Yesterday saw an announcement from the Prime Minister the United Kingdom to seek to hold a General Election in June of this year. Despite having said that an early General Election would not be called, despite having denied a referendum for independence to the Scottish parliament because “…just at this point all our energies should be focused on our negotiations with the European Union about our future relationship…”, the Prime Minister has said that she thinks that now is the time to hold an election. (The Prime Minister can apparently change her mind, but we the people cannot – unless she says so.)
Stating that the departure from the European Union was at stake, Theresa May indicated that Brexit was “…the right approach, and is in the national interest, but the other political parties oppose it…there should be unity here in Westminster, but instead there is division…” The announcement cited the following as supporting reasons for the decision to call for an early election: “Labour have threatened to vote against the final agreement…the Liberal Democrats have said they want to grind the business of government to a standstill.
“The Scottish National Party says they will vote against the legislation that formally repeals Britain’s membership of the European Union, and unelected members of the House of Lords have vowed to fight us every step of the way.”
As far as the ‘reasons’ which were raised as supporting the need for a general election – it would appear that these are no different today than for any other day of government. One of the stated purposes of the House of Parliament is to “Check the Work of Government”. The explanation (provided on the Parliamentary website) indicates that this role involves “…questioning government ministers, debating and the investigative work of committees.” It would seem an extension of this then, that if the opposition oppose certain decisions taken by the government they are in fact fulfilling their stated objective! The Prime Minister further indicates that she is intolerant of unelected members of the House of Lords opposing the elected government – which if correct can surely mean then that the Conservative party will include a bill to reform the House of Lords in its 2017 election manifesto…If the role of the House of Lords is to be questioned in this regard, then is it not right that it be questioned in all others?
Given then that the stated reasons are utter tripe, could there perhaps be another reason? At this point in time, the Conservative government enjoy a strong lead in popularity, with many polls indicating that the government has an approval rating of over 40% (compared to 25% for the main opposition party). To my cynical mind, it would seem possible then that the government is seeking to exploit the current ‘mood of the country’ to extend its mandate to govern, rather than there being any particular pressing need to hold an election. Since the introduction of the Fixed Parliament Act however, an early general election can only be called if one of 2 criteria are met:
- if a motion for an early general election is agreed either by at least two-thirds of the whole House or without division; or
- if a motion of no confidence is passed and no alternative government is confirmed by the Commons within 14 days.
The government have duly requested the House of Commons to vote for an early general election, and although it is possible then that the call will be rejected it is highly unlikely – since any opposition party would be publicly castigated for refusing to seek an end to a parliament with which they disagreed. There is of course an issue here concerning whether or not any opposition party should or should not vote for an early election. It seems, on the face of it, spurious to require a vote in the house if there is no chance that any party would refuse an election – and indeed, it would appear that this is little chance that any opposition party would wish to be branded ‘afraid of public opinion’ through a refusal to accept the challenge of an election.
However, more importantly, this call for an early general election (without there being any defacto crisis within the governance of the country) represents an abuse of the power of government. It seems self-serving that the government of the day be entitled to choose the point at which they would like to be challenged. Why should the government of the day be permitted to tell the electorate when they can vote? Surely democracy is about the people exercising their right to vote, not about the government generously according a vote to the people because the time is right. If we permit that governments choose the length of time for which they govern, then we are no longer living in a democracy, and we no longer have a government – we become a ruled people.
Allowing a government to decide that they would like to be challenged today rather than tomorrow (because as it so happens, the people think that we are quite good today, and who knows what they will think tomorrow) opens the doors to governments cynically manipulating policy and legislation in order that they can secure a more ‘favourable’ vote at election time. This represents a shift in power away from free and fair elections, towards elections (and by association the governance of the country) ‘managed’ in a scientific manner designed not to meet the needs of the population, but to meet the needs of the governing party.
Should Government be for the Government, or should Government be for the People?