Talk:Lascelles Principles

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

References[edit]

A never-tested part of the constitution? We need a citation or two to prove that some politician sometime has taken some notice of this, otherwise it's difficult to count it as part of the constitution really. --VinceBowdren (talk) 23:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They may have been contemplated in 1974 when the February election produced a hung parliament. I recall the Conservatives contemplated trying to bring down the new Labour government on the Queen's Speech and there were private discussions with the Palace as to whether Labour could successfully request a dissolution despite never having had the confidence of the Commons or whether the Conservatives could try to form a government. The response was that Labour could have a dissolution, but it may have been influenced by the fact that the Conservatives did not resign office for the first four days after the election but instead unsuccessfully tried to form a coalition with the Liberals. One could reasonably argue that first the Conservatives had demonstrated they couldn't govern and then Labour had, so condition 3 could not be satisfied for a refusal.

The problem is that because advice to the Sovereign is confidential it's hard to know when something has been refused. Other than the King-Byng Affair in Canada, the South African example and possibly a few others, most dissolution controversies are about requests granted rather than refused. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Hennessey used to argue back in the Nineties that 1974 was authority for a doctrine that n a hung Parliament each party leader has one "go" to break the deadlock. The incumbent PM can try to negotiate a deal with a minor party - Heath failed in March 1974, as did Brown in 2010, but May succeeded in 2017. The incumbent would not be allowed a fresh election, at least not so soon after the previous one. A new minority government would be allowed a GE, perhaps after a brief interval - like Wilson in autumn 1974.Paulturtle (talk) 21:02, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'[I]f three conditions are met' is ambiguous[edit]

Does it suffice if any one of the three conditions is met? Do all three need to be met? PlacidGoldfish willThisDo (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Back in force 2022[edit]

Although the repeal of the FTPA states that Parliament is once again dissolvable by the Sovereign "on the advice of the Prime Minister", the latter is apparently not a sufficient condition (whether it's a necessary one - if the Monarch could in principle order a GE contrary to the wishes of the PM, as George V was urged to do during the Irish Home Rule Crisis - I couldn't say). It was reported while Boris was being ousted earlier this year that senior civil servants regarded the Lascelles Principles as being very much back in force. Paulturtle (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]