Apart from Wallace. Too boring and dim And Sunak. Too rich and short And Tugendhat. Fuck off And Gove. Lol
but any of the others. Apart from Raab. Or Sajid. Not them
The main thing is, wave goodbye to Boris. That Unherd interview with Cummings was the final straw. It sounded all too plausible. Boris did his job, he won the referendum, he got Brexit, he then won the election, seeing Brexit through, and completely destroying Corbyn and Cobynism. He did pretty well on Covid (in the end), he did very well on the Ukraine. It’s quite an impressive record for a short premiership, but he just isn’t a very good PM at the more boring stuff
He should take what he has achieved, and quit. I bet in his own mind he knows this. It’s not going to get better, it can only get worse. And he is risking a Tory wipe out
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.
Even just 33 Tory MPs voting against Mrs Thatcher in 1989 came to be viewed as a sign her leadership was coming to an end. The stalking horse on that occasion was Sir Anthony Meyer of Clwyd North West.
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
I'm just wondering if one of the PB Legal Experts would be able to explain what grounds could justify a superinjunction being brought in the hypothetical case of a spouse of a sitting PM leaving him/her? Especially one who had not shown a prior tendency to shun publicity.
It strikes me that there is a strong public interest case for at least knowing the bare facts - the public has a right to know of any factors that might impact the PM's performance. It might even help explain a recent dip in form, and the public might even cut the PM some slack for a while. I do see a privacy argument for any third party and there is no need for any sordid details to be known. But if the ex-spouse has not sought to maintain privacy previously, I don't see how a privacy argument would apply against him/her.
Just interested to know how a balance is determined in court in a case like this. After all we see stories of Actor X leaving his/her partner for Actor Y all the time and there is no real public interest case for them beyond vicariousness.
Apart from Wallace. Too boring and dim And Sunak. Too rich and short And Tugendhat. Fuck off And Gove. Lol
but any of the others. Apart from Raab. Or Sajid. Not them
The main thing is, wave goodbye to Boris. That Unherd interview with Cummings was the final straw. It sounded all too plausible. Boris did his job, he won the referendum, he got Brexit, he then won the election, seeing Brexit through, and completely destroying Corbyn and Cobynism. He did pretty well on Covid (in the end), he did very well on the Ukraine. It’s quite an impressive record for a short premiership, but he just isn’t a very good PM at the more boring stuff
He should take what he has achieved, and quit. I bet in his own mind he knows this. It’s not going to get better, it can only get worse. And he is risking a Tory wipe out
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.
Yes, in fact not only is the outgoing PM entitled to remain in office, he is obliged to do so if there's no alternative who is in a position to win a confidence vote. He should however resign as soon as it becomes reasonably clear, or at least likely, that there is such an alternative. Brown's behaviour was exactly correct on this.
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.
It's all a bit irresistible force (BoJo really has to go) meets immovable object (or two- Johnson seems determined to stay, and there's no standout alternative who will obviously do better). And in that sceanario, anything can happen, usually in a bad way.
Must dig out Alan Clark's account of November 1990.
The East Politics types seem unable to change. Interesting how some German politicians have found *their* cause they are prepared to die in a ditch over. Rather than simply follow the popular view.
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.
FWIW, I think Sunak is too low in that list. He's down, but I don't think he is out and in a contest his abilities may well start to trump his wife's money.
Truss should also be a tad higher, because a part from anything she is desperate for it and so no doubt has put in a ton of work already to have a campaign hit the ground running.
And where is Patel?
I am increasingly worried that we are better off with Johnson than trusting the tory membership not to elect her or another absolute right wing extreme loon.
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
I'm just wondering if one of the PB Legal Experts would be able to explain what grounds could justify a superinjunction being brought in the hypothetical case of a spouse of a sitting PM leaving him/her? Especially one who had not shown a prior tendency to shun publicity.
It strikes me that there is a strong public interest case for at least knowing the bare facts - the public has a right to know of any factors that might impact the PM's performance. It might even help explain a recent dip in form, and the public might even cut the PM some slack for a while. I do see a privacy argument for any third party and there is no need for any sordid details to be known. But if the ex-spouse has not sought to maintain privacy previously, I don't see how a privacy argument would apply against him/her.
Just interested to know how a balance is determined in court in a case like this. After all we see stories of Actor X leaving his/her partner for Actor Y all the time and there is no real public interest case for them beyond vicariousness.
To quote a media legal guide that I have somewhere:
“There is a difference between something that is in the public interest, and something the public might find interesting.”
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.
Raab on Sky was in total denial and frankly sounded ridiculous
TBH its an impossible situation to be put in.
It's a choice. It you try to defend the indefensible, it's a choice. If you go on camera to talk rubbish when your synapses are screaming at you that the words you're saying don't make sense, it's a choice.
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.
I've thought Javid a bit low for a while, made a couple of decent trades on him over the past year or so. He's apparently on manouevres from the way he's been getting into the Mail and the like (leaking like a sieve, 'sources close to' etc) on trans issues, pre-judging the outcome of the independent review. The only reasons to do that are stupidity or wanting a quick headline to bolster position for a leadership bid and I don't think he is stupid. I don't really see him having much appeal, but he could be the Major-like figure that no one minds too much.
Interesting on Hunt, he does look like the safe pair of hands untainted by Johnson, to me, for all my reservations about him. I'm not backing at these prices, but I wouldn't lay, either.
Note your opinion on Wallace, as he's my main risk right now.
Edit: Also think it possible it does not happen. I'm most green if Johnson is still in place next year and fights and loses the next election. Have bet against Johnson departure several times this year, for reasonable profit, but I haven't bet against (or for) departure this time. Can't decide whether it really is curtains, or not. It should be, but that's been the case for some time and it hasn't been.
Apart from Wallace. Too boring and dim And Sunak. Too rich and short And Tugendhat. Fuck off And Gove. Lol
but any of the others. Apart from Raab. Or Sajid. Not them
The main thing is, wave goodbye to Boris. That Unherd interview with Cummings was the final straw. It sounded all too plausible. Boris did his job, he won the referendum, he got Brexit, he then won the election, seeing Brexit through, and completely destroying Corbyn and Cobynism. He did pretty well on Covid (in the end), he did very well on the Ukraine. It’s quite an impressive record for a short premiership, but he just isn’t a very good PM at the more boring stuff
He should take what he has achieved, and quit. I bet in his own mind he knows this. It’s not going to get better, it can only get worse. And he is risking a Tory wipe out
He wants to be Churchill.
Well Churchill did go down to a calamatous election defeat to a boring leftie lawyer.
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.
We have them everywhere - they are indeed great. All along paths and along the side of the patio.
What's to stop Brady just chucking a few letters in the bin? Who would ever know?
As ever the constitution of Britain relies on individuals being gentlemen of honour.
Brady has a good deal of power here. But he only keeps it by acting as a fair arbiter or he'll be turfed out as chair. I don't think he'd chuck away his gig as umpire of the Tories for giving Boris Not out when he's been caught plum in front of the wicket.
FWIW, I think Sunak is too low in that list. He's down, but I don't think he is out and in a contest his abilities may well start to trump his wife's money.
Truss should also be a tad higher, because a part from anything she is desperate for it and so no doubt has put in a ton of work already to have a campaign hit the ground running.
And where is Patel?
I am increasingly worried that we are better off with Johnson than trusting the tory membership not to elect her or another absolute right wing extreme loon.
Ah yes, Patel. I must have blotted her out of my consciousness as a measure of psychological self-defence.
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.
Yes, in fact not only is the outgoing PM entitled to remain in office, he is obliged to do so if there's no alternative who is in a position to win a confidence vote. He should however resign as soon as it becomes reasonably clear, or at least likely, that there is such an alternative. Brown's behaviour was exactly correct on this.
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
Even Michael Foot won Blyth Valley. Even Arthur Henderson won Bishop Auckland.
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
Do you have evidence that the light in the fridge goes out when you shut the door?
Evidence of superinjunction: she has disappeared, no explanation offered, public domain knowledge that phatboi has previously resorted to them to cover up the details of his sordid private life (Macintyre daughter 2013)
Apart from Wallace. Too boring and dim And Sunak. Too rich and short And Tugendhat. Fuck off And Gove. Lol
but any of the others. Apart from Raab. Or Sajid. Not them
The main thing is, wave goodbye to Boris. That Unherd interview with Cummings was the final straw. It sounded all too plausible. Boris did his job, he won the referendum, he got Brexit, he then won the election, seeing Brexit through, and completely destroying Corbyn and Cobynism. He did pretty well on Covid (in the end), he did very well on the Ukraine. It’s quite an impressive record for a short premiership, but he just isn’t a very good PM at the more boring stuff
He should take what he has achieved, and quit. I bet in his own mind he knows this. It’s not going to get better, it can only get worse. And he is risking a Tory wipe out
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.
For him to be gone in under a month, it needs a flounce or an "uncontested" leadership contest. Otherwise, it rolls into July at the earliest.
Apart from Wallace. Too boring and dim And Sunak. Too rich and short And Tugendhat. Fuck off And Gove. Lol
but any of the others. Apart from Raab. Or Sajid. Not them
The main thing is, wave goodbye to Boris. That Unherd interview with Cummings was the final straw. It sounded all too plausible. Boris did his job, he won the referendum, he got Brexit, he then won the election, seeing Brexit through, and completely destroying Corbyn and Cobynism. He did pretty well on Covid (in the end), he did very well on the Ukraine. It’s quite an impressive record for a short premiership, but he just isn’t a very good PM at the more boring stuff
He should take what he has achieved, and quit. I bet in his own mind he knows this. It’s not going to get better, it can only get worse. And he is risking a Tory wipe out
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
I suspect the more cynical among us are right about injunctions.
It's a method for the 'more money than sense brigade' to hide their dirty deeds. Surely, it's against the public interest by definition. One law for the rich and one for the poor. Aided and abetted by lawyers for financial gain.
I suppose the only public benefit is that it keeps the lawyers out of parliament.
Apart from Wallace. Too boring and dim And Sunak. Too rich and short And Tugendhat. Fuck off And Gove. Lol
but any of the others. Apart from Raab. Or Sajid. Not them
The main thing is, wave goodbye to Boris. That Unherd interview with Cummings was the final straw. It sounded all too plausible. Boris did his job, he won the referendum, he got Brexit, he then won the election, seeing Brexit through, and completely destroying Corbyn and Cobynism. He did pretty well on Covid (in the end), he did very well on the Ukraine. It’s quite an impressive record for a short premiership, but he just isn’t a very good PM at the more boring stuff
He should take what he has achieved, and quit. I bet in his own mind he knows this. It’s not going to get better, it can only get worse. And he is risking a Tory wipe out
He wants to be Churchill.
Well Churchill did go down to a calamatous election defeat to a boring leftie lawyer.
A boring leftie PRIVATELY EDUCATED LONDON lawyer. An even better parallel!
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
I'm just wondering if one of the PB Legal Experts would be able to explain what grounds could justify a superinjunction being brought in the hypothetical case of a spouse of a sitting PM leaving him/her? Especially one who had not shown a prior tendency to shun publicity.
It strikes me that there is a strong public interest case for at least knowing the bare facts - the public has a right to know of any factors that might impact the PM's performance. It might even help explain a recent dip in form, and the public might even cut the PM some slack for a while. I do see a privacy argument for any third party and there is no need for any sordid details to be known. But if the ex-spouse has not sought to maintain privacy previously, I don't see how a privacy argument would apply against him/her.
Just interested to know how a balance is determined in court in a case like this. After all we see stories of Actor X leaving his/her partner for Actor Y all the time and there is no real public interest case for them beyond vicariousness.
To quote a media legal guide that I have somewhere:
“There is a difference between something that is in the public interest, and something the public might find interesting.”
I agree the public might find the circumstances interesting, but I argue the fact of the the PM's spouse leaving is in the public interest. When mine left me it took me at least 2 years before I could do my job properly. 3 maybe.
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.
What's to stop Brady just chucking a few letters in the bin? Who would ever know?
The authors.
From what I know of his views on Phatboi he is more likely to tear a couple of genuine letters in half, and count the halves separately.
But it is inneressing. i don't know what happens to the letters afterwards - shredded or put in the national archives Not To Be Opened Before 2300.
I was at university with GB but have no recollection of him at all. I suspect we moved in different circles with him being deep into tory boy twattery.
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.
Yes, in fact not only is the outgoing PM entitled to remain in office, he is obliged to do so if there's no alternative who is in a position to win a confidence vote. He should however resign as soon as it becomes reasonably clear, or at least likely, that there is such an alternative. Brown's behaviour was exactly correct on this.
So why did Heath resign in 1974?
He tried to do a deal with Jeremy Thorpe but it failed. Without the Liberals there was no way Heath could stay in office.
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).
Part of Brown's problem in 2010 was that he already had form - on the BBC election results programme in 1992, after the exit poll and before the results, he had said that Major "losing his majority" meant he was compelled to resign.
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.
Surrey was a very different place to 1997. Although the LDs were targeting lots of places that year across the country only SWS was a target in Surrey in 1997, although good progress was made in Guildford. We all went to SWS. No doubt HYUFD will tell me I am wrong even though I was part of the process.
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.
For him to be gone in under a month, it needs a flounce or an "uncontested" leadership contest. Otherwise, it rolls into July at the earliest.
Oh fuck shoulda read da rules, but I *think* this is party leader and he ceases to be that on a successful vonc, no?
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.
Yes, in fact not only is the outgoing PM entitled to remain in office, he is obliged to do so if there's no alternative who is in a position to win a confidence vote. He should however resign as soon as it becomes reasonably clear, or at least likely, that there is such an alternative. Brown's behaviour was exactly correct on this.
So why did Heath resign in 1974?
He tried to do a deal with Jeremy Thorpe but it failed. Without the Liberals there was no way Heath could stay in office.
But he didn't need to resign. Labour weren't in a much different position to govern.
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.
For him to be gone in under a month, it needs a flounce or an "uncontested" leadership contest. Otherwise, it rolls into July at the earliest.
Oh fuck shoulda read da rules, but I *think* this is party leader and he ceases to be that on a successful vonc, no?
Good question. I was assuming the election of the incomer would mark the end, but IDK
Apart from Wallace. Too boring and dim And Sunak. Too rich and short And Tugendhat. Fuck off And Gove. Lol
but any of the others. Apart from Raab. Or Sajid. Not them
The main thing is, wave goodbye to Boris. That Unherd interview with Cummings was the final straw. It sounded all too plausible. Boris did his job, he won the referendum, he got Brexit, he then won the election, seeing Brexit through, and completely destroying Corbyn and Cobynism. He did pretty well on Covid (in the end), he did very well on the Ukraine. It’s quite an impressive record for a short premiership, but he just isn’t a very good PM at the more boring stuff
He should take what he has achieved, and quit. I bet in his own mind he knows this. It’s not going to get better, it can only get worse. And he is risking a Tory wipe out
It's Truss or Patel then.
That's my feeling too. Probably the only two who would be worse than Johnson. Maybe a chance for Javid to sneak through a crowded field, because nobody actively hates him?
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
I'm just wondering if one of the PB Legal Experts would be able to explain what grounds could justify a superinjunction being brought in the hypothetical case of a spouse of a sitting PM leaving him/her? Especially one who had not shown a prior tendency to shun publicity.
It strikes me that there is a strong public interest case for at least knowing the bare facts - the public has a right to know of any factors that might impact the PM's performance. It might even help explain a recent dip in form, and the public might even cut the PM some slack for a while. I do see a privacy argument for any third party and there is no need for any sordid details to be known. But if the ex-spouse has not sought to maintain privacy previously, I don't see how a privacy argument would apply against him/her.
Just interested to know how a balance is determined in court in a case like this. After all we see stories of Actor X leaving his/her partner for Actor Y all the time and there is no real public interest case for them beyond vicariousness.
To quote a media legal guide that I have somewhere:
“There is a difference between something that is in the public interest, and something the public might find interesting.”
Indeed. I'd argue the Johnson being PM was not in the public interest, but was something the public found interesting.
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.
FWIW, I think Sunak is too low in that list. He's down, but I don't think he is out and in a contest his abilities may well start to trump his wife's money.
Truss should also be a tad higher, because a part from anything she is desperate for it and so no doubt has put in a ton of work already to have a campaign hit the ground running.
And where is Patel?
I am increasingly worried that we are better off with Johnson than trusting the tory membership not to elect her or another absolute right wing extreme loon.
Patel is half way down the conhome cabinet ratings and I just do not see the membership voting for her
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.
For him to be gone in under a month, it needs a flounce or an "uncontested" leadership contest. Otherwise, it rolls into July at the earliest.
Oh fuck shoulda read da rules, but I *think* this is party leader and he ceases to be that on a successful vonc, no?
Betfair didn't have a scooby clue about what their own rules actually meant when the Theresa May exit date market was in full swing. It was false market city.
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.
For him to be gone in under a month, it needs a flounce or an "uncontested" leadership contest. Otherwise, it rolls into July at the earliest.
Oh fuck shoulda read da rules, but I *think* this is party leader and he ceases to be that on a successful vonc, no?
This was a hugely controversial point when Theresa May resigned.
She resigned in order to start the contest, but agreed to remain interim leader during the contest. Betfair paid out on the date of the contest election result, rather than the date of her resignation.
The Nuffield Trust. I think the difference in figures is between absolute numbers and of Whole Time Equivalents. It is the WTE that matters in terms of capacity.
Rees-Mogg has published a list of the "most interesting" Brexit dividends. Number two is to "abolish the EU regulations that restrict vacuum cleaner power to 1400 watts".
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.
Yes, in fact not only is the outgoing PM entitled to remain in office, he is obliged to do so if there's no alternative who is in a position to win a confidence vote. He should however resign as soon as it becomes reasonably clear, or at least likely, that there is such an alternative. Brown's behaviour was exactly correct on this.
So why did Heath resign in 1974?
No idea. Wilson only had 4 more seats than he did and the Tories won the popular vote.
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.
For him to be gone in under a month, it needs a flounce or an "uncontested" leadership contest. Otherwise, it rolls into July at the earliest.
Oh fuck shoulda read da rules, but I *think* this is party leader and he ceases to be that on a successful vonc, no?
Under the rules he would remain leader until a new leader is elected. A VONC triggers a leadership election in which he can't stand.
What's to stop Brady just chucking a few letters in the bin? Who would ever know?
The authors.
From what I know of his views on Phatboi he is more likely to tear a couple of genuine letters in half, and count the halves separately.
But it is inneressing. i don't know what happens to the letters afterwards - shredded or put in the national archives Not To Be Opened Before 2300.
I was at university with GB but have no recollection of him at all. I suspect we moved in different circles with him being deep into tory boy twattery.
I was too. He was always very pleasant, but I always found him slimy, no idea what he actually believed himself (unlike some of the other Tories). He was widely believe to be a Conservative HQ plant. My gut feel is his loyalty is to the Party rather than the Leader, if he has to make a choice. No evidence for that though.
Rees-Mogg has published a list of the "most interesting" Brexit dividends. Number two is to "abolish the EU regulations that restrict vacuum cleaner power to 1400 watts".
Apart from Wallace. Too boring and dim And Sunak. Too rich and short And Tugendhat. Fuck off And Gove. Lol
but any of the others. Apart from Raab. Or Sajid. Not them
The main thing is, wave goodbye to Boris. That Unherd interview with Cummings was the final straw. It sounded all too plausible. Boris did his job, he won the referendum, he got Brexit, he then won the election, seeing Brexit through, and completely destroying Corbyn and Cobynism. He did pretty well on Covid (in the end), he did very well on the Ukraine. It’s quite an impressive record for a short premiership, but he just isn’t a very good PM at the more boring stuff
He should take what he has achieved, and quit. I bet in his own mind he knows this. It’s not going to get better, it can only get worse. And he is risking a Tory wipe out
It's Truss or Patel then.
I will be astonished if the MPs put either in the final two. Neither has the numbers, in my view.
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.
Mike's percentages in your post add up to 77 per cent. If, as you say, we add Raab and Barclay at 5 per cent each, that is 87 per cent, but then you want to reduce Sunak (to zero?) and Hunt, and add a bit to Mordaunt and The Saj, so let's say 80 per cent, which still leaves 20 per cent unaccounted for.
The point is not to have a pop at you or OGH but the numbers must add up, even if only by adding A N Other at the bottom to mop up the underround.
Rees-Mogg has published a list of the "most interesting" Brexit dividends. Number two is to "abolish the EU regulations that restrict vacuum cleaner power to 1400 watts".
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).
Part of Brown's problem in 2010 was that he already had form - on the BBC election results programme in 1992, after the exit poll and before the results, he had said that Major "losing his majority" meant he was compelled to resign.
Johnson's MO is being hands off and being a joke. If you didn't want that, shouldn't have voted for him
Sure. That said, at the 2019 election we were under the impression the government team would be the Cabinet plus the VL team. But it turned out to be just Carrie.
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.
For him to be gone in under a month, it needs a flounce or an "uncontested" leadership contest. Otherwise, it rolls into July at the earliest.
Oh fuck shoulda read da rules, but I *think* this is party leader and he ceases to be that on a successful vonc, no?
He is party leader until a replacement is put in position by the membership vote. That's my understanding.
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.
For him to be gone in under a month, it needs a flounce or an "uncontested" leadership contest. Otherwise, it rolls into July at the earliest.
Oh fuck shoulda read da rules, but I *think* this is party leader and he ceases to be that on a successful vonc, no?
This was a hugely controversial point when Theresa May resigned.
She resigned in order to start the contest, but agreed to remain interim leader during the contest. Betfair paid out on the date of the contest election result, rather than the date of her resignation.
Ah OK but that's different. I am *reasonably* confident that a vonc as opposed to resignation must be sudden death, it is irrational to say we have no confidence in you but we are happy for you to hang on for a couple of months
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.
Yes, in fact not only is the outgoing PM entitled to remain in office, he is obliged to do so if there's no alternative who is in a position to win a confidence vote. He should however resign as soon as it becomes reasonably clear, or at least likely, that there is such an alternative. Brown's behaviour was exactly correct on this.
So why did Heath resign in 1974?
He tried to do a deal with Jeremy Thorpe but it failed. Without the Liberals there was no way Heath could stay in office.
But he didn't need to resign. Labour weren't in a much different position to govern.
Remember the slogan was 'Who governs Britain'? The answer very clearly was 'not you'.
Heath accepted the verdict. Boris, in similar circumstances, would try harder to carry on.
What's to stop Brady just chucking a few letters in the bin? Who would ever know?
The authors.
From what I know of his views on Phatboi he is more likely to tear a couple of genuine letters in half, and count the halves separately.
But it is inneressing. i don't know what happens to the letters afterwards - shredded or put in the national archives Not To Be Opened Before 2300.
I was at university with GB but have no recollection of him at all. I suspect we moved in different circles with him being deep into tory boy twattery.
I was too. He was always very pleasant, but I always found him slimy, no idea what he actually believed himself (unlike some of the other Tories). He was widely believe to be a Conservative HQ plant. My gut feel is his loyalty is to the Party rather than the Leader, if he has to make a choice. No evidence for that though.
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.
Yes, in fact not only is the outgoing PM entitled to remain in office, he is obliged to do so if there's no alternative who is in a position to win a confidence vote. He should however resign as soon as it becomes reasonably clear, or at least likely, that there is such an alternative. Brown's behaviour was exactly correct on this.
So why did Heath resign in 1974?
He tried to do a deal with Jeremy Thorpe but it failed. Without the Liberals there was no way Heath could stay in office.
Heath also wanted the ulster unionists in on the deal, but not all of them: the Paisley gang were to be left out.
I think I have said before, the assumption that Johnson is uncoalitionable depends on the greased piglet not finding some way or other (probably via billions of £) to get unionists into his tent if we have hung result in 2023/4. I remain sceptical that he wont.
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.
For him to be gone in under a month, it needs a flounce or an "uncontested" leadership contest. Otherwise, it rolls into July at the earliest.
Oh fuck shoulda read da rules, but I *think* this is party leader and he ceases to be that on a successful vonc, no?
He is party leader until a replacement is put in position by the membership vote. That's my understanding.
Johnson's MO is being hands off and being a joke. If you didn't want that, shouldn't have voted for him
Sure. That said, at the 2019 election we were under the impression the government team would be the Cabinet plus the VL team. But it turned out to be just Carrie.
And we put up JC against him.
If we'd put up Starmer, I am sure Johnson would not have won a majority
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.
Yes, in fact not only is the outgoing PM entitled to remain in office, he is obliged to do so if there's no alternative who is in a position to win a confidence vote. He should however resign as soon as it becomes reasonably clear, or at least likely, that there is such an alternative. Brown's behaviour was exactly correct on this.
So why did Heath resign in 1974?
He tried to do a deal with Jeremy Thorpe but it failed. Without the Liberals there was no way Heath could stay in office.
But he didn't need to resign. Labour weren't in a much different position to govern.
Remember the slogan was 'Who governs Britain'? The answer very clearly was 'not you'.
Heath accepted the verdict. Boris, in similar circumstances, would try harder to carry on.
He accepted the verdict when he couldn't muster the votes for confidence via Liberals and Unionists.
Johnson's MO is being hands off and being a joke. If you didn't want that, shouldn't have voted for him
Sure. That said, at the 2019 election we were under the impression the government team would be the Cabinet plus the VL team. But it turned out to be just Carrie.
And we put up JC against him.
If we'd put up Starmer, I am sure Johnson would not have won a majority
I'm not so sure. For all that there wouldn't have been the "stop Corbyn" element, the "get Brexit done" element would have been that much stronger.
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.
Mike's percentages in your post add up to 77 per cent. If, as you say, we add Raab and Barclay at 5 per cent each, that is 87 per cent, but then you want to reduce Sunak (to zero?) and Hunt, and add a bit to Mordaunt and The Saj, so let's say 80 per cent, which still leaves 20 per cent unaccounted for.
The point is not to have a pop at you or OGH but the numbers must add up, even if only by adding A N Other at the bottom to mop up the underround.
Yes, but I think it's very difficult with such a wide field to come up with a coherent set of probabilities. I do think Ben Wallace might be underestimated by quite a large margin, because I think he will be coming under quite a lot of pressure to take the poisoned chalice as really the only unifying candidate who is untainted, and who isn't out with the fairies and/or very unpopular with voters.
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.
Yes, in fact not only is the outgoing PM entitled to remain in office, he is obliged to do so if there's no alternative who is in a position to win a confidence vote. He should however resign as soon as it becomes reasonably clear, or at least likely, that there is such an alternative. Brown's behaviour was exactly correct on this.
So why did Heath resign in 1974?
He didn't resign immediately (on the Friday) but spent the weekend seeing if something could be cobbled together with Thorpe. He only quit on Monday evening.
Johnson's MO is being hands off and being a joke. If you didn't want that, shouldn't have voted for him
Sure. That said, at the 2019 election we were under the impression the government team would be the Cabinet plus the VL team. But it turned out to be just Carrie.
And we put up JC against him.
If we'd put up Starmer, I am sure Johnson would not have won a majority
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.
Yes, in fact not only is the outgoing PM entitled to remain in office, he is obliged to do so if there's no alternative who is in a position to win a confidence vote. He should however resign as soon as it becomes reasonably clear, or at least likely, that there is such an alternative. Brown's behaviour was exactly correct on this.
So why did Heath resign in 1974?
He tried to do a deal with Jeremy Thorpe but it failed. Without the Liberals there was no way Heath could stay in office.
But he didn't need to resign. Labour weren't in a much different position to govern.
Remember the slogan was 'Who governs Britain'? The answer very clearly was 'not you'.
Heath accepted the verdict. Boris, in similar circumstances, would try harder to carry on.
He accepted the verdict when he couldn't muster the votes for confidence via Liberals and Unionists.
Entirely reasonable.
But that didn't mean Labour could govern, which is, apparently, what justified Gordon Brown not resigning in 2010.
Johnson's MO is being hands off and being a joke. If you didn't want that, shouldn't have voted for him
Sure. That said, at the 2019 election we were under the impression the government team would be the Cabinet plus the VL team. But it turned out to be just Carrie.
And we put up JC against him.
If we'd put up Starmer, I am sure Johnson would not have won a majority
For sure thats a possibility, but that downplays the 'get brexit done' component of the vote. Many of those who voted remain in 2016 voted for the party that would honour the vote in 2019, including me.
Janet Yellen: “I was wrong about the path inflation would take...There have been unanticipated and large shocks to the economy...that have affected our economy badly that at the time I didn’t fully understand.”
Rees-Mogg has published a list of the "most interesting" Brexit dividends. Number two is to "abolish the EU regulations that restrict vacuum cleaner power to 1400 watts".
Johnson's MO is being hands off and being a joke. If you didn't want that, shouldn't have voted for him
Sure. That said, at the 2019 election we were under the impression the government team would be the Cabinet plus the VL team. But it turned out to be just Carrie.
And we put up JC against him.
If we'd put up Starmer, I am sure Johnson would not have won a majority
For sure thats a possibility, but that downplays the 'get brexit done' component of the vote. Many of those who voted remain in 2016 voted for the party that would honour the vote in 2019, including me.
Do you regret voting for Johnson? I regret endorsing Jez
Rees-Mogg has published a list of the "most interesting" Brexit dividends. Number two is to "abolish the EU regulations that restrict vacuum cleaner power to 1400 watts".
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.
Yes, in fact not only is the outgoing PM entitled to remain in office, he is obliged to do so if there's no alternative who is in a position to win a confidence vote. He should however resign as soon as it becomes reasonably clear, or at least likely, that there is such an alternative. Brown's behaviour was exactly correct on this.
So why did Heath resign in 1974?
He didn't resign immediately (on the Friday) but spent the weekend seeing if something could be cobbled together with Thorpe. He only quit on Monday evening.
But Labour weren't in a position to govern. So surely he was obliged to stay on until Labour could demonstrate that they could win a confidence vote in the Commons.
The Nuffield Trust. I think the difference in figures is between absolute numbers and of Whole Time Equivalents. It is the WTE that matters in terms of capacity.
Johnson's MO is being hands off and being a joke. If you didn't want that, shouldn't have voted for him
Sure. That said, at the 2019 election we were under the impression the government team would be the Cabinet plus the VL team. But it turned out to be just Carrie.
And we put up JC against him.
If we'd put up Starmer, I am sure Johnson would not have won a majority
If you'd put up Starmer in 2017, Theresa May could have won a stonking majority so no election in 2019. This year's election might have been fun though.
Lab Maj looks a bit tempting right now. But I think it's a losing bet if Boris goes, and I'm not 100% confident he'll stay.
Lab Maj still looks dreadful value. Key indicators are:
- the Midlands VI: even-stevens in the latest YouGov - and SLab VI: an unimpressive 22% in the latest YouGov (they need 30% to even get into double figures for Jock seats
Economic woes could hurt Tories and SNP at the same time. Far from nailed on, but the central estimate has to be economic pain leading to reactions against parties in power. If we tip into recession and start to see job losses, the VI *could* shift a fair amount.
- “Economic woes could hurt Tories and SNP at the same time.”
Absolutely, Sterling becoming an Emerging Market currency is the fault of the Scottish Government. 😉
But you actually make a serious point. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that the dire economic situation will be blamed on all four incumbents: Drakeford, Johnson, O'Neill and Sturgeon. However, evidence that that is what is happening is weak. For example, the SNP just won our eleventh election in a row, with our strongest ever performance in local government elections.
And this being a betting blog, what do punters think? Look at the prices of the principal opponents of the English and Scottish first ministers:
Next English FM/PM Starmer 7/1
Next Scottish FM/PM Sarwar 16/1 Next Scottish FM/PM Ross 18/1
Bearing in mind that the Starmer price is very long due to an imminent VONC in Johnson, it is clear that the markets judge that Johnson being kicked out is much more likely than Sturgeon being kicked out. Why? Well, part of the answer must surely be that the coming economic maelstrom is going to get blamed fairly and squarely on the Brexit Revolutionary Party.
Shocking but typical that the SNP will refuse to take responsibility for decisions taken by the PM, Chancellor and the BoE. Only by taking the blame and being kicked out by voters will the SNP show that they're serious about Scottish independence.
Fortunately @Farooq is a cerebral poster. He is definitely not of the SNP BAD persuasion which you so accurately parody.
It is only fair to consider that he might well have a good hypothesis here: that the economic shitstorm might harm *all* incumbents and not just the guilty party.
Absolutely, @Farooq tends to Scotch analysis unencumbered with desperation for it to be true cos the Union.
I daresay that there will be a lot of anger sprayed around, and attempts by the SG to ameliorate the worst consequences of the oncoming recession/depression will get little credit. Opposition parties are already screeching about cuts without the slightest sign of manifestos providing an alternative economic plan, but I guess that’s what oppositions do, particularly parties whose only sniff of governing in Scotland comes from their big bros in Westminster or pretending that they’re not working together in councils.
Janet Yellen: “I was wrong about the path inflation would take...There have been unanticipated and large shocks to the economy...that have affected our economy badly that at the time I didn’t fully understand.”
Rees-Mogg has published a list of the "most interesting" Brexit dividends. Number two is to "abolish the EU regulations that restrict vacuum cleaner power to 1400 watts".
Heh, great move, that. We left the EU so that your leccy bills can get even higher with inefficient kit.
Coming soon...
Brexit Vax!!
The vacuum that sucks like nothing else on the continent.
1500 watts of pure British power.
Exclusive offer to readers of Daily Express.
Followed by: Express campaigns to scrap EU namby-pamby smart meters which are telling readers just how power hungry their new Brexit Vac (made in China) is Express campaigns for War with the EU who have maliciously put up power bills for its readers
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).
If the Tories could be viewed as viable to run a minority Government with 306 seats, then Labour/Lib Dems could be viewed as viable to run a minority Government with 315 seats. More so, as the SNP and Plaid could be seen as more likely to oppose the Tories than Labour/Lib Dems.
Wouldn't have been very stable, mind you, but then again, the Tory minority one would likely have been even less stable. If one minority is valid, so's the other.
If, however, Lab plus Lib Dem had added up to less than the Tory total, that wouldn't have been feasible. But it didn't, so it was.
What's to stop Brady just chucking a few letters in the bin? Who would ever know?
The authors.
From what I know of his views on Phatboi he is more likely to tear a couple of genuine letters in half, and count the halves separately.
But it is inneressing. i don't know what happens to the letters afterwards - shredded or put in the national archives Not To Be Opened Before 2300.
I was at university with GB but have no recollection of him at all. I suspect we moved in different circles with him being deep into tory boy twattery.
I was too. He was always very pleasant, but I always found him slimy, no idea what he actually believed himself (unlike some of the other Tories). He was widely believe to be a Conservative HQ plant. My gut feel is his loyalty is to the Party rather than the Leader, if he has to make a choice. No evidence for that though.
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.
For him to be gone in under a month, it needs a flounce or an "uncontested" leadership contest. Otherwise, it rolls into July at the earliest.
Oh fuck shoulda read da rules, but I *think* this is party leader and he ceases to be that on a successful vonc, no?
He is party leader until a replacement is put in position by the membership vote. That's my understanding.
But I think non zero chance he would remove himself completely asap. Pure humiliation hanging on.
Wouldn't he still technically be leader even if he did a Heath and sulked so much that he asked somebody else to stand in for him? Nobody accounts Robert Carr among the Conservative leadership the way they do Harman/Beckett or Grimond/Cable.
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.
Yes, in fact not only is the outgoing PM entitled to remain in office, he is obliged to do so if there's no alternative who is in a position to win a confidence vote. He should however resign as soon as it becomes reasonably clear, or at least likely, that there is such an alternative. Brown's behaviour was exactly correct on this.
So why did Heath resign in 1974?
He didn't resign immediately (on the Friday) but spent the weekend seeing if something could be cobbled together with Thorpe. He only quit on Monday evening.
But Labour weren't in a position to govern. So surely he was obliged to stay on until Labour could demonstrate that they could win a confidence vote in the Commons.
Absolutely not. Labour were in a position to govern. Wilson formed a minority administration and its Queen's Speech was approved by a massive majority. Why? Because the Tories contrived to abstain, knowing they'd be slaughtered in an immediate second election.
The same would have happened in 2010 had Cameron formed a minority govt, which would have survived a few months (as in 1974) before calling another election with the hope of gaining an absolute majority.
A fascinating File on 4 exploring misinformation / disinformation, and putting it in context, around the Ukraine war promoted by Brit academics who have been criticised - and when it is reasonable or not to repeat Russian Govt commentary.
2 - From In Touch - R4s programme for blind people.
An interview with 2 blind Liverpool Fans who were recipients of clouds of tear gas at the Stade de France whilst standing in the queue at a Disabled gate with their sticks, with a group of wheelchair users.
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.
Mike's percentages in your post add up to 77 per cent. If, as you say, we add Raab and Barclay at 5 per cent each, that is 87 per cent, but then you want to reduce Sunak (to zero?) and Hunt, and add a bit to Mordaunt and The Saj, so let's say 80 per cent, which still leaves 20 per cent unaccounted for.
The point is not to have a pop at you or OGH but the numbers must add up, even if only by adding A N Other at the bottom to mop up the underround.
I guess the 20% is that Johnson holds on, wins the next GE, and the next leader isn't elected until 2026 or 2027 - in which case it could be one of any number of bright young things who make an impression over the next several years.
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).
If the Tories could be viewed as viable to run a minority Government with 306 seats, then Labour/Lib Dems could be viewed as viable to run a minority Government with 315 seats. More so, as the SNP and Plaid could be seen as more likely to oppose the Tories than Labour/Lib Dems.
Wouldn't have been very stable, mind you, but then again, the Tory minority one would likely have been even less stable. If one minority is valid, so's the other.
If, however, Lab plus Lib Dem had added up to less than the Tory total, that wouldn't have been feasible. But it didn't, so it was.
For the Tories to govern for twelve months the Liberal Democrats had the option of abstaining on a Queen's Speech and a budget. The Liberal Democrats would have had to *actively support* Labour for them to form a government.
And since the Liberal Democrats had already expressed a preference for the largest party to form a government that wasn't a starter.
But *in any case* O'Donnell's advice was still wrong. The fact that Heath made an abortive attempt to do something lower key under what has to be said were somewhat different circumstances (and was incidentally equally wrong to do so for a whole host of reasons) doesn't alter that fact.
And finally, to come back to the point people keep missing, it was catastrophic for the Labour party. They should have told O'Donnell that he was one of the FIs who had got them into this mess, and he could take a hike.
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.
Yes, in fact not only is the outgoing PM entitled to remain in office, he is obliged to do so if there's no alternative who is in a position to win a confidence vote. He should however resign as soon as it becomes reasonably clear, or at least likely, that there is such an alternative. Brown's behaviour was exactly correct on this.
So why did Heath resign in 1974?
He didn't resign immediately (on the Friday) but spent the weekend seeing if something could be cobbled together with Thorpe. He only quit on Monday evening.
But Labour weren't in a position to govern. So surely he was obliged to stay on until Labour could demonstrate that they could win a confidence vote in the Commons.
Absolutely not. Labour were in a position to govern. Wilson formed a minority administration and its Queen's Speech was approved by a massive majority. Why? Because the Tories contrived to abstain, knowing they'd be slaughtered in an immediate second election.
The same would have happened in 2010 had Cameron formed a minority govt, which would have survived a few months (as in 1974) before calling another election with the hope of gaining an absolute majority.
Sorry, are you saying that you think the Tories would have been slaughtered at a second election in 2010 had they formed a minority administration?
Dunno about you, but I can't help feeling that losing 4% of GDP in exchange for the possibility of being able to buy a more powerful vacuum cleaner isn't a compelling deal.
Rees-Mogg has published a list of the "most interesting" Brexit dividends. Number two is to "abolish the EU regulations that restrict vacuum cleaner power to 1400 watts".
Heh, great move, that. We left the EU so that your leccy bills can get even higher with inefficient kit.
Coming soon...
Brexit Vax!!
The vacuum that sucks like nothing else on the continent.
1500 watts of pure British power.
Exclusive offer to readers of Daily Express.
Followed by: Express campaigns to scrap EU namby-pamby smart meters which are telling readers just how power hungry their new Brexit Vac (made in China) is Express campaigns for War with the EU who have maliciously put up power bills for its readers
Inexplicably they have missed out blue passports (that look black and take 3 months to actually get renewed).
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.
It's all a bit irresistible force (BoJo really has to go) meets immovable object (or two- Johnson seems determined to stay, and there's no standout alternative who will obviously do better). And in that sceanario, anything can happen, usually in a bad way.
Must dig out Alan Clark's account of November 1990.
Who will be BJ’s Clark, urging him to go for a final stand, raging against traitors then sobbing into their claret? Nadine?
Dunno about you, but I can't help feeling that losing 4% of GDP in exchange for the possibility of being able to buy a more powerful vacuum cleaner isn't a compelling deal.
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.
Yes, in fact not only is the outgoing PM entitled to remain in office, he is obliged to do so if there's no alternative who is in a position to win a confidence vote. He should however resign as soon as it becomes reasonably clear, or at least likely, that there is such an alternative. Brown's behaviour was exactly correct on this.
So why did Heath resign in 1974?
He didn't resign immediately (on the Friday) but spent the weekend seeing if something could be cobbled together with Thorpe. He only quit on Monday evening.
But Labour weren't in a position to govern. So surely he was obliged to stay on until Labour could demonstrate that they could win a confidence vote in the Commons.
Absolutely not. Labour were in a position to govern. Wilson formed a minority administration and its Queen's Speech was approved by a massive majority. Why? Because the Tories contrived to abstain, knowing they'd be slaughtered in an immediate second election.
The same would have happened in 2010 had Cameron formed a minority govt, which would have survived a few months (as in 1974) before calling another election with the hope of gaining an absolute majority.
Sorry, are you saying that you think the Tories would have been slaughtered at a second election in 2010 had they formed a minority administration?
Apologies if not clear. No, I'm saying Labour would likely have suffered that fate (and possibly the LibDems as well) if they had defeated a minority Cons govt in 2010 and caused an immediate second election. Just as the Tories would have in Feb 1974 if they had voted against Wilson.
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.
Yes, in fact not only is the outgoing PM entitled to remain in office, he is obliged to do so if there's no alternative who is in a position to win a confidence vote. He should however resign as soon as it becomes reasonably clear, or at least likely, that there is such an alternative. Brown's behaviour was exactly correct on this.
So why did Heath resign in 1974?
He didn't resign immediately (on the Friday) but spent the weekend seeing if something could be cobbled together with Thorpe. He only quit on Monday evening.
But Labour weren't in a position to govern. So surely he was obliged to stay on until Labour could demonstrate that they could win a confidence vote in the Commons.
No, not quite. Heath should have resigned when he did, when it became clear that he could not command a majority in the Commons. Then Wilson got a go. If Wilson had failed there would likely have been soundings taken about Liberal support for either party under a different leader, and failing that another election. Heath got it right and it took four days. Brown took five. No great difference.
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.
Yes, in fact not only is the outgoing PM entitled to remain in office, he is obliged to do so if there's no alternative who is in a position to win a confidence vote. He should however resign as soon as it becomes reasonably clear, or at least likely, that there is such an alternative. Brown's behaviour was exactly correct on this.
So why did Heath resign in 1974?
He didn't resign immediately (on the Friday) but spent the weekend seeing if something could be cobbled together with Thorpe. He only quit on Monday evening.
But Labour weren't in a position to govern. So surely he was obliged to stay on until Labour could demonstrate that they could win a confidence vote in the Commons.
No, not quite. Heath should have resigned when he did, when it became clear that he could not command a majority in the Commons. Then Wilson got a go. If Wilson had failed there would likely have been soundings taken about Liberal support for either party under a different leader, and failing that another election. Heath got it right and it took four days. Brown took five. No great difference.
The difference is that in 1974, the incumbent was looking to do a deal. That wasn't the case in 2010. The incumbent should have accepted that the game was up as soon the results were in.
Dunno about you, but I can't help feeling that losing 4% of GDP in exchange for the possibility of being able to buy a more powerful vacuum cleaner isn't a compelling deal.
Rees-Mogg has published a list of the "most interesting" Brexit dividends. Number two is to "abolish the EU regulations that restrict vacuum cleaner power to 1400 watts".
Heh, great move, that. We left the EU so that your leccy bills can get even higher with inefficient kit.
Coming soon...
Brexit Vax!!
The vacuum that sucks like nothing else on the continent.
1500 watts of pure British power.
Exclusive offer to readers of Daily Express.
Followed by: Express campaigns to scrap EU namby-pamby smart meters which are telling readers just how power hungry their new Brexit Vac (made in China) is Express campaigns for War with the EU who have maliciously put up power bills for its readers
Inexplicably they have missed out blue passports (that look black and take 3 months to actually get renewed).
Because that's already happened. And they are definitely blue - they just aren't royal blue. Put one on a black background and you'll see the difference.
Comments
Apart from Wallace. Too boring and dim
And Sunak. Too rich and short
And Tugendhat. Fuck off
And Gove. Lol
but any of the others. Apart from Raab. Or Sajid. Not them
The main thing is, wave goodbye to Boris. That Unherd interview with Cummings was the final straw. It sounded all too plausible. Boris did his job, he won the referendum, he got Brexit, he then won the election, seeing Brexit through, and completely destroying Corbyn and Cobynism. He did pretty well on Covid (in the end), he did very well on the Ukraine. It’s quite an impressive record for a short premiership, but he just isn’t a very good PM at the more boring stuff
He should take what he has achieved, and quit. I bet in his own mind he knows this. It’s not going to get better, it can only get worse. And he is risking a Tory wipe out
It strikes me that there is a strong public interest case for at least knowing the bare facts - the public has a right to know of any factors that might impact the PM's performance. It might even help explain a recent dip in form, and the public might even cut the PM some slack for a while. I do see a privacy argument for any third party and there is no need for any sordid details to be known. But if the ex-spouse has not sought to maintain privacy previously, I don't see how a privacy argument would apply against him/her.
Just interested to know how a balance is determined in court in a case like this. After all we see stories of Actor X leaving his/her partner for Actor Y all the time and there is no real public interest case for them beyond vicariousness.
From what I know of his views on Phatboi he is more likely to tear a couple of genuine letters in half, and count the halves separately.
But it is inneressing. i don't know what happens to the letters afterwards - shredded or put in the national archives Not To Be Opened Before 2300.
Must dig out Alan Clark's account of November 1990.
Truss should also be a tad higher, because a part from anything she is desperate for it and so no doubt has put in a ton of work already to have a campaign hit the ground running.
And where is Patel?
I am increasingly worried that we are better off with Johnson than trusting the tory membership not to elect her or another absolute right wing extreme loon.
“There is a difference between something that is in the public interest, and something the public might find interesting.”
Interesting on Hunt, he does look like the safe pair of hands untainted by Johnson, to me, for all my reservations about him. I'm not backing at these prices, but I wouldn't lay, either.
Note your opinion on Wallace, as he's my main risk right now.
Edit: Also think it possible it does not happen. I'm most green if Johnson is still in place next year and fights and loses the next election. Have bet against Johnson departure several times this year, for reasonable profit, but I haven't bet against (or for) departure this time. Can't decide whether it really is curtains, or not. It should be, but that's been the case for some time and it hasn't been.
Things can change.
Evidence of superinjunction: she has disappeared, no explanation offered, public domain knowledge that phatboi has previously resorted to them to cover up the details of his sordid private life (Macintyre daughter 2013)
To you she is Galadriel, to me she is Ilse Koch.
It's a method for the 'more money than sense brigade' to hide their dirty deeds. Surely, it's against the public interest by definition. One law for the rich and one for the poor. Aided and abetted by lawyers for financial gain.
I suppose the only public benefit is that it keeps the lawyers out of parliament.
She resigned in order to start the contest, but agreed to remain interim leader during the contest. Betfair paid out on the date of the contest election result, rather than the date of her resignation.
https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/chart/number-of-gps
https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1531567150028185601
The point is not to have a pop at you or OGH but the numbers must add up, even if only by adding A N Other at the bottom to mop up the underround.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rQELMwCVW4
Heath accepted the verdict. Boris, in similar circumstances, would try harder to carry on.
I think I have said before, the assumption that Johnson is uncoalitionable depends on the greased piglet not finding some way or other (probably via billions of £) to get unionists into his tent if we have hung result in 2023/4. I remain sceptical that he wont.
agrees with you. bugger.
But I think non zero chance he would remove himself completely asap. Pure humiliation hanging on.
If we'd put up Starmer, I am sure Johnson would not have won a majority
Entirely reasonable.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-31/yellen-says-i-was-wrong-last-year-on-the-path-of-us-inflation
Brexit Vax!!
The vacuum that sucks like nothing else on the continent.
1500 watts of pure British power.
Exclusive offer to readers of Daily Express.
Not 2000.
I daresay that there will be a lot of anger sprayed around, and attempts by the SG to ameliorate the worst consequences of the oncoming recession/depression will get little credit. Opposition parties are already screeching about cuts without the slightest sign of manifestos providing an alternative economic plan, but I guess that’s what oppositions do, particularly parties whose only sniff of governing in Scotland comes from their big bros in Westminster or pretending that they’re not working together in councils.
Express campaigns to scrap EU namby-pamby smart meters which are telling readers just how power hungry their new Brexit Vac (made in China) is
Express campaigns for War with the EU who have maliciously put up power bills for its readers
Wouldn't have been very stable, mind you, but then again, the Tory minority one would likely have been even less stable. If one minority is valid, so's the other.
If, however, Lab plus Lib Dem had added up to less than the Tory total, that wouldn't have been feasible. But it didn't, so it was.
The same would have happened in 2010 had Cameron formed a minority govt, which would have survived a few months (as in 1974) before calling another election with the hope of gaining an absolute majority.
My two recommendations from the Radio last night:
1 - Ukraine: The Disinformation War
A fascinating File on 4 exploring misinformation / disinformation, and putting it in context, around the Ukraine war promoted by Brit academics who have been criticised - and when it is reasonable or not to repeat Russian Govt commentary.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0017thr
2 - From In Touch - R4s programme for blind people.
An interview with 2 blind Liverpool Fans who were recipients of clouds of tear gas at the Stade de France whilst standing in the queue at a Disabled gate with their sticks, with a group of wheelchair users.
1st item in the programme.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0017tht
And since the Liberal Democrats had already expressed a preference for the largest party to form a government that wasn't a starter.
But *in any case* O'Donnell's advice was still wrong. The fact that Heath made an abortive attempt to do something lower key under what has to be said were somewhat different circumstances (and was incidentally equally wrong to do so for a whole host of reasons) doesn't alter that fact.
And finally, to come back to the point people keep missing, it was catastrophic for the Labour party. They should have told O'Donnell that he was one of the FIs who had got them into this mess, and he could take a hike.