Replacing or updating the FTPA

[islington]

Another recent case arose from the 2017 GE in British Columbia, when the Liberal administration of Christy Clark lost its majority but remained the largest party. She announced her intention to continue but when the legislature met, the Opposition carried an amendment to the 'speech from the throne' (as they apparently call it in BC).

Instead of resigning, Clark asked the Lt Governor for a dissolution. The Lt Governor refused. Only then did Clark resign and the LotO, John Horgan, became PM.

I suggest that the Lt Governor's refusal was compliant with Lascelles because when Clark requested the dissolution she had never had the confidence of the current Legislative Assembly. She argued that a dissolution was necessary because the numbers meant that an alternative government not could be formed in the current LA. The weakness in this argument is that, in an adversarial Westminster-style system, a defeat of the government in a matter of confidence amounts to an implied vote of confidence on the LotO, who is thus entitled to form a government even if its political support is precarious.

In fact Horgan governed until 2020 through the LA elected in 2017, so Clark's argument, although plausible at the time, was proved wrong by events.

The situation in BC after the 2017 election closely parallels that in the Canadian Parliament in 1925-26 and suggests that the same basic rules still hold good. The main difference is that the Conservatives of 1926, having taken office, failed to survive, whereas Horgan was able to keep going, despite the lack of a majority, until he eventually called a fresh GE in 2020. He won it and remains PM to this day (although he has unfortunately developed serious health issues).

[Wisconsin]

Mar 26, 2022 23:40:53 GMT timrollpickering said:

Mar 24, 2022 15:02:31 GMT Wisconsin said:

I still wish there was more clarity on whether the monarch can refuse the PM’s dissolution request if he or she has already lost the confidence of Commons and is acting in bad faith.

See the Lascelles Principles. […]

Unfortunately the government has muddied the waters re Lascelles with their ‘Dissolution Principles’ document. I have however just found a comment from the Paymaster General (Ellis) of 14 March 2022 stating that the government ‘still respects’ Lascelles.

[nodealbrexiteer]

Mar 27, 2022 15:13:55 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

Ted Heath's autobiography (p. 522) says that (as was obvious) he did not want a quick second election as Wilson would be likely to win it easily. He also says the Conservative historian Lord Blake told him the Queen might refuse a dissolution had he voted against Wilson's Queen's Speech in 1974, so they might have taken the risk.

The government's decision to let the Pay Board continue for the time being allowed the Conservatives a way out. Heath writes "Labour managed to win the vote" which glosses over the fact that he both wanted that win for his own tactical reasons, and delivered it by withdrawing his amendment.

Interestingly Tony Benn's diaries ascribe the Conservative concession to Michael Foot's speech at the end of the debate, which Benn says disguised the fact that the Pay Board would be continuing. As always Benn sees things through a very distorted lens.

It's hard to imagine a fresh election a few weeks after offering any 'predictable' result as turnout might have crashed to Labour's detriment, the tactical voting that help the Tories keep some seats in Oct 74 might have come into play earlier etc.