Good riddance to the Fixed Term Parliaments Act
One of the measures the government will pursue in the new session of parliament is the repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. Constitutional geeks will wail and gnash their teeth, weep hot, bitter tears of political propriety. Some observers (myself included), more comfortable with realpolitik, will heave a sigh of relief. Most, of course, will neither notice nor care.
The FTPA was introduced early in the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition government. For some it was a tidying-up exercise, removing from the royal prerogative (and therefore controlled by the prime minister) the ability to dissolve parliament and call an election at any convenient point. This power was deemed A Bad Thing. Instead it regulated the length of a parliament at five years, with elections to be held on statutory dates. For others, it was a concession to the junior coalition partners, an assurance that the deal negotiated between David Cameron and Nick Clegg would endure for a full five years: both sides were locked in.
A permanent measure to address a temporary necessity: it was a recipe for unhappiness. Even from the beginning, doubt was evident. Section 7 of the Act provided for a review of its operation to take place in 2020; some MPs felt it was an inadequate challenge to the ancient prerogative powers; while some political scientists, fulfilling, it must be said, their gruesome trade, warned both that nothing would change and that the Act would have unintended consequences.
What was the harm? Surely, bright-eyed constitutional enthusiasts asked, it must be a good thing to take away from the prime minister the ability to call a general election at a time convenient to the government? Do not many other countries have fixed terms of legislature or executive, and should we not seek to be more like them? Would it not be more modern to have the power written into law rather than at the decision of an hereditary monarch, advised by her chief minister?
British political history is littered with the wreckage of idealism meeting reality with a heavy impact. The 2010 Parliament did indeed last a full five years, though, with a healthy and stable coalition majority, there was little suggestion that stumps would ever be drawn early. And we all remember the five-year 2015 Parliament, and the subsequent general election last May, right?
It's hard to remember now, but in the spring of 2017, Theresa May was riding high in the polls. Ridiculously high: some numbers suggested that the Labour Party, with Jeremy Corbyn at the helm, was destined for near-destruction. Mrs May was seized with uncharacteristic boldness and wanted to go to the country. But alas! The wretched Fixed-term Parliaments Act.
The deed was easily done. The FTPA contained provisions for its five-year term to be overridden by a vote of two-thirds of the House of Commons. The Conservatives rowed in behind the prime minister, ready to fight: the Opposition could hardly be seen to duck an election, especially with a radical new leader, and so a motion was passed (by 522 to 13) to dissolve parliament early.
The same thing (more or less) happened again in 2019. Boris Johnson, freshly installed as prime minister, sought his own mandate. Twice the Opposition blocked an early dissolution until Brexit legislation was passed, but in the end, the FTPA was circumvented entirely by the passage of the Early Parliamentary General Election Act in October 2019, leading to a poll in December, with results which are still fresh in the memory.
The FTPA was a complex and cumbersome piece of legislation designed by one party for immediate parliamentary management and welcomed by another as abstract constitutional propriety. Within nine years it was overridden twice, by various means, demonstrating what a dead letter it was when the chips were down. Let us be generous and say it was worth a try; but let us not have any sorrow when the legislation to repeal it eventually passes. Good-bye to all that.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Federal judge sides with anti-Israel ringleader Mahmoud Khalil, halts Trump administration's deportation bid
A federal judge sided with Mahmoud Khalil, an anti-Israel ringleader detained by the Trump administration, blocking the government from continuing to hold him on "foreign policy" grounds. U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz on Wednesday granted a preliminary injunction preventing the government from detaining or removing Khalil, 30, based on a memorandum issued by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The memo asserted that Khalil's presence "compromises a compelling foreign policy interest." "The government cannot claim an interest in enforcing what appears to be an unconstitutional law," Farbiarz wrote, adding that the threat to free speech raised serious First Amendment concerns. The ruling is a significant legal setback for the administration's efforts to deport Khalil, who has been held at a detention facility in Louisiana following his involvement in anti-Israel demonstrations at Columbia University. Federal Judge Says Attempted Deportation Of Anti-israel Ringleader Mahmoud Khalil May Be Unconstitutional While the ruling grants a preliminary injunction against Khalil's removal, it stops short of ordering his release. Read On The Fox News App The court's decision will remain on hold until Friday morning, giving the government time to appeal. READ THE RULING – APP USERS, Click Here Anti-israel Ringleader Mahmoud Khalil's Free Speech Lawsuit Against Us Government Must Be Heard: Judge Khalil, a green card holder, was arrested after leading student protests on the Ivy League campus. He has argued that his free speech rights were being "eroded" by the Trump administration. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) attorneys have argued that Khalil's free speech claims were a "red herring," saying that the 30-year-old lied on his visa applications. Khalil, they said, willfully failed to disclose his employment with the Syrian office in the British Embassy in Beirut when he applied for permanent U.S. residency. The agency also accused Khalil of failing to disclose his work with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees and membership in Columbia University Apartheid Divest. Rubio has cited a provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 to justify Khalil's removal from the U.S. The provision allows the secretary of state to deport noncitizens if the secretary determines their presence in the U.S. "would have serious adverse foreign policy consequences." Rubio accused Khalil of participating in "antisemitic protests and disruptive activities, which foster a hostile environment for Jewish students in the United States." "Condoning antisemitic conduct and disruptive protests in the United States would severely undermine that significant foreign policy objective," Rubio wrote. Khalil has Algerian citizenship through his mother, but was born in a Palestinian refugee camp in Syria. As of Wednesday evening, no further hearings are scheduled in Khalil's immigration case. "We're just waiting for the judge to issue her ruling," Johnny Sinodis, a partner at Van Der Hout LLP who is representing Mahmoud Khalil in immigration proceedings, said during a press conference following the hearing. Meanwhile, the federal court's preliminary injunction will prevent Khalil's removal until at least article source: Federal judge sides with anti-Israel ringleader Mahmoud Khalil, halts Trump administration's deportation bid


Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
Southern Baptist public policy arm survives challenge to its conservative credentials
DALLAS — Southern Baptist representatives on Wednesday fended off two efforts to move the staunchly conservative body even more sharply to the right, giving a vote of confidence to its public-policy agency and defeating a proposed constitutional ban on churches with women pastors. The votes came just before the adjournment of the two-day annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention, the nation's largest Protestant denomination.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump says US personnel moved as Iran tensions mount
President Donald Trump said US personnel were being moved from the potentially "dangerous" Middle East on Wednesday as nuclear talks with Iran faltered and fears grew of a regional conflict. Trump also reiterated that he would not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon, amid mounting speculation that Israel could strike Tehran's facilities. Iran threatened Wednesday to target US military bases in the region if conflict breaks out. A US official had earlier said that staff levels at the embassy in Iraq were being reduced over security concerns, while there were reports that personnel were also being moved from Kuwait and Bahrain. "Well they are being moved out because it could be a dangerous place," Trump told reporters in Washington when asked about the reports of personnel being moved. "We've given notice to move out and we'll see what happens." Trump then added: "They can't have a nuclear weapon, very simple. We're not going to allow that." Tehran and Washington have held five rounds of talks since April to thrash out a new nuclear deal to replace the 2015 accord that Trump abandoned during his first term in 2018. The two sides were due to meet again in coming days. Trump had until recently expressed optimism about the talks, but said in an interview published Wednesday that he was "less confident" about reaching a nuclear deal. Since returning to office in January, Trump has revived his "maximum pressure" campaign on Tehran, backing nuclear diplomacy but warning of military action if it fails. The US president says he has pressed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to hold off striking Iran's nuclear facilities to give the talks a chance, but has increasingly signaled that he is losing patience. Iran however warned it would respond to any attack. "All its bases are within our reach, we have access to them, and without hesitation we will target all of them in the host countries," Iran's Defence Minister Aziz Nasirzadeh said in response to US threats of military action if the talks fail. - 'Suffer more losses' - "God willing, things won't reach that point, and the talks will succeed," the minister said, adding that the US side "will suffer more losses" if it came to conflict. The United States has multiple bases in the Middle East, with the largest located in Qatar. In January 2020, Iran fired missiles at bases in Iraq housing American troops in retaliation for the US strike that killed top Iranian general Qassem Soleimani days before at the Baghdad airport. Dozens of US soldiers suffered traumatic brain injuries. Amid the escalating tensions, the UK Maritime Trade Operations, run by the British navy, also advised ships to transit the Gulf with caution. Iran and the United States have recently been locked in a diplomatic standoff over Iran's uranium enrichment, with Tehran defending it as a "non-negotiable" right and Washington calling it a "red line." Iran currently enriches uranium to 60 percent, far above the 3.67-percent limit set in the 2015 deal and close though still short of the 90 percent needed for a nuclear warhead. Western countries have long accused Iran of seeking to acquire atomic weapons, while Tehran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. Last week, Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said enrichment is "key" to Iran's nuclear program and that Washington "cannot have a say" on the issue. During an interview with the New York Post's podcast "Pod Force One," which was recorded on Monday, Trump said he was losing hope a deal could be reached. "I don't know. I did think so, and I'm getting more and more -- less confident about it. They seem to be delaying and I think that's a shame. I am less confident now than I would have been a couple of months ago," he said. Iran has said it will present a counter-proposal to the latest draft from Washington, which it had criticised for failing to offer relief from sanctions -- a key demand for Tehran, which has been reeling under their weight for years. burs-dk/jgc