In a LexisNexis news analysis interview last week, Telha Arshad and Robert Gardener, associate and government relations director respectively at Hogan Lovells, discuss how the 2011 Act worked and possible future amendments.
The Act was initially introduced to stem Liberal Democrat fears, after entering into coalition government in 2010, that the Conservatives would call a snap election if they thought they could win it, denying the Lib Dems the opportunity to push through the policy priorities they negotiated as part of the coalition deal. However, the legislation was easily circumvented by opposition parties this year via the Early Parliamentary General Election Act 2019, which only needed a simple majority to pass―rather than, as the 2011 Act required, either a two-thirds majority of MPs or a vote of no confidence plus 14 days without a government being formed.
Consequently, Arshad and Gardener say, the 2011 Act ‘has been criticised as both failing to serve its purpose in securing stability of government while also unhelpfully constraining the ability of government to overcome parliamentary deadlock by calling an early election even in the face of consistent government defeats in the voting lobbies.
‘For this reason, [it] has proved to be so unpopular across the political spectrum that both the Labour and Conservative Parties committed to repealing it in their 2019 general election manifestos.’
Arshad and Gardener note the 2011 Act requires the Prime Minister to convene a committee of MPs to review the effectiveness of its operation, between June and November 2020 and, ‘if appropriate, to make recommendations for repeal or amendment.
‘As things stand, it is difficult to imagine that [the Act] will survive any such review, if indeed parliament has not already repealed [it] by then.’
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=16d9dd3d_1)
