header-logo header-logo

21 October 2011 / Alec Samuels
Issue: 7486 / Categories: Features , Public , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

End of term?

Alec Samuels examines the law surrounding the length of parliamentary terms

How long should a Parliament last? Five years is the maximum, after which it automatically expires, and the statutory expectation seems to be that Parliament will last for the full five years (Septennial Act 1715 as amended by the Parliament Act 1911). However, in practice it has not worked out that way. Indeed, since the war the five-year Parliament has been less common than the shorter one. Who should decide when the next general election shall take place? And how?

Back in the day

In 1950, 1964, 1992, 1997 and 2010 the Parliament had lasted the full five years. It “went to the wire”. In 1951 Atlee “threw in the towel” after little more than a year. In 1955 the new Prime Minster Eden called an early election. In 1959 Macmillan did the same. In 1966 Wilson went early, in order to increase a slender majority; and in 1970 again he went early. In 1974 Heath called an early election, “Who governs Britain?”, and the answer was “the unions”. In 1976

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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll