The Mind of a President

In America Presidents are only allowed to serve two terms. Usually this is good for both the incumbent and the citizens. Clearly in the case of Bush one term has proved to be too much for all concerned. But the idea of a strict limit on how long a leader can stay in office is still a good one I think. In Britain where Prime Ministers can go on indefinitely until they are either voted out, booted out or decide to leave does seem to be unhealthy both for the PM and for democracy. The Prime Ministers we've had who have served for more than two terms do tend to leave Downing Street the worst for wear. Thatcher is the obvious example; she looked more like her Spitting Image caricature every day she hung on. Blair seems to be going the same way.

I think that limiting Prime Ministers to two terms in office might help. It would prevent them becoming too powerful and allow them to leave with more of their sanity intact. It might also lessen the inevitable plotting and back stabbing that happens with long-serving PMs. It's not a new idea. In ancient Rome in the days of the Res Publica (before the emperors) officials were only allowed to serve in any magistracy for one year, even the Consuls. It was only when that tradition was ignored that the Republic started to fall apart (there were other reasons as well of course). I think the two term limit is a useful concept that we could borrow from the USA.

Term limits for PMs would, I think, entrench the idea of a presidential Prime Minister, so I'm against it for that reason. Reinforcing Parliament and having a more equitable voting system would help remove PMs that lose their marbles.

Listening to Radio 5 this morning (who are doing a phone-in on Blair), they've managed to find a suspiciously large number of people saying the same things 'record investment...low interest rates...low inflation...blah', usually in the same order. I wonder...

I can't help but think that it's self inflicted, rather than the stresses and strains of office. The amount of lying that has to go on all day, every day, must take it's toll to a severe point after a few years. However, if you actually got a government who did what they said they were going to do, on the back of people-orientated policies, I would dare to argue that they'd be the least mentally strained leaders of modern times.

I think the problem lies with the responsiveness of government to the public will, and with the lack of authentic analysis and criticism across the entire range of government activity. 1 term PMs or 2 terms wont make a blind bit of difference so long as British democracy is restricted to 1 day every 5 years. I wonder if national referenda on government performance might help; say, after the 1st 18-24 months we hold a national referendum and if the government's approval rating falls below something like 40% a GElection is automatically triggered. That would focus minds in Downing St.

Any thoughts?

Well, in a rare defence of new Labour they are very fond of using referendums - in the areas where they are appropriate - in order to relieve themselves of any responsibility.
Further, the idea of a referendum on satisfaction is a very good idea, in theory BUT - it is commonly forgotten that Labour has fought and won 3 elections in a row - why would a referendum change this AND referendums are more likely to encourage the fringe groups, such as malcontents (the population of this site) to vote, and not the silent majority who are (for whatever reason) happy with the system.
Don't get me wrong, I am staunchly against this Labour government, and believe most of them should have resigned years ago but it cannot be denied that, through fair means or foul they have managed to win a number of general elections. It is inpractical (although common) to believe that because all those who one talks too are unhappy with Labour, that everyone else feels the same way - general elections have clearly shown that unfortunately the majority of voters are in favour of the government.

I once enjoyed it when Bush appointed Henry Paulson to be head of the Federal Reserve and, to everyone's surprise, he appeared to be qualified. It was said that things were getting so desperate they were resorting to scraping the top of the barrel.

Term limits would make a really big difference for us, because future leaders could begin to lay out their different position and begin to campaign much earlier on, and this would give an alternative reality. Anything that breaks down "The Message" and encourages those in Parliament to refer more to the facts in reality has got to be a good thing.

And here I think we've got something worse than a Presidential system. The US congress is beginning to function because it comes under a control of a different party to the president. In Britain Parliament can never function as an effective oversight of the executive because the executive always owns the majority.

It can:

Select commitees
Prime Minister's Questions
Standing commitees
Parlimentary and Lords debates

Are just some of the ways that the executive is scrutinised, although Blair has weakened these methods significantly - yet a Conservative government would strengthen this.

Further, any system that invloves a debate, the possibility that a party will not win an overall majority and where a cabinet, not a single person makes decisions is clearly better than the presidential system - would you mant to live in America?
The problem is those within the system, not the sytem itself (although SOME reform is needed), but the country would function far better under a Conservative government, even with no constitutional government.

Orpman
...it is commonly forgotten that Labour has fought and won 3 elections in a row - why would a referendum change this AND referendums are more likely to encourage the fringe groups, such as malcontents (the population of this site) to vote, and not the silent majority who are (for whatever reason) happy with the system.

Labour won the last election with 22 percent of the electorate. Technically a win but hardly with a majority silent or otherwise.

Opinions change all the time. Look at Bush who won the last American election and got a "thumping" in the midterms which lost him the House of Representatives and the Senate. He and now has an approval rating of around 30 percent (and falling). Or look at Ahmadinejad who won the Iranian elections and is now as unpopular as Bush is in the States. Why shouldn't fringe groups and malcontents be encouraged to vote? If those that are happy with the system are so delighted then surely they can join the malcontents at the polling booth and express their happiness.

Mind-stomplingly incredible! -

"The problem is those within the system, not the system itself (although SOME reform is needed), but the country would function far better under a Conservative government, even with no constitutional government."

Sorry, Orpman, old bean, but are you from Planet Dalek? Er, this is the Tory Party we're talking about, the same gang that voted FOR the invasion of Iraq and which has not changed its lurid, money-grubbing, Yankee-fawning, CBI-tonsiling ways at all, not one iota. A Tory government would be nothing but Blairism with the gloves off.

It is said that 'no one leaves Downing St entirely sane'.

It is also said that no-one enters Downing Street entirely sane... ;)

Huff and Puff.

Tom said "I think, entrench the idea of a presidential Prime Minister, so I'm against it for that reason." come on Tom, that is like saying Thomas the tank engine is a balloon, becasue he is blue like my cousins balloon.

Cap'n

Re your earlier comment about referenda. Much better if 20% of parliamentary seats were up for election every year in a rolling system, distributed evenly across the whole country.

That'd keep the Executive on its toes.

And while we're at it - why shouldn't our police chiefs, judges and magistrates be elected?

Better clarify - I don't like the idea of the PM getting ideas above his station, and making special exceptions from the normal rules of being an MP (that you stay one until thrown out by your electorate or you retire) reinforce the unofficial presidential Great Leader Of His People status that Blair has eagerly cultivated (his language gives away a lot here).

Of course, you can turn it round and say MPs should *all* be term-limited. I can think of arguments for and against that.

However, what's most important is that the link between power and being the choice of the people be rather stronger than it is at the moment. Blair being PM of 22% of us isn't right by any stretch.

CSHM said: "why shouldn't our police chiefs, judges and magistrates be elected?" - a good point, but such a nice idea is at first thought, expected to contain a number of difficulties.

Such as: A significant number of the population to be familiar with so many different people applying (or reapplying for the posts), the voters would need to keep themselves informed to a reasonably good level of understanding of all those institutions - the courts and police, and also the have a good understanding of the policy/philosophy of those positions, as if one was a member of those professions already. I dont think many would be particularly interested.

Additionally and perhaps most importantly, different candidates would probably only be different by virtue of the fact that they would probably have different policies to be enacted once they were elected. This could cause major problems in the judiciary. Justice would be likely to vary according to where you live. The police and judges are supposed to fulfill specific tasks, choice by variation of candidate would perhaps be unproductive. HOWEVER, we should have the power to sack to sods if we feel they are criminally negligent as in the case of that rather nasty piece of work Cressida Dick, who shares responsibility for the bruital murder of Jean Charles De Menezes.

CSHM Maybe you have a more detailied idea which negates these possible pitfalls.

Ahmadinejad to his credit has built a high speed rail link into the capital to make travel easier for the return of the Mahdi.

What is Blair waiting for?

He has no need of such earthly considerations, when Blair returns he'll walk up the Thames...

No, I can't really say I've thought too much about it, and didn't think of it much beyond a single police authority/assize area. I just threw it in as an addendum to my comment about rolling elections for MPs - which to me is the big one that needs doing.

I'm not at all sure about fixed terms for PM, but I do think that the day an MP is elected, he should know the exact date of the next time he has to stand, as should we. And at 20% a year, that would make a fixed five years for each MP.

Something has to be done about an electoral system that awards 100% power on 22.8% of the electorate.

I'd also be happy for a "None of the above" option on every ballot paper. And if that option gets a majority of the vote in that constituency, then none of the above it is, with a new election in that constituency three weeks later over a new slate. That could make for some interesting tactical voting - and add further to keeping the executive on its toes.

In fact, in one sense 100% of the power hasn't even been given by 22.8% of the electorate, because not everyone who votes for, say, Labour supports every one of Labour's policies (even assuming they've been announced in the manifesto, which they often aren't). People vote for a part because on balance that party has the greatest numbers of policies with which the voter can agree (or alternatively, the smallest number with which he disagrees).

There is another analysis at
http://www.counterpunch.org/beattie01262007.html.
Instead of GWBUSH one might type in the name of any other GREATLEADER.

Chuckle, you can never get rid of BW while there is stuff like this still around:

Blair’s belief that Britain had a significant role again in the world, and his messianic sense of his own importance in activating that role, was first laid out to a foreign audience two years later, in the speech to the Chicago Economic Club in April 1999.

Blair does not like to be bracketed with right-wing religious fundamentalists in the United States, but like many of them he is a genuine ‘friend of Israel’, a country that he visited twice before becoming prime minister. His knowledge of and support for Israel has long been guided by Lord Levy, a millionaire in the music business who became Blair’s tennis partner, the Labour Party’s chief fundraiser and, for a while, the prime minister’s eyes and ears in the Middle East.

Blair’s second unusual characteristic is his ability as an actor. Both at Fettes, the Scottish private school he attended in the 1960s, and at St John’s College, Oxford, where he was a mediocre law student, he was an accomplished thespian, appearing in the classics, in comedy revues, and fronting a band. His capacity to act and to put on an act, to perform his lines, and to diverge from a script when circumstances demand, has become the hallmark of his career as a politician, unequalled since Harold Macmillan, Britain’s last great showman prime minister.

newleftreview.org/

 BTW Nice wysiwyg editor and everything too.

Cool.....