Electoral Studies (1990), 9:3, 226-228

The Public Announcement of General Elections

ROBERT BLACKBURN

King’s College London, University oflondon, Strand, London WC2R 2LZ$, England

The public announcement of a dissolution of Parliament and general election is of special interest in the United Kingdom. This is because the date of an election is uncertain. Unlike many other legislatures around the world, the life of the British Parliament is not of a fured duration. It has a maximum duration of five years’ and a dissolution and general election will be held at some point within that five-year period. Since universal adult suffrage was introduced in 1918, the average length of a Parliament has been three years and seven months, but this says nothing about the expected lifetime of any particular Parliament. This has varied widely in practice from less than one year (1922-23, 1924, 1974) to 1 to 2 years (1950-51, 1964-66) to 2 to 3 years (1929-31) to 3 to 4 years (1919-22,1931-35,1970-74, 1983-87) to 4 to 5 years (1924-29, 1945-50, 1951-55, 1955-59, 1959-64, 1966-70, 1974-79, 1979-83) and during the second world war even beyond five years by prolongation statutes (1935-45). Normally it may be expected that a general election will not be held until four years have passed but today this is to say little more than that a government is unlikely to risk losing the election without any special reason until the necessity to do so is upon the horizon. The legal mechanism by which general elections are called is through the Queen’s Proclamation dissolving Parliament and declaring the meeting of another, which then triggers the statutory timetable for election procedure laid down in the Representation of the

People Act 1983.2 The advance decision on the dates of dissolution and general election however is a political one and the Constitution convention is for the Queen to be advised on all such matters by the Prime Minister.

The present method for the public announcement of general elections is by way of a press notice being issued from IO Downing Street. This happens a few hours after the Prime Minister has visited the Queen to tender his or her advice at Buckingham Palace. The Notice will begin by formally stating that the Prime Minister has today asked Her Majesty the Queen to proclaim a dissolution of Parliament and that Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to signify that she will comply with this request. Then the dates will be laid out in turn for the dissolution of Parliament, the general election, the first day of the new Parliament and the State Opening. This public announcement will take place about a week before the Queen’s Proclamation. Thus at the last election in 1987 the press notice was issued on Monday 1 I May and the dissolution was on Monday 18 May. The Notice is directly distributed by 10 Downing Street officials to the media and the news will be immediately reported by radio, television and the next editions of all newspapers. As a matter of courtesy a personal letter signed by the Prime Minister, sometimes

#26l-j79li9O/O3/0226-Oi~~OJ.C)O @ 1990 Butterworrh 8~ Ctt (Publish~rs~ Ltd

ROBERT BLACKBURN 227

preceded by a telephone call from an official, will be despatched an hour or so in advance to the Speaker and leaders of the other political parties. The letter will have a copy of the Notice attached. It will add that in the interval between then and the dissolution, Parliament will transact essential financial and other outstanding business, and finally state that the public announcement will take place before a specified time that day and that the letter is for their personal information and its contents are confidential until the announcement is made.

There has been some disquiet about this method. The main criticism has been that Members of Parliament should be informed in the Chamber first, before the news is given to the media. Indeed the modern practice is for no announcement to be made in the Commons at all and for the government to assume Members have heard from the press. Thus in 1987 on the day of the public announcement, at 3.30p.m., a little over an hour after the press notice had been issued, the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr John BilTen) said he would like to make a brief business statement that ‘in the light of the announcement earlier today by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, the business for the remainder of the week will be rearranged’.3 Not su~risin~y few Members had in fact heard the news and had to go away to hear the details from journalists at the House or other Members who knew. No protest was made about this in 1987, although Sir Kenneth Lewis stood up to say he had not heard the announcement. In similar circumstances before the previous election in 1983, Mr William Hamilton protested in the strongest terms:*

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thought I heard the Leader of the House refer to an announcement by the Prime Minister.. . This is a gross discourtesy. Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that i first knew of the announcement from a member of the Press Gallery? That was the first indication that I had. What has happened is a gross discourtesy.

Previously in 1979, several Members criticized the method of public announcement5 Mr Adley suggested that the Leader of the House (Mr Michael Foot) should feel ashamed of himself. Mr St. John-Stevas teased Mr Foot for employing a conservative argument in his defence that he was merely following precedent. This was all Mr Foot could say in justification to the following suggestion from Mr Grimond:

Whatever the precedents may be, does the Leader of the House not feel that it would be more courteous to the House of Commons, if it is sitting when a dissolution and general election are announced, if the announcement of the general election were made to the House and not to the press?

Announcement in the House of Commons was the customary method earlier this century. The present method of an announcement to the press may appear to date from 1945 since it has been followed upon every occasion since then, although there was an earlier instance also in 1922.6 However, the true break with constitutional practice should more properly be regarded as 1966. For before every general election from 1945 to 1964 (and also in 1922 and later in September 1974) the announcement could not be made to the Commons as it stood in recess. In 1966 then in 1970, February 1974, 1979, 1983 and 1987 parliamentary business was in session but the government chose to prefer a public announcement to the press instead of the Commons. The new method stands in great contrast to the historic occasions down to 1935 when Members assembled in anticipation and excitement

228 The Public Announcement of General Elections

to hear what was to be the content of a special statement to be made by the Prime Minister. Premiers including Herbert Asquith, Ramsay Macdonald and Stanley Baldwin all did this and set out in speeches their reasons for the election. Sometimes their speeches would be in the form of introducing a motion to give precedence to government business for the remainder of the session, and this would then be debated and voted on, giving Members not only the news first but the opportunity to comment.

One may only surmise at the reasons for the change in procedure. No reasons were given by the government at the time in 1966 and no offtcials or politicians from that period are able to say with certainty why the decision to break with pre-1945 tradition was taken. It is probable that the change was caused by administrative confusion by offtcials in 1966 as to what was the precise custom -they advised and followed the pattern in the immediately prior elections forgetting that those had been times of parliamentary recess. The Prime Minister and other government politicians may not be sorry at the passing of public announcement in the Chamber. The usual reason for electoral timing, namely when it is considered that the governing party has the greatest chance of winning, needs necessarily to be clothed in more respectable terms such as being in the national interest to end uncertainty and speculation, and Opposition politicians may give them a rough ride accusing them of a discreditable, cut-and-run decision. Another factor may be that procedurally today there is no longer the need for the government to put a motion before the House that its own business take precedence for the remainder of the Parliament, since modern Standing Orders now provide a general rule for precedence of government business and the Leader of the House may make a simple announcement to effect a change of business.

The question ofwhich method is constitutionally preferable is a matter of opinion. It is submitted that whilst we retain our system of electoral timing (in contrast to a fared term arrangement where the future date of the election would already be known) the former practice of a public announcement in the Commons Chamber is more in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution. Parliament being sovereign should be seen to be in agreement with any decision to terminate its existence, and its Members who are most directly concerned should be the first to know of such a decision. Actual approval by the Commons in this respect is less in issue, since the government can rely upon the usual majority it possesses to support the Prime Minister’s choice of date. Even in terms of twentieth century precedents it would seem correct that at the very least the Commons should be consulted or notified in the Chamber in advance of a press notice.

Notes and References

1. Parliament Act 1911, s.7. 2. s.23 and Schedule 1, Part 1.

3. HC Deb., Vol. 116, Col. 21.

4. HC Deb., Vol. 42, Col. 631.

5. HC Deb., Vol. 965, Cols. 631-639.

6. In 1951 and 1955 a radio broadcast by the Prime Minister was used instead of a press

notice.