Fixed-term parliaments

ARGUMENTS FOR:

The continuing uncertainty as to whether Gordon Brown will call an election this autumn represents a diversion from the real business of government.

Leaving the choice of the timing to the Prime Minister - with the proviso that there has to be an election within five years of the last one - gives the party in power an unjustifiable advantage. It enables the government of the day to manipulate events and to seize on any temporary blip in its favour in the polls.

Fixed-term parliaments would help to redress the balance between the Commons and the Executive, at present biased in favour of the latter.

Westminster considered fixed-term parliaments to be good enough for the devolved parts of the UK. If it's right for the Scottish parliament and the Welsh and Northern Irish assemblies, it is surely right for Westminster itself.

Elections for the European parliament and for local authorities here are also held on fixed appointed dates. The Prime Minister's freedom to use the Royal prerogative at a time of his choosing is an anomaly.

The First Post guide to the issue of the day

ARGUMENTS AGAINST:

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Our present flexible system has worked well for centuries.

Where you have fixed-term parliaments, everything grinds to a halt in the year leading up to the election date as governments tailor their policies accordingly.

The flexibility of the present system allows for a dissolution and new election if the Government has an inadequate majority. The value of this has been shown in 1951, 1964 and the second election in 1974.

The Royal Prerogative to dissolve parliament on the advice of the Prime Minister is an essential element in the British constitution.

There is no evidence that fixed-term elections in, for example, the USA make for better government.

FIRST POSTED OCTOBER 3, 2007