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

Pillsbury—Peter O’Hare

Pillsbury—Peter O’Hare

Partner hire bolstersprivate capital and global aviation finance offering

Morae—Carla Mendy

Morae—Carla Mendy

Digital and business solutions firm appoints chief operating officer

Twenty Essex—Clementine Makower & Stephen Du

Twenty Essex—Clementine Makower & Stephen Du

Set welcomes two experienced juniors as new tenants

NEWS
The High Court’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys has thrown the careers of experienced CILEX litigators into jeopardy, warns Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers in NLJ this week
Sir Brian Leveson’s claim that there is ‘no right to jury trial’ erects a constitutional straw man, argues Professor Graham Zellick KC in NLJ this week. He argues that Leveson dismantles a position almost no-one truly holds, and thereby obscures the deeper issue: the jury’s place within the UK’s constitutional tradition
Why have private prosecutions surged despite limited data? Niall Hearty of Rahman Ravelli explores their rise in this week's NLJ 
The public law team at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer surveys significant recent human rights and judicial review rulings in this week's NLJ
In this week's NLJ, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley examines how debarring orders, while attractive to claimants seeking swift resolution, can complicate trials—most notably in fraud cases requiring ‘particularly cogent’ proof
back-to-top-scroll