Constitutional Law Flashcards
An Act of Parliament has given the Secretary of State the power to amend other Acts of Parliament by passing secondary legislation.
As a Henry VIII power.
This power is best described as a Henry VIII power. If an Act of Parliament grants to the government the power to amend Acts of Parliament by passing secondary legislation, that power is known as a Henry VIII power.
What can the House of Commons do if the House of Lords rejects the Schools Inspectorate Bill?
The House of Commons can pass the Bill for a second time in the next session of Parliament.
An MP has suggested that the Privy Council should be abolished on the grounds that the Privy Council plays a minimal role in government. In support of this proposal, the MP cited the Privy Council’s functions.
What is the best explaination of the functions of the Privy Council?
The Privy Council approves some decisions made by the government, either under the royal prerogative or under powers granted to it by statute.
What happens if the House of Lords rejects the Bill again after the House of Commons passes it a second time?
The Bill can still be sent for Royal Assent.
What is Royal Assent?
It is the formal approval by the monarch that allows a bill to become law.
What types of decisions does the Privy Council approve?
Decisions made under the royal prerogative or under powers granted by statute.
What must happen before the government can ratify the treaty under the royal prerogative?
The treaty must first be laid before the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
The government has agreed a new international treaty with Australia.
Explain the constitutional position regarding how the treaty can be ratified?
The government can ratify the treaty under the royal prerogative, but only after laying the treaty before the House of Commons and House of Lords.
A constitutional convention is considering the ‘uncodified’ constitution of the UK. The attendees of the convention begin the convention by setting out the meaning of ‘uncodified’ in this context.
What does it mean for the UK constitution to be ‘uncodified’?
That the UK lacks a single document called the constitution.
The Prime Minister and the Cabinet have decided to commence military action in another sovereign state involving the deployment of 5,000 troops.
Explain the constitutional position?
The decision to deploy is a royal prerogative power, but the consent of the House of Commons is usually sought in accordance with constitutional convention.
The government introduces the Homebuilding Bill into the House of Commons. The provisions of the Bill apply only to England.
Describe the procedure that will apply to the Bill?
The Bill may be voted on by MPs representing any of the UK constituencies.
A government minister is concerned about the proposed policy of the Prime Minister to increase health spending. The Minister fears that the policy is likely to require tax rises, which are going to be unpopular.
Whats the Minister most constitutionally appropriate option?
The Minister can discuss the matter with other ministers and explain why she disagrees, and if she disagrees with the final decision, she must defend it in public and before Parliament.
The government has decided to adopt a policy of building thousands of homes in the countryside. The Monarch is extremely concerned about the damage to the environment that this policy may cause, but the Prime Minister advises the Monarch that the Policy is a needed measure.
Explain what actions the Monarch can take?
The Monarch must accept the advice of the Prime Minister regarding the policy.
Parliament has enacted the Car Emissions Act 2021, which bans all cars powered by diesel. However, Parliament had previously enacted the Diesel Cars Act 1989, which allows diesel-powered cars onto the roads. The 2021 Act does not state that it repeals the 1989 Act.
Describes the legal position?
The 1989 Act has been impliedly repealed by the 2021 Act.
A war has recently broken out between two Middle Eastern countries. The war has the potential to impact interests and businesses of the United Kingdom. To protect UK interests, the Cabinet discussed potential military action in aid of one of the warring countries.
The Lord Chancellor contacted a newspaper and disclosed detail of the potential military action and his objections to it. The newspaper published the story on its website and in its printed editions the next day.
Has a constitutional violation been committed?
Yes, because discussions within Cabinet should be kept confidential between ministers.
Parliament has passed the Bird Preservation Act 2019, which bans all forms of hunting and shooting sports. The 2019 Act then received the Royal Assent. The Campaign for Rural Pursuits wishes to challenge this legislation on the basis that an insufficient amount of time was allowed for MPs to debate the bill in the House of Commons.
Explains how the courts are likely to respond to the challenge to the validity of the 2019 Act?
The courts must give effect to the 2019 Act due to the Enrolled Bill Rule.
Four months ago, a council refused a woman’s application for a licence to drive a taxi. The council has not given any reasons for rejecting the woman’s application.
Explains why the woman cannot bring judicial review proceedings?
Because she has not complied with the time limit for bringing judicial review proceedings
The woman cannot bring judicial review proceedings because she has not complied with the time limit. Usually, an application for judicial review needs to be brought promptly, but no later than three months after the action being reviewed occurred.
The owner of a restaurant wishes to seek a judicial review of the local council’s decision to revoke her restaurant operating licence. The local council claimed that the owner was permitting more people in the restaurant than allowed by local law. In her judicial review application, the owner argued that she never allowed the guests in her restaurant to exceed the allowable capacity.
Explains why the owner’s judicial review action is likely to be unsuccessful?
Because the owner’s action raises a question of fact.
The best answer is that the owner’s action raises a question of fact. The judicial review procedure cannot be used to resolve questions of fact. Such disputes need to be resolved by the trial courts. Here, the owner’s dispute arises from a question of fact (that is, whether or not she allowed the guests in her restaurant to exceed the allowable capacity). Therefore, her judicial review action is not likely to succeed.
In 2021, a case requires the Court of Appeal to interpret a provision of retained EU law. The appellant argues that it should apply a decision of the Supreme Court from 2014. The respondent disagrees, arguing that the court is free to adopt its own interpretation.
What most accurately describes the legal position?
The Supreme Court decision forms part of retained domestic case law and is binding on the Court of Appeal.
The Supreme Court decision is part of retained domestic case law and, thus, binds the Court of Appeal. Because the Supreme Court decision pre-dates the end of the transition period (December 2020) and involves the interpretation of retained EU law by a domestic court, it forms part of retained domestic case law. For retained domestic case law, the ordinary rules of precedent apply-courts are bound by decisions from courts that are higher or equivalent to them. Thus, the Supreme Court decision is binding on the Court of Appeal.
A childcare facility decides to hold a family picnic in a local public park. Twenty people, including parents, staff, and children attend the picnic.
Which best describes what has taken place?
A public assembly.
A public assembly has taken place. A public assembly is defined as an assembly of two or more persons held in a public place which is wholly or partially in the open air. The assembly here involves more than two people, and the park is a public place open to the air.
During a seminar, the concept of limited rights as a category of rights under the European Convention of Human Rights (‘ECHR’) was being discussed.
Which best describes the concept of limited rights?
A right that can be limited only in the circumstances outlined in the ECHR article itself.
Limited rights under the ECHR are rights that can be restricted only under the circumstances described in the ECHR article itself.
During a case, the Court of Appeal is required to interpret an Act of Parliament to determine whether it complies with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’) and the right to a fair trial. The appellant wishes the court to simply make a declaration of incompatibility. The respondent argues that the court should first try to interpret the legislation in a manner that complies with the ECHR.
Which best explains how the court should proceed?
The court should consider whether it could interpret the Act in a manner that complies with the ECHR before going on to make a declaration of incompatibility.
The court should first consider whether it can interpret the Act in a manner that complies with the ECHR before going on to make a declaration of incompatibility. Under the Human Rights Act 1998 (which incorporates most of the ECHR), the UK courts must attempt to interpret legislation so that it complies with the Convention rights. If the court is unable to do so, it can make a declaration of incompatibility.
Under the Airports (Locations) Act 2021, the Secretary of State for Transport has the power to decide where a new airport can be built. However, the Act requires that the Secretary of State “must” consult with airlines, existing airports, local authorities, and other groups before making a decision. Without consulting anyone, the Secretary of State has just announced that a new airport will be located in South East England. Several local authorities in the North of England who believe that their areas are poorly served by existing airports wish to challenge the decision of the Secretary of State.
What is the local authorities’ best ground for seeking judicial review?
The Secretary of State has breached a mandatory procedural requirement.
The best ground for seeking judicial review is that the Secretary of State has breached a mandatory procedural requirement. A mandatory procedural requirement is one that must be followed, and a public authority’s failure to do so will invalidate the decision. The Act’s use of the word “must” indicates that the Secretary of State’s obligation to consult is a mandatory procedural requirement.
A man has applied to the local authority for a licence to operate a grocery shop in the centre of a large city. The local authority has granted his licence on the condition that the man can operate the shop only between the hours of 7am and 8am. The man wishes to challenge this condition via judicial review.
What will be the man’s best ground for judicial review?
Irrationality.
The man’s best ground for judicial review is irrationality. The test for irrationality is whether the decision is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who applied their mind to the question could have arrived at it. The condition allowing the store to be open only one hour per day would likely meet this test, as people shop for groceries throughout the day and the condition would make it near impossible for the man to run a successful business.
An individual believes that they were harshly treated by the police at a protest and prevented from lawfully exercising their rights to freedom of association and freedom of assembly under Article 11 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (‘HRA’). A campaign group wants to take up the individual’s case.
Does the campaign group have standing?
No, because the campaign group is not the victim of the police conduct.
The campaign group does not have standing because the group is not the victim of the police’s conduct. As indicated, the claim that the campaign group wishes to bring involves a breach of human rights as protected by the HRA. The test for standing for human rights matters is the ‘victim’ test. Because a ‘victim’ is defined as one who is directly affected by the conduct at issue, representative standing (that is, where a group brings a claim on behalf of others) is not allowed under the HRA.
Following the UK’s exit from the EU, it emerges that an Act of Parliament enacted in 1997 does not comply with an EU regulation. The regulation came into force in 2014 while the UK was a member state of the EU.
Which best explains the status of the Act?
The regulation is part of retained EU law, and the Act should be disapplied in favour of the regulation.
Prior to Brexit, Members of the Scottish Parliament expressed dissatisfaction with EU law governing agriculture. Thus, in 2021, the Scottish Parliament decides to repeal all retained EU law that relates to agriculture. Agriculture is within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, and the UK government has not passed any regulations barring the Scottish Parliament from amending or repealing retained EU law on this subject.
Which best explains the legality of the Scottish Parliament’s action?
The action is valid, because the retained EU law at issue is within the Scottish Parliament’s legislative competence and it is not subject to any regulations prohibiting its amendment or repeal.
The devolved legislatures can amend or repeal retained EU law that falls within their legislative competence, unless this has been explicitly prohibited by the UK government. Here, the Scottish Parliament has repealed retained EU law concerning a subject within its legislative competence, agriculture, and it has not been prohibited from doing so by government regulations. Thus, the repeal is valid.
The UK Parliament wishes to legislate to change the structure of local government across the UK, including Scotland. However, in Scotland, local government is a devolved matter, to be decided by the Scottish Parliament. The UK government has sought the consent of the Scottish Parliament for the legislation, but the Scottish Parliament has refused to give its consent.
Legally, can the UK Parliament proceed with the legislation?
Yes, because the UK Parliament retains the power to legislate for Scotland.
The UK can proceed with legislation because the UK Parliament retains the power to legislate for Scotland. Ultimately, parliamentary sovereignty means that the UK Parliament can make or unmake any law. This means that the power to legislate for Scotland remains unchanged by devolution, even if the Scottish Parliament refuses permission for the UK Parliament to legislate on a matter devolved to the Scottish Parliament.
The UK government has become concerned about how the Welsh government and Welsh Parliament have been operating. Because of this concern, the UK government have decided that they wish to abolish those institutions and return to the UK Parliament the power to legislate for Wales.
Who would be required to consent to the abolition of the Welsh government and the Welsh Parliament?
The UK Parliament and the Welsh people at a referendum.
During a debate in the House of Commons on crime, an MP referred to a high-profile murder case currently before the criminal courts and said that the case against the defendant is overwhelming.
Has the MP done anything wrong?
Yes, because the MP has breached the sub judicie rule.
The MP has breached the sub judicie rule. Generally, MPs (and members of the House of Lords) have freedom of speech within Parliament under parliamentary privilege. However, out of respect to the separation of powers, the freedom of speech is limited by the sub judicie rule, which provides that, during debates, MPs (and members of the House of Lords) should not refer to cases currently ongoing before the courts. Here, the MP breached the sub judicie rule by referring to an ongoing case during the debate.
The House of Commons is about to debate a bill that would abolish the monarchy.
In which type of committee will the committee stage of the bill’s passage take place?
A Committee of the Whole House.
At the committee stage, the bill will be considered in a Committee of the Whole House. The committee stage for the passage of bills in the House of Commons can take place in one of two committees: a Public Bill Committee or a Committee of the Whole House. Bills of ‘first-class constitutional importance’, a category to which a bill to abolish the monarchy would qualify, are debated in a Committee of the Whole House.
The Prime Minister has decided to hold a referendum on whether the North of England should get its own Parliament, similar to the Scottish Parliament. Some ministers are in favour, whilst others, including the Chancellor and the Home Secretary, oppose the idea.
Which is the best option available for the Prime Minister to address the disagreement among the ministers?
Suspend collective responsibility and allow ministers to campaign on either side of the referendum.
The Prime Minister’s best option is to suspend collective responsibility and allow ministers to campaign on either side of the referendum. Collective responsibility requires government ministers to support government polices in public and before Parliament. However, the Prime Minister is able to ‘set aside’ or suspend collective responsibility, and this has happened at previous referendums. When this is done, ministers are able to campaign on different sides, meaning that they are allowed, unusually, to disagree with each other in public.
The government has agreed a new international treaty with Singapore. The government has laid the treaty before both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. After 14 days, the House of Commons voted against ratifying the treaty.
Which best explains the options available to the government?
The government can explain to Parliament why they still wish to ratify the treaty, and the House of Commons can hold a second vote.
The government can explain to Parliament why they still wish to ratify the treaty, and the House of Commons can hold a second vote. The power to ratify treaties is a royal prerogative power, but is regulated by a procedure laid down in statute. Ordinarily, the treaty is laid, with either House of Parliament having 21 days to vote against the treaty. If a House votes against ratifying and the government still wants the treaty ratified, it can explain to Parliament why, and then the House of Commons has a further 21 days to vote against ratifying the treaty.
A Conservative government was elected at the last election. In their manifesto, the Conservatives promised that they would pass legislation to allow autonomous cars to be on the roads. Pursuant to that commitment, the House of Commons passed the Autonomous Cars Bill. Many members of the House of Lords are concerned about the safety of autonomous cars and are inclined to vote against the Bill.
Which best explains the constitutional considerations that regulate how the House of Lords can respond to the Bill?
By constitutional convention, the House of Lords is required to grant a Second Reading to a bill which implements a manifesto commitment of the government.
Because the Bill is implementing a manifesto commitment of the government, the House of Lords is required by constitutional convention to grant a Second Reading to the Bill. Under the Salisbury Convention, the House of Lords will grant a Second Reading to a bill as a matter of course if the bill is implementing a commitment made by the party elected into government (here, the Conservative Party) in their manifesto.
After a major political scandal involving the leadership of the party who were in government, a general election was held. The party who were in opposition won 450 seats in the House of Commons, and the party who were in government won 200 seats.
Which of the following best explains who will become Prime Minister?
The Monarch will appoint the person who can command the confidence of the House of Commons to the office.
The Monarch will appoint the person who can command the confidence of the House of Commons as the next Prime Minister. By constitutional convention, the Prime Minister must be an MP who is able to command the confidence of the House of Commons. This is usually the leader of the political party with a majority of the seats in the House of Commons. As there are 650 seats in the House of Commons, a political party needs 326 seats to have a majority. Here, the party that were in opposition has won 450 seats and are now in the majority. The previous Prime Minister would therefore resign, and the Monarch would appoint the person who can command the confidence of the House of Commons (likely the Leader of the party that are now in the majority) as the next Prime Minister.
A woman is explaining to a man the concept of constitutional conventions.
Which best describes constitutional conventions?
A constitutional convention is a non-legal rule which usually applies to the Monarch, government ministers, or MPs.
Constitutional conventions are rules which are not matters of law, but rather are derived from practice and can apply to the Monarch, government ministers, or MPs (among others)
A constitutional convention is considering the powers of government ministers, and, in particular, the relationship between ministers and the royal prerogative. The participants of the convention seek to define how government ministers exercise the royal prerogative powers.
Which best describes how government ministers exercise the royal prerogative powers?
Ministers make decisions which may need to be formally approved by the Monarch before taking legal effect.
Under the royal prerogative, ministers may make decisions which may need to be formally approved by the Monarch. These powers are known as the ministerial prerogatives and are described as such because they are in substance exercised by ministers on behalf of the Crown. For some ministerial prerogative powers, the final approval of the decision still rests with the Monarch, but this is a formality.
In the previous session of Parliament, the House of Commons passed the Trade Union Restriction Bill. However, the House of Lords voted against the Bill. One year later, in the current session of Parliament, the House of Commons approved the Bill, but the House of Lords rejected it again.
Which best explains the constitutional position?
The House of Commons can immediately send the Bill for the Royal Assent.
The House of Commons may immediately send the Bill for the Royal Assent. Generally, when it comes to legislation, the House of Lords has the same powers as the House of Commons. However, under the Parliament Acts 1911-1949, if the House of Lords rejects a bill that has been approved by the House of Commons and the House of Commons passes the bill in the following session, only for it to be rejected again by the House of Lords, the Bill can nevertheless be sent for the Royal Assent. A year needs to have elapsed between the Bill being granted a Second Reading in the first session and being granted a Third Reading in the second session. Here, this condition has been met; at least a year passed between the Bill being passed in successive sessions of Parliament. Therefore, the Bill can be sent for Royal Assent.
In a debate in the House of Commons on the number of social security claimants, the Secretary of State claimed that the number of claimants has been reduced under the government. The Secretary of State relied on statistics that had been prepared by her civil servants. Later, the Secretary of State learned that the statistics were incorrect and that the number of claimants had not been reduced, but at the time of the debate, she was not aware of the error.
Which best explains what the Secretary of State would be expected to do?
She would be expected to correct the error as soon as possible.
The Secretary of State would be expected to correct the error as soon as possible. All government ministers owe a fundamental duty not to mislead Parliament. Should they do so inadvertently, they are expected to correct the error with Parliament as soon as possible. If a minister knowingly misleads Parliament, they would be expected to resign. Here, the Secretary of State inadvertently misled Parliament, since at the time of the debate, she did not know that the statistics were incorrect. Therefore, she would need to correct the error as soon as possible.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has come under scrutiny because his department is taking too long to decide applications for welfare payments, which was deemed to be an operational failure. Some MPs have said that the Secretary of State should resign.
Which best explains how the Secretary of State should respond to the calls for his resignation?
The Secretary of State should explain to Parliament what is happening within his department.
The Secretary of State should explain to Parliament what is happening within his department. Ministers are accountable and responsible for the actions of their department. This means that ministers have a duty to give an account to Parliament for operational failures, and to take responsibility for policy failures. ‘Giving an account’ means responding to criticisms and concerns raised by Parliament in a way which ensures that Parliament will continue to have confidence in the minister and the government. ‘Taking responsibility’ means that the minister must personally take the blame for the failure, which can ultimately include resignation. Because, here, the Secretary of State’s department committed an operational failure, the Secretary of State would be expected to give an account; that is, explain to Parliament what is happening in his department.
An environmental charity has secured a court order requiring the Secretary of State for Transport to stop all preparations for the construction of a new railway line until an environmental assessment has been completed. Despite this, the Secretary of State has ordered his officials to continue to make preparations for the new railway line.
Which best explains the legal situation?
The Secretary of State could be found in contempt of court.
The Secretary of State could be found in contempt of court. This is an example of one of the elements of the rule of law, in that, generally, no person is above the law. Here, the Secretary of State is bound by the law just like any other person. This means that he must comply with the terms of the court order against him, not continue with the preparations for the new railway line. As the Secretary of State has not complied with the order, he could be found in contempt of court.
During a debate in the House of Commons, an MP argues for a set of constitutional changes so that the UK constitution “better reflects the separation of powers”. As part of the discussion, the MP summarises how the UK constitution currently reflects the separation of powers.
What would best describe the MP’s summary?
There is a partial separation of powers, in that there is some overlap in the functions and personnel of the branches of government.
The UK has a partial separation of powers in light of the overlap between the functioning and personnel of the three branches. The principle of the separation of powers provides that the executive, legislature, and judiciary are separate in terms of their function and their personnel and that, to some extent, the different branches serve as a check and a balance against each other. However, there is a substantial overlap between the executive and legislature. In terms of personnel, all government ministers must be members of the legislature and in function, the executive branch may pass secondary legislation under powers granted to it by the legislature.
During a debate in the House of Commons on crime, an MP referred to a high-profile murder case currently before the criminal courts and said that the case against the defendant is overwhelming.
Has the MP done anything wrong?
Yes, because the MP has breached the sub judicie rule.
The MP has breached the sub judicie rule. Generally, MPs (and members of the House of Lords) have freedom of speech within Parliament under parliamentary privilege. However, out of respect to the separation of powers, the freedom of speech is limited by the sub judicie rule, which provides that, during debates, MPs (and members of the House of Lords) should not refer to cases currently ongoing before the courts. Here, the MP breached the sub judicie rule by referring to an ongoing case during the debate.
What is the sub judice rule?
The sub judice rule restricts Members of Parliament (MPs) and members of the House of Lords from referring to ongoing court cases during debates, out of respect for the separation of powers between Parliament and the judiciary.
Why is the sub judice rule important?
It ensures that parliamentary discussions do not influence or appear to interfere with judicial proceedings, preserving the independence of the judiciary and the fairness of trials.
What parliamentary privilege allows MPs to speak freely in Parliament?
MPs and Lords have freedom of speech in Parliament under parliamentary privilege, which protects them from legal action for things said during debates.
How does the sub judice rule limit parliamentary privilege?
While MPs have freedom of speech in Parliament, the sub judice rule limits this by prohibiting references to ongoing legal cases during debates.
What happens when an MP breaches the sub judice rule?
Breaching the rule, such as by referencing an ongoing case during a debate, undermines respect for the separation of powers and could potentially prejudice the judicial process.
The House of Commons is about to debate a bill that would abolish the monarchy.
what type of committee will the committee stage of the bill’s passage take place?
A Committee of the Whole House.
At the committee stage, the bill will be considered in a Committee of the Whole House. The committee stage for the passage of bills in the House of Commons can take place in one of two committees: a Public Bill Committee or a Committee of the Whole House. Bills of ‘first-class constitutional importance’, a category to which a bill to abolish the monarchy would qualify, are debated in a Committee of the Whole House.
The Prime Minister has decided to hold a referendum on whether the North of England should get its own Parliament, similar to the Scottish Parliament. Some ministers are in favour, whilst others, including the Chancellor and the Home Secretary, oppose the idea.
what is the best option available for the Prime Minister to address the disagreement among the ministers?
Suspend collective responsibility and allow ministers to campaign on either side of the referendum.
The Prime Minister’s best option is to suspend collective responsibility and allow ministers to campaign on either side of the referendum. Collective responsibility requires government ministers to support government polices in public and before Parliament. However, the Prime Minister is able to ‘set aside’ or suspend collective responsibility, and this has happened at previous referendums. When this is done, ministers are able to campaign on different sides, meaning that they are allowed, unusually, to disagree with each other in public.
The government has agreed a new international treaty with Singapore. The government has laid the treaty before both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. After 14 days, the House of Commons voted against ratifying the treaty.
What is the best way to explain the options available to the government?
The government can explain to Parliament why they still wish to ratify the treaty, and the House of Commons can hold a second vote.
The government can explain to Parliament why they still wish to ratify the treaty, and the House of Commons can hold a second vote. The power to ratify treaties is a royal prerogative power, but is regulated by a procedure laid down in statute. Ordinarily, the treaty is laid, with either House of Parliament having 21 days to vote against the treaty. If a House votes against ratifying and the government still wants the treaty ratified, it can explain to Parliament why, and then the House of Commons has a further 21 days to vote against ratifying the treaty.
A Conservative government was elected at the last election. In their manifesto, the Conservatives promised that they would pass legislation to allow autonomous cars to be on the roads. Pursuant to that commitment, the House of Commons passed the Autonomous Cars Bill. Many members of the House of Lords are concerned about the safety of autonomous cars and are inclined to vote against the Bill.
What is the constitutional considerations that regulate how the House of Lords can respond to the Bill?
By constitutional convention, the House of Lords is required to grant a Second Reading to a bill which implements a manifesto commitment of the government.
Because the Bill is implementing a manifesto commitment of the government, the House of Lords is required by constitutional convention to grant a Second Reading to the Bill. Under the Salisbury Convention, the House of Lords will grant a Second Reading to a bill as a matter of course if the bill is implementing a commitment made by the party elected into government (here, the Conservative Party) in their manifesto.
After a major political scandal involving the leadership of the party who were in government, a general election was held. The party who were in opposition won 450 seats in the House of Commons, and the party who were in government won 200 seats.
Explain who will become Prime Minister?
The Monarch will appoint the person who can command the confidence of the House of Commons to the office.
The Monarch will appoint the person who can command the confidence of the House of Commons as the next Prime Minister. By constitutional convention, the Prime Minister must be an MP who is able to command the confidence of the House of Commons. This is usually the leader of the political party with a majority of the seats in the House of Commons. As there are 650 seats in the House of Commons, a political party needs 326 seats to have a majority. Here, the party that were in opposition has won 450 seats and are now in the majority. The previous Prime Minister would therefore resign, and the Monarch would appoint the person who can command the confidence of the House of Commons (likely the Leader of the party that are now in the majority) as the next Prime Minister.
A woman is explaining to a man the concept of constitutional conventions.
Describes constitutional conventions?
A constitutional convention is a non-legal rule which usually applies to the Monarch, government ministers, or MPs.
