So there’s an online petition asking for the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, to resign. This is unlikely to happen. Further, one of the cards he holds against an internal coup is the ability to go to the Monarch and ask for Parliament to be dissolved.
But can anyone else ask with an expectation of the Monarch agreeing?
Its the monarchs perogorative to dissolve parliament, so theoretically anyone could ask her. By convention it is the PM who advises and it is an advice followed. However the Queen could theoretically refuse; for instance if there are several years left in parliaments life and another government could be formed.
Yes, but can anyone other than the Prime Minister ask with an expectation of the Monarch agreeing?
Anybody can request it. I keep telling Zotti I want $10,000. And a pony, too.
The P.M. is the only one who can advise it, in that technical usage that means, “Do it, Your Maj. Or else.” (Although there are circustances in which she is entitled to refuse him a dissolution, and probably there’s some unwritten covenant on who does what if the P.M. goes off his nut.)
^
Actually no, dissolving Parliament (or rather more accuratly, the House of Commons) is the Queens perogrative. The PM can advise, but it is NOT in law binding on her (and in times past, monarchs have refused).
Quartz, the present constitutional setup pretty much precludes anyone, but the PM from advising in the expectation of it being granted; before the development of the Presdiential type PM, when the PM was basically the first amongst equals, there would be a group of persons who acting together could do so; basically senior ministers. I suppose a situation could arise where the party and the PM have a falling out and the senior party members request a dissolution and it could well be in reasonable expectation of it being granted, since the Queen would be respecting the mandate of the people; which was to the party not the man (Tony Blair would disagree!).
Another situation where the Queen might act of her own motion could be say when defections and by-elections have resulted in the Government losing its majority and the opposition party attempts to form a government; the Queen could well go for a dissolution instead.
What about the Speaker? Or the Leader of the House?
And, wouldn’t dissolving Parliament sort of go against the PM’s desire not to resign? That would prompt a General Election, would it not?
We had situation recently in Canada where the PM asked the Governor-General to prorogue Parliament in order to avoid a non-confidence vote with an alliance of the opposition parties agitating to form a coalition government. Had he asked her to dissolve Parliament, there would have been another election (just months after the PM won a minority government).
By tradition the speaker is politically neutral (except in the casting vote, where he usually goes in favour of the Government). Asking for dissolution is a clear political act. The Leader of the House, is a position given to an old has-been/rival and pretty unlikely.
Dissloving Parliament on its own would cause a general election.
Responding to Cerowyn’s question: the key to this is the legal usual-technicality that the P.M. is appointed by the Crown – not by the Commons. True, by convention he must hold a majority in Commons (or at least be able to fend off a hostile majority on a confidence vote, if he has a minority government). But because he and the other Ministers (the 'Government" in the parliamentary-country sense) hold office from the Queen (or President or whatever in a non-monarchy), they are not obliged to resign in a General Election – in fact, are expected to remain in office through it, to serve as the country’s government while the election is on. Then, only if the election results are adverse, will he (and they) resign – if the new parliament gives them a majority, they take it as a renewed mandate. (Technically, the P.M. is entitled to remain in office until voted out by s vote of confidence by the new, adverse parliament. Normally they will resign rather than hang on pending the inevitable – but in a fairly close election, with a spoiler third party or faction present, the P.M. may decide to await the confidence vote, hoping he can broker a deal for majority support before then.)
^
As Edward Heath did in 1974.
I thought the Speaker’s casting vote was always whichever way resulted in the discussion being prolonged. Or is that in Canada only?
Well, George Clinton did in the 80s, as I recall.
Canada follows the same British parliamentary traditions on this point. You’re right that it is better phrased as resulting in the discussion being prolonged, but that normally favours the government, since the government is the one trying to put its legislative agenda and budget through the House. The Speaker’s casting vote in favour of the discussion being prolonged prevents a defeat for the government.
However, that’s not the entire story. Another aspect of the Speaker’s casting vote is that the tradition is that ultimately, a change in the status quo should not be made based solely on the Speaker’s vote, because that would go contrary to the Speaker’s non-partisan position. If the Government wants to enact a new law or pass its budget, its required to do so by the votes of its supporters in the House, not by a vote of the non-partisan Speaker. So, if there is a tie vote on third reading, the precedents suggest the Speaker should vote against the matter passing.
However, that’s pretty much a theoretical issue, since the Government should be able to count votes and avoid bringing the matter up for third reading unless it knows it has enough votes.
In the UK, this is addressed by the Lascelles Principles, but push has never since come to shove, IIRC: Lascelles Principles - Wikipedia
In Australia, the constitution specifically provides that the Governor-General may refuse the PM’s request for a dissolution: http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/rules/rp/
And here’s an interesting speech by the Governor-General of New Zealand which addresses a hypothetical refusal to grant a dissolution: Appointment of Dame Patsy Reddy | The Governor-General of New Zealand
I wonder if previous posters are missing that the Speaker’s function is to speak for the House and as the House wishes, so surely if the House wished for a dissolution and the Prime Minister did not, it would be the Speaker’s job to ask the Monarch?
No, because the dissolution of the House is an executive function of the Crown, not a legislative function of the House.
What the House would do, in its legislative capacity, is vote non-confidence in the current government. This would force the Prime Minister either to take steps to reconstitute the government in a way that meets the desires of the House, or, and this is the most likely option, go to the Queen and request that she dissolve the House and call a general election.
I don’t think that the Queen would entertain hearing from a group of Cabinet ministers, and I would suggest that principle is of pretty long-standing. There’s two reasons for it: the requirement of Cabinet unanimity of advice to the Sovereign, and the right of the Prime Minister to be the sole conduit for communications from the Cabinet to the Sovereign.
See for example, Halsbury’s Laws of England, Vol. 8 (4th ed., 1974):
The point of these passages is that the dissolution of the House is not a matter for any individual minister to consider; it is the responsibility of the Cabinet as a whole, and only the Prime Minister has the right to advise the Sovereign of the position of the Cabinet. These conventions keep the Sovereign insulated from being involved in political divisions within the Cabinet.
If there was a situation where a substantial number of the senior members of the Cabinet felt that a dissolution should be requested, and cannot persuade their colleagues of that course, then they have two options: accept the consensus of their Cabinet colleagues, or resign from Cabinet. The resignation of a large minority group from Cabinet could then trigger the defeat of the Government in the House, which would then force the Prime Minister either to reconstitute the ministry, or to request that the Sovereign dissolve the House.
^
Oh thats pretty true. I am discussing a hypothetical situation where the PM has lost his party support and tried to stay on as PM.
BTW, if you have halsburys laws from 1974, I would try to sell them and retire!