After the fall
Sir: The custom whereby the Prime Minister 'asks the Sovereign to dissolve Parliament when his Government has lost the confidence of the electorate completely (as opposed to a mere phase of unpopularity) seems to oblige him to act not in his role as party leader, nor even as an executive Prime Minister, but simply as a constitutional function of his office, and should take place automatically—he has no choice in the matter.
It is what Mr Gladstone, and the others, would have done as a matter of course; more important, it is considered by ordinary people as the complement of having so long a period as five years for the duration of a Parliament; without the check of this 'constitutional dis- solution' we would probably have fixed a rigidly recurring limit of, say, three years.
As I see it. with or without a Prime Minis- terial request the Sovereign still retains the pre- rogative and should either act or (presumably) be deemed to have acted.
If neither of these has acted we appear to have a situation where monarchy, ministers and Parliament are all ulna vires; where no citizen is bound by any law meanwhile to be enacted; and where the Prime Minister now heads an illegal regime. Surety it would best serve the country and the constitution to call an election for next month?
Would any of your readers care to make out the opposite case?
Previous page
