On Prime Ministers calling elections
October 6, 2007 RJH
On the whole, I find the British political system far healthier than its American counterpart. I loathe the fact that the partisan US president is also Head of State and Commander-in-Chief; I find the staid deference of Congress stultifying and uninspiring; I think the programmatic four-year term, and its attendant lame-duck lameness, is an exercise in elected dictatorship; and I find US TV journalism to be lazy overseers of this lazy system.
But the power of a British prime minister to call an election at his whim — when he thinks he can win it — is madness. In Britain we currently have the farcical situation where newly-minted Labour leader (and thus Prime Minister) Gordon “I’m from Scotland where Westminster has little power” Brown spun a November election when the polls were looking good, and backed out when faced with a resurgent Tory party. Pathetic.
This is not a government of which I am a big fan. I note the Clunking Fist is now also playing the terrorism card, telling the BBC that Labour is best able to fight the war on terror.
Get lost, Brown.
October 8th, 2007 at 3:55 am
I appreciate your frustration, Ronan. You will be happy to notice that lame ducks are not an implication of fixed terms but of term limits, which makes your argument even stronger.
In the United States, I hear people demanding frequently that the length of campaigns be limited as in Britain. The proponents rarely know that the time limits of the campaign are a result of snap elections.
Regardless of when Brown calls elections, I do not think that the Conservatives can ever win. Labor is too dominant in too many constituencies. It would be a threat to Brown’s status as a party leader, however, if the Labor lead declined considerably.
October 9th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
I just wish I could vote for my MLA and my prime minister separately.