Should term limits be introduced for public office?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Should term limits be introduced for public office?

As part of his American Presidency Campaign for 2016, Senator Rand Paul made a central plank of his campaign appeal to introducing term limits on the American Congress: similar to how the American President is limited to two term and has been since the first third of the 20th century. Applying this to British affairs too, it could be introduced for members of the House of Commons (which includes the Prime Minister). Advocates of term limits insist that limits on service ensure that politicians are not secure in safe seats for life and are then committed to bring about their agenda in the short time they have left in office, whilst opponents would argue that such a system would replace experienced statesmen with egoists who are out to make their mark in the history books in the short time they have left in office.

As much of the forum is British, would you like to see such a system applied to the House of Commons? The House of Lords even? Or do you not agree with the concept of term limits which recieves a very popular hearing over in the United States when the issue is raised.

There are plenty of nifty prizes to be won within this forum and within the coming weeks we'll hopefully have some new awards and prizes to be won in this forum and beyond. Focus on putting a good argument forward, try to be controversial and you'll be rewarded!

The debate is open to you.

[Aiden]

I always thought that the President's limit of two terms was a little odd. Perhaps after securing a second term you could just do as little as possible as there's no chance you can run for president again. If the UK were to have limits I wouldn't mind as long as there were for longer periods.

[FlyingJesus]

It's a terrible idea, we should have those who are (or are at least deemed to be) the best for the job in each position, not forcing people out who have been there for a certain amount of time and are probably pretty good at it. We'd just have an eternity of settling periods and see-saw policy changing

[Kardan]

No, I don't agree with it. If you're doing a good job, you should be able to stay.

[xxMATTGxx]

If the people vote for the person to stay in - Then why have such limits?

[Earthquake]

I think it should depend more on the number of votes received, say it was 51%/49% then maybe a limit, if it was a majority then no.

[Kardan]

I think it should depend more on the number of votes received, say it was 51%/49% then maybe a limit, if it was a majority then no.

51% would be a majority.

[Earthquake]

sorry i miss wrote i meant more of a majority then 51%, say a landslide.

[ajs406]

I don't think there should be any limits on the amount of time spent in a position, as long as there is the option to vote them out if they are doing a bad job it doesn't matter to much.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I have to say I don't agree with term limits either as although we do end up with careerists hanging on, we'd lose the likes of Kate Hoey, Frank Field, Peter Bone and Frank Skinner in the House of Commons if we had term limits applied. Indeed, we'd probably end up with even more careerists/lackeys in there than we do now.