The original desire behind the Fixed Term Parliament Act when it was legislated in 2011 was all well and true. It is no secret that throughout British political history, prime ministers have called snap elections for reasons of political expediency.
Yet when the Coalition government implemented this Act, they did not envisage the unique political context that Britain was about to embark upon from June 2016. They failed to predict Britain would vote to leave the European Union, the then prime minister, David Cameron, would resign before his second premiership barely begun and a new prime minister would replace him with an agenda to make Brexit a reality and repeal Labour's act to prohibit new grammar schools, tax the self-employed and create enough affordable housing to end a generational crisis in home ownership.
Theresa May's plans mark a clear break from those of Cameron's, and this Act, until now, was nothing more than an obstacle to preventing her from asking the British people for a clean mandate.
In this country, we do not elect presidents like they do in America, but parliaments. Normally, a government should act on its manifesto commitments over a five year period. That is why I maintain this Act was legislated with the best intentions in British Politics. Yet these are far from normal circumstances. Brexit and Cameron's resignation have both made me realise how impractical this piece of legislation is in a context as unusual as this, and that is why I am now of the opinion the Fixed Term Parliament Act should go.
