[shapefrog]

Edit: totally missed the repeal - so this is no longer the situation.

Under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, which has governed how UK Parliamentary elections are called since 2011, an election could only be triggered outside of the normal five-year Parliamentary cycle by one of two scenarios: if two-thirds of the House of Commons voted in favour of one, or if the Government lost a vote of no confidence and no alternative government was confirmed by the House of Commons within 14 days.

2/3 vote in house is basically the only way it can happen.

[shellac]

That act was repealed this year. It is “as if the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 had never been enacted”.

Edit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_and_Calling_of_Par...

[shapefrog]

Many thanks - totally missed that repeal.

I am trying to figure out what replaced it, and it appears the only way is for an election to occur is a) the Prime Minister to request and recieve consent from the Monarch, b) it has been 5 years since the last election.

[yrro]

I'd like to know if other constitutional norms have been restored as well (e.g., are supply bills & major manifesto bills automatically considered confidence votes?)

[gpderetta]

c) the parliament decides to have an election.

[shapefrog]

2019 as prior art required full passage through commons and lords. Without compliance of the governement getting a bill read is not going to necessarily be easy.

[gpderetta]

As far as I understand, the act prevents the prime minister from dissolving the parliament unilaterally, but in practice the parliament still only need a simple majority, by just passing a law stating 'notwithstanding the Fixed-term Parliament Act, the parliament is dissolved'. This happened in 2019 ([1], [2]).

Or it could have just repelled the act, which is what happened this year.

This can happen when there is no entrenched constitution and the parliament has complete freedom to legislate.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-term_Parliaments_Act_201... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Parliamentary_General_El...

[dragonwriter]

Since either a no confidence vote without a new government (simple majority without a replacement government getting one) or a 2/3 vote would require a rebellion within the Tories, and the former would require fewer rebels, wouldn’t it necessarily be more plausible than a 2/3 vote.

[shapefrog]

I had missed the repeal, so these are academic now, however, were relevant back in the day, and were interesting in coalition times.

Voting no confidence path would allow the government to attempt to form another government (with a more unifying leader perhaps?) where there would be another round of votes / haggling till the 14 day limit to carry the confidence of the house. Getting the rebels to vote against the government multiple times over 2 weeks (they would be expelled from the party for the forthcoming election anyway) is extremely hard.

Getting 2/3s to vote against, while requiring more rebels, is politically probably easier, if a smallish minority have infected the party and are acting against the party core, and the opposition are dire. You can probably carry your safe seat and oust the toxic HQ leadership at the same time.

Both paths are effectively impossible. The idea back in the day was that you would just vote to repeal or amend the act, as it was easier than actually fullfilling the criteria of the act.