Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tactitus
Depends who's actually running the show I guess; but yeah. In general, though, I think term limits are the win. Left to their own devices, politicians will almost always want to hang on too long. :/
|
However, you do end up losing the best politicians too soon. With seniority determining committee chairships, the older ones not constrained by term limits will never be replaced by the new bright sparks governed by these limits.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tactitus
You just had a general election last year. Has the political climate changed that much, that quickly?
|
Probably.
Imagine having a presidential election just as Watergate starts to unravel. Things might go really wrong but it's not obvious yet. The opposing candidate isn't a credible opponent and so Nixon gets voted back in, although his new Congress favours the Republicans a lot less in comparison to the massive Republican advantage in the two previous elections.
The figures:
1997 Final Result: Labour 419 seats, Conservatives 165 seats, Liberal Democrats 46 seats, Others 29 seats (majority of 179)
2001 Final Result: Labour 413 seats, Conservatives 166 seats, Liberal Democrats 52 seats, Others 28 seats (majority of 167)
2005 Final Result: Labour 356 seats, Conservatives 198 seats, Liberal Democrats 62 seats, Others 30 seats (majority of 66)
Furthermore, a charismatic young new leader (Clinton-esque) of the Conservative Party was recently elected to replace an experienced unelectable placeholder. The problem in 2005 was that despite Blair's problems, there was no credible alternative to him. In 2006, this is no longer the case. For example, would anyone but Clinton have defeated George Bush Snr.?
Blair's seemingly inevitable replacement is Gordon Brown, the man who has been the number 2 in the Blair Government for the last 9 years. He has been expected to succeed Blair for a long time, and at least until 2003/2004, everyone assumed that he would follow comfortably and would be a viable candidate for the public. However, would George Bush have succeeded Reagan if he wasn't up against Dukakis? The current argument amongst 'Brownites' is that he needs as much time as possible to form his own identifiable government after the handover before new elections, and a chance to come up with policies that will defeat Cameron. Others in the fragmenting Labour Party believe that neither Blair nor Brown are the future of the party, and that an alternative candidate is needed - e.g. if there had been a decent alternative to Al Gore for the Democrats in 2000.
Personally I don't believe that either Blair or Brown have a chance against Cameron. However, Alan Johnson (similar to Evan Bayh from what I can tell) is a strong potential candidate against Brown; John Reid is another candidate who would contest a Brown succession.