There are countries in the world which have term limits for elected members of their legislatures. How would British Politics be different if MPs were limited to serving a maximum of 10 years in the House of Commons?
In short, you get inexperienced people serving at the highest levels of Government. In a parliamentary system, ministers are drawn from the ranks of serving MPs. Which means that at most, people have 10 years in Government before they are booted out. I think this is an experiment that doesn't end well.
Younger PMs (if they still decide to go in as early as many do), no decade-spanning premierships (no Blair, no Thatcher), greater emphasis on MPs extra-political achievements and qualifications, and the breakdown of all remaining trust between the public (who don't get to know their MPs and who feel they aren't rooted in the community) and politicians (who don't get to know their electorate and don't place down permanent roots in their constituencies).
Do you agree with me that Legislative term limits in a Westminster style parliamentary system work better under a federal system in which future Federal Government ministers can serve in sub-national legislatures beforehand to gain some experience?
ASB what does,that mean?
Alien Space Bats. Shorthand for impossible and requires supernatural, alien, or divine intervention to happen. Whilst I'd say that this is more implausible than impossible, this is implausible to the extreme.ASB what does,that mean?
Younger PMs (if they still decide to go in as early as many do), no decade-spanning premierships (no Blair, no Thatcher), greater emphasis on MPs extra-political achievements and qualifications, and the breakdown of all remaining trust between the public (who don't get to know their MPs and who feel they aren't rooted in the community) and politicians (who don't get to know their electorate and don't place down permanent roots in their constituencies).
As noted, the big issue is that you end up with people lacking Parliamentary and Ministerial experience, many of whom will only last two or three Parliaments. I mean, to put that into perspective, James Callaghan would have been out of Parliament in 1955, Thatcher in 1970, Major in 1987 or 1992, Blair in 1992 or 1997, Brown the same, Cameron 2010 or 2015, and May in 2005 or 2010. I could go on with Chancellors and Home Secretaries and the like, but the general idea is that Prime Minsters usually spend time in Parliament before they shuffle to the head of the Cabinet Table. To be Prime Minister, you generally need experience either on the Shadow Cabinet or in the actual Cabinet, and when you limit that experience to working in Devolved Assemblies, you ultimetly end up with the grotesque chaos of poorly experienced individuals who will only be in Parliament for two full Parliaments before being forced out. It'd be a brain drain or sorts.
It wouldnt really work, the whole Westminster model of government involves cabinet ministers spending decades climbing the ladder for decades gaining experience before they make into government. At such a turnover, it would get pretty difficult to fill the frontbenches with genuinely experienced people. Devolved regional governments can only take you so far, and those who have held relatively substantial roles in local government would be few and far between. Plus, such an idea would have rendered some of our most able PMs ineligible way before they took office. Attlee and Thatcher were MPs for more than twenty years before they took office, and Churchill was in the Commons for the best part of 40 years before he became PM. Looking at the classes of 2010 and 2015 now, I see plenty of promise, but I dont know if there is anyone who would really be ready for the big job in the same way.
I think the only way to get something like this to be semi-workable would be to have it apply to backbenchers only; i.e. if you can't make it to your party's frontbench team over the course of two parliaments, you're out. Of course, this means that the concept of the political party would become an undeniably fundamental part of the constitution, and would result in even more people considering becoming an MP to be a first step in a cursus honorum rather than something worth doing for its own sake. Ultimately, you risk ending up with a large number of ambitious, plotting, inexperienced legislators. Is there really a point?
All this is pretty ASB, especially with a POD after 1900.
Alien Space Bats. Shorthand for impossible and requires supernatural, alien, or divine intervention to happen. Whilst I'd say that this is more implausible than impossible, this is implausible to the extreme.
Then you have people who will have been out of the loop for a Parliament. Runs back into the issue where MP's have little time to root themselves in the community or establish themselves in a cabinet situation, and few would genuinely want to jump through these hoops when at the end of the day they'll be kicked out again. In the end, you'll be more likely to have an extremely unproductive Parliament because MP's will simply look and say "what's the point if I'm going to be forced out?"What if instead you had 10 year consecutive term limits, so that after x amount of time of not being an MP, you're allowed another 10 consecutive years? That amount of time could be either the period of one five year parliament, or just one year.
There is literally a subforum with the definition spelled out on it.Is there like a page which goes through such abbreviations?
One of the multitudinous reasons why this would be disastrous - 10 years is fixed, parliamentary terms aren't.
So we have an Election in year X, and a whole bunch of people get elected. Then another election in year X+4, most of those eligible are returned again. Then a third election at year X+9. What do you do then? Have a third of Parliament resign one year into that Parliament? That doesn't work. Prohibit anyone from running if the max term of Parliament (5 years, currently, right?) would run out before their 10 years did? That basically makes your term limit 8 years or so, and variable, which is worse.
No, this is totally unworkable with a Westminster Parliamentary system.
There are other reasons, which others have mentioned.
You would have bi-elections on mass.Imagine the chaos of having twelve year term limits on MPs, but with 5 year Parliaments.
Imagine the chaos of having twelve year term limits on MPs, but with 5 year Parliaments.
Which is why it's unworkable. If you're looking at a third of the house being forced out half-way through a Parliament, even keeping with the 10 year proposal but with a Goverment calling an election every 4 years (which is what confident Government's do), then you risk your inexperienced Prime Minister loosing potentially their own seat along with a good portion of their majority, which would either result in a Canadian style minority, a mid-term Coalition, or a new election being forced. It's ultimetly inefficient and a meaningless exercise that would destroy efficiency and productivity in Parliament.You would have by-elections on mass.