5 ms·

Calling an election is now back in the hands of the government (not parliament) since the repeal of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act; a PM can ask the monarch to

by ranko 4y ago

Calling an election is now back in the hands of the government (not parliament) since the repeal of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act; a PM can ask the monarch to call an election without having to get the agreement of parliament. Neither the current nor next PM (whoever they end up being) is likely to do this if the polling numbers are anything to go by, of course. I think the only other way an election can be called is if the government loses a vote of no confidence.

evgen 4y ago
Technically speaking, King Charles III does not actually need to PM to ask in order to dismiss parliament and force a new election. Given that Charles I and Charles II both dismissed parliament maybe Charles III will grow a pair and do the same. It is somewhat ironic that while dismissing parliament caused the downfall of the monarchy for Charles I is it likely to buy a significant amount of time for the monarchy if Charles III does the same.
- frereubu 4y ago
  I think the idea that the king would buy time for the monarchy by doing that is highly speculative. I very much doubt anyone knows what would happen given that the atmosphere is so febrile and it hasn't happened in centuries.
- voisin 4y ago
  > it likely to buy a significant amount of time for the monarchy if Charles III does the same. Can you expand on this? Is it just because he would be more popular if he dismissed parliament and another election was called?
  - llampx 4y ago
    The average Brit seems to want a general election more than the Tories do.
    - petesergeant 4y ago
      I certainly do, but what I want much less is for the King to wield anything other than ceremonial power
- AlgorithmicTime 4y ago
- cm2187 4y ago
  The other way round. If he gets out of his limited role and engages into politics, it will be the end of monarchy.
  - nprateem 4y ago
    He already has been for years. See the Black Spider memos he secretly sent to ministers, and all the secret carve-outs the Queen had. They have their grubby fingers in politics, but are just clever at hiding it.
    - mpweiher 4y ago
      > all the secret carve-outs the Queen had Reference? Or details for ducking ourselves?
      - xamolxix 4y ago
        > Reference? here are some references, though not sure if this was what GP was refering to. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vette... https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jul/14/queen-immunity-british-laws-private-property https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jul/14/queen-immuni... There are others, search for "royal consent" as apposed to "royal assent"
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - Lio 4y ago
    Not necessarily the end of the monarchy. Parliament would just choose a new monarch as it did in 1688 when Charles II tried to choose an heir that Parliament didn't like. It's been settled via the civil war and the Glorious Revolution, power in the UK rest ultimately in the House of Commons not the monarchy.
- vbezhenar 4y ago
  Is it only me who thinks it's crazy that in modern world some guy with birth right have the authority over entire western country? So much for democracy.
  - martopix 4y ago
    He does not. Kings have not done this kind of thing out of their own initiative for at least a century or so.
  - bb123 4y ago
    He doesn't have any authority, in practice. It has been that way since 1414. The second the monarchy tried to exert control over politics would be the second it was abolished.
    - sofixa 4y ago
      Charles exerted lots of control behind the scenes while he was Prince of Wales, lobbying, receiving lobbyists, getting inside information, accepting huge donations, etc.
      - bb123 4y ago
        Influence is not the same as authority. I'm sure he has influence - but then so do lots of people. And at least as public figure he has a degree of visibility. Governments don't exist in a vacuum.
      - krapp 4y ago
        Also people were arrested for protesting his ascent to the throne. They were later "de-arrested," but the intended message is pretty clear.
        foldr 4y ago
        There's no 'intended message' to be found there, just some isolated incidents of dumb police officers arresting people for silly reasons (as acknowledged by their subsequent 'de-arrest').
- bb123 4y ago
  I seriously doubt that interfering in politics would do the monarchy any favours whatsoever. Constitutional issues aside the intersection of conservative and royalist is famously large. Why would he piss off the people most likely to support him?
  - lostlogin 4y ago
    You make it sound like it isn’t happening all the time already. It’s been fairly well reported on and has been very beneficial to that family. See other links in this thread.
- kranke155 4y ago
  I doubt that’s going to happen in the modern era?
- martopix 4y ago
  This is a typical misunderstanding of British politics. In theory the King is supposed to have power on a range of things, but there are very clearly set constitutional conventions that mean he does not. These are now so powerful that not even the "theory" is able to supersede them. This was found out the hard way by Boris Johnson when he tried to prorogue (suspend) Parliament using the Royal Prerogative. The supreme court cancelled his 'advice to the Queen' very quickly and restored Parliament. Yes it's confusing and it would be better to write down a constitution reflecting how things actually are, but that's how it is.
  - kranke155 4y ago
    Honestly having lived in the UK I find the flexibility of the unwritten constitution to be both a good and a bad thing. On one hand, the constitution where I come from (Portugal) is unnecessarily binding and causes a lot of issues the country suffers from. On the other hand in the UK you get this feeling that the PM can do almost anything, which in the hands of a decent person can heavily advance the country or in a period like now, can cause utter chaos.
    - BerislavLopac 4y ago
      > you get this feeling that the PM can do almost anything Technically, whoever has the majority in the parliament can literally do anything, including introducing the laws that require photo ID for voting (in a country without a mandatory photo ID) [0], or that anyone who protested in past five years are required to wear an electronic tag [1]. Or, because why not, to get rid of the election process - completely or partially. [0] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9187/ https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-... [1] https://twitter.com/TheDonsieLass/status/1582642029762207744 https://twitter.com/TheDonsieLass/status/1582642029762207744
- nailer 4y ago
  Exactly. Queen Elizabeth sacked the Australian PM in 1978.

by ranko 4y ago

evgen 4y ago

Technically speaking, King Charles III does not actually need to PM to ask in order to dismiss parliament and force a new election. Given that Charles I and Charles II both dismissed parliament maybe Charles III will grow a pair and do the same. It is somewhat ironic that while dismissing parliament caused the downfall of the monarchy for Charles I is it likely to buy a significant amount of time for the monarchy if Charles III does the same.

frereubu 4y ago
I think the idea that the king would buy time for the monarchy by doing that is highly speculative. I very much doubt anyone knows what would happen given that the atmosphere is so febrile and it hasn't happened in centuries.
voisin 4y ago
> it likely to buy a significant amount of time for the monarchy if Charles III does the same. Can you expand on this? Is it just because he would be more popular if he dismissed parliament and another election was called?
- llampx 4y ago
  The average Brit seems to want a general election more than the Tories do.
  - petesergeant 4y ago
    I certainly do, but what I want much less is for the King to wield anything other than ceremonial power
AlgorithmicTime 4y ago
cm2187 4y ago
The other way round. If he gets out of his limited role and engages into politics, it will be the end of monarchy.
- nprateem 4y ago
  He already has been for years. See the Black Spider memos he secretly sent to ministers, and all the secret carve-outs the Queen had. They have their grubby fingers in politics, but are just clever at hiding it.
  - mpweiher 4y ago
    > all the secret carve-outs the Queen had Reference? Or details for ducking ourselves?
    - xamolxix 4y ago
      > Reference? here are some references, though not sure if this was what GP was refering to. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vette... https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jul/14/queen-immunity-british-laws-private-property https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jul/14/queen-immuni... There are others, search for "royal consent" as apposed to "royal assent"
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- Lio 4y ago
  Not necessarily the end of the monarchy. Parliament would just choose a new monarch as it did in 1688 when Charles II tried to choose an heir that Parliament didn't like. It's been settled via the civil war and the Glorious Revolution, power in the UK rest ultimately in the House of Commons not the monarchy.
vbezhenar 4y ago
Is it only me who thinks it's crazy that in modern world some guy with birth right have the authority over entire western country? So much for democracy.
- martopix 4y ago
  He does not. Kings have not done this kind of thing out of their own initiative for at least a century or so.
- bb123 4y ago
  He doesn't have any authority, in practice. It has been that way since 1414. The second the monarchy tried to exert control over politics would be the second it was abolished.
  - sofixa 4y ago
    Charles exerted lots of control behind the scenes while he was Prince of Wales, lobbying, receiving lobbyists, getting inside information, accepting huge donations, etc.
    - bb123 4y ago
      Influence is not the same as authority. I'm sure he has influence - but then so do lots of people. And at least as public figure he has a degree of visibility. Governments don't exist in a vacuum.
    - krapp 4y ago
      Also people were arrested for protesting his ascent to the throne. They were later "de-arrested," but the intended message is pretty clear.
      - foldr 4y ago
        There's no 'intended message' to be found there, just some isolated incidents of dumb police officers arresting people for silly reasons (as acknowledged by their subsequent 'de-arrest').
bb123 4y ago
I seriously doubt that interfering in politics would do the monarchy any favours whatsoever. Constitutional issues aside the intersection of conservative and royalist is famously large. Why would he piss off the people most likely to support him?
- lostlogin 4y ago
  You make it sound like it isn’t happening all the time already. It’s been fairly well reported on and has been very beneficial to that family. See other links in this thread.
kranke155 4y ago
I doubt that’s going to happen in the modern era?
martopix 4y ago
This is a typical misunderstanding of British politics. In theory the King is supposed to have power on a range of things, but there are very clearly set constitutional conventions that mean he does not. These are now so powerful that not even the "theory" is able to supersede them. This was found out the hard way by Boris Johnson when he tried to prorogue (suspend) Parliament using the Royal Prerogative. The supreme court cancelled his 'advice to the Queen' very quickly and restored Parliament. Yes it's confusing and it would be better to write down a constitution reflecting how things actually are, but that's how it is.
- kranke155 4y ago
  Honestly having lived in the UK I find the flexibility of the unwritten constitution to be both a good and a bad thing. On one hand, the constitution where I come from (Portugal) is unnecessarily binding and causes a lot of issues the country suffers from. On the other hand in the UK you get this feeling that the PM can do almost anything, which in the hands of a decent person can heavily advance the country or in a period like now, can cause utter chaos.
  - BerislavLopac 4y ago
    > you get this feeling that the PM can do almost anything Technically, whoever has the majority in the parliament can literally do anything, including introducing the laws that require photo ID for voting (in a country without a mandatory photo ID) [0], or that anyone who protested in past five years are required to wear an electronic tag [1]. Or, because why not, to get rid of the election process - completely or partially. [0] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9187/ https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-... [1] https://twitter.com/TheDonsieLass/status/1582642029762207744 https://twitter.com/TheDonsieLass/status/1582642029762207744
nailer 4y ago
Exactly. Queen Elizabeth sacked the Australian PM in 1978.