6th July 2022
Since 2016 we have had in the United Kingdom a great deal of constitutional drama.
We have had a referendum; supreme court cases; departure from the European Union; a hung parliament; and prime ministers come and go.
This has been all very exciting – though, of course, constitutional affairs should not be exciting.
They should be dull.
This is because a constitution sets the parameters of everyday political action – the rules of the game – and if those parameters are being continuously tested and contested then that indicates all is not well with the polity.
But for all this drama, there has not yet been a constitutional crisis – close, but not quite.
Here ‘crisis’ means a serious situation, the outcome of which is not certain.
And ‘constitutional crisis’ means such a situation where there is the prospect of a constitutional tension hardening into a contradiction.
Since 2016, whenever it has looked like that a constitutional drama was coming close to an actual crisis, the situation has resolved: court orders were complied with, and Article 50 extensions were put in place, and so on.
Something gave way each time.
But.
What happens if the current Prime Minister Boris Johnson keeps refusing to resign?
As it stands he is the leader of a majority party, which he led to victory at the 2019 general election.
Since then he has had a collapse in political support, and in the last couple of days at least twenty members of the government have resigned.
It may well be that his own parliamentary party has another vote of confidence, which he may lose.
Or he may be told by senior backbenchers that he should resign, or face such a vote.
In normal times such a besieged Prime Minister would resign.
But what if Johnson refuses?
What if he says no to the delegation?
What if he refuses to quit after losing a vote of no confidence as leader of his party?
We would have a serious situation, certainly.
*
First, however, we need to distinguish between his respective positions as party leader and as Prime Minister.
A successful vote of no confidence in him as leader of the Conservative Party does not – in and of itself – remove him as Prime Minister.
And from time to time, we have had Prime Ministers who were not party leaders.
So the leadership of his party could be taken from him – but that would not mean automatically that he would cease to be Prime Minister.
*
There would then be a problem.
His parliamentary party could perhaps seek to force the issue and support a parliamentary (rather than a party) vote of no confidence – but that may risk Johnson seeking a general election (which a Prime Minister can ask the Queen for, now that the Fixed-term Parliaments Act is repealed.
Or they could join others in our society and go on strike, and refuse to support government business.
But other than that, and tutting loudly, there is little that the parliamentary party can do directly to remove an unwanted Prime Minister.
Indirectly, however, they can elect a new leader – and hope (and expect) that new leader to be invited by the Queen to form a government.
For it is only the monarch, in our system, who has the direct power to hire and fire a Prime Minister.
*
But here we have another problem.
The Queen may have that power in theory – but Buckingham Palace would be reluctant to intervene in a politically controversial situation, such as a stand-off between the Prime Minister and his political party.
As this blog recently set out, there are the so-called Lascelles Principles, which are supposed to govern how the Crown would deal with, say, a request for a general election.
But the possible stand-off is not quite the same.
And – and this must be emphasised – the Australia crisis of 1975 still sends shudders through the walls of Buckingham Palace and it is uppermost in the collective memory of those who work there.
Again, there would be an attempt to have a quiet word – just as the chairman of the 1922 Committee will have tried.
But what if Johnson says no to the Queen?
*
Well.
We would be at the end of that particular constitutional road and the Queen will have to make the decision to invite someone else to form the government.
She would have to sack Boris Johnson, because she is the only one who can.
Of course, this is not what anyone would want, especially in her jubilee year and with her ill health.
But the constitution of the United Kingdom would offer no other choice.
For, however powerful the office of Prime Minister is, there is still something (theoretically) stronger: the power of the Crown.
And, as this blog has averred before: one useful function of the Crown is not so much in respect of the powers it does have, but the powers it prevents others from having – or exercising.
If the Queen did invite another to form the government, there would be nothing Johnson could do legally or constitutionally.
Indeed, there would be nothing for him to do – he would not need to actively resign.
One moment he would be Prime Minister, and the next moment he would not be.
The premiership would be stripped from him by automatic operation of the royal prerogative.
*
Of course, one would hope that Johnson would concede before that point.
But in the United States, his fellow populist Donald Trump has never conceded – and he chose to be away from the White House on the day of inauguration rather than be marched out of it as a trespasser.
Who knows what would happen in practice – whether the matter would get to the Queen or not.
It would certainly be constitutionally exciting.
Brace, brace.
**
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.
Kenneth Williams voice ‘you are awful….”
I speed-read this blog post, for fear that it might have been out of date before I managed to get to the end of it.
Just to throw another spoke in the constitutional wheel – what happens if, just at the point she had to sack him, the Queen were to die (I hate to be morbid, but it has to happen at some stage)?
Could the first act of King Charles be an overtly political act?
Variant of that – what if the Queen is not dead but physically or mentally incapacitated and unable to overrule him?
There’s some council thay takes over as in theory the Hier Apparent would not have the power as Sovereign at that point (not until crowned)
Can’t remember the name but I think (very happy to be corrected) it will be deawn from the Privvy Council but this process will certainly have been written by HMQ, sealed in a brown envelope and ready to crack open should the event arises (Long Live the Queen!).
I think the withdrawal of support in the House by tory MPs would be the best way to force him out. MPs could also refuse to be appointed as ministers to replace those who have resigned. He would be left isolated and unable to continue.
The parliamentary vote of confidence is too unpredictable in its outcome. Johnson is deluded enough to think the voters would back him. Tory MPs almost certainly know they would mostly lose their seats.
Pfeffel doesn’t really have the backbone to fight on. He’s lazy. They’ll flash the ermine at him, and off he will go to a nice earner in the Lords and any number of very generous stipends spewing tosh in right wing media groups, lobbying and the US after dinner speaking circuit.
He’d better not be rewarded with a peerage. He should be rewarded with a jail sentence.
Theresa May remains in the Commons, David Cameron is off in a shed somewhere, Gordon Brown is mostly focused it seems on charity work, Tony Blair is think tanking?, and John Major wanders the earth doing speeches. None of them are in the Lords, so I wouldn’t assume Johnson would end up there. In fact, if I were him, I’d worry that by leaving in such disgrace, nobody will want to pay him for speeches or articles or books. Or at least, he would become a pariah for this behaviour in the olden days.
Maybe that’s his motivation. Clinging on for income because everything is going to dry up once he leaves. He’s famously broke, as we know from wallpaper incidents and others.
The tradition of former prime ministers being being created earls seems to have died out with the Earl of Stockton – probably a good thing, and a hereditary peer would not automatically get a seat in the Lords anyway now. Home (already an earl but disclaimed), Wilson, Callaghan and Thatcher were granted a life peerage, but not Heath.
There does still seem to be a tradition of former prime minister becoming Knights (or Ladies) of the Garter (or Thistle) after a suitable period – every PM from Churchill to Blair now, except Macmillan (qv).
They all seem to get by, financially.
I rather like the idea of the Queen dismissing him.
It would be the ultimate humiliation of a man who has no shame.
Having watched the Liaisons Committee in its entirety today was like viewing the ritual humiliation of one man. The political equivalent of “seeing the headmaster”. The only problem is that it went right over the head of the man in question.
I am reminded of the Eton master who wrote thus to Stanley Johnson:
“Boris sometimes seems affronted when criticised for what amounts to a gross failure of responsibility (and surprised at the same time that he was not appointed Captain of the School for next half): I think he honestly believes that it is churlish of us not to regard him as an exception, one who should be free of the network of obligation which binds everyone else.”
Today may well be when he learns that exceptionalism only lasts for so long, especially when you aren’t actually very – exceptional.
*Erects sign*
“Please do not feed the constitutional lawyers”
*Taps sign*
*TAPS SIGN*
What would happen if the Party threw him out – would that mean that HM “could” ask another to form a government, as BJ would no longer be able to?
This is answered in the above post. It’s not a could, but a should/must.
The PM is the MP that commands the majority of the house, usually the recognised leader of the largest party or group. So the tories would need to have a new leader for HMQ to pick.
Think back to 2010 hung parliament where Dave C was leader of Con/Lib co-alition, and could have been thrown out if Libs would have sided with Lab and all the others as that coalition’s leader would then have commanded the confidence of the house. Same principle but the majority of MPs are one party this time.
If no one can form a government, HMQ goes for an election
Another question, albeit one with a more obvious answer, is what happens if he goes to the opposite extreme – on losing a party No Confidence vote, he refuses to hang around while they elect a new leader and goes straight for the Chiltern Hundreds and the lecture circuit? The Labour Party has rules that its deputy leader holds the reins while a new leader is elected; the Tory Party does not. Someone would have to be found to be Prime Minister for a few weeks. Theresa May, perhaps?
Wouldn’t it be Dominic Raab?
And, yes, it is a horrible thought.
Dominic Raab, as Deputy PM, would be first in line to become PM pending the choice of a new Tory leader. But if he were also to be a candidate for the party leadership, that might be thought inappropriate, and he might step aside (or be bypassed) in favour of someone not seeking to succeed Johnson as party leader.
True excitement would occur if Johnson attempted to ignore the Queen’s dismissal and selection of a replacement.
In such a circumstance, though, Johnson would have no authority – no authority at all.
For, fortunately(?), both the Metropolitan Police, and – indeed – ultimately the Armed Forces have pledged their oaths of allegiance directly to the Queen (or, more precisely, to the monarch).
For a true Wednesday Addams smile, though, imagine what would happen if the Queen went rogue, and dismissed a PM who uncontroversially commanded the full confidence of the House.
“…(the) Armed Forces have pledged their oaths of allegiance directly to the Queen (or, more precisely, to the monarch).”
Pendant post alert! Doesn’t change your reasoning of which I agree.
You were right first time, last part of the oath is:
“and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and of the (admirals / generals/ air officers) and officers set over me.”
Except those with Commissions who don’t act on the Oath, but are entrusted into office by her Majesty to do the work.
This situation could be resolved quite easily if the opposition called for a vote of no confidence in the government and all those conservative MP’s (honourable men and women as they are who would naturally put the well being of country before party) would vote with the opposition.
We would then have a GE, the Conservatives could align behind a different leader and De Pfeffel is gone.
Simples….
I think your comment might be an illustration of that old adage: “In theory there is no difference between theory and practice; in practice, there is.”
The Conservative Party’s current working majority is 73. A no-confidence motion is now covered by the Fixed-term Parliaments Act of 2011, but the challenge it faces is simply that the Conservative majority is such that if a motion were tabled by Labour, the Conservative Party would vote to reject the motion out of self-preservation. Too many Conservative MPs in marginal constituencies would look at the mood in the country and realise that if they voted for a VNC, they would lose their own seats.
They don’t have to agree with such a motion. Instead, what they would do is carry on with their letters to the 1922 Committee, apply heat and sufficient pressure until the Greased Piglet squeals one last time and is ejected from No. 10. They would then vote in a new Conservative Party leader and (try to) carry on as before.
The Conservative majority would need to be a lot more precarious numerically, and a lot more moderate politically, for a VNC to work.
Government losing a vote of confidence in the Commons wouldn’t results in Johnson ceasing to be party leader. They’d have to conduct a separate process to shift him and choose a new leader. And there’d have to be a stitch-up between the factions to agree a new leader, rather than elect one, since they’d need a leader in place immediately to fight a general election.
And I think they’d still be whipped to a puree in the ensuing election.
I believe he has no intention of resigning. They will need a crowbar and the Number 10 door will require a repaint to cover up the fingernail scratch marks. He has absolutely no compunction in breaking convention or the law as has been amply demonstrated by his underhand attempt at a prolonged prorogation and his cavalier attitude to the NIP. And after 70 years of not much to do except take the country’s shilling, wave and ask “how far have you come?”, I am not sure QEII would have the bottle to fire him at her first really challenging constitutional crisis.
Regarding Lascelles etc, consider this argument:
As of now, the leaders of the Labour, Lib Dems and SNP opposition parties have all, I believe, called for a general election (in one form of words or other – but let’s assume for the sake of argument that they have).
At time of writing, the Prime Minister is still leader of the Conservative Party.
Now, suppose that Boris Johnson were to go and see the Queen to request a general election today – before the 1922 Committee have had the chance to remove him from office as Tory leader.
In circumstances where ALL the leaders of the major political parties with representation in the Commons were demanding a general election – wouldn’t it be more politically controversial for the Queen NOT to grant one?
(Notwithstanding that the vast majority of Tory backbenchers would be horrified at the prospect…)
Yep, you are correct in your assumption (or I should say much more modestly that “I agree”).
Only way to stop a GE in those circumstances would be for the Tories to have a new leader sharpish to visit HMQ and state they can form a govt.
I think that is an important point, ie that the leaders of the major parties would want a dissolution – and no doubt Boris will have thought of this. One big difference between him and Trump is that Boris has not actually just lost a general election, so I suppose his claim to be leader of the nation (whatever his parliamentary party may think of him) has a shred of credibility until proven otherwise.
I thought Johnson sounded quite insane at PMQs, perhaps rather than the “men in gray suits” having a quiet word, perhaps the men in white coats would be more appropriate.
What about impeachment? He has committed at least one misdemeanour. The threat ought to be enough to dislodge him.
You are thinking of the USA, neither “impeachment” or “misdemeanors” are things that exist in the UK
Not true. The Prime Minister can be impeached by Parliament.
If the experience of the US in the two impeachment proceedings against Trump provides any clue, impeachment proceedings against Johnson will not lead to his dismissal. Instead, the tribal instincts of the Conservative MPs to stay in power will lead to the defeat of the impeachment motion.
As well as its technical legal meaning – a crime less serious than a felony, a distinction abolished in the UK by the Criminal Law Act 1967 – see https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/58/section/1 – a “misdemeanour” in common parlance is just a wrongful act, and we certainly have had our fill of those!
While the process is obsolescent if not entirely obsolete, in principle the Commons impeach Johnson, for trial in the Lords. The power has not been used for some time: the last impeachment was Viscount Melville in 1806, and before that Warren Hastings in 1795, and both were acquitted on charges of misappropriating public funds and of corruption respectively. Eg https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/foi/foi-and-eir/commons-foi-disclosures/other-house-matters/impeachment-2015/
Such are the lesser-frequented byways of our constitutional settlement.
In the last 6 years, both the UK and the US have experienced a fortunately rare occurrence – the appointment of a narcissist (of debatable levels of malignancy) to the highest elected office of the respective nations.
Both tore up international norms…
Both were tested by a global pandemic and both were found severely wanting…
Both were dogged by scandal…
Both treated their elected colleagues with disdain if not outright contempt…
Both conducted themselves as though the laws did not apply to them…
Both proved to be singularly incapable of admitting to an error…
And
When we look back on the tenure of each of these putative national leaders, both left their respective nation in a far more fragile, dysfunctional state than the one they inherited.
Shockingly, frighteningly, both also remained unquenchably popular to their (rabid) base, despite mountains of evidence of incompetence, sleaze, etc.
But perhaps the single most defining and most dangerous point of commonality between President Trump and Prime Minister Johnson has been their ability to bring otherwise sensible elected officials along on their destructive, dangerous schemes.
We should not lose sight of the fact that western nations have foes abroad in the world – countries who would seek to do us harm, or to weaken us, to have our dependency on them grow. Russia, China and others are watching both nations with forensic interest – and will be exporting every weakness they observe.
It isn’t enough for us to move past this immediate crisis – however it plays out. We need to take a cold, hard look in the mirror and be prepared to strengthen the institutional and perhaps constitutional defences that we clearly don’t really have.
And in our case, with GDP tumbling, sterling falling through the floor, a trade war with the EU in the offing, we don’t have much time to take corrective action.
A can only hope that all those ministers writing their pious resignation letters about the nation deserving better are going to live up to the standards they claim to espouse.
Sadly, I doubt it.
Regarding your second last paragraph on the topic of the need for corrective action I rather fear that this ongoing defenestration of Johnson is finally happening only because the powerful Brexit-Jacobins (to use Chris Grey’s apt descriptor) have themselves swung 180 degrees and lined up a replacement to their liking.
Yesterday a veritable the who’s who of the ERG told Johnson he must leave and that brutal afternoon committee hearing was an exercise in ritual humiliation presided over by the leader of the ERG himself. Sir Bernard Jenkin normally highly protective of Johnson and shutting down awkward questions from MP’s instead gave them carte blanche for a good kicking and even put the boot in himself.
Why do this? Well David Frost’s tweet during the day was explicit that Johnson must go because he could not deliver the revolution and that they would find a leader who would.
Surely the irony of Johnson being fired by Royal Prerogative would be delicious considering the party’s abuse of just such Prerogative a short while ago!
Things have already moved on in an unpredictable manner since this article was written as Jessica Elgot reported on the Guardian live update article at 15:57 that there are now no MPs who are prepared to fill the vacant ministerial positions so there’s effectively no government. Another weird constitutional question for you!
There are plenty of Conservatives in the House of Lords who could fill vacant ministerial posts.
Would it be unreasonable to suggest that, in the event, the Australia crisis of 1975 had the right outcome? Here, however, there is the possibility that adherents of the present ruling party would be elected again, even if the electorate disliked their choice of Leader.
Please see my comment below. Simply put the Australian constitution is a mixture of the British and the American – games of chicken are built into the American system and its (semi)clones.
You have omitted one additional Constitutional point: if Johnson does not resign and the Queen does not dissolve Parliament on his request, he and his MPs will face a general election in 2024 [s4
Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022] and he will lead the Tories into oblivion.
“he will lead the Tories into oblivion”
It is impossible to think that Johnson will still be party leader by the end of this year, let alone in two years’ time.
Bernard Jenkin asked the PM this afternoon for an assurance that he would not request a dissolution in the event he loses the confidence of his MP’s. Mr Jenkin obviously suspects it’s a plausible ruse.
What worries Mr Jenkin et al is that the voting public kind of know that Mr Johnson’s premiership is their fault. They are hoping a couple of years of public forgetting will improve their chances and the ballot box.
I hope that her Majesty intervening to save them is wishful thinking. If the PM want’s a GE, let him have one :)
I’ll offer to take a leg to help carry him out.
Under your unwritten constitution you look to a 95 year old hereditary monarch to resolve this mess ?
Even your own Judges retire at 70.
The situation would be sad if it was not so serious .
In Ireland, the Taioseach (Prime Minister) is elected by the Dail (Lower House of Parliament) and then appointed by the President. That’s prescribed by Ireland’s written constitution.
In the UK’s flexible and unwritten constitutition, there is nothing to stop Parliament voting a humble address inviting the monarch to appoint a named person as Prime Minister. Addresses have been used in connection with public appointments (see https://erskinemay.parliament.uk/section/6549/subjects-of-addresses/). Although they have not been used to ask for the appointment of a prime minister, this might be a useful constitutional innovation to avoid the monarch being drawn into controversy.
That requires the opposition parties effectively to endorse a particular Tory PM. You can see why both the opposition parties and the Tories would find that very difficult.
This is the Tories’ problem. They must remove their leader and install another who can command the confidence of the parliamentary party. If the party processes don’t enable that to be done with the necessary dispatch then the processes are dysfunctional and must be changed. If the Tories still take themselves seriously as a political party that is what must happen.
Agreed, that would be a way for the Queen to know that the named person had the confidence of the House of Commons. That person could then attend the Queen and be appointed.
Given how heartily The Johnson’s biggest cheerleaders cleave to Queen And Flag, HRH dismissing the PM would present them with quite the quandary.
The sight of them attempting to reconcile the cognitive dissonance might even be worth the fallout of the clusterwomble that would ensue in the aftermath
Well, it’s now approximately 21:35 on Wednesday 6th, and already the title that David chose for this post is looking to be disconcertingly prescient.
Brace, brace, indeed.
p.s. In the off-chance that 1) this reply is read by a television reporter; and 2) said reported happens to get the opportunity to interview Mr. Johnson in the next couple of days; and 3) they are willing to do so, would they please be kind enough to ask the PM, on the question of conduct in public office – and given the fact that the PM has in a short time provided so many illustrations of conduct that he clearly believes is *not* a resigning matter… would he care to provide examples of any conduct – anything – that he *would* consider to be a resigning matter.
I am not trying to be rude, disrespectful, sarcastic or a “smart Alec”. This is a genuine question that seeks to understand the Prime Minister’s moral compass and the direction in which it points. What is the nature of the most senior public servant in the land, and where does that individual draw the line?
In 1975, Eugene Forsey (the expert on the Royal Prerogative of Dismissal and dissolution. He defended the G-G. I did not. Not because I disagree with Sen. Forsey in general, but the Australian situation was not one likely in a Westminster model. The Australian Senate is based on the US Senate (equal representation of states, 12 Senators per state. 6 every 3 years for 6 years terms. In a double dissolution all Senate seats are on the ballot. Double dissolution is only possible when the two houses don’t agree. To trigger a double dissolution has always been the PM’s call. As well, the House is elected by ranked votes; the Senate by STV. All told a good recipe for two houses not in lockstep. As a borrowing from America, that model has no way to resolve conflict between the Houses or with the President. It can become a game of ‘chicken.’ (That was what Whitlam was counting on and assuming the Senate would blink first as he had 13 seat majority in the House.
In BC (as I’ve written here before), the Liberal Premier did not want to resign in 2017 although her party had lost its majority in a general election and had been defeated in the House on the Throne Speech. She vowed to as the Lt. Gov. to dissolve the House and issue the writs arguing that the NDP/Green majority was only 1 seat – she wanted a new election for stability. She visited the Lt. Gov. No one knows what happened in that room. She emerged having resigned and have recommended that the Lt. Gov. summon the leader of the NDP to form a government. Either she chickened out or she was fired or something in between such as the Lt. Gov. “accepting” her resignation although it was no offered etc.
Despite Australia 1975, the monarch does have the prerogative to dismissing a PM who does not command the support of the House of Commons although the repeal of the Fixed Terms Act may have muddied those waters.
Let me conclude with a little idea of mischief that Sinn Fein and others can do. Since NI voted to remain the EU, the NI delegation to the European Parliament i.e. those not loyalists, can present themselves as duly elected in Brussels (delay caused by Covid 19) demanding to be seated as they did not breach any rules and were elected for a fixed term. Could be fun and maybe SNP can do the same.
More than London Bridge is falling down
This is probably a silly question – could Boris have the whip removed if he loses another 1922 Committee vote ? Then he couldn’t be PM surely ?
Saw a nice quote from Peter Hennessy today: “The British Constitution is what happens next.”
Which aligns with what JAG Griffith wrote in 1979: “the constitution is no more and no less than what happens. Everything that happens is constitutional. And if nothing happened that would be constitutional also.”
The difficult thing is predicting the events before they happen.
Assume that there is no scope for a 22 committee vote in the next few days. And anyway Johnson might want to hang on as PM whilst there was an election. We must now have a vote in the HofC to provide for a vote of no confidence in HM Government. It is clear that there is no such thing (unless it is Boris Braverman and Dorres) so it might be possible to get the Parties to set this up beforehand. They would also have to agree an interim PM to be in charge whilst an election is held…a process that might take a while. Giving Ed Davey that job might be acceptable since he is not realistically a candidate for it in the longer run but he has been in government and his integrity is not sullied. His brief would be to hold things together and not to do much. Countries work OK when there is no government changing stuff for a while, so the world might stabilise a bit. The Queen would have to fire the current PM after the no confidence vote and install the person offered as a caretaker; all of this briefed beforehand.
Of course, many things are unknowable, including what Johnson and HMQ said to each other during their audience that apparently occurred on Wednesday evening. Whatever it was does not seem to have changed the Johnson approach at all.
Putting to one side the fascinating political ramifications, is the constitutional theory not reasonably clear, even if it is unpalatable to the Palace? Johnson is the Queen’s first minister not because 14 million people voted for him giving him a personal mandate as he and his cheerleaders are saying, but because he commands a majority in the Commons. As such, his fundamental duty is to ensure HMQ’s government is carried on.
Currently his command of the Commons is uncertain, and – extraordinarily – he does not have a full complement of ministers to carry on government (eg attend legislative committees in Parliament) due to lack of confidence in his character.
So, his constitutional qualifications for the post are in doubt. Is it therefore not the monarch’s right, indeed duty, to ask Johnson to seek a vote of confidence in the Commons and to make clear that if he cannot get it he must either resign or be dismissed? If he demurs, would she not then be bound to consult senior members of the governing party to see who could form a government to carry out the mandate of the 2019 manifesto?
I assume she would be able to find someone willing to try to form a government. But if, and only if, that failed HMQ would have to conclude that this Parliament had run its course and should be dissolved.
I don’t understand this talk of Johnson having to call an election. That only entrenches this sinister idea that we have a presidential system in parliamentary clothes. We still have a Commons with a large majority for a specific programme as set out in the Tory 2019 manifesto – just a particular person who cannot any longer lead a viable government to carry it out.
All this comes back to the point that the monarch has an inescapable role in trying to sort this out. I believe there are precedents, including George V during the formation of the National Government [is that right Mr Green?]. If she or the Palace don’t want to touch it with a bargepole because of memories of the 1975 Australian crisis, then as a monarchist (but one who hates all the royalist flim-flam), I would reluctantly have to question what point the monarchy serves. If the reluctance is due to her age then I would question the hereditary principle and/or the lack of term-limits that has presented the country with a head of state who is incapable of carrying out her constitutional function.
Mr Green may very well say that this analysis is so theoretical and outdated that it naively ignores the political aspects of our dynamic and uncodified constitution. He’d have a point. And that’s why his blogs are so addictive!
But we’re in a situation where a PM is refusing to go while his arms and legs are being chopped off like Monty Python’s Black Knight, using his ‘personal mandate’ of 14 million votes as justification. That rationale *must* be countered.
I’m currently abroad, partly following this crisis through foreign media. From afar our little island, with its much-vaunted constitution and parliamentary democracy, is looking ridiculous and embarrassing.
I’m coming around to the idea of a written constitution for the UK. In the interests of time, I suggest we skip the first 24 amendments, and start with the 25th
Oh yes.
To quote the man himself 13 years ago (and ignoring the bizarre misunderstanding or misrepresentation of relations between Israel and Egypt – bent banana all over again?): https://www.boris-johnson.com/2010/05/10/gordon-brown-still-in-downing-street/
Hubris, meet Nemesis.
I have been pondering exactly this scenario, so thank you for this post.
Perhaps the next question is whether we will have another episode in the ongoing internecine Conservative party Brexit psychodrama or whether we will get back to some sort of stability.
One more failed premiership after May and Johnson and we will like the dying days of the Soviet Union in the early 80s.
I posted something by Peter Hennessey. The same paper included a nice quote from (of all people) De Gaulle in 1960, praising the British constitution, saying
What if he refuses to stand down as PM when the new Tory leader is elected? Or perhaps the election collapses as his supporters restore their strength and influence.
The Tories must finish the job and get him out of the power base at Downing Street as soon as possible.
Not his decision – he can do nothing to stop the new leader being invited to form a government by the Queen
It is now out of his hands
Only through convention. That won’t stop him trying to salvage his situation while he remains in power.
Johnson has publicly announced his intention to resign as PM when the party chooses a new leader (and under the usual rules, he cannot stand). The convention would see the departing PM attending a final audience to take his leave of the Queen, and recommend his successor. Perhaps he has already communicated this intention to the Queen, which would make it hard for him to back out. But it does not appear to be mandatory.
As the (now rather out of date) 2011 1st edition of the Cabinet Manual says:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cabinet-manual
This manual seems to encapsulate the material that used to be in the “Questions of Procedure for Ministers”.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/rp96-53/
Yes, I know he can’t stand for election.
He announced his intention to resign as PM, not his resignation. While he remains in office he can always hope for a comeback opportunity to arise. It’s his MO.
I know it’s very unlikely but he isn’t called the greased piglet for nothing.
Something will turn up, it always does for him.
Loyalty to party or Johnson will be the issue. 1922 can only set timetables and process. It’s not all over until he tenders his relationship and HM accepts it.
Excellent post and comments as usual.