There is now a general clamour for a general election. In the latest Lord Ashcroft polls, just under 50 per cent of all electors said there should be a general election if Keir Starmer is replaced as Prime Minister, while 35 per cent thought there should not.
And for some time, there has been a growing view that the state of the nation is so dire that there should be a general election anyway.
I believe both these viewpoints to be mistaken.
Let us look first at the issue of a general election if Starmer is replaced. Throughout my lifetime, there have been changes of Prime Minister without general elections. Callaghan succeeded Wilson, Major succeeded Thatcher, Brown succeeded Blair, the Tories had a right merry-go-round of prime ministers and in all these instances, there was no general election.
There is not any constitutional or traditional imperative to call a general election merely because the Prime Minister has changed. Indeed, there is not much of a moral case either, as the electorate in this country tends to decide on the basis of party as much as personality. We do not have a presidential system.
Lord Anshcroft's poll revealed just under 50 per cent of all electors said there should be a general election if Keir Starmer is replaced as Prime Minister
|PA
Indeed, it is arguable that in the interests of order and stability, we should not assume that a general election must follow the replacement of a Prime Minister. The opposite could well be a recipe for chaos. It might also prevent a Prime Minister resigning, whatever the circumstances. Suppose in the present situation, Starmer decided that he should go. He would know that his party was so deeply unpopular that the likely result of a general election would be a massive defeat for Labour and so he would be likely to hang on.
In other words, the prospect of a general election could make an unsatisfactory Prime Minister continue his term and his party support that decision.
The demand for a general election now because this Government has made such an unholy mess of running the country is even less sustainable. Even good Governments can go through appallingly bad patches but if there were to be an election every time that happened, the Government of our country would be no more stable than that of Italy. The understanding between Government and public is that the former runs its course and the latter decides whether to renew the contract or not.
Then there is the sheer impracticality of getting rid of a Government because it is failing. There are only two courses which can bring this about. The first is that the monarch dismisses his parliament. That remains in the realms of fantasy. Quite apart from the prospect of Oliver Cromwell’s resurrection, this is a constitutional monarchy and such a measure would be wholly inconsistent with that concept.
The other method of procuring a general election would be that the Government loses a vote of confidence in the House of Commons. However, the size of this Government’s majority precludes that. Turkeys do not vote for Christmas and the likelihood of a majority being raised for dismissing Labour would be infinitesimal.
Depressing as the prospect might be, there is not going to be any General Election before 2029 and equally depressingly, the country will have not so much to soldier on as to suffer on.