header-logo header-logo

21 October 2011 / Alec Samuels
Issue: 7486 / Categories: Features , Public , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

End of term?

Alec Samuels examines the law surrounding the length of parliamentary terms

How long should a Parliament last? Five years is the maximum, after which it automatically expires, and the statutory expectation seems to be that Parliament will last for the full five years (Septennial Act 1715 as amended by the Parliament Act 1911). However, in practice it has not worked out that way. Indeed, since the war the five-year Parliament has been less common than the shorter one. Who should decide when the next general election shall take place? And how?

Back in the day

In 1950, 1964, 1992, 1997 and 2010 the Parliament had lasted the full five years. It “went to the wire”. In 1951 Atlee “threw in the towel” after little more than a year. In 1955 the new Prime Minster Eden called an early election. In 1959 Macmillan did the same. In 1966 Wilson went early, in order to increase a slender majority; and in 1970 again he went early. In 1974 Heath called an early election, “Who

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll