8th July 2022
The fact that people do not believe Boris Johnson has resigned – or believe he will reverse a resignation – speaks to the wariness many have about this particular cynical opportunistic politician.
And they are right to be wary.
This post – which follows a popular Twitter thread yesterday – sets out what appears to be the current position.
Put simply: the matter has been taken out of his hands.
*
Has Johnson resigned?
Johnson holds two positions from which he can resign: the leader of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister.
Yesterday Johnson announced his resignation as party leader.
Here, yesterday’s speech from Johnson was significant.
True, he did not use the word ‘resign’.
But the R-word is not a magic word, and there was no formal reason why he had to utter it aloud for it to make all the difference.
What he did say was enough:
“It is clearly now the will of the parliamentary Conservative Party that there should be a new leader of that party and therefore a new prime minister.
“And I’ve agreed with Sir Graham Brady, the chairman of our backbench MPs, that the process of choosing that new leader should begin now and the timetable will be announced next week.
“And I’ve today appointed a Cabinet to serve, as I will, until a new leader is in place.”
The only meaning these words can have is that a new leader can now be put in place.
And the only way this can happen is for him to cease to be leader.
With his statement yesterday, Johnson – at a stroke – lost control of the process.
As and when the parliamentary Conservative party choose a new leader, that new leader will be invited by the Queen to form a new government.
Johnson does not need to do anything more.
He will cease to be Prime Minister by automatic operation of the constitution.
Under the current rules of his parliamentary party, he also cannot stand for election in the new contest.
All this means is that should now just a question of time before there is a new Prime Minister.
*
Can he renege on his resignation?
One fear is that he may seek to renege on his resignation – to change his mind.
He can certainly purport to do that – and it is not impossible that he will try.
But.
It would not be a matter for him – it would be a matter for the 1922 Committee.
Again, the situation is no longer under his control.
For this to happen would require (a) for him to (purport) to (somehow) rescind his resignation and (b) that rescission to be accepted by the 1922 Committee.
There is perhaps a possibility that the 1922 Committee may agree to this, but that would be their collective decision, and not his.
And if the 1922 Committee did not agree to the rescission, then the process would continue, a new leader will be selected and asked to form a government, and Johnson will still cease to be Prime Minister.
*
What if, what if?
Of course, there are various possible situations that could happen between now and Johnson ceasing to be Prime Minister.
The conflict with Russia could escalate; there could be a new pandemic, or a new wave of the current pandemic; the Queen may die; and so on.
Johnson may wish to contrive an emergency, or there may be a genuine emergency.
It may well be that a development is so immense that Johnson may say he should continue in office.
But.
In every conceivable scenario, we come back to the same point: it would not ultimately be a matter for him.
Yesterday he lost ultimate control of his political fate and there is no situation which means he regains that control.
It may be that Johnson hangs on, hoping something will turn up which will mean he can carry on – and this is plausible.
He is a cynical opportunist.
But, if that was to happen, it would require others to decide that to be the case, and not just him.
*
Sooner rather than later?
There are strong – if not overwhelming – arguments that Johnson should go sooner rather than later.
This is a politician who cannot be trusted.
The highly important disclosure that Johnson met with a ‘former’ KGB spy as Foreign Secretary during a security crisis and without officials is just one of many reasons why he should no longer be Prime Minister.
However, the constitutional position is not straightforward.
There is no formal role of ‘acting’ Prime Minister – it is a binary position, either you are Prime Minister or you are not.
There is some precedent for someone to come in as a ‘caretaker’ – in 1834 the former Prime Minister the Duke of Wellington headed a caretaker ministry until the new Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel could return from abroad.
And there is one former Conservative Prime Minister still in parliament, Theresa May.
Imagine that.
Others have suggested that the current deputy Prime Minister Dominic Raab could be an interim Prime Minister.
In the meantime, there are rules and conventions that apply to lame duck Prime Ministers, which applied in the last days of the premierships of Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Theresa May.
Here see the commentary of the peerless Dr Catherine Haddon:
Returning to this thread and this question of the UK's informal 'caretaker' govt.
There are impt nuances. It's about respecting the fact that you are on the way out, and in this case that your party rejected you, but it is not entirely the same as pre-election restrictions. https://t.co/19fnUDMyFo
— Dr Catherine Haddon (@cath_haddon) July 7, 2022
But merely me typing – and you reading – ‘rules and conventions’ in the context of the departing Prime Minister Boris Johnson make one realise their limits in this particular case.
That said: so far, one day later, it looks as if Johnson and those who have agreed to serve in his cabinet are abiding by those rules and conventions.
And it an inescapable fact that the Conservative Party do need to have a new leader – and some of the candidates are not the sort you would want to rush into premiership.
*
Of piglets and grease
None of the above means that the ‘greased piglet’ will definitely now leave the premiership.
It just means that it is no longer solely the decision of Boris Johnson.
His cynical opportunism in and of itself will not be enough.
And it may well be that his cynical opportunistic mind is already moving on – and there will be personal advantage in him leaving the House with its (for him) irksome rules on financial disclosure and its (for him) dangerous committees investigating his conduct.
And any bad conduct now may also limit his last remaining source of patronage bounty – the resignation honours list.
Johnson is many things, but he is not stupid.
He is calculating.
You may recall that in 2019 many feared that he would breach the Benn Act and not ask for an Article 50 extension.
But, in the end, faced with an absolute obstacle, the bravado bullishness fell away – and the cynical opportunist adjusted to the situation.
And yesterday, he similarly did not push the situation so as to ‘fight on’.
*
So: if others do provide him with even the possibility of staying on as Prime Minister, he may well seek to exploit that possibility.
But: it is no longer his own absolute choice.
His next cynical opportunities are now elsewhere.
**
Thank you for reading – posts like this take time and opportunity cost, so please support this free-to-read independent source of commentary.
For more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.
***
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.
The Wellington precedent is interesting, as it’s the one eg of an interim/temporary PM. Given it’s 190 years old and there’s no real idea of the scope of the role/ constraints on how it would begin/ end it’s probably not one people would want to rely. Any actions any such an interim PM would have a question mark as to their validity. I guess this is another area where a written constitution setting out what happens this scenario would be helpful (see USA and Nixon to Ford)
On the matter of incapacitated or retiring Presidents, I am not sure the 25th Amendment is necessarily all that helpful …
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CONAN-1992/pdf/GPO-CONAN-1992-10-26.pdf
Perhaps there will be an expeditious filing at Companies House to show his removal as the only Person with Significant Control of “The Foundation” that runs everything that is The Conservative Party. No more than 7 days is allowed but prior history shows such filings have never been made on time.
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/05289086/persons-with-significant-control
It may appear odd, however, to the majority of the electorate of the UK, most of whom take little interest in politics most of the time that the man who resigned as Prime Minister, yesterday, Boris Johnson will be answering questions as the Prime Minister on the 13th and 20th July.
And you would not, as a rule, let someone working their notice make minor decisions on behalf of the organisation from which they were resigning let alone major ones.
I wonder how much paid holiday Boris Johnson thinks he has accumulated to take off between now and October.
To some voters at least Boris Johnson may appear to be Prime Minister in everything, but name.
I am reminded of the recently deceased Princess Keli in Terry Pratchett’s Mort, who soon finds that the rest of the world no longer acknowledges her existence in the crossover between two realities, one in which she is dead (and inhabiting) and one in which she is alive unless she confronts them in the one in which she is dead.
She subsequently employs a wizard, who is able to see her and makes her existence clear to the public in the reality in which she is dead. It makes life a little easier for her.
Only, for the moment, Johnson arguably needs no sorcerer to convince the disinterested in politics that he still is the Prime Minister?
I think it certainly would appear odd. And also – which may be more important to Tory backbenchers, especially party elders – this gives a huge open goal for Labour at those two PMQs. With Johnson at the dispatch box, those would be extremely uncomfortable for the party.
There is also, of course, the risk of Labour putting forward a no confidence vote, which would lead either to a final humiliation for the Johnson Administration, or humiliation for backbenchers forced to defend a man they’ve publicly sought to remove.
I cannot see how a Johnson ‘caretaker’/’lame duck’ administration would be anything other than disastrous for the party, even if it does ultimately end with a clean handover.
In a vote of no confidence, Tory backbenchers would say they are supporting a government in orderly transition, implementing the 2019 mandate, blah, blah. The vote would fail and it is the Labour party that would be humiliated.
Whether the Labour (and Lib Dem) party would be humiliated by a failed no confidence vote would be a subjective view. I’m sure some media and commentators would present it as such.
But they know that they are expected to try, and therefore they have stated they will bring one, if the Tory party do not remove Johnson as PM themselves.
If they did not state this, and follow through and do so, they would be humiliated as cowards.
I think, if Johnson’s speech was an accurate reflection of “next steps”, that it may not in fact be as odd as you suggest. His words were:-
“It is clearly now the will of the parliamentary Conservative Party that there should be a new leader of that Party and therefor a new Prime Minister. And I’ve agreed with Sir Graham Brady, the chairman of our back-bench MPs that the process of choosing that new leader should begin now, and the timetable will be announced next week and I have today appointed a cabinet to serve, as I will, until a new leader is in place.”
Obviously I’m aware of the calls from some back-bench MPs for Johnson to be immediately replaced by a caretaker PM, but looking at coverage today that appears to have fallen on deaf ears.
I’m also somewhat puzzled as to why you think it would be odd for Johnson to remain in place until his successor is found. At no point did he make a commitment to an immediate step-down, but, perhaps more importantly, most public servants (and employees in private companies, for that matter) are familiar with working a “period of notice” to enable an employer to arrange for a replacement.
For example, it should be possible for Whitehall to remove Johnson from, for example, security briefings, while of course permitting him to continue to compere the equally important Wine Time Friday gatherings.
Very helpful piece as always, David – thank you.
Can he stand in the forthcoming leadership election?
As I understand it, had he lost a vote of confidence he would have been barred from standing in the subsequent election. But since he didn’t, does that not logically mean that he could stand as a candidate now?
Obviously that doesn’t change your thesis – he’d still be at the mercy of the Tory MPs who’ve just thrown him out. But I’m just not clear on the rules.
“Can he stand in the forthcoming leadership election?”
I answer this in the post.
Well now I feel stupid. Not sure how I missed that. Many thanks.
The rules on the selection of a new Conservative Party leader are set out in Schedule 2 to the Conservative Party’s constitution. See https://public.conservatives.com/organisation-department/202101/Conservative%20Party%20Constitution%20%20as%20amended%20January%202021.pdf
Rule 2 states in black and white:
Schedule 9 sets out a process to amend the constitution, but it takes at least 28 days and involves a vote of their Constitutional College.
So the first question is “has he resigned as party leader?” and after that everything becomes much more difficult for him. You could imagine a scenario where the new leader resigns immediately to allow Johnson back, or the rules might be amended, but it all seems pretty unlikely.
It remains to be seen if the Labour Party goes through with their proposal to demand a vote of no confidence (presumably in Johnson, as PM – not in the whole government) in the Common before he is unseated by a new Conservative Party leader, to get him out of office as PM sooner.
And there remains the possibility that the Durham police could turn up and defenestrate of the leader and deputy leader of the Labour Party, at a time when the leadership of the Conservative Party is also in flux, triggering an election for leadership of the opposition.
The Labour Party rules indicates the NEC could install a member of the shadow cabinet as acting leader while there are ballots for the new leader and deputy leader: perhaps Anneliese Dodds or Rachel Reeves (party chair, or shadow chancellor) – but possibly they could bring back Harriet Harman for a third term as acting leader, as a safe pair of hands with (presumably) no aspirations to become permanent leader. See
https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/rulebook-2020.pdf
Fingers firmly crossed.
Consider the following (unconventional, but in the Johnson era, not implausible) scenario:
– The Tory leadership candidates are whittled down to the final two, who are put forward to a ballot of the party membership;
– Boris Johnson declares that the final two candidates aren’t sufficiently Eurosceptic [several leading contenders were Remain supporters, notwithstanding their current tough rhetoric], that the prospect of ‘Theresa May Mk 2’ looms large, and that the Brexit project is imperilled;
– Johnson leaves the Conservative Party, forming a new political party (e.g. the ‘Real Tories’ or ‘Continuity Conservatives’) and, through sheer force/cult of personality, persuades 60-odd ultra-loyal Tory MPs to join him in this endeavour (“You can’t trust the Wet Tories with Brexit”);
– Johnson (still occupying the role of Prime Minister at this point, with all the powers of patronage to appoint Cabinet Ministers that entails) goes to see the Queen to tell her that his new ruling party can no longer command a majority in the House of Commons, BUT NOR CAN ANY OTHER PARTY;
– Johnson, believing his own Trumpian hype about having 14 million personal votes, asks the Queen for dissolution of Parliament and a general election.
The Queen would be put in a difficult position, but in circumstances where an election is being requested by:
– The Prime Minister and his (new) party;
– Most of the Opposition parties (Labour, Lib Dem and SNP leaders having all recently called for one);
– Possibly some of the populist Tory press also go along with Johnson’s madcap scheme (e.g. the PM is still dangling the prospect of a peerage for Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre, but hasn’t delivered on it yet);
the least ‘politically controversial’ option available to ‘Brenda from Windsor’ would be to grant the PM’s request for an election. And then the fun really begins…
This requires 60-odd MPs to play along, at great personal risk. So ultimately not really in Johnson’s hands.
I agree with that, which was David’s central thesis for this post. But I suppose it was always the case that he relied on others to keep him in post. And while the Johnson spell has now been broken for most of his Parliamentary colleagues, that is not the case for all of them.
If the happened, it may indeed lead to an election. But to start a new party, and to have a realistic chance of winning seats immediately, costs an enormous amount of money.
And as it would primarily serve to split the Tory vote and put Labour in power, it’s hard to see many significant rightwing donors funding it. Johnson himself certainly doesn’t have the personal wealth.
Johnson has a wealth of egotism though, and very little concern for the fate of his party or the country.
I can imagine an attitude of: “If I’m going down, I’ll take all you bastards down with me” would be very much his style.
I anticipate that someone might reply to my previous comment with reference to the Lascelles Principles. Some points (in advance) in response:
Firstly, the Lascelles Principles – like the Pirate’s Code according to Captain Barbossa in the Pirates of the Caribbean film franchise – are “more what you’d call guidelines than actual rules”.
Secondly, aside from the ludicrousness of relying on a letter to the Times of London as a hard-and-fast source for constitutional guidance, the Lascelles Principles are badly dated and they themselves put the monarch in a difficult political position if she had to interpret them in all earnestness. e.g. How is the Queen supposed to determine whether a general election would be “detrimental to the national economy”? (On the contrary, all the evidence is that the present course we are on, with an ideological nationalist ruling party breaking international law and trying to defy the rules of trade gravity, is really harmful to the national economy – but I digress.)
Thirdly, much recent excited discussion of Lascelles seems to forget that ALL the Lascelles Principles are supposed to apply at a given time if the monarch is to refuse a request for an election. Some commentators appear to have made the interpretation that if any one of the Lascelles conditions is met, then an election request would be refused. e.g. the existing Parliament is still vital, viable, and capable of doing its job. (But if that alone would be a bar, then how on earth was Gordon Brown meant to have called an early election in 2007, which he is often accused of having bottled out of?)
Finally, if there is one guiding concept that Lascelles was attempting to encapsulate, it is that the monarch should not be drawn into controversial party political matters. Well, in the circumstances that I outlined in my previous comment, for the Queen to refuse an election would be to do the bidding of one particular political party – the post-split remainder of the Conservative Party, terrified of electoral oblivion – and I would aver that that would be a more partisan course of action for the Queen than to accede to such a joint request by the PM and all the other parties.
Of course, a responsible Prime Minister would never put the Queen in such an position – but we haven’t had a responsible Prime Minister for quite some time. And I wouldn’t rule out the egotist presently squatting in Number 10 making a bid for one last roll of the dice…
For what it is worth, it is my understanding that the second condition in the Lascelles Principles is no longer required and as you suggest, it would be difficult to apply in any event.
So now the question is simply (1) is the existing Parliament able to do its job, *and* (2) is there a person who can carry on as prime minister with a working majority for a reasonable period.
To my mind, the first condition essentially collapses into the second – if a person has the confidence of the House of Commons, Parliament should be able to do its job. (But note the vague edges around about what might be meant by for example “do its job”, “working majority” and “reasonable period”.)
This position confirmed has been advanced by Peter Hennessey several times, based on private information, presumably from officials at the Cabinet Office, and is confirmed in a draft chapter to the Cabinet Manual (heavily amended in the final manual due to the passage of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, but the old position is now presumably revived). See paragraph 18, here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/60646/election-rules-chapter6-draft_0.pdf
Hmmm, that quote from the Cabinet Manual seems to contain another (vaguely worded) caveat: “especially when such a request is made soon after a previous dissolution”. Though I would argue that more that 2.5 years after the previous election, as we are today, wouldn’t count as “reasonably soon”.
I’m still struggling to see the difference between, say, Blair asking for a dissolution in 2001/2005 (after 4 years) – if we agree that Lascelles 2 is outdated/untestable, and Lascelles 1 and 3 (which, as you say, pretty much amount to the same thing) were both met in 2001/2005 just as they would be met today. But Blair was able to successfully ask for a dissolution back then. So why couldn’t Boris, if he went to the Queen today asking for one, whilst still in post as both PM and Tory Party leader – especially if all the other party leaders* are calling for one (as were the Tories – perhaps foolishly but they didn’t want to look frit – in 2001/2005)?
The point I’m making is that if you really put the Lascelles Principles to the test – apply logic to them – they fold like a pack of cards.
(*If Starmer wanted to make a bold move today, he could offer to accompany Johnson to see the Queen – invite Blackford and Davey along too – to make the request. I think she’d find it hard to refuse in that circumstance.)
“If Starmer wanted to make a bold move today, he could offer to accompany Johnson to see the Queen – invite Blackford and Davey along too – to make the request [for a snap election].”
P.S. You might think it would be mad/politically suicidal for Johnson to take up such an offer for one last roll of the dice, but it might just appeal to his narcissistic, gambling spirit! He certainly puts his own prospects above those of either the Conservative Party or the country.
And Starmer has nothing to lose, now that he’s been exonerated by Durham Police.
In the second principle, I should have said “another person”. There was no imminent prospect of Blair being replaced in 2001 or 2005. He had not faced a vote of no confidence, nor yet indicated his intention to resign. There was no alternative leader who would have commanded the confidence of the Commons while he was still there.
I believe Lascelles’ letter was a courtier’s attempt to calm down speculation between constitutional experts. While its contents may have hardened into constitutional principles with a capital “P”, it is a mistake to treat any constitutional convention like it is legislation or an exercise in abstract crystalline logic. Conventions are often vague and malleable, more descriptive than normative.
Will the sovereign normally grant a dissolution when the prime minister requests it? Yes, unless there is a good reason not to: principally, that parliament could carry on under other leadership.
“Blair asking for a dissolution in 2001/2005”
Did L3 apply? Blair commanded a majority, and presumably did not want another prime minister to be appointed. Therefore a majority were also opposed to the possibility.
Secondly, Lascelles doesn’t appear to require the Queen to refuse to dissolve Parliament; it gives her the choice. Maybe she didn’t feel like refusing on those occasions.
Ah, I now see (after reading Andrew’s and Aiden’s replies below) that in my comparison with mid-term Blair, I was missing the crucial word “another” (ie. if another Prime Minister is available) from my reading of the third Lascelles Principle.
Still, if Johnson did manage to jump ship with more than 40 other Tory MPs following him, as per my original ‘Britain Trump’ scenario, then Lascelles 3rd Principle would not be met, so he could indeed take his chances with a snap election.
Right, that’s enough ludicrous speculation for one day.
Sorry, one more thought. I recently read someone argue that the Lascelles Principles could be used to prevent the scenario whereby, had this week turned out very differently – if Starmer had been fined and as a result resigned from his post as opposition leader, whilst Johnson had not been forced to announce his resignation – Johnson could cynically have called a snap election to take advantage of the Labour Party’s predicament.
That would undoubtedly have breached the ‘Good Chap’ theory of government, but from my reading it could NOT be prevented by the application of the Lascelles Principles (at least not as they are worded in the 1950 letter to the Times). The third principle would not be met if Johnson still commanded the support of 360-odd Tory MPs, who could be whipped to vote down any alternative Prime Minister.
Like James T Kirk facing the Kobayashi Maru test, Johnson will be looking for a way of avoiding political death as Prime Minister. Is there a way of cheating the system?
Perhaps Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan could provide a clue? Spoilers ahead for a 40 year old film.
In it, Spock provides Kirk with a coded message about the state of the starship Enterprise. He exaggerates the time of repairs to be operational. Hours instead of minutes etc.
Winning for Johnson could be the opposite. Weeks instead of days for the Tory MPs votes, months instead of weeks, for the membership vote. Does he have a Spock who could help facilitate that?
As David points out, there could be external events that pause the contest. The equivalent of escaping into the Mutara Nebula.
We should be thankful that Johnson no longer has access to the Genesis Device in the form of a General Election.
I do agree that Johnson is facing the end and that hopefully this marks the beginning of the end for constitutional excitement.
I can only apologise to those who have no clue as to these cultural references.
David loves a cultural reference, and they’re part of what makes his posts so appealing. :-)
“Dammit, Spock, Jim’s your friend (and let’s face it, your only friend)!”
“Doctor McCoy, is Captain Kirk fit to command the Enterprise at this moment in time?”
“Well, if you insist on putting it like that …”
“I do, Doctor.”
“No.”
Later in the Captain’s cabin …
“Gentlemen, I think this is the moment to share with you my secret orders from Star Fleet Command about my acting unfit to command this mission to ensure its success (and mocked up for just an occasion such as this).”
Or …
“I’m as fit as you and Dr McCoy to command the Enterprise, Mr Spock.”
(Check? If you say McCoy is unfit to be ship’s doctor then he’s unfit to comment on my fitness and if you say you are then …)
Thank you for those words of comfort (though what may follow Johnson is itself a scary enough thought).
I did wonder whether he might contrive to stand for leader again. I know you mention this in your post but the rules say the current leader can’t stand if they resign. Which might explain why he did not say “I’m resigning” – he has just agreed with Brady that the process should start.
I grant you a paranoid long shot.
That said, I can well imagine him saying (pace the EU WA/NIP/TCA) he did not expect the Tories to apply the rules in such as legalistic, theocratic way and he expects more flexibility otherwise he will trigger Article X of the Geneva Convention on Deposed Leaders (or something – I’m sure Mogg can find an obscure Latin manuscript…).
Anyway – let’s look forward to the next disastrous Tory leader – such amusing times!
“Elvis has NOT left the building”.
I believe I am far from alone in feeling uneasy until he has handed back the seals of office and physically left Number 10. Proven to be an untrustworthy opportunist and pathological liar, he will seize on any expedient that might arise in the coming months until he is ejected from Downing Street. His belated marriage party at Chequers (just who is footing that particular bill?) at the end of the month and lack of a home to go to, is not relevant.
I hear that a new candidate for Conservative Leader has emerged, Joris Bohnson.. https://twitter.com/ThePoke/status/1392738883280932868?s=20&t=FyIq75o7Kdh9Vlf7UXU3nA
Thank you for this post! Very illuminating.
Perhaps a pre-emptive strike to cut Johnson off at the pass ought to be considered. Rather than have him in The Commons on the back benches, where he would presumably be waiting for the party to see sense and allow him back into Number Ten, offer him a peerage. I suspect that his vanity is such that being referred to by all and sundry as ‘My Lord’ would be impossible for him to resist. Rather like a cat with catnip…….
I agree it’s not entirely in his own hands: but there is a route he could organise for a longish term play. All he needs are 80 Johnson loyalists to split from the Tory party: he could then claim there is no majority in the Commons, and get his dissolution and a general election (of course, the issue isn’t 80 MPs, but a financial backer willing to fund a new Party for him).
He would need fewer than 40 MPs to do that in order to obliterate the Tory majority.
So is Johnson a legal PM? If the role of PM is not legally dependent on being the party leader and he has not resigned from being the PM and HM has not dismissed him from the position then he is the legal holder of the full powers of the office and he seems determined to hang on to that as long as possible.
Dominic Cummings tweeted yesterday that Johnson absolutely will believe that he can survive and will act accordingly in his own interests formenting division in the party.
Its a nightmare for the Brexit-right who were the ones to launch and coordinate the internal coup and who IMO have a ‘True Conservative” candidate lined up – she abruptly ended her official trip to Indonesia and returned to London yesterday so wait in the wings.
I thought it was significant that today’s front page story in the Belfast Newsletter (very much the voice of hardline Ulster Unionism) is DUP leader Sir Jeffery Donaldson reassuring the faithful that he had been told the NIPB will be tabled for its third reading next week as planned.
As David Henig remarked yesterday on his Twitter feed its the convention for such controversial legislation to be paused in the absence of a functional government but he doubts it will as the revolutionaries are now driving the process.
Johnson is indeed cynical, arrogant, self-serving, avaricious, petty, short-sighted. And he may indeed have a ruthless intelligence.
What he isn’t, I’d argue, is a strong decisive leader in the manner of some of his notable predecessors. So much of his reign (and before, and perhaps his personal life) has been marked by a vague wobbling about at crucial moments, until such time as only one option remains. And then he presents himself as unbending in his commitment to that one last choice, backing the right horse only after it’s crossed the finish line.
We’ve seen this in his negotiations with the EU, with his approach to lockdowns and whether kids should be in school, with his two-conflicting-columns approach to journalism, with his insistence that he had to continue in office with his huge public mandate.
Yes, he did manage to call a snap election in 2019, but he had a much more decisive team telling him what to do. Instinctively, Johnson is a waverer, never able to commit until only one clear commitment is available. Consequently, however much he may want to stay in power – and I’m sure he does – it would seem impossible to me that his own character would enable him to do so.
For all the bluster, I expect we’ll see him meekly trotting up to the Queen when the day comes. And, of course, making a statement (or writing a Telegraph column) afterwards to claim that last defeated walk was a Churchillian victory march.
It was Heseltine who said, in 2018 I think, that Johnson “waits to see the way the crowd is running and then dashes in front and says, ‘Follow me’.”
And here is the Guardian about 18 months ago:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/15/boris-johnson-pandemic-britain-christmas-covid
It seems a touch revanchist to try to apply precedent to the un-precedented demise of an egregious Prime Minister.
In particular, the recent examples of a Prime Minister retaining office for the duration of a party leadership election (in which they are not (or withdraw from as) a candidate (Thatcher, Blair, Cameron & May) all seem inapposite models for the current situation.
In each case the impetus for their loss of party leadership was not a question of personal integrity or ‘fitness for office’.
You have to go back to Lloyd-George to find a moral or personal integrity dimension. In that case it was, of course, what was to become the 1922 Committee that yielded the axe.
The Prime Minister (Lloyd-George) and the Conservative Party leader (Austen Chamberlain) immediately resigned; Andrew Bonar Law stepped in as Prime Minister; and, Parliament was immediately dissolved and a general election called,
Although the Conservative Party ran in that general election with Bonar Law as its leader and he was returned as Prime Minister given the particular circumstances of his health he proved, if not formally then anecdotally, never much more than a ‘caretaker’ PM.
2022 is not 1922, not least given party leaders are now elected not anointed. However, there are arguably two lessons to draw from 1922.
First, Prime Ministers who fall from office because the MP’s who have kept them there no longer feel they have the personal integrity to hold the office of Prime Minister should not linger but should immediately resign from the office of Prime Minister.
Second, and consequently, it is improper, in such circumstances, for the Government to remain in situ while a new Government is formed by the internal transfer of party leadership over a period of weeks or months. Good Government should not be held hostage to the timetables of internal party leadership selection.
I recognise that there are many contrary arguments to this view,.
Nonetheless, cleaving to those contrary views and leaving Boris Johnson in office till September will have the following result.
At some point in the next three weeks the Opposition will table a vote of no confidence in the Government.
Former ministers who resigned in the last few days because they were no longer willing to serve in the Government of a man who lacks the integrity to hold office (of which more than 40 did in express terms in their letters of resignation) will vote confidence in that same Government in the VONC.
That can do nothing to enhance their reputation or the reputation of Parliament and Government generally.
(Just to be clear, references above to “my previous comment” are intended to refer to the one I posted at 10:02, not my subsequent reply-to-a-reply at 10:54. Lascelles’ letter to the Times in 1950 made no reference to “bastards” – that unpleasantness came a few decades later, during the John Major era.)
“Something will turn up”
Yes, the Mr Mikawber of politics
A case for elevation?
Elevation being castration as Sir Arnold and Sir Humphrey never quite got around to saying.
” “And so,” said Vassenego, beaming like a coastful of lighthouses, “the Council met and has decided, and may I add, sire, has decided unanimously, to create an entirely new award in honour of your outstanding achievements!”
“The importance of proper paperwork has—what award?” said Astfgl, the minnows of suspicion suddenly darting across the oceans of self-esteem.
“The position, sire, of Supreme Life President of Hell!” ”
Eric: Discworld: The Unseen University Collection (Discworld series Book 9); Terry Pratchett.
The usual procedure on the day of a change of Prime Minister is that the outgoing PM goes to the palace to formally resign before the new PM goes along to say they can form a government. Is the formal resignation a necessity?
No, not at all. It’s ceremony and nothing else. If the Queen states that there is a new PM, then there is a new PM. The rest is just the usual British pomp, intended to reinforce constitutional conventions in the public mind but not practically meaningful.
We are in a very dangerous situation as the man appears very unstable, almost acts at times like a spoilt child. He has done enough harm to the country as prime minister, what else could he do in a state of rejection, something he’s obviously not use to and this person also happens to have his finger on the nuclear button?
There’s obviously nothing stopping him running again for party leader if the Tories lose the next GE – doing a “Trump” (assuming he runs again too). It’s true he reached parts of the electorate where other Tory leaders have failed. A sincere mea culpa could see him return.
There maybe a hurdle: he would need to retain his seat through that GE and/or until the next leader resigns.
And that is not certain:
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/10-conservative-mps-who-could-lose-their-seat-in-the-next-general-election-from-boris-johnson-to-dominic-raab-3745040
There is, of course, a third office which Mr Johnson holds, in that he is Member of Parliament for Uxbridge. He would need to resign from this office in order to become a member of the House of Lords.
The House of Lords Appointments Commission is responsible for advising the Prime Minister on the “propriety” of candidates for the Lords, and its published criteria are:
“i) the individual should be in good standing in the community in general and with the public regulatory authorities in particular; and
ii) the past conduct of the nominee would not reasonably be regarded as bringing the House of Lords into disrepute.”
Would Mr Johnson find it easy to pass this second test?
There is nothing, of course, to require Mr Johnson to seek elevation to the Lords; he might prefer to follow the example of Sir Edward Heath and remain in the Commons as a (relatively) loyal Tory MP for the next quarter of a century.
My concern is just who he deigns to give a peerage to in his dying throes – the “criteria” as listed by William is obviously pointless looking at the past nominees – Lededev, Fox and Frost to name just three. Who’s next in his right wing inner circle – Dacre, Murdoch or perhaps even everybody’s favourite Farage who lent Boris his UKIP barmy army.
Resignation honours list – what a farce!
Those who are really determined to worry about Johnson extending his time as PM should ignore the current election and reflect that, if the next general election is a disaster for the Tories and their new leader resigns, Johnson will be eligible to stand in the next leadership election but one – it’s only this next one that he’s excluded from.
As you allude to in the post, it would actually be more sensible to worry about the character of some of the potential candidates to replace him.
That is true – if someone like Braverman or Truss or Baker wins the leadership, we may come to look back on the Johnson era with relative fondness, as we do now for the May era (and as we did in turn, during the May era, for the Cameron era!)
Johnson would need to retain his seat through such an election, and that far from certain:
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/10-conservative-mps-who-could-lose-their-seat-in-the-next-general-election-from-boris-johnson-to-dominic-raab-3745040
Further investigation reveals that it is not only “people” who do not believe BJ has resigned – Neil Johnston in the House of Commons Library publication to which you linked – “Leadership Elections: Conservative Party” – clearly states in yesterday’s update that BJ has not resigned (page 5 para 2) but merely stated an intention to do so at an unspecified date in the future.
Reading on in that publication shows this “will in due course resign” is a recurring them for most Prime Ministers and leaders of Political Parties.
Perhaps Brenda from Windsor can sort it out once and for all, not least because BJ still claims to have all her residuary prorogative powers – presumably including making a declaration of war?
Time for a written constitution – or at the very least making the Cabinet Manual something of full legal effect by Statutory Instrument?
Brenda’s predecessors could always use the facilities at the Tower for enforced vacations – now there’s an idea.
Could Johnson ever do a sincere mea culpa?
I would expect him to do a Cameron and resign his Uxbridge seat forthwith.
A short comment from afar: In thinking about possible political outcomes it seems to me that there are two entities to consider: Mr Johnson and the Party. I say two because it seems safe to say that the interests of these two are-now- not at all identical and should be considered as potential enemies, or at least in conflict with each other. Taking Mr Johnson first, it seems to me that people mistake his interest in occupying office with being a political actor (that is, whether he would make a serious effort to “return to power”). Nothing he has done suggests any serious interest in anything other than self-promotion. Consequently, I would suggest he has now obtained what he would consider the perfect job: Prime Minister with all the trappings of office and none of the obligations. So, yes, he would prefer to continue in this sort of simulacrum indefinitely, but will relinquish it when, as someone above observes, it conflicts (restricts) his other options. Likewise, he will not muster the energy or the planning required to plot a return to power; to think he would do so would fly in the face of his unvarying demonstrations of a lack of interest in that, as it would be too much like work. The Party’s concerns are different, and might be put as (1) staying in power and (2) putting some space between themselves and their former head. Time and distractions will work their usual effects on (2) so (1) is really the only issue. As an outsider it seems to me the best thing from the Party’s perspective would be to have a defenestrated clown as PM whilst the ugly battle for control is fought out away from public view. All that needs to happen, then, is that a suitably long recess is scheduled and enforced.
So Starmer will be grilling more a sort of cooked goose than a lame duck at the next couple PMBQ’s?
Could he appoint himself to the House Of Lords?
“ Has Johnson resigned?” … “ Of piglets and grease”
David, it appears you have just changed your distinctive style to now include emboldened subheadings. I don’t recall seeing these in previous blog posts.
Well
Well
It was clear to me that his resignaiton speech had more than a little bitterness about supposed rejection of him and his mandate. His desire to stay in place as PM, rather than have his Deputy appointed as caretaker was also manifest. So I strongly suspect that he holds out hope that once again things will turn up for him.
I agree that this is not under his control , but then he never has been in control of his time as PM. He always stumbled from one crisis to another and basically winged it. Thus this opportunity to continue in office, albeit for a limited time, gives him hope that chance will help him once again. He has enough friends left in the party still to help nudge things his way too. It’s clear many in his own party urgently want him gone from office for this very reason.
I hope nothing comes up that will give him a chance to recover Tory support but I don’t doubt he would take full advantage of that if it did so. The war in Ukraine could easily escalate, or the situation on the ground worsen. It’s not beyond the bounds of possibility that Putin, who has played western populists for his own ends for years, might help him out in this regard. Tin foil hat stuff perhaps but nothing would surprise me about Boris Johnson now.
This is not quite accurate:
“As and when the parliamentary Conservative party choose a new leader, that new leader will be invited by the Queen to form a new government.
“Johnson does not need to do anything more.
“He will cease to be Prime Minister by automatic operation of the constitution.”
Johnson will have formally to tender his resignation to the Queen. After every election at which a PM is defeated the PM actually has to resign. Since 1868, the result is usually the trigger and the PM has gone to the Palace the day after the election (in 1923/4 Baldwin hung on to face Parliament because he wanted to make the Liberals take responsibility for ejecting him; in February 1974 Heath and in 2010 Brown tried to put together a coalition; in 2017 May did put together a majority with the DUP_ so hung on). Churchill, Eden, Macmillan, Wilson (1975), Thatcher, Blair and Cameron all resigned before the Queen sent for their successor. (The Queen actually went to Macmillan in hospital to receive his resignation; in 1923 Bonar Law was too ill so sent a letter to George V, famously giving Davidson an opportunity to intervene to block Curzon)
Johnson seems to have said he will do the same. But his resignation is not automatic. It is another convention. He does need to get his fat arse into a car and go to the Palace.
Thank you again David for laying out the complexities, rules & conventions that accompany the virtual constitution when it comes to replacing a PM.
However what remains worrisome is how Dominic Cummings et al have proven & Johnson has underlined, that rules and conventions are for little people and not those like Trump or Johnson who look in their magic mirrors every morning to remind themselves how wonderful they really are, but still remain unappreciated fully for their unparalleled political genius.
Johnson hasn’t resigned, hasn’t acknowledged any responsibility for his negligence which triggered this particular mess or any of the other catastrophes he’s caused during his tenure (on the contrary he’s got all the big calls right; right?)
If Johnson is not removed from Downing Street pronto he’ll make mischief irrespective of any hallowed rule, convention or any other sacred cow.
DAG, “That said: so far, one day later, it looks as if Johnson and those who have agreed to serve in his cabinet are abiding by those rules and conventions.”
and
Rollo Treadway, “For all the bluster, I expect we’ll see him meekly trotting up to the Queen when the day comes.”
I agree. So far, and despite possibilities and warnings, I feel relieved that our “system” is still functioning as it always has and that there should be no storming of the capitol.
Proposed Boris speech: “This morning the British Ambassador in Moscow handed the Russian Government a final Note stating that, unless we heard from them by 11 o’clock that they were prepared at once to withdraw their troops from Ukraine, a state of war would exist between us.
I have to tell you now that no such undertaking has been received, and that consequently this country is at war with Russia.
In the light of this, in these grave times, I will not be standing down as Prime Minister”
I hope it would not be too controversial to suggest that one nuclear weapon state declaring war with another would be a bad thing. And our NATO allies might have a view.
Not least, for Johnson, this is not a strategy that will leave him in office for very long, as a couple of centuries of history suggests that British prime ministers in office at the start of our involvement in major European or world wars do not remain in office through to the end of those conflicts. Neither Pitt nor Addington were prime minister in 1815. The Earl of Aberdeen was prime minister in 1853 but not 1856. Asquith was prime minister in 1914 but not in 1918. Chamberlain was prime minister in 1939 but not in 1945.
Wouldn’t it be equally accurate to say that “he has agreed not to contest his eventual removal”? Seems like saying he resigned is giving him too much dignity. Strong, no no it was amicable, we both decided it was for the best” vibes.
The constitution of the Conservative Party does not say under what circumstances a leadership election should take place. Schedule 2 covers the election of a new leader. It just says “3. Upon the initiation of an election for the Leader, …”
There is nothing to say that a leadership election can only follow from the resignation, death, incapacity or removal of the leader.
This means that, according to their own constitution, they could initiate an election for a new leader at any time and for any reason. Clearly, this would normally follow the resignation of the current leader, but, if the 1922 Committee decided to initiate a leadership election without the resignation of the current leader, this would not be unconstitutional. It would be odd, but not unconstitutional.
So, if a leadership election were initiated on the mistaken belief that the leader had resigned, it would not be invalid.
Similarly, if it was initiated on the basis that the existing leader has indicated they would resign at some point in the future, it would not be unconstitutional to do this.
As the existing leader had not actually resigned, Schedule 2 (2) would not apply, and the they would be eligible for re-nomination in the subsequent election.
Nevertheless, the current rules of the 1922 committee require that the MPs whittle-down the candidates to two. It would seem unlikely that Boris Johnson would make it to the last two.
However, these rules could be changed. All it would take is for MPs on the 1922 Committee to change them … and there is an election to replace the 1922 Committee next week.
Yes, the 1922 committee determines the process by which candidates are presented to the party for election as leader. But I think paragraph 2 of the constitution is fairly clear that a person “resigning from the Leadership” (not necessarily one who has already resigned) is not eligible for re-nomination.
What is the point of a Deputy Prime Minister?
Surely one of their roles should be to stand in when a Prime Minister can no longer act? (e.g. when they have essentially lost the confidence of their ministers)
I can remember the scenes on the aircraft when LBJ was sworn in as President following Kennedy’s assassination – and though our system is not ‘presidential’ (however much Johnson appeared to treat it as such), this surely is a useful idea to adopt in the UK.
However, as in the US, I believe that any Deputy Prime Ministerial post should, perhaps, not be at the whim of the primary office holder – and as we don’t have a presidential system, perhaps they would have been voted on by at least the Cabinet, in order for him/her to have any authority.
Agree but do we really want moronic Dominic?
Fortunately, no one has literally assassinated Johnson.
But it is a pity that a prime minister that is forced to resign in disgrace is not also forced to resign with immediate effect (as Chamberlain did for Churchill to take over in 1940, as a precedent).
As for acceptability of any deputy by the rest of the Cabinet/governing party, that would then be tested and I’m sure the Cabinet or rest of the party (via the 1922 committee for the Tories), would make their views known.
I believe it is possible for the Cabinet to make a recommendation to the monarch on who to request to form a new Government?