Tag: 2017

Strong and Stable? The British Constitution and the 2017 General Election

In this article, first published in Counsel magazine, I consider how constitutional matters influenced the 2017 general election — and what the future constitutional implications of the election generally, and of a hung Parliament in particular, might be.

Does the Salisbury convention apply during a hung Parliament?

The Salisbury convention usually limits the House of Lords’ capacity to obstruct legislation implementing Government manifesto commitments. But does it apply if there is a minority or coalition government during a hung Parliament?

Elliott & Thomas: Public Law

Written by Mark Elliott and Robert Thomas, Public Law is the UK’s best-selling textbook in the field. The following post is based on the preface to the third edition, which was published by Oxford University Press in 2017.

Cambridge Centre for Public Law Seminar / The Miller Judgment: An Evaluation

  Earlier this week, I gave a Cambridge Centre for Public Law Seminar on the subject of the UK Supreme Court’s judgment in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5, in […]

The Conservative Party Manifesto and the Constitution

The Conservative Party — which, barring an electoral surprise that would make the election of Donald Trump look pedestrian, will form the next UK administration — has published its manifesto. What does it reveal about the constitutional aspects of the party’s programme for government?

Does the law require a second referendum before Brexit takes effect?

The Prime Minister has been warned of possible legal action on the issue of whether the UK can leave the EU without a second referendum. But does the European Union Act 2011 really require a further plebiscite?

The “bedroom tax”, Convention rights and secondary legislation

In Secretary of State for Work & Pensions v Carmichael, the Government argued that the First-tier Tribunal could not intervene when housing benefit was reduced under ECHR-incompatible regulations. The Upper Tribunal disagreed. In doing so, it was on strong constitutional ground.