Abstract
The date of the next general election remains unknown to British voters and opposition parties alike, until it is announced by the Prime Minister approximately five weeks before polling is due to take place. It is the Prime Minister who possesses the constitutional power to select the date for a general election, and he or she formally exercises this power by requesting the Queen to carry out the legal ceremonies involved in dissolving Parliament and causing election writs to be issued to every parliamentary constituency to set the candidature nomination and ballot arrangements in motion. The only legal limitation upon the Prime Minister’s freedom of choice is a 1911 statutory provision that a Parliament will automatically terminate exactly five years after the date of its first meeting. The wording of this fundamental provision controlling the frequency of British general elections reads as follows:1
All Parliaments that shall at any time hereafter be called, assembled, or held, shall and may respectively have continuance for [five] years, and no longer, to be accounted from the day on which by the writ of summons … any future Parliament shall be appointed to meet, unless… any such Parliament hereafter to be summoned, shall be sooner dissolved by His Majesty, his heirs or successors.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes and References
The Septennial Act 1715 as amended by section 7 of the Parliament Act 1911.
On the prerogative generally, see S. de Smith and R. Brazier, Constitutional and Adminstrative Law (6th edn, 1989), ch. 6; E.C.S. Wade and A.W. Bradley, Constitutional and Administrative Law (11th edn by A.W. Bradley and K. D. Ewing, 1993), ch. 12; R. F. V. Heuston, Essays in Constitutional Law (2nd edn, 1964). On the summoning and dissolution of Parliament, see Robert Blackburn, The Meeting of Parliament (1990). Early classic works on on the prerogative are Sir W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (5th edn, 1773), book I, ch. VII; J. Chitty, The Prerogatives of the Crown (1820); Sir W. Anson, The Law and Custom of Parliament, vol. II: The Crown, (3rd edn, 1907), ch. I.
Eight Bills for this purpose were introduced by Keir Hardie or Sidney Buxton between 1889 and 1903.
House of Commons Debate, 21 February 1911, col. 1749.
See pp. 53f.
[1984] 3 All ER 935 at 937.
See p. 16.
See p. 50.
See Representation of the People Act 1983, Schedule 1: Parliamentary Election Rules (commonly known as and referred to elsewhere in this book as the ‘Election Rules’).
Source: F. W. Craig (ed.), British Electoral Facts 1832–1987 (5th edn, 1986), p. 152.
Generally, see G. Marshall, Constitutional Conventions (1984), ch. III; R. Blake, The Office of Prime Minister (1975), pp. 58f.; Harold Wilson, The Governance of Britain (1976), pp. 37f.
Fifty Years of Parliament (1926), vol. II, p. 194.
Constitutional and Administrative Law (6th edn, 1989), p. 166.
The King, the Constitution, the Empire and Foreign Affairs: Letters and Essays 1936–37 (1938), p. 42.
Ibid., p. 41.
The Governance of Britain (1976), p. 38.
Ibid. However in his book The Labour Government 1964–70 (1971) (for example, on p. 201), he records that he took colleagues’ advice before deciding the 1970 date of election, which he lost.
Upwardly Mobile (1988), p. 203.
See for example, his Crown Prerogatives (House of Commons Control) Bill 1988, HC [1987–88] 117.
On p. 36.
BBC Radio 4, ‘Jewel in the Crown’, 6 April 1989.
Quoted in R. Leonard, Elections in Britain (1968), p. 5.
(2nd edn, 1957), pp. 414–5.
On opinion polling generally, see pp. 297f.
London Weekend Television News, 7 June 1991.
The Dilemma of Democracy (1978), p. 191.
(1954), p. 193.
(1971), p. 200.
The question of whether the Queen might ever exercise a personal discretion to refuse the Prime Minister a dissolution — in circumstances where there is no breach of an established convention by the Prime Minister — is considered on pp. 58f.
See further on p. 291.
HC Deb., 11 May 1987, col. 21.
HC Deb., 9 May 1983, col. 631.
HC Deb., 29 March 1979, cols. 631–9.
On the preparation and issue of the Proclamation, see Robert Blackburn, The Meeting of Parliament (1990), p. 44.
However, the Royal Proclamation of 16 March 1992 was never published because of an administrative oversight of not sending a copy to the printers.
There is, however, one bogus precedent for Parliament being able to do so. In 1689, the ‘Convocation Parliament’ convened itself under the auspices of William of Orange, after King James II had been forced to flee the country. This assembly proceeded by way of legal fiction to proclaim the abdication of King James and the enthronement of King William and Queen Mary, and then retrospectively legitimised itself as a Parliament notwithstanding that no proper writs of summons had ever been issued.
The Labour Government 1964–70 (1971), p. 215.
See J. de Lolme, The Constitution of England: or, An Account of the English Government (4th edn, 1790), pp. 414–5.
Schedule 1, rule 5.
Schedule 2, para. 4.
Schedule 4, para. 68.
Generally see Robert Blackburn, The Meeting of Parliament (1990), pp. 56–7. The ancient common law rule was that on the death of a monarch, Parliament automatically dissolved and awaited being called into existence once more by the new King or Queen.
The House of Lords’ capacity to hold up government legislation approved by the Commons is, with this single exception of prolongation Bills, limited to a delaying power of twelve months, after which the Bill can be presented for the royal assent and pass into law. See Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and Erskine May, Parliamentary Practice (21st edn 1989, by C. J. Boulton), ch. 30.
For a work of reference on comparative parliamentary practice, see Inter-Parliamentary Union, Parliaments of the World (2 vols, 1986).
HC Deb., 26 October 1943, col. 109.
Respectively, the Parliament and Registration Act 1916; Parliament and Local Elections Act 1916; Parliament and Local Elections Act 1917; and Parliament and Local Elections Act (No. 2) Act 1917.
Respectively, the Prolongation of Parliament Act 1940; Prolongation of Parliament Act 1941; Prolongation of Parliament Act 1942; Prolongation of Parliament Act 1943; and Prolongation of Parliament Act 1944.
HC Deb., 26 October 1943, Col. 109.
A model for reform is contained within Institute for Public Policy Research, A Written Constitution for the United Kingdom (1993).
Ibid.
For example, Fixed Parliaments Bill [1986–87] 64.
Reform of the Constitution (1970), p. 52.
Lord Holme, HL Deb., 22 May 1991, col. 245.
See p. 20.
Elective Dictatorship (1976), pp. 8–9.
19 May 1991.
The Times, 25 September 1990.
Independent, 17 February 1991.
Observer, and see British Public Opinion (April 1991), p. 7.
Independent, 1 March 1991.
Independent, 15 June 1991.
New Statesman, 9 August 1991.
HL Deb., 22 May 1991, cols. 244–5, Lord Holme.
HC Deb., 17 May 1991, col. 577.
Vol. II: The Crown, (3rd edn, 1907), Part I, p. xxvi.
The Governance of Britain (1914), p. 110.
London Standard, 24 July 1985; The Times, 25 July 1985.
The Privileges and Rights of the Crown (1936), p. 64.
Tony Benn, Arguments for Democracy (1981), p. 31.
See, for example, J. P. Mackintosh, The British Cabinet (3rd edn, 1959); R. H. S. Crossman, Inside View: Three Lectures on Prime Ministerial Government (1970).
The Dilemma of Democracy (1978), pp. 192–3.
The English Constitution (1867, Fontana edn 1963), p. 111.
Cabinet Government (3rd edn, 1959), p. 394.
Gresham College Lecture, 3 July 1984; letter to The Times, 27 February 1984.
Letter to The Times, 2 May 1950. Lascelles’ identity was widely known but only later officially confirmed in J. Wheeler-Bennett’s authorised biography, George VI: His Life and Reign (1958), p. 775.
On the possible appointment of Prince Charles, see The Times, 4 May 1981.
V. Bogdanor, No Overall Majority (1986), p. 21.
Guardian, 12 September 1985; and, generally, see Robert Blackburn, The Meeting of Parliament (1990), pp. 69–71.
p. 43.
See p. 50.
Seep. 19.
See, for example, the Bill proposed by Austin Mitchell in 1983 for a four-year fixed term subject to earlier dissolution ‘if a majority of the House votes for an earlier dissolution’: HC Deb., 9 March 1983, col. 841.
Basic Law, Art. 39 (Assembly and Legislative Term).
For the prerogative immunity of the Crown from judicial process, see S. A. de Smith and R. Brazier, Constitutional and Administrative Law (6th edn, 1989), pp. 133f.
The form of draft legislation proposed draws upon work of the Institute for Public Policy Research, A Written Constitution for the United Kingdom (1993) of which Robert Blackburn was co-author of the Parliament section.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1995 Robert Blackburn
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Blackburn, R. (1995). The Timing of General Elections. In: The Electoral System in Britain. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-24090-6_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-24090-6_2
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-0-333-62918-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-24090-6
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)