fixed-term Parliament

   The current practice of holding Westminster elections at a date of the Prime Minister’s choosing (within the limits set by the Parliament Act 1911) contrasts with that for other types of United Kingdom elections, such as the devolved, European and local ones, which are fixed at regular intervals. In 1992, Labour advocated fixed parliamentary terms, as still do the Liberal Democrats. Unsurprisingly, it is opposition parties who seem tempted by the idea. Some commentators and individual Members of Parliament have taken up the cause, suggesting that the present arrangement provides an unfair advantage for the government of the day. They claim that it is like asking a competitor in a race to fire the starting pistol at a time when most convenient to him. Fixed terms would therefore: be fairer for the opposition and the electorate; remove the lengthy period of uncertainty before an election is called, to the benefit of politics, government and the economy; provide a more stable basis on which businesspeople can plan investment; bring the UK into line with much of the rest of Europe; and be broadly in accordance with public wishes, for voters tend to tire of governments after three or four years. Arguments against fixed terms include the suggestion that they would perpetuate weak and unstable administrations in office, encourage longer election campaigns – as in the case of US presidential contests – and serve no useful point, for in most cases a parliament does not last the full five-year stretch (only three postwar parliaments have done so) . Another difficulty is the need to ensure that elections can be held when necessary, for example after a defeat on a no-confidence vote, although in some other states this is perfectly possible.

   See also: dissolution