Should we have term limits?

The House of Lords voted yesterday to impose term limits on the post of London Mayor, though it's likely the Commons will overturn it.  Let's leave aside the curiosity of the Lords (who serve for the term of their natural life - and sometimes beyond) deciding on this matter; ignore the party politics of a Tories and Lib Dems ganging up on the vote-hoover that is Ken Livingstone; let's overlook the personality, style and politics of Mr Livingstone (I would back a Prohibition of Nasal-voiced Newt-Lovers from Public Office Bill); and the unusually strong powers of the Mayor. Let's instead look at the introduction of a new principle into British politics: term-limits. Why stop at term-limits for the Mayor? Why not MPs or PMs? 

So would term-limits invigorate our public life? It would help clear out the parliamentary deadwood, the fat-bottomed senior backbenchers who coin it from consultancies - but wouldn't we then lose the skilled parliamentarians who know how to use the esoteric rules of Westminster to throw a spanner in the executive's works?

If there is a greater turnover of MPs would it make Westminster less of a closed world, or would it just create more job opportunities for the burgeoning world of non-elected career politicos (the special advisers, lobbyists, public affair consultants, etc)? Would term-limited MPs be more independent-minded and keen to mix things up, or does real unbiddability come with age and long service? Would a greater turnover of MPs make it harder for the party HQs to impose discipline? And, of course, term limits would mean fixed-term parliaments and taking power out of the hands of the governing party to choose election dates.

I'm suspicious of big government, whether central or local, and I'm deeply suspicious of politicians (that's the overwhelming majority of MPs) who aren't suspicious of big government. So would term-limits, as the "Contract with America" Republicans of 1994 believed, help keep the political class in check?

Robbie Millen

Comments

[John Charlesworth]

I think it is right that term limits be put on this post. Whatever rules are set for London should apply elsewhere. With a move towards increasing the number of Mayors (certainty the Conservatives are suggesting this) then rules of tenure of Office should be set.

The mayoral position should be more than just the normal Cons v Lab v Lib Dem. One could even argue that mayors should not be members of a Political arty but I accept that enforcing of such a rule would be extremely difficult.

[Emma H.]

I am shocked that you do not traditional terms already. In North America lengthy terms would quickly lead to too many improper alliances within government and between government and the civil service.

[Emma H.]

There should be limits on all terms to promote accountability. In North America politicians form too many alliances and private interests connect too well with government after only a few years. Canadidates should be able to seek multiple terms though.

[James Dixon]

Term Limits are fundamentally undemocratic.

It removes choice from the electorate, and neither are term limits a viable mechanism to prevent the abuse of patronage - merely shifting it from the hands of the politican to the party hack.

[adam]

Term limits are a seedy fix and, as James Dixon said, undemocratic to boot.