David Cameron has called for a snap General Election when Tony Blair leaves office, claiming that the new Prime Minister would not have a public mandate otherwise.
I used to be of this view, but after giving it some more thought, I no longer think that that is correct. Here are some of my reasons:
- unlike, say, the United States of America, we do not directly elect the head of Government. We each elect our constituency MPs, and, basically, the party with the most seats forms the Government. I would submit that the mandate is intact, regardless of who subsequently leads the party;
- the Labour Party’s General Election victory in 2005 gave them the mandate to carry out their manifesto. As long as Tony Blair’s successor intends to stick to that manifesto, they do not need to seek a fresh mandate. If he decides to abandon it in favour of other policies, then he would need to put those before the country in a General Election.
To my mind, the real constitutional issue surrounds the candidacy of Gordon Brown. In view of the West Lothian question, I do not think it is proper for an MP who sits for a Scottish seat to become Prime Minister. If he wishes to become Prime Minister, I would expect him to stand down from his Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath seat and stand for an English seat.
Constitutional issues aside, it would be good for the relationship between the Goverment and the people if the next Labour party leader called a snap General Election. However, he doesn’t govern without a mandate if he chooses not to do so.
December 19th, 2006 at 5:04 pm
I too would expect Gordo to stand down from his Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath seat and stand for an English seat. And you know what…I think he might actually consider doing so. It would certainly take the sting out of the West Loathian question for him….
December 19th, 2006 at 8:14 pm
Bel - you are correct in saying a general election does not have to be called as we elect MPs, not the PM and as long as he sticks to the 2005 manifesto a new mandate is not needed. Having said that, every PM wants to be there because they lead their party to victory, and I wonder how long Brown will remain PM without his own victory behind him.
The West Lothian question relates to Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs voting on purely English matters. It has nothing to do with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, therefore I can’t see a problem with someone with a Scottish seat being PM.
December 19th, 2006 at 9:54 pm
As others have pointed out, Cameron spent the last election pushing the slogan: “Vote Blair, Get Brown”, so it’s a bit rich that he’s now complaining that people didn’t know what they were getting themselves into.
I also think he might be digging his own grave. If Brown calls an election soon after taking over, more people will be prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. And I doubt that Cameron is quite strong enough to keep the party together for another term in opposition. The Conservatives best bet is to hope he leaves it for a while, and that disillusionment with Labour increases.
December 19th, 2006 at 9:55 pm
*Sigh*
Obviously, I meant that the Tories pushed the slogan - not Cameron. They all blend into one for me.
December 19th, 2006 at 10:59 pm
aaah Bel. I know you’re a law lecturer but……..trust you to point out the, or rather THE West Lothian Question. Look, Cameron is right. Get us into the smelly school gyms to put our X’s down. Even if we follow your ‘a party has been elected therefore the party has the mandate not the individual’ theory the fact of the matter is split ethos is exactly what is wrong with Labour. So if you’re a Tony Blair follower, chances are you won’t be a Gordon Brown follower. I do not, I repeat NOT want that man in the center frame so whatever we need to do to ensure it doesn’t happen - sign me up.
December 20th, 2006 at 1:41 am
Seems a bit odd when we’ve been complaining about Blair’s ‘presidential style of government’ for all these years to call on his successor to call an election because he supposedly needs ‘a personal mandate’.
Seems odd, also, for a Conservative to think that a radical departure from preceding practice is a good idea — no one suggested (at least not seriously) that John Major should call an immediate election after he took over from Mrs Thatcher because he lacked a personal mandate, or Sir Alec Douglas-Home from Macmillan or Macmillan from Sir Anthony Eden. Eden, admittedly, called a General Election on taking over from Churchill, but one had shortly be called anyway.
December 20th, 2006 at 12:47 pm
I have mixed views about whether an early election would be good or bad for the Conservatives.
If the polls are accurate people prefer Cameron to Brown so the quicker we capitalise on that, the better.
On the other hand, Cameron’s project with the Conservative Party might actually need more time to have its effect, for the Party’s aroma to be more palatable so that they can then announce meaningful policies that will be taken seriously.
Additionally, it might be useful to allow time to see if the Scottish Nationalists can improve their share of the vote at Labour’s expense so we can make some progress in Scotland.
A disaffected Tory Party plus unconvinced electorate could see another low turnout for Brown - but a victory nevertheless.
So all in all I can confidently conclude that I haven’t got a bleedin’ clue what I want to happen.
December 20th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
This is posturing by Cameron, but good stuff anyway. Brown will take the coward’s way out. At the moment I don’t know whether that means risking being the most short-lived PM or the one presiding over the worst swing ever.
December 20th, 2006 at 2:09 pm
I agree with comment 8.
A snap election as soon as Brown is handed the crown must surely be an attractive proposition as he will be daily front page news and enjoying some sort of honeymoon period.
Cameron has only made this call in the desperate hope that New Labour will instinctively take any course other than that demanded by the Tories.
One might or might not hold New Labour in low esteme, but I doubt anyone would accuse them of being so stupid that they won’t see through Cameron’s ploy.
December 20th, 2006 at 6:28 pm
In view of the West Lothian question, I do not think it is proper for an MP who sits for a Scottish seat to become Prime Minister. If he wishes to become Prime Minister, I would expect him to stand down from his Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath seat and stand for an English seat.
It’s certainly indicated, this one. It would make it far easier for him. Don’t think it matters much anyway within the year.
December 20th, 2006 at 7:43 pm
I can’t see Brown standing down, but you state a good case, Labour will just take the easy way out.
Have a very happy Xmas, btw.
December 21st, 2006 at 10:36 am
A good debate here Bel. However, all polls point to Brown being unelectable full stop. There is no way he will call a snap election, the day he faces the public is the day he is out of office. So he will postpone as long as possible.
I’ll wager my £20 to your £10 to anyone here who so cares to take this bet…
December 21st, 2006 at 11:48 am
I am of the view that an election may not necessarily benefit the Tories. The effects of Gordon Brown’s incompetence as Chancellor will soon be apparent, and I would rather he was in office to carry the can for that. That would ensure the Tories get a bigger majority when the General Election is eventually called.
December 21st, 2006 at 11:50 am
I agree with the view that Brown is unelectable. He will just sit tight. He has a history of shying away from elections, preferring to do backroom deals. Why should this change now? He will delay a General Election for as long as he can.
December 21st, 2006 at 3:33 pm
Bel,
That’s a good point actually. We need a working majority and maybe allowing the rotten fruits of Brown’s actions to become more widely realised will convert itself into additional seats.
We don’t just want to win we want to pulverise…
December 21st, 2006 at 9:06 pm
I think Andrew has it right. Despite the perceived unfairness of the Scottish block vote imposing on purely English issues, the current constitutional arrangement is as it is. There is nothing wrong with a Scottish MP running the country. After all it is a national role. Perhaps Cameron should go to the next election with a pledge to break up the UK and have regional parliaments. The Tories might well win in Scotland with that pledge. They can then govern and allow the twenty years or so that it would take to implement to pass. Meanwhile they will have a mandate in other areas to implement their political agenda, rather than moaning about arcane issues like the West Lothian Question.
December 21st, 2006 at 9:32 pm
‘Perhaps Cameron should go to the next election with a pledge to break up the UK and have regional parliaments. The Tories might well win in Scotland with that pledge.’
Well, anything more than one Tory MP in the whole of Scotland will be a big improvement on what we now have.
December 21st, 2006 at 9:49 pm
Colin and Andrew, I take your point about the West Lothian question; Brown will after all be an MP of only one constituency, and it’s not as if we have a presidential system of Government. Perhaps breaking up the UK is not such a bad idea.