Should there be a General Election?

Theresa May's appointment as PM today is bringing the usual noise that there should be a General Election as she has no personal mandate. Just as folk like George Osborne said when Gordon Brown took over. So should there be an immediate General Election?

I'm going to cut to the chase on this one and say, simply, "no". For a lot of reasons.

1. We don't vote for a prime minister - the PM isn't a President. We don't have an American presidential system, even though most of the attention is on party leaders. The parties pick their leaders and, if there's a vacancy, they pick a new one. If we don't like how they get on, we get a chance to kick them out before too long. Actually, even in America's presidential system, if there's a vacancy mid-term the deputy takes over. Why don't we do that? Because here the Deputy PM title, when it's been used, has been a consolation prize for someone you really wouldn't want as PM - John Prescott, anyone?

2. Historical precedent. Taking over as PM without a General Election is actually how it happens more often than not: on 13 of the 22 times since 1900 when a different PM has taken over. The list includes Asquith, Lloyd George, Churchill, Macmillan, Callaghan, Major and Brown. The word "different" in that sentence is because Stanley Baldwin assumed the role this way on two separate occasions.

3. An election right now wouldn't help reduce uncertainty. A lot of the folks arguing for an election have also been complaining about there not being a plan for Brexit. Ultimately this "plan" will have to emerge from the negotiation with the EU. We could have a "plan" - we could even vote on different plans put forward by different parties - but we wouldn't know if any of them were deliverable in practice before they were put to the test. You can't keep going back to the people because you've found, for example, that access to the single market would require A and B rather than the C and D you told people before (£ and what restrictions on free movement, if any, for example). At least you can't if you are serious that you want to remove uncertainty, which is what many of these people are also saying (and does need to be done). An election now would increase and extend uncertainty.

4. The people arguing for an election are only doing it because they think they would win, or at least improve their position. All the opposition parties know that the Tories would have great difficulty producing a coherent position on Brexit for a General Election now their formula for sticking together, a referendum, has been implemented and passions are running strong everywhere. So, not surprisingly, all the Opposition want an election, now. Actually, I'm not sure Labour want one now, though some of them are saying they do - but the they do seem to be on a suicide mission.

5. An election now could produce a bizarrely undemocratic result. I can't remember if any government has ever commanded more than 50% of the votes, but not for a long time and they certainly wouldn't this time. So any government elected on a platform of Remain would have lower support than Leave had in the referendum. Yes, the total vote for all parties arguing Remain might be more than for those arguing Leave (actually as the Tories and Labour - in their hearts - face both ways I don't know how you would know). The Tories and UKIP had 49.5% of the votes in the last election. They could conceivably have over 50% but still not be part of a new government committed to Remaining. What a fine mess that would be.

We can now see why many people have argued that referenda are a bad idea. And I was listening to some chap on the radio yesterday arguing for the practice to be extended to anything that enough people demanded be put to a referendum. A recipe for incoherent chaos.

A closing thought. There are people arguing that, in an elective democracy, the MPs should vote with their conscience against Brexit when it comes to a Commons vote. As the majority of MPs are Remainers that would block Brexit, at least until a General Election. Norman Baker, former LibDem coalition minister, is one making this argument. I find this suggestion staggering. While I am not in favour of referenda on random lists of items, the EU referendum was on a exceptional basis: do we want our elected representatives to have real power, or are we content for them to be subject to a supra-national authority? The rules were passed and the vote was held.

As far as I'm concerned (and I voted Remain) we have a legitimately elected government under a new PM with a mandate for Brexit.

But some folk seem to want to adopt a "pick and mix" approach to the operation of democracy.
As someone once sang "We're Not Gonna Take It". (Who exactly? Oh, The Who, exactly!)