I don’t think such a thing would be comparable to the Outlawries Bill at all. If the Government collapsed over the defeat of a particular policy or bill, then it is inherent that the crisis is directly hinged to Parliament and the Government not agreeing on that policy. The ensuing election would absolutely be to ask the people to resolve that crisis.
Of course, other issues will be discussed and the electorate can decide to vote how it likes, but any Government that sought to sacrifice its incumbency over such a matter when it doesn’t really care about it is courting electoral disaster.
Voters don’t like politicians who try to game the system. There is a general expectation that governments are elected to govern, for their full mandate. Governments who go to the polls too early, when there’s still plenty of time in their mandate, or leave it very late, tend to run a cropper with the electorate.
And, it’s not like the government members are going to be able to brush the child rape bill away with a bit of hand-waving. Each MP who voted for the bill will find their opponents bringing it up time and time again:
Challenger: Remember, my opponent is in favour of child rape. He voted for a bill in the Commons to legalise it. How can such a person be trusted to govern?
Incumbent: I don’t support child rape. I only voted for the bill to trigger an election.
Challenger: So you lied on the floor of the Commons for a petty partisan reason? Have you no shame, Sir? Why should the decent people of this constituency vote for someone who by his own admission will lie and vote for something as reprehensible as child rape, just to get a political advantage?
Is this a serious question? The same way you trigger a debate on any other issue. Unless you think we should shut down all prisons to trigger a debate on the criminal justice system, et cetera.
This is an interesting difference in itself. I tend to think the Members of Congress ARE the government and not separate from it. And every law is proposed by one or more Members, not some distinct entity. It’s true that most bills won’t go anywhere without the support of key Members, though.
In the past, a debate used to be triggered by a formal Motion “to reduce the Minister’s salary by £100” (or some such nominal sum). I am not sure if this device is still used.
We hear about the constitutional crisis that would occur if the monarch decided to withhold Royal Assent or dissolved parliament early. Supposing the Fixed Term Act is repealed and the ruling party decides to (ask the Queen to) dismiss Parliament early because they think it gives them the best chance to win and pick up more seats (enough to not be a coalition government let’s say) and the Queen refuses.
Then the Government would resign, and the Queen would have to form a government out of the existing Commons. As it’s pretty much certain that most politicians would be horrified at the Queen carrying out such a political act, that it would make Her position untenable. Any possible government would likely demand Her abdication at the very least.
There used to be more opportunities for the monarch to object to particular motivations for early election, but with the rise of mass democracy these have largely been marginalised. The only one which arguably survives is if the Government calls an election to fight off internal party divisions (for example, if the PM is struggling against a leadership challenge or somesuch).
I don’t believe you are quite correct. If it were early in the term and another grouping within the Commons could form a government (technically, if a member of the House can command a majority), then the Monarch would be right to ask them to do so. This can be very much a no-win situation for the Monarch in that if there were an election and the opposition - who might have formed a government - get in, the Monarch’s position is untenable, and the same holds if there is no election and a new government is formed which then loses at the next election.
It would also depend upon the popularity of the Monarch. Brenda, of course, is massively popular and would survive; Chuck is not and would not (and the popularity of William would assist his speedy departure).
I think it would depend on the motivation expressed by the Government. Saint Cad’s example was that it was to take advantage of improved fortunes in opinion polls, which few governments would actually admit to being a motivation for an early poll.
I agree, though, that if it were a relatively young Parliament, the Queen’s case for refusing a Dissolution would indeed be stronger.
Because from a party’s perspective, it’s more desirable to rule alone than to share power with another party. And after that, it’s more desirable to increase your majority.
the English political system despises coalitions, seeing them as a poor expedient, and one which betrays the voters who voted for a party expecting it to implement its platform.