On A British Presidency: Joanna Lumley

I'm torn on the idea of Britain having a President. Whilst I am no fan of having the monarchy as Head of State, I've yet to be sold on the idea of having a President in that position. 

Of course, all the arguments for and against are hashed and rehashed time and time again, and I'm not going to rehearse them here. But I'd like to put an end to one objection to Britain having a President right here, right now. And that is the "dangers" of having a President who might also be a celebrity. 

The argument goes like this. On the one hand, we are pretty much guaranteed King Charles under the current state of affairs. On the other hand, if there were open elections to become Head of State, then we might end up with a highly identifiable celebrity instead of King Charles. Just imagine it! President David Beckham!

Of course, you could argue that David Beckham - a talented man who took the money made from that talent and turned himself into a multi-millionaire - is a far better choice for Prime Minister than a born rich, eco-loon mummy's boy like Prince Charles. Personally, I wouldn't want either one to be our Head of State. But here's the thing - if we did have a President, I don't think Beckham would run. And I certainly don't think he would be elected. 

There is, of course, a possibility that a celebrity would end up President. However, it would have to be a canny, politically aware celebrity. Someone capable of winning the trust of a major party, and then fighting a disciplined, targeted campaign. And - crucially - it would also have to be someone who gives a fuck about politics. Right there is where you would lose the likes of David Beckham and, perhaps, even Charles Windsor. Instead, you would get credible contenders to be President who might not be coming from the corrupt, self-perpetuating oligarchy that is the ruling elite in the House of Commons. Which could be no bad thing. 

See, much has been made of Ronald Reagan's pre-political career of being a Hollywood Actor. Of course, the reality is that Ronald Reagan was a B-movie actor who never made it big. But from his days as an actor, he could communicate well. Very well. And he also proved to be a sage political operator long before he first sought the Presidency. He was a canny political personality, which is why he was arguably the most successful President of the modern era and certainly since FDR ruled America for over a decade. 

A British equivalent to Ronald Reagan would be similar - someone who had been a celebrity, learned how to communicate and had shown they had political ability. It wouldn't be David Beckham; it would be more likely to be someone such as Joanna Lumley. 

Think about it - President Lumley. An eloquent advocate for her chosen political cause. An instantly identifiable figure in this country and, arguably, abroad. And someone who managed to run rings around Gordon Brown with an ease that sometimes eludes David Cameron, and constantly eludes Nick Clegg. 

It is unlikely to happen - and is certainly premature to talk about candidates for a British Presidency when such a Presidency is neither in existence or even on the agenda. But all this goes to show is that a celebrity President is not necessarily something to fear. It is unlikely that you will end up with a Head of State worse than Prince Charles, and there is every likelihood that a celebrity President might be much better...

Fixed Election Dates

Much has been made - including by your humble author - of Gordon Brown's failure to call a General Election just after he won the (uncontested) Labour leadership contest. Yet, for Brown haters everywhere, that probably would have been counter-productive. In that Brown probably would have won that General Election. So, rather than looking at the humiliating defeat of that bastard in about a year's time, we'd probably be looking at another three or so years of the grey ghoul in Number 10. Sure, with longer in power to let a new PM consolidate, the Labour party might be more eager to replace Brown had they won an election just after he became Prime Minister, but it would still mean another three years of Labour rule. 

Normally, the very fact that the PM can choose when to fight a General Election is of massive benefit to the incumbent Prime Minister. A savvy political operator (like Wilson in '66 or Thatcher in '83) can time the election to maximise their chances of winning a landslide. Likewise, bad times for elections can also be avoided - yeah, I know that the spin machine came up with a credible excuse for the delay, but Blair would have been mindlessly stupid to have a General Election in the middle of the foot and mouth crisis in 2001. 

Likewise, the alternative - for example, in the US, where Presidents know when they have to fight for re-election as the date is set by law - can create losers who, had they been able to choose the date for an election, probably would have won. The classic is the first President Bush. Had he had the capability, he would have been mad not to fight for re-election just after the end of hostilities in Iraq when his approval rating was through the roof. However, he was forced to fight in 1992, when the economy was down the toilet and any incumbent politician that year was going to be about as popular as the clap.

There are other advantages to having a fixed date for elections too. Party machines and electoral funding are far easier to organise, and there is no chance for the ruling party to call a surprise election in the hope of catching the opposition off guard and in a state of poor preparedness. The voters know when they will be able to go to the polls as well, and far less of the political debate is about the demands of the opposition for the ruling party to call an election. 

Yet I'm still not sure that there is a case for changing the way Britain's political system works and creating fixed dates for elections. It is only an advantage to the ruling party if they use it as an advantage - witness Brown dropping the ball when he first came to power just as Callaghan did before the Winter of Discontent. Besides, our electoral system is far from perfect for a variety of different reasons, and fixed term elections are not a cure-all for those problems. In fact, any such change could be seen as change for change's sake, which is about a meaningful as a Gordon Brown Promise. 

At the end of the day, there are far more pressing problems facing the UK today than the timings of elections. As with all constitutional reform, it tends to become the last refuge of the desperate politician trying to avoid the real issues that are drowning them.