The recognition by Nick Clegg on behalf of the UK Government that it is not sensible to hold the Assembly elections and the UK General elections on the same day is welcome. Choosing the same date was a silly decision when they first took it, but the decoupling of Assembly constituency boundaries from parliamentary boundaries made it even more so. Of course, that latter situation already existed in Scotland anyway, and the initial decision to fix the date of the election for 2015 showed a certain lack of joined up thinking from the outset.
The reaction from the Labour Party looks to me like something of a knee-jerk one – ‘you should move your election rather than expecting us to move ours’ is hardly a grown-up response. And yet the apparently unqualified welcome from others doesn’t feel entirely right to me either.
Alwyn makes a good point, when he draws attention to the fact that an attempt to set a fixed term for UK Parliaments ends up changing a fixed term Assembly into a variable-term Assembly. Although the suggestion is that ‘the Assembly’ can vary its term within certain parameters to avoid a clash, in practice ‘the Assembly’ means ‘the majority party or parties’, and ‘the majority party or parties’ means the First Minister. In short, taking away the right of the UK Prime Minister to decide the date of the election on the basis of what suits his or her party’s electoral chances is being accomplished by giving that same power to the Welsh, Scottish, and Northern Irish First Ministers.
It would surely be more sensible to give all the bodies a term of the same length, thereby avoiding the periodic clashing of dates completely. Whether that term should be 4 years or 5 years is not something that I could get too worked up about, but since it is unrealistic to expect the UK Government to fall in line with the timescales for the devolved bodies, 5 years would seem to be the most pragmatic response.
And it is clear that the UK Government is going to have to make changes to GOWA in order to put some sort of mechanism in place for determining constituency boundaries in future, so there is an obvious legislative opportunity available.
The other lesson that emerges from this little spat is one which reinforces how wrong the ‘no’ campaigners are in arguing that the referendum on March 3rd is another step towards Independence. It underlines graphically that the real power still lies where it has always lain, and that the devolved legislatures will bend to the will of the central government when told so to do.
Power devolved is, and always has been, power retained. That’s the difference between nationalism and devolution. March 3rd is about devolution, not independence.
Posts
8 comments:
I don't think that anyone is giving this an unqualified welcome. It's more a recognition of where we have reached in the political argument on fixed term parliaments.
As the Fixed Term Parliaments Bill passed through the House of Commons, Plaid laid amendments to have the UK Parliament sit for four years with the next election taking place in 2014. Plaid also laid a probing amendment about Assembly terms to ensure the clash of date would be discussed.
There is general agreement that we shouldn't have the Assembly and UK Parliament elections on the same day, but the Con-Dems made it 100% clear that they were going to have a 5 year UK Parliament next going to the polls in May 2015.
We're therefore dealing with practicalities rather than principles.
As I'd rather the principle than ad-hoc fixes dependant upon the politics of the time, a 5 year Assembly seems a sensible proposition given the timetable change to the UK Parliament.
This Fixed Term Act will it impinge on dear Betty Battenberg’s God given right to withdraw her confidence in her Ministers, as she exercised in Australia in the 1970`s?
In her coronation, she did swear before the God of the Anglican Church to ensure that her governments would not do certain things – is this now dumped?
The one critical factor in this discussion is that the Fixed Term Parliaments Bill does not in fact create fixed term parliaments. It simply expresses the intention for parliaments of five years, but actually includes provision for early elections. It will be harder, perhaps even impossible, for the Prime Minister of the day to call an election at will; but in the event of a vote of no confidence—followed by the inability to create a new government from the already elected MPs within a period of 14 days—there will still be an early general election. After such an election, the clock will be reset, and the new parliament will sit for a new period of five years.
This is crucially different from the situation in Wales and Scotland. For if an early Scottish or Welsh general election is called, the clock will not be reset, and the resulting Assembly or Parliament will only sit for the remainder of the four year term. As a result, Wales and Scotland will have elections on a permanently fixed timetable: 2011, 2015, 2019, 2023, etc ... although there might be an additional intermediate election in exceptional circumstances.
Because of this difference, I see very little point in Wales and Scotland moving to fixed five year terms; especially as it appears we each prefer four year terms rather than five year terms anyway.
For that reason, I think it is better in principle for us to change the arrangements so as to allow us to move the date of our elections in Wales and Scotland to avoid a clash with a Westminster election. As I see it, the principle at stake is not that fixed term Assemblies or Parliaments are absolutely sacrosanct, but that the government of the day should not have the ability to call a snap election for party political advantage.
At present, Scotland itself (through the Presiding Officer) has the ability to move its election by a month either way, and that can happen in Wales too, but only through the Secretary of State for Wales. In itself that is an anomaly that needs to be removed. What Clegg is proposing would not only equalize that anomaly but extend that one month to one year. Personally, I would have thought that six months either way would be quite adequate, allowing for two "windows" ... one in May and one in October. But I won't argue with the provision being framed as "up to a year" either way.
Yet that still leaves an element of discretion, which could be abused. It might well be in one party's interests for the Assembly and Westminster elections to be held on the same day ... especially if they think they will gain from running on almost identical campaign issues. So if we adopt a model where dates are fixed unless two-thirds of the Assembly opt to move it, we might find ourselves stuck with a clash anyway. In my opinion, it would be better to stipulate (as part of this Fixed Term Parliaments Bill) that devolved elections cannot be held at the same time as a Westminster election.
MH,
Thanks for the clarification. There's some points of detail there that hadn't struck me. I prefer not to allow politicians to exercise discretion about the date of their appointment with the electorate, but would have to accept that a vote of no confidence is a pretty good reason for allowing the date to vary.
On a point of detail, whilst:
"This is crucially different from the situation in Wales and Scotland. For if an early Scottish or Welsh general election is called, the clock will not be reset, and the resulting Assembly or Parliament will only sit for the remainder of the four year term. As a result, Wales and Scotland will have elections on a permanently fixed timetable: 2011, 2015, 2019, 2023, etc ... although there might be an additional intermediate election in exceptional circumstances."
is certainly true for the current one month leeway, it is presumably at least possible that in legislating for a change to one year, Parliament may decide to reset the clock in these cases as well? Otherwise, terms could, potentially, vary from 3 years to 5 - not dissimilar, in effect, from current Westminster practice.
Similarly, that legislation will offer a second opportunity for "... it would be better to stipulate (as part of this Fixed Term Parliaments Bill) that devolved elections cannot be held at the same time as a Westminster election.", given that the current Bill is now an Act, and thus beyond further amendment as part of its consideration.
Actually, John, the Fixed Term Parliaments Bill is not yet an Act, it is due for its second reading in the Lords on 1 March. See here.
But yes, I suppose it is true that the bill could be ammended to "re-set the clock" for Wales and Scotland, but I hope it isn't. As I see it, not resetting the clock is in fact the biggest disincentive to calling a snap election. And if Westminster were to adopt that principle, it wouldn't need the far more cumbersome super-majority provision, as I said here last May. As things stand the devolved legislatures have both belt and braces ... and I think we only need one. But this has been debated in Westminster (a few months ago) and there wasn't enough support for it.
The reason I think six months is a good compromise is because it's no different from the current Welsh and Scottish provision. As things stand at present, if an extraordinary election is held within six months of the date on which the regular election would be due, then the new Assembly or Parliament will run for four years plus those additional weeks or months. So we already have a situation where it is theoretically possible to have a 42 month Assembly followed by one of 54 months. The change I would like is to stipulate that a scheduled devolved election would have to slip back in the event of an unexpected Westminster election. This rule would remove the ability for the party or parties in power to manipulate things to their advantage ... which I see as the main point of the legislation.
Looking at it in more minute detail, what would happen if there were two crises at the same time in two legislatures, each resulting in votes of no confidence which could not be resolved and which therefore required an election? As things stand now it is only right that Westminster's crisis is dealt with first, and I don't think any great harm would be done in delaying a Welsh or Scottish election by, say, two months. So this is what I would propose as the minimum gap to be included in the legislation. But in a non-crisis situation a six month gap would, in my opinion, be about right. Alex Salmond said he didn't think it right that elections to two places should be held in the same year, but I can't see what's wrong with a spring election being followed by one in autumn.
MH,
"Actually, John, the Fixed Term Parliaments Bill is not yet an Act"
Ooops. I was confusing it - don't know how - with the AV/ Reduction in MPs Act...
I had to look it up to be sure, John. But it's odd, isn't it? It was so important for them to lump together the number of MPs and the AV referendum into one bill and force it through quickly, but OK for fixed terms to be in a separate bill. Wouldn't it have been better to have properly thought everything through, and then produced one fully co-ordinated piece of legislation?
MH,
Indeed. It's not as if any of the three issues are desperately urgent; they all need to be in place by 2015 to meet their own targets, but taking another 12 months to get the legislation right would do no harm at all. And it would have given them time to consider all the other issues (such as the impact on Wales and Scotland) which will now need to be revisited in another Bill.
I'm tempted to suggest that it's an example of the way in which Westminster legislation is thoroughly and carefully scrutinised to make sure it's right before it gets put on the Statute Book, not like the rushed and ill-considered approach which some seem to think applies in Cardiff!
But my best guess is that it's just a macho attempt to demonstrate quick decisive action by a new government. And then some more quick decisive action to put right the defects.
Post a Comment