header-logo header-logo

Plus ça change?

26 May 2017 / Neil Parpworth
Issue: 7747 / Categories: Features , Public , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail
nlj_7747_parpworth

Neil Parpworth considers the constitutional implications of the usage of the powers contained within the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011

  • This article considers the relatively new statutory arrangements regarding the holding of early Westminster elections.
  • It questions whether much has changed in terms of a prime minister’s ability to influence the timing of a general election.

The events of 18 and 19 April 2017 will come to be regarded as significant in the UK’s electoral history since they reflect the first usage of a new parliamentary procedure for the causing of an early general election to be held. In the discussion which follows, some of the more important constitutional implications of this development will be considered, and it will be questioned whether despite the avowed purpose of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, the holding of an early general election very much remains at the discretion of the PM.

The relevant law

Prior to the enactment of the 2011 Act the timing of a general election was very much a matter for the government

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll