header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
26 May 2017 / Neil Parpworth
Issue: 7747 / Categories: Features , Public , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Plus ça change?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
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

Read All
Sponsored by
Newcastle & North of England Law Society—Lesley Fairclough

Newcastle & North of England Law Society—Lesley Fairclough

Ward Hadaway partner becomes bicentennial president following regional merger

Devonshires—four promotions

Devonshires—four promotions

Firm promotes four senior associates to partner in annual round

Fieldfisher—John McElroy & Daniel Hayward

Fieldfisher—John McElroy & Daniel Hayward

Co-heads of dispute resolution practice appointed alongside partner promotions

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Mazur and more—inside the litigation frontline

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

NLJ this week: Social media bans for children spark legal dilemmas
Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
NLJ this week: Leasehold reform risks creating ‘forgotten freeholders’
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
NLJ this week: Court of Appeal clarifies when a claim truly begins
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
NLJ this week: Split FDRs could ease pressure—and boost settlements
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll