Believe me, I know the British constitution very well - often find myself explaining it here.
Until recently, there would have been no question that May’s decision to ask for a General election would have been completely right and proper, but the passage of the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act in 2011 does change things somewhat. The entire purpose of that Act was to remove the Prime Minister’s power to easily call an early election except in extraordinary circumstances - and explicitly even such things as a failure to pass a budget would no longer be considered sufficient cause. Last year the Cameron government even expressly stated a position that a Prime Minister could no longer call an early election.
I don’t like the idea of fixed terms in a Westminster system, so I am not unhappy at what May is doing, but it is hard to argue for the same legitimacy in the decision as has always applied in the past on the same terms. It is clearly and undoubtedly constitutional however and I am very glad to see it because she herself is creating the precedent that future Prime Ministers will use to call early elections despite that Act. I did not think she would have the guts to do it. It’s quite a big call.
Thanks. I only meant “legit” from the standpoint of tradition and practice. As to the fixed terms act, I don’t think there will be much of a problem with this snap election because of its legitimacy (in the sense I describe). The snap election isn’t merely to call an election at a time convenient to the current government.
BTW Other parliamentary governments have fixed terms and occasional snap elections. For example, Sweden has had fixed terms since the 1990s, but was going to have a snap election in 2015 because of a budget crisis (which snap election was canceled when the major parties there came to some kind of agreement).