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

WSP Solicitors—Amie Williamson

WSP Solicitors—Amie Williamson

Gloucestershire firm boosts residential conveyancing team

mfg Solicitors—Andrew Johnson

mfg Solicitors—Andrew Johnson

Firm strengthens corporate team in Worcester with new hire

London Market FOIL—Ling Ong

London Market FOIL—Ling Ong

Weightmans partner appointed president of London Market Forum of Insurance Lawyers

NEWS
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
The long-awaited Getty Images v Stability AI judgment arrived at the end of last year—but not with the seismic impact many expected. In this week's issue of NLJ, experts from Arnold & Porter dissect a ruling that is ‘historic’ yet tightly confined
The UK Supreme Court may be deciding fewer cases, but its impact in 2025 was anything but muted. In this week's NLJ, Professor Emeritus Brice Dickson of Queen’s University Belfast reviews a year marked by historically low output, a striking rise in jointly authored judgments, and a continued decline in dissent. High-profile rulings on biological sex under the Equality Act, public access to Dartmoor, and fairness in sexual offence trials ensured the court’s voice carried far beyond the Strand
back-to-top-scroll