fix the damage so they are back out next time. Back in and f@ck up.
Repeat until something really changes.....
heppers75 said:
Bloody hell we agree on something... Wait whilst I pick myself up of the floor....
I think you are right possibly not by much but 7 maybe 9 at a push but with perhaps more capability and transparency to call no confidence votes to allow for more reigning in to go along with it and yes I think a good idea.
Oh God, Noooooooooooo!!!!! (kidding) As burg is saying, give the Government a little longer to be able to fully introduce policies that have had time to be polished and tuned. Time enough for those policies to be seen successful or failing Five years is simply not long enough for any colour Government to be able to prove itself by improving the Country. Failsafes, as Heppers75 mentions, would have to be available so we could chuck out a Government that was dreadful, for example a Government led by a PM named ermmmmmm can't recall his name right now I think you are right possibly not by much but 7 maybe 9 at a push but with perhaps more capability and transparency to call no confidence votes to allow for more reigning in to go along with it and yes I think a good idea.
crankedup said:
Is a maximum of five years really long enough to be able to judge a Governments success. Perhaps the five year term needs to be extended to seven years unless an extraordinary situation should arise?
Who would decide on the extension, and what constitutes an extraordinary situation?martin84 said:
The question is would you support the principle of a longer term if Gordon Brown was currently the Prime Minister?
It would be a great laugh as he goes completely bonkers and ends up having a heart attack live on air.Its not like he was that much worse then the current lot
I'm not a huge fan of US politics but 2 things they do that we should adopt now.
Governmnets term of 4 yrs is about right, but it should be fixed. Every 4 yrs hold the election in the same week each time. End of May I suggest, when the weather is usually ok but not many people are on hols, to maximise turnout. Governments should not be able to call an election when it suits them just to coincide with a month where things are going better than usual.
Secondly, no prime minsiter should be allowed more than 2 terms, 8 years in total. Because they all go bonkers with power after 8 yrs, Thatcher, Blair, whoever. 8 yrs and you're gone.
Governmnets term of 4 yrs is about right, but it should be fixed. Every 4 yrs hold the election in the same week each time. End of May I suggest, when the weather is usually ok but not many people are on hols, to maximise turnout. Governments should not be able to call an election when it suits them just to coincide with a month where things are going better than usual.
Secondly, no prime minsiter should be allowed more than 2 terms, 8 years in total. Because they all go bonkers with power after 8 yrs, Thatcher, Blair, whoever. 8 yrs and you're gone.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I'm not a huge fan of US politics but 2 things they do that we should adopt now.
Governmnets term of 4 yrs is about right, but it should be fixed. Every 4 yrs hold the election in the same week each time. End of May I suggest, when the weather is usually ok but not many people are on hols, to maximise turnout. Governments should not be able to call an election when it suits them just to coincide with a month where things are going better than usual.
Secondly, no prime minsiter should be allowed more than 2 terms, 8 years in total. Because they all go bonkers with power after 8 yrs, Thatcher, Blair, whoever. 8 yrs and you're gone.
The thing I'd most like to see us import from US politics is a clear difference between the main candidates. In America the Democrats are centre-left and the Republicans are centre-right, you know what you're getting with each one. They're not afraid to actually disagree with each other on major fundamental beliefs, the Republicans stick to what they believe even if plenty of people dont like it and likewise with the Democrats. They actually stand up for what they believe in.Governmnets term of 4 yrs is about right, but it should be fixed. Every 4 yrs hold the election in the same week each time. End of May I suggest, when the weather is usually ok but not many people are on hols, to maximise turnout. Governments should not be able to call an election when it suits them just to coincide with a month where things are going better than usual.
Secondly, no prime minsiter should be allowed more than 2 terms, 8 years in total. Because they all go bonkers with power after 8 yrs, Thatcher, Blair, whoever. 8 yrs and you're gone.
Our current Parliament is a fixed five year term, I believe Prime Ministers do have to request an election within five years but theres nothing to say it should be 4 or 5. Labour's first two terms were four years when they were popular yet the last one was stretched to five because they knew they'd lose.
martin84 said:
The thing I'd most like to see us import from US politics is a clear difference between the main candidates. In America the Democrats are centre-left and the Republicans are centre-right, you know what you're getting with each one. They're not afraid to actually disagree with each other on major fundamental beliefs, the Republicans stick to what they believe even if plenty of people dont like it and likewise with the Democrats. They actually stand up for what they believe in.
Our current Parliament is a fixed five year term, I believe Prime Ministers do have to request an election within five years but theres nothing to say it should be 4 or 5. Labour's first two terms were four years when they were popular yet the last one was stretched to five because they knew they'd lose.
Not quite right. The democrats are centre right and the republicans are far right.Our current Parliament is a fixed five year term, I believe Prime Ministers do have to request an election within five years but theres nothing to say it should be 4 or 5. Labour's first two terms were four years when they were popular yet the last one was stretched to five because they knew they'd lose.
Yes, I know we have a maximum term of 5 yrs, but we should have a fixed term. It should be 4 yrs to the week, last week in May every 4 yrs is the elction. Not 3 and a half years because we're just won a war so the government think the time is right.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Not quite right. The democrats are centre right and the republicans are far right.
Well maybe to us they are yes but in America the Democrats are the lefty liberals. The Democratic Party could probably pass themselves off as the Conservative's if they moved to the UK.TwigtheWonderkid said:
I'm not a huge fan of US politics but 2 things they do that we should adopt now.
Governmnets term of 4 yrs is about right, but it should be fixed. Every 4 yrs hold the election in the same week each time. End of May I suggest, when the weather is usually ok but not many people are on hols, to maximise turnout. Governments should not be able to call an election when it suits them just to coincide with a month where things are going better than usual.
It pretty much is now. The Fixed-Term Parliaments Act 2010-12 received Royal Ascent on 15 September 2011. The Bill fixes the date of the next General Election at 7 May 2015, and provides for five-year fixed terms. It includes provisions to allow the Prime Minister to alter the date by up to two months by Order. There are also two ways in which an election could be triggered before the end of the five-year term:Governmnets term of 4 yrs is about right, but it should be fixed. Every 4 yrs hold the election in the same week each time. End of May I suggest, when the weather is usually ok but not many people are on hols, to maximise turnout. Governments should not be able to call an election when it suits them just to coincide with a month where things are going better than usual.
1. if a motion of no confidence is passed and no alternative government is found, or
2. if a motion for an early general election is agreed either by at least two-thirds of the House or without division
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Secondly, no prime minsiter should be allowed more than 2 terms, 8 years in total. Because they all go bonkers with power after 8 yrs, Thatcher, Blair, whoever. 8 yrs and you're gone.
Brown went bonkers with power within 8 minutes.The problem with short terms is no-one plays the long game. It's all about doing what you need to get elected next time and sod the long term goal. Like building power stations cos you need them in 10 years, its seen as a waste as the next government will take the credit and you get the blame for the expense.
In some ways china have the right idea - no democracy (as in no chance to vote for a choice of useless vote grabbing buffoons who do what they want and sod the policies you voted them in for) but a long term goal. Does the dictatorship there do what the people want? Maybe not, but neither do the elected politicians in the UK. Do they care about the country as a whole and look to growth, build infrastructure etc? Yup.
In some ways china have the right idea - no democracy (as in no chance to vote for a choice of useless vote grabbing buffoons who do what they want and sod the policies you voted them in for) but a long term goal. Does the dictatorship there do what the people want? Maybe not, but neither do the elected politicians in the UK. Do they care about the country as a whole and look to growth, build infrastructure etc? Yup.
jimothy said:
The problem with short terms is no-one plays the long game. It's all about doing what you need to get elected next time and sod the long term goal. Like building power stations cos you need them in 10 years, its seen as a waste as the next government will take the credit and you get the blame for the expense.
Assuming voters always overlook long-term needs?This is why you have a bicameral system anyway. The House of Lords is supposed to see that legislation is scrutinized (or would be if they would get on with reforming it properly and get them all on 15 year terms).
Because of the electoral system you have you lock out smaller parties that add a diversity of opinion to mainstream politics that tends to hold larger parties to account. If you want to start reforming government that might be a good place to start.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff