4th February 2022
The constitution of the United Kingdom is a strange thing.
As a matter of constitutional theory, it hands a Prime Minister with a substantive majority two powerful weapons: the royal prerogative (and associated patronage, such as appointing and sacking ministers) and the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy.
On the paper page of the textbook, there is little that would check or balance a determined Prime Minister unwilling to play along with conventions.
But.
The constitution of the United Kingdom also spits out Prime Ministers between general elections.
Indeed, since 1982 – forty years – more Prime Ministers have lost office between general elections than because of general elections.
Thatcher (1990), Blair (2007), Cameron (2016) and May (2019) all lost office between general elections, while only Major (1997) and Brown (2010) have lost office at a general election.
And this week just gone, it looked as if the current Prime Minister would also lose office – even though he won a thumping majority in 2019.
There is no doubt that he is politically weak – and the spate of recent Downing Street resignations do not signify anything positive for him.
And it is obvious that a significant number of his own parliamentary party do not want him as Prime Minister.
It would seem less than a majority of the Commons wants him to personally continue as Prime Minister.
Yet: is he constitutionally weak?
Can he hold on, if he is really determined to do so?
The obvious means of his departure would be a no confidence vote by the parliamentary Conservative party.
An alternative means would be – say as with Thatcher – that he realises he has little or no ministerial support and resigns – though this unlikely given the cabinet are perhaps the only ones who will support him.
If there is not a confidence vote by the parliamentary Conservative party – or if there is one, and he wins – then we would be in interesting constitutional territory.
The nearest examples I can think of are the minority administrations of Callaghan (in the period before 1979), Major (in the period up to 1997) and May (2017-2019) – where there were Prime Ministers in office but not with power.
Perhaps like Callaghan and Major he will linger on, even though there was not a majority in the Commons in favour of him personally remaining (as opposed to a majority in the parliamentary Conservative party).
Perhaps there could then be a parliamentary vote of no confidence – but it is difficult to see Conservative MPs risking a general election just to get rid of Johnson as leader.
So: it is not clear what will happen if he lingers on.
What do you think?
******
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.
He lingers until a handful of cabinet ministers resign. Sunak, Wallace, Javed would make his position untenable. Anything less and he soldiers on. The risks of calling a VoNC and losing are too high to risk. They need certainty as, for all their entrepreneurial spirits, they are not risk takers.
Johnson seems quite capable of filling vacancies as they arise and risking a VoNC
Johnson will lose the secret ballot because he has more enemies than friends. It would be apt if this were 52/48.
Personally I think he is very close to the floodgates opening for Conservative MP’s to submit letters of No Confidence, but I do think it’s time sensitive. IF he can ride this out till the Local Elections and no ‘new’ scandals appear between now and then it will be in the hands of the electorate, if the Conservatives suffer big losses in May, he’ll be done for.
Would not a parliamentary vote of no confidence give the Tories an opportunity to form a new government before a general election were called? They still have a large majority.
The Fixed Term Parliament Act (still in force) does provide for an election not to be called if another government is formed which can get a vote of confidence. But it does not provide any mechanism so this provision depends entirely on “the good chap theory of government”. Johnson is not a good chap. He is as Rory Stewart a terrible prime minister and worse human being.
Its not a parliamentary VONC in the PM but a parliamentary party leadership vote among Tory MP’s only.
Based on the number of current backbench Tory MP’s the threshold to trigger a party VONC is 54 letters requesting such from Tory MP’s.
The calculation is that unless you are certain of winning the support of the majority of MP’s you dare not trigger a VONC because if you lose then the leader is untouchable for a year.
It’s worse than that. He needs to win the support of everyone except the rebels who put letters in. Anything worse than that and he’ll be leading an openly split party. A narrow victory and the men in grey suits will be telling him he should stand down for the sake of unity.
It’s not just since 1982 that PMs have changed regularly without elections.
Callaghan
Hume
MacMillan
Hume
Churchill
Baldwin
Lloyd George
Asquith
Campbell-Bannerman
Balfour
C19 plenty
C18 change was usually not by election
Boris is however a rare case if not unique in being so unpopular in his own party as well as the country. Hard to see him lasting. It’s a steady crumble.
Every single one of those named went to the Palace and resigned before the Monarch asked a successor to form (or see if they could form) a government.
The issues is whether Johnson is willing to resign and if he is not how can he be removed before an election?
Semantics. Each PM was ejected by his party or the coalition he was ruling.
BTW the list is the PMs who took office without an election, not the ones who resigned. Some entered and left without an election. Callaghan lost a vote of confidence and called an election.
The point was not to defend Boris but to point out to DAG that since PMs really began with Walpole, being appointed and remove without an election has been quite common rather than being a new pattern.
Boris can be removed by the 1922 or by a vote of no confidence. At this rate it will be the 1922.
There are a few errors on that list. It was Wilson who left without an election, not Callaghan, who succeeded him. Callaghan’s premiership ended when he lost the 1979 election to Thatcher.
The Hume you show above Macmillan (actually Douglas-Home) shouldn’t be in the list because he lost an election (to Wilson).
The second Hume you list after Churchill was actually Eden. Interestingly he called an election after taking over from Churchill and won with an increased majority. He had to resign over Suez a couple of years later.
Chamberlain should be in the list before Churchill.
Bonar Law resigned due to ill health
I think the pre 1982 list should read
Wilson
Macmillan
Eden
Churchill
Chamberlain
Baldwin
Bonar Law
Lloyd George
Asquith
Campbell-Bannerman
Balfour
The list was PMs who entered without an election. Hume should have been Douglas-Home
That explains it though David’s post 1982 list was PMs who’d left office without losing an election, so I assumed your pre-1982 list was the same.
Anthony Eden managed to both take up office and leave it without an election, though he did call one after becoming PM. So he’d be on either version.
I think it comes down to “he may be a bastard, but he’s our bastard”. There must be a very significant chance that a vote of no confidence will be called, but the numbers won’t be there to oust him. This is not from love of Bojo, but the absence of a clear choice to replace him, plus the lingering hope that he can still win round significant swaves of the electorate (a mis-judgment, in my view). If that happens, Bojo hasn’t the moral make-up to do “the right thing” and go, so he will hang on.
Ultimately, no man is an island, and Bojo owes his position to a cabal of backers both within parliament, his party and powerful backers. If these individuals conclude that Bojo has become a liabilty, his position becomes untenable.
As far as the public is concerned, the thing which cuts througjh is “partygate” and it seems unlikely to me that they will forgive and forget over it. Dead man walking.
I am living outside the UK, but I happened to catch some snippets of a BBC radio 4 programme yesterday, the Briefing Room, by a Mr. Aaronovitch. It was about the Cabinet Office, explaining what it does and how it is organised. I have not worked in the UK government, but I have worked for the European Commission (which, I will acknowledge, is by no means a perfect organisation – it has many defects and deficiencies). But the description of the Cabinet Office was astonishing – apparently 8000 people are working there? There are of course many differences between the UK government and the European Commission, but the same tasks of policy definition and policy coordination are achieved by 1000 people in the European Commission (the Secretariat General). The EU has 27 countries and 24 languages. The UK has 4 countries and 1 language. I must have misheard — maybe the number was eight hundred, not eight thousand….. but, frankly, how is it possible for a policy definition and coordination to require a staff of 8000? It strikes me as surreal….
H
It’s about 2000
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/cabinet-office/about
Wikipedia says it was 8000 in June 2020, with a link to an ONS table of employment statistics: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/publicsectorpersonnel/datasets/publicsectoremploymentreferencetable
Table 8 for September 2021 shows the head count for permanent employees at the Cabinet Office is over 9,600 and full time equivalent over 9,400. Table 9 indicates that excludes agencies.
But as you say, gov.uk says it is only 2000. So who are the other 7,000+ people?
Perhaps they are at some of the public bodies listed here: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations#cabinet-office (from the Prime Minister’s Office, via the UK Statistics Authority, Equality and Human Rights Commission, and Boundary Commissions for England and for Wales, to the Privy Council Office)
First, the UK government is far larger and far more complex than the EU which while it is working for 27 members is not a government as such.
Second, the Cabinet Office multiple roles. It is not just the PM’s personal office. It acts for the cabinet and for ministers across Whitehall, as well things like the JIC.
It may also just be that the UK bureaucracy is greater than the fabled Commission’s.
It is just under 8,000 ! – crazy isn’t it?
Good comment. Perhaps an opposition party could suggest a review of all govt agencies to be published as part of a general restructuring +updating? A promise to let the light in might rekindle the interest of the electorate.
Although ministers who are also MPs wear two hats, as it were, their governmental and parliamentary, in the end Parliament is supreme these days, and has been since the 1650s.
So if a majority of parliament, given the chance, voted to oust Johnson then, regardless of party procedures and politicking, surely that would be conclusive and he would have to go.
But obviously, for various reasons, quite a few Tories would not vote him out. Also, by now quite a few MPs from other parties might prefer him to stay, if they think he is becoming a liability for the Tories!
When Johnson is landed with an issue that he cannot pass on to someone else, be ignores any questions about it, extemporises and waits until some other diversion. Johnson’s remaining history as PM will follow the same pattern. The Tory MPs seem to be following the same process, none among them know what to do, not a great prospect for a country with looming problems that need attention and long term solutions. The method works for those that try it, to the derangement of the rest of society.
Assuming that the current collection of scandals leaves Johnson substantially weakened, but not enough to remove him office, then provided no further scandals push him over the edge it is a realistic prospect he will attempt to lead the Government at the next election. However if we know one thing about Johnson, it is that he is chronically prone to scandals, and we know that the Conservative Party is notoriously unforgiving regarding poor election performance. These would be significant barriers and it does not look like the electorate will take a glowing endorsement in May’s local elections. The main mechanism by which I could see Johnson clinging on would perhaps be a failed confidence vote by the Conservative Parliamentary Party, followed by a continued refusal to resign despite any potential poor election results, after which potentially a level of apathy may set in.
I think a comparison to Callaghan and Major is fairly apt; constitutionally Johnson’s majority does not prevent him from continuing to shape policy, but politically it will be difficult to find the goodwill to undertake much personal initiative. My prediction would be that Johnson’s agenda going forward will largely be built on attempts to retain support in the Parliamentary Party, so perhaps a number of symbolic gestures but little in the way of far-reaching changes or commitments, particularly seeing that the Chancellor will also likely have a lot more political authority, meaning the Treasury’s will is likely to overturn any grander ambitions in no.10.
They will need a crowbar to get him out and then have to repaint the front door to repair the fingernail scratches.
But more seriously, surely there is a constitutional path, based on not only only the Ministerial Code but also the accepted convention that if a Minister knowingly lies to Parliament he/she must resign? It is as clear as day that he has lied repeatedly to the Commons, not least the instance Blackford was referring to when he was ejected by the Speaker for telling the truth. It does not seem likely that Speaker Hoyle will grow a pair and hold him to account (whereas I think Bercow would have done). Hoyle is a government’s Speaker whereas Bercow was a backbencher’s Speaker. If it is clear that a majority of the Commons wants rid of him, but have not the means to do so (if, for example, he wins a 1922 PCP vote on the narrowest of margins, followed by yet another stream of revelations – almost a certainty) could a debate of no confidence be initiated on an Opposition day motion?
It is almost beyond the realms of possibility that an opposition motion of no confidence would not be whipped, and the government would win, however unpopular the PM might be in his party.
The famous Norway debate that saw the end of Chamberlain was ended with a vote which the government of the time won confortably, but Chamberlain still resigned. I can’t see Johnson behaving thus.
The only way Johnson will leave is if he is no longer the leader of the Conservative Party. It really is completely up to Tory MPs.
“They will need a crowbar to get him out and then have to repaint the front door to repair the fingernail scratches.”
Maybe Lord Brownlow’s pocket change would be sufficient to pay for those repairs.
If I was in opposition (which I am in principle but not with a seat to prove it) I think that it is too early for him to leave fully. The Fixed Term Parliaments Act, the wreckage of a piece of wider constitutional reform, still sits in the way of progress until December 2024, unless a Tory PM has enough wind to expect to win earlier. So the opposition would benefit from him remaining in power, but weakly, for say a year longer, perhaps after scraping a victory in a confidence vote, and then being ejected for some future malfeasance leaving his replacement hard put to gain momentum for an election. In the meantime the opposition parties should get their electoral act together and conspire properly to win and to reform the voting system on other side of the election event. Of course, there are many things that will happen in the meantime, but I wouldn’t wish the job of PM on anyone right now, with economic sludge and the spinning wheels of Brexit ahead in the remains of the Pandemic. Someone has to be able to take over and be believed when they blame Johnson for the whole sorry mess.
The Queen could remove the PM if he/she loses the confidence of the parliament.
No monarch since William IV tried to dismiss Melbourne has actually dismissed a Prime Minister. I say “tried” because the result was a general election which Melbourne won. Defeated PMs (or those just wanting to leave) resign.
And to lose an internal party vote of confidence is not the same as losing a vote of confidence in the Commons. Further if it is an FTA compliant vote of confidence, the onlt certain consequence if the Prime Spaniel does not resign is a general election.
that requires a vote of no confidence……
That may be true, but HM cannot assume Johnson has lost the confidence of Parliament. That must be clearly demonstrated to her.
“Let us remind ourselves of the foundations of our constitution. We live in a representative democracy. The House of Commons exists because the people have
elected its members. The Government is not directly elected by the people (unlike the position in some other democracies). The Government exists because it has the
confidence of the House of Commons. It has no democratic legitimacy other than that.”
-Pg 20, No. 55, Lady Hale, President
JUDGMENT
R (on the application of Miller) (Appellant) v The Prime Minister (Respondent) Cherry and others (Respondents) v Advocate General for Scotland (Appellant) (Scotland)
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-judgment.pdf
Mr Johnson seems compelled to test the boundaries of moral and political propriety, I rather hope he does cling on for as long as possible. Bits of AngloBritain seem to need to reckon with what they’re doing to the rest of the country and there seems to be no obvious constitutional mechanism for doing that. Painful as the though is, ohnson hanging on past his sell by date might just spur some creative thinking.
This overlooks a possibility that Rees Mogg hinted at when he spoke of the position of PM having become presidential, namely that only an election can remove Johnson.
It is that Johnson could lose a vote of confidence by Conservative MPs and still remain PM.
Consider the following. The Prime Minister is appointed by the Monarch, not the House of Commons, and retains office until they resign or are dismissed.
While there is a long standing convention that the Monarch sends for the leader of the largest party when a vacancy arises, since 1834 that vacancy has arisen only when a Prime Minister resigns – none have died in office and only one, Melbourne, has been dismissed. In 1834, William IV dismissed Melbourne in 1834 – it was not a successful experiment as Peel was unable to win a majority at the subsequent general election and the king had to re-appoint Melbourne.
Since 1868, if a Prime Minister is decisively defeated in an election, they have immediately resigned and the Monarch has sent for the leader of the largest party. Only once – in 1880 – has somebody who was not leader of the largest party been appointed. In 1880, Victoria did not immediately send for Gladstone because he was not formally leader of the Liberals. She only sent for him when the leaders of the Liberals in both Houses declined to serve and made way for Gladstone.
If a Prime Minister believes they can obtain a majority for a Queen’s speech they do not have to resign on losing their majority at an election. Theresa May did not in 2017.
The Palace has of course kept in touch with developments when the future PM is uncertain. But the Queen has not intervened. Although Wilson was leader of the largest party in the Commons after the February 1974 election and Cameron after the 2010 election, the Queen did not send for either of them until the incumbent Prime Minister had resigned. Both Heath and Brown tried to make a deal with the Liberals and only resigned when they realised the could not. Baldwin resigned in 1929 in similar circumstances. In 1924/5, he remained in office until he was defeated in the Commons on the King’s Speech. The only example of a monarch actively intervening is George V in 1931 when the Macdonald government fell to bits.
Since 1965, both main parties have had procedures for producing a name for the Queen should a Prime Minister be about to resign and have operated that procedure so that the Queen is given just one name. In 1963, the outgoing Prime Minister Macmillan advised the Queen to send for Alex Home, and in 1957 both the cabinet and Churchill advised the Queen to send for Macmillan.
The key point is that in every case the Prime Minister resigned. The Queen received a resignation. She had no occasion to do anything.
What happens if Johnson loses a vote of no confidence among Conservative MPs? This vote relates solely to his leadership of the Conservative Party, under its internal rules, which are not created to give effect to a statute. Some are made by the party itself, and some by the 1922 Committee.
No Prime Minister has actually failed to achieve a majority of Conservative MPs – Margaret Thatcher obtained a majority but not the super majority required to end the process; Theresa May won a majority. Only leaders of the Opposition have actually failed to obtain majority support. So we are in uncharted waters.
What if Johnson refuses to go to the Palace to resign – even if the Conservative Party completes the leadership process and elects a new leader? Indeed will the Conservative Party actually do this given the apparent support Johnson enjoys in its membership if he announces that he means to stay as Prime Minister?
The only way of ejecting Johnson would be to pass a motion of no confidence in the House of Commons. The Queen would be put in a deeply embarrassing position if the motion were not in the form required by the still in force Fixed Terms Parliament Act. Indeed a reflection in the Macmillan Diaries suggests that the only way of dealing with a PM who ignored the Commons would be impeachment. There could in Macmillan’s view be no question of the Queen being held at fault – only the Prime Minister who advised her to ignore the wishes of the Commons. (This was over a possible motion asking the Queen not to make a visit to Ghana she had said she was going to make.)
If the motion is in the form required by the Fixed Term Parliament Act, will there be a majority for it? The FTA is very badly drafted and the mechanism for installing a government that might be able to obtain a vote of confidence is unspecified. And that may mean that Johnson can frustrate it by refusing to resign.
If Johnson could prevent a motion of confidence for a new government – or the motion were defeated – then, as Rees Mogg pointed out, there would have to be an election.
The most likely scenario in these circumstances is that Conservative MPs would vote down an FTA compliant motion of no confidence and the greased piglet would continue as Prime Spaniel. No doubt there would be resignations, but the Prime Spaniel could recommend to the Queen names to replace them.
I hope to God Johnson does not read this blog.
If Johnson tries to continue ‘in office but not in power’ his position will very rapidly become impossible. The cost of living crunch, the need to balance the national books, obstinately high Covid levels, calls for sanctions against Russia and pressures to clean up Londongrad, and not least the impending car crash in Northern Ireland will all demand decisions that will split his party even further.
Once these external realities that are so far beyond wine and cheese impose themselves and the PM is seen to be mishandling them (as he surely will), then at that point Labour might legitimately call a Commons vote of no confidence that many Tories, despite public protestations to the contrary, might find it expedient to support, or at least abstain.
Balancing the national books doesn’t make sense and is economically reckless.
Fair enough. “Perceived need… ” then. Point is Rishi (says he) wants to, Johnson (says he) doesn’t. They’re not all singing off the same hymn sheet on this one, that’s for sure.
It’s really sickening to be in a country where so many of the members of the party in power will put party loyalty before the welfare and benefit of this nation and its people. In many other countries this would lead to revolt at best and revolution at worst.
As for Johnson, IMO he has neither the integrity or grace to do the right thing and resign irrespective of circumstances such is his egotistical and conceited mentality. This man is not going to jump so will have to be pushed.
If there is one silver lining to this whole sorry escapade from Brexit to the present day, it’s that recognition that our constitution sucks and is in desperate need of an overhaul. The question then remains does our Parliament have the wit let alone the balls to carry this through. I will not be holding my breath.
On 6th January 2016, The New Statesman ran an article by Joe Haines, Harold Wilson’s press secretary, entitled The Micawber Syndrome.
“Labour will lose the next general election if Jeremy Corbyn is still its leader, and lose it by a substantial margin. A distrusted and unloved Conservative Party will win something resembling a landslide victory. No ifs or buts, as David Cameron might say: that is the plain, unpalatable truth. Either he goes or the party itself is a goner. Those who believe otherwise are the Flat Earthers of British politics.”
These four paragraphs may be of particular interest in this context:
“It is the Parliamentary Labour Party that represents the Labour vote in Britain, not the 423,000 people, including the ragbag of “registered supporters”, who voted in the leadership contest. And it is up to the PLP to do something about it. Theirs is the true legitimacy. The parliamentary party is the most powerful force in the labour movement, far stronger than the total union membership, a significant part of which doesn’t vote for us anyway.
Many Labour MPs fear that Corbyn’s acolytes may organise their deselection. That is possible, though experience shows that deselections are few and far between. That threat could be removed if the choice of reselection was open to the whole membership of the local party, with 50 per cent required to support it. That is logical and democratic. Yet the bigger threat to them is not deselection by constituency activists, but de-election by the constituency voters. And that is going to be the fate of many unless the party implements a radical change of course. So what should it do?
Remember, the PLP cannot be dictated to within the party by any outside body. If the MPs decide they want to elect their own leader of the PLP they can do so. Jeremy Corbyn would be entitled to stand, though he might think it wiser not to do so, recalling that he would not have got on to the ballot in September, had it been not for the fallacy of “fair play” embraced by the likes of Margaret Beckett and Frank Field. Notoriously, Beckett describes herself as a “moron” for doing so. Corbyn may claim that his is the true legitimacy, though the statistics are against him. In any case, such a move would only be reverting to old practice.
The consequences for a new leader of the PLP would be difficult. He could appoint his own shadow cabinet but would he and they be recognised as such by the Speaker? What would happen to the Short money that finances the opposition? Who would sit on the front bench if Corbyn decided to hang on? Yet if there is the will, there is a way. He will argue strongly that the PLP is splitting the party, but if the majority of Labour MPs who voted against him in the leadership stood together, it would be he and his loyalists who would be the splitters. His 251,000 would not stand a chance against the representatives of the 9.35 million.”
And the final two:
The temptation will be to put off doing anything, in the hope “something” will turn up. The Micawber syndrome. But what is that something? Not Hilary Benn. Corbyn blinked, just as Harold Wilson did when he wanted to sack Benn’s father: the risks were too scary. Michael Dugher? Maria Eagle? Not enough for the gutless. Corbyn now knows he can’t survive without the PLP, but the PLP knows it can prosper without him. Delay is still the enemy. What further evidence of impending disaster do they need?
Others may feel that they will be accused of disloyalty to a leader whose parliamentary record is one of constant disloyalty. Of course, they will be accused of treachery by others who have made it a lifetime’s occupation. They should stiffen their spine and be guided by the words of the Elizabethan courtier Sir John Harington: “Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason?/Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.” “
I find it highly unlikely that Johnson will resign or that a parliamentary no-confidence vote will pass (although I’d be happy to be wrong) so it’ll come down to a no-confidence vote in the party.
If he stays in or wins a confidence vote, then he’ll drag the Conservative Party through a double whammy of embarrassing scandals and tricky policy choices sprinkled lightly with unforced errors on his part.
If he loses a no-confidence vote, then the Conservative Party might plunge into civil war as it struggles to choose a successor a majority can get behind and/or can run the country. A narrow win leaves Johnson rudderless and the party stuck with a leader they hate for another year.
Given all of that, the best option is to wait for the May elections, then dump him and choose a new successor, maybe anoint one if a clear frontrunner emerges. If the scandals become too much though, they’ll have to dump him quickly and try to get the leadership contest over and done with.
But who knows? It’s all to play for when it comes to the top job.
Johnson is psychologically incapable of accepting that he is flawed, therefore he will not go willingly.
The Cabinet is full of second rate time servers, so they will not act.
Conservative MP’s are mainly spineless, so they are unlikely to act.
Does the country have enough voters that are prepared to risk their cherished Brexit, intolerance for all foreigners and city dwellers? I doubt it.
By-elections are all very well, but will the UK citizenry be prepared to let go of nurse (Tories) for fear of meeting something worse (Labour)?
The last line of your comment reminded me that the quality of HM Opposition does play a role in the process. If Starmer looks credible and a “Prime Minister in Waiting” then the Conservative MPs may be more decisive in ditching the PM and thus avoiding the possibility of a Vote of No Confidence.
Starmer has been good at the dispatch box recently. But no matter how good he is the Tories have a large majority and are in no danger of being removed from power until 2024, so that isn’t a pressure on them to ditch Johnson.
There is an interesting article from 2006 about Tony Blair clinging on to power: it’s by one Boris Johnson. It’s cited by John Finnemore (@JohnFinnemore) on his Twitter feed today.
I’d like to see him remain, and do as much damage to the Conservative party as possible, thereby increasing the chances of a non-Tory government after the next election.
For those who argue that would be bad for the country I maintain that any Conservative government has been demonstrabaly bad for the UK (austerity, Brexit) and that there is no prospect of a Conservative government doing any better in the near or medium term; in fact there is the immediate possibility of an economically right wing leader replacing Johnson and compounding the damage already done.
Very true. That is the big risk. The Conservative party is still married to Brexit and has not progressed it’s thinking towards a way out of the mess we are in since we left the EU.
I’m still hoping that Bonking Bozo leads his party to humiliating defeat at the May local elections before becoming the first PM since 1834 to be kicked out by the monarch. At least I believe the latter to be possible, please correct me if I’m wrong.
Callaghan could have called an election in 1978 and won a new term with a majority (Labour were ahead in the polls). Fatally he delayed and suffered a defeat after the winter of discontent.
Anthony Eden called an election after taking over from Churchill in 1955 and increased his majority, only to be brought down by the failure over Suez.
A quick ending to the current Tory leadership crisis is highly desirable but Johnson seems likely to linger on until forced to resign. A vote of no confidence isn’t likely until the full Gray report is published. If he wins all depends on how many MPs vote against him. He may even be able to remain as a lame duck till the next election.
A fascinating post and equally good comments. The key is whether he would resign and that seems unlikely.
As well as the very good reasons given by others, he has financial issues – he probably cannot afford to exist as an MP (and is unlikely to secure any remunerative secondary position) due to the many external calls on his finances, e.g., child support and he is unlikely to be given any grace in that department.
He can’t survive on his Prime Minister’s salary, let alone on an MP’s. The Telegraph might have him back as a columnist, he’d sell a lot of papers for them. If not he could try at one of the other papers. Or join GB News as an “anchor.”
The main reason he won’t go voluntarily is his deeply flawed character. He cannot accept he’s at fault for anything and he believes his own lies.
Really interesting piece. I’m not quite convinced, however, that it is reasonable to include Tony Blair in the list of PM’s stepping down between elections, for two reasons,
First, he resigned, rather than being ejected via confidence vote.
Second, but more relevant from my perspective, would be his conduct before, during and after the Second Gulf War. Before the War, he lied to the British people, repeatedly, about the justification for the War. There were many examples during his tenure of malfeasance, but to have lied to the British people in a way that cost the lives of 179 British forces personnel and – for all we know – thousands or tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens, represents the most reprehensible conduct possible for an elected official.
To me this crime is made or the more heinous by the fact that volunteering to serve in the UK Armed Forces – to literally put your life on the line “For Queen and Country”, is an act of bravery that Blair cannot even comprehend, let alone achieve. Yet he ended the lives of 179 British citizens because he was prepared to lie for something George W. Bush wanted… and in return “Tony Blair Associates” has made him, by some estimates, more than £100 million.
Fact is that the UK population were significantly opposed to the war, yet neither democracy, nor a constitution, protected the nation nor the lives of 179 of her sons and daughters from needless deaths at the hands of a lying Prime Minister.
And that vulnerability still hasn’t been fixed.
According to the Iraq enquiry Blair didn’t lie about the war, he presented information they had based on the intelligence supplied, much of which came from the USA and Iraqi dissidents who, understandably, were keen for Saddam to fall and would do anything to help bring that about. MI6 and the CIA have a lot to answer for regarding checking their sources. The US and UK were so convinced of the intelligence that they continued to search for WMDs long after the fighting was over. Why continue the search if they knew the WMDs weren’t actually there? So I think the enquiry had a point.
Blair didn’t resign rather that face a confidence vote, he stepped down voluntarily and handed over to Brown. Something he had promised Brown when he became Labour leader.
As for the many examples during his tenure of malfeasance, you’ll have to be more specific. Malfeascance in public office is a very strong accusation.
Isn’t the significant point here that however we look at it, this proves unambiguously that parlyament has entirely lost sight of what it is there for?
There is no conceivable argument based in reality that could even begin to suggest that Boris Johnson is good for the country. The only questions being asked are of whether he can lead them to another election win.
Personally I don’t see what the issue is with ‘partygate’. How many people fell foul of the lockdown rules? Sure the government should have known better, but it’s no where near Blair’s ‘Cash for Honours’ scandal. Just fine those involved and move on. Anyway Boris only has to survive a few more weeks then the upcoming war in the Ukraine will keep him safe. Even though he has a big majority, he might become more dependent on ERG members, so expect more policies like the refusal in intervene in the DUP’s decision to suspend sea border checks (or how to trigger Article 16 without triggering Article 16).
How about the Tories cash for honours? Only not a scandals because its almost expected.
Partygate involves 16 Whitehall lockdown parties and his lying to Parliament about it all. That’s a resignation issue. Very serious.
Johnson broke his own rules while simultaneously telling the public they must follow them. It’s shockingly poor leadership and breaks trust with the country.
People like Johnson never quit, they wouldn’t have achieved what they have if they did, so resigning is out of the question. A confidence vote is highly unlikely for one simple reason: Internecine warfare would erupt inside the conservative party, pro versus anti BoJo, and it would be vicious. It is already vicious and would get 10 x worse if a confidence vote were called. A party at war with itself never wins anything. So, no confidence vote – unless – he has broken the law and is arrested and charged – if he is he probably would resign and if he didn’t he would lose a confidence vote. Or, it can be proved that he mislead/lied to parliament – but even here he will wriggle and squirm, he is a squirming wriggler and he might get away with it. The old saying applies, live to fight another day, for tomorrow may bring victory from the jaws of defeat – besides the Tories know full well that there is no one else in the party with his electoral appeal – provided he can get it back – as a man who occasionally gambles, usually successfully, I wouldn’t bet against him.
I don’t believe the PM will go unless he his forced to. Quite what would do that I’m not sure. (Other than an election.) Is the party organised enough to write 54 letters of no confidence?
Clearly any politician with a shred of dignity would have gone many months ago, but we are not dealing with someone like that, are we?
Being arrested and charged with a criminal offence would see him out and/or would garner a lot more than the required 54 letters. Lying to Parliament is also a resignation issue, but someone has to unequivocally prove that he has lied to Parliament – rather than merely assert it. Short of wither of those events, he will stay where he is and live to fight another day hoping to win the war after losing a great many battles.
Johnson is reported to have told allies that it will take a Panzer division to remove him from Downing Street. But even Trump went in the end. However, if Johnson does refuse to budge, will the British public be treated to a spectacle as unseemly as his current tenure in office?
I believe that the constituents of any MP can have him/her recalled and required to submit to re-election. I don’t know the details of the process; a figure of 10% of the electorate comes to mind.
Whatever the details, if this is possible, and as I understand it the mix of the constituents of his seat in Uxbridge has become less keen on the Conservative party, this would be a sure-fire way to have him removed.
Are we allowed to help with some crowdfunding to an independent body not related to any party but keen to have BJ removed?