I want him out, I've bet on him losing, but rules are rules. If he loses a majority, then that should draw a line under his premiership and we should move on. If he wins a majority then that should draw a line under it and we should move on.
50%+1 is a majority and that applies to either side. If MPs don't like that, they should vote accordingly or change the rules, not bitch about losing like Rees Mogg did last time. I was gutted May survived her Confidence vote but accepted the fact she'd won it and thought Rees Mogg was an idiot for suggesting otherwise. Same principle applies today.
But a confidence vote is not like a vote on what to do. It's not viable to function if you've lost the confidence of, say, 45% of your MPs.
Then the rules should say so. They don't.
The threshold is the threshold and that has to be respected, that's democratic. Whinging about it makes you no better than Rees Mogg last time.
I was on the Boris bummed bus earlier this afternoon. This absolutely smashes it home. The red wall, someone seen as very likely to hold her seat, someone who is only an MP because of Boris.
I want him out, I've bet on him losing, but rules are rules. If he loses a majority, then that should draw a line under his premiership and we should move on. If he wins a majority then that should draw a line under it and we should move on.
50%+1 is a majority and that applies to either side. If MPs don't like that, they should vote accordingly or change the rules, not bitch about losing like Rees Mogg did last time. I was gutted May survived her Confidence vote but accepted the fact she'd won it and thought Rees Mogg was an idiot for suggesting otherwise. Same principle applies today.
But a confidence vote is not like a vote on what to do. It's not viable to function if you've lost the confidence of, say, 45% of your MPs.
Not without massive changes. But what could he do to restore their confidence after that? Especially as for many of them it is his character that is the problem.
I could be wrong but it seems to me like there are a disproportionate number of SW England Tory MPs going public in their opposition to Johnson.
Would make sense if true. They must be under serious threat from a Lib Dem revival and anti-Tory tactical voting at the next election.
I suspect all the talk of levelling up in the Red Wall grates in a lot of the SW with it's own issues.
I don't hear that much from my Tory friends here. What I hear over and over is: 'disgraceful behaviour', 'no integrity', 'lazy', 'lying', 'incompetent'... Partygate has played really big here, including amongst CP members.
The other thing that's beginning to hit home is that Brexit farming support is worse than when we were in the EU.
LDs are likely to do well in the SW next GE.
Yes, that is the implied result of levelling up, so Tory shires in the SW get levelled down.
Does anyone know when the exit poll will be released?
Do we get one? MPs don't know. Can't see the '22 tellers gobbing off about how the count is going. Would there be time for "word has it" leaks before Mrs Brady reads the numbers?
I presume after 8pm it takes 5 mins to count and double-check the votes.
Then Johnson presumably gets given the result in confidence and 30mins to prepare a statement before the results are announced?
I want him out, I've bet on him losing, but rules are rules. If he loses a majority, then that should draw a line under his premiership and we should move on. If he wins a majority then that should draw a line under it and we should move on.
50%+1 is a majority and that applies to either side. If MPs don't like that, they should vote accordingly or change the rules, not bitch about losing like Rees Mogg did last time. I was gutted May survived her Confidence vote but accepted the fact she'd won it and thought Rees Mogg was an idiot for suggesting otherwise. Same principle applies today.
But a confidence vote is not like a vote on what to do. It's not viable to function if you've lost the confidence of, say, 45% of your MPs.
Then they should have set the rules of the confidence vote to require the party leader to win the support of two-thirds of their MPs, or whatever threshold they think is more appropriate than 50%.
May only finally went because she was prepared to countenance talks with Corbyn as a way out of the Brexit impasse, and that was the trigger for people to make it clear that the game was up. There's not going to be anything so urgent and pressing that would force the issue in a similar way. Johnson could limp on with the support of 50% +1 for a surprisingly long time.
You can either defend free speech or you can try to regulate what is said in, say, schools. You can't do both.
But of course, she doesn't really want free speech. She just wants to be the one regulating it.
Absolute sense from Mr H
Not really. You can argue that individuals should be free to say what they like but that the state, in the form of state schools, shouldn't be pushing one side of the culture wars.
Yep. Mr H is completely wrong there. All the more so given that so much of the so called 'woke' agenda involves denying people freedom of speech based on the idea that we should not be allowed to say things that might hurt people's feelings. Wit that comment it appears that David Herdson has bought into the Newspeak mythology.
And that is in spite of the fact that, as a rule, J H-B is wrong in everything she says and does.
The people whose feelings are most hurt and go on about it the most are the likes of JHB.
Well indeed. As I say I am not defending her but there is a logic to what she says. You do not defend and enhance free speech by making rules about what can and cannot be said. Which is very much the agenda being followed at the moment in many institutions.
I avoid this time using the word 'woke'. I only used it in my last reply because it was the term that had been used in the original posting. I think it is a much abused and pointless term which adds nothing of meaning to an otherwise serious debate.
But it is this conservative government that is passing laws and setting regulations banning the teaching of certain topics in schools.
Oh I agree. I am not supporting or agreeing with them either. Such dangerous idiocy is still dangerous idiocy no matter which side indulges in it.
Anyone else have sneaky suspicion Number Ten engineered the timing of this putting votes in themselves? Even the chat with Brady to make it today I doubt it was pushed by Brady.
Obviously Johnson wins this. The calculation number 10 has made is timing of the VONC to give them best possible result, in fewest number against. Before the by elections obviously. Announced Monday morning held Monday evening looks like Number 10 idea too.
I wonder if, not just the by elections coming, they fear something else coming out that’s damaging soon. Damaging in the sense of it makes 145 against him if held in 4 weeks time not the 120 today.
If they keep it to 120 or less against, he’s safe for a year at least isn’t he?
If he loses a third of his mps he will not last the summer
Do you have a track record of getting a single prediction right? Or even maintaining the same prediction for more than two consecutive days?
I suspect that is aimed at me not dear old Big G wasn’t it?
I’ll answer it. If only 120 of 350 vote against him, how exactly do they force him out from there anytime soon? Just to have another vote they have to change the rules just to have another vote - the optics of that won’t be helpful, and even then he might win by the same again? How else do they apply pressure? How else do they force him out if can’t vote him out?
If 120 of 350 vote against him, then BJ is in the same position May was in 2019, and Major was in 1996-97; he's in power, but it is clear that his party is not with him.
And leaders, once the rot has started, rarely turn it around.
At what level of opposition does a win effectively become a non-win. 160 against? 170?
In my humble opinion but this is all just finger in the air stuff:
150+ - he won’t make it through to the summer recess.
120-150 - gone within 6 months.
100-120 won’t fight the next GE
anything below 100 - chance to actually turn it around. But no guarantee.
That feels plausible. But if had a chance to turn it around, what would he actually do to turn it around? He's clearly got no great policy initiative or genius Cabinet appointments to pull out of a hat.
It's why the "call an election pronto" strategy if he wins reasonably narrowly feels plausible to me. What else is he going to do?
Send a task force to Crimea?
Truss has already floated that, flotilla. I wouldn’t rule it out. So many people in the will starve without that grain.
I want him out, I've bet on him losing, but rules are rules. If he loses a majority, then that should draw a line under his premiership and we should move on. If he wins a majority then that should draw a line under it and we should move on.
50%+1 is a majority and that applies to either side. If MPs don't like that, they should vote accordingly or change the rules, not bitch about losing like Rees Mogg did last time. I was gutted May survived her Confidence vote but accepted the fact she'd won it and thought Rees Mogg was an idiot for suggesting otherwise. Same principle applies today.
But a confidence vote is not like a vote on what to do. It's not viable to function if you've lost the confidence of, say, 45% of your MPs.
Then the rules should say so. They don't.
The threshold is the threshold and that has to be respected, that's democratic. Whinging about it makes you no better than Rees Mogg last time.
Nah it's not just about the raw numbers BR.
He needs to command the confidence of his own members of parliament. That isn't about 50.1% vs 49.9%.
Interesting to peruse list of Tory MPs publicly backing PM. This is what one of them told me in hushed tones a few months ago of the government whips: “They haven’t got a xxxxing clue what is going on. We have completely shut down. We are not telling them what we think….
…. They have spies everywhere. So we are all just saying: of course we support you. They do not know what is going to happen.”
There's absolutely no chance of Boris calling an election, he'd lose his own seat.
Unless he has stitched up a rat run to a safe seat
A chicken run would be even more humiliating than losing his seat, and there's no guarantee he wins that either. The constituents may not take kindly to having Boris foisted on them.
There is no safe tory seat in Britain while he remains PM. That is what the by-elections are telling MPs, never mind the booing and the jokes on TV and all that.
Does anyone know when the exit poll will be released?
Do we get one? MPs don't know. Can't see the '22 tellers gobbing off about how the count is going. Would there be time for "word has it" leaks before Mrs Brady reads the numbers?
I presume after 8pm it takes 5 mins to count and double-check the votes.
Then Johnson presumably gets given the result in confidence and 30mins to prepare a statement before the results are announced?
Anyone else have sneaky suspicion Number Ten engineered the timing of this putting votes in themselves? Even the chat with Brady to make it today I doubt it was pushed by Brady.
Obviously Johnson wins this. The calculation number 10 has made is timing of the VONC to give them best possible result, in fewest number against. Before the by elections obviously. Announced Monday morning held Monday evening looks like Number 10 idea too.
I wonder if, not just the by elections coming, they fear something else coming out that’s damaging soon. Damaging in the sense of it makes 145 against him if held in 4 weeks time not the 120 today.
If they keep it to 120 or less against, he’s safe for a year at least isn’t he?
If he loses a third of his mps he will not last the summer
Do you have a track record of getting a single prediction right? Or even maintaining the same prediction for more than two consecutive days?
I suspect that is aimed at me not dear old Big G wasn’t it?
I’ll answer it. If only 120 of 350 vote against him, how exactly do they force him out from there anytime soon? Just to have another vote they have to change the rules just to have another vote - the optics of that won’t be helpful, and even then he might win by the same again? How else do they apply pressure? How else do they force him out if can’t vote him out?
If 120 of 350 vote against him, then BJ is in the same position May was in 2019, and Major was in 1996-97; he's in power, but it is clear that his party is not with him.
And leaders, once the rot has started, rarely turn it around.
At what level of opposition does a win effectively become a non-win. 160 against? 170?
In my humble opinion but this is all just finger in the air stuff:
150+ - he won’t make it through to the summer recess.
120-150 - gone within 6 months.
100-120 won’t fight the next GE
anything below 100 - chance to actually turn it around. But no guarantee.
Though I thank you for the replies, no one has answered my question. 150+ plus against him is a clear bad result for Boris - yet he is still there! How is he out if you can’t vote him out?
To use RCS example, Major went on two years to lead into the election after his win. If Boris has less than 132 against, he has bettered May’s result (it’s done on percentages), arguably May resigned running out of road getting Brexit done, it wasn’t forced on her or voted out in second vonc.
I think anything under 120 he will fight the election, that figure is a clear Boris win. But what then removes him anytime soon?
I want him out, I've bet on him losing, but rules are rules. If he loses a majority, then that should draw a line under his premiership and we should move on. If he wins a majority then that should draw a line under it and we should move on.
50%+1 is a majority and that applies to either side. If MPs don't like that, they should vote accordingly or change the rules, not bitch about losing like Rees Mogg did last time. I was gutted May survived her Confidence vote but accepted the fact she'd won it and thought Rees Mogg was an idiot for suggesting otherwise. Same principle applies today.
But a confidence vote is not like a vote on what to do. It's not viable to function if you've lost the confidence of, say, 45% of your MPs.
Then the rules should say so. They don't.
The threshold is the threshold and that has to be respected, that's democratic. Whinging about it makes you no better than Rees Mogg last time.
If he wins, he wins, and he remains leader, respecting the result. In practice, we've often seen leaders choosing to resign subsequently. That's their choice and must also be respected. Why do they resign? Because they understand the reality of the situation they are in.
I want him out, I've bet on him losing, but rules are rules. If he loses a majority, then that should draw a line under his premiership and we should move on. If he wins a majority then that should draw a line under it and we should move on.
50%+1 is a majority and that applies to either side. If MPs don't like that, they should vote accordingly or change the rules, not bitch about losing like Rees Mogg did last time. I was gutted May survived her Confidence vote but accepted the fact she'd won it and thought Rees Mogg was an idiot for suggesting otherwise. Same principle applies today.
But a confidence vote is not like a vote on what to do. It's not viable to function if you've lost the confidence of, say, 45% of your MPs.
Then the rules should say so. They don't.
The threshold is the threshold and that has to be respected, that's democratic. Whinging about it makes you no better than Rees Mogg last time.
Nah it's not just about the raw numbers BR.
He needs to command the confidence of his own members of parliament. That isn't about 50.1% vs 49.9%.
His own Members of Parliament have agreed a system to collectively resolve this issue by 50.1% vs 49.9%, that is what they agreed to stand by.
If he wins by 50.1% then his own MPs if they really can't stand the result can resign the whip, or defect to another party. If they don't, he still has the majority of the House, just as May did even though I didn't like the result.
Does anyone know when the exit poll will be released?
Do we get one? MPs don't know. Can't see the '22 tellers gobbing off about how the count is going. Would there be time for "word has it" leaks before Mrs Brady reads the numbers?
I presume after 8pm it takes 5 mins to count and double-check the votes.
Then Johnson presumably gets given the result in confidence and 30mins to prepare a statement before the results are announced?
320 ballots. 5 minutes to count them tops.
There's a lot of time spent arguing about the spoilt papers with cocks drawn on and so forth though?
Perhaps a reason to put less faith in the payroll vote .
Johnson and his cabal are more vindictive and so they felt more pressure to publicly back the clown .
The names of those who submitted No Confidence letters will presumably be known but the ballot is secret so in theory anyone can claim they voted "the right way" (whatever that turns out to be) and you couldn't gainsay them.
Does anyone know when the exit poll will be released?
Do we get one? MPs don't know. Can't see the '22 tellers gobbing off about how the count is going. Would there be time for "word has it" leaks before Mrs Brady reads the numbers?
I presume after 8pm it takes 5 mins to count and double-check the votes.
Then Johnson presumably gets given the result in confidence and 30mins to prepare a statement before the results are announced?
I want him out, I've bet on him losing, but rules are rules. If he loses a majority, then that should draw a line under his premiership and we should move on. If he wins a majority then that should draw a line under it and we should move on.
50%+1 is a majority and that applies to either side. If MPs don't like that, they should vote accordingly or change the rules, not bitch about losing like Rees Mogg did last time. I was gutted May survived her Confidence vote but accepted the fact she'd won it and thought Rees Mogg was an idiot for suggesting otherwise. Same principle applies today.
But a confidence vote is not like a vote on what to do. It's not viable to function if you've lost the confidence of, say, 45% of your MPs.
Then the rules should say so. They don't.
The threshold is the threshold and that has to be respected, that's democratic. Whinging about it makes you no better than Rees Mogg last time.
Nah it's not just about the raw numbers BR.
He needs to command the confidence of his own members of parliament. That isn't about 50.1% vs 49.9%.
His own Members of Parliament have agreed a system to collectively resolve this issue by 50.1% vs 49.9%, that is what they agreed to stand by.
If he wins by 50.1% then his own MPs if they really can't stand the result can resign the whip, or defect to another party. If they don't, he still has the majority of the House, just as May did even though I didn't like the result.
That just doesn't work. None of the problems that forced this vote will have been fixed. When constituents complain the answer can't be "the PM just won a confidence vote" as the solution to CoL etc etc
His own Members of Parliament have agreed a system to collectively resolve this issue by 50.1% vs 49.9%, that is what they agreed to stand by.
If he wins by 50.1% then his own MPs if they really can't stand the result can resign the whip, or defect to another party. If they don't, he still has the majority of the House, just as May did even though I didn't like the result.
Only for 12 months - it may well there's another No Confidence vote this time next year.
Does anyone know when the exit poll will be released?
Do we get one? MPs don't know. Can't see the '22 tellers gobbing off about how the count is going. Would there be time for "word has it" leaks before Mrs Brady reads the numbers?
I presume after 8pm it takes 5 mins to count and double-check the votes.
Then Johnson presumably gets given the result in confidence and 30mins to prepare a statement before the results are announced?
320 ballots. 5 minutes to count them tops.
There's a lot of time spent arguing about the spoilt papers with cocks drawn on and so forth though?
However you interpret it, a cartoon phallus is obviously a vote for Johnson.
I want him out, I've bet on him losing, but rules are rules. If he loses a majority, then that should draw a line under his premiership and we should move on. If he wins a majority then that should draw a line under it and we should move on.
50%+1 is a majority and that applies to either side. If MPs don't like that, they should vote accordingly or change the rules, not bitch about losing like Rees Mogg did last time. I was gutted May survived her Confidence vote but accepted the fact she'd won it and thought Rees Mogg was an idiot for suggesting otherwise. Same principle applies today.
But a confidence vote is not like a vote on what to do. It's not viable to function if you've lost the confidence of, say, 45% of your MPs.
Then the rules should say so. They don't.
The threshold is the threshold and that has to be respected, that's democratic. Whinging about it makes you no better than Rees Mogg last time.
Nah it's not just about the raw numbers BR.
He needs to command the confidence of his own members of parliament. That isn't about 50.1% vs 49.9%.
His own Members of Parliament have agreed a system to collectively resolve this issue by 50.1% vs 49.9%, that is what they agreed to stand by.
If he wins by 50.1% then his own MPs if they really can't stand the result can resign the whip, or defect to another party. If they don't, he still has the majority of the House, just as May did even though I didn't like the result.
That just doesn't work. None of the problems that forced this vote will have been fixed. When constituents complain the answer can't be "the PM just won a confidence vote" as the solution to CoL etc etc
Of course not, so the government will have to either resolve the CoL and other issues, or lose the next election, but that is up to us the voters to decide at the next election.
But the 'confidence' issue will be resolved, the government officially maintains the confidence of every MP holding the whip, even if they vote against tonight.
Does anyone know when the exit poll will be released?
Do we get one? MPs don't know. Can't see the '22 tellers gobbing off about how the count is going. Would there be time for "word has it" leaks before Mrs Brady reads the numbers?
I presume after 8pm it takes 5 mins to count and double-check the votes.
Then Johnson presumably gets given the result in confidence and 30mins to prepare a statement before the results are announced?
I want him out, I've bet on him losing, but rules are rules. If he loses a majority, then that should draw a line under his premiership and we should move on. If he wins a majority then that should draw a line under it and we should move on.
50%+1 is a majority and that applies to either side. If MPs don't like that, they should vote accordingly or change the rules, not bitch about losing like Rees Mogg did last time. I was gutted May survived her Confidence vote but accepted the fact she'd won it and thought Rees Mogg was an idiot for suggesting otherwise. Same principle applies today.
But a confidence vote is not like a vote on what to do. It's not viable to function if you've lost the confidence of, say, 45% of your MPs.
Then the rules should say so. They don't.
The threshold is the threshold and that has to be respected, that's democratic. Whinging about it makes you no better than Rees Mogg last time.
Nah it's not just about the raw numbers BR.
He needs to command the confidence of his own members of parliament. That isn't about 50.1% vs 49.9%.
His own Members of Parliament have agreed a system to collectively resolve this issue by 50.1% vs 49.9%, that is what they agreed to stand by.
If he wins by 50.1% then his own MPs if they really can't stand the result can resign the whip, or defect to another party. If they don't, he still has the majority of the House, just as May did even though I didn't like the result.
That just doesn't work. None of the problems that forced this vote will have been fixed. When constituents complain the answer can't be "the PM just won a confidence vote" as the solution to CoL etc etc
That is indeed why people won't move on, but it is the rule they have chosen. Sure, they can theoretically amend the rules if things stir up again, but it feels like this is it really. Everyone knows more will come with Boris, it always does, if they've held out now the views of the MPs won't change, so unless it literally is 50%+1 a handful changing their tune later won't change that he is there for the duration.
His own Members of Parliament have agreed a system to collectively resolve this issue by 50.1% vs 49.9%, that is what they agreed to stand by.
If he wins by 50.1% then his own MPs if they really can't stand the result can resign the whip, or defect to another party. If they don't, he still has the majority of the House, just as May did even though I didn't like the result.
Only for 12 months - it may well there's another No Confidence vote this time next year.
Or a majority of MPs could pop a note to the 1922 and say "we are done with him, please change the rules" which they can do in consultation with the Party Board on almost no notice, and without any kind of vote.
Incidentally, I'd normally expect the unwavering support of a Cabinet of big hitters to benefit a PM who is being challenged.
Absolutely baffled as to why this Cabinet's support doesn't seem to be helping Boris at all.
Because there are no longer "big beasts" in the Cabinet with their own followers who can be relied upon. We have moved on from that to a Presidential system where the Cabinet are all placemen who can give no more votes than their own. This is not a criticism in particular of the current cabinet, by the end of the Blair/Brown government it was the same. Our politics just doesn't seem to have the same characters or people who represent a certain constituency in the party anymore. It has not been a positive development.
I want him out, I've bet on him losing, but rules are rules. If he loses a majority, then that should draw a line under his premiership and we should move on. If he wins a majority then that should draw a line under it and we should move on.
50%+1 is a majority and that applies to either side. If MPs don't like that, they should vote accordingly or change the rules, not bitch about losing like Rees Mogg did last time. I was gutted May survived her Confidence vote but accepted the fact she'd won it and thought Rees Mogg was an idiot for suggesting otherwise. Same principle applies today.
But a confidence vote is not like a vote on what to do. It's not viable to function if you've lost the confidence of, say, 45% of your MPs.
Then the rules should say so. They don't.
The threshold is the threshold and that has to be respected, that's democratic. Whinging about it makes you no better than Rees Mogg last time.
Nah it's not just about the raw numbers BR.
He needs to command the confidence of his own members of parliament. That isn't about 50.1% vs 49.9%.
His own Members of Parliament have agreed a system to collectively resolve this issue by 50.1% vs 49.9%, that is what they agreed to stand by.
If he wins by 50.1% then his own MPs if they really can't stand the result can resign the whip, or defect to another party. If they don't, he still has the majority of the House, just as May did even though I didn't like the result.
I get your argument. But it's difficult to command a House of Commons of 650 MPs when only 180 of them have explicitly backed you.
This is my final spreadsheet tally but it comes with a bunch of massive caveats given an unprecedented number of MPs have not declared their intentions:
I've just watched the meeting of three icons for the fifth time - the Queen, Paddington and a marmalade sandwich.
That's the Platinum Jubilee for me - you can forget the rest.
By the way anyone using the term "Platty Joobs" should be eviscerated and then ritually disembowelled before being sent to canvass for the Conservatives in East Ham for the next 200 years.
No one with a scintilla of class would collaborate in such a debasement of the English language. I'm told that should include PB sub-editors.
Incidentally, I'd normally expect the unwavering support of a Cabinet of big hitters to benefit a PM who is being challenged.
Absolutely baffled as to why this Cabinet's support doesn't seem to be helping Boris at all.
Because there are no longer "big beasts" in the Cabinet with their own followers who can be relied upon. We have moved on from that to a Presidential system where the Cabinet are all placemen who can give no more votes than their own. This is not a criticism in particular of the current cabinet, by the end of the Blair/Brown government it was the same. Our politics just doesn't seem to have the same characters or people who represent a certain constituency in the party anymore. It has not been a positive development.
Oh gosh, I was being sarcastic - thought that was obvious. I think what you say is considerably worse in the present government than under May or any of her predecessor, however. It really is a Cabinet of none of the talents (or few, being generous).
I've just watched the meeting of three icons for the fifth time - the Queen, Paddington and a marmalade sandwich.
That's the Platinum Jubilee for me - you can forget the rest.
By the way anyone using the term "Platty Joobs" should be eviscerated and then ritually disembowelled before being sent to canvass for the Conservatives in East Ham for the next 200 years.
No one with a scintilla of class would collaborate in such a debasement of the English language. I'm told that should include PB sub-editors.
"I do not consider that these failings (those in Gray report) are of a kind that need necessarily disqualify the Prime Minister from continuing in his office if he otherwise enjoys the confidence of the Conservative Parliamentary Party, which constitutes the majority in the House of Commons. Whether he does so, will become apparent shortly."
I want him out, I've bet on him losing, but rules are rules. If he loses a majority, then that should draw a line under his premiership and we should move on. If he wins a majority then that should draw a line under it and we should move on.
50%+1 is a majority and that applies to either side. If MPs don't like that, they should vote accordingly or change the rules, not bitch about losing like Rees Mogg did last time. I was gutted May survived her Confidence vote but accepted the fact she'd won it and thought Rees Mogg was an idiot for suggesting otherwise. Same principle applies today.
But a confidence vote is not like a vote on what to do. It's not viable to function if you've lost the confidence of, say, 45% of your MPs.
Then the rules should say so. They don't.
The threshold is the threshold and that has to be respected, that's democratic. Whinging about it makes you no better than Rees Mogg last time.
Nah it's not just about the raw numbers BR.
He needs to command the confidence of his own members of parliament. That isn't about 50.1% vs 49.9%.
His own Members of Parliament have agreed a system to collectively resolve this issue by 50.1% vs 49.9%, that is what they agreed to stand by.
If he wins by 50.1% then his own MPs if they really can't stand the result can resign the whip, or defect to another party. If they don't, he still has the majority of the House, just as May did even though I didn't like the result.
I get your argument. But it's difficult to command a House of Commons of 650 MPs when only 180 of them have explicitly backed you.
Perhaps but at least it won't be like the Labour Party where 80% of MPs voted against their leader, but he remained in office for over three more years and two General Election defeats.
"I do not consider that these failings (those in Gray report) are of a kind that need necessarily disqualify the Prime Minister from continuing in his office if he otherwise enjoys the confidence of the Conservative Parliamentary Party, which constitutes the majority in the House of Commons. Whether he does so, will become apparent shortly."
I've just watched the meeting of three icons for the fifth time - the Queen, Paddington and a marmalade sandwich.
That's the Platinum Jubilee for me - you can forget the rest.
By the way anyone using the term "Platty Joobs" should be eviscerated and then ritually disembowelled before being sent to canvass for the Conservatives in East Ham for the next 200 years.
No one with a scintilla of class would collaborate in such a debasement of the English language. I'm told that should include PB sub-editors.
Comments
The threshold is the threshold and that has to be respected, that's democratic. Whinging about it makes you no better than Rees Mogg last time.
Voting no confidence.
He is gone.
Then Johnson presumably gets given the result in confidence and 30mins to prepare a statement before the results are announced?
Bye bye, Boris.
May only finally went because she was prepared to countenance talks with Corbyn as a way out of the Brexit impasse, and that was the trigger for people to make it clear that the game was up. There's not going to be anything so urgent and pressing that would force the issue in a similar way. Johnson could limp on with the support of 50% +1 for a surprisingly long time.
Operation Shreddies
He needs to command the confidence of his own members of parliament. That isn't about 50.1% vs 49.9%.
And I think LostPassword sets out why, unlike May, Boris can limp on for quite awhile.
Johnson and his cabal are more vindictive and so they felt more pressure to publicly back the clown .
This is an age of volatile voting.
If he wins by 50.1% then his own MPs if they really can't stand the result can resign the whip, or defect to another party. If they don't, he still has the majority of the House, just as May did even though I didn't like the result.
Absolutely baffled as to why this Cabinet's support doesn't seem to be helping Boris at all.
We used to call that the 'cursed numbers' I believe, its been a while since we've had that appear.
She’s got a HUGE future.
But the 'confidence' issue will be resolved, the government officially maintains the confidence of every MP holding the whip, even if they vote against tonight.
John Stevens
@johnestevens
·
1m
🚨 The final tally of public support is 157 Tory MPs
We will find out the result at around 9pm
"If I am worthy of being in the Cabinet, we are in real trouble"
We are in the 2020s after all...
198 confidence
161 no confidence
https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1533886825739206656
Based on not very much, I guess about 230-130. Which might be where this is heading.
Presumably along the lines of "we fight on" etc
That's the Platinum Jubilee for me - you can forget the rest.
By the way anyone using the term "Platty Joobs" should be eviscerated and then ritually disembowelled before being sent to canvass for the Conservatives in East Ham for the next 200 years.
No one with a scintilla of class would collaborate in such a debasement of the English language. I'm told that should include PB sub-editors.
"I do not consider that these failings (those in Gray report) are of a kind that need necessarily disqualify the Prime Minister from continuing in his office if he otherwise enjoys the confidence of the Conservative Parliamentary Party, which constitutes the majority in the House of Commons. Whether he does so, will become apparent shortly."
Do I win the tray of meat from the local butchers ?
With half an hour to go, Boris Johnson is still trying to win round wavering Tory MPs and ministers in one-to-one meetings in his office tonight
https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1533886825739206656