Why is Twitter full of speculation about Carrie and Boris Johnson divorcing? Have I missed something? After a quick search I cannot see anything in the establishment media.
Supposedly she has dumped him and shacked up with x, with yet another Johnson superinjunction to shut everyone up. Like the last one of those, the press can't talk about what's disappeared into the black hole, but can talk about the ooh what a massive black hole / I wonder where Carrie is juxtaposition.
No idea whether its true or not. I think the last time she was exhibited in public was the PM physically dragging her down the street to vote last month.
That had ‘Marriage Made in Hell’ right from the second Westminster Cathedral imprudently opened their door to the twice-divorced Oaf and his latest mug. The whole thing was just tacky beyond belief. If there is a Good Boris in there, deep inside the repulsive, corpulent Bad Boris, it must be suffering an agonising, tortuous demise. I hope he finds redemption once he’s out of the public eye. There is hope for every soul… if they truly repent.
- “… physically dragging her down the street to vote last month.”
Presumably she voted Lib Dem.
I want Boris gone as much as anyone, but there is something distasteful about commenting on a relationship that is simply based on a twitter rumour which by the way has no evidence to support the smears and is just done through pure hatred
I understand Boris and Carrie held the christening of their youngster last week and I for one do not wish their relationship to be affected by false and malicious gossip
Concentrate on Boris and ensuring the end to his premiership
What is the basis for you being so certain that the story is false?
It is not backed up by evidence nor in the mainstream media and frankly it is malicious gossip which some like yourself seem to get a kick out of commenting on
Boris's resignation is a far more important issue
Whilst that is true, the point is that the gossip is neither backed nor disproved by evidence in the mainstream media. There is a very clear black hole in reporting which appeared not long ago.
So the comedy scenario is thus: 1. Graham Brady books a big room in parliament early next week and announces a contest 2. Consternation and uproar from the Tories. The loon wing angrily attack their traitor colleagues, the moral / nervous ones attack back 3. Johnson scrapes over the line. Badly damaged, with ongoing attacks by the moral vs the vacuous. 4. We really now must move on says team clown 5. "Oh hell no" says the public, with a fresh poll plunge for the Tories 6. Tories get smashed in both Wakefield and Devon. 7. Despite the "he's safe for 12 months" rule the slide into the mire only accelerates. 8. He resigns, but instead of a swift contest and a sane leader paraded at conference we have a fractious battle with the remaining loons desperate to hold onto control of the party. 9. Instead Conference is a contest where the membership listen to "vote for me" speeches from favoured candidates. A choice of Patel or Baker becomes their option...
Rees-Mogg invented his own constitutional convention that a leader who survives a VONC, but not by enough, should resign anyway, when he was whinging about May winning hers.
I would love to see how he reverses position if Boris wins such a vote.
7. Is definitely possible. The rule is meant to prevent challenges but doesnt mean people magically become happy.
Didn't bother Labour when in 2010 they said a PM was a PM was a PM until he resigned, and then in 2015 briefed a PM who didn't win outright should resign at once.
Interestingly on both occasions they were completely wrong, and both times it militated against their own best interests.
They were right in 2010 and wrong in 2015. Regardless of elections we always have ministers including the PM. The Queen asks someone to form a government who then needs to be supported by the Commons.
So in 2010 it was unclear after the election whether any leader could command confidence in the Commons. So for 5 days we waited for negotiations. During that time all ministers remain in place until the government resigns.
The situation in 2015 was very different. It seemed likely that Cameron would be able to have the confidence of the house if the Tories were at least the largest party. And if Labour were the largest party but again no majority it would be incumbent on the government to stay in office until a viable replacement could be appointed.
No, the precedent from 1929 is that when the governing party is clearly unable to carry on the largest party be invited to form a government. Which did eventually happen, but took far too long.
O'Donnell didn't have a clue what he was doing, in this as in many other matters.
But - unfortunately for Labour - their mistake in listening to his stupid advice was enormously damaging. First, because it made them look like sore losers. They got the lowest share of the vote ever by a governing party, lost a hundred seats, and were clearly trying to cling on to power. Not a good look. Second, because it forced Cameron's backbenchers to concede a coalition with the Liberal Democrats rather than trying for a minority government. Which meant no prospect of a quick rematch. Third, because they left before the agreement was signed which undercut their own credibility on point 1 anyway. Fourth, because the five years of coalition allowed a head of steam to build behind UKIP and the SNP with distinctly unfortunate consequences.
If Brown had done the sane thing, accepted the verdict of the voters and resigned at once, things might have been very different. And very much better all around.
Conservative Peer Lord Hayward says he thinks the letters of no confidence submitted to the 1922 Committee will meet the 54 threshold needed to trigger a vote of no confidence in the PM.
He adds "it's difficult to say" whether Boris Johnson will lose it.
Why is Twitter full of speculation about Carrie and Boris Johnson divorcing? Have I missed something? After a quick search I cannot see anything in the establishment media.
Supposedly she has dumped him and shacked up with x, with yet another Johnson superinjunction to shut everyone up. Like the last one of those, the press can't talk about what's disappeared into the black hole, but can talk about the ooh what a massive black hole / I wonder where Carrie is juxtaposition.
No idea whether its true or not. I think the last time she was exhibited in public was the PM physically dragging her down the street to vote last month.
That had ‘Marriage Made in Hell’ right from the second Westminster Cathedral imprudently opened their door to the twice-divorced Oaf and his latest mug. The whole thing was just tacky beyond belief. If there is a Good Boris in there, deep inside the repulsive, corpulent Bad Boris, it must be suffering an agonising, tortuous demise. I hope he finds redemption once he’s out of the public eye. There is hope for every soul… if they truly repent.
- “… physically dragging her down the street to vote last month.”
Presumably she voted Lib Dem.
I want Boris gone as much as anyone, but there is something distasteful about commenting on a relationship that is simply based on a twitter rumour which by the way has no evidence to support the smears and is just done through pure hatred
I understand Boris and Carrie held the christening of their youngster last week and I for one do not wish their relationship to be affected by false and malicious gossip
Concentrate on Boris and ensuring the end to his premiership
What is the basis for you being so certain that the story is false?
It is not backed up by evidence nor in the mainstream media and frankly it is malicious gossip which some like yourself seem to get a kick out of commenting on
Boris's resignation is a far more important issue
Well it won't be backed up by the mainstream media if Johnson has plastered a super injunction over the story.
I would normally opine that politicians' private lives should remain private, unless their behaviour runs contrary to their pronouncements. In Johnson's case he has made his colourful private life integral to the fictional "Boris" character he has constructed, therefore he is fair game.
So the comedy scenario is thus: 1. Graham Brady books a big room in parliament early next week and announces a contest 2. Consternation and uproar from the Tories. The loon wing angrily attack their traitor colleagues, the moral / nervous ones attack back 3. Johnson scrapes over the line. Badly damaged, with ongoing attacks by the moral vs the vacuous. 4. We really now must move on says team clown 5. "Oh hell no" says the public, with a fresh poll plunge for the Tories 6. Tories get smashed in both Wakefield and Devon. 7. Despite the "he's safe for 12 months" rule the slide into the mire only accelerates. 8. He resigns, but instead of a swift contest and a sane leader paraded at conference we have a fractious battle with the remaining loons desperate to hold onto control of the party. 9. Instead Conference is a contest where the membership listen to "vote for me" speeches from favoured candidates. A choice of Patel or Baker becomes their option...
Rees-Mogg invented his own constitutional convention that a leader who survives a VONC, but not by enough, should resign anyway, when he was whinging about May winning hers.
I would love to see how he reverses position if Boris wins such a vote.
7. Is definitely possible. The rule is meant to prevent challenges but doesnt mean people magically become happy.
Didn't bother Labour when in 2010 they said a PM was a PM was a PM until he resigned, and then in 2015 briefed a PM who didn't win outright should resign at once.
Interestingly on both occasions they were completely wrong, and both times it militated against their own best interests.
They were right in 2010 and wrong in 2015. Regardless of elections we always have ministers including the PM. The Queen asks someone to form a government who then needs to be supported by the Commons.
So in 2010 it was unclear after the election whether any leader could command confidence in the Commons. So for 5 days we waited for negotiations. During that time all ministers remain in place until the government resigns.
The situation in 2015 was very different. It seemed likely that Cameron would be able to have the confidence of the house if the Tories were at least the largest party. And if Labour were the largest party but again no majority it would be incumbent on the government to stay in office until a viable replacement could be appointed.
No, the precedent from 1929 is that when the governing party is clearly unable to carry on the largest party be invited to form a government. Which did eventually happen, but took far too long.
O'Donnell didn't have a clue what he was doing, in this as in many other matters.
But - unfortunately for Labour - their mistake in listening to his stupid advice was enormously damaging. First, because it made them look like sore losers. They got the lowest share of the vote ever by a governing party, lost a hundred seats, and were clearly trying to cling on to power. Not a good look. Second, because it forced Cameron's backbenchers to concede a coalition with the Liberal Democrats rather than trying for a minority government. Which meant no prospect of a quick rematch. Third, because they left before the agreement was signed which undercut their own credibility on point 1 anyway. Fourth, because the five years of coalition allowed a head of steam to build behind UKIP and the SNP with distinctly unfortunate consequences.
If Brown had done the sane thing, accepted the verdict of the voters and resigned at once, things might have been very different. And very much better all around.
Surely the biggest downside for Labour is that it has set a new precedent. Don't expect the Tories to let Labour waltz into Number 10 after the next election.
Conservative Peer Lord Hayward says he thinks the letters of no confidence submitted to the 1922 Committee will meet the 54 threshold needed to trigger a vote of no confidence in the PM.
He adds "it's difficult to say" whether Boris Johnson will lose it.
Once a vote is actually held, whatever the result it's usually fatal for the credibility of the leader. Corbyn was I admit a dazzling exception, but the circumstances were unusual. May and Thatcher were both gone within a year of a challenge, and Major never recovered from 1995 (it's not as though he was in robust political health beforehand) - he would have been much better off resigning anyway.
So the comedy scenario is thus: 1. Graham Brady books a big room in parliament early next week and announces a contest 2. Consternation and uproar from the Tories. The loon wing angrily attack their traitor colleagues, the moral / nervous ones attack back 3. Johnson scrapes over the line. Badly damaged, with ongoing attacks by the moral vs the vacuous. 4. We really now must move on says team clown 5. "Oh hell no" says the public, with a fresh poll plunge for the Tories 6. Tories get smashed in both Wakefield and Devon. 7. Despite the "he's safe for 12 months" rule the slide into the mire only accelerates. 8. He resigns, but instead of a swift contest and a sane leader paraded at conference we have a fractious battle with the remaining loons desperate to hold onto control of the party. 9. Instead Conference is a contest where the membership listen to "vote for me" speeches from favoured candidates. A choice of Patel or Baker becomes their option...
Rees-Mogg invented his own constitutional convention that a leader who survives a VONC, but not by enough, should resign anyway, when he was whinging about May winning hers.
I would love to see how he reverses position if Boris wins such a vote.
7. Is definitely possible. The rule is meant to prevent challenges but doesnt mean people magically become happy.
Didn't bother Labour when in 2010 they said a PM was a PM was a PM until he resigned, and then in 2015 briefed a PM who didn't win outright should resign at once.
Interestingly on both occasions they were completely wrong, and both times it militated against their own best interests.
They were right in 2010 and wrong in 2015. Regardless of elections we always have ministers including the PM. The Queen asks someone to form a government who then needs to be supported by the Commons.
So in 2010 it was unclear after the election whether any leader could command confidence in the Commons. So for 5 days we waited for negotiations. During that time all ministers remain in place until the government resigns.
The situation in 2015 was very different. It seemed likely that Cameron would be able to have the confidence of the house if the Tories were at least the largest party. And if Labour were the largest party but again no majority it would be incumbent on the government to stay in office until a viable replacement could be appointed.
No, the precedent from 1929 is that when the governing party is clearly unable to carry on the largest party be invited to form a government. Which did eventually happen, but took far too long.
O'Donnell didn't have a clue what he was doing, in this as in many other matters.
But - unfortunately for Labour - their mistake in listening to his stupid advice was enormously damaging. First, because it made them look like sore losers. They got the lowest share of the vote ever by a governing party, lost a hundred seats, and were clearly trying to cling on to power. Not a good look. Second, because it forced Cameron's backbenchers to concede a coalition with the Liberal Democrats rather than trying for a minority government. Which meant no prospect of a quick rematch. Third, because they left before the agreement was signed which undercut their own credibility on point 1 anyway. Fourth, because the five years of coalition allowed a head of steam to build behind UKIP and the SNP with distinctly unfortunate consequences.
If Brown had done the sane thing, accepted the verdict of the voters and resigned at once, things might have been very different. And very much better all around.
Surely the biggest downside for Labour is that it has set a new precedent. Don't expect the Tories to let Labour waltz into Number 10 after the next election.
That's another very good reason why they shouldn't have done it.
So the comedy scenario is thus: 1. Graham Brady books a big room in parliament early next week and announces a contest 2. Consternation and uproar from the Tories. The loon wing angrily attack their traitor colleagues, the moral / nervous ones attack back 3. Johnson scrapes over the line. Badly damaged, with ongoing attacks by the moral vs the vacuous. 4. We really now must move on says team clown 5. "Oh hell no" says the public, with a fresh poll plunge for the Tories 6. Tories get smashed in both Wakefield and Devon. 7. Despite the "he's safe for 12 months" rule the slide into the mire only accelerates. 8. He resigns, but instead of a swift contest and a sane leader paraded at conference we have a fractious battle with the remaining loons desperate to hold onto control of the party. 9. Instead Conference is a contest where the membership listen to "vote for me" speeches from favoured candidates. A choice of Patel or Baker becomes their option...
Rees-Mogg invented his own constitutional convention that a leader who survives a VONC, but not by enough, should resign anyway, when he was whinging about May winning hers.
I would love to see how he reverses position if Boris wins such a vote.
7. Is definitely possible. The rule is meant to prevent challenges but doesnt mean people magically become happy.
Didn't bother Labour when in 2010 they said a PM was a PM was a PM until he resigned, and then in 2015 briefed a PM who didn't win outright should resign at once.
Interestingly on both occasions they were completely wrong, and both times it militated against their own best interests.
They were right in 2010 and wrong in 2015. Regardless of elections we always have ministers including the PM. The Queen asks someone to form a government who then needs to be supported by the Commons.
So in 2010 it was unclear after the election whether any leader could command confidence in the Commons. So for 5 days we waited for negotiations. During that time all ministers remain in place until the government resigns.
The situation in 2015 was very different. It seemed likely that Cameron would be able to have the confidence of the house if the Tories were at least the largest party. And if Labour were the largest party but again no majority it would be incumbent on the government to stay in office until a viable replacement could be appointed.
No, the precedent from 1929 is that when the governing party is clearly unable to carry on the largest party be invited to form a government. Which did eventually happen, but took far too long.
O'Donnell didn't have a clue what he was doing, in this as in many other matters.
But - unfortunately for Labour - their mistake in listening to his stupid advice was enormously damaging. First, because it made them look like sore losers. They got the lowest share of the vote ever by a governing party, lost a hundred seats, and were clearly trying to cling on to power. Not a good look. Second, because it forced Cameron's backbenchers to concede a coalition with the Liberal Democrats rather than trying for a minority government. Which meant no prospect of a quick rematch. Third, because they left before the agreement was signed which undercut their own credibility on point 1 anyway. Fourth, because the five years of coalition allowed a head of steam to build behind UKIP and the SNP with distinctly unfortunate consequences.
If Brown had done the sane thing, accepted the verdict of the voters and resigned at once, things might have been very different. And very much better all around.
A very interesting theory. I think Cameron very much wanted a coalition though, as (apparently) did a lot of establishment figures.
Why is Twitter full of speculation about Carrie and Boris Johnson divorcing? Have I missed something? After a quick search I cannot see anything in the establishment media.
Supposedly she has dumped him and shacked up with x, with yet another Johnson superinjunction to shut everyone up. Like the last one of those, the press can't talk about what's disappeared into the black hole, but can talk about the ooh what a massive black hole / I wonder where Carrie is juxtaposition.
No idea whether its true or not. I think the last time she was exhibited in public was the PM physically dragging her down the street to vote last month.
That had ‘Marriage Made in Hell’ right from the second Westminster Cathedral imprudently opened their door to the twice-divorced Oaf and his latest mug. The whole thing was just tacky beyond belief. If there is a Good Boris in there, deep inside the repulsive, corpulent Bad Boris, it must be suffering an agonising, tortuous demise. I hope he finds redemption once he’s out of the public eye. There is hope for every soul… if they truly repent.
- “… physically dragging her down the street to vote last month.”
Presumably she voted Lib Dem.
I want Boris gone as much as anyone, but there is something distasteful about commenting on a relationship that is simply based on a twitter rumour which by the way has no evidence to support the smears and is just done through pure hatred
I understand Boris and Carrie held the christening of their youngster last week and I for one do not wish their relationship to be affected by false and malicious gossip
Concentrate on Boris and ensuring the end to his premiership
What is the basis for you being so certain that the story is false?
It is not backed up by evidence nor in the mainstream media and frankly it is malicious gossip which some like yourself seem to get a kick out of commenting on
Boris's resignation is a far more important issue
Well it won't be backed up by the mainstream media if Johnson has plastered a super injunction over the story.
I would normally opine that politicians' private lives should remain private, unless their behaviour runs contrary to their pronouncements. In Johnson's case he has made his colourful private life integral to the fictional "Boris" character he has constructed, therefore he is fair game.
There is also the point that Mrs J is currently very much in the news as regards her alleged doings in No 10 during lockdown. Even the suggestion of a superinjunction is troubling when it comes to such matters of public interest.
Conservative Peer Lord Hayward says he thinks the letters of no confidence submitted to the 1922 Committee will meet the 54 threshold needed to trigger a vote of no confidence in the PM.
He adds "it's difficult to say" whether Boris Johnson will lose it.
Once a vote is actually held, whatever the result it's usually fatal for the credibility of the leader. Corbyn was I admit a dazzling exception, but the circumstances were unusual. May and Thatcher were both gone within a year of a challenge, and Major never recovered from 1995 (it's not as though he was in robust political health beforehand) - he would have been much better off resigning anyway.
Under current Tory leadership rules Thatcher would have survived, as in November 1990 she got 54% of Tory MPs so there would not have been a second ballot as 51%+ wins a VONC
None of them are USC Title 10 though and therefore not subject to UCMJ. Though, quite why the weather and public health people have to be is something for the conspiraloons to chew on.
So the comedy scenario is thus: 1. Graham Brady books a big room in parliament early next week and announces a contest 2. Consternation and uproar from the Tories. The loon wing angrily attack their traitor colleagues, the moral / nervous ones attack back 3. Johnson scrapes over the line. Badly damaged, with ongoing attacks by the moral vs the vacuous. 4. We really now must move on says team clown 5. "Oh hell no" says the public, with a fresh poll plunge for the Tories 6. Tories get smashed in both Wakefield and Devon. 7. Despite the "he's safe for 12 months" rule the slide into the mire only accelerates. 8. He resigns, but instead of a swift contest and a sane leader paraded at conference we have a fractious battle with the remaining loons desperate to hold onto control of the party. 9. Instead Conference is a contest where the membership listen to "vote for me" speeches from favoured candidates. A choice of Patel or Baker becomes their option...
Rees-Mogg invented his own constitutional convention that a leader who survives a VONC, but not by enough, should resign anyway, when he was whinging about May winning hers.
I would love to see how he reverses position if Boris wins such a vote.
7. Is definitely possible. The rule is meant to prevent challenges but doesnt mean people magically become happy.
Didn't bother Labour when in 2010 they said a PM was a PM was a PM until he resigned, and then in 2015 briefed a PM who didn't win outright should resign at once.
Interestingly on both occasions they were completely wrong, and both times it militated against their own best interests.
They were right in 2010 and wrong in 2015. Regardless of elections we always have ministers including the PM. The Queen asks someone to form a government who then needs to be supported by the Commons.
So in 2010 it was unclear after the election whether any leader could command confidence in the Commons. So for 5 days we waited for negotiations. During that time all ministers remain in place until the government resigns.
The situation in 2015 was very different. It seemed likely that Cameron would be able to have the confidence of the house if the Tories were at least the largest party. And if Labour were the largest party but again no majority it would be incumbent on the government to stay in office until a viable replacement could be appointed.
No, the precedent from 1929 is that when the governing party is clearly unable to carry on the largest party be invited to form a government. Which did eventually happen, but took far too long.
O'Donnell didn't have a clue what he was doing, in this as in many other matters.
But - unfortunately for Labour - their mistake in listening to his stupid advice was enormously damaging. First, because it made them look like sore losers. They got the lowest share of the vote ever by a governing party, lost a hundred seats, and were clearly trying to cling on to power. Not a good look. Second, because it forced Cameron's backbenchers to concede a coalition with the Liberal Democrats rather than trying for a minority government. Which meant no prospect of a quick rematch. Third, because they left before the agreement was signed which undercut their own credibility on point 1 anyway. Fourth, because the five years of coalition allowed a head of steam to build behind UKIP and the SNP with distinctly unfortunate consequences.
If Brown had done the sane thing, accepted the verdict of the voters and resigned at once, things might have been very different. And very much better all around.
A very interesting theory. I think Cameron very much wanted a coalition though, as (apparently) did a lot of establishment figures.
I'm sure he did. And it was probably the best result for the country in terms of governance. Just not in terms of constitutional precedence or the future of the Labour Party.
So the comedy scenario is thus: 1. Graham Brady books a big room in parliament early next week and announces a contest 2. Consternation and uproar from the Tories. The loon wing angrily attack their traitor colleagues, the moral / nervous ones attack back 3. Johnson scrapes over the line. Badly damaged, with ongoing attacks by the moral vs the vacuous. 4. We really now must move on says team clown 5. "Oh hell no" says the public, with a fresh poll plunge for the Tories 6. Tories get smashed in both Wakefield and Devon. 7. Despite the "he's safe for 12 months" rule the slide into the mire only accelerates. 8. He resigns, but instead of a swift contest and a sane leader paraded at conference we have a fractious battle with the remaining loons desperate to hold onto control of the party. 9. Instead Conference is a contest where the membership listen to "vote for me" speeches from favoured candidates. A choice of Patel or Baker becomes their option...
Rees-Mogg invented his own constitutional convention that a leader who survives a VONC, but not by enough, should resign anyway, when he was whinging about May winning hers.
I would love to see how he reverses position if Boris wins such a vote.
7. Is definitely possible. The rule is meant to prevent challenges but doesnt mean people magically become happy.
Didn't bother Labour when in 2010 they said a PM was a PM was a PM until he resigned, and then in 2015 briefed a PM who didn't win outright should resign at once.
Interestingly on both occasions they were completely wrong, and both times it militated against their own best interests.
They were right in 2010 and wrong in 2015. Regardless of elections we always have ministers including the PM. The Queen asks someone to form a government who then needs to be supported by the Commons.
So in 2010 it was unclear after the election whether any leader could command confidence in the Commons. So for 5 days we waited for negotiations. During that time all ministers remain in place until the government resigns.
The situation in 2015 was very different. It seemed likely that Cameron would be able to have the confidence of the house if the Tories were at least the largest party. And if Labour were the largest party but again no majority it would be incumbent on the government to stay in office until a viable replacement could be appointed.
No, the precedent from 1929 is that when the governing party is clearly unable to carry on the largest party be invited to form a government. Which did eventually happen, but took far too long.
O'Donnell didn't have a clue what he was doing, in this as in many other matters.
But - unfortunately for Labour - their mistake in listening to his stupid advice was enormously damaging. First, because it made them look like sore losers. They got the lowest share of the vote ever by a governing party, lost a hundred seats, and were clearly trying to cling on to power. Not a good look. Second, because it forced Cameron's backbenchers to concede a coalition with the Liberal Democrats rather than trying for a minority government. Which meant no prospect of a quick rematch. Third, because they left before the agreement was signed which undercut their own credibility on point 1 anyway. Fourth, because the five years of coalition allowed a head of steam to build behind UKIP and the SNP with distinctly unfortunate consequences.
If Brown had done the sane thing, accepted the verdict of the voters and resigned at once, things might have been very different. And very much better all around.
The key phrase being "when the governing party is clearly unable to carry on". That was not clear in the immediate aftermath of that election. Even Cameron believed that a Labour / LibDem deal was more likely.
So O'Donnell did what was required to maintain a functioning government. The party political considerations you listed are not relevant to him and the system, its simply who can command the confidence of the Commons to lead a government.
Brown was perfectly within his rights not to resign when he did - no coalition agreement had been reached and when he did Clegg assumed it was off. Testing in parliament where power really was is absolutely our system - as is the right of MPs not to vote for any option (as they later did with Brexit).
Even if we got to an impasse where no government could be formed there would still be a government and ministers in place, and with no agreement on a new government led by Cameron the incumbent would have been left in place until a fresh election could be organised. Labour would have been demolished in that one, but constitutionally it would have been entirely proper to leave Brown and his ministers in place until it was clear a replacement was there.
After the real v fake tickets were shown by the French, you'd think news outlets would be careful about what they show. Yesterday it was Sky, this morning it's the Guardian:
Grandson Two failed his practical driving test last week. Told next available likely to be late Aug/Sept. Temptation to use some of his summer earnings to 'accelerate' is quite high.
Why the f*** is this not illegal? Crazy what we allow to be inflicted on the young that would not have been tolerated in society as we were growing up ourselves.
Companies often offer a fast track for premium paying customers.
Governments thought that was a good idea. And, to be fair, there are some areas (e.g. passports) where there can be a need for a fast track.
But they just apply it to everything without thought. I can't see a case as to why you should be able have an earlier driving test just because you can pay more
Conservative Peer Lord Hayward says he thinks the letters of no confidence submitted to the 1922 Committee will meet the 54 threshold needed to trigger a vote of no confidence in the PM.
He adds "it's difficult to say" whether Boris Johnson will lose it.
Once a vote is actually held, whatever the result it's usually fatal for the credibility of the leader. Corbyn was I admit a dazzling exception, but the circumstances were unusual. May and Thatcher were both gone within a year of a challenge, and Major never recovered from 1995 (it's not as though he was in robust political health beforehand) - he would have been much better off resigning anyway.
Under current Tory leadership rules Thatcher would have survived, as in November 1990 she got 54% of Tory MPs so there would not have been a second ballot
No - because the rules were different. Under the current rules, much more likely over half would have voted against her than only 46% could bring themselves to vote for Heseltine.
Bear in mind, if Heseltine had won by the necessary margin, he would have been PM. That was a thought that must have given many MPs who wanted rid of Thatcher pause.
None of them are USC Title 10 though and therefore not subject to UCMJ. Though, quite why the weather and public health people have to be is something for the conspiraloons to chew on.
Weather: perhaps becvause of the old weather ships that used to bob around in the middle of the Atlantic before the satellites took over. THey also have a fleet of weather recce planes too for hurricane surveys and the like.
As a victim of a paedophile rapist it is not the place of the Archbishop of Canterbury to forgive. Only victims could possibly be in a position to do that.
It was crass of Welby but he was led into the trap by Tom Bradby.
Sorry to hear about your past experience. However it is a core Christian message to forgive those who repent, if they truly repent so Welby was right on that.
He only has a year or 2 left as Archbishop of anyway, the Archbishop of York Stephen Cottrell, who will stand in for Welby and deliver the sermon at the Jubilee Service on Friday, probably favourite to succeed him
I would be surprised. Cottrell is only three years younger than Welby and Welby clearly intends to stay until 70. In fact there's a reasonable chance Cottrell will retire first.
I would suggest a more likely candidate is Graham Usher, Bishop of Norwich, but that presupposes the next Archbishop will be (a) male and (b) English, both of which are likely but not certain.
The CoE establishment has a bit of a problem. They want a nice liberal, without too much of that bothersome sky fairy stuff.
The problem is that that means a lot of elderly white men.
The other problem is that the area of growth in the CoE is abroad. At home it is shrinking. Africa now has a majority of the active church goers. Unfortunately, they tend to be a bit illiberal, compared to Welby, say. And also way to enthusiastic about sky fairies.
Yes but the Archbishop of Canterbury only heads the Church of England now, he does not head any other Anglican church, even in Scotland or Wales or Ireland. He is primus inter pares, first amongst equals of the global Anglican communion but that is symbolic only. He is not the head in any sense of having any power or authority as the Pope heads the global Roman Catholic Church.
Personally I want an Archbishop more focused on parish based ministry which Cotterell seems to be
So the comedy scenario is thus: 1. Graham Brady books a big room in parliament early next week and announces a contest 2. Consternation and uproar from the Tories. The loon wing angrily attack their traitor colleagues, the moral / nervous ones attack back 3. Johnson scrapes over the line. Badly damaged, with ongoing attacks by the moral vs the vacuous. 4. We really now must move on says team clown 5. "Oh hell no" says the public, with a fresh poll plunge for the Tories 6. Tories get smashed in both Wakefield and Devon. 7. Despite the "he's safe for 12 months" rule the slide into the mire only accelerates. 8. He resigns, but instead of a swift contest and a sane leader paraded at conference we have a fractious battle with the remaining loons desperate to hold onto control of the party. 9. Instead Conference is a contest where the membership listen to "vote for me" speeches from favoured candidates. A choice of Patel or Baker becomes their option...
Rees-Mogg invented his own constitutional convention that a leader who survives a VONC, but not by enough, should resign anyway, when he was whinging about May winning hers.
I would love to see how he reverses position if Boris wins such a vote.
7. Is definitely possible. The rule is meant to prevent challenges but doesnt mean people magically become happy.
Didn't bother Labour when in 2010 they said a PM was a PM was a PM until he resigned, and then in 2015 briefed a PM who didn't win outright should resign at once.
Interestingly on both occasions they were completely wrong, and both times it militated against their own best interests.
They were right in 2010 and wrong in 2015. Regardless of elections we always have ministers including the PM. The Queen asks someone to form a government who then needs to be supported by the Commons.
So in 2010 it was unclear after the election whether any leader could command confidence in the Commons. So for 5 days we waited for negotiations. During that time all ministers remain in place until the government resigns.
The situation in 2015 was very different. It seemed likely that Cameron would be able to have the confidence of the house if the Tories were at least the largest party. And if Labour were the largest party but again no majority it would be incumbent on the government to stay in office until a viable replacement could be appointed.
No, the precedent from 1929 is that when the governing party is clearly unable to carry on the largest party be invited to form a government. Which did eventually happen, but took far too long.
O'Donnell didn't have a clue what he was doing, in this as in many other matters.
But - unfortunately for Labour - their mistake in listening to his stupid advice was enormously damaging. First, because it made them look like sore losers. They got the lowest share of the vote ever by a governing party, lost a hundred seats, and were clearly trying to cling on to power. Not a good look. Second, because it forced Cameron's backbenchers to concede a coalition with the Liberal Democrats rather than trying for a minority government. Which meant no prospect of a quick rematch. Third, because they left before the agreement was signed which undercut their own credibility on point 1 anyway. Fourth, because the five years of coalition allowed a head of steam to build behind UKIP and the SNP with distinctly unfortunate consequences.
If Brown had done the sane thing, accepted the verdict of the voters and resigned at once, things might have been very different. And very much better all around.
The key phrase being "when the governing party is clearly unable to carry on". That was not clear in the immediate aftermath of that election. Even Cameron believed that a Labour / LibDem deal was more likely.
So O'Donnell did what was required to maintain a functioning government. The party political considerations you listed are not relevant to him and the system, its simply who can command the confidence of the Commons to lead a government.
Brown was perfectly within his rights not to resign when he did - no coalition agreement had been reached and when he did Clegg assumed it was off. Testing in parliament where power really was is absolutely our system - as is the right of MPs not to vote for any option (as they later did with Brexit).
Even if we got to an impasse where no government could be formed there would still be a government and ministers in place, and with no agreement on a new government led by Cameron the incumbent would have been left in place until a fresh election could be organised. Labour would have been demolished in that one, but constitutionally it would have been entirely proper to leave Brown and his ministers in place until it was clear a replacement was there.
Let's say on the Friday morning, Gordon Brown had gone to Buckingham Palace and said "send for David Cameron", should the Queen have refused to accept his resignation?
The crisis in the NHS is noose hanging around Hunts premiership.
Mishandling a second Doctors strike to come...
There's just the chance, having spent much of the intervening time on the Health select committee, that he might actually have learned something since his spell in cabinet. Perhaps even a touch of humility.
In any event, I said he was a trading bet yesterday, and I am nicely in the green.
So the comedy scenario is thus: 1. Graham Brady books a big room in parliament early next week and announces a contest 2. Consternation and uproar from the Tories. The loon wing angrily attack their traitor colleagues, the moral / nervous ones attack back 3. Johnson scrapes over the line. Badly damaged, with ongoing attacks by the moral vs the vacuous. 4. We really now must move on says team clown 5. "Oh hell no" says the public, with a fresh poll plunge for the Tories 6. Tories get smashed in both Wakefield and Devon. 7. Despite the "he's safe for 12 months" rule the slide into the mire only accelerates. 8. He resigns, but instead of a swift contest and a sane leader paraded at conference we have a fractious battle with the remaining loons desperate to hold onto control of the party. 9. Instead Conference is a contest where the membership listen to "vote for me" speeches from favoured candidates. A choice of Patel or Baker becomes their option...
Rees-Mogg invented his own constitutional convention that a leader who survives a VONC, but not by enough, should resign anyway, when he was whinging about May winning hers.
I would love to see how he reverses position if Boris wins such a vote.
7. Is definitely possible. The rule is meant to prevent challenges but doesnt mean people magically become happy.
Didn't bother Labour when in 2010 they said a PM was a PM was a PM until he resigned, and then in 2015 briefed a PM who didn't win outright should resign at once.
Interestingly on both occasions they were completely wrong, and both times it militated against their own best interests.
They were right in 2010 and wrong in 2015. Regardless of elections we always have ministers including the PM. The Queen asks someone to form a government who then needs to be supported by the Commons.
So in 2010 it was unclear after the election whether any leader could command confidence in the Commons. So for 5 days we waited for negotiations. During that time all ministers remain in place until the government resigns.
The situation in 2015 was very different. It seemed likely that Cameron would be able to have the confidence of the house if the Tories were at least the largest party. And if Labour were the largest party but again no majority it would be incumbent on the government to stay in office until a viable replacement could be appointed.
No, the precedent from 1929 is that when the governing party is clearly unable to carry on the largest party be invited to form a government. Which did eventually happen, but took far too long.
O'Donnell didn't have a clue what he was doing, in this as in many other matters.
But - unfortunately for Labour - their mistake in listening to his stupid advice was enormously damaging. First, because it made them look like sore losers. They got the lowest share of the vote ever by a governing party, lost a hundred seats, and were clearly trying to cling on to power. Not a good look. Second, because it forced Cameron's backbenchers to concede a coalition with the Liberal Democrats rather than trying for a minority government. Which meant no prospect of a quick rematch. Third, because they left before the agreement was signed which undercut their own credibility on point 1 anyway. Fourth, because the five years of coalition allowed a head of steam to build behind UKIP and the SNP with distinctly unfortunate consequences.
If Brown had done the sane thing, accepted the verdict of the voters and resigned at once, things might have been very different. And very much better all around.
The key phrase being "when the governing party is clearly unable to carry on". That was not clear in the immediate aftermath of that election. Even Cameron believed that a Labour / LibDem deal was more likely.
Anyone with a basic knowledge of arithmetic could see that Labour could not carry on and a deal with the Liberal Democrats would still leave them well short of a majority. You needed to add the SNP and Plaid for a majority of 1. So there was no way Labour could carry on.
I appreciate the point about arithmetic doesn't apply to O'Donnell, who is after all an economist (not a very good one).
As a victim of a paedophile rapist it is not the place of the Archbishop of Canterbury to forgive. Only victims could possibly be in a position to do that.
It was crass of Welby but he was led into the trap by Tom Bradby.
Sorry to hear about your past experience. However it is a core Christian message to forgive those who repent, if they truly repent so Welby was right on that.
He only has a year or 2 left as Archbishop of anyway, the Archbishop of York Stephen Cottrell, who will stand in for Welby and deliver the sermon at the Jubilee Service on Friday, probably favourite to succeed him
I would be surprised. Cottrell is only three years younger than Welby and Welby clearly intends to stay until 70. In fact there's a reasonable chance Cottrell will retire first.
I would suggest a more likely candidate is Graham Usher, Bishop of Norwich, but that presupposes the next Archbishop will be (a) male and (b) English, both of which are likely but not certain.
The CoE establishment has a bit of a problem. They want a nice liberal, without too much of that bothersome sky fairy stuff.
The problem is that that means a lot of elderly white men.
The other problem is that the area of growth in the CoE is abroad. At home it is shrinking. Africa now has a majority of the active church goers. Unfortunately, they tend to be a bit illiberal, compared to Welby, say. And also way to enthusiastic about sky fairies.
Yes but the Archbishop of Canterbury only heads the Church of England now, he does not head any other Anglican church, even in Scotland or Wales or Ireland. He is primus inter pares, first amongst equals of the global Anglican communion but that is symbolic only. He is not the head in any sense of having any power or authority as the Pope heads the global Roman Catholic Church.
Personally I want an Archbishop more focused on parish based ministry which Cotterell seems to be
"As things stand, Starmer could become prime minister from sheer Tory inanition. Johnson seems bent on continuing his lurch to defeat and a lucrative career impersonating himself in after-dinner speeches. Yet Labour could still be thwarted if Conservative MPs can rouse themselves from fear and torpor. Deposing Johnson and installing any one of his rivals would be a sign they are serious about staying in power. The prospect of some form of proportional voting for Westminster, which could lock the Tories out of government indefinitely, could be averted or postponed."
As a victim of a paedophile rapist it is not the place of the Archbishop of Canterbury to forgive. Only victims could possibly be in a position to do that.
It was crass of Welby but he was led into the trap by Tom Bradby.
Sorry to hear about your past experience. However it is a core Christian message to forgive those who repent, if they truly repent so Welby was right on that.
He only has a year or 2 left as Archbishop of anyway, the Archbishop of York Stephen Cottrell, who will stand in for Welby and deliver the sermon at the Jubilee Service on Friday, probably favourite to succeed him
I would be surprised. Cottrell is only three years younger than Welby and Welby clearly intends to stay until 70. In fact there's a reasonable chance Cottrell will retire first.
I would suggest a more likely candidate is Graham Usher, Bishop of Norwich, but that presupposes the next Archbishop will be (a) male and (b) English, both of which are likely but not certain.
The CoE establishment has a bit of a problem. They want a nice liberal, without too much of that bothersome sky fairy stuff.
The problem is that that means a lot of elderly white men.
The other problem is that the area of growth in the CoE is abroad. At home it is shrinking. Africa now has a majority of the active church goers. Unfortunately, they tend to be a bit illiberal, compared to Welby, say. And also way to enthusiastic about sky fairies.
Yes but the Archbishop of Canterbury only heads the Church of England now, he does not head any other Anglican church, even in Scotland or Wales or Ireland. He is primus inter pares, first amongst equals of the global Anglican communion but that is symbolic only. He is not the head in any sense of having any power or authority as the Pope heads the global Roman Catholic Church.
Personally I want an Archbishop more focused on parish based ministry which Cotterell seems to be
Surely the Queen is the head of it?
She is Supreme Governor of the Church of England but the Archbishop of Canterbury leads it
As a victim of a paedophile rapist it is not the place of the Archbishop of Canterbury to forgive. Only victims could possibly be in a position to do that.
It was crass of Welby but he was led into the trap by Tom Bradby.
Sorry to hear about your past experience. However it is a core Christian message to forgive those who repent, if they truly repent so Welby was right on that.
He only has a year or 2 left as Archbishop of anyway, the Archbishop of York Stephen Cottrell, who will stand in for Welby and deliver the sermon at the Jubilee Service on Friday, probably favourite to succeed him
I would be surprised. Cottrell is only three years younger than Welby and Welby clearly intends to stay until 70. In fact there's a reasonable chance Cottrell will retire first.
I would suggest a more likely candidate is Graham Usher, Bishop of Norwich, but that presupposes the next Archbishop will be (a) male and (b) English, both of which are likely but not certain.
The CoE establishment has a bit of a problem. They want a nice liberal, without too much of that bothersome sky fairy stuff.
The problem is that that means a lot of elderly white men.
The other problem is that the area of growth in the CoE is abroad. At home it is shrinking. Africa now has a majority of the active church goers. Unfortunately, they tend to be a bit illiberal, compared to Welby, say. And also way to enthusiastic about sky fairies.
Yes but the Archbishop of Canterbury only heads the Church of England now, he does not head any other Anglican church, even in Scotland or Wales or Ireland. He is primus inter pares, first amongst equals of the global Anglican communion but that is symbolic only. He is not the head in any sense of having any power or authority as the Pope heads the global Roman Catholic Church.
Personally I want an Archbishop more focused on parish based ministry which Cotterell seems to be
You've forgotten the Isle of Man, although technically that's in the province of York, and the Channel Isles which come under Salisbury (having been transferred from Winchester).
Edit - speaking of Salisbury, another possibility might be Stephen Lake. I know him and he's impressive, and he would be 62 when Welby retires.
None of them are USC Title 10 though and therefore not subject to UCMJ. Though, quite why the weather and public health people have to be is something for the conspiraloons to chew on.
Weather: perhaps becvause of the old weather ships that used to bob around in the middle of the Atlantic before the satellites took over. THey also have a fleet of weather recce planes too for hurricane surveys and the like.
Public health - no idea!
Probably because a lot of early "public" health stuff came from the military.
Lots of research into tropical diseases came from trying to keep armies alive, for example.
I see a lot of people making assertions about healthcare systems being good or bad, and very little in the way of evidence. I sometimes wonder whether half you people think something just because others are saying it.
Thats a very fair point. There are obviously lots of ways to measure a health system. However, I suspect for many, right now, its not being able to access a GP which is colouring their views. You still hear of GP's that are 'closed', which normally means you cannot physically go in unless you have an appointment, which must be arranged over the phone, if you can get through. Our surgery is rather like this, although it does a good job on emailed consultation. An issue I had a few weeks ago - I emailed in the morning, was called around 5.30 pm, and saw a doctor at 7.30 pm on the same day. Great for me, no so much for Aunty Betty round the corner who just wants to turn up and wait.
It also doesn't help that we have had decades of bad press about how bad the NHS is, and then the last two years its been at winter stretch capacity for 24 months.
Generally, when you get to hospitals, they are ok. The treatment is good, and it works, kind of. You get the impression that a lot of it works despite the management. It could also usually do with a lick of paint. But it works.
Where we have a religion is the 'free at the point of use' mantra. And yet other systems can be free at the point of use too - a smaller NHS backed with greater spread of health insurance.
We often seem too proud of the NHS to look at other nations approaches. We should. There are other ways.
So the comedy scenario is thus: 1. Graham Brady books a big room in parliament early next week and announces a contest 2. Consternation and uproar from the Tories. The loon wing angrily attack their traitor colleagues, the moral / nervous ones attack back 3. Johnson scrapes over the line. Badly damaged, with ongoing attacks by the moral vs the vacuous. 4. We really now must move on says team clown 5. "Oh hell no" says the public, with a fresh poll plunge for the Tories 6. Tories get smashed in both Wakefield and Devon. 7. Despite the "he's safe for 12 months" rule the slide into the mire only accelerates. 8. He resigns, but instead of a swift contest and a sane leader paraded at conference we have a fractious battle with the remaining loons desperate to hold onto control of the party. 9. Instead Conference is a contest where the membership listen to "vote for me" speeches from favoured candidates. A choice of Patel or Baker becomes their option...
Rees-Mogg invented his own constitutional convention that a leader who survives a VONC, but not by enough, should resign anyway, when he was whinging about May winning hers.
I would love to see how he reverses position if Boris wins such a vote.
7. Is definitely possible. The rule is meant to prevent challenges but doesnt mean people magically become happy.
Didn't bother Labour when in 2010 they said a PM was a PM was a PM until he resigned, and then in 2015 briefed a PM who didn't win outright should resign at once.
Interestingly on both occasions they were completely wrong, and both times it militated against their own best interests.
They were right in 2010 and wrong in 2015. Regardless of elections we always have ministers including the PM. The Queen asks someone to form a government who then needs to be supported by the Commons.
So in 2010 it was unclear after the election whether any leader could command confidence in the Commons. So for 5 days we waited for negotiations. During that time all ministers remain in place until the government resigns.
The situation in 2015 was very different. It seemed likely that Cameron would be able to have the confidence of the house if the Tories were at least the largest party. And if Labour were the largest party but again no majority it would be incumbent on the government to stay in office until a viable replacement could be appointed.
No, the precedent from 1929 is that when the governing party is clearly unable to carry on the largest party be invited to form a government. Which did eventually happen, but took far too long.
O'Donnell didn't have a clue what he was doing, in this as in many other matters.
But - unfortunately for Labour - their mistake in listening to his stupid advice was enormously damaging. First, because it made them look like sore losers. They got the lowest share of the vote ever by a governing party, lost a hundred seats, and were clearly trying to cling on to power. Not a good look. Second, because it forced Cameron's backbenchers to concede a coalition with the Liberal Democrats rather than trying for a minority government. Which meant no prospect of a quick rematch. Third, because they left before the agreement was signed which undercut their own credibility on point 1 anyway. Fourth, because the five years of coalition allowed a head of steam to build behind UKIP and the SNP with distinctly unfortunate consequences.
If Brown had done the sane thing, accepted the verdict of the voters and resigned at once, things might have been very different. And very much better all around.
The key phrase being "when the governing party is clearly unable to carry on". That was not clear in the immediate aftermath of that election. Even Cameron believed that a Labour / LibDem deal was more likely.
Anyone with a basic knowledge of arithmetic could see that Labour could not carry on and a deal with the Liberal Democrats would still leave them well short of a majority. You needed to add the SNP and Plaid for a majority of 1. So there was no way Labour could carry on.
I appreciate the point about arithmetic doesn't apply to O'Donnell, who is after all an economist (not a very good one).
Sure they could have carried on. They could have added the SNP and Plaid for a majority of 1. None of them like the Tories and regional parties can usually be bought, so what's wrong with that?
It wasn't the stablest or the most likely combination under the circumstances, but that wasn't the question.
I see a lot of people making assertions about healthcare systems being good or bad, and very little in the way of evidence. I sometimes wonder whether half you people think something just because others are saying it.
Thats a very fair point. There are obviously lots of ways to measure a health system. However, I suspect for many, right now, its not being able to access a GP which is colouring their views. You still hear of GP's that are 'closed', which normally means you cannot physically go in unless you have an appointment, which must be arranged over the phone, if you can get through. Our surgery is rather like this, although it does a good job on emailed consultation. An issue I had a few weeks ago - I emailed in the morning, was called around 5.30 pm, and saw a doctor at 7.30 pm on the same day. Great for me, no so much for Aunty Betty round the corner who just wants to turn up and wait.
It also doesn't help that we have had decades of bad press about how bad the NHS is, and then the last two years its been at winter stretch capacity for 24 months.
Generally, when you get to hospitals, they are ok. The treatment is good, and it works, kind of. You get the impression that a lot of it works despite the management. It could also usually do with a lick of paint. But it works.
Where we have a religion is the 'free at the point of use' mantra. And yet other systems can be free at the point of use too - a smaller NHS backed with greater spread of health insurance.
We often seem too proud of the NHS to look at other nations approaches. We should. There are other ways.
The major problem is that the NHS is, structurally and philosophically, a producer interest organisation, trying to provide services.
After the real v fake tickets were shown by the French, you'd think news outlets would be careful about what they show. Yesterday it was Sky, this morning it's the Guardian:
Grandson Two failed his practical driving test last week. Told next available likely to be late Aug/Sept. Temptation to use some of his summer earnings to 'accelerate' is quite high.
Why the f*** is this not illegal? Crazy what we allow to be inflicted on the young that would not have been tolerated in society as we were growing up ourselves.
Companies often offer a fast track for premium paying customers.
Governments thought that was a good idea. And, to be fair, there are some areas (e.g. passports) where there can be a need for a fast track.
But they just apply it to everything without thought. I can't see a case as to why you should be able have an earlier driving test just because you can pay more
Even if there was a case for an earlier driving test for cash, that cash should go to the DVLA, not the touts who are stopping the intended users from booking in an orderly fashion in the first place.
So the comedy scenario is thus: 1. Graham Brady books a big room in parliament early next week and announces a contest 2. Consternation and uproar from the Tories. The loon wing angrily attack their traitor colleagues, the moral / nervous ones attack back 3. Johnson scrapes over the line. Badly damaged, with ongoing attacks by the moral vs the vacuous. 4. We really now must move on says team clown 5. "Oh hell no" says the public, with a fresh poll plunge for the Tories 6. Tories get smashed in both Wakefield and Devon. 7. Despite the "he's safe for 12 months" rule the slide into the mire only accelerates. 8. He resigns, but instead of a swift contest and a sane leader paraded at conference we have a fractious battle with the remaining loons desperate to hold onto control of the party. 9. Instead Conference is a contest where the membership listen to "vote for me" speeches from favoured candidates. A choice of Patel or Baker becomes their option...
Rees-Mogg invented his own constitutional convention that a leader who survives a VONC, but not by enough, should resign anyway, when he was whinging about May winning hers.
I would love to see how he reverses position if Boris wins such a vote.
7. Is definitely possible. The rule is meant to prevent challenges but doesnt mean people magically become happy.
Didn't bother Labour when in 2010 they said a PM was a PM was a PM until he resigned, and then in 2015 briefed a PM who didn't win outright should resign at once.
Interestingly on both occasions they were completely wrong, and both times it militated against their own best interests.
They were right in 2010 and wrong in 2015. Regardless of elections we always have ministers including the PM. The Queen asks someone to form a government who then needs to be supported by the Commons.
So in 2010 it was unclear after the election whether any leader could command confidence in the Commons. So for 5 days we waited for negotiations. During that time all ministers remain in place until the government resigns.
The situation in 2015 was very different. It seemed likely that Cameron would be able to have the confidence of the house if the Tories were at least the largest party. And if Labour were the largest party but again no majority it would be incumbent on the government to stay in office until a viable replacement could be appointed.
No, the precedent from 1929 is that when the governing party is clearly unable to carry on the largest party be invited to form a government. Which did eventually happen, but took far too long.
O'Donnell didn't have a clue what he was doing, in this as in many other matters.
But - unfortunately for Labour - their mistake in listening to his stupid advice was enormously damaging. First, because it made them look like sore losers. They got the lowest share of the vote ever by a governing party, lost a hundred seats, and were clearly trying to cling on to power. Not a good look. Second, because it forced Cameron's backbenchers to concede a coalition with the Liberal Democrats rather than trying for a minority government. Which meant no prospect of a quick rematch. Third, because they left before the agreement was signed which undercut their own credibility on point 1 anyway. Fourth, because the five years of coalition allowed a head of steam to build behind UKIP and the SNP with distinctly unfortunate consequences.
If Brown had done the sane thing, accepted the verdict of the voters and resigned at once, things might have been very different. And very much better all around.
The key phrase being "when the governing party is clearly unable to carry on". That was not clear in the immediate aftermath of that election. Even Cameron believed that a Labour / LibDem deal was more likely.
So O'Donnell did what was required to maintain a functioning government. The party political considerations you listed are not relevant to him and the system, its simply who can command the confidence of the Commons to lead a government.
Brown was perfectly within his rights not to resign when he did - no coalition agreement had been reached and when he did Clegg assumed it was off. Testing in parliament where power really was is absolutely our system - as is the right of MPs not to vote for any option (as they later did with Brexit).
Even if we got to an impasse where no government could be formed there would still be a government and ministers in place, and with no agreement on a new government led by Cameron the incumbent would have been left in place until a fresh election could be organised. Labour would have been demolished in that one, but constitutionally it would have been entirely proper to leave Brown and his ministers in place until it was clear a replacement was there.
Let's say on the Friday morning, Gordon Brown had gone to Buckingham Palace and said "send for David Cameron", should the Queen have refused to accept his resignation?
No, not at all. But as Cameron appeared no more likely to be able to form a government than he did, why would Brown do that?
This feels like we're back to the absurdities of our FPTP electoral system. Nobody votes for a government or a prime minister or for a party leader (unless they run in their constituency). So the PM can quite legitimately continue in office as long as the Commons has confidence in them. And when its a messy election result that may not be known until someone tries.
The fun scenario would have been for Brown to copy Johnson. Don't think you have the confidence of the house? Simply prorogue parliament and govern by decree.
Betting: Not sure of the value, I've tended not to get involved in Con next leader betting during contests, only as trading bets beforehand when I think the markets overreact to every bit of news and laying the favourite/backing the person out of favour has proved a good strategy. I'm most green on Hunt, Truss, Sunak, Javid, Mordaunt and Gove. The only 'possible' to my mind that I'm exposed on is Wallace and I don't really see him winning (I'm in a position to trade out others to cover Wallace, but I haven't done so, yet. If anything, I'm tempted to lay).
Personal/politics: As someone broadly sympathetic to Starmer, I'm not sure whether Hunt or Johnson is most to be feared. They'd appeal to very different constituencies. As a natural Lib Dem, I fear Hunt more as he'll make it harder for the yellows in the South. I've never warmed to Hunt and I'm with Naughtie on his character Handling of the doctors' strike suggests a lack of compromise and empathy, but strength of will. Alleged mishandling of pandemic drills suggests a possible lack of responsibility. I can't help thinking he's as iron willed as Thatcher, but without the imagination or vision. A man quite capable of breaking eggs, but perhaps not of making the omelette.
Conservative Peer Lord Hayward says he thinks the letters of no confidence submitted to the 1922 Committee will meet the 54 threshold needed to trigger a vote of no confidence in the PM.
He adds "it's difficult to say" whether Boris Johnson will lose it.
Once a vote is actually held, whatever the result it's usually fatal for the credibility of the leader. Corbyn was I admit a dazzling exception, but the circumstances were unusual. May and Thatcher were both gone within a year of a challenge, and Major never recovered from 1995 (it's not as though he was in robust political health beforehand) - he would have been much better off resigning anyway.
"Corbyn was I admit a dazing exception".
" Corbyn was I admit a vajazzling exception", because the man is undoubtedly a ...
I am not sure about your analysis of Gus O'Donnell's advice. I think Brown was unusually right to remain as PM.
With the benefit of hindsight you are implying had Brown gone quickly we would never have got the collapse in LD support, Brexit, Corbyn or Johnson. Supposition rather than extrapolation is working very hard there.
Why is Twitter full of speculation about Carrie and Boris Johnson divorcing? Have I missed something? After a quick search I cannot see anything in the establishment media.
Supposedly she has dumped him and shacked up with x, with yet another Johnson superinjunction to shut everyone up. Like the last one of those, the press can't talk about what's disappeared into the black hole, but can talk about the ooh what a massive black hole / I wonder where Carrie is juxtaposition.
No idea whether its true or not. I think the last time she was exhibited in public was the PM physically dragging her down the street to vote last month.
That had ‘Marriage Made in Hell’ right from the second Westminster Cathedral imprudently opened their door to the twice-divorced Oaf and his latest mug. The whole thing was just tacky beyond belief. If there is a Good Boris in there, deep inside the repulsive, corpulent Bad Boris, it must be suffering an agonising, tortuous demise. I hope he finds redemption once he’s out of the public eye. There is hope for every soul… if they truly repent.
- “… physically dragging her down the street to vote last month.”
Presumably she voted Lib Dem.
I want Boris gone as much as anyone, but there is something distasteful about commenting on a relationship that is simply based on a twitter rumour which by the way has no evidence to support the smears and is just done through pure hatred
I understand Boris and Carrie held the christening of their youngster last week and I for one do not wish their relationship to be affected by false and malicious gossip
Concentrate on Boris and ensuring the end to his premiership
What is the basis for you being so certain that the story is false?
It is not backed up by evidence nor in the mainstream media and frankly it is malicious gossip which some like yourself seem to get a kick out of commenting on
Boris's resignation is a far more important issue
That is completely wrong. These superinjunctions are bad enough in the context of footballers and so on; having the PM using the courts to stifle gossip about his private life is pretty much what Philippines newspaper editors had to put up with when contemplating doing a piece about Imelda's shoe collection. Democratic free speech trumps a supposed right to privacy. This would be so even if she were a blameless housewife but she has rather actively entered the fray, has she not, with abba parties and cake ambushes and doggie airlifts?
Never seen a couple who deserved each other so much.
So the comedy scenario is thus: 1. Graham Brady books a big room in parliament early next week and announces a contest 2. Consternation and uproar from the Tories. The loon wing angrily attack their traitor colleagues, the moral / nervous ones attack back 3. Johnson scrapes over the line. Badly damaged, with ongoing attacks by the moral vs the vacuous. 4. We really now must move on says team clown 5. "Oh hell no" says the public, with a fresh poll plunge for the Tories 6. Tories get smashed in both Wakefield and Devon. 7. Despite the "he's safe for 12 months" rule the slide into the mire only accelerates. 8. He resigns, but instead of a swift contest and a sane leader paraded at conference we have a fractious battle with the remaining loons desperate to hold onto control of the party. 9. Instead Conference is a contest where the membership listen to "vote for me" speeches from favoured candidates. A choice of Patel or Baker becomes their option...
Rees-Mogg invented his own constitutional convention that a leader who survives a VONC, but not by enough, should resign anyway, when he was whinging about May winning hers.
I would love to see how he reverses position if Boris wins such a vote.
7. Is definitely possible. The rule is meant to prevent challenges but doesnt mean people magically become happy.
Didn't bother Labour when in 2010 they said a PM was a PM was a PM until he resigned, and then in 2015 briefed a PM who didn't win outright should resign at once.
Interestingly on both occasions they were completely wrong, and both times it militated against their own best interests.
They were right in 2010 and wrong in 2015. Regardless of elections we always have ministers including the PM. The Queen asks someone to form a government who then needs to be supported by the Commons.
So in 2010 it was unclear after the election whether any leader could command confidence in the Commons. So for 5 days we waited for negotiations. During that time all ministers remain in place until the government resigns.
The situation in 2015 was very different. It seemed likely that Cameron would be able to have the confidence of the house if the Tories were at least the largest party. And if Labour were the largest party but again no majority it would be incumbent on the government to stay in office until a viable replacement could be appointed.
No, the precedent from 1929 is that when the governing party is clearly unable to carry on the largest party be invited to form a government. Which did eventually happen, but took far too long.
O'Donnell didn't have a clue what he was doing, in this as in many other matters.
But - unfortunately for Labour - their mistake in listening to his stupid advice was enormously damaging. First, because it made them look like sore losers. They got the lowest share of the vote ever by a governing party, lost a hundred seats, and were clearly trying to cling on to power. Not a good look. Second, because it forced Cameron's backbenchers to concede a coalition with the Liberal Democrats rather than trying for a minority government. Which meant no prospect of a quick rematch. Third, because they left before the agreement was signed which undercut their own credibility on point 1 anyway. Fourth, because the five years of coalition allowed a head of steam to build behind UKIP and the SNP with distinctly unfortunate consequences.
If Brown had done the sane thing, accepted the verdict of the voters and resigned at once, things might have been very different. And very much better all around.
The key phrase being "when the governing party is clearly unable to carry on". That was not clear in the immediate aftermath of that election. Even Cameron believed that a Labour / LibDem deal was more likely.
Anyone with a basic knowledge of arithmetic could see that Labour could not carry on and a deal with the Liberal Democrats would still leave them well short of a majority. You needed to add the SNP and Plaid for a majority of 1. So there was no way Labour could carry on.
I appreciate the point about arithmetic doesn't apply to O'Donnell, who is after all an economist (not a very good one).
The idea of a rainbow coalition was absurd. But nobody on the ground was proposing that. Labour's view was simple - if a deal could be done with the LibDems the other parties would not vote his government out to be replaced by the Tories.
And that was true in 2010 and is doubly true today. You don't need a majority if you aren't at risk of being removed from office. OK you may be ineffective but so is this government despite it having a substantial majority.
I know you are making political points about the viability of this and I don't agree. It was clear many Labour backbenchers believed they should go into opposition because they could see what would happen if they didn't. But had a C&S deal been agreed with Clegg I can't see there would have been many Labour MPs voting against their government on a confidence motion.
I just spoke to my Boris-loving Surrey neighbour, mentioning Mike's post. Here's her response verbatim:
'Ah well I've always rated Jeremy Hunt and have said so many times.'
She was rather glowing and it's the first time I've ever heard her relaxed and happy about the prospect of Johnson going.
No surprise that Surrey Tories like Hunt.
Yes but you may be missing the point here, as neatly explained just now by @Selebian
As things stand, the Liberal Democrats are going to take a chunk of seats in Surrey and the south off the Conservatives. I live in Surrey and I can assure you this is NOT one of those perennial false dawns. There is real, tangible, visceral anger towards the Conservatives here. This is why I tipped not only my ward (Heathlands) but the whole of Woking to go LibDem at the locals. The result wasn't even close.
If they stick with Boris Johnson the results in SW London and Surrey will be incredible.
But I fear Jeremy Hunt because he will definitely win back tory waverers in these parts. He is trusted and liked and unlike Boris Johnson he is also a Conservative.
Conservative Peer Lord Hayward says he thinks the letters of no confidence submitted to the 1922 Committee will meet the 54 threshold needed to trigger a vote of no confidence in the PM.
He adds "it's difficult to say" whether Boris Johnson will lose it.
Once a vote is actually held, whatever the result it's usually fatal for the credibility of the leader. Corbyn was I admit a dazzling exception, but the circumstances were unusual. May and Thatcher were both gone within a year of a challenge, and Major never recovered from 1995 (it's not as though he was in robust political health beforehand) - he would have been much better off resigning anyway.
"Corbyn was I admit a dazing exception".
" Corbyn was I admit a vajazzling exception", because the man is undoubtedly a ...
I am not sure about your analysis of Gus O'Donnell's advice. I think Brown was unusually right to remain as PM.
With the benefit of hindsight you are implying had Brown gone quickly we would never have got the collapse in LD support, Brexit, Corbyn or Johnson. Supposition rather than extrapolation is working very hard there.
True, the effects are hindsight but the implications were clear at the time. A minority Tory government, then a further election where they would get probably a middling majority, was a better option for Labour than being separated from the Liberal Democrats and spending five years out of power.
As for O'Donnell's advice, I'm perfectly content with saying he was wrong from every point of view, and hindsight only confirms it. As he was on his economic advice, his HR advice, and every other sort of advice he ever gave. He just didn't have a clue what he was doing and while Brown gets the flak O'Donnell deserves at least as much blame for the disasters that befell us.
After the real v fake tickets were shown by the French, you'd think news outlets would be careful about what they show. Yesterday it was Sky, this morning it's the Guardian:
Grandson Two failed his practical driving test last week. Told next available likely to be late Aug/Sept. Temptation to use some of his summer earnings to 'accelerate' is quite high.
Why the f*** is this not illegal? Crazy what we allow to be inflicted on the young that would not have been tolerated in society as we were growing up ourselves.
Companies often offer a fast track for premium paying customers.
Governments thought that was a good idea. And, to be fair, there are some areas (e.g. passports) where there can be a need for a fast track.
But they just apply it to everything without thought. I can't see a case as to why you should be able have an earlier driving test just because you can pay more
Even if there was a case for an earlier driving test for cash, that cash should go to the DVLA, not the touts who are stopping the intended users from booking in an orderly fashion in the first place.
The real problem is that there is a 2 year backlog of driving tests, which is only just beginning to clear.
This is compounded by the way the system presents test opportunities for the ordinary leaner - you have to select a test centre and see what is available, rather than looking at tests slots in a 10 miles area or similar.
NEW: Senior Tories close to Boris Johnson fear that momentum is building among Tory rebel MPs for a confidence vote - potentially as soon as next week when parliament returns
One ally says it is "starting to feel inevitable" 54 letters will be submitted.
So the comedy scenario is thus: 1. Graham Brady books a big room in parliament early next week and announces a contest 2. Consternation and uproar from the Tories. The loon wing angrily attack their traitor colleagues, the moral / nervous ones attack back 3. Johnson scrapes over the line. Badly damaged, with ongoing attacks by the moral vs the vacuous. 4. We really now must move on says team clown 5. "Oh hell no" says the public, with a fresh poll plunge for the Tories 6. Tories get smashed in both Wakefield and Devon. 7. Despite the "he's safe for 12 months" rule the slide into the mire only accelerates. 8. He resigns, but instead of a swift contest and a sane leader paraded at conference we have a fractious battle with the remaining loons desperate to hold onto control of the party. 9. Instead Conference is a contest where the membership listen to "vote for me" speeches from favoured candidates. A choice of Patel or Baker becomes their option...
Rees-Mogg invented his own constitutional convention that a leader who survives a VONC, but not by enough, should resign anyway, when he was whinging about May winning hers.
I would love to see how he reverses position if Boris wins such a vote.
7. Is definitely possible. The rule is meant to prevent challenges but doesnt mean people magically become happy.
Didn't bother Labour when in 2010 they said a PM was a PM was a PM until he resigned, and then in 2015 briefed a PM who didn't win outright should resign at once.
Interestingly on both occasions they were completely wrong, and both times it militated against their own best interests.
They were right in 2010 and wrong in 2015. Regardless of elections we always have ministers including the PM. The Queen asks someone to form a government who then needs to be supported by the Commons.
So in 2010 it was unclear after the election whether any leader could command confidence in the Commons. So for 5 days we waited for negotiations. During that time all ministers remain in place until the government resigns.
The situation in 2015 was very different. It seemed likely that Cameron would be able to have the confidence of the house if the Tories were at least the largest party. And if Labour were the largest party but again no majority it would be incumbent on the government to stay in office until a viable replacement could be appointed.
No, the precedent from 1929 is that when the governing party is clearly unable to carry on the largest party be invited to form a government. Which did eventually happen, but took far too long.
O'Donnell didn't have a clue what he was doing, in this as in many other matters.
But - unfortunately for Labour - their mistake in listening to his stupid advice was enormously damaging. First, because it made them look like sore losers. They got the lowest share of the vote ever by a governing party, lost a hundred seats, and were clearly trying to cling on to power. Not a good look. Second, because it forced Cameron's backbenchers to concede a coalition with the Liberal Democrats rather than trying for a minority government. Which meant no prospect of a quick rematch. Third, because they left before the agreement was signed which undercut their own credibility on point 1 anyway. Fourth, because the five years of coalition allowed a head of steam to build behind UKIP and the SNP with distinctly unfortunate consequences.
If Brown had done the sane thing, accepted the verdict of the voters and resigned at once, things might have been very different. And very much better all around.
The key phrase being "when the governing party is clearly unable to carry on". That was not clear in the immediate aftermath of that election. Even Cameron believed that a Labour / LibDem deal was more likely.
So O'Donnell did what was required to maintain a functioning government. The party political considerations you listed are not relevant to him and the system, its simply who can command the confidence of the Commons to lead a government.
Brown was perfectly within his rights not to resign when he did - no coalition agreement had been reached and when he did Clegg assumed it was off. Testing in parliament where power really was is absolutely our system - as is the right of MPs not to vote for any option (as they later did with Brexit).
Even if we got to an impasse where no government could be formed there would still be a government and ministers in place, and with no agreement on a new government led by Cameron the incumbent would have been left in place until a fresh election could be organised. Labour would have been demolished in that one, but constitutionally it would have been entirely proper to leave Brown and his ministers in place until it was clear a replacement was there.
Let's say on the Friday morning, Gordon Brown had gone to Buckingham Palace and said "send for David Cameron", should the Queen have refused to accept his resignation?
No, not at all. But as Cameron appeared no more likely to be able to form a government than he did, why would Brown do that?
This feels like we're back to the absurdities of our FPTP electoral system. Nobody votes for a government or a prime minister or for a party leader (unless they run in their constituency). So the PM can quite legitimately continue in office as long as the Commons has confidence in them. And when its a messy election result that may not be known until someone tries.
The fun scenario would have been for Brown to copy Johnson. Don't think you have the confidence of the house? Simply prorogue parliament and govern by decree.
Not sure what FPTP has got to do with it, to be honest.
Not sure how Brown could have copied Johnson, unless he could see into the future. He could have tried to copy John Major, of course.
But anyway, I'm not sure why you're supporting Brown's actions. The Tories will be difficult to remove from Number 10 unless Labour win a majority at the next election.
Why is Twitter full of speculation about Carrie and Boris Johnson divorcing? Have I missed something? After a quick search I cannot see anything in the establishment media.
Supposedly she has dumped him and shacked up with x, with yet another Johnson superinjunction to shut everyone up. Like the last one of those, the press can't talk about what's disappeared into the black hole, but can talk about the ooh what a massive black hole / I wonder where Carrie is juxtaposition.
No idea whether its true or not. I think the last time she was exhibited in public was the PM physically dragging her down the street to vote last month.
That had ‘Marriage Made in Hell’ right from the second Westminster Cathedral imprudently opened their door to the twice-divorced Oaf and his latest mug. The whole thing was just tacky beyond belief. If there is a Good Boris in there, deep inside the repulsive, corpulent Bad Boris, it must be suffering an agonising, tortuous demise. I hope he finds redemption once he’s out of the public eye. There is hope for every soul… if they truly repent.
- “… physically dragging her down the street to vote last month.”
Presumably she voted Lib Dem.
I want Boris gone as much as anyone, but there is something distasteful about commenting on a relationship that is simply based on a twitter rumour which by the way has no evidence to support the smears and is just done through pure hatred
I understand Boris and Carrie held the christening of their youngster last week and I for one do not wish their relationship to be affected by false and malicious gossip
Concentrate on Boris and ensuring the end to his premiership
What is the basis for you being so certain that the story is false?
It is not backed up by evidence nor in the mainstream media and frankly it is malicious gossip which some like yourself seem to get a kick out of commenting on
Boris's resignation is a far more important issue
That is completely wrong. These superinjunctions are bad enough in the context of footballers and so on; having the PM using the courts to stifle gossip about his private life is pretty much what Philippines newspaper editors had to put up with when contemplating doing a piece about Imelda's shoe collection. Democratic free speech trumps a supposed right to privacy. This would be so even if she were a blameless housewife but she has rather actively entered the fray, has she not, with abba parties and cake ambushes and doggie airlifts?
Never seen a couple who deserved each other so much.
Do you have evidence of a superinjunction or is it just part of a malicious smear
Why is Twitter full of speculation about Carrie and Boris Johnson divorcing? Have I missed something? After a quick search I cannot see anything in the establishment media.
Supposedly she has dumped him and shacked up with x, with yet another Johnson superinjunction to shut everyone up. Like the last one of those, the press can't talk about what's disappeared into the black hole, but can talk about the ooh what a massive black hole / I wonder where Carrie is juxtaposition.
No idea whether its true or not. I think the last time she was exhibited in public was the PM physically dragging her down the street to vote last month.
That had ‘Marriage Made in Hell’ right from the second Westminster Cathedral imprudently opened their door to the twice-divorced Oaf and his latest mug. The whole thing was just tacky beyond belief. If there is a Good Boris in there, deep inside the repulsive, corpulent Bad Boris, it must be suffering an agonising, tortuous demise. I hope he finds redemption once he’s out of the public eye. There is hope for every soul… if they truly repent.
- “… physically dragging her down the street to vote last month.”
Presumably she voted Lib Dem.
I want Boris gone as much as anyone, but there is something distasteful about commenting on a relationship that is simply based on a twitter rumour which by the way has no evidence to support the smears and is just done through pure hatred
I understand Boris and Carrie held the christening of their youngster last week and I for one do not wish their relationship to be affected by false and malicious gossip
Concentrate on Boris and ensuring the end to his premiership
What is the basis for you being so certain that the story is false?
It is not backed up by evidence nor in the mainstream media and frankly it is malicious gossip which some like yourself seem to get a kick out of commenting on
Boris's resignation is a far more important issue
That is completely wrong. These superinjunctions are bad enough in the context of footballers and so on; having the PM using the courts to stifle gossip about his private life is pretty much what Philippines newspaper editors had to put up with when contemplating doing a piece about Imelda's shoe collection. Democratic free speech trumps a supposed right to privacy. This would be so even if she were a blameless housewife but she has rather actively entered the fray, has she not, with abba parties and cake ambushes and doggie airlifts?
Never seen a couple who deserved each other so much.
The situation is actually closer to that in France, where politicians private lives are, quite deliberately, kept out of the media.
PM's allies think he can win any confidence vote but fear a decent chunk of the party won't back him and “then a hardcore group of MPs will have nothing to lose by playing guerrilla warfare.”
Conservative Peer Lord Hayward says he thinks the letters of no confidence submitted to the 1922 Committee will meet the 54 threshold needed to trigger a vote of no confidence in the PM.
He adds "it's difficult to say" whether Boris Johnson will lose it.
Once a vote is actually held, whatever the result it's usually fatal for the credibility of the leader. Corbyn was I admit a dazzling exception, but the circumstances were unusual. May and Thatcher were both gone within a year of a challenge, and Major never recovered from 1995 (it's not as though he was in robust political health beforehand) - he would have been much better off resigning anyway.
I totally agree with this bar one exception to your rule.
What if Boris Johnson won something like 320 to 40?
A thumping win would set him up neatly.
I think it's incredibly unlikely but I don't know what kind of nobbling he could get into in the run up to the vote. I put nothing past him, save murder, to save his own skin.
The thing about that raspberry picking robot is that technical progress is an interaction between the machinery and the new types of raspberry that will be bred to be capable of being picked by the robot. This has happened with the strawberry varieties we find in the shops. Greater productivity from mechanised harvesting and the new varieties bred to cope with it have led to a decline in the quality of the product. But they are harvested earlier and are visually more perfect than those which only came into the shops for Wimbledon week 50 years ago. However the strawberries were vastly better tasting in those days, even if they were squishier and had a shorter shelf life.
Conservative Peer Lord Hayward says he thinks the letters of no confidence submitted to the 1922 Committee will meet the 54 threshold needed to trigger a vote of no confidence in the PM.
He adds "it's difficult to say" whether Boris Johnson will lose it.
Once a vote is actually held, whatever the result it's usually fatal for the credibility of the leader. Corbyn was I admit a dazzling exception, but the circumstances were unusual. May and Thatcher were both gone within a year of a challenge, and Major never recovered from 1995 (it's not as though he was in robust political health beforehand) - he would have been much better off resigning anyway.
I totally agree with this bar one exception to your rule.
What if Boris Johnson won something like 320 to 40?
A thumping win would set him up neatly.
I think it's incredibly unlikely but I don't know what kind of nobbling he could get into in the run up to the vote. I put nothing past him, save murder, to save his own skin.
Another problem with Johnson is his seemingly "hands off" approach to crises like the current airport problems. People would like a PM who actually took more of a close interest in what's going on and tried to do something about it.
Betting: Not sure of the value, I've tended not to get involved in Con next leader betting during contests, only as trading bets beforehand when I think the markets overreact to every bit of news and laying the favourite/backing the person out of favour has proved a good strategy. I'm most green on Hunt, Truss, Sunak, Javid, Mordaunt and Gove. The only 'possible' to my mind that I'm exposed on is Wallace and I don't really see him winning (I'm in a position to trade out others to cover Wallace, but I haven't done so, yet. If anything, I'm tempted to lay).
Personal/politics: As someone broadly sympathetic to Starmer, I'm not sure whether Hunt or Johnson is most to be feared. They'd appeal to very different constituencies. As a natural Lib Dem, I fear Hunt more as he'll make it harder for the yellows in the South. I've never warmed to Hunt and I'm with Naughtie on his character Handling of the doctors' strike suggests a lack of compromise and empathy, but strength of will. Alleged mishandling of pandemic drills suggests a possible lack of responsibility. I can't help thinking he's as iron willed as Thatcher, but without the imagination or vision. A man quite capable of breaking eggs, but perhaps not of making the omelette.
I think that's a decent analysis. The only thing missing is his spell on the backbenches, which distinguishes him from most of the other likely runners.
As with you I'm not someone who's going to vote for him, but there's a chance he might make a decent PM. Unlike most of the other likely runners...
Conservative Peer Lord Hayward says he thinks the letters of no confidence submitted to the 1922 Committee will meet the 54 threshold needed to trigger a vote of no confidence in the PM.
He adds "it's difficult to say" whether Boris Johnson will lose it.
Once a vote is actually held, whatever the result it's usually fatal for the credibility of the leader. Corbyn was I admit a dazzling exception, but the circumstances were unusual. May and Thatcher were both gone within a year of a challenge, and Major never recovered from 1995 (it's not as though he was in robust political health beforehand) - he would have been much better off resigning anyway.
"Corbyn was I admit a dazing exception".
" Corbyn was I admit a vajazzling exception", because the man is undoubtedly a ...
I am not sure about your analysis of Gus O'Donnell's advice. I think Brown was unusually right to remain as PM.
With the benefit of hindsight you are implying had Brown gone quickly we would never have got the collapse in LD support, Brexit, Corbyn or Johnson. Supposition rather than extrapolation is working very hard there.
True, the effects are hindsight but the implications were clear at the time. A minority Tory government, then a further election where they would get probably a middling majority, was a better option for Labour than being separated from the Liberal Democrats and spending five years out of power.
As for O'Donnell's advice, I'm perfectly content with saying he was wrong from every point of view, and hindsight only confirms it. As he was on his economic advice, his HR advice, and every other sort of advice he ever gave. He just didn't have a clue what he was doing and while Brown gets the flak O'Donnell deserves at least as much blame for the disasters that befell us.
The scenario the powers that be were trying to avoid is simple: 1. Brown resigns quickly as you propose he should have done 2. Palace summons Cameron 3. Cameron fails to do a deal with the LibDems 4. Cameron's government loses a VONC on day 1
There will always be a government, and the Queen will have just appointed one that does not have the confidence of the house. Ordinarily that would prompt either a general election (in which case the no-confidenced government stays in office though that election) or the summoning of another prospective PM who could command confidence.
It would have been an almighty mess. The prospect of a government which had never had the confidence of parliament was not something they wanted as it lacks legitimacy. Hence both the palace and the civil service telling Brown that he was obliged not to quit.
FIFA World Cup Play-Off Semi-Final Hampden Park 7:45 kick off this evening
Scotland 2.42 Ukraine 3.6
Great of the Scottish government to slash train services so that people living as far away Edinburgh can't get the train home afterwards. Drivers interviewed up here in the Press and Journal say the cuts are absurd and have left them "twiddling their thumbs" available for driving with no trains to drive...
Nationalise it. Oh wait...
As I kept pointing out to the "just nationalise it" wing of the Labour party, that isn't the solution when you aren't letting the industry run itself. Ministers and civil servants have no idea how to run a railway, and when they start to micromanage it all turns into an expensive mess.
The solution is as demonstrated by most European governments. A StateCo. Owned by the state but run commercially. The state removes the need to make profit and enables very cheap borrowing for investment and can subsidise as heavily as it wants to. But does not dictate the seat spacing and lack of tray tables on the Thameslink fleet (other examples of government meddling can be found)
Isn't that how Network Rail is run - State owned but run commercially? I am not seeing that as a great example of a successful, efficient business serving the needs of the country. Indeed many of the problems laid at the feet of the privatised rail companies actually originate with the state owned part of the system.
NEW: Senior Tories close to Boris Johnson fear that momentum is building among Tory rebel MPs for a confidence vote - potentially as soon as next week when parliament returns
One ally says it is "starting to feel inevitable" 54 letters will be submitted.
An eye opener yesterday - from one of the witnesses:
A penny has dropped after yesterday’s discussion in committee, which suddenly makes sense of a lot of the argument around reform of the gender recognition act.
Are you someone who thinks legislation is about the idea in your head or the words on the page? The contemporary Scottish law/policy making community maybe has a tendency to the first and an impatience with people too bothered about the second.
After the real v fake tickets were shown by the French, you'd think news outlets would be careful about what they show. Yesterday it was Sky, this morning it's the Guardian:
Grandson Two failed his practical driving test last week. Told next available likely to be late Aug/Sept. Temptation to use some of his summer earnings to 'accelerate' is quite high.
Why the f*** is this not illegal? Crazy what we allow to be inflicted on the young that would not have been tolerated in society as we were growing up ourselves.
Companies often offer a fast track for premium paying customers.
Governments thought that was a good idea. And, to be fair, there are some areas (e.g. passports) where there can be a need for a fast track.
But they just apply it to everything without thought. I can't see a case as to why you should be able have an earlier driving test just because you can pay more
Even if there was a case for an earlier driving test for cash, that cash should go to the DVLA, not the touts who are stopping the intended users from booking in an orderly fashion in the first place.
The real problem is that there is a 2 year backlog of driving tests, which is only just beginning to clear.
This is compounded by the way the system presents test opportunities for the ordinary leaner - you have to select a test centre and see what is available, rather than looking at tests slots in a 10 miles area or similar.
If the touts got into block booking all the available GP slots I wonder how long that would stay legal? Different when it only impacts the youngsters of course.
PM's allies think he can win any confidence vote but fear a decent chunk of the party won't back him and “then a hardcore group of MPs will have nothing to lose by playing guerrilla warfare.”
Conservative Peer Lord Hayward says he thinks the letters of no confidence submitted to the 1922 Committee will meet the 54 threshold needed to trigger a vote of no confidence in the PM.
He adds "it's difficult to say" whether Boris Johnson will lose it.
Once a vote is actually held, whatever the result it's usually fatal for the credibility of the leader. Corbyn was I admit a dazzling exception, but the circumstances were unusual. May and Thatcher were both gone within a year of a challenge, and Major never recovered from 1995 (it's not as though he was in robust political health beforehand) - he would have been much better off resigning anyway.
I totally agree with this bar one exception to your rule.
What if Boris Johnson won something like 320 to 40?
A thumping win would set him up neatly.
I think it's incredibly unlikely but I don't know what kind of nobbling he could get into in the run up to the vote. I put nothing past him, save murder, to save his own skin.
May won by nearly 2-1. It didn't save her.
Your premise then is that ANY leadership election fatally wounds the incumbent?
Mine is to agree but that a win by say 8-1 would put Johnson in a very strong position, not a weak one.
PM's allies think he can win any confidence vote but fear a decent chunk of the party won't back him and “then a hardcore group of MPs will have nothing to lose by playing guerrilla warfare.”
Conservative Peer Lord Hayward says he thinks the letters of no confidence submitted to the 1922 Committee will meet the 54 threshold needed to trigger a vote of no confidence in the PM.
He adds "it's difficult to say" whether Boris Johnson will lose it.
Once a vote is actually held, whatever the result it's usually fatal for the credibility of the leader. Corbyn was I admit a dazzling exception, but the circumstances were unusual. May and Thatcher were both gone within a year of a challenge, and Major never recovered from 1995 (it's not as though he was in robust political health beforehand) - he would have been much better off resigning anyway.
"Corbyn was I admit a dazing exception".
" Corbyn was I admit a vajazzling exception", because the man is undoubtedly a ...
I am not sure about your analysis of Gus O'Donnell's advice. I think Brown was unusually right to remain as PM.
With the benefit of hindsight you are implying had Brown gone quickly we would never have got the collapse in LD support, Brexit, Corbyn or Johnson. Supposition rather than extrapolation is working very hard there.
True, the effects are hindsight but the implications were clear at the time. A minority Tory government, then a further election where they would get probably a middling majority, was a better option for Labour than being separated from the Liberal Democrats and spending five years out of power.
As for O'Donnell's advice, I'm perfectly content with saying he was wrong from every point of view, and hindsight only confirms it. As he was on his economic advice, his HR advice, and every other sort of advice he ever gave. He just didn't have a clue what he was doing and while Brown gets the flak O'Donnell deserves at least as much blame for the disasters that befell us.
The scenario the powers that be were trying to avoid is simple: 1. Brown resigns quickly as you propose he should have done 2. Palace summons Cameron 3. Cameron fails to do a deal with the LibDems 4. Cameron's government loses a VONC on day 1
There will always be a government, and the Queen will have just appointed one that does not have the confidence of the house. Ordinarily that would prompt either a general election (in which case the no-confidenced government stays in office though that election) or the summoning of another prospective PM who could command confidence.
It would have been an almighty mess. The prospect of a government which had never had the confidence of parliament was not something they wanted as it lacks legitimacy. Hence both the palace and the civil service telling Brown that he was obliged not to quit.
But Brown's 2010 government never had the confidence of the house.
Well it won't be backed up by the mainstream media if Johnson has plastered a super injunction over the story.
Do super-injunctions really work any more? They might quieten Fleet Street, but that doesn't stop Al-Jazeera, the New York Post, Bild etc. (A former lecturer of mine was outed for harassment last year by Al-Jazeera, despite his lawyers managing to stop Fleet Street or the locals printing anything.)
Plus there's always the John Hemming naming Ryan Giggs in Parliament option.
I suspect if it becomes widespread enough on Twitter than the story will take on a life of its own, super-injunction or no.
NEW: Senior Tories close to Boris Johnson fear that momentum is building among Tory rebel MPs for a confidence vote - potentially as soon as next week when parliament returns
One ally says it is "starting to feel inevitable" 54 letters will be submitted.
Conservative Peer Lord Hayward says he thinks the letters of no confidence submitted to the 1922 Committee will meet the 54 threshold needed to trigger a vote of no confidence in the PM.
He adds "it's difficult to say" whether Boris Johnson will lose it.
Once a vote is actually held, whatever the result it's usually fatal for the credibility of the leader. Corbyn was I admit a dazzling exception, but the circumstances were unusual. May and Thatcher were both gone within a year of a challenge, and Major never recovered from 1995 (it's not as though he was in robust political health beforehand) - he would have been much better off resigning anyway.
"Corbyn was I admit a dazing exception".
" Corbyn was I admit a vajazzling exception", because the man is undoubtedly a ...
I am not sure about your analysis of Gus O'Donnell's advice. I think Brown was unusually right to remain as PM.
With the benefit of hindsight you are implying had Brown gone quickly we would never have got the collapse in LD support, Brexit, Corbyn or Johnson. Supposition rather than extrapolation is working very hard there.
True, the effects are hindsight but the implications were clear at the time. A minority Tory government, then a further election where they would get probably a middling majority, was a better option for Labour than being separated from the Liberal Democrats and spending five years out of power.
As for O'Donnell's advice, I'm perfectly content with saying he was wrong from every point of view, and hindsight only confirms it. As he was on his economic advice, his HR advice, and every other sort of advice he ever gave. He just didn't have a clue what he was doing and while Brown gets the flak O'Donnell deserves at least as much blame for the disasters that befell us.
The scenario the powers that be were trying to avoid is simple: 1. Brown resigns quickly as you propose he should have done 2. Palace summons Cameron 3. Cameron fails to do a deal with the LibDems 4. Cameron's government loses a VONC on day 1
There will always be a government, and the Queen will have just appointed one that does not have the confidence of the house. Ordinarily that would prompt either a general election (in which case the no-confidenced government stays in office though that election) or the summoning of another prospective PM who could command confidence.
It would have been an almighty mess. The prospect of a government which had never had the confidence of parliament was not something they wanted as it lacks legitimacy. Hence both the palace and the civil service telling Brown that he was obliged not to quit.
But that wasn't a plausible scenario. Because the Liberal Democrats had, as the Lloyd George Liberals had in 1929, intimated they would not immediately vote the largest party out of power if it was in office.
Sure, they might not have given it a formal deal later, but they would let it survive.
I am frustrated by the way too many people take the bad advice of O'Donnell and say, 'well, this might have happened.' There might have been a meteor strike. Or Michael Fabricant might have said something sane. Both are equally possible. Just not likely.
Ultimately it was the advice of a third rate fool noted for his overwhelming arrogance and lack of common sense, who prized theories and processes above democracy, aided and abetted by a man who didn't want to face the fact he had suffered a huge personal and political rebuff.
And it has, ironically, to come back to the original point, been far more damaging to the Labour Party than anything else.
Conservative Peer Lord Hayward says he thinks the letters of no confidence submitted to the 1922 Committee will meet the 54 threshold needed to trigger a vote of no confidence in the PM.
He adds "it's difficult to say" whether Boris Johnson will lose it.
Once a vote is actually held, whatever the result it's usually fatal for the credibility of the leader. Corbyn was I admit a dazzling exception, but the circumstances were unusual. May and Thatcher were both gone within a year of a challenge, and Major never recovered from 1995 (it's not as though he was in robust political health beforehand) - he would have been much better off resigning anyway.
I totally agree with this bar one exception to your rule.
What if Boris Johnson won something like 320 to 40?
A thumping win would set him up neatly.
I think it's incredibly unlikely but I don't know what kind of nobbling he could get into in the run up to the vote. I put nothing past him, save murder, to save his own skin.
I'm struggling to picture a situation where 54 MPs submit letters but then a quarter of them vote with the PM.
What is the point of an injunction? Or a super-injunction? Apart from a license to print money for the lawyers?
I suppose it's amusing for the plebs, but it didn't go well for Mr Giggs and his "Saving Ryan's Privates." attempt. What legal or judicial need does it serve?
Conservative Peer Lord Hayward says he thinks the letters of no confidence submitted to the 1922 Committee will meet the 54 threshold needed to trigger a vote of no confidence in the PM.
He adds "it's difficult to say" whether Boris Johnson will lose it.
Once a vote is actually held, whatever the result it's usually fatal for the credibility of the leader. Corbyn was I admit a dazzling exception, but the circumstances were unusual. May and Thatcher were both gone within a year of a challenge, and Major never recovered from 1995 (it's not as though he was in robust political health beforehand) - he would have been much better off resigning anyway.
I totally agree with this bar one exception to your rule.
What if Boris Johnson won something like 320 to 40?
A thumping win would set him up neatly.
I think it's incredibly unlikely but I don't know what kind of nobbling he could get into in the run up to the vote. I put nothing past him, save murder, to save his own skin.
May won by nearly 2-1. It didn't save her.
Your premise then is that ANY leadership election fatally wounds the incumbent?
Mine is to agree but that a win by say 8-1 would put Johnson in a very strong position, not a weak one.
I think I'm right but then I'm bound to say that
The 1989 Conservative Leadership election result was Maggie 314 - Sir Anthony "Stalking Donkey" Meyer 33; MHT was out of Downing Street less than a year later.
We can all see what the rules say, but even a fairly comfy win isn't a guarantee of safety for a leader. Once their leadership has been formally questioned, nothing is ever quite the same again.
The thing about that raspberry picking robot is that technical progress is an interaction between the machinery and the new types of raspberry that will be bred to be capable of being picked by the robot. This has happened with the strawberry varieties we find in the shops. Greater productivity from mechanised harvesting and the new varieties bred to cope with it have led to a decline in the quality of the product. But they are harvested earlier and are visually more perfect than those which only came into the shops for Wimbledon week 50 years ago. However the strawberries were vastly better tasting in those days, even if they were squishier and had a shorter shelf life.
Grow wild strawberries in your garden - tiny, ugly and absolutely packed with flavor.
I see a lot of people making assertions about healthcare systems being good or bad, and very little in the way of evidence. I sometimes wonder whether half you people think something just because others are saying it.
The grass is greener. I work with Germans. They frequently complain about their ‘shitty’ health system.
I’ve benefited hugely from the NHS over the years. In the last 5 years I’ve had to deal with MS, stroke, dementia, Leukaemia, Cluster headaches, Breast cancer, lung cancer and myriad little things in my immediate family.
The fact money was never an issue means a lot to me. I could focus on my loved ones.
That being said the way the NHS works is still a mystery. It could be organised so much more efficiently.
I think whatever system we have has to be free at the point of delivery - but then most European systems are to a greater or lesser extent, and some more so than the NHS.
But there is a fundamental concern about the fact that this supposed shining light of a health system has poorer outcomes for patients than most other 1st world health systems. And the fact that it has become something of a national religion means that making that it is unfit for purpose and in need of reform is practically impossible for any politician.
PM's allies think he can win any confidence vote but fear a decent chunk of the party won't back him and “then a hardcore group of MPs will have nothing to lose by playing guerrilla warfare.”
Conservative Peer Lord Hayward says he thinks the letters of no confidence submitted to the 1922 Committee will meet the 54 threshold needed to trigger a vote of no confidence in the PM.
He adds "it's difficult to say" whether Boris Johnson will lose it.
Once a vote is actually held, whatever the result it's usually fatal for the credibility of the leader. Corbyn was I admit a dazzling exception, but the circumstances were unusual. May and Thatcher were both gone within a year of a challenge, and Major never recovered from 1995 (it's not as though he was in robust political health beforehand) - he would have been much better off resigning anyway.
"Corbyn was I admit a dazing exception".
" Corbyn was I admit a vajazzling exception", because the man is undoubtedly a ...
I am not sure about your analysis of Gus O'Donnell's advice. I think Brown was unusually right to remain as PM.
With the benefit of hindsight you are implying had Brown gone quickly we would never have got the collapse in LD support, Brexit, Corbyn or Johnson. Supposition rather than extrapolation is working very hard there.
True, the effects are hindsight but the implications were clear at the time. A minority Tory government, then a further election where they would get probably a middling majority, was a better option for Labour than being separated from the Liberal Democrats and spending five years out of power.
As for O'Donnell's advice, I'm perfectly content with saying he was wrong from every point of view, and hindsight only confirms it. As he was on his economic advice, his HR advice, and every other sort of advice he ever gave. He just didn't have a clue what he was doing and while Brown gets the flak O'Donnell deserves at least as much blame for the disasters that befell us.
The scenario the powers that be were trying to avoid is simple: 1. Brown resigns quickly as you propose he should have done 2. Palace summons Cameron 3. Cameron fails to do a deal with the LibDems 4. Cameron's government loses a VONC on day 1
There will always be a government, and the Queen will have just appointed one that does not have the confidence of the house. Ordinarily that would prompt either a general election (in which case the no-confidenced government stays in office though that election) or the summoning of another prospective PM who could command confidence.
It would have been an almighty mess. The prospect of a government which had never had the confidence of parliament was not something they wanted as it lacks legitimacy. Hence both the palace and the civil service telling Brown that he was obliged not to quit.
But that wasn't a plausible scenario. Because the Liberal Democrats had, as the Lloyd George Liberals had in 1929, intimated they would not immediately vote the largest party out of power if it was in office.
Sure, they might not have given it a formal deal later, but they would let it survive.
I am frustrated by the way too many people take the bad advice of O'Donnell and say, 'well, this might have happened.' There might have been a meteor strike. Or Michael Fabricant might have said something sane. Both are equally possible. Just not likely.
Ultimately it was the advice of a third rate fool noted for his overwhelming arrogance and lack of common sense, who prized theories and processes above democracy, aided and abetted by a man who didn't want to face the fact he had suffered a huge personal and political rebuff.
And it has, ironically, to come back to the original point, been far more damaging to the Labour Party than anything else.
The thing about that raspberry picking robot is that technical progress is an interaction between the machinery and the new types of raspberry that will be bred to be capable of being picked by the robot. This has happened with the strawberry varieties we find in the shops. Greater productivity from mechanised harvesting and the new varieties bred to cope with it have led to a decline in the quality of the product. But they are harvested earlier and are visually more perfect than those which only came into the shops for Wimbledon week 50 years ago. However the strawberries were vastly better tasting in those days, even if they were squishier and had a shorter shelf life.
Grow wild strawberries in your garden - tiny, ugly and absolutely packed with flavor.
Another problem with Johnson is his seemingly "hands off" approach to crises like the current airport problems. People would like a PM who actually took more of a close interest in what's going on and tried to do something about it.
Hands off? Dereliction of duty is another way of putting it.
A fascinating story about Ukrainian ‘unicorn’ soldiers, members of the LGBTQ community. One thing this war has revealed, which needs constant reinforcement, is that a more united, tolerant, inclusive country leads to greater military effectiveness.
Part of their Putin worship came from the idea that Russia’s more oppressive, anti liberal society would create a more masculine, powerful military. In the end, this is shown to be such a sham.
Conservative Peer Lord Hayward says he thinks the letters of no confidence submitted to the 1922 Committee will meet the 54 threshold needed to trigger a vote of no confidence in the PM.
He adds "it's difficult to say" whether Boris Johnson will lose it.
Once a vote is actually held, whatever the result it's usually fatal for the credibility of the leader. Corbyn was I admit a dazzling exception, but the circumstances were unusual. May and Thatcher were both gone within a year of a challenge, and Major never recovered from 1995 (it's not as though he was in robust political health beforehand) - he would have been much better off resigning anyway.
"Corbyn was I admit a dazing exception".
" Corbyn was I admit a vajazzling exception", because the man is undoubtedly a ...
I am not sure about your analysis of Gus O'Donnell's advice. I think Brown was unusually right to remain as PM.
With the benefit of hindsight you are implying had Brown gone quickly we would never have got the collapse in LD support, Brexit, Corbyn or Johnson. Supposition rather than extrapolation is working very hard there.
True, the effects are hindsight but the implications were clear at the time. A minority Tory government, then a further election where they would get probably a middling majority, was a better option for Labour than being separated from the Liberal Democrats and spending five years out of power.
As for O'Donnell's advice, I'm perfectly content with saying he was wrong from every point of view, and hindsight only confirms it. As he was on his economic advice, his HR advice, and every other sort of advice he ever gave. He just didn't have a clue what he was doing and while Brown gets the flak O'Donnell deserves at least as much blame for the disasters that befell us.
The scenario the powers that be were trying to avoid is simple: 1. Brown resigns quickly as you propose he should have done 2. Palace summons Cameron 3. Cameron fails to do a deal with the LibDems 4. Cameron's government loses a VONC on day 1
There will always be a government, and the Queen will have just appointed one that does not have the confidence of the house. Ordinarily that would prompt either a general election (in which case the no-confidenced government stays in office though that election) or the summoning of another prospective PM who could command confidence.
It would have been an almighty mess. The prospect of a government which had never had the confidence of parliament was not something they wanted as it lacks legitimacy. Hence both the palace and the civil service telling Brown that he was obliged not to quit.
But that wasn't a plausible scenario. Because the Liberal Democrats had, as the Lloyd George Liberals had in 1929, intimated they would not immediately vote the largest party out of power if it was in office.
Sure, they might not have given it a formal deal later, but they would let it survive.
I am frustrated by the way too many people take the bad advice of O'Donnell and say, 'well, this might have happened.' There might have been a meteor strike. Or Michael Fabricant might have said something sane. Both are equally possible. Just not likely.
Ultimately it was the advice of a third rate fool noted for his overwhelming arrogance and lack of common sense, who prized theories and processes above democracy, aided and abetted by a man who didn't want to face the fact he had suffered a huge personal and political rebuff.
And it has, ironically, to come back to the original point, been far more damaging to the Labour Party than anything else.
There's a strong argument that appointing Cameron while negotiations were ongoing would have affected the negotiations. Both in terms of adding an unnecessary extra pressure to finalise the deal, and distracting from the making of the deal by putting the business of governing on the parties. Rushing these things is often a bad idea.
NEW: Senior Tories close to Boris Johnson fear that momentum is building among Tory rebel MPs for a confidence vote - potentially as soon as next week when parliament returns
One ally says it is "starting to feel inevitable" 54 letters will be submitted.
Well it won't be backed up by the mainstream media if Johnson has plastered a super injunction over the story.
Do super-injunctions really work any more? They might quieten Fleet Street, but that doesn't stop Al-Jazeera, the New York Post, Bild etc. (A former lecturer of mine was outed for harassment last year by Al-Jazeera, despite his lawyers managing to stop Fleet Street or the locals printing anything.)
Plus there's always the John Hemming naming Ryan Giggs in Parliament option.
I suspect if it becomes widespread enough on Twitter than the story will take on a life of its own, super-injunction or no.
Even when it's out there, mainstream UK media tend to oblige the individual for fear of litigation.
What is the point of an injunction? Or a super-injunction? Apart from a license to print money for the lawyers?
I suppose it's amusing for the plebs, but it didn't go well for Mr Giggs and his "Saving Ryan's Privates." attempt. What legal or judicial need does it serve?
Observation bias. The superinjunctions *that you know about* are (partially) useless. But even there there's a difference in political hit between you and me going fnaaar about violinists and Clara's little outing, and them being headline news for a week. which they both would be.
So the comedy scenario is thus: 1. Graham Brady books a big room in parliament early next week and announces a contest 2. Consternation and uproar from the Tories. The loon wing angrily attack their traitor colleagues, the moral / nervous ones attack back 3. Johnson scrapes over the line. Badly damaged, with ongoing attacks by the moral vs the vacuous. 4. We really now must move on says team clown 5. "Oh hell no" says the public, with a fresh poll plunge for the Tories 6. Tories get smashed in both Wakefield and Devon. 7. Despite the "he's safe for 12 months" rule the slide into the mire only accelerates. 8. He resigns, but instead of a swift contest and a sane leader paraded at conference we have a fractious battle with the remaining loons desperate to hold onto control of the party. 9. Instead Conference is a contest where the membership listen to "vote for me" speeches from favoured candidates. A choice of Patel or Baker becomes their option...
Rees-Mogg invented his own constitutional convention that a leader who survives a VONC, but not by enough, should resign anyway, when he was whinging about May winning hers.
I would love to see how he reverses position if Boris wins such a vote.
7. Is definitely possible. The rule is meant to prevent challenges but doesnt mean people magically become happy.
Didn't bother Labour when in 2010 they said a PM was a PM was a PM until he resigned, and then in 2015 briefed a PM who didn't win outright should resign at once.
Interestingly on both occasions they were completely wrong, and both times it militated against their own best interests.
They were right in 2010 and wrong in 2015. Regardless of elections we always have ministers including the PM. The Queen asks someone to form a government who then needs to be supported by the Commons.
So in 2010 it was unclear after the election whether any leader could command confidence in the Commons. So for 5 days we waited for negotiations. During that time all ministers remain in place until the government resigns.
The situation in 2015 was very different. It seemed likely that Cameron would be able to have the confidence of the house if the Tories were at least the largest party. And if Labour were the largest party but again no majority it would be incumbent on the government to stay in office until a viable replacement could be appointed.
No, the precedent from 1929 is that when the governing party is clearly unable to carry on the largest party be invited to form a government. Which did eventually happen, but took far too long.
O'Donnell didn't have a clue what he was doing, in this as in many other matters.
But - unfortunately for Labour - their mistake in listening to his stupid advice was enormously damaging. First, because it made them look like sore losers. They got the lowest share of the vote ever by a governing party, lost a hundred seats, and were clearly trying to cling on to power. Not a good look. Second, because it forced Cameron's backbenchers to concede a coalition with the Liberal Democrats rather than trying for a minority government. Which meant no prospect of a quick rematch. Third, because they left before the agreement was signed which undercut their own credibility on point 1 anyway. Fourth, because the five years of coalition allowed a head of steam to build behind UKIP and the SNP with distinctly unfortunate consequences.
If Brown had done the sane thing, accepted the verdict of the voters and resigned at once, things might have been very different. And very much better all around.
Surely the biggest downside for Labour is that it has set a new precedent. Don't expect the Tories to let Labour waltz into Number 10 after the next election.
I've never really understood this discussion. The government is formed by the party or parties who can win a confidence vote in the HoC. Whether that emerges an hour after the election or a week after is neither here nor there. In other countries there can be several months between the election and the transfer of power. If the existing PM wants to stay in office to provide continuity of leadership until it is clear who can form a government then that is not only totally fine, it is their constitutional duty in my view. As long as they don't try to pass any legislation in the meantime, of course - but how could they do that anyway, if they didn't have a majority? This is just another example of BDS (Brown Derangement Syndrome).
I just spoke to my Boris-loving Surrey neighbour, mentioning Mike's post. Here's her response verbatim:
'Ah well I've always rated Jeremy Hunt and have said so many times.'
She was rather glowing and it's the first time I've ever heard her relaxed and happy about the prospect of Johnson going.
No surprise that Surrey Tories like Hunt.
Yes but you may be missing the point here, as neatly explained just now by @Selebian
As things stand, the Liberal Democrats are going to take a chunk of seats in Surrey and the south off the Conservatives. I live in Surrey and I can assure you this is NOT one of those perennial false dawns. There is real, tangible, visceral anger towards the Conservatives here. This is why I tipped not only my ward (Heathlands) but the whole of Woking to go LibDem at the locals. The result wasn't even close.
If they stick with Boris Johnson the results in SW London and Surrey will be incredible.
But I fear Jeremy Hunt because he will definitely win back tory waverers in these parts. He is trusted and liked and unlike Boris Johnson he is also a Conservative.
Even John Major won Surrey in 1997, if Hunt holds Surrey but loses the redwall there will still almost certainly be a Labour led government.
Even the DUP are not certain to back the Tories again if it is a hung parliament
Conservative Peer Lord Hayward says he thinks the letters of no confidence submitted to the 1922 Committee will meet the 54 threshold needed to trigger a vote of no confidence in the PM.
He adds "it's difficult to say" whether Boris Johnson will lose it.
Once a vote is actually held, whatever the result it's usually fatal for the credibility of the leader. Corbyn was I admit a dazzling exception, but the circumstances were unusual. May and Thatcher were both gone within a year of a challenge, and Major never recovered from 1995 (it's not as though he was in robust political health beforehand) - he would have been much better off resigning anyway.
"Corbyn was I admit a dazing exception".
" Corbyn was I admit a vajazzling exception", because the man is undoubtedly a ...
I am not sure about your analysis of Gus O'Donnell's advice. I think Brown was unusually right to remain as PM.
With the benefit of hindsight you are implying had Brown gone quickly we would never have got the collapse in LD support, Brexit, Corbyn or Johnson. Supposition rather than extrapolation is working very hard there.
True, the effects are hindsight but the implications were clear at the time. A minority Tory government, then a further election where they would get probably a middling majority, was a better option for Labour than being separated from the Liberal Democrats and spending five years out of power.
As for O'Donnell's advice, I'm perfectly content with saying he was wrong from every point of view, and hindsight only confirms it. As he was on his economic advice, his HR advice, and every other sort of advice he ever gave. He just didn't have a clue what he was doing and while Brown gets the flak O'Donnell deserves at least as much blame for the disasters that befell us.
The scenario the powers that be were trying to avoid is simple: 1. Brown resigns quickly as you propose he should have done 2. Palace summons Cameron 3. Cameron fails to do a deal with the LibDems 4. Cameron's government loses a VONC on day 1
There will always be a government, and the Queen will have just appointed one that does not have the confidence of the house. Ordinarily that would prompt either a general election (in which case the no-confidenced government stays in office though that election) or the summoning of another prospective PM who could command confidence.
It would have been an almighty mess. The prospect of a government which had never had the confidence of parliament was not something they wanted as it lacks legitimacy. Hence both the palace and the civil service telling Brown that he was obliged not to quit.
But that wasn't a plausible scenario. Because the Liberal Democrats had, as the Lloyd George Liberals had in 1929, intimated they would not immediately vote the largest party out of power if it was in office.
Sure, they might not have given it a formal deal later, but they would let it survive.
I am frustrated by the way too many people take the bad advice of O'Donnell and say, 'well, this might have happened.' There might have been a meteor strike. Or Michael Fabricant might have said something sane. Both are equally possible. Just not likely.
Ultimately it was the advice of a third rate fool noted for his overwhelming arrogance and lack of common sense, who prized theories and processes above democracy, aided and abetted by a man who didn't want to face the fact he had suffered a huge personal and political rebuff.
And it has, ironically, to come back to the original point, been far more damaging to the Labour Party than anything else.
It was plausible to the LibDems elected in 2010. Two books that I have read showing the mood of the MPs especially the new ones was largely hostile towards the idea of providing succour to a Tory party most saw as their enemy.
It took a significant diplomatic effort from Clegg - and ultimately the backing of Ashdown - to bring them round. Had those efforts failed the weren't going to successfully tell their MPs "now look here, we have to copy Lloyd George a century ago".
Conservative Peer Lord Hayward says he thinks the letters of no confidence submitted to the 1922 Committee will meet the 54 threshold needed to trigger a vote of no confidence in the PM.
He adds "it's difficult to say" whether Boris Johnson will lose it.
Once a vote is actually held, whatever the result it's usually fatal for the credibility of the leader. Corbyn was I admit a dazzling exception, but the circumstances were unusual. May and Thatcher were both gone within a year of a challenge, and Major never recovered from 1995 (it's not as though he was in robust political health beforehand) - he would have been much better off resigning anyway.
I totally agree with this bar one exception to your rule.
What if Boris Johnson won something like 320 to 40?
A thumping win would set him up neatly.
I think it's incredibly unlikely but I don't know what kind of nobbling he could get into in the run up to the vote. I put nothing past him, save murder, to save his own skin.
May won by nearly 2-1. It didn't save her.
Your premise then is that ANY leadership election fatally wounds the incumbent?
Mine is to agree but that a win by say 8-1 would put Johnson in a very strong position, not a weak one.
I think I'm right but then I'm bound to say that
He can only win by max 5.6 - 1 unless letter writers recant.
Conservative Peer Lord Hayward says he thinks the letters of no confidence submitted to the 1922 Committee will meet the 54 threshold needed to trigger a vote of no confidence in the PM.
He adds "it's difficult to say" whether Boris Johnson will lose it.
Once a vote is actually held, whatever the result it's usually fatal for the credibility of the leader. Corbyn was I admit a dazzling exception, but the circumstances were unusual. May and Thatcher were both gone within a year of a challenge, and Major never recovered from 1995 (it's not as though he was in robust political health beforehand) - he would have been much better off resigning anyway.
"Corbyn was I admit a dazing exception".
" Corbyn was I admit a vajazzling exception", because the man is undoubtedly a ...
I am not sure about your analysis of Gus O'Donnell's advice. I think Brown was unusually right to remain as PM.
With the benefit of hindsight you are implying had Brown gone quickly we would never have got the collapse in LD support, Brexit, Corbyn or Johnson. Supposition rather than extrapolation is working very hard there.
True, the effects are hindsight but the implications were clear at the time. A minority Tory government, then a further election where they would get probably a middling majority, was a better option for Labour than being separated from the Liberal Democrats and spending five years out of power.
As for O'Donnell's advice, I'm perfectly content with saying he was wrong from every point of view, and hindsight only confirms it. As he was on his economic advice, his HR advice, and every other sort of advice he ever gave. He just didn't have a clue what he was doing and while Brown gets the flak O'Donnell deserves at least as much blame for the disasters that befell us.
The scenario the powers that be were trying to avoid is simple: 1. Brown resigns quickly as you propose he should have done 2. Palace summons Cameron 3. Cameron fails to do a deal with the LibDems 4. Cameron's government loses a VONC on day 1
There will always be a government, and the Queen will have just appointed one that does not have the confidence of the house. Ordinarily that would prompt either a general election (in which case the no-confidenced government stays in office though that election) or the summoning of another prospective PM who could command confidence.
It would have been an almighty mess. The prospect of a government which had never had the confidence of parliament was not something they wanted as it lacks legitimacy. Hence both the palace and the civil service telling Brown that he was obliged not to quit.
But that wasn't a plausible scenario. Because the Liberal Democrats had, as the Lloyd George Liberals had in 1929, intimated they would not immediately vote the largest party out of power if it was in office.
Sure, they might not have given it a formal deal later, but they would let it survive.
I am frustrated by the way too many people take the bad advice of O'Donnell and say, 'well, this might have happened.' There might have been a meteor strike. Or Michael Fabricant might have said something sane. Both are equally possible. Just not likely.
Ultimately it was the advice of a third rate fool noted for his overwhelming arrogance and lack of common sense, who prized theories and processes above democracy, aided and abetted by a man who didn't want to face the fact he had suffered a huge personal and political rebuff.
And it has, ironically, to come back to the original point, been far more damaging to the Labour Party than anything else.
It was plausible to the LibDems elected in 2010. Two books that I have read showing the mood of the MPs especially the new ones was largely hostile towards the idea of providing succour to a Tory party most saw as their enemy.
It took a significant diplomatic effort from Clegg - and ultimately the backing of Ashdown - to bring them round. Had those efforts failed the weren't going to successfully tell their MPs "now look here, we have to copy Lloyd George a century ago".
Wednesday numbers - At least 44 Tory MPs have publicly questioned Johnson’s fitness to hold office, including 18 who are explicitly known to have sent letters to Sir Graham Brady
Separately, (thank you to our amazing readers!) the Guardian has seen letters to constituents or public statements from at least 35 further MPs that suggest they are openly questioning the prime minister’s future or expressing doubts he can regain trust.
Thanks, but I meant why should someone be able to use the law to keep their nefarious deeds hidden by legal means? I suppose morals and solicitors rarely share common ground. Why can't they concentrate on ambulance-chasing?
What is the point of an injunction? Or a super-injunction? Apart from a license to print money for the lawyers?
I suppose it's amusing for the plebs, but it didn't go well for Mr Giggs and his "Saving Ryan's Privates." attempt. What legal or judicial need does it serve?
None really. It's the creation of rich people and their lawyers.
Keeps the press cautious with what they say - and of course we don't hear about the successful ones.
NEW: Senior Tories close to Boris Johnson fear that momentum is building among Tory rebel MPs for a confidence vote - potentially as soon as next week when parliament returns
One ally says it is "starting to feel inevitable" 54 letters will be submitted.
Hunt 16% - Much too high Tugendhat 11% - About right Truss 11% - About right, maybe a bit high Wallace 9% - Too low (but does he want the gig?) Sunak 9% - No chance, have the punters in this market not been reading the news? Mordaunt 8% - A bit low, but she lacks experience Zahawi 5% - OKish I suppose. Very dull media performer. Gove 4% - About right Javid 4% - Too low. "When you've eliminated the impossible..."
And don't forget Raab and Barclay, also both possible.
A pretty wide-open field, which may well mean the contest doesn't actually happen.
Conservative Peer Lord Hayward says he thinks the letters of no confidence submitted to the 1922 Committee will meet the 54 threshold needed to trigger a vote of no confidence in the PM.
He adds "it's difficult to say" whether Boris Johnson will lose it.
Once a vote is actually held, whatever the result it's usually fatal for the credibility of the leader. Corbyn was I admit a dazzling exception, but the circumstances were unusual. May and Thatcher were both gone within a year of a challenge, and Major never recovered from 1995 (it's not as though he was in robust political health beforehand) - he would have been much better off resigning anyway.
"Corbyn was I admit a dazing exception".
" Corbyn was I admit a vajazzling exception", because the man is undoubtedly a ...
I am not sure about your analysis of Gus O'Donnell's advice. I think Brown was unusually right to remain as PM.
With the benefit of hindsight you are implying had Brown gone quickly we would never have got the collapse in LD support, Brexit, Corbyn or Johnson. Supposition rather than extrapolation is working very hard there.
True, the effects are hindsight but the implications were clear at the time. A minority Tory government, then a further election where they would get probably a middling majority, was a better option for Labour than being separated from the Liberal Democrats and spending five years out of power.
As for O'Donnell's advice, I'm perfectly content with saying he was wrong from every point of view, and hindsight only confirms it. As he was on his economic advice, his HR advice, and every other sort of advice he ever gave. He just didn't have a clue what he was doing and while Brown gets the flak O'Donnell deserves at least as much blame for the disasters that befell us.
The scenario the powers that be were trying to avoid is simple: 1. Brown resigns quickly as you propose he should have done 2. Palace summons Cameron 3. Cameron fails to do a deal with the LibDems 4. Cameron's government loses a VONC on day 1
There will always be a government, and the Queen will have just appointed one that does not have the confidence of the house. Ordinarily that would prompt either a general election (in which case the no-confidenced government stays in office though that election) or the summoning of another prospective PM who could command confidence.
It would have been an almighty mess. The prospect of a government which had never had the confidence of parliament was not something they wanted as it lacks legitimacy. Hence both the palace and the civil service telling Brown that he was obliged not to quit.
But that wasn't a plausible scenario. Because the Liberal Democrats had, as the Lloyd George Liberals had in 1929, intimated they would not immediately vote the largest party out of power if it was in office.
Sure, they might not have given it a formal deal later, but they would let it survive.
I am frustrated by the way too many people take the bad advice of O'Donnell and say, 'well, this might have happened.' There might have been a meteor strike. Or Michael Fabricant might have said something sane. Both are equally possible. Just not likely.
Ultimately it was the advice of a third rate fool noted for his overwhelming arrogance and lack of common sense, who prized theories and processes above democracy, aided and abetted by a man who didn't want to face the fact he had suffered a huge personal and political rebuff.
And it has, ironically, to come back to the original point, been far more damaging to the Labour Party than anything else.
There's a strong argument that appointing Cameron while negotiations were ongoing would have affected the negotiations. Both in terms of adding an unnecessary extra pressure to finalise the deal, and distracting from the making of the deal by putting the business of governing on the parties. Rushing these things is often a bad idea.
I'm not buying this Brown was wrong stuff.
There is no requirement for PM to resign immediately after an election.
An incumbent PM is entitled to remain in office if he wishes until he loses the confidence of the Commons.
In hung parliament situation that may have to be actually tested with a vote.
I just spoke to my Boris-loving Surrey neighbour, mentioning Mike's post. Here's her response verbatim:
'Ah well I've always rated Jeremy Hunt and have said so many times.'
She was rather glowing and it's the first time I've ever heard her relaxed and happy about the prospect of Johnson going.
No surprise that Surrey Tories like Hunt.
Yes but you may be missing the point here, as neatly explained just now by @Selebian
As things stand, the Liberal Democrats are going to take a chunk of seats in Surrey and the south off the Conservatives. I live in Surrey and I can assure you this is NOT one of those perennial false dawns. There is real, tangible, visceral anger towards the Conservatives here. This is why I tipped not only my ward (Heathlands) but the whole of Woking to go LibDem at the locals. The result wasn't even close.
If they stick with Boris Johnson the results in SW London and Surrey will be incredible.
But I fear Jeremy Hunt because he will definitely win back tory waverers in these parts. He is trusted and liked and unlike Boris Johnson he is also a Conservative.
Even John Major won Surrey in 1997, if Hunt holds Surrey but loses the redwall there will still almost certainly be a Labour led government.
Even the DUP are not certain to back the Tories again if it is a hung parliament
There will be a not small number of Tory MPs now more concerned with holding their seats than with the receding prospect of a parliamentary majority after the next election.
You of all people should understand the imperative of voting in your own interest.
So the comedy scenario is thus: 1. Graham Brady books a big room in parliament early next week and announces a contest 2. Consternation and uproar from the Tories. The loon wing angrily attack their traitor colleagues, the moral / nervous ones attack back 3. Johnson scrapes over the line. Badly damaged, with ongoing attacks by the moral vs the vacuous. 4. We really now must move on says team clown 5. "Oh hell no" says the public, with a fresh poll plunge for the Tories 6. Tories get smashed in both Wakefield and Devon. 7. Despite the "he's safe for 12 months" rule the slide into the mire only accelerates. 8. He resigns, but instead of a swift contest and a sane leader paraded at conference we have a fractious battle with the remaining loons desperate to hold onto control of the party. 9. Instead Conference is a contest where the membership listen to "vote for me" speeches from favoured candidates. A choice of Patel or Baker becomes their option...
Rees-Mogg invented his own constitutional convention that a leader who survives a VONC, but not by enough, should resign anyway, when he was whinging about May winning hers.
I would love to see how he reverses position if Boris wins such a vote.
7. Is definitely possible. The rule is meant to prevent challenges but doesnt mean people magically become happy.
Didn't bother Labour when in 2010 they said a PM was a PM was a PM until he resigned, and then in 2015 briefed a PM who didn't win outright should resign at once.
Interestingly on both occasions they were completely wrong, and both times it militated against their own best interests.
They were right in 2010 and wrong in 2015. Regardless of elections we always have ministers including the PM. The Queen asks someone to form a government who then needs to be supported by the Commons.
So in 2010 it was unclear after the election whether any leader could command confidence in the Commons. So for 5 days we waited for negotiations. During that time all ministers remain in place until the government resigns.
The situation in 2015 was very different. It seemed likely that Cameron would be able to have the confidence of the house if the Tories were at least the largest party. And if Labour were the largest party but again no majority it would be incumbent on the government to stay in office until a viable replacement could be appointed.
No, the precedent from 1929 is that when the governing party is clearly unable to carry on the largest party be invited to form a government. Which did eventually happen, but took far too long.
O'Donnell didn't have a clue what he was doing, in this as in many other matters.
But - unfortunately for Labour - their mistake in listening to his stupid advice was enormously damaging. First, because it made them look like sore losers. They got the lowest share of the vote ever by a governing party, lost a hundred seats, and were clearly trying to cling on to power. Not a good look. Second, because it forced Cameron's backbenchers to concede a coalition with the Liberal Democrats rather than trying for a minority government. Which meant no prospect of a quick rematch. Third, because they left before the agreement was signed which undercut their own credibility on point 1 anyway. Fourth, because the five years of coalition allowed a head of steam to build behind UKIP and the SNP with distinctly unfortunate consequences.
If Brown had done the sane thing, accepted the verdict of the voters and resigned at once, things might have been very different. And very much better all around.
Surely the biggest downside for Labour is that it has set a new precedent. Don't expect the Tories to let Labour waltz into Number 10 after the next election.
I've never really understood this discussion. The government is formed by the party or parties who can win a confidence vote in the HoC. Whether that emerges an hour after the election or a week after is neither here nor there. In other countries there can be several months between the election and the transfer of power. If the existing PM wants to stay in office to provide continuity of leadership until it is clear who can form a government then that is not only totally fine, it is their constitutional duty in my view. As long as they don't try to pass any legislation in the meantime, of course - but how could they do that anyway, if they didn't have a majority? This is just another example of BDS (Brown Derangement Syndrome).
I guess it comes down to how long can it go on without the commons voting on anything? Until the government needs to pass a budget?
Let's be honest, the reason this matters is that incumbency at an election is worth something.
Wednesday numbers - At least 44 Tory MPs have publicly questioned Johnson’s fitness to hold office, including 18 who are explicitly known to have sent letters to Sir Graham Brady
Separately, (thank you to our amazing readers!) the Guardian has seen letters to constituents or public statements from at least 35 further MPs that suggest they are openly questioning the prime minister’s future or expressing doubts he can regain trust.
Gone by end June is 13.5 on betfair. I added to my Bojexit losses (probably) by getting on at 15 yday. This does look value to me now though; if he goes at all, he is going to go sooner not later, and there's still 29 days of June left.
Comments
O'Donnell didn't have a clue what he was doing, in this as in many other matters.
But - unfortunately for Labour - their mistake in listening to his stupid advice was enormously damaging. First, because it made them look like sore losers. They got the lowest share of the vote ever by a governing party, lost a hundred seats, and were clearly trying to cling on to power. Not a good look. Second, because it forced Cameron's backbenchers to concede a coalition with the Liberal Democrats rather than trying for a minority government. Which meant no prospect of a quick rematch. Third, because they left before the agreement was signed which undercut their own credibility on point 1 anyway. Fourth, because the five years of coalition allowed a head of steam to build behind UKIP and the SNP with distinctly unfortunate consequences.
If Brown had done the sane thing, accepted the verdict of the voters and resigned at once, things might have been very different. And very much better all around.
He adds "it's difficult to say" whether Boris Johnson will lose it.
https://trib.al/iQPP0BB https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1531906180280352769/video/1
I would normally opine that politicians' private lives should remain private, unless their behaviour runs contrary to their pronouncements. In Johnson's case he has made his colourful private life integral to the fictional "Boris" character he has constructed, therefore he is fair game.
They all have naval ranks (officers only, no enlisted) and wear pseudo-naval uniforms but they are separate branches.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_law_enforcement_in_the_United_States
So O'Donnell did what was required to maintain a functioning government. The party political considerations you listed are not relevant to him and the system, its simply who can command the confidence of the Commons to lead a government.
Brown was perfectly within his rights not to resign when he did - no coalition agreement had been reached and when he did Clegg assumed it was off. Testing in parliament where power really was is absolutely our system - as is the right of MPs not to vote for any option (as they later did with Brexit).
Even if we got to an impasse where no government could be formed there would still be a government and ministers in place, and with no agreement on a new government led by Cameron the incumbent would have been left in place until a fresh election could be organised. Labour would have been demolished in that one, but constitutionally it would have been entirely proper to leave Brown and his ministers in place until it was clear a replacement was there.
Governments thought that was a good idea. And, to be fair, there are some areas (e.g. passports) where there can be a need for a fast track.
But they just apply it to everything without thought. I can't see a case as to why you should be able have an earlier driving test just because you can pay more
Bear in mind, if Heseltine had won by the necessary margin, he would have been PM. That was a thought that must have given many MPs who wanted rid of Thatcher pause.
Public health - no idea!
Personally I want an Archbishop more focused on parish based ministry which Cotterell seems to be
Perhaps even a touch of humility.
In any event, I said he was a trading bet yesterday, and I am nicely in the green.
I appreciate the point about arithmetic doesn't apply to O'Donnell, who is after all an economist (not a very good one).
Edit - speaking of Salisbury, another possibility might be Stephen Lake. I know him and he's impressive, and he would be 62 when Welby retires.
Lots of research into tropical diseases came from trying to keep armies alive, for example.
However, I suspect for many, right now, its not being able to access a GP which is colouring their views. You still hear of GP's that are 'closed', which normally means you cannot physically go in unless you have an appointment, which must be arranged over the phone, if you can get through. Our surgery is rather like this, although it does a good job on emailed consultation. An issue I had a few weeks ago - I emailed in the morning, was called around 5.30 pm, and saw a doctor at 7.30 pm on the same day. Great for me, no so much for Aunty Betty round the corner who just wants to turn up and wait.
It also doesn't help that we have had decades of bad press about how bad the NHS is, and then the last two years its been at winter stretch capacity for 24 months.
Generally, when you get to hospitals, they are ok. The treatment is good, and it works, kind of. You get the impression that a lot of it works despite the management. It could also usually do with a lick of paint. But it works.
Where we have a religion is the 'free at the point of use' mantra. And yet other systems can be free at the point of use too - a smaller NHS backed with greater spread of health insurance.
We often seem too proud of the NHS to look at other nations approaches. We should. There are other ways.
It wasn't the stablest or the most likely combination under the circumstances, but that wasn't the question.
The innocent may be surprised what an issue that is.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/jun/01/top-gun-maverick-sparks-joy-in-taiwan-after-its-flag-features-on-tom-cruise-jacket
This feels like we're back to the absurdities of our FPTP electoral system. Nobody votes for a government or a prime minister or for a party leader (unless they run in their constituency). So the PM can quite legitimately continue in office as long as the Commons has confidence in them. And when its a messy election result that may not be known until someone tries.
The fun scenario would have been for Brown to copy Johnson. Don't think you have the confidence of the house? Simply prorogue parliament and govern by decree.
Betting:
Not sure of the value, I've tended not to get involved in Con next leader betting during contests, only as trading bets beforehand when I think the markets overreact to every bit of news and laying the favourite/backing the person out of favour has proved a good strategy. I'm most green on Hunt, Truss, Sunak, Javid, Mordaunt and Gove. The only 'possible' to my mind that I'm exposed on is Wallace and I don't really see him winning (I'm in a position to trade out others to cover Wallace, but I haven't done so, yet. If anything, I'm tempted to lay).
Personal/politics:
As someone broadly sympathetic to Starmer, I'm not sure whether Hunt or Johnson is most to be feared. They'd appeal to very different constituencies. As a natural Lib Dem, I fear Hunt more as he'll make it harder for the yellows in the South.
I've never warmed to Hunt and I'm with Naughtie on his character
" Corbyn was I admit a vajazzling exception", because the man is undoubtedly a ...
I am not sure about your analysis of Gus O'Donnell's advice. I think Brown was unusually right to remain as PM.
With the benefit of hindsight you are implying had Brown gone quickly we would never have got the collapse in LD support, Brexit, Corbyn or Johnson. Supposition rather than extrapolation is working very hard there.
Never seen a couple who deserved each other so much.
And that was true in 2010 and is doubly true today. You don't need a majority if you aren't at risk of being removed from office. OK you may be ineffective but so is this government despite it having a substantial majority.
I know you are making political points about the viability of this and I don't agree. It was clear many Labour backbenchers believed they should go into opposition because they could see what would happen if they didn't. But had a C&S deal been agreed with Clegg I can't see there would have been many Labour MPs voting against their government on a confidence motion.
As things stand, the Liberal Democrats are going to take a chunk of seats in Surrey and the south off the Conservatives. I live in Surrey and I can assure you this is NOT one of those perennial false dawns. There is real, tangible, visceral anger towards the Conservatives here. This is why I tipped not only my ward (Heathlands) but the whole of Woking to go LibDem at the locals. The result wasn't even close.
If they stick with Boris Johnson the results in SW London and Surrey will be incredible.
But I fear Jeremy Hunt because he will definitely win back tory waverers in these parts. He is trusted and liked and unlike Boris Johnson he is also a Conservative.
As for O'Donnell's advice, I'm perfectly content with saying he was wrong from every point of view, and hindsight only confirms it. As he was on his economic advice, his HR advice, and every other sort of advice he ever gave. He just didn't have a clue what he was doing and while Brown gets the flak O'Donnell deserves at least as much blame for the disasters that befell us.
This is compounded by the way the system presents test opportunities for the ordinary leaner - you have to select a test centre and see what is available, rather than looking at tests slots in a 10 miles area or similar.
One ally says it is "starting to feel inevitable" 54 letters will be submitted.
https://www.ft.com/content/e4c36918-d08f-40ec-b4b5-c9aca55cec4c
Not sure how Brown could have copied Johnson, unless he could see into the future. He could have tried to copy John Major, of course.
But anyway, I'm not sure why you're supporting Brown's actions. The Tories will be difficult to remove from Number 10 unless Labour win a majority at the next election.
How is Brown's decision to cling on to office until a coalition is formed going to look if Labour's only option for a majority is a deal with the SNP?
https://www.ft.com/content/e4c36918-d08f-40ec-b4b5-c9aca55cec4c
What if Boris Johnson won something like 320 to 40?
A thumping win would set him up neatly.
I think it's incredibly unlikely but I don't know what kind of nobbling he could get into in the run up to the vote. I put nothing past him, save murder, to save his own skin.
The only thing missing is his spell on the backbenches, which distinguishes him from most of the other likely runners.
As with you I'm not someone who's going to vote for him, but there's a chance he might make a decent PM. Unlike most of the other likely runners...
1. Brown resigns quickly as you propose he should have done
2. Palace summons Cameron
3. Cameron fails to do a deal with the LibDems
4. Cameron's government loses a VONC on day 1
There will always be a government, and the Queen will have just appointed one that does not have the confidence of the house. Ordinarily that would prompt either a general election (in which case the no-confidenced government stays in office though that election) or the summoning of another prospective PM who could command confidence.
It would have been an almighty mess. The prospect of a government which had never had the confidence of parliament was not something they wanted as it lacks legitimacy. Hence both the palace and the civil service telling Brown that he was obliged not to quit.
A penny has dropped after yesterday’s discussion in committee, which suddenly makes sense of a lot of the argument around reform of the gender recognition act.
Are you someone who thinks legislation is about the idea in your head or the words on the page? The contemporary Scottish law/policy making community maybe has a tendency to the first and an impatience with people too bothered about the second.
https://twitter.com/lucyhunterb/status/1531907122333720577
Mine is to agree but that a win by say 8-1 would put Johnson in a very strong position, not a weak one.
I think I'm right but then I'm bound to say that
Plus there's always the John Hemming naming Ryan Giggs in Parliament option.
I suspect if it becomes widespread enough on Twitter than the story will take on a life of its own, super-injunction or no.
Sure, they might not have given it a formal deal later, but they would let it survive.
I am frustrated by the way too many people take the bad advice of O'Donnell and say, 'well, this might have happened.' There might have been a meteor strike. Or Michael Fabricant might have said something sane. Both are equally possible. Just not likely.
Ultimately it was the advice of a third rate fool noted for his overwhelming arrogance and lack of common sense, who prized theories and processes above democracy, aided and abetted by a man who didn't want to face the fact he had suffered a huge personal and political rebuff.
And it has, ironically, to come back to the original point, been far more damaging to the Labour Party than anything else.
I suppose it's amusing for the plebs, but it didn't go well for Mr Giggs and his "Saving Ryan's Privates." attempt. What legal or judicial need does it serve?
We can all see what the rules say, but even a fairly comfy win isn't a guarantee of safety for a leader. Once their leadership has been formally questioned, nothing is ever quite the same again.
But there is a fundamental concern about the fact that this supposed shining light of a health system has poorer outcomes for patients than most other 1st world health systems. And the fact that it has become something of a national religion means that making that it is unfit for purpose and in need of reform is practically impossible for any politician.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/brexit/9134739/gus-odonnell-lib-dems-euro-elections/
FURIOUS Tory MPs yesterday tore into Britain’s former top civil servant for dropping any pretence of impartiality to back the Lib Dems.
Gus O’Donnell declared he had a civil duty to endorse the party in today’s Euro elections.
We currently have government by wizard wheeze.
Part of their Putin worship came from the idea that Russia’s more oppressive, anti liberal society would create a more masculine, powerful military. In the end, this is shown to be such a sham.
https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1531915289029386240
Rushing these things is often a bad idea.
No stories I can recall about violinists.
Even the DUP are not certain to back the Tories again if it is a hung parliament
It was plausible to the LibDems elected in 2010. Two books that I have read showing the mood of the MPs especially the new ones was largely hostile towards the idea of providing succour to a Tory party most saw as their enemy.
It took a significant diplomatic effort from Clegg - and ultimately the backing of Ashdown - to bring them round. Had those efforts failed the weren't going to successfully tell their MPs "now look here, we have to copy Lloyd George a century ago".
https://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/
Separately, (thank you to our amazing readers!) the Guardian has seen letters to constituents or public statements from at least 35 further MPs that suggest they are openly questioning the prime minister’s future or expressing doubts he can regain trust.
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1531919773961007104
Thanks, but I meant why should someone be able to use the law to keep their nefarious deeds hidden by legal means? I suppose morals and solicitors rarely share common ground. Why can't they concentrate on ambulance-chasing?
It's the creation of rich people and their lawyers.
Keeps the press cautious with what they say - and of course we don't hear about the successful ones.
Hunt 16% - Much too high
Tugendhat 11% - About right
Truss 11% - About right, maybe a bit high
Wallace 9% - Too low (but does he want the gig?)
Sunak 9% - No chance, have the punters in this market not been reading the news?
Mordaunt 8% - A bit low, but she lacks experience
Zahawi 5% - OKish I suppose. Very dull media performer.
Gove 4% - About right
Javid 4% - Too low. "When you've eliminated the impossible..."
And don't forget Raab and Barclay, also both possible.
A pretty wide-open field, which may well mean the contest doesn't actually happen.
There is no requirement for PM to resign immediately after an election.
An incumbent PM is entitled to remain in office if he wishes until he loses the confidence of the Commons.
In hung parliament situation that may have to be actually tested with a vote.
You of all people should understand the imperative of voting in your own interest.
Let's be honest, the reason this matters is that incumbency at an election is worth something.