"Johnson reportedly refusing to resign, suggesting his departure might be followed by early election and Tory defeat Boris Johnson is determined not to resign, ITV’s Anushka Asthana reports."
He is not going of his own accord is he? @HYUFD has got this 100% right.
Why should he go? He won a confidence vote a few weeks ago, and the rules say no more such votes for 12 months. Those calling for him to go are being disrespectful of the rules.
The ‘rules’ are Tory Party rules and sod all to do with the country. You remind me of Rod Crosby cheering on Corbyn when he refused to leave, despite Corbyn losing the confidence of 75% of the PLP. The odious Crosby endlessly wrote about the rules of clubs, as if they were the immutable laws of human honour.
I would never make a personal comparison between you and Crosby. But your arguments are similar on this topic. The rules of the Tory and Labour parties are/were suboptimal - but came about because nobody foresaw that a leader would try to cling on in such circumstances.
John McTernan thinks Johnson will use peers to fill all the holes in his government.
Not sure whether he is joking or not.
If he can find enough people to plug the holes then why not? If there aren't enough existing lords willing to take the jobs Johnson can always find random party donors and staffers from Tory HQ and ennoble them.
Big opportunity for HYUFD at last as Minister for Propaganda.
Actually so far as I am aware, there is no official constitutional rule that Ministers need to be MPs or Lords.
They dont. Digby Jones for example was a minister for some days before being ennobled by Brown
John McTernan thinks Johnson will use peers to fill all the holes in his government.
Not sure whether he is joking or not.
If he can find enough people to plug the holes then why not? If there aren't enough existing lords willing to take the jobs Johnson can always find random party donors and staffers from Tory HQ and ennoble them.
Big opportunity for HYUFD at last as Minister for Propaganda.
Actually so far as I am aware, there is no official constitutional rule that Ministers need to be MPs or Lords.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 2m This is starting to border on the pathological. Fight? Fight for what? What do Boris and his supporters think is going to happen.
His point of view would be that he's standing up for the principle that he won a fair vote very recently and shouldn't be forced out without another one.
That's ludicrous. He's not sovereign himself. By the same logic a prime minister who wins a general election should never be removed from office. You're entitled to do whatever you want for the next five years.
Bumped into a very emotional Tory MP who quit the govt today. “I’ve never rebelled. I’ve always been loyal. But he (the PM) doesn’t give a sh*t about his colleagues or the party. I hate him having backed him. I am so angry.”
They were warned. They did it anyway. This is their reward...
Funny thing is, Magic Grandpa would have clung on just as desperately if sane Labour MPs were resigning from government to oust him as PM. Probably even as going as far appointing supporters in the House of Lords to fill government positions, just as Big Dog might be planning. We had a great choice in 2019, didn't we?
Tonight, Boris Johnson has turned to “The Sampson Option”, pulling down the institutions and conventions which have governed British politics for more than a century. Utterly selfish and irresponsible conduct. And he’s supposed to be a Conservative! https://twitter.com/lionelbarber/status/1544775598614097920
Funny thing is, Magic Grandpa would have clung on just as desperately if sane Labour MPs were resigning from government to oust him as PM. Probably even as going as far appointing supporters in the House of Lords to fill government positions, just as Big Dog might be planning. We had a great choice in 2019, didn't we?
Why the Corbyn obsession? He is yesterday's man and long gone....
Funny thing is, Magic Grandpa would have clung on just as desperately if sane Labour MPs were resigning from government to oust him as PM. Probably even as going as far appointing supporters in the House of Lords to fill government positions, just as Big Dog might be planning. We had a great choice in 2019, didn't we?
Why the Corbyn obsession? He is yesterday's man and long gone....
Because it supposedly justifies the Tories picking Mr Johnson in the first place.
Why give the Conservative Party a Get out of Jail card? They got themselves into this godawful mess and they need to have the balls to get themselves out of it.
Quite what the 1922 thought they were doing today, who knows?
So. Boris and Zahawi will produce an "economic plan" tomorrow. 2 people with no discernible knowledge of economics with less than 36 rather busy event filled hours In which to concoct it. Can anyone see a difficulty here? What could go wrong?
Anyone else wondering if even if the 1922 change the rules and he loses he will fight it on legal grounds, saying that he won fair and square?
Yes, I raised that earlier.
A 1922 change which is, in effect, retrospective may be challengeable one would have thought because the 12 month rule is in place for a reason but it is the Party's own affair I guess. Thinking about it, if the rules are changed and he lost a VOC then he would under Party rules not be Tory leader (and by extension not PM) anymore no matter what he cares to think. He would be squatting in No 10 wouldn't he?
Will Johnson's legacy be to prove the value of the Crown?
This. 100x this.
Top post.
It might prove the opposite if Brenda is suppine enough to follow Boris's advice that he must stay in post. Apparently she always follows her PMs advice...
James Duddridge, the prime minister's PPS, has just texted @joncraig live on Sky News to clarify that the economic plan is coming *next week* - not tomorrow as suggested
John McTernan thinks Johnson will use peers to fill all the holes in his government.
Not sure whether he is joking or not.
If he can find enough people to plug the holes then why not? If there aren't enough existing lords willing to take the jobs Johnson can always find random party donors and staffers from Tory HQ and ennoble them.
Big opportunity for HYUFD at last as Minister for Propaganda.
Actually so far as I am aware, there is no official constitutional rule that Ministers need to be MPs or Lords.
You have a point. I seem to recall that there was a brief period when Douglas-Home was PM without being a member of either house.
John McTernan thinks Johnson will use peers to fill all the holes in his government.
Not sure whether he is joking or not.
If he can find enough people to plug the holes then why not? If there aren't enough existing lords willing to take the jobs Johnson can always find random party donors and staffers from Tory HQ and ennoble them.
Big opportunity for HYUFD at last as Minister for Propaganda.
Actually so far as I am aware, there is no official constitutional rule that Ministers need to be MPs or Lords.
You have a point. I seem to recall that there was a brief period when Douglas-Home was PM without being a member of either house.
Could he declare martial law and call in the military?
There are three or four unresolvable ambiguities in our system. And it is a bad idea to test them. Like:
1) Is the ultimate loyalty of the armed forces to HM the Queen or her first minister, and what does this mean 2) Can the SC, in extremis, overturn legislation on the ground that is is wicked 3) Can HM intervene in the political realm to avert extreme evils
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 2m This is starting to border on the pathological. Fight? Fight for what? What do Boris and his supporters think is going to happen.
His point of view would be that he's standing up for the principle that he won a fair vote very recently and shouldn't be forced out without another one.
That's ludicrous. He's not sovereign himself. By the same logic a prime minister who wins a general election should never be removed from office. You're entitled to do whatever you want for the next five years.
Also, there is the rather basic reality. Boris Johnson has no mandate. He is appointed by the Queen having been elected by the people of Uxbridge. There is no personal mandate for him from the wider voting public because nobody outside Uxbridge was able to vote for him.
What he thinks. What some mad/uneducated supporters think doesn't matter vs the basic facts about how our electoral system works.
John McTernan thinks Johnson will use peers to fill all the holes in his government.
Not sure whether he is joking or not.
If he can find enough people to plug the holes then why not? If there aren't enough existing lords willing to take the jobs Johnson can always find random party donors and staffers from Tory HQ and ennoble them.
Big opportunity for HYUFD at last as Minister for Propaganda.
Actually so far as I am aware, there is no official constitutional rule that Ministers need to be MPs or Lords.
James Duddridge, the prime minister's PPS, has just texted @joncraig live on Sky News to clarify that the economic plan is coming *next week* - not tomorrow as suggested
Anyone else wondering if even if the 1922 change the rules and he loses he will fight it on legal grounds, saying that he won fair and square?
Yes, I raised that earlier.
A 1922 change which is, in effect, retrospective may be challengeable one would have thought because the 12 month rule is in place for a reason but it is the Party's own affair I guess. Thinking about it, if the rules are changed and he lost a VOC then he would under Party rules not be PM anymore no matter what he cares to think. He would be squatting in No 10 wouldn't he?
He would not be leader of the Tory Party, but that’s a different thing unless or until the Cabinet speaks to the Queen.
On the courts, I think they tend to refuse to interfere with private clubs and their rules.
The assumption is that they always resign. I presume there was no obligation on John Major to resign after the election in 1997. I guess he could have waited for parliament to come back and then a no confidence vote. But again what does a no confidence vote achieve? Does a PM have to automatically resign as a result?
Could he declare martial law and call in the military?
There are three or four unresolvable ambiguities in our system. And it is a bad idea to test them. Like:
1) Is the ultimate loyalty of the armed forces to HM the Queen or her first minister, and what does this mean 2) Can the SC, in extremis, overturn legislation on the ground that is is wicked 3) Can HM intervene in the political realm to avert extreme evils
Yep we have no written constitution. It all operates on the basic premise of people behaving in an honourable fashion.
I'm glad Boris is gone, but I'd still vote for him over Corbyn tomorrow.
That choice is similar to choosing death by hanging or firing squad. So you have made your selection. Good luck!
TBF to Corbyn, he had more respect for the British constitution than Mr Johnson does.
Eh? We're talking about the fella who was rather keen on the IRA? Who was ambivalent about the monarchy? Who saw parliament as a kind of voluntary add-on to direct action? Johnson vs Corbyn is like a choice between death by firing squad or having you and your family and everyone you hold dear worked to death in the gulag.
James Duddridge, the prime minister's PPS, has just texted @joncraig live on Sky News to clarify that the economic plan is coming *next week* - not tomorrow as suggested
James Duddridge, the prime minister's PPS, has just texted @joncraig live on Sky News to clarify that the economic plan is coming *next week* - not tomorrow as suggested
So: 1. PM appoints Zahawi, says "you must cut taxes straight away" 2. Zahawi goes to the Treasury and says "write me up what we can announce on Thursday 3. Treasury mandarins say "ahem" and then say exactly why that can't happen
James Duddridge, the prime minister's PPS, has just texted @joncraig live on Sky News to clarify that the economic plan is coming *next week* - not tomorrow as suggested
Could he declare martial law and call in the military?
There are three or four unresolvable ambiguities in our system. And it is a bad idea to test them. Like:
1) Is the ultimate loyalty of the armed forces to HM the Queen or her first minister, and what does this mean 2) Can the SC, in extremis, overturn legislation on the ground that is is wicked 3) Can HM intervene in the political realm to avert extreme evils
Could he declare martial law and call in the military?
There are three or four unresolvable ambiguities in our system. And it is a bad idea to test them. Like:
1) Is the ultimate loyalty of the armed forces to HM the Queen or her first minister, and what does this mean 2) Can the SC, in extremis, overturn legislation on the ground that is is wicked 3) Can HM intervene in the political realm to avert extreme evils
The PM actually has no role in the command or the armed forces. Her Majesty delegates to the defence council, which is chaired by the Defence Secretary these days*, not the PM.
*Formerly the Imperial Committee on Defence I think.
Mind you, Labour members are kind of responsible for this embarrassing shambles. Choosing Livingstone as the Mayoral candidate and then Corbyn as leader helped make the charlatan's career, enabling him to take as out the EU and make mockery out of his office.
Funny thing is, Magic Grandpa would have clung on just as desperately if sane Labour MPs were resigning from government to oust him as PM. Probably even as going as far appointing supporters in the House of Lords to fill government positions, just as Big Dog might be planning. We had a great choice in 2019, didn't we?
Why the Corbyn obsession? He is yesterday's man and long gone....
Could he declare martial law and call in the military?
There are three or four unresolvable ambiguities in our system. And it is a bad idea to test them. Like:
1) Is the ultimate loyalty of the armed forces to HM the Queen or her first minister, and what does this mean 2) Can the SC, in extremis, overturn legislation on the ground that is is wicked 3) Can HM intervene in the political realm to avert extreme evils
I would imagine that HMQ and Charles will strongly advise Boris to resign; he won't, and that will be that. The Queen's official biographer may release an account of the Queen at a private dinner with friends saying that she felt politicians should 'put the country before their careers', as a way to make her feelings known.
IQ of nations tests are factual and undeniable. Nukes are there as a last resort to defend British territory, irrespective of the merits of using them or not Argentina invaded the Falklands, British territory. Russia has presidential and parliamentary elections, it may not be a perfect democracy but it is a democracy.
I am entitled to my views as long as they are legal and will continue to make them with generally less abuse than is directed at me
Even if you are distracted by the slo-mo defenestration of BJ, the fact that you can- straight faced- claim such utter bilge is actually contemptable. Please retract.
I disagree with HYUFD on most things, but he shouldn't be bullied off the site. I do agree with him that he hands out much less abuse than he gets, and there is nothing more tedious than anonymous posters ranting about identified posters. Unless, of course, you really are Mr Cicero.
I’m seeing SNP MPs being interviewed, but not being asked about Grady.
Have you not seen the reports re the Met dropping the matter?
And the reasons why, which are pretty alarming. I references these in my header -
"according to this report, the Met will take no further action because the victim fears reprisals which will impact his already “intolerable working environment“.
Johnson to make senior cabinet appointments tonight and joint presentation on the economy with Zahawi tomorrow
Zahawi career is over and he will go down with Johnson
So tomorrow they basically throw open the wallet and make their pitch to stay in place to deliver massive help to ease the cost of living crisis, then dare the rest of the Tory party to no confidence Boris and put all that cash-splashing in jeopardy. Is that the gameplan?
Surely if they do that they provoke a Sterling crisis, and the Tory party have to get rid of him urgently, or we won't be able to afford to pay to import food and fuel.
Mind you, Labour members are kind of responsible for this embarrassing shambles. Choosing Livingstone as the Mayoral candidate and then Corbyn as leader helped make the charlatan's career, enabling him to take as out the EU and make mockery out of his office.
Livingstone started as an Independent. Blair selected Charles Clark.
For your effect outcome, it started with a f*****' imaginary butterfly.
IQ of nations tests are factual and undeniable. Nukes are there as a last resort to defend British territory, irrespective of the merits of using them or not Argentina invaded the Falklands, British territory. Russia has presidential and parliamentary elections, it may not be a perfect democracy but it is a democracy.
I am entitled to my views as long as they are legal and will continue to make them with generally less abuse than is directed at me
Even if you are distracted by the slo-mo defenestration of BJ, the fact that you can- straight faced- claim such utter bilge is actually contemptable. Please retract.
I disagree with HYUFD on most things, but he shouldn't be bullied off the site. I do agree with him that he hands out much less abuse than he gets, and there is nothing more tedious than anonymous posters ranting about identified posters. Unless, of course, you really are Mr Cicero.
HYUFD is the star of PB. Sometimes his imagination gets the better of him but the star of the show nonetheless.
Right on cue, some brave individual on the BBC misunderstands a political leader is an annointed king. An unnamed MP close to Boris Johnson tonight described some of his critics as “treacherous”.
They are, a load of wet, treacherous, pygmies.
Exactly the same type of MPs who toppled Thatcher, another great election winner, leading to years of bitter division in the party and ultimately over a decade in opposition
Given that this seems to describe the almost the entire parliamentary party, are we to assume you have now transferred your loyalty to Il Duce?
It doesn't, just the traitors. The membership will ensure the traitors do not get rewarded if Boris is removed by ensuring they do not get the leadership
Hopefully the membership is not quite as loony as you. Even within the modern “Conservative” party, I suspect you are an outlier.
Yes, he's eccentric, dogmatic and pedantic and always has to have the last word but we know he will transfer his loyalty 100% the instant a new Conservative leader and PM takes office, so why badger him?
Because he holds views which are deeply offensive - more I would suggest than almost anyone else on here - and he invites scorn with his statements of absolute certainty which almost inevitably turn out to be rubbish. It is not bullying to point out his idiocy just as others point out mine and yours.
I take issue with that. I disagree with him about many things but his views are not offensive. I don't think the views of anyone on here are 'offensive', not even Sandy Rentool's cheerful wish for the elimination of all humanity. You may be offended by his views, but that is different (though I don'tsee why you would be, he may be not be the board's cheeriest poster but he is seldom rude despite a lot of provocation). And more often than not his views about what goes on within the Conservative Party are pretty well informed.
Well I have to say if you don't think that supporting the Spanish police beating up grannies because the want to vote and advocating doing the same thing to citizens in this country is offensive then I think your moral compass is somewhat skewed.
His attitude of 'party before country' is also offensive.
As I have said before I would not see him leave; he has an absolute right to say what he wants. But I and others have an absolute right to call him out for it and treat both him and his views with the disdain they deserve.
These views are not "offensive" though. They are "wrong". Or, more accurately, "I disagree with them".
No. Supporting the beating of people for wanting to vote and advocating it for our country is offensive. Far more offensive than the rude words you seem to object to on here.
I can see both sides of this argument but I must admit I do personally find some of his post offensive, although I might be considered a bit of a wimp. To name a few: His views on the average intelligence of Africans, willingness to nuke Argentina, believing Russia is a democracy. The list goes on.
IQ of nations tests are factual and undeniable. Nukes are there as a last resort to defend British territory, irrespective of the merits of using them or not Argentina invaded the Falklands, British territory. Russia has presidential and parliamentary elections, it may not be a perfect democracy but it is a democracy.
I am entitled to my views as long as they are legal and will continue to make them with generally less abuse than is directed at me
Lol the IQ test you claim is factual put the average IQ of certain 3rd world countries at the age of a 5 - 7 year old or a severely mentally handicapped adult. Do you really believe the average IQ of people of darker skin is really that or do you admit it actually is not factual and is deniable.
IQ of nations tests are factual and undeniable. Nukes are there as a last resort to defend British territory, irrespective of the merits of using them or not Argentina invaded the Falklands, British territory. Russia has presidential and parliamentary elections, it may not be a perfect democracy but it is a democracy.
I am entitled to my views as long as they are legal and will continue to make them with generally less abuse than is directed at me
Even if you are distracted by the slo-mo defenestration of BJ, the fact that you can- straight faced- claim such utter bilge is actually contemptable. Please retract.
I disagree with HYUFD on most things, but he shouldn't be bullied off the site. I do agree with him that he hands out much less abuse than he gets, and there is nothing more tedious than anonymous posters ranting about identified posters. Unless, of course, you really are Mr Cicero.
No one is bullying him Nick and in case you missed it I am as anonymous as you are, as you well know given we also chat in other places. HYUFD is an embarrassment to himself and to his party. Now as I said that is not a crime and I have never called for him to be driven off the site. But at the same time I have as much right to highlight and condemn his bilge as he has to post it. Those people claiming it is bullying are just trying to shut down valid criticism. I will continue to point out his extremist, fascist tendencies for as long as he continues to post them.
Comments
I would never make a personal comparison between you and Crosby. But your arguments are similar on this topic. The rules of the Tory and Labour parties are/were suboptimal - but came about because nobody foresaw that a leader would try to cling on in such circumstances.
Top post.
'CHAOS' as a headline?
As a reminder, this is what happened on Black Wednesday and how the papers reported it the next day:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/sep/13/black-wednesday-20-years-pound-erm
They were warned. They did it anyway. This is their reward...
We had a great choice in 2019, didn't we?
https://twitter.com/lionelbarber/status/1544775598614097920
Don't quite see Carrie as Evita, but I'm sure Andrew Lloyd Webber could sprinkle some stardust.
Don't cry for me, expensive wallpaper vendors etc.
Sorry.
Why give the Conservative Party a Get out of Jail card? They got themselves into this godawful mess and they need to have the balls to get themselves out of it.
Quite what the 1922 thought they were doing today, who knows?
2 people with no discernible knowledge of economics with less than 36 rather busy event filled hours In which to concoct it.
Can anyone see a difficulty here?
What could go wrong?
A 1922 change which is, in effect, retrospective may be challengeable one would have thought because the 12 month rule is in place for a reason but it is the Party's own affair I guess. Thinking about it, if the rules are changed and he lost a VOC then he would under Party rules not be Tory leader (and by extension not PM) anymore no matter what he cares to think. He would be squatting in No 10 wouldn't he?
TBF to Corbyn, he had more respect for the British constitution than Mr Johnson does.
James Duddridge, the prime minister's PPS, has just texted @joncraig live on Sky News to clarify that the economic plan is coming *next week* - not tomorrow as suggested
Difficult to keep track https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1544776218733576192/photo/1
1) Is the ultimate loyalty of the armed forces to HM the Queen or her first minister, and what does this mean
2) Can the SC, in extremis, overturn legislation on the ground that is is wicked
3) Can HM intervene in the political realm to avert extreme evils
https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1544774552147861505
What he thinks. What some mad/uneducated supporters think doesn't matter vs the basic facts about how our electoral system works.
Convention only.
On the courts, I think they tend to refuse to interfere with private clubs and their rules.
The assumption is that they always resign. I presume there was no obligation on John Major to resign after the election in 1997. I guess he could have waited for parliament to come back and then a no confidence vote. But again what does a no confidence vote achieve? Does a PM have to automatically resign as a result?
Which is rather awkward right now.
Johnson vs Corbyn is like a choice between death by firing squad or having you and your family and everyone you hold dear worked to death in the gulag.
NEW THREAD
If the 1922 change the rule on Monday, the VONC will be Tuesday; Wednesday latest.
1. PM appoints Zahawi, says "you must cut taxes straight away"
2. Zahawi goes to the Treasury and says "write me up what we can announce on Thursday
3. Treasury mandarins say "ahem" and then say exactly why that can't happen
BORIS JOHNSON HAS SACKED MICHAEL GOVE
FFS.
*Formerly the Imperial Committee on Defence I think.
TSE would switch to backing him in a flash.
I bet John Bercow is too.
"according to this report, the Met will take no further action because the victim fears reprisals which will impact his already “intolerable working environment“.
For your effect outcome, it started with a f*****' imaginary butterfly.