”Agencies blamed children for the abuse they suffered, not the perpetrators, and exploitation was not investigated because of "nervousness about race".”
Sounds familiar?
Even after an investigation leading to seven men being jailed for child sex crimes West Mercia Police and Telford & Wrekin Council scaled down their specialist teams "to virtual zero" in order to save money
Nothing to see, quickly move on....
Which party, if any, had political control of the council at that point, out of interest?
1997-2006 Labour 2006-2008 NOC 2008-2011 Con 2011-Present Labour
Bryant: "Its simple - he's disgraced, he doesn't enjoy the confidence of this House. If he simply tries to prevent the House coming to that decision, it's because he's a coward!" https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1546891812132077569
Never mind @Scott_xP on the 5th September Johnson will be gone and a new PM and cabinet will dominate the media going forward
I will not be taking my campaign any further for the leadership of our party @Conservatives as I have not been able to secure the necessary parliamentary backing. Full statement below👇
GB News are now interviewing a young lady from Telford who was absused and ignored for years, albeit not related to today’s case.
Is is this girl?
She's incredible. A profound victim of abuse, yet now an articulate, clever, impressive journalist and social advocate - unsurprisingly, on the Right, given her experiences. Works for the Spec, Telegraph, Mail
"Last week, I went on GBNews to discuss child sex crimes in Telford
The next day, officers banged on my door, demanding I speak to them about my interview
They ignored victims for decades, but tried to intimidate me for exposing their failings on live TV"
I will not be taking my campaign any further for the leadership of our party @Conservatives as I have not been able to secure the necessary parliamentary backing. Full statement below👇
IIRC there was a ridiculous commentary piece not long after Rishi became Chancellor from some pundit making a ridiculous point about someone else making a comment about finding Starmer more attractive than Rishi, who was objectively more good looking.
IDK, not my type but he seems at least interesting looking, I can see people thinking so.
GB News are now interviewing a young lady from Telford who was absused and ignored for years, albeit not related to today’s case.
Is is this girl?
She's incredible. A profound victim of abuse, yet now an articulate, clever, impressive journalist and social advocate - unsurprisingly, on the Right, given her experiences. Works for the Spec, Telegraph, Mail
"Last week, I went on GBNews to discuss child sex crimes in Telford
The next day, officers banged on my door, demanding I speak to them about my interview
They ignored victims for decades, but tried to intimidate me for exposing their failings on live TV"
I will not be taking my campaign any further for the leadership of our party @Conservatives as I have not been able to secure the necessary parliamentary backing. Full statement below👇
Several camps said to have got the 20 names today, but not saying so in public because the Brady Bunch ('22 exec) must sign-off the nomination forms as in order. I note Suella Braverman deleted her own confirmatory tweet re making the ballot. Think she, Kemi and Hunt all make it
Just watched a bit of Badenoch's press launch. She is VERY assured, and quite winning
She would completely bewilder the Left, they would not know how to attack her. A confident young attractive black woman, and a Christian, of Nigerian ancestry, firmly on the right and anti-Woke
It's almost worth electing her for the lolz of watching Labour flounder against her
The first time I heard her speaking, on the radio, I thought she was the author Zadie Smith. She sounds almost the same.
The Prime Minister has decided to block the following @UKLabour motion of no confidence from being debated: “That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government while the Rt Hon Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip remains Prime Minister.” (1/4)
It is a long-established principle of our democracy that a sitting Government makes time as early as possible for any motion of no confidence that is tabled in the name of the LOTO. (2/4)
Motions of no confidence can take many forms. Here’s a Tory motion from 1965: “That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government and deplores the Prime Minister's conduct of the nation's affairs.” (3/4)
This Prime Minister is yet further eroding trust in our democracy and undermining this elected Parliament. This risks setting a dangerous precedent where any future Prime Minister can choose to ignore Parliament to protect themselves. (4/4)
It is the conditional nature of the motion that means it does not meet the required threshold.
Labour knows what it has to do to get this debate. But they seem unwilling to do so.
Explain why that might be...
You are not suggesting Labour (a political party no less) might be playing politics? Disgraceful. I am going to write to my MP!
Because a proper VONC "This house has no confidence in the Government" results in a General Election now the FTPA has been annulled.
Which means that every Tory MP needs to vote against the motion to avoid a general election in late August, early July.
If the FTPA had been in place the result would be very different as it would have given the Tory party 2 weeks to find a replacement Government (i.e. you kick Bozo out of No 10 and appoint Rabb or the winner of the MPs elections)
I will not be taking my campaign any further for the leadership of our party @Conservatives as I have not been able to secure the necessary parliamentary backing. Full statement below👇
I will not be taking my campaign any further for the leadership of our party @Conservatives as I have not been able to secure the necessary parliamentary backing. Full statement below👇
”Agencies blamed children for the abuse they suffered, not the perpetrators, and exploitation was not investigated because of "nervousness about race".”
Sounds familiar?
I have this funny feeling we will get one day of headlines and then never to be mentioned again by the likes of the BBC.
If 1000+ girls were abused in Telford, and 1800+ in Rotherham (IIRC), and four figures in Oldham, then Sarah Champion's figure of "maybe a million" abused girls, victim of these gangs, across the UK - starts to hove into view. I thought it was insane when I first read it
But now?
I still don't buy a million. But over 100,000 seems totally plausible, indeed likely. It is the single greatest UK scandal of our lifetimes. Perhaps indeed in the history of the UK
You know this is going nowhere.
Too many people in authority have too much to lose plus it would leave many - particularly in certain parts of the media - as looking stupid at best when it came to the initial reporting of these scandals.
Nothing is ever going to be done.
The Home Sec has apparently quite arbitrary powers to put people on the various lists that mean you fail the background checks.
Put the list on names on the right list and they will fail vetting for pretty much any job
GB News are now interviewing a young lady from Telford who was absused and ignored for years, albeit not related to today’s case.
Is is this girl?
She's incredible. A profound victim of abuse, yet now an articulate, clever, impressive journalist and social advocate - unsurprisingly, on the Right, given her experiences. Works for the Spec, Telegraph, Mail
"Last week, I went on GBNews to discuss child sex crimes in Telford
The next day, officers banged on my door, demanding I speak to them about my interview
They ignored victims for decades, but tried to intimidate me for exposing their failings on live TV"
I will not be taking my campaign any further for the leadership of our party @Conservatives as I have not been able to secure the necessary parliamentary backing. Full statement below👇
Several camps said to have got the 20 names today, but not saying so in public because the Brady Bunch ('22 exec) must sign-off the nomination forms as in order. I note Suella Braverman deleted her own confirmatory tweet re making the ballot. Think she, Kemi and Hunt all make it
I will not be taking my campaign any further for the leadership of our party @Conservatives as I have not been able to secure the necessary parliamentary backing. Full statement below👇
They can retable it as a standard VONC and they will get the debate.
Starmer is being very badly advised.
They tried to be too clever and failed.
Labour (and Starmer) are fcuking about. Table a standard VONC in the government and it will get debated and voted on.
But they're trying to be clever and will achieve nothing. You'd think SOMEONE in Labour would understand Parliamentary rules. I mean, the bloody speaker is ex-Labour. Can't he tell them what to do?
No, you're drinking the Boris Kool-Aid one more time. Labour checked with the clerks, who have the final say on wording, and it's valid, and there is a precedent for a similar motion being given priority (from when the Tories used a similar motion against Wlison). But all these conventions and precedents don't really work when the PM just says "shan't!", as the Conservatives found in previous months. It suits Johnson not to have it as it might force him to resign before September, as many Tories would preer, and I don't think he really cares whether it's awkward for Tory MPs seeking re-election.
Will it make a big difference at an election? Nah, but worth doing.
Several camps said to have got the 20 names today, but not saying so in public because the Brady Bunch ('22 exec) must sign-off the nomination forms as in order. I note Suella Braverman deleted her own confirmatory tweet re making the ballot. Think she, Kemi and Hunt all make it
Several camps said to have got the 20 names today, but not saying so in public because the Brady Bunch ('22 exec) must sign-off the nomination forms as in order. I note Suella Braverman deleted her own confirmatory tweet re making the ballot. Think she, Kemi and Hunt all make it
They can retable it as a standard VONC and they will get the debate.
Starmer is being very badly advised.
They tried to be too clever and failed.
Labour (and Starmer) are fcuking about. Table a standard VONC in the government and it will get debated and voted on.
But they're trying to be clever and will achieve nothing. You'd think SOMEONE in Labour would understand Parliamentary rules. I mean, the bloody speaker is ex-Labour. Can't he tell them what to do?
No, you're drinking the Boris Kool-Aid one more time. Labour checked with the clerks, who have the final say on wording, and it's valid, and there is a precedent for a similar motion being given priority (from when the Tories used a similar motion against Wlison). But all these conventions and precedents don't really work when the PM just says "shan't!", as the Conservatives found in previous months. It suits Johnson not to have it as it might force him to resign before September, as many Tories would preer, and I don't think he really cares whether it's awkward for Tory MPs seeking re-election.
Will it make a big difference at an election? Nah, but worth doing.
You may be a former MP but you are wrong on this.
They submitted a conditional motion which is a valid motion for debate but does not meet the threshold for an automatic debate under the convention.
The 1965 motion was not conditional and so did meet the test and so is not precedent in anyway.
Corbyn tabled a motion in 2018 which was similarly not debated.
The library of the House is very clear on all this.
It was an attempt to be clever that failed
Why are they simply not tabling another motion with the usual form of words?
Just watched a bit of Badenoch's press launch. She is VERY assured, and quite winning
She would completely bewilder the Left, they would not know how to attack her. A confident young attractive black woman, and a Christian, of Nigerian ancestry, firmly on the right and anti-Woke
It's almost worth electing her for the lolz of watching Labour flounder against her
The first time I heard her speaking, on the radio, I thought she was the author Zadie Smith. She sounds almost the same.
Vocal dopplegangers can be quite disconcerting. Often people might not look even slightly similar but could sound nearly identical.
The Prime Minister has decided to block the following @UKLabour motion of no confidence from being debated: “That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government while the Rt Hon Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip remains Prime Minister.” (1/4)
It is a long-established principle of our democracy that a sitting Government makes time as early as possible for any motion of no confidence that is tabled in the name of the LOTO. (2/4)
Motions of no confidence can take many forms. Here’s a Tory motion from 1965: “That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government and deplores the Prime Minister's conduct of the nation's affairs.” (3/4)
This Prime Minister is yet further eroding trust in our democracy and undermining this elected Parliament. This risks setting a dangerous precedent where any future Prime Minister can choose to ignore Parliament to protect themselves. (4/4)
It is the conditional nature of the motion that means it does not meet the required threshold.
Labour knows what it has to do to get this debate. But they seem unwilling to do so.
Explain why that might be...
You are not suggesting Labour (a political party no less) might be playing politics? Disgraceful. I am going to write to my MP!
Because a proper VONC "This house has no confidence in the Government" results in a General Election now the FTPA has been annulled.
Which means that every Tory MP needs to vote against the motion to avoid a general election in late August, early July.
If the FTPA had been in place the result would be very different as it would have given the Tory party 2 weeks to find a replacement Government (i.e. you kick [Boris] out of No 10 and appoint Rabb or the winner of the MPs elections)
I'm afraid you've misunderstood.
A general election only follows if no alternative PM who can command a majority in the Commons can be found.
But we already know (and the wording of SKS's attempted motion implies) that by 5th September latest, such a PM can be found.
Under FTPA, there would have been more of a problem because of the 14 day time limit that you note. But post DACOP, that limit has been removed not shortened.
So if a proper VONC passes, Boris goes to the Queen and says "I've lost a VONC" and she says "stay on as caretaker until the Tory leadership election is complete". Being generous to SKS, this may have been what he was trying to avoid with his wording - forcing HMQ to appoint an interim PM for the duration of the Tory leadership election.
”Agencies blamed children for the abuse they suffered, not the perpetrators, and exploitation was not investigated because of "nervousness about race".”
Sounds familiar?
Even after an investigation leading to seven men being jailed for child sex crimes West Mercia Police and Telford & Wrekin Council scaled down their specialist teams "to virtual zero" in order to save money
Nothing to see, quickly move on....
Which party, if any, had political control of the council at that point, out of interest?
1997-2006 Labour 2006-2008 NOC 2008-2011 Con 2011-Present Labour
20 of the past 25 years, Labour, 2 Con.
And what year was the main trial and over what years was the operation scaled down to virtual zero'?
They can retable it as a standard VONC and they will get the debate.
Starmer is being very badly advised.
They tried to be too clever and failed.
Labour (and Starmer) are fcuking about. Table a standard VONC in the government and it will get debated and voted on.
But they're trying to be clever and will achieve nothing. You'd think SOMEONE in Labour would understand Parliamentary rules. I mean, the bloody speaker is ex-Labour. Can't he tell them what to do?
No, you're drinking the Boris Kool-Aid one more time. Labour checked with the clerks, who have the final say on wording, and it's valid, and there is a precedent for a similar motion being given priority (from when the Tories used a similar motion against Wlison).
No, it wasn't a similar motion. That one was "no confidence and" and this one was "no confidence but".
She should take that up with the Forejgn Secretary:
Exclusive: Liz Truss last night told the ERG leadership hustings that if made PM she will recognise a genocide is happening in China, The Sun understands. Tom Tugendhat has pledged to do the same. Meanwhile other contenders heating up anti-CCP rhetoric
I suspect that, as a nation, we are incapable of addressing a crime as big as the Asian Grooming Scandal. It is just too huge and too desolating: 100,000 girls (or many more) groomed, raped, abused, tortured and even murdered, largely (but not wholly) by Muslim men of Pakistani ancestry. Rape houses. Organised rape over generations: with men raping girls, getting them pregnant, then raping their daughters. Special shops and houses for torture. Girls driven across counties for more mass rape my dozens of men every night.
And all hushed up because of "nervousness about race", which meant it went on and on and on
Who wants to even try and deal with that?
Perhaps only a minority ethnic PM of unusual bravery and morality. Kemi Badenoch
$10bn very well spent. Congratulations to all the scientists who made it work. Every single one of them need to not fuck up, to get it to this point. Incredible!
and there is a precedent for a similar motion being given priority (from when the Tories used a similar motion against Wlison).
We can read, Nick: it's the only one in eight hundred years of Parliamentary history that Labour have found to support their case, and the wording is still completely different. If Labour think it's "a similar motion", let them bring forward the 1965 wording and see who's ignoring conventions and precedents.
They can retable it as a standard VONC and they will get the debate.
Starmer is being very badly advised.
They tried to be too clever and failed.
Labour (and Starmer) are fcuking about. Table a standard VONC in the government and it will get debated and voted on.
But they're trying to be clever and will achieve nothing. You'd think SOMEONE in Labour would understand Parliamentary rules. I mean, the bloody speaker is ex-Labour. Can't he tell them what to do?
No, you're drinking the Boris Kool-Aid one more time. Labour checked with the clerks, who have the final say on wording, and it's valid, and there is a precedent for a similar motion being given priority (from when the Tories used a similar motion against Wlison).
No, it wasn't a similar motion. That one was "no confidence and" and this one was "no confidence but".
Feels like when someone was explaining the difference between things being 'by right' and 'as of right' to me. Small differences can make a big difference.
Any row over language is easily resolved by changing language though.
They can retable it as a standard VONC and they will get the debate.
Starmer is being very badly advised.
They tried to be too clever and failed.
Labour (and Starmer) are fcuking about. Table a standard VONC in the government and it will get debated and voted on.
But they're trying to be clever and will achieve nothing. You'd think SOMEONE in Labour would understand Parliamentary rules. I mean, the bloody speaker is ex-Labour. Can't he tell them what to do?
No, you're drinking the Boris Kool-Aid one more time. Labour checked with the clerks, who have the final say on wording, and it's valid, and there is a precedent for a similar motion being given priority (from when the Tories used a similar motion against Wlison).
No, it wasn't a similar motion. That one was "no confidence and" and this one was "no confidence but".
Feels like when someone was explaining the difference between things being 'by right' and 'as of right' to me. Small differences can make a big difference.
Any row over language is easily resolved by changing language though.
It's pretty clear that on the face of it SKS's attempted motion was of "temporary no confidence", and such a concept doesn't exist, and they must know that. So the logical conclusion is they were doing it for the retweets.
That's quite surprising, and we're down to 8. So with daily ballots tomorrow and Thursday, and four Commons sitting days next week, they shouldn't need any multi-ballot days to get to the final two before recess.
and there is a precedent for a similar motion being given priority (from when the Tories used a similar motion against Wlison).
We can read, Nick: it's the only one in eight hundred years of Parliamentary history that Labour have found to support their case, and the wording is still completely different. If Labour think it's "a similar motion", let them bring forward the 1965 wording and see who's ignoring conventions and precedents.
Look, I think Labour are perfectly entitled to call a confidence debate. I think if that’s what they want to do, that’s fine. I think it’s Westminster tittle-tattle but if the Labour Party thinks it can derive political advantage by forcing the Tories to vote confidence in the government then that is their prerogative. Personally I don’t think people will give two hoots on who voted what in a symbolic vote in July 2022 by the time the next election rolls round, but thats up to them.
I think the government are within their rights to reject the wording as conditional on the presence of the Prime Minister as leader of the government as opposed to ‘deploring’ the PM or similar (like the example given). But the option of a vote has been offered. So instead of everyone pratting about why not take that option and hold the vote? I don’t see what Labour have to gain from taking their bat home here - if the tactic was to get Tory MPs to vote for the government then force that result. If the tactic is now to complain that you’re not getting a vote even though one has been offered on different wording, I think that’s even more Westminster Bubble.
I support the Labour Party holding what has been a particularly shoddy government to account but this isn’t the way of going about it IMHO.
Holding that vote actually matters quite a lot at a point where we are in uncharted constitutional territory. It would be more than a symbolic vote.
We will on current plans have had to endure 2 full months of a zombie Government under a PM who has the confidence of very few MPs in his own party and no other MP. In those circumstances, there must be some mechanism to force the PM out. This motion would have provided it - I don't think it would have forced a general election given its conditional nature, but it would have effectively forced out the PM immediately (or forced the Conservatives to dump him in short order to avoid the condition for a GE being met) in favour of a temporary successor such as Raab.
Allowing the PM to block a parliamentary motion that would have required the immediate departure of the PM is a bad constitutional outcome.
Ex equalities minister says Government must focus on tackling inflation rather than devising ‘micro-policies’ to fix cost-of-living crisis
I watched her launch and she also hinted at means testing winter fuel payments.
Good. It’s supposed to be for those who can’t heat their homes, not those who want to book a holiday to get away from winter - like my parents.
The worry with that is that means testing means administrative costs, which (as Sir Humphrey would tell you) can always be made to outweigh the savings.
Detective Inspector Chris 'underpants' Bryant of the Yard is on to Kemi's hacking Hes obviously only just found out about it such is his breathless questioning whether it constitutes a crime on twitter Tit
and there is a precedent for a similar motion being given priority (from when the Tories used a similar motion against Wlison).
We can read, Nick: it's the only one in eight hundred years of Parliamentary history that Labour have found to support their case, and the wording is still completely different. If Labour think it's "a similar motion", let them bring forward the 1965 wording and see who's ignoring conventions and precedents.
"... it's the only one in eight hundred years of Parliamentary history ..."
That of course is utter bollocks, as a quick visit to wiki would confirm:
Comments
2006-2008 NOC
2008-2011 Con
2011-Present Labour
20 of the past 25 years, Labour, 2 Con.
https://www.mailplus.co.uk/edition/comment/201096/brave-articulate-and-thoughtful-one-day-kemi-should-lead-the-tories.-but-not-today...
Con Maj 3.75
Lab Maj 4.5
Lay Lab Maj
https://twitter.com/Rehman_Chishti/status/1546894597435101186?s=20&t=LcxYMAj-gVUpOCa2PjJkig
Oh, and what does Han Dodges know about the Kremlinology of the Tories?
She's incredible. A profound victim of abuse, yet now an articulate, clever, impressive journalist and social advocate - unsurprisingly, on the Right, given her experiences. Works for the Spec, Telegraph, Mail
"Last week, I went on GBNews to discuss child sex crimes in Telford
The next day, officers banged on my door, demanding I speak to them about my interview
They ignored victims for decades, but tried to intimidate me for exposing their failings on live TV"
https://twitter.com/SamanthaTaghoy/status/1546596049640427532?s=20&t=97HPq3Xn_DZ9h_2NnTeaGg
IDK, not my type but he seems at least interesting looking, I can see people thinking so.
https://twitter.com/oflynnsocial/status/1546896071913267201
Which means that every Tory MP needs to vote against the motion to avoid a general election in late August, early July.
If the FTPA had been in place the result would be very different as it would have given the Tory party 2 weeks to find a replacement Government (i.e. you kick Bozo out of No 10 and appoint Rabb or the winner of the MPs elections)
Put the list on names on the right list and they will fail vetting for pretty much any job
They are saying no confirmations yet re Javid, Badenoch (despite earlier rumours), Zahawi
Will it make a big difference at an election? Nah, but worth doing.
For example:
BREAKING: Suella Braverman has quickly deleted a tweet claiming she had enough nominations in the Tory leadership race
https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/1546897373531717632
I think he has missed that standing in the contest to raise profile and get a better job requires you to have made some impact at least.
@kateferguson4
Team Kemi definitely has the numbers - her nomination papers all signed sealed and delivered
https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/1546897075517931523
They submitted a conditional motion which is a valid motion for debate but does not meet the threshold for an automatic debate under the convention.
The 1965 motion was not conditional and so did meet the test and so is not precedent in anyway.
Corbyn tabled a motion in 2018 which was similarly not debated.
The library of the House is very clear on all this.
It was an attempt to be clever that failed
Why are they simply not tabling another motion with the usual form of words?
A general election only follows if no alternative PM who can command a majority in the Commons can be found.
But we already know (and the wording of SKS's attempted motion implies) that by 5th September latest, such a PM can be found.
Under FTPA, there would have been more of a problem because of the 14 day time limit that you note. But post DACOP, that limit has been removed not shortened.
So if a proper VONC passes, Boris goes to the Queen and says "I've lost a VONC" and she says "stay on as caretaker until the Tory leadership election is complete". Being generous to SKS, this may have been what he was trying to avoid with his wording - forcing HMQ to appoint an interim PM for the duration of the Tory leadership election.
Lol
Fingers crossed someone doesn't timewaste (my money waste) and get them over the line.
Exclusive: Liz Truss last night told the ERG leadership hustings that if made PM she will recognise a genocide is happening in China, The Sun understands. Tom Tugendhat has pledged to do the same. Meanwhile other contenders heating up anti-CCP rhetoric
https://twitter.com/hoffman_noa/status/1546897255260643329
I suspect that, as a nation, we are incapable of addressing a crime as big as the Asian Grooming Scandal. It is just too huge and too desolating: 100,000 girls (or many more) groomed, raped, abused, tortured and even murdered, largely (but not wholly) by Muslim men of Pakistani ancestry. Rape houses. Organised rape over generations: with men raping girls, getting them pregnant, then raping their daughters. Special shops and houses for torture. Girls driven across counties for more mass rape my dozens of men every night.
And all hushed up because of "nervousness about race", which meant it went on and on and on
Who wants to even try and deal with that?
Perhaps only a minority ethnic PM of unusual bravery and morality. Kemi Badenoch
$10bn very well spent. Congratulations to all the scientists who made it work. Every single one of them need to not fuck up, to get it to this point. Incredible!
Any row over language is easily resolved by changing language though.
5.52pm just before the deadline;
Betfair
Sunak 3.05
Mordaunt 3.2
Truss 4.7
Badenoch 15.5
Tugendhat 16.5
Bar 90
Javid can express his disillusionment with Rishi by backing Mordaunt.
Mordaunt is a stronger candidate than Sunak and Badenoch is better than Truss
30 will be a bit harder
Remind me to swipe left if I see you on Geekr, the dating website for politics nerds
We will on current plans have had to endure 2 full months of a zombie Government under a PM who has the confidence of very few MPs in his own party and no other MP. In those circumstances, there must be some mechanism to force the PM out. This motion would have provided it - I don't think it would have forced a general election given its conditional nature, but it would have effectively forced out the PM immediately (or forced the Conservatives to dump him in short order to avoid the condition for a GE being met) in favour of a temporary successor such as Raab.
Allowing the PM to block a parliamentary motion that would have required the immediate departure of the PM is a bad constitutional outcome.
Hes obviously only just found out about it such is his breathless questioning whether it constitutes a crime on twitter
Tit
In the first round of voting in 2001 Michael Portillo was only a few short of a third of the party. He didn't make the final 2.
Sunak
Truss
Mourdaunt
Tugendhat
Badenoch
Zahawi
Hunt
Javid
Braverman
That of course is utter bollocks, as a quick visit to wiki would confirm:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_votes_of_no_confidence_in_British_governments
Tho if you are trying to tell your first ever joke you should have said "Wankr"