Confusion

At lunchtime today I listened to Any Questions, a recording of Friday evening’s live broadcast. There was a very distinguished panel of Parliamentarians, old and new. There was a question about the 55% vote for dissolution, should the proposal for five year fixed term parliaments, almost universally welcomed, become law. None of the panelists showed any clear sign of understanding the issue and all talked a good deal of nonsense. The facts, once again, are these.

Under the Constitution, no matter who votes for what or in which proportion, the only person with power to dissolve parliament is the Queen, because we live in a Monarchy, however it is dressed up. By convention she delegates her powers to her Prime Minister. By convention if he loses a vote of confidence in the Commons he must go to her and offer his resignation. She would then either accept it or ask him to form another government. If he failed to get another vote of confidence with this new government, she would accept his resignation and take advice as to who else might form a government. If a new Labour leader, having won some bye-elections, reckoned he could have a go because the Lib Dems had jumped ship and if he were successful, this new government would carry on for the remainder of the unexpired portion of the five year term. If it became clear that there was nobody who could get a vote of confidence through, the Queen would dissolve parliament.

Parliament cannot pass any kind of law to dissolve itself. It can pass a law binding the Prime Minister to seek a dissolution from the Queen if it asks him to, on whatever majority it sets. It amounts to no more than window dressing since the law itself could be overturned at any time by a simple majority of one. This really is an argument about nothing.