Albo supports shifting from a PM called election within a 3 year term to a 4 year term of fixed length.
“If you’ve got a three-year cycle, in practice, that often means that you really only have a shorter window of perhaps a couple of years to bring about substantial reform, by which time you’re looking at the next election,” he said.
Having a fixed term of parliament would remove the ability for prime ministers to call early elections, as well, which typically favour the incumbent government.
It also means we would be straddled with a shit government for potentially longer.
“If you’ve got a three-year cycle, in practice, that often means that you really only have a shorter window of perhaps a couple of years to bring about substantial reform, by which time you’re looking at the next election,” he said.
No, you have three years to bring about substantial reform. If you decide to prioritise campaigning over reform, that’s your decision and a longer term won’t change that.
There was a significant push for one year terms early on, I’d much rather see that than a reduction in our democratic voice.
There was a significant push for one year terms early on, I’d much rather see that than a reduction in our democratic voice.
That sounds like a mess, especially if the public service has to deal with changing governments all of the time (if there was public service reform that limits the influence of the government in power I’d be for that, but that is challenging). And whether you like it not, the incentives would be for governments to constantly be in campaign mode with shorter terms.
The ideal is that a functional government doesn’t change all the time, but a nonfunctional one can be removed before too much damage is done. Consistency isn’t beneficial if it’s consistently bad.
I can’t argue against the potential for constant campaigning.
The problem is that then governments are slaves to the populist vote, and the population will always vote for the quickest benefit to them.
There’s been quite a few projects and policies in Australia that have been short term pain for long term gain.
As always I have serious reservations about calling representative government democracy at all, that being said I think that fixed term lengths is a greater step forward in democracy than a longer term length would be a step back. If that’s the compromise I think it’s worthwhile.
I do agree with fixed terms, and would probably vote yes in a referendum that only offered a package deal
Because the date of the election is known in the US, the entire 18 months leading up to the election is all about the election. You don’t want the political exhaustion that goes with that.
The US has a weird political culture in a lot of ways. I know France and Germany have fixed term lengths and I certainly don’t get the impression that they have that problem.
My perception, based on the election cycles I followed, is that, in Europe, the campaign period tends to be bigger when it becomes clear there will be early elections.
For normal elections the campaign period is usually about 1 month. And for early elections there’s the entire dance around bringing the government down for a few weeks, and then everyone will be on full campaign mode until the election.
We already have parties getting into campaign mode way earlier than 1 month. The election probably won’t be until May, but there’s already a strong sense that they’re in campaign mode.
