Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 16th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Austin Mitchell]

The second Attlee Government lasted from 1950 to 1951. However, that was an attempt to detour me and I do not want to be detoured down all the happy little roads that Government Members would rather turn us into.

I think that four years is perfectly acceptable. It would be good and I would be happy to support—indeed, I will support—that amendment. Three years would be better. It is not a downward option—it is not like the old programme that Yorkshire Television used to do, so that we go five, four, “3-2-1”. I will not go as low as the Chartists’ demand for annual Parliaments; I am staying at three. Around the world, a pattern can be seen—the more democratic the society and the polity, the more frequent and regular are the elections. I would put at the head of that democratic tree Australia and New Zealand, which have three-year Parliaments that work happily. I used to write about New Zealand that if there was a seizure of power by the Chinese Communists, New Zealanders would still be standing outside the polls in November of every third year ready to vote because they have the conditioned habit of voting. It is a good conditioned habit and three years is a good term.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Is not the important point about this Bill the fact that it is a five-year Parliament Bill?

[Austin Mitchell]

Yes.

[Ian Lucas]

That is the key issue for the Liberal Democrats and the Tories. They do not care whether it is a fixed Parliament or not, but it has to be five years in order to preserve their political position.