I was wondering about this the other day, with talk of how Labour is going to try and swing the electorate back round to keeping them in power and with proposals such as "Temporarily deferring stamp duty" (Although this could be aimed at keeping the housing economic alive rather than winning votes, admittedly), would there be any mileage in having an election that would bring a government to power for a longer term, say 10 or 20 years to give them time to put in long-standing plans and economic strategies? I say this, as it seems that a government would spend the better part of it's first term righting the "mistakes" of the previous government, or, would be finding that it had been in power for a number of years before something the previous government had decided to do (Privatize the power/gas industry, leave out any plans to extend capacity) and then being stuck with finding a solution. I appreciate that caveats would need to be in place so that if a government (Or even individual departments) was failing it could be rectified. Could that be integrated into a live "Approval meter" based on a website which triggers an election or calls for dismissal if it dips to a certain point? I'm wondering if a government would be working more efficiently if it was to be planning for 20years rather than "firefighting" to win votes. Or is this a silly suggestion and we should keep the current system in place?