http://www.stephenfranks.co.nz/

MMP is the main reason for 4 years.

I have a solution to that problem too.

I was thinking of three terms of four years when I shuddered at the thought of 12 years of Helen Clark at the helm.

If we had a Bi-Cameral System….I could vote for four years – in a referendum.
This is also a feature of longer-term Parliamentary terms.
So what is the quid pro quo to the voting public for giving up the present three year electoral term?

If you can’t get anything done in three years, find another job.

Said the employers of Wernher von Braun, Christopher Wren…

The problem isn’t the length of term; it’s the stuffed shirts and out and out nincompoops the public continually put in parliament.

I really like it we can vote politicians out after three years.

I think the public understands this longer cycle with more political games because of the number of parties under MMP, so might give 4 years a shot, whereas they would not do so with FPP.

It should definitely go to a referendum, simply because it has in the past, just as do changes to the electoral system. These are the big constitutional issues where the public expect to be able to decide, not MP’s.

I expect the usual term of govt would become 8 years, not the current 9. I think two term govts would be better than three term govts. They would be more focused. The usual third term is a mess, or at least they have been under the three govts that made three terms since 1975. Think of Muldoon 1981 to 1984, Bolger/Shipley 1996 to 1999 and Clark 2005 to 2008. In all cases the third term was the worst.

We tend to have two-term Governments.

Actually, no. Labour 1984-90 was the only two-term government in the last 120 years.

I smell a rat. JK is hiding this behind the facade of 173 years of democracy, and behind the second facade of the Government’s Constituitional Review, and choosing Waitangi Day to present it.
Be warned sensible commenters here!

Dear colleagues, please we warned of the double-speak here. We don’t need the Treaty of Waitangi being enshrined in our constitutional arrangements. And we don’t need smoke screens like trying to get a new unwanted constitution laced with goodies while offering less-well-articulated secret causes.

Relating this 4-year term thingy to 173 since the Treaty was signed, and presenting it on Waitangi Day, is a bad sign for me. A very bad sign.
FUME: Fed Up with Maorification of Everything

What seems to happen now is caution in the first term to ensure election and then pushing policy boundaries in the second term. A four year term may encourage more boldness in the first term.

And I think it will be far less likely to have three term governments, so eight year governments may become the normal long term reign.

Imagine 12 years of Helen Clark as PM!

A four year term would be better. They should just post-date it to take effect two elections after the change is enacted so nobody can be accused of doing it out of self-interest. It’s less constitutionally significant than ditching our highest court and having the government of the day appoint a replacement.

If the UK’s five-year term gets the credit for allowing the passage of good measures to save the economy, does it also take the blame for allowing the passage of bad laws that stuffed it up?

A fixed term is a lttle trickier. Preventing a PM from choosing an election date purely on the basis of political tactics (as per Australia) seems like a good thing. But there may be situations where good governance becomes impossible and an election is necessary to reset the situation – eg if a party were elected to the balance of power that then decided not to guarantee confidence and supply to either side but rather play silly games on a day-by-day basis.

I am therefore nervous about creating a situation where you are stuck with that for four years. But it would be tricky to create a set of rules that stopped the date from being manipulated for political advantage without making an early election possible when it is truly justified.