Gavin Barwell live on LBC saying what I just said - we need to change the system as it is currently predicated on the PM being a good faith actor.
Not really, as @MarqueeMark says, the 22 could have changed the rules last night. That they didn't shows that as much as lots of people want the PM gone, they're prepared to let this nonsense continue a little longer because they think that is better than looking like they've changed the rules of the game.
And what if he doesn't go after losing a vonc of Tory MPs?
I'd have thought in that situation, the Palace will invite someone to form a government, and Johnson would, quite literally, be dragged out of Downing Street.
Oh I have doubts there are ways out of this but we are in uncharted waters. Boris has already done the unthinkable several times so I wouldn't put it passed him. Re your solution (which may well happen) but it means a) the palace intervening which it avoids doing and b) who does she invite?
Gavin Barwell live on LBC saying what I just said - we need to change the system as it is currently predicated on the PM being a good faith actor.
Not really, as @MarqueeMark says, the 22 could have changed the rules last night. That they didn't shows that as much as lots of people want the PM gone, they're prepared to let this nonsense continue a little longer because they think that is better than looking like they've changed the rules of the game.
Yes, I think the system works fairly well - it's just the people in it have been very slow to update for a complete wrong'un.
Patel asked him to go last night and resignation after resignation continues this morning
Furthermore Johnson's attempts to appoint cabinet ministers are being publicly rejected by those asked
He is a disgrace and anyone standing by him should have no future roll in the conservative party
Brady should call an emergency 1922 meeting and bring forward the change in the committee needed to reject Johnson from office
I can understand their reluctance to do so. As an executive they literally have days left. A rules change isn't just for now, its permanent. They don't want to hand over a poison legacy to their successors. Etc etc.
The rule is there for a good reason. If there are just enough "rebels", we can't have them triggering an automatic vote every week when the answer is already known. Perhaps it should require a different 53 people to write letters (or whatever the trigger total is), so you'd need 106 for a second go.
They obviously thought that the threat to do it would be enough, since the end is now in full view, but Boris just sits there expecting something else to turn up.
It seems Boris is not someone to play chicken with. He'd be driving at full speed expecting a Pterosaur to snatch the opposing vehicle at the last second.
This continuing fiasco is on the 22. We could have had a VONC at 6pm last night. The Cabinet members could have made it clear they would be voting NC. By 8pm, the process of replacement would have started under an interim PM, probably Theresa May.
Needs a breakfast rethink, Brady.
[...]
However I still have a feeling - perhaps deluded - that Boris will wake up (alone?) and look at another day of painful ridicule and absurdity, with the Queen tutting away, and he will think OK OK enough I’m done
No chance, according to Petronella who predicted just this situation:
Most of us have the 'luxury' of reconciling the reality of our life's achievements with the dreams of our youth over a number of years (and even then a fair few of us go off the rails in a variety of well rehearsed ways) - for Johnson, reality has shattered his lifetime's dream in a single week. It's no wonder he can't cope.
I’m not sure that’s what’s happening here. Boris achieved his goal. He got to be “world king” - or at least PM of the UK. And he literally changed the world by winning the Brexit vote
More plausible is this: Boris is desperate to be liked. Needy. So many of his flaws stem from that. Being booted out of office, despite a majority of 80, is a tremendous “we don’t like you”
He’s finding it hard to compute. His brain is saying But the People still like me! 14m of them!
As a realistic counter to Leon's 'everything is alright in the world of travel' here's a good piece on tourism in Bali.
Bali went from over 6 million tourists in 2019 to 45 tourists in 2020. Yes, 45 tourists.
The resident interviewed in the piece reckons it will take a decade to recover. My several friends in SE Asia think the same. The more optimistic suggest a decade to recover. Many say it will never return to how it was
Yes, you can still travel. But covid has not gone away. Vaccine passes are required. Everywhere restrictions are far greater than they were. The tourist infrastructures have broken down. There is flight chaos in the UK and elsewhere. And a lot of the fun has been sucked out of it. Why have I not travelled much in the last 2 years? Quite simply, sitting on a long haul flight in a mask and going through a heap of aggro at overseas airports and hotels is the last thing I want to do when I travel. I go abroad to enjoy local cuisine and culture. To relax. To breathe the vibrancy of other worlds.
In short, travel was fun. I have lived and travelled outside the UK most of my life, until covid hit. Until I'm convinced that from leaving my door to returning it will be a fun experience I shall continue to avoid it.
Incidentally, the Scottish tourist industry recovered in no time. Far too bloody busy in fact. I blame Instagram, TikTok etc. The country is simply too photogenic.
Yep I staycated in the Western Highlands last autumn. Took the wonderful overnight sleeper to Fort William. Had an absolutely glorious time.
Aye it's a bonnie bonnie land. Love Scotland.
Minor correction - you went on holiday to the Western Highlands. I abhor the phrase staycation. Original meaning was staying in your home and taking day trips. A holiday in the U.K. is still a holiday. I do them every year.
Rant over.
Words and meanings evolve and new words are coined. As The Bard knew.
I staycated. Love it.
Bazball. Glorious.
etc. etc.
Agree to disagree perhaps. yes absolutely the mutability of language and particularly English is great. Its just that to me the whole Staycation = Holiday in the UK is rather sneering and disrespectful for those who only holiday in the UK, which is one of the greatest places in the world to holiday. As you yourself report from the Highlands, and I would add in the Lakes, the Peak district, most of Wales, the west country, Yorkshire and on and on.
Gavin Barwell live on LBC saying what I just said - we need to change the system as it is currently predicated on the PM being a good faith actor.
Not really, as @MarqueeMark says, the 22 could have changed the rules last night. That they didn't shows that as much as lots of people want the PM gone, they're prepared to let this nonsense continue a little longer because they think that is better than looking like they've changed the rules of the game.
I don't care about the rules inside the Tory party - that isn't what I am referring to.
The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is claiming that regardless of Tory rules, he has a direct mandate from the electorate. That is simply wrong. He does have the legal power to request a general election whether anyone else wants one or not. Which puts the Queen in the terrible position of having to judge this.
This has to stop. There really are a lot of people out there who claim to have voted for Johnson or Corbyn or whoever. So if Johnson or another lunatic were to go rogue and claim a personal mandate, who is to stop them?
Here's my amateur opinion on why Johnson is hanging on.
He knows the gig is up. It's mate-in-two-against-any-defence.
However, rather than resign, the story going forward will be much different if he is instead VONCd by the 1922 changing the rules, either today or Monday.
Firstly, the story will all be about him being VONCd. Why he's being VONCd (Pincher, Partygate or a hundred other scandals) will be secondary. And to a great mass of the public, that's the story he'll pitch. He was unfairly robbed by second-rate politicians who changed the rules just to get rid of him.
It's the Trump playbook. You didn't lose, the game was rigged against you by cheats. I don't think Johnson has the same bizarre 'I never lost' core of his personality like Trump, but he's also seen how you can become the Ayatollah in exile by doing so.
So he get's VONCd, and hangs around in the background as the potential saviour as the country goes to the dogs with inflation, strikes and gas bills.
Thatcher fantasized about doing this herself but she was stymied because firstly she resigned, and secondly she made it known Major was her successor. Then Major went and won the next election anyway.
Johnson has worked this out. He'll endorse nobody and keep his team of sycophants (Mogg, Dorries etc.) around to brief against the new PM. Undermine enough and hopefully you have a hung parliament with Labour in government and Johnson is the chosen one to reclaim the majority.
Will it work? I doubt it. But I wouldn't bet against Trump winning in 2024 either.
Brits aren’t Americans. And Conservative voters aren’t Republican voters.
He is trashing his reputation, and most likely that of his party, beyond repair. It’s going to be a generation before they recover from this. With any luck, this will forever tarnish Brexit into the bargain.
One could almost say that we are watching the ending of an era before our eyes, but don’t realise it yet.
Centre-right voters will largely be relieved that he's gone. People say "X Party will never govern again because of this" and then they're back in the lead in the polls a year later.
The manner of his departure makes it easier for the Conservatives to move on. He is entirely bereft of grace and dignity, unlike Thatcher, Cameron, or May, so nobody is going to be flying the flag for him after he goes. He might try hanging around like a bad fart in a lift, but 90% of Conservative MPs will want nothing to do with him.
I get that. But he's still hugely popular with many voters. He could cause endless years of headache for the Tories were he minded to.
? hugely
Once, perhaps.
But even among supporters his reputation is tarnished by his behaviour and hypocrisy during the lockdown.
The difference with Trump is that Johnson himself imposed the severe restrictions on our normal lifestyles upon us himself, and came on TV night after night to implore us to follow the rules. Trump always thought the restrictions were a nonsense and has no fingerprints on any of the pandemic limitations at all - thus could remain a hero to his libertarian followers.
All Boris has going for him is 'the man who did Brexit' - and Brexit afterwards is slowly going to poison that achievement as it falls so far short of what its supporters imagined
If the now 52 resignations are added to the 148 who voted against in the last VONC, we're up to 200.
I think there'll be a bit of double counting in that, also there are some loyal backbenchers still. Chope for instance. But yes he'd clearly lose an internal VONC.
Why are loyal backbenchers relevant to the figure? They're not in either the 148 or the 52.
Quite possibly some in the government voted against him before. But on the other hand there are a number still in government saying he should go. And other backbenchers saying they supported him before but now don't.
I don't believe there's any way 200 would be an overestimate.
I’ve been saying for months that Boris is set for life because he will get squillions for his memoirs. And this will only add to the cash value - some drama at the end
But he is now sailing close to the wind. I can see the disgrace being so deep he will struggle to get a serious publisher in the UK, at least for a while - and he will want money soon
As a realistic counter to Leon's 'everything is alright in the world of travel' here's a good piece on tourism in Bali.
Bali went from over 6 million tourists in 2019 to 45 tourists in 2020. Yes, 45 tourists.
The resident interviewed in the piece reckons it will take a decade to recover. My several friends in SE Asia think the same. The more optimistic suggest a decade to recover. Many say it will never return to how it was
Yes, you can still travel. But covid has not gone away. Vaccine passes are required. Everywhere restrictions are far greater than they were. The tourist infrastructures have broken down. There is flight chaos in the UK and elsewhere. And a lot of the fun has been sucked out of it. Why have I not travelled much in the last 2 years? Quite simply, sitting on a long haul flight in a mask and going through a heap of aggro at overseas airports and hotels is the last thing I want to do when I travel. I go abroad to enjoy local cuisine and culture. To relax. To breathe the vibrancy of other worlds.
In short, travel was fun. I have lived and travelled outside the UK most of my life, until covid hit. Until I'm convinced that from leaving my door to returning it will be a fun experience I shall continue to avoid it.
Incidentally, the Scottish tourist industry recovered in no time. Far too bloody busy in fact. I blame Instagram, TikTok etc. The country is simply too photogenic.
Yep I staycated in the Western Highlands last autumn. Took the wonderful overnight sleeper to Fort William. Had an absolutely glorious time.
Aye it's a bonnie bonnie land. Love Scotland.
Minor correction - you went on holiday to the Western Highlands. I abhor the phrase staycation. Original meaning was staying in your home and taking day trips. A holiday in the U.K. is still a holiday. I do them every year.
Rant over.
Words and meanings evolve and new words are coined. As The Bard knew.
I staycated. Love it.
Bazball. Glorious.
etc. etc.
Agree to disagree perhaps. yes absolutely the mutability of language and particularly English is great. Its just that to me the whole Staycation = Holiday in the UK is rather sneering and disrespectful for those who only holiday in the UK, which is one of the greatest places in the world to holiday. As you yourself report from the Highlands, and I would add in the Lakes, the Peak district, most of Wales, the west country, Yorkshire and on and on.
Agree with this, and also, if staycation is used for a resident of London going on holiday to Scotland it means you no longer have a word for someone who takes a holiday from their own home - which is what staycation was created to describe. So it's a change in language that restricts people from being able to describe a thing easily.
As you probably know I am a long-standing federalist who has posted on here that we need to significantly reform many of the institutions and unwritten guff that is our constitution.
This is a prime example of why. We have a rogue Prime Minister. He refuses to quit. Claims a mass mandate that literally doesn't exist in the real world. Is likely to ignore the Tory party. Even if they refuse to serve in his cabinet it remains in his remit to call an election - I AM KING style.
We really have to sort this out. The fallacy that "I have a mandate" is one that many many voters actually believe to be true. How many people say "I voted for Boris" when they did not?
Sorry but you could not have this more wrong.
What is happening at the moment shows the remarkable underlying strength, durability and flexibility of our unwritten constitution.
Despite "the written rules" saying that Boris was safe to be Prime Minister for another 12 months, in the space of 24-72 hours it is all coming to an end and he will be out of office shortly. Increasingly possibly after a visit from the men in white coats, and the ones in grey suits failed.
When this has happened in countries with "written rules" the flexibility to adapt to a situation like this is much tougher, and the ability of those in power to try to abuse the rules to drag out and remain in power ends up being to their advantage, rather than the nation's advantage.
Trump could stay in office for months after he lost the election, degrading his office even further, within "the written rules". Boris's end is being measured in hours/days not months and our system is working, Boris is just in denial and this is a very sad and ridiculous end.
The written rules are those of the Conservative Party. I am talking about the unwritten rules relating to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Constitutionally it is perfectly valid for them to remove him as leader and him to say "I am staying on as Prime Minister". Madness, but possible. How do we remove him when the Tories can't and he then tries to force an election?
There are many ways this can go if he tries to go down that route. One is he goes to HMQ who says that he would like to ask for a new election and HMQ says that she believes he has lost the Confidence of the House and she would like to ask for a new PM instead.
The lack of a written rule here is our strength, not our weakness. It allows rational actors to adapt and create new precedent to force out the irrational actor. If there's a written rule, then the person in charge of the rules can abuse that to hold onto power longer.
Patel asked him to go last night and resignation after resignation continues this morning
Furthermore Johnson's attempts to appoint cabinet ministers are being publicly rejected by those asked
He is a disgrace and anyone standing by him should have no future roll in the conservative party
Brady should call an emergency 1922 meeting and bring forward the change in the committee needed to reject Johnson from office
I can understand their reluctance to do so. As an executive they literally have days left. A rules change isn't just for now, its permanent. They don't want to hand over a poison legacy to their successors. Etc etc.
The ability to appoint and eject a pm should perhaps be for the commons, not the 1922 committee.
It *is* for the commons. The Conservative Party elect a leader. They do not elect a Prime Minister.
Why on earth would anyone take up a new role in government with an unhinged PM who is on his way out . So if you can’t fill these roles you don’t have a functioning government .
Patel asked him to go last night and resignation after resignation continues this morning
Furthermore Johnson's attempts to appoint cabinet ministers are being publicly rejected by those asked
He is a disgrace and anyone standing by him should have no future roll in the conservative party
Brady should call an emergency 1922 meeting and bring forward the change in the committee needed to reject Johnson from office
I can understand their reluctance to do so. As an executive they literally have days left. A rules change isn't just for now, its permanent. They don't want to hand over a poison legacy to their successors. Etc etc.
The rule is there for a good reason. If there are just enough "rebels", we can't have them triggering an automatic vote every week when the answer is already known. Perhaps it should require a different 53 people to write letters (or whatever the trigger total is), so you'd need 106 for a second go.
They obviously thought that the threat to do it would be enough, since the end is now in full view, but Boris just sits there expecting something else to turn up.
It seems Boris is not someone to play chicken with. He'd be driving at full speed expecting a Pterosaur to snatch the opposing vehicle at the last second.
Boris plays chicken by throwing the steering wheel out the window....
Gavin Barwell live on LBC saying what I just said - we need to change the system as it is currently predicated on the PM being a good faith actor.
Not really, as @MarqueeMark says, the 22 could have changed the rules last night. That they didn't shows that as much as lots of people want the PM gone, they're prepared to let this nonsense continue a little longer because they think that is better than looking like they've changed the rules of the game.
And what if he doesn't go after losing a vonc of Tory MPs?
I'd have thought in that situation, the Palace will invite someone to form a government, and Johnson would, quite literally, be dragged out of Downing Street.
Suella Braverman outlining her manifesto for the leadership on @bbcr4today. Outstanding naked ambition and opportunism. But horribly premature. You can’t talk about how you’re going to spend daddy’s money till he’s dead. https://twitter.com/DAaronovitch/status/1544945958919835649
Gavin Barwell live on LBC saying what I just said - we need to change the system as it is currently predicated on the PM being a good faith actor.
Not really, as @MarqueeMark says, the 22 could have changed the rules last night. That they didn't shows that as much as lots of people want the PM gone, they're prepared to let this nonsense continue a little longer because they think that is better than looking like they've changed the rules of the game.
I don't care about the rules inside the Tory party - that isn't what I am referring to.
The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is claiming that regardless of Tory rules, he has a direct mandate from the electorate. That is simply wrong. He does have the legal power to request a general election whether anyone else wants one or not. Which puts the Queen in the terrible position of having to judge this.
This has to stop. There really are a lot of people out there who claim to have voted for Johnson or Corbyn or whoever. So if Johnson or another lunatic were to go rogue and claim a personal mandate, who is to stop them?
As David Herdson pointed out, there's nothing that means the Queen has to deny an election. It might be catastrophic for the Tories (I'm not so sure it would be, actually), but so what? Who cares? It would actually be quite funny.
"We are unlikely to reach a point where the Queen is required to make a decision in any case. Long before such action, Downing Street would be advised (read: strongly warned) against putting the monarchy in such a publicly contentious situation. Thus whatever happens in the coming days, there is more chance of Larry the Downing Street cat growing wings and flying to Mars than a snap general election being called."
Patel asked him to go last night and resignation after resignation continues this morning
Furthermore Johnson's attempts to appoint cabinet ministers are being publicly rejected by those asked
He is a disgrace and anyone standing by him should have no future roll in the conservative party
Brady should call an emergency 1922 meeting and bring forward the change in the committee needed to reject Johnson from office
I can understand their reluctance to do so. As an executive they literally have days left. A rules change isn't just for now, its permanent. They don't want to hand over a poison legacy to their successors. Etc etc.
The ability to appoint and eject a pm should perhaps be for the commons, not the 1922 committee.
It *is* for the commons. The Conservative Party elect a leader. They do not elect a Prime Minister.
There is no direct confirmatory vote to approve the pm, nor is there a vote to dismiss a pm. Since the pm is only pm because he commands a hoc majority that is perhaps an oversight. We have relied on good will.
Patel asked him to go last night and resignation after resignation continues this morning
Furthermore Johnson's attempts to appoint cabinet ministers are being publicly rejected by those asked
He is a disgrace and anyone standing by him should have no future roll in the conservative party
Brady should call an emergency 1922 meeting and bring forward the change in the committee needed to reject Johnson from office
I can understand their reluctance to do so. As an executive they literally have days left. A rules change isn't just for now, its permanent. They don't want to hand over a poison legacy to their successors. Etc etc.
The rule is there for a good reason. If there are just enough "rebels", we can't have them triggering an automatic vote every week when the answer is already known. Perhaps it should require a different 53 people to write letters (or whatever the trigger total is), so you'd need 106 for a second go.
They obviously thought that the threat to do it would be enough, since the end is now in full view, but Boris just sits there expecting something else to turn up.
It seems Boris is not someone to play chicken with. He'd be driving at full speed expecting a Pterosaur to snatch the opposing vehicle at the last second.
A good rule IMO would be to make it sort-of exponential in how m any letters are needed.
First vote requires 53, second requires 106 - a third and final strike would require a majority of MPs to write the letter.
As you probably know I am a long-standing federalist who has posted on here that we need to significantly reform many of the institutions and unwritten guff that is our constitution.
This is a prime example of why. We have a rogue Prime Minister. He refuses to quit. Claims a mass mandate that literally doesn't exist in the real world. Is likely to ignore the Tory party. Even if they refuse to serve in his cabinet it remains in his remit to call an election - I AM KING style.
We really have to sort this out. The fallacy that "I have a mandate" is one that many many voters actually believe to be true. How many people say "I voted for Boris" when they did not?
Sorry but you could not have this more wrong.
What is happening at the moment shows the remarkable underlying strength, durability and flexibility of our unwritten constitution.
Despite "the written rules" saying that Boris was safe to be Prime Minister for another 12 months, in the space of 24-72 hours it is all coming to an end and he will be out of office shortly. Increasingly possibly after a visit from the men in white coats, and the ones in grey suits failed.
When this has happened in countries with "written rules" the flexibility to adapt to a situation like this is much tougher, and the ability of those in power to try to abuse the rules to drag out and remain in power ends up being to their advantage, rather than the nation's advantage.
Trump could stay in office for months after he lost the election, degrading his office even further, within "the written rules". Boris's end is being measured in hours/days not months and our system is working, Boris is just in denial and this is a very sad and ridiculous end.
The written rules are those of the Conservative Party. I am talking about the unwritten rules relating to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Constitutionally it is perfectly valid for them to remove him as leader and him to say "I am staying on as Prime Minister". Madness, but possible. How do we remove him when the Tories can't and he then tries to force an election?
There are many ways this can go if he tries to go down that route. One is he goes to HMQ who says that he would like to ask for a new election and HMQ says that she believes he has lost the Confidence of the House and she would like to ask for a new PM instead.
The lack of a written rule here is our strength, not our weakness. It allows rational actors to adapt and create new precedent to force out the irrational actor. If there's a written rule, then the person in charge of the rules can abuse that to hold onto power longer.
Not sure you're onto a winner with this line of argument tbh BR
One other observation this morning is that in many other countries - including the US - we would already be seeing public demonstrations and probably riots by now. It is another strength of our systems and, I would suggest, of our society, that so far this has not happened here.
Bit early for that - we've had hardly time to open the popcorn never mind see what the score is at halftime. Plus just wait till the Brexiters realise their precious is threatened (in their perception).
Gavin Barwell live on LBC saying what I just said - we need to change the system as it is currently predicated on the PM being a good faith actor.
Not really, as @MarqueeMark says, the 22 could have changed the rules last night. That they didn't shows that as much as lots of people want the PM gone, they're prepared to let this nonsense continue a little longer because they think that is better than looking like they've changed the rules of the game.
I don't care about the rules inside the Tory party - that isn't what I am referring to.
The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is claiming that regardless of Tory rules, he has a direct mandate from the electorate. That is simply wrong. He does have the legal power to request a general election whether anyone else wants one or not. Which puts the Queen in the terrible position of having to judge this.
This has to stop. There really are a lot of people out there who claim to have voted for Johnson or Corbyn or whoever. So if Johnson or another lunatic were to go rogue and claim a personal mandate, who is to stop them?
The system stops them. We are less than 48 hours into this so it is hardly reasonable to claim the whole system is shot when we know there are still ways in place to remove the PM. People are feeling their way through this because it is unprecedented in modern times for a PM to be so blatant in his attempts to cling to power. But that doesn't mean he will succeed or that the system is wrong. What it needs is one of the major players to step up and do what is necessary, and what is certainly possible under the current system.
Voters aren’t going to forget all of this in a hurry.
Tory most seats at the next GE is surely a screaming lay @1.9
Two years to the next election will involve a lot of water going under bridges. But yes, unless almost all the current Current cabinet are firmly away from the public mind by the next election then it’s surely going to be a hammering.
Even if you are right - and remember how long the loss of credibility after Black Weds endured - it is surely a screaming trading bet? That Tories are favourites for most seats with this tragic psychodrama playing out, and all the bad news we know is coming down the road, is absurd.
The material mounting up for the opposition to attack the government after all this is vast and comprehensive. No doubt they will rally around the pour soul they pick, but it is likely to be a brutal, short premiership.
Yes -the other psychological factor that may be playing in Johnson's head is removing the chance that any of his colleagues might come in and show him up by being better and putting everything right. So he's trashing the place before he leaves.
"We are unlikely to reach a point where the Queen is required to make a decision in any case. Long before such action, Downing Street would be advised (read: strongly warned) against putting the monarchy in such a publicly contentious situation. Thus whatever happens in the coming days, there is more chance of Larry the Downing Street cat growing wings and flying to Mars than a snap general election being called."
Patel asked him to go last night and resignation after resignation continues this morning
Furthermore Johnson's attempts to appoint cabinet ministers are being publicly rejected by those asked
He is a disgrace and anyone standing by him should have no future roll in the conservative party
Brady should call an emergency 1922 meeting and bring forward the change in the committee needed to reject Johnson from office
I can understand their reluctance to do so. As an executive they literally have days left. A rules change isn't just for now, its permanent. They don't want to hand over a poison legacy to their successors. Etc etc.
The ability to appoint and eject a pm should perhaps be for the commons, not the 1922 committee.
It *is* for the commons. The Conservative Party elect a leader. They do not elect a Prime Minister.
There is no direct confirmatory vote to approve the pm, nor is there a vote to dismiss a pm. Since the pm is only pm because he commands a hoc majority that is perhaps an oversight. We have relied on good will.
But the rules are unwritten. So if the Commons wishes to invent new precedent by voting to say the PM and the PM alone has lost their confidence (so the rest of the Tories can vote with the Opposition) then they could do so.
Being agile and nimble is better than sclerotic written rule following.
As you probably know I am a long-standing federalist who has posted on here that we need to significantly reform many of the institutions and unwritten guff that is our constitution.
This is a prime example of why. We have a rogue Prime Minister. He refuses to quit. Claims a mass mandate that literally doesn't exist in the real world. Is likely to ignore the Tory party. Even if they refuse to serve in his cabinet it remains in his remit to call an election - I AM KING style.
We really have to sort this out. The fallacy that "I have a mandate" is one that many many voters actually believe to be true. How many people say "I voted for Boris" when they did not?
Morning RP.
I actually think you have this exactly the wrong way round. You quite rightly claim that Johnson is wrong with his 'I have a Mandate'' claims but your answer is to put in place someone who would have exactly that mandate and could behave as Johnson has with absolutely no recourse at all.
We can all agree that a lot of the players are handling this badly by not removing him at the earliest opportunity but the fact remains they do have the power to do so if they choose. What you are suggesting would make that far more difficult and make any putative President Johnson's claims legally valid.
I'm a long-standing advocate for Single Transferable Vote with Multi-Member Constituencies. Which would scrap even the direct mandate that MPs claim from their constituencies. So I want to go *further* to disconnect this nonsense that we elect a Prime Minister.
Here's my amateur opinion on why Johnson is hanging on.
He knows the gig is up. It's mate-in-two-against-any-defence.
However, rather than resign, the story going forward will be much different if he is instead VONCd by the 1922 changing the rules, either today or Monday.
Firstly, the story will all be about him being VONCd. Why he's being VONCd (Pincher, Partygate or a hundred other scandals) will be secondary. And to a great mass of the public, that's the story he'll pitch. He was unfairly robbed by second-rate politicians who changed the rules just to get rid of him.
It's the Trump playbook. You didn't lose, the game was rigged against you by cheats. I don't think Johnson has the same bizarre 'I never lost' core of his personality like Trump, but he's also seen how you can become the Ayatollah in exile by doing so.
So he get's VONCd, and hangs around in the background as the potential saviour as the country goes to the dogs with inflation, strikes and gas bills.
Thatcher fantasized about doing this herself but she was stymied because firstly she resigned, and secondly she made it known Major was her successor. Then Major went and won the next election anyway.
Johnson has worked this out. He'll endorse nobody and keep his team of sycophants (Mogg, Dorries etc.) around to brief against the new PM. Undermine enough and hopefully you have a hung parliament with Labour in government and Johnson is the chosen one to reclaim the majority.
Will it work? I doubt it. But I wouldn't bet against Trump winning in 2024 either.
Brits aren’t Americans. And Conservative voters aren’t Republican voters.
He is trashing his reputation, and most likely that of his party, beyond repair. It’s going to be a generation before they recover from this. With any luck, this will forever tarnish Brexit into the bargain.
One could almost say that we are watching the ending of an era before our eyes, but don’t realise it yet.
Centre-right voters will largely be relieved that he's gone. People say "X Party will never govern again because of this" and then they're back in the lead in the polls a year later.
The manner of his departure makes it easier for the Conservatives to move on. He is entirely bereft of grace and dignity, unlike Thatcher, Cameron, or May, so nobody is going to be flying the flag for him after he goes. He might try hanging around like a bad fart in a lift, but 90% of Conservative MPs will want nothing to do with him.
I get that. But he's still hugely popular with many voters. He could cause endless years of headache for the Tories were he minded to.
? hugely
Once, perhaps.
But even among supporters his reputation is tarnished by his behaviour and hypocrisy during the lockdown.
The difference with Trump is that Johnson himself imposed the severe restrictions on our normal lifestyles upon us himself, and came on TV night after night to implore us to follow the rules. Trump always thought the restrictions were a nonsense and has no fingerprints on any of the pandemic limitations at all - thus could remain a hero to his libertarian followers.
All Boris has going for him is 'the man who did Brexit' - and Brexit afterwards is slowly going to poison that achievement as it falls so far short of what its supporters imagined
Yes, but. For many "the man who did Brexit" is plenty enough. He has possibly one supporter on here. But for those who don't follow in detail, yes, he's hugely popular with a significant minority for that alone. As well as being "a laugh".
Patel asked him to go last night and resignation after resignation continues this morning
Furthermore Johnson's attempts to appoint cabinet ministers are being publicly rejected by those asked
He is a disgrace and anyone standing by him should have no future roll in the conservative party
Brady should call an emergency 1922 meeting and bring forward the change in the committee needed to reject Johnson from office
I can understand their reluctance to do so. As an executive they literally have days left. A rules change isn't just for now, its permanent. They don't want to hand over a poison legacy to their successors. Etc etc.
The ability to appoint and eject a pm should perhaps be for the commons, not the 1922 committee.
It *is* for the commons. The Conservative Party elect a leader. They do not elect a Prime Minister.
There is no direct confirmatory vote to approve the pm, nor is there a vote to dismiss a pm. Since the pm is only pm because he commands a hoc majority that is perhaps an oversight. We have relied on good will.
But the rules are unwritten. So if the Commons wishes to invent new precedent by voting to say the PM and the PM alone has lost their confidence (so the rest of the Tories can vote with the Opposition) then they could do so.
Being agile and nimble is better than sclerotic written rule following.
The constitution needs to change to reinforce the idea that the pm is not a president.
As you probably know I am a long-standing federalist who has posted on here that we need to significantly reform many of the institutions and unwritten guff that is our constitution.
This is a prime example of why. We have a rogue Prime Minister. He refuses to quit. Claims a mass mandate that literally doesn't exist in the real world. Is likely to ignore the Tory party. Even if they refuse to serve in his cabinet it remains in his remit to call an election - I AM KING style.
We really have to sort this out. The fallacy that "I have a mandate" is one that many many voters actually believe to be true. How many people say "I voted for Boris" when they did not?
I dont agree there is an issue with the constitution here. The tory party or parliament could bring him down today, there are means to do so. They are just trying to avoid using them in hope he will go himself.
That's not a constitutional problem. Trump could have been impeached and convicted under the constitution but they chose not to, preferring to think the threat was gone. If he was mad in office rules existed to replace him but theyd never do it .
Confusion over mandate is irrelevant - how would that be resolved without making it true?
You really couldn't make this ridiculous country up!
It can't all be Boris's fault though when you have a clown in charge perhaps everything looks like a circus
Morning Roger.
Are you objecting to 'downblousing' or to it being made illegal. It wasn't clear from your post.
I have no idea what the definition of 'downblousing' is but having shot three Berlei commercials and dozens of others which have included decolletage I'm wondering whether to just hand myself in.
Gavin Barwell live on LBC saying what I just said - we need to change the system as it is currently predicated on the PM being a good faith actor.
Not really, as @MarqueeMark says, the 22 could have changed the rules last night. That they didn't shows that as much as lots of people want the PM gone, they're prepared to let this nonsense continue a little longer because they think that is better than looking like they've changed the rules of the game.
I don't care about the rules inside the Tory party - that isn't what I am referring to.
The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is claiming that regardless of Tory rules, he has a direct mandate from the electorate. That is simply wrong. He does have the legal power to request a general election whether anyone else wants one or not. Which puts the Queen in the terrible position of having to judge this.
This has to stop. There really are a lot of people out there who claim to have voted for Johnson or Corbyn or whoever. So if Johnson or another lunatic were to go rogue and claim a personal mandate, who is to stop them?
As David Herdson pointed out, there's nothing that means the Queen has to deny an election. It might be catastrophic for the Tories (I'm not so sure it would be, actually), but so what? Who cares? It would actually be quite funny.
She doesn't have to deny the request, but she can. As monarch she is the final protector of the constitution and that is part of her role. The Palace will make it extremely clear to Downing Street that a car journey to Windsor will be a waste of time.
As you probably know I am a long-standing federalist who has posted on here that we need to significantly reform many of the institutions and unwritten guff that is our constitution.
This is a prime example of why. We have a rogue Prime Minister. He refuses to quit. Claims a mass mandate that literally doesn't exist in the real world. Is likely to ignore the Tory party. Even if they refuse to serve in his cabinet it remains in his remit to call an election - I AM KING style.
We really have to sort this out. The fallacy that "I have a mandate" is one that many many voters actually believe to be true. How many people say "I voted for Boris" when they did not?
Sorry but you could not have this more wrong.
What is happening at the moment shows the remarkable underlying strength, durability and flexibility of our unwritten constitution.
Despite "the written rules" saying that Boris was safe to be Prime Minister for another 12 months, in the space of 24-72 hours it is all coming to an end and he will be out of office shortly. Increasingly possibly after a visit from the men in white coats, and the ones in grey suits failed.
When this has happened in countries with "written rules" the flexibility to adapt to a situation like this is much tougher, and the ability of those in power to try to abuse the rules to drag out and remain in power ends up being to their advantage, rather than the nation's advantage.
Trump could stay in office for months after he lost the election, degrading his office even further, within "the written rules". Boris's end is being measured in hours/days not months and our system is working, Boris is just in denial and this is a very sad and ridiculous end.
The written rules are those of the Conservative Party. I am talking about the unwritten rules relating to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Constitutionally it is perfectly valid for them to remove him as leader and him to say "I am staying on as Prime Minister". Madness, but possible. How do we remove him when the Tories can't and he then tries to force an election?
This is the problem the FTPA solved before they foolishly killed it. Letting the PM choose when there's an election while only having sort of vague norms about when he should resign is a really bad idea. It would work OK if the monarch was prepared to assert themselves occasionally but this has its own problems and the current one seems like she isn't. Parliament should decide when there's an election, not the PM.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 23m One other thing. What are this lot playing at. Forget a new election. Change the rules this morning, have the confidence vote tonight, and get him out tonight. Stop mucking around.
You really couldn't make this ridiculous country up!
It can't all be Boris's fault though when you have a clown in charge perhaps everything looks like a circus
Morning Roger.
Are you objecting to 'downblousing' or to it being made illegal. It wasn't clear from your post.
I have no idea what the definition of 'downblousing' is but having shot three Berlei commercials and dozens of others which have included decolletage I'm wondering whether to just hand myself in.
Starmer should call a vote of no confidence today:
1) It's the constitutionally correct way to remove a Prime Minister who no longer has the confidence of the Commons
2) Politically it either results in Boris being ejected or in lots of Tories being forced to explain why they voted that they have confidence when they have publicly said they do not, the nuances of which will be lost on most people.
I think it'd be daft for Labour to do anything that brings this chaos to an end earlier than would otherwise be the case.
They have to wring their hands and say that this is awful for the country and politics. But the Conservative Party publicly tearing itself apart over a course of several days is absolutely brilliant for Labour, and they will quite rightly be loving every painful hour of it as it moves to an inevitable conclusion.
Also, votes of confidence aren't in an individual but in a Government. The response by a Tory MP is fairly clear - elected on a manifesto; "got the big calls right" mantra; Labour unfit to govern; need a new man at the helm but essentially good Government etc.
One other observation this morning is that in many other countries - including the US - we would already be seeing public demonstrations and probably riots by now. It is another strength of our systems and, I would suggest, of our society, that so far this has not happened here.
Why miss and spoil one of the few warm and sunny weekends of the year by going off rioting?
You really couldn't make this ridiculous country up!
It can't all be Boris's fault though when you have a clown in charge perhaps everything looks like a circus
Morning Roger.
Are you objecting to 'downblousing' or to it being made illegal. It wasn't clear from your post.
I have no idea what the definition of 'downblousing' is but having shot three Berlei commercials and dozens of others which have included decolletage I'm wondering whether to just hand myself in.
That was with permission ...
We hope. Given Roger's comments on here, he probably think that being 'talent' is permission enough.
Perhaps the Queen should agree to dissolve parliament when he asks. Would be fun. The "what a bastard" scenario was Johnson calling a snap election to screw a headless Labour having had Starmer and Rayner resign for getting FPNs.
But Johnson calling a snap election to screw the Tories? What fun! Lets do that!
Patel asked him to go last night and resignation after resignation continues this morning
Furthermore Johnson's attempts to appoint cabinet ministers are being publicly rejected by those asked
He is a disgrace and anyone standing by him should have no future roll in the conservative party
Brady should call an emergency 1922 meeting and bring forward the change in the committee needed to reject Johnson from office
I can understand their reluctance to do so. As an executive they literally have days left. A rules change isn't just for now, its permanent. They don't want to hand over a poison legacy to their successors. Etc etc.
The rule is there for a good reason. If there are just enough "rebels", we can't have them triggering an automatic vote every week when the answer is already known. Perhaps it should require a different 53 people to write letters (or whatever the trigger total is), so you'd need 106 for a second go.
They obviously thought that the threat to do it would be enough, since the end is now in full view, but Boris just sits there expecting something else to turn up.
It seems Boris is not someone to play chicken with. He'd be driving at full speed expecting a Pterosaur to snatch the opposing vehicle at the last second.
A good rule IMO would be to make it sort-of exponential in how m any letters are needed.
First vote requires 53, second requires 106 - a third and final strike would require a majority of MPs to write the letter.
It's not really obvious to me why you need a vote at all. If you want to sack your leader, send in a letter. If and when there are enough letters, he's sacked.
One other observation this morning is that in many other countries - including the US - we would already be seeing public demonstrations and probably riots by now. It is another strength of our systems and, I would suggest, of our society, that so far this has not happened here.
Why miss and spoil one of the few warm and sunny weekends of the year by going off rioting?
"We are unlikely to reach a point where the Queen is required to make a decision in any case. Long before such action, Downing Street would be advised (read: strongly warned) against putting the monarchy in such a publicly contentious situation. Thus whatever happens in the coming days, there is more chance of Larry the Downing Street cat growing wings and flying to Mars than a snap general election being called."
Telegraph
That's interference in politics by any measure.
Interference? Hmmm. I think the great majority would say "Good on yer, ma'am.." It would not harm the Monarchy for Boris to be dragged to the Tower, right now.
Gavin Barwell live on LBC saying what I just said - we need to change the system as it is currently predicated on the PM being a good faith actor.
Not really, as @MarqueeMark says, the 22 could have changed the rules last night. That they didn't shows that as much as lots of people want the PM gone, they're prepared to let this nonsense continue a little longer because they think that is better than looking like they've changed the rules of the game.
I don't care about the rules inside the Tory party - that isn't what I am referring to.
The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is claiming that regardless of Tory rules, he has a direct mandate from the electorate. That is simply wrong. He does have the legal power to request a general election whether anyone else wants one or not. Which puts the Queen in the terrible position of having to judge this.
This has to stop. There really are a lot of people out there who claim to have voted for Johnson or Corbyn or whoever. So if Johnson or another lunatic were to go rogue and claim a personal mandate, who is to stop them?
As David Herdson pointed out, there's nothing that means the Queen has to deny an election. It might be catastrophic for the Tories (I'm not so sure it would be, actually), but so what? Who cares? It would actually be quite funny.
She doesn't have to deny the request, but she can. As monarch she is the final protector of the constitution and that is part of her role. The Palace will make it extremely clear to Downing Street that a car journey to Windsor will be a waste of time.
If Boris wanted to call an election at this moment in time, I think she'd say yes, because the Tory Party has not done everything possible to oust him.
If they had another confidence vote and he lost, then that would be that.
Patel asked him to go last night and resignation after resignation continues this morning
Furthermore Johnson's attempts to appoint cabinet ministers are being publicly rejected by those asked
He is a disgrace and anyone standing by him should have no future roll in the conservative party
Brady should call an emergency 1922 meeting and bring forward the change in the committee needed to reject Johnson from office
I can understand their reluctance to do so. As an executive they literally have days left. A rules change isn't just for now, its permanent. They don't want to hand over a poison legacy to their successors. Etc etc.
The ability to appoint and eject a pm should perhaps be for the commons, not the 1922 committee.
It *is* for the commons. The Conservative Party elect a leader. They do not elect a Prime Minister.
There is no direct confirmatory vote to approve the pm, nor is there a vote to dismiss a pm. Since the pm is only pm because he commands a hoc majority that is perhaps an oversight. We have relied on good will.
But the rules are unwritten. So if the Commons wishes to invent new precedent by voting to say the PM and the PM alone has lost their confidence (so the rest of the Tories can vote with the Opposition) then they could do so.
Being agile and nimble is better than sclerotic written rule following.
There are benefits to both, but people are looking at someone ignoring the 'rules' (in fact he is stubbornly sticking to a written rule and forcing them to do it the hard way) and declaring a different rule would solve the issue. But what if they ignored that?
We have rules to bring down PMs or Tory leaders. They just have not been taken yet, and Boris is being a fool in making them take them.
So lack of rules is not the issue, it has that MPs, as Tories or the House as a whole, have not acted.
As a realistic counter to Leon's 'everything is alright in the world of travel' here's a good piece on tourism in Bali.
Bali went from over 6 million tourists in 2019 to 45 tourists in 2020. Yes, 45 tourists.
The resident interviewed in the piece reckons it will take a decade to recover. My several friends in SE Asia think the same. The more optimistic suggest a decade to recover. Many say it will never return to how it was
Yes, you can still travel. But covid has not gone away. Vaccine passes are required. Everywhere restrictions are far greater than they were. The tourist infrastructures have broken down. There is flight chaos in the UK and elsewhere. And a lot of the fun has been sucked out of it. Why have I not travelled much in the last 2 years? Quite simply, sitting on a long haul flight in a mask and going through a heap of aggro at overseas airports and hotels is the last thing I want to do when I travel. I go abroad to enjoy local cuisine and culture. To relax. To breathe the vibrancy of other worlds.
In short, travel was fun. I have lived and travelled outside the UK most of my life, until covid hit. Until I'm convinced that from leaving my door to returning it will be a fun experience I shall continue to avoid it.
Incidentally, the Scottish tourist industry recovered in no time. Far too bloody busy in fact. I blame Instagram, TikTok etc. The country is simply too photogenic.
Yep I staycated in the Western Highlands last autumn. Took the wonderful overnight sleeper to Fort William. Had an absolutely glorious time.
Aye it's a bonnie bonnie land. Love Scotland.
Minor correction - you went on holiday to the Western Highlands. I abhor the phrase staycation. Original meaning was staying in your home and taking day trips. A holiday in the U.K. is still a holiday. I do them every year.
Rant over.
Words and meanings evolve and new words are coined. As The Bard knew.
I staycated. Love it.
Bazball. Glorious.
etc. etc.
Agree to disagree perhaps. yes absolutely the mutability of language and particularly English is great. Its just that to me the whole Staycation = Holiday in the UK is rather sneering and disrespectful for those who only holiday in the UK, which is one of the greatest places in the world to holiday. As you yourself report from the Highlands, and I would add in the Lakes, the Peak district, most of Wales, the west country, Yorkshire and on and on.
Agree with this, and also, if staycation is used for a resident of London going on holiday to Scotland it means you no longer have a word for someone who takes a holiday from their own home - which is what staycation was created to describe. So it's a change in language that restricts people from being able to describe a thing easily.
I go to Cornwall in the summer holidays. It can be a 9 hour drive necessitating a 5am start. Not much 'stay' there. And I agree with the above: 'staycatìon' is a bit sneery: like holidays don't count unless you've spent £5k or more on them. And I agree even more than the above: when you start using a word in a new way, you edge out the meaning of the old word which then becomes a thing without a word. Cf disinterested.
As you probably know I am a long-standing federalist who has posted on here that we need to significantly reform many of the institutions and unwritten guff that is our constitution.
This is a prime example of why. We have a rogue Prime Minister. He refuses to quit. Claims a mass mandate that literally doesn't exist in the real world. Is likely to ignore the Tory party. Even if they refuse to serve in his cabinet it remains in his remit to call an election - I AM KING style.
We really have to sort this out. The fallacy that "I have a mandate" is one that many many voters actually believe to be true. How many people say "I voted for Boris" when they did not?
Sorry but you could not have this more wrong.
What is happening at the moment shows the remarkable underlying strength, durability and flexibility of our unwritten constitution.
Despite "the written rules" saying that Boris was safe to be Prime Minister for another 12 months, in the space of 24-72 hours it is all coming to an end and he will be out of office shortly. Increasingly possibly after a visit from the men in white coats, and the ones in grey suits failed.
When this has happened in countries with "written rules" the flexibility to adapt to a situation like this is much tougher, and the ability of those in power to try to abuse the rules to drag out and remain in power ends up being to their advantage, rather than the nation's advantage.
Trump could stay in office for months after he lost the election, degrading his office even further, within "the written rules". Boris's end is being measured in hours/days not months and our system is working, Boris is just in denial and this is a very sad and ridiculous end.
The written rules are those of the Conservative Party. I am talking about the unwritten rules relating to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Constitutionally it is perfectly valid for them to remove him as leader and him to say "I am staying on as Prime Minister". Madness, but possible. How do we remove him when the Tories can't and he then tries to force an election?
There are many ways this can go if he tries to go down that route. One is he goes to HMQ who says that he would like to ask for a new election and HMQ says that she believes he has lost the Confidence of the House and she would like to ask for a new PM instead.
The lack of a written rule here is our strength, not our weakness. It allows rational actors to adapt and create new precedent to force out the irrational actor. If there's a written rule, then the person in charge of the rules can abuse that to hold onto power longer.
Not sure you're onto a winner with this line of argument tbh BR
If our unwritten system gets him out quicker, easier and with less violence than America's written one, then will my argument be a winner?
Gavin Barwell live on LBC saying what I just said - we need to change the system as it is currently predicated on the PM being a good faith actor.
Not really, as @MarqueeMark says, the 22 could have changed the rules last night. That they didn't shows that as much as lots of people want the PM gone, they're prepared to let this nonsense continue a little longer because they think that is better than looking like they've changed the rules of the game.
I don't care about the rules inside the Tory party - that isn't what I am referring to.
The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is claiming that regardless of Tory rules, he has a direct mandate from the electorate. That is simply wrong. He does have the legal power to request a general election whether anyone else wants one or not. Which puts the Queen in the terrible position of having to judge this.
This has to stop. There really are a lot of people out there who claim to have voted for Johnson or Corbyn or whoever. So if Johnson or another lunatic were to go rogue and claim a personal mandate, who is to stop them?
As David Herdson pointed out, there's nothing that means the Queen has to deny an election. It might be catastrophic for the Tories (I'm not so sure it would be, actually), but so what? Who cares? It would actually be quite funny.
She doesn't have to deny the request, but she can. As monarch she is the final protector of the constitution and that is part of her role. The Palace will make it extremely clear to Downing Street that a car journey to Windsor will be a waste of time.
If Boris wanted to call an election at this moment in time, I think she'd say yes, because the Tory Party has not done everything possible to oust him.
If they had another confidence vote and he lost, then that would be that.
Normally. But technically he would only cease to be leader of the Tory party. The 1922 does not appoint the pm.
You really couldn't make this ridiculous country up!
It can't all be Boris's fault though when you have a clown in charge perhaps everything looks like a circus
Morning Roger.
Are you objecting to 'downblousing' or to it being made illegal. It wasn't clear from your post.
I have no idea what the definition of 'downblousing' is but having shot three Berlei commercials and dozens of others which have included decolletage I'm wondering whether to just hand myself in.
It is an issue of permission, presumably your models agreed to the images.
Though at what point does merely being a dirty old man leering at hot young teens become problematic? 100 meters, or 10, or 1?
Gavin Barwell live on LBC saying what I just said - we need to change the system as it is currently predicated on the PM being a good faith actor.
Not really, as @MarqueeMark says, the 22 could have changed the rules last night. That they didn't shows that as much as lots of people want the PM gone, they're prepared to let this nonsense continue a little longer because they think that is better than looking like they've changed the rules of the game.
I don't care about the rules inside the Tory party - that isn't what I am referring to.
The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is claiming that regardless of Tory rules, he has a direct mandate from the electorate. That is simply wrong. He does have the legal power to request a general election whether anyone else wants one or not. Which puts the Queen in the terrible position of having to judge this.
This has to stop. There really are a lot of people out there who claim to have voted for Johnson or Corbyn or whoever. So if Johnson or another lunatic were to go rogue and claim a personal mandate, who is to stop them?
As David Herdson pointed out, there's nothing that means the Queen has to deny an election. It might be catastrophic for the Tories (I'm not so sure it would be, actually), but so what? Who cares? It would actually be quite funny.
She doesn't have to deny the request, but she can. As monarch she is the final protector of the constitution and that is part of her role. The Palace will make it extremely clear to Downing Street that a car journey to Windsor will be a waste of time.
If Boris wanted to call an election at this moment in time, I think she'd say yes, because the Tory Party has not done everything possible to oust him.
If they had another confidence vote and he lost, then that would be that.
Yes, a General Election would be constitutionally fine at this point. It's not for the Queen to sort the internal problems of the Conservatives in an election they'd almost certainly lose. It'd just be PM Starmer by the autumn and a decade of reflection for the Tories in opposition.
Maybe his sister or one of his older kids can have a word and talk him out of this disaster (which will destroy any chances he has of becoming a well paid columnist again let's be frank).
Gavin Barwell live on LBC saying what I just said - we need to change the system as it is currently predicated on the PM being a good faith actor.
Not really, as @MarqueeMark says, the 22 could have changed the rules last night. That they didn't shows that as much as lots of people want the PM gone, they're prepared to let this nonsense continue a little longer because they think that is better than looking like they've changed the rules of the game.
I don't care about the rules inside the Tory party - that isn't what I am referring to.
The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is claiming that regardless of Tory rules, he has a direct mandate from the electorate. That is simply wrong. He does have the legal power to request a general election whether anyone else wants one or not. Which puts the Queen in the terrible position of having to judge this.
This has to stop. There really are a lot of people out there who claim to have voted for Johnson or Corbyn or whoever. So if Johnson or another lunatic were to go rogue and claim a personal mandate, who is to stop them?
As David Herdson pointed out, there's nothing that means the Queen has to deny an election. It might be catastrophic for the Tories (I'm not so sure it would be, actually), but so what? Who cares? It would actually be quite funny.
She doesn't have to deny the request, but she can. As monarch she is the final protector of the constitution and that is part of her role. The Palace will make it extremely clear to Downing Street that a car journey to Windsor will be a waste of time.
If Boris wanted to call an election at this moment in time, I think she'd say yes, because the Tory Party has not done everything possible to oust him.
If they had another confidence vote and he lost, then that would be that.
Normally. But technically he would only cease to be leader of the Tory party. The 1922 does not appoint the pm.
But it would allow the Queen to say, you've lost the confidence of your MPs etc. etc. She can reasonably say enough is enough.
At the moment, she can't. Everyone is gasping at Johnson's behaviour, but it's being tolerated by the 22 committee and cabinet. The Queen does not have a duty to save the Tories from themselves.
You really couldn't make this ridiculous country up!
It can't all be Boris's fault though when you have a clown in charge perhaps everything looks like a circus
Morning Roger.
Are you objecting to 'downblousing' or to it being made illegal. It wasn't clear from your post.
I have no idea what the definition of 'downblousing' is but having shot three Berlei commercials and dozens of others which have included decolletage I'm wondering whether to just hand myself in.
Except its not being made illegal, its simply been recommended that it should be illegal - and if your decolletage was done with the consent of the person being filmed then there would be nothing illegal about it.
Upskirting was rightly made illegal, but not if the person filmed had consented to it.
Do you really object to the idea intimate photos should involve the consent of those being photographed?
Here's my amateur opinion on why Johnson is hanging on.
He knows the gig is up. It's mate-in-two-against-any-defence.
However, rather than resign, the story going forward will be much different if he is instead VONCd by the 1922 changing the rules, either today or Monday.
Firstly, the story will all be about him being VONCd. Why he's being VONCd (Pincher, Partygate or a hundred other scandals) will be secondary. And to a great mass of the public, that's the story he'll pitch. He was unfairly robbed by second-rate politicians who changed the rules just to get rid of him.
It's the Trump playbook. You didn't lose, the game was rigged against you by cheats. I don't think Johnson has the same bizarre 'I never lost' core of his personality like Trump, but he's also seen how you can become the Ayatollah in exile by doing so.
So he get's VONCd, and hangs around in the background as the potential saviour as the country goes to the dogs with inflation, strikes and gas bills.
Thatcher fantasized about doing this herself but she was stymied because firstly she resigned, and secondly she made it known Major was her successor. Then Major went and won the next election anyway.
Johnson has worked this out. He'll endorse nobody and keep his team of sycophants (Mogg, Dorries etc.) around to brief against the new PM. Undermine enough and hopefully you have a hung parliament with Labour in government and Johnson is the chosen one to reclaim the majority.
Will it work? I doubt it. But I wouldn't bet against Trump winning in 2024 either.
Brits aren’t Americans. And Conservative voters aren’t Republican voters.
He is trashing his reputation, and most likely that of his party, beyond repair. It’s going to be a generation before they recover from this. With any luck, this will forever tarnish Brexit into the bargain.
One could almost say that we are watching the ending of an era before our eyes, but don’t realise it yet.
Centre-right voters will largely be relieved that he's gone. People say "X Party will never govern again because of this" and then they're back in the lead in the polls a year later.
The manner of his departure makes it easier for the Conservatives to move on. He is entirely bereft of grace and dignity, unlike Thatcher, Cameron, or May, so nobody is going to be flying the flag for him after he goes. He might try hanging around like a bad fart in a lift, but 90% of Conservative MPs will want nothing to do with him.
I get that. But he's still hugely popular with many voters. He could cause endless years of headache for the Tories were he minded to.
? hugely
Once, perhaps.
But even among supporters his reputation is tarnished by his behaviour and hypocrisy during the lockdown.
The difference with Trump is that Johnson himself imposed the severe restrictions on our normal lifestyles upon us himself, and came on TV night after night to implore us to follow the rules. Trump always thought the restrictions were a nonsense and has no fingerprints on any of the pandemic limitations at all - thus could remain a hero to his libertarian followers.
All Boris has going for him is 'the man who did Brexit' - and Brexit afterwards is slowly going to poison that achievement as it falls so far short of what its supporters imagined
Yes, but. For many "the man who did Brexit" is plenty enough. He has possibly one supporter on here. But for those who don't follow in detail, yes, he's hugely popular with a significant minority for that alone. As well as being "a laugh".
Let's see how this all pans out for his reputation over coming months...
Heathener: I must admit it's funny hearing someone talk about the joys of travelling, and then talking about the horrors of the business lounge not being up to snuff.
How the other 1% live ....
Yep I'm a champagne socialist.
I love flying business class on long haul because sleep is important to me. So I flatbed and sleep for many hours and wake up in a decent enough state to get going. When I don't sleep much I get very light-headed and discombobulated.
However, to be equally fair to myself I should point out that I have Silver status with OneWorld which has been extended to 2024. So I can buy an economy ticket and still use the business lounges. It's a great perk. When I returned from Scotland in the autumn I flew back for, iirc, £20 with Avios points but I was able to use the business lounge. Made it a rather pleasant experience.
[...]
But please continue to stay home. The rest of us are enjoying a somewhat quieter, sweeter world. Today I am walking down to the Rijeka River for a swim. Bliss
No that's fine. But in that case, return the favour by keeping it to yourself. It all comes across as a bit too desperate. 'This is all wonderful. Honest'
If it was that wonderful you wouldn't be parked up on here all the time posting photos.
Just my view. Don't do your bullying expletive ridden default response please.
Oh lordy. you cannot help yourself, can you? That last sentence was utterly unnecessary.
Anyway, I personally like the little travelogues we get on here. They're not strictly necessary, but as long as there are not too many of them it adds to the site IMO.
Unless or until you have been on the receiving end of bullying you would not understand.
Sir Keir got the tone of that absolutely right yesterday. When you have been abused by a man, or in my case also raped, it teaches you to watch for signs of bullying demeanour. The default response to turn to CAPS LOCK, or use swear words, or opprobrium is bullying behaviour and I hesitated therefore to respond to Leon because I feared he would do it again. I don't like it and it tends to drive me away from here. It literally leaves me shaking with fear and ruins my day. If you have some decency you might just pause for a moment over your keys and listen to me as a woman who has been on the receiving end.
Anyway, we have other things to discuss. I aired a travel piece that was thoughtful, I felt.
x
[...]
This is a site for robust political debate. You yourself often insult people without reason [...]
JJ there's a huge difference between critiquing a point of view and being personally insulting or resorting to Ad Hominem or opprobrium.
If I've insulted you in the past then I apologise. Actually I believe I already did apologise months ago for that and so I'm disappointed that you have re-raised it.
I also suspect, with respect, that you all-too-readily rush to defend the indefensible because of a shared political perspective. The best posters on here are polite to one another despite differences but they're also not sycophantic to those of a similar persuasion when they cross the line.
Peace.
x
"I also suspect, with respect, that you all-too-readily rush to defend the indefensible because of a shared political perspective."
Really? With Leon? He shifts his political perspective so often I think everyone from BJO to HYUFD can claim a shared political perspective with him.
And it is not 'defending the indefensible'. It is very defensible; you just disagree with that defence. Which is fair enough: but it does not automatically make your opinion correct.
What political perspectives would you say we share, or was that just a throw-away comment?
Personally I don't think failing to form a Government will deter Boris in the least.
That's not the kind of thing which will bother him.
Only if he has gone howling-at-the-moon mad.
Anybody sane can see his authority has gone. His greatest currency is patronage. But if nobody wants to take the jobs he is offering....
I did pose the question yesterday about what happens if a PM goes insane. The response was about sociopathy but that wasn't really my point.
What DOES happen if a PM goes insane or has a serious mental breakdown that they themselves refuse to acknowledge whilst in office? There's no written constitution so what would happen?
I think what you are missing is that there are systems for removing the PM. The problem at the moment is that none of the players - and that includes the Leader of the Opposition - are willing to exercise them. Too many people are still putting personal advantage above the good of the country.
How can the LOTO remove him? Do you mean a VONC on the Government? I'm not sure that's a viable 'system' for removing the PM because it isn't a vote of no confidence in the PM it's a vote of no confidence in the Government, which hitherto has triggered a General Election. The latter would be in Labour's interest but there's no way the parliamentary Conservative Party will go down that route.
I think this just proves the point. Our unwritten constitution relies on people playing by accepted rules of decency or sanity.
Yes it is a VONC in the Government, but not in the party in power. Starmer knows this and at present he is making a calculation that triggering and winning a VONC will be good for the country but also good for the Tory party and he is not willing to do that.
Both parties have it in their hands to end this today via the VONC route.
Starmer could table a VONC and make it clear he accepts this will not lead to a General Election. The process plays out and a new Tory administration is formed based on their existing majority in Parliament. This would be the right thing to do for the country but not necessarily for the Labour party.
The Tories in sufficient numbers could make it clear that they will support a VONC and accept it leading to a GE. They would have to do this publicly otherwise Starmer would not be able to hold them to it. Starmer could then call a VONC based on these assurances. This would be good for the country but bad for the Tory party.
At the moment both sides are putting political calculations ahead of the good of the country (as far as the specific issue of a VONC is concerned). This does none of them any credit.
Gavin Barwell live on LBC saying what I just said - we need to change the system as it is currently predicated on the PM being a good faith actor.
We just need to go directly to the formal procedures earlier in the process - a vote of no confidence - instead of relying on people anticipating what is inevitable.
This right here is the point.
They've tried getting him to go by informal rules, which on anyone else would have worked by now.
But the formal route exists - so claims we lack one are wrong.
Do people think there should be a rule that PMs lose office if enough ministers quit?
As English is a living language, I am proposing the addition of a new verb today. To braverman: means to have it both ways entirely without scruples. Example. ‘I have bravermanned my position on climate change, calling for drastic action but no curbs on Co2 emissions’
One other observation this morning is that in many other countries - including the US - we would already be seeing public demonstrations and probably riots by now. It is another strength of our systems and, I would suggest, of our society, that so far this has not happened here.
Why miss and spoil one of the few warm and sunny weekends of the year by going off rioting?
Look forward to seeing the Tory posters accusing Labour of being in a coalition of chaos if they win in 2024!
No problem. Two years of steady-as-she-goes PM Mordaunt by then.
Wishful thinking. A novice presiding over a split party, disgruntled rivals and two big political and economic crises. Mordant would be far better off picking up the pieces after the election.
Look forward to seeing the Tory posters accusing Labour of being in a coalition of chaos if they win in 2024!
No problem. Two years of steady-as-she-goes PM Mordaunt by then.
I can see the Cosnervatives splitting after this, although the greater the number of rebellious MPs, the less likely that it. I can see **** like JRM campaigning for a 'pure' Brexit position for the party, and causing splits that way.
Beyond the "nuclear war with russia" scenario all it might take is another major drama somewhere else in the country/world that you need a Prime Ministerial response for to really put this situation into context for the shit-fest it is.
Where it gets tricky re an election is that by granting an election, the Queen/Palace would know that Johnson would almost certainly lose the leadership of the Tory Party. Would he stay on as PM during the election period? Would cabinet ministers stay on? It could get very messy.
You really couldn't make this ridiculous country up!
It can't all be Boris's fault though when you have a clown in charge perhaps everything looks like a circus
Morning Roger.
Are you objecting to 'downblousing' or to it being made illegal. It wasn't clear from your post.
I have no idea what the definition of 'downblousing' is but having shot three Berlei commercials and dozens of others which have included decolletage I'm wondering whether to just hand myself in.
The answer is in one word: Consent.
The trickier issue is what you might call general beach photos and individuals who wish to reveal almost everything in public but object to someone taking a photo on a beach.
It'd be a bit weird, but we're in a weird timeline. Perhaps a private word from Zelenskyy would do it. "Boris I do so dearly love you but now is the time to support Ben Wallace for leadership of your great nation.."
Comments
They obviously thought that the threat to do it would be enough, since the end is now in full view, but Boris just sits there expecting something else to turn up.
It seems Boris is not someone to play chicken with. He'd be driving at full speed expecting a Pterosaur to snatch the opposing vehicle at the last second.
More plausible is this: Boris is desperate to be liked. Needy. So many of his flaws stem from that. Being booted out of office, despite a majority of 80, is a tremendous “we don’t like you”
He’s finding it hard to compute. His brain is saying But the People still like me! 14m of them!
The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is claiming that regardless of Tory rules, he has a direct mandate from the electorate. That is simply wrong. He does have the legal power to request a general election whether anyone else wants one or not. Which puts the Queen in the terrible position of having to judge this.
This has to stop. There really are a lot of people out there who claim to have voted for Johnson or Corbyn or whoever. So if Johnson or another lunatic were to go rogue and claim a personal mandate, who is to stop them?
My hunch is that he would have avoided all this with his previous wife.
Once, perhaps.
But even among supporters his reputation is tarnished by his behaviour and hypocrisy during the lockdown.
The difference with Trump is that Johnson himself imposed the severe restrictions on our normal lifestyles upon us himself, and came on TV night after night to implore us to follow the rules. Trump always thought the restrictions were a nonsense and has no fingerprints on any of the pandemic limitations at all - thus could remain a hero to his libertarian followers.
All Boris has going for him is 'the man who did Brexit' - and Brexit afterwards is slowly going to poison that achievement as it falls so far short of what its supporters imagined
Are you objecting to 'downblousing' or to it being made illegal. It wasn't clear from your post.
Quite possibly some in the government voted against him before. But on the other hand there are a number still in government saying he should go. And other backbenchers saying they supported him before but now don't.
I don't believe there's any way 200 would be an overestimate.
The lack of a written rule here is our strength, not our weakness. It allows rational actors to adapt and create new precedent to force out the irrational actor. If there's a written rule, then the person in charge of the rules can abuse that to hold onto power longer.
https://twitter.com/hutch1975/status/1544785045071839232
https://twitter.com/DAaronovitch/status/1544945958919835649
Suella Braverman has "weighed the factors," she says. She has concluded she should be Prime Minister. This is the best case so far for Johnson staying.
https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1544946099613536259
Telegraph
First vote requires 53, second requires 106 - a third and final strike would require a majority of MPs to write the letter.
https://twitter.com/isabeloakeshott/status/1544945384384073730
Being agile and nimble is better than sclerotic written rule following.
Incredible that anyone can say it's okay.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_Kingdom_government_crisis
For many "the man who did Brexit" is plenty enough. He has possibly one supporter on here. But for those who don't follow in detail, yes, he's hugely popular with a significant minority for that alone. As well as being "a laugh".
That's not a constitutional problem. Trump could have been impeached and convicted under the constitution but they chose not to, preferring to think the threat was gone. If he was mad in office rules existed to replace him but theyd never do it .
Confusion over mandate is irrelevant - how would that be resolved without making it true?
@DPJHodges
·
23m
One other thing. What are this lot playing at. Forget a new election. Change the rules this morning, have the confidence vote tonight, and get him out tonight. Stop mucking around.
They have to wring their hands and say that this is awful for the country and politics. But the Conservative Party publicly tearing itself apart over a course of several days is absolutely brilliant for Labour, and they will quite rightly be loving every painful hour of it as it moves to an inevitable conclusion.
Also, votes of confidence aren't in an individual but in a Government. The response by a Tory MP is fairly clear - elected on a manifesto; "got the big calls right" mantra; Labour unfit to govern; need a new man at the helm but essentially good Government etc.
But Johnson calling a snap election to screw the Tories? What fun! Lets do that!
Or, most likely, this week’s reality is so surreal and often amusing, any satirical take feels superfluous
If they had another confidence vote and he lost, then that would be that.
We have rules to bring down PMs or Tory leaders. They just have not been taken yet, and Boris is being a fool in making them take them.
So lack of rules is not the issue, it has that MPs, as Tories or the House as a whole, have not acted.
It is completely obvious he has lost the confidence of the party and the House.
And I agree with the above: 'staycatìon' is a bit sneery: like holidays don't count unless you've spent £5k or more on them.
And I agree even more than the above: when you start using a word in a new way, you edge out the meaning of the old word which then becomes a thing without a word. Cf disinterested.
That said, he has a perfect excuse to leg it from the passport applications piling up!
Though at what point does merely being a dirty old man leering at hot young teens become problematic? 100 meters, or 10, or 1?
2022 1.01/1.02
The punters think it’s all over
"I'm afraid we are in George III territory, we are in Caligula territory"
Quentin Letts says Boris Johnson has lost his mind
https://twitter.com/ImIncorrigible/status/1544939396423491586
At the moment, she can't. Everyone is gasping at Johnson's behaviour, but it's being tolerated by the 22 committee and cabinet. The Queen does not have a duty to save the Tories from themselves.
Upskirting was rightly made illegal, but not if the person filmed had consented to it.
Do you really object to the idea intimate photos should involve the consent of those being photographed?
Really? With Leon? He shifts his political perspective so often I think everyone from BJO to HYUFD can claim a shared political perspective with him.
And it is not 'defending the indefensible'. It is very defensible; you just disagree with that defence. Which is fair enough: but it does not automatically make your opinion correct.
What political perspectives would you say we share, or was that just a throw-away comment?
Both parties have it in their hands to end this today via the VONC route.
Starmer could table a VONC and make it clear he accepts this will not lead to a General Election. The process plays out and a new Tory administration is formed based on their existing majority in Parliament. This would be the right thing to do for the country but not necessarily for the Labour party.
The Tories in sufficient numbers could make it clear that they will support a VONC and accept it leading to a GE. They would have to do this publicly otherwise Starmer would not be able to hold them to it. Starmer could then call a VONC based on these assurances. This would be good for the country but bad for the Tory party.
At the moment both sides are putting political calculations ahead of the good of the country (as far as the specific issue of a VONC is concerned). This does none of them any credit.
So far neither of those has actually happened.
They've tried getting him to go by informal rules, which on anyone else would have worked by now.
But the formal route exists - so claims we lack one are wrong.
Do people think there should be a rule that PMs lose office if enough ministers quit?
https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1544938377107148801
Sausages not stones!
He does not strike me as the sort to forgive.
Wow. That’s compelling. Letts is normally quite loyal
Another strong hint from a privileged perspective that Carrie has left him. At least for the moment
Maybe the super injunction rumours are true?
All very sad if he really is having a meltdown but all the more reason to despatch him, mercifully
Past working him out.
The trickier issue is what you might call general beach photos and individuals who wish to reveal almost everything in public but object to someone taking a photo on a beach.
"Boris I do so dearly love you but now is the time to support Ben Wallace for leadership of your great nation.."