Professor Graham Zellick KC considers the constitutional aspects of a change of prime minister between elections
A major risk faced by a constitutional lawyer writing about contemporary events is that he or she crosses the line from scholarly analysis and commentary into contentious politics. That risk is especially present in today’s turbulent political climate. To complicate matters, the constitutional lawyer cannot completely ignore the political context, because it may explain why certain things happened and this can be important to know.
A vain attempt
Take, for example, the publication of Sir Keir Starmer’s Defence Investment Plan (DIP) after he had announced his intention to resign as prime minister as soon as the party had elected a new leader.
The convention in these circumstances is that, while the everyday processes of government must continue normally, major policy decisions should not be taken, especially those with significant financial consequences. By any definition, the DIP is precisely that. But Starmer apparently saw an increase in defence spending as
-maryam-naaz-theo-corbett-and-rachel-carter-with-(front-from-left)-arya-vindlacheruvu-and-jessica-ashcroft.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=47f89300_1)
