Fixed Term Parliaments: What would Churchill do?

Image via Wikipedia

Former Transport Secretary, Lord Adonis – yes, that is his real name – has been speaking out against the fixed term parliamentary system introduced by the new Tory/LibDem coalition, describing the idea as a “constitutional outrage”. I know, some might say it’s just a case of sour grapes from the losing party, but he does have some support from constitutional experts.

The argument for change is that the country needs a strong and stable government to oversee the rebuilding of the economy following the credit crisis and bailing out of the banking system. Superficially that does make sense, but closer scrutiny suggests it’s an extremely misleading idea.

During World War Two, Britain was run by a coalition government installed after a vote of no confidence led to the resignation of Conservative prime minister, Neville Chamberlain whose policies of appeasement had proved both unsuccessful and hugely unpopular. Winston Churchill became PM, and later found himself facing a similar vote, but survived to lead the country to victory. I do wonder what he’d think about his successors trying to manipulate public anxiety to make changes to the parliamentary system.

While it is true that we owe a stupendous amount of money, and that we will be paying it off for decades to come, this can not possibly compare to the threat the country faced in the 1940s. Back then, we also had a massive national debt – billions owed to the US alone* – and it was growing because not only did the country have to finance the war effort, there was also the cost of rebuilding once hostilities were over. And of course, the danger was not only financial, the world’s biggest super-power was camped just across the Channel and planning to invade. In the meantime they were bombing our towns and cities into rubble and attacking our shipping with the intention of starving us into submission. Yet, despite this, at no point did anyone think the government should be shored up with changes to the system which made it harder to remove them from power.

Fast forward to 2010 and that very thing could happen. The Tory government want to make it harder to remove them if it all goes horribly wrong. And make no mistake, these changes would protect the Tories, not the coalition! If the coalition falls apart, the fixed term and new rules about votes of no confidence will enable the Tories to stay in power until 2015, despite the fact they will have no majority. They tell us this is a good thing because the country is in financial crisis and needs a firm hand on the tiller to see us through the difficult days ahead. They may have a point, but surely a minority government is not a firm hand, it’s a weak hand, and one which could lead to at best stagnation, and at worst, catastrophe.

So what would Churchill do? Would he approve of a minority government playing on peoples’ fears to introduce undemocratic changes to the parliamentary system to keep themselves in power? I think not.

* It took until 2006 to repay the money owed to the USA

Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill and the Germans…

The “Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill” bares an uncanny resemblance to another bill passed prior to World War 2.

The Enabling Act (Ermächtigungsgesetz in German) was passed by Germany’s parliament (the Reichstag) on March 23, 1933. It was the second major step after the Reichstag Fire Decree through which the Nazis obtained dictatorial powers using largely legal means. The Act enabled Chancellor Adolf Hitler and his cabinet to enact laws without the participation of the Reichstag.

– Enabling Act, wikipedia

Having written to Mr R. Gale (my MP) I have gotten a reply. I asked him for his views on the subject but instead I got copies of the current paperwork on the topic.

I shall have to assume that this means that he is calling a safety and not voicing an opinion.

“…you will note that Her Majesty’s opposition – which of course I am a member – made stringent efforts to oppose the offensive sections of the Bill but the government has of course used its majority to force many measures through…”
Roger Gale MP

He claims that the Labour party used it’s majority to force the issue. This “majority” is so slight that they require the support of the Conservative party to be sure to get a bill through (especially if the “back benchers” revolt).

So what’s going on here? Have Labour suddenly found power that commentary has over looked or are the big three secretly in favour of this bill?

Mr Gale voted against the Bill during it’s third reading on 16 May 2006 (He also voted against ID cards on 16 & 21 Mar 2006).

I doubt, then, that this issue of what is happening on a party political scale reflects directly on Mr Gale but it gives me cause to worry nonetheless.

Catch up on the issues here and here. This article contains substansive text taken from another article by the same author found here.

Want to share your opinions with the world? Join the team and write for this blog.

PM is a job, not a title!

Prime Minister Blair. If I hear/read those words once more I think I will scream. He is not Prime Minister Blair. PM is his job not his title. If he were a baker or a newsagent he wouldn’t be known as Baker Blair, or Newsagent Blair, so why do some people insist on giving him a presidential style title. (OK we all know he would probably like one, but he doesn’t have one.)

He is not the head of state, he is the (current) leader of the Labour party and due to the success of said party in recent general elections, he is the PM. When he steps down as leader, the Labour party will still be in power because the British public did not vote for Prime Minister Blair, but a significant number did vote Labour.

Oh, I feel so much better now

Technorati Tags: tony+blair, prime+minister+blair, the+labour+party, uk+politics, uk+government

Want to share your opinions with the world? Join the team and write for this blog.