Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC, former editor of Public Law, argues Sir Keir Starmer's final decisions in office stretched established conventions. He criticises publication of the Defence Investment Plan after a resignation announcement as a 'vain attempt' to shape a successor's agenda and condemns No10's refusal to dismiss a junior minister who publicly broke with Home Office policy as a 'constitutional monstrosity'.
Zellick also revisits recurring calls for an automatic general election whenever a new prime minister takes office, concluding that Britain's parliamentary constitution provides a clear answer against such a requirement. While accepting that manifesto commitments constrain successors to some degree, he warns that extensive policy departures by a mid-term leader could push constitutional orthodoxy 'beyond breaking point'.
