I have it on good authority Boris is offering new ministerial posts on a zero hours contract.
He is going to have to persuade many of those that have resigned to take their jobs back.
Many will agree to do exactly that, provided it is agreed that he should be interim leader, rather than Raab.
Suspect Gove won't be there
Defenders of Boris, almost to a man, will say that he got all the big calls correct, but f..k.d up the day to day running of the government completely. Lets just accept for a minute that this is true. The Tories plan is that for the next 2 or 3 months, we have to accept Boris being allowed to continue. He will not be permitted to make any big calls, and only be responsible for the day to day running of the government. This sounds very sensible?
Of course not. But it is probably the least worst option. What are the alternatives:-
1. Put Raab in for about 2 months. Expect him to create a new Cabinet, and without him having any power, control the egos while they all grandstand to show they should be the next PM 2. Dispense with the rules for new leader, put one in place without a vote, call an election 3. Try and fight an election without a leader
This is why Labour and the other opposition Parties will call for a vote of confidence. Knowing fine well that the Tories will have no practical choices other than to be seen to endorse Boris or call an election.
And politicians do what is best for them. They will have to be seen to back Boris. Because it is impossible to fight an election without a Leader.
The key driver for the Tories will be how quickly they can install a new Leader without it appearing rushed or ill-considered. Still, at least the Tory faithful are starting to unite-mainly in seeking to attack Rishi Sunak...
I have it on good authority Boris is offering new ministerial posts on a zero hours contract.
He is going to have to persuade many of those that have resigned to take their jobs back.
Many will agree to do exactly that, provided it is agreed that he should be interim leader, rather than Raab.
Suspect Gove won't be there
Defenders of Boris, almost to a man, will say that he got all the big calls correct, but f..k.d up the day to day running of the government completely. Lets just accept for a minute that this is true. The Tories plan is that for the next 2 or 3 months, we have to accept Boris being allowed to continue. He will not be permitted to make any big calls, and only be responsible for the day to day running of the government. This sounds very sensible?
Of course not. But it is probably the least worst option. What are the alternatives:-
1. Put Raab in for about 2 months. Expect him to create a new Cabinet, and without him having any power, control the egos while they all grandstand to show they should be the next PM 2. Dispense with the rules for new leader, put one in place without a vote, call an election 3. Try and fight an election without a leader
This is why Labour and the other opposition Parties will call for a vote of confidence. Knowing fine well that the Tories will have no practical choices other than to be seen to endorse Boris or call an election.
And politicians do what is best for them. They will have to be seen to back Boris. Because it is impossible to fight an election without a Leader.
The key driver for the Tories will be how quickly they can install a new Leader without it appearing rushed or ill-considered. Still, at least the Tory faithful are starting to unite-mainly in seeking to attack Rishi Sunak...
I dont agree with that. Seemingly the opposition parties are only threatening a confidence vote because Boris has been left in place. There is no reason to expect Raab to create a new Cabinet for the sake of 2 or 3 months. I think they could speed up the procedure without compromising the process of electing a new leader. Although there would be no need if Raab was in place. Their deadline seems to be the Party Conference, which is near enough 3 months away. Assuming Boris remains in place he will apparently be forced to tick over, and not make any big changes. The same rules could apply to Raab. If there is any grandstanding, it will probably occur, whoever is in charge.
I think the biggest motivation for Boris is that if he is allowed to remain in power he will exceed the length of time that Theresa May lasted for as PM.
I have it on good authority Boris is offering new ministerial posts on a zero hours contract.
He is going to have to persuade many of those that have resigned to take their jobs back.
Many will agree to do exactly that, provided it is agreed that he should be interim leader, rather than Raab.
Suspect Gove won't be there
Defenders of Boris, almost to a man, will say that he got all the big calls correct, but f..k.d up the day to day running of the government completely. Lets just accept for a minute that this is true. The Tories plan is that for the next 2 or 3 months, we have to accept Boris being allowed to continue. He will not be permitted to make any big calls, and only be responsible for the day to day running of the government. This sounds very sensible?
Of course not. But it is probably the least worst option. What are the alternatives:-
1. Put Raab in for about 2 months. Expect him to create a new Cabinet, and without him having any power, control the egos while they all grandstand to show they should be the next PM 2. Dispense with the rules for new leader, put one in place without a vote, call an election 3. Try and fight an election without a leader
This is why Labour and the other opposition Parties will call for a vote of confidence. Knowing fine well that the Tories will have no practical choices other than to be seen to endorse Boris or call an election.
And politicians do what is best for them. They will have to be seen to back Boris. Because it is impossible to fight an election without a Leader.
The key driver for the Tories will be how quickly they can install a new Leader without it appearing rushed or ill-considered. Still, at least the Tory faithful are starting to unite-mainly in seeking to attack Rishi Sunak...
I dont agree with that. Seemingly the opposition parties are only threatening a confidence vote because Boris has been left in place. There is no reason to expect Raab to create a new Cabinet for the sake of 2 or 3 months. I think they could speed up the procedure without compromising the process of electing a new leader. Although there would be no need if Raab was in place. Their deadline seems to be the Party Conference, which is near enough 3 months away. Assuming Boris remains in place he will apparently be forced to tick over, and not make any big changes. The same rules could apply to Raab. If there is any grandstanding, it will probably occur, whoever is in charge.
I think the biggest motivation for Boris is that if he is allowed to remain in power he will exceed the length of time that Theresa May lasted for as PM.
Other motivations for Boris are his Wedding Do at Chequers, and some more time for Mrs Boris to steam the gold wallpaper off the walls of the flat.
I have it on good authority Boris is offering new ministerial posts on a zero hours contract.
He is going to have to persuade many of those that have resigned to take their jobs back.
Many will agree to do exactly that, provided it is agreed that he should be interim leader, rather than Raab.
Suspect Gove won't be there
Defenders of Boris, almost to a man, will say that he got all the big calls correct, but f..k.d up the day to day running of the government completely. Lets just accept for a minute that this is true. The Tories plan is that for the next 2 or 3 months, we have to accept Boris being allowed to continue. He will not be permitted to make any big calls, and only be responsible for the day to day running of the government. This sounds very sensible?
Of course not. But it is probably the least worst option. What are the alternatives:-
1. Put Raab in for about 2 months. Expect him to create a new Cabinet, and without him having any power, control the egos while they all grandstand to show they should be the next PM 2. Dispense with the rules for new leader, put one in place without a vote, call an election 3. Try and fight an election without a leader
This is why Labour and the other opposition Parties will call for a vote of confidence. Knowing fine well that the Tories will have no practical choices other than to be seen to endorse Boris or call an election.
And politicians do what is best for them. They will have to be seen to back Boris. Because it is impossible to fight an election without a Leader.
The key driver for the Tories will be how quickly they can install a new Leader without it appearing rushed or ill-considered. Still, at least the Tory faithful are starting to unite-mainly in seeking to attack Rishi Sunak...
I dont agree with that. Seemingly the opposition parties are only threatening a confidence vote because Boris has been left in place. There is no reason to expect Raab to create a new Cabinet for the sake of 2 or 3 months. I think they could speed up the procedure without compromising the process of electing a new leader. Although there would be no need if Raab was in place. Their deadline seems to be the Party Conference, which is near enough 3 months away. Assuming Boris remains in place he will apparently be forced to tick over, and not make any big changes. The same rules could apply to Raab. If there is any grandstanding, it will probably occur, whoever is in charge.
I think the biggest motivation for Boris is that if he is allowed to remain in power he will exceed the length of time that Theresa May lasted for as PM.
This is, quite simply, not the way the Constitution works.
Firstly, the Conservative Party constitutionally won the last election. And installed Boris as PM, as promised.
There are only 3 ways, under the constitution as it stands, that someone can sit as PM:-
1. A person elected as PM (or, in exigent circumstances, such as Death or Major Illness, his Deputy) 2. A person elected by the Party that won the election 3. The Queen-and only provided there are no good alternatives under 1/2 above, or calling an Election
The Conservatives have traditionally been seen as the Party to uphold traditional values. Under Boris, much of that tradition has been trashed. As a Party, they need to be seeking to regain that traditional advantage. Not trash it further.
There would be the self-same vote of confidence if Raab stepped up. It would be dressed up differently. But it would still be done for political advantage, in exactly the same way. Instead claiming (correctly) that there was currently no constitutional basis to instal Raab. And, instead, the Tories would be left with the option of calling an election without a leader or being seen to ride roughshod over traditional values.
"Speed up the procedure"? There are clear rules in place for the election of a new leader. The best they can hope for is some sort of deal whereby the last 2 agree to divvy up the jobs, in a way that doesn't look too obvious. 6-8 weeks, instead of 3 months.
There are sound political reasons why the current leadership will ignore people like John Major. Because they have to deal with the problems facing the Conservatives today.
I have it on good authority Boris is offering new ministerial posts on a zero hours contract.
He is going to have to persuade many of those that have resigned to take their jobs back.
Many will agree to do exactly that, provided it is agreed that he should be interim leader, rather than Raab.
Suspect Gove won't be there
Defenders of Boris, almost to a man, will say that he got all the big calls correct, but f..k.d up the day to day running of the government completely. Lets just accept for a minute that this is true. The Tories plan is that for the next 2 or 3 months, we have to accept Boris being allowed to continue. He will not be permitted to make any big calls, and only be responsible for the day to day running of the government. This sounds very sensible?
Of course not. But it is probably the least worst option. What are the alternatives:-
1. Put Raab in for about 2 months. Expect him to create a new Cabinet, and without him having any power, control the egos while they all grandstand to show they should be the next PM 2. Dispense with the rules for new leader, put one in place without a vote, call an election 3. Try and fight an election without a leader
This is why Labour and the other opposition Parties will call for a vote of confidence. Knowing fine well that the Tories will have no practical choices other than to be seen to endorse Boris or call an election.
And politicians do what is best for them. They will have to be seen to back Boris. Because it is impossible to fight an election without a Leader.
The key driver for the Tories will be how quickly they can install a new Leader without it appearing rushed or ill-considered. Still, at least the Tory faithful are starting to unite-mainly in seeking to attack Rishi Sunak...
I cant think of any other instance where a leader is found to be unsuitable, and has been forced to resign, or is fired, where they would remain in place for months on end, until an alternative was found. In every case a temporary replacement is always appointed, until a permanent successor can be found.
I have it on good authority Boris is offering new ministerial posts on a zero hours contract.
He is going to have to persuade many of those that have resigned to take their jobs back.
Many will agree to do exactly that, provided it is agreed that he should be interim leader, rather than Raab.
Suspect Gove won't be there
Defenders of Boris, almost to a man, will say that he got all the big calls correct, but f..k.d up the day to day running of the government completely. Lets just accept for a minute that this is true. The Tories plan is that for the next 2 or 3 months, we have to accept Boris being allowed to continue. He will not be permitted to make any big calls, and only be responsible for the day to day running of the government. This sounds very sensible?
Of course not. But it is probably the least worst option. What are the alternatives:-
1. Put Raab in for about 2 months. Expect him to create a new Cabinet, and without him having any power, control the egos while they all grandstand to show they should be the next PM 2. Dispense with the rules for new leader, put one in place without a vote, call an election 3. Try and fight an election without a leader
This is why Labour and the other opposition Parties will call for a vote of confidence. Knowing fine well that the Tories will have no practical choices other than to be seen to endorse Boris or call an election.
And politicians do what is best for them. They will have to be seen to back Boris. Because it is impossible to fight an election without a Leader.
The key driver for the Tories will be how quickly they can install a new Leader without it appearing rushed or ill-considered. Still, at least the Tory faithful are starting to unite-mainly in seeking to attack Rishi Sunak...
I cant think of any other instance where a leader is found to be unsuitable, and has been forced to resign, or is fired, where they would remain in place for months on end, until an alternative was found. In every case a temporary replacement is always appointed, until a permanent successor can be found.
Not true.
Ask supporters of Margaret Thatcher. Or Gordon Brown.
Do you fancy the Tories chances of getting Boris to agree to all this?
I have it on good authority Boris is offering new ministerial posts on a zero hours contract.
He is going to have to persuade many of those that have resigned to take their jobs back.
Many will agree to do exactly that, provided it is agreed that he should be interim leader, rather than Raab.
Suspect Gove won't be there
Defenders of Boris, almost to a man, will say that he got all the big calls correct, but f..k.d up the day to day running of the government completely. Lets just accept for a minute that this is true. The Tories plan is that for the next 2 or 3 months, we have to accept Boris being allowed to continue. He will not be permitted to make any big calls, and only be responsible for the day to day running of the government. This sounds very sensible?
Of course not. But it is probably the least worst option. What are the alternatives:-
1. Put Raab in for about 2 months. Expect him to create a new Cabinet, and without him having any power, control the egos while they all grandstand to show they should be the next PM 2. Dispense with the rules for new leader, put one in place without a vote, call an election 3. Try and fight an election without a leader
This is why Labour and the other opposition Parties will call for a vote of confidence. Knowing fine well that the Tories will have no practical choices other than to be seen to endorse Boris or call an election.
And politicians do what is best for them. They will have to be seen to back Boris. Because it is impossible to fight an election without a Leader.
The key driver for the Tories will be how quickly they can install a new Leader without it appearing rushed or ill-considered. Still, at least the Tory faithful are starting to unite-mainly in seeking to attack Rishi Sunak...
I cant think of any other instance where a leader is found to be unsuitable, and has been forced to resign, or is fired, where they would remain in place for months on end, until an alternative was found. In every case a temporary replacement is always appointed, until a permanent successor can be found.
Not true.
Ask supporters of Margaret Thatcher. Or Gordon Brown.
I have it on good authority Boris is offering new ministerial posts on a zero hours contract.
He is going to have to persuade many of those that have resigned to take their jobs back.
Many will agree to do exactly that, provided it is agreed that he should be interim leader, rather than Raab.
Suspect Gove won't be there
Defenders of Boris, almost to a man, will say that he got all the big calls correct, but f..k.d up the day to day running of the government completely. Lets just accept for a minute that this is true. The Tories plan is that for the next 2 or 3 months, we have to accept Boris being allowed to continue. He will not be permitted to make any big calls, and only be responsible for the day to day running of the government. This sounds very sensible?
Of course not. But it is probably the least worst option. What are the alternatives:-
1. Put Raab in for about 2 months. Expect him to create a new Cabinet, and without him having any power, control the egos while they all grandstand to show they should be the next PM 2. Dispense with the rules for new leader, put one in place without a vote, call an election 3. Try and fight an election without a leader
This is why Labour and the other opposition Parties will call for a vote of confidence. Knowing fine well that the Tories will have no practical choices other than to be seen to endorse Boris or call an election.
And politicians do what is best for them. They will have to be seen to back Boris. Because it is impossible to fight an election without a Leader.
The key driver for the Tories will be how quickly they can install a new Leader without it appearing rushed or ill-considered. Still, at least the Tory faithful are starting to unite-mainly in seeking to attack Rishi Sunak...
I cant think of any other instance where a leader is found to be unsuitable, and has been forced to resign, or is fired, where they would remain in place for months on end, until an alternative was found. In every case a temporary replacement is always appointed, until a permanent successor can be found.
Not true.
Ask supporters of Margaret Thatcher. Or Gordon Brown.
Really?
Really.
Let's put it this way.
Either you are right. and the Conservative Party don't understand politics.
Or I am right. And they do.
Because Boris has resigned as Leader of the Conservative Party. But he has not yet relinquished his role as PM. It will take a new, duly elected, Leader of the Conservative Party to do that.
I have it on good authority Boris is offering new ministerial posts on a zero hours contract.
He is going to have to persuade many of those that have resigned to take their jobs back.
Many will agree to do exactly that, provided it is agreed that he should be interim leader, rather than Raab.
Suspect Gove won't be there
Defenders of Boris, almost to a man, will say that he got all the big calls correct, but f..k.d up the day to day running of the government completely. Lets just accept for a minute that this is true. The Tories plan is that for the next 2 or 3 months, we have to accept Boris being allowed to continue. He will not be permitted to make any big calls, and only be responsible for the day to day running of the government. This sounds very sensible?
Of course not. But it is probably the least worst option. What are the alternatives:-
1. Put Raab in for about 2 months. Expect him to create a new Cabinet, and without him having any power, control the egos while they all grandstand to show they should be the next PM 2. Dispense with the rules for new leader, put one in place without a vote, call an election 3. Try and fight an election without a leader
This is why Labour and the other opposition Parties will call for a vote of confidence. Knowing fine well that the Tories will have no practical choices other than to be seen to endorse Boris or call an election.
And politicians do what is best for them. They will have to be seen to back Boris. Because it is impossible to fight an election without a Leader.
The key driver for the Tories will be how quickly they can install a new Leader without it appearing rushed or ill-considered. Still, at least the Tory faithful are starting to unite-mainly in seeking to attack Rishi Sunak...
I cant think of any other instance where a leader is found to be unsuitable, and has been forced to resign, or is fired, where they would remain in place for months on end, until an alternative was found. In every case a temporary replacement is always appointed, until a permanent successor can be found.
Not true.
Ask supporters of Margaret Thatcher. Or Gordon Brown.
Really?
Really.
Let's put it this way.
Either you are right. and the Conservative Party don't understand politics.
Or I am right. And they do.
Because Boris has resigned as Leader of the Conservative Party. But he has not yet relinquished his role as PM. It will take a new, duly elected, Leader of the Conservative Party to do that.
So if he resigned with immediate effect, Raab couldnt replace him until a new leader was elected?
John Major succeeded as Tory leader five days after Mrs Thatcher's resignation.
I have it on good authority Boris is offering new ministerial posts on a zero hours contract.
He is going to have to persuade many of those that have resigned to take their jobs back.
Many will agree to do exactly that, provided it is agreed that he should be interim leader, rather than Raab.
Suspect Gove won't be there
Defenders of Boris, almost to a man, will say that he got all the big calls correct, but f..k.d up the day to day running of the government completely. Lets just accept for a minute that this is true. The Tories plan is that for the next 2 or 3 months, we have to accept Boris being allowed to continue. He will not be permitted to make any big calls, and only be responsible for the day to day running of the government. This sounds very sensible?
Of course not. But it is probably the least worst option. What are the alternatives:-
1. Put Raab in for about 2 months. Expect him to create a new Cabinet, and without him having any power, control the egos while they all grandstand to show they should be the next PM 2. Dispense with the rules for new leader, put one in place without a vote, call an election 3. Try and fight an election without a leader
This is why Labour and the other opposition Parties will call for a vote of confidence. Knowing fine well that the Tories will have no practical choices other than to be seen to endorse Boris or call an election.
And politicians do what is best for them. They will have to be seen to back Boris. Because it is impossible to fight an election without a Leader.
The key driver for the Tories will be how quickly they can install a new Leader without it appearing rushed or ill-considered. Still, at least the Tory faithful are starting to unite-mainly in seeking to attack Rishi Sunak...
I cant think of any other instance where a leader is found to be unsuitable, and has been forced to resign, or is fired, where they would remain in place for months on end, until an alternative was found. In every case a temporary replacement is always appointed, until a permanent successor can be found.
Not true.
Ask supporters of Margaret Thatcher. Or Gordon Brown.
Really?
Really.
Let's put it this way.
Either you are right. and the Conservative Party don't understand politics.
Or I am right. And they do.
Because Boris has resigned as Leader of the Conservative Party. But he has not yet relinquished his role as PM. It will take a new, duly elected, Leader of the Conservative Party to do that.
So if he resigned with immediate effect, Raab couldnt replace him until a new leader was elected?
John Major succeeded as Tory leader five days after Mrs Thatcher's resignation.
If all ifs and buts came true, my Auntie would have been my Uncle.
Boris has not resigned with immediate effect. Not from being PM. Only to be Caretaker until a duly democratically elected replacement is found.
You can't just replace a duly elected leader against their will with an unelected replacement. Not in a Democracy.
I have it on good authority Boris is offering new ministerial posts on a zero hours contract.
He is going to have to persuade many of those that have resigned to take their jobs back.
Many will agree to do exactly that, provided it is agreed that he should be interim leader, rather than Raab.
Suspect Gove won't be there
Defenders of Boris, almost to a man, will say that he got all the big calls correct, but f..k.d up the day to day running of the government completely. Lets just accept for a minute that this is true. The Tories plan is that for the next 2 or 3 months, we have to accept Boris being allowed to continue. He will not be permitted to make any big calls, and only be responsible for the day to day running of the government. This sounds very sensible?
Of course not. But it is probably the least worst option. What are the alternatives:-
1. Put Raab in for about 2 months. Expect him to create a new Cabinet, and without him having any power, control the egos while they all grandstand to show they should be the next PM 2. Dispense with the rules for new leader, put one in place without a vote, call an election 3. Try and fight an election without a leader
This is why Labour and the other opposition Parties will call for a vote of confidence. Knowing fine well that the Tories will have no practical choices other than to be seen to endorse Boris or call an election.
And politicians do what is best for them. They will have to be seen to back Boris. Because it is impossible to fight an election without a Leader.
The key driver for the Tories will be how quickly they can install a new Leader without it appearing rushed or ill-considered. Still, at least the Tory faithful are starting to unite-mainly in seeking to attack Rishi Sunak...
I cant think of any other instance where a leader is found to be unsuitable, and has been forced to resign, or is fired, where they would remain in place for months on end, until an alternative was found. In every case a temporary replacement is always appointed, until a permanent successor can be found.
Not true.
Ask supporters of Margaret Thatcher. Or Gordon Brown.
Really?
Really.
Let's put it this way.
Either you are right. and the Conservative Party don't understand politics.
Or I am right. And they do.
Because Boris has resigned as Leader of the Conservative Party. But he has not yet relinquished his role as PM. It will take a new, duly elected, Leader of the Conservative Party to do that.
So if he resigned with immediate effect, Raab couldnt replace him until a new leader was elected?
John Major succeeded as Tory leader five days after Mrs Thatcher's resignation.
Post-premiership
Return to the backbenches (2010–2015) On 13 May 2010, in his first public appearance since leaving 10 Downing Street, two days after resigning as Prime Minister and Leader of the Labour Party, Brown confirmed he intended to stay on in Parliament, serving as a Labour backbencher, to serve the people of his Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath constituency.[12
I have it on good authority Boris is offering new ministerial posts on a zero hours contract.
He is going to have to persuade many of those that have resigned to take their jobs back.
Many will agree to do exactly that, provided it is agreed that he should be interim leader, rather than Raab.
Suspect Gove won't be there
Defenders of Boris, almost to a man, will say that he got all the big calls correct, but f..k.d up the day to day running of the government completely. Lets just accept for a minute that this is true. The Tories plan is that for the next 2 or 3 months, we have to accept Boris being allowed to continue. He will not be permitted to make any big calls, and only be responsible for the day to day running of the government. This sounds very sensible?
Of course not. But it is probably the least worst option. What are the alternatives:-
1. Put Raab in for about 2 months. Expect him to create a new Cabinet, and without him having any power, control the egos while they all grandstand to show they should be the next PM 2. Dispense with the rules for new leader, put one in place without a vote, call an election 3. Try and fight an election without a leader
This is why Labour and the other opposition Parties will call for a vote of confidence. Knowing fine well that the Tories will have no practical choices other than to be seen to endorse Boris or call an election.
And politicians do what is best for them. They will have to be seen to back Boris. Because it is impossible to fight an election without a Leader.
The key driver for the Tories will be how quickly they can install a new Leader without it appearing rushed or ill-considered. Still, at least the Tory faithful are starting to unite-mainly in seeking to attack Rishi Sunak...
I cant think of any other instance where a leader is found to be unsuitable, and has been forced to resign, or is fired, where they would remain in place for months on end, until an alternative was found. In every case a temporary replacement is always appointed, until a permanent successor can be found.
Not true.
Ask supporters of Margaret Thatcher. Or Gordon Brown.
Really?
Really.
Let's put it this way.
Either you are right. and the Conservative Party don't understand politics.
Or I am right. And they do.
Because Boris has resigned as Leader of the Conservative Party. But he has not yet relinquished his role as PM. It will take a new, duly elected, Leader of the Conservative Party to do that.
So if he resigned with immediate effect, Raab couldnt replace him until a new leader was elected?
John Major succeeded as Tory leader five days after Mrs Thatcher's resignation.
If all ifs and buts came true, my Auntie would have been my Uncle.
Boris has not resigned with immediate effect. Not from being PM. Only to be Caretaker until a duly democratically elected replacement is found.
You can't just replace a duly elected leader against their will with an unelected replacement. Not in a Democracy.
Whether you like it or not leaders can be forced into immediate resignations, democracy or not. It remains to be seen what action the 1922 will take on Monday. I think that there is a valid comparison between Boris and Theresa May. Where there might have been a consensus that Theresa May hanging on until a replacement was found, would not be a problem, because even though she might have been considered not very good, she was reliable enough to avoid causing any damage to the Tories. Many Tory MPs have a different view of Boris.
Whatever you have to say, there seems to be a queue of Tory MPs waiting to appear on TV to suggest that Raab taking over was a better option than leaving Boris in position.
What seems to be absolutely clear is that both Labour, and the Lib Dems, are only threatening a confidence vote in response to Boris remaining in power. So if the Tories feel the need to avoid this then the answer is clear.
You persist in believing that someone who resigns as PM and Leader of the Party with immediate effect is the same as someone who resigns only 1 of those posts with immediate effect.
In 2010, after the Election, Brown faced a hung Parliament-it was either the Lib-Lab or Lib-Con. Brown had volunteered to step down as Labour leader in 6 months time, which would have necessitated either a Lib PM or their agreement for an alternative.
The LibDems refused. Only then did Brown go to the Queen and recommend that Cameron be invited to form a Government, and resigned as Labour leader. His PM role ended the minute Cameron formed a Government without him or Labour in it. Because of the General Election, not his choice.
Back to Johnson. Do the Tories now see why Johnson referred to "blood on their hands" and refuses to agree he has done anything wrong?
I have it on good authority Boris is offering new ministerial posts on a zero hours contract.
He is going to have to persuade many of those that have resigned to take their jobs back.
Many will agree to do exactly that, provided it is agreed that he should be interim leader, rather than Raab.
Suspect Gove won't be there
Defenders of Boris, almost to a man, will say that he got all the big calls correct, but f..k.d up the day to day running of the government completely. Lets just accept for a minute that this is true. The Tories plan is that for the next 2 or 3 months, we have to accept Boris being allowed to continue. He will not be permitted to make any big calls, and only be responsible for the day to day running of the government. This sounds very sensible?
Of course not. But it is probably the least worst option. What are the alternatives:-
1. Put Raab in for about 2 months. Expect him to create a new Cabinet, and without him having any power, control the egos while they all grandstand to show they should be the next PM 2. Dispense with the rules for new leader, put one in place without a vote, call an election 3. Try and fight an election without a leader
This is why Labour and the other opposition Parties will call for a vote of confidence. Knowing fine well that the Tories will have no practical choices other than to be seen to endorse Boris or call an election.
And politicians do what is best for them. They will have to be seen to back Boris. Because it is impossible to fight an election without a Leader.
The key driver for the Tories will be how quickly they can install a new Leader without it appearing rushed or ill-considered. Still, at least the Tory faithful are starting to unite-mainly in seeking to attack Rishi Sunak...
I dont agree with that. Seemingly the opposition parties are only threatening a confidence vote because Boris has been left in place. There is no reason to expect Raab to create a new Cabinet for the sake of 2 or 3 months. I think they could speed up the procedure without compromising the process of electing a new leader. Although there would be no need if Raab was in place. Their deadline seems to be the Party Conference, which is near enough 3 months away. Assuming Boris remains in place he will apparently be forced to tick over, and not make any big changes. The same rules could apply to Raab. If there is any grandstanding, it will probably occur, whoever is in charge.
I think the biggest motivation for Boris is that if he is allowed to remain in power he will exceed the length of time that Theresa May lasted for as PM.
This is, quite simply, not the way the Constitution works.
Firstly, the Conservative Party constitutionally won the last election. And installed Boris as PM, as promised.
There are only 3 ways, under the constitution as it stands, that someone can sit as PM:-
1. A person elected as PM (or, in exigent circumstances, such as Death or Major Illness, his Deputy) 2. A person elected by the Party that won the election 3. The Queen-and only provided there are no good alternatives under 1/2 above, or calling an Election
The Conservatives have traditionally been seen as the Party to uphold traditional values. Under Boris, much of that tradition has been trashed. As a Party, they need to be seeking to regain that traditional advantage. Not trash it further.
There would be the self-same vote of confidence if Raab stepped up. It would be dressed up differently. But it would still be done for political advantage, in exactly the same way. Instead claiming (correctly) that there was currently no constitutional basis to instal Raab. And, instead, the Tories would be left with the option of calling an election without a leader or being seen to ride roughshod over traditional values.
"Speed up the procedure"? There are clear rules in place for the election of a new leader. The best they can hope for is some sort of deal whereby the last 2 agree to divvy up the jobs, in a way that doesn't look too obvious. 6-8 weeks, instead of 3 months.
There are sound political reasons why the current leadership will ignore people like John Major. Because they have to deal with the problems facing the Conservatives today.
There have been a number of the 1922 interviewed on TV suggesting they could speed up the process by holding a number of the initial ballots on the same day, as there are a very small number of votes to count, and the hustings could take place via zoom. I am not advocating either of these measures, merely reporting their suggestions.
You persist in believing that someone who resigns as PM and Leader of the Party with immediate effect is the same as someone who resigns only 1 of those posts with immediate effect.
In 2010, after the Election, Brown faced a hung Parliament-it was either the Lib-Lab or Lib-Con. Brown had volunteered to step down as Labour leader in 6 months time, which would have necessitated either a Lib PM or their agreement for an alternative.
The LibDems refused. Only then did Brown go to the Queen and recommend that Cameron be invited to form a Government, and resigned as Labour leader. His PM role ended the minute Cameron formed a Government without him or Labour in it. Because of the General Election, not his choice.
Back to Johnson. Do the Tories now see why Johnson referred to "blood on their hands" and refuses to agree he has done anything wrong?
He might be a Liar. But he's no fool.
I think you are missing my point completely. It is unusual in any walk of life to find an instance where any leader that is forced to resign due to their misconduct, incompetence, or poor performance is allowed to remain in post for a period of around three months.
You persist in believing that someone who resigns as PM and Leader of the Party with immediate effect is the same as someone who resigns only 1 of those posts with immediate effect.
In 2010, after the Election, Brown faced a hung Parliament-it was either the Lib-Lab or Lib-Con. Brown had volunteered to step down as Labour leader in 6 months time, which would have necessitated either a Lib PM or their agreement for an alternative.
The LibDems refused. Only then did Brown go to the Queen and recommend that Cameron be invited to form a Government, and resigned as Labour leader. His PM role ended the minute Cameron formed a Government without him or Labour in it. Because of the General Election, not his choice.
Back to Johnson. Do the Tories now see why Johnson referred to "blood on their hands" and refuses to agree he has done anything wrong?
He might be a Liar. But he's no fool.
I think you are missing my point completely. It is unusual in any walk of life to find an instance where any leader that is forced to resign due to their misconduct, incompetence, or poor performance is allowed to remain in post for a period of around three months.
Not missing it at all.
I'm not saying I agree with the Rules. I don't. But the starting point in any democracy is to obey the rules. And never try to change them retrospectively.
I'm just saying what they are. And why the Tories have difficulties in relation to trying to play their hand under their House Rules.
I find it difficult to believe that politicians failed to consider that a PM would do whatever suited him, as opposed to the Party. Because Boris is not the first narcissist to be PM.
Compare/contrast with the honourable way May left.
You persist in believing that someone who resigns as PM and Leader of the Party with immediate effect is the same as someone who resigns only 1 of those posts with immediate effect.
In 2010, after the Election, Brown faced a hung Parliament-it was either the Lib-Lab or Lib-Con. Brown had volunteered to step down as Labour leader in 6 months time, which would have necessitated either a Lib PM or their agreement for an alternative.
The LibDems refused. Only then did Brown go to the Queen and recommend that Cameron be invited to form a Government, and resigned as Labour leader. His PM role ended the minute Cameron formed a Government without him or Labour in it. Because of the General Election, not his choice.
Back to Johnson. Do the Tories now see why Johnson referred to "blood on their hands" and refuses to agree he has done anything wrong?
He might be a Liar. But he's no fool.
I think you are missing my point completely. It is unusual in any walk of life to find an instance where any leader that is forced to resign due to their misconduct, incompetence, or poor performance is allowed to remain in post for a period of around three months.
Not missing it at all.
I'm not saying I agree with the Rules. I don't. But the starting point in any democracy is to obey the rules. And never try to change them retrospectively.
I'm just saying what they are. And why the Tories have difficulties in relation to trying to play their hand under their House Rules.
I find it difficult to believe that politicians failed to consider that a PM would do whatever suited him, as opposed to the Party. Because Boris is not the first narcissist to be PM.
Compare/contrast with the honourable way May left.
If the Tories want to avoid an election, all they need to do is convince Boris to resign with immediate effect.
You persist in believing that someone who resigns as PM and Leader of the Party with immediate effect is the same as someone who resigns only 1 of those posts with immediate effect.
In 2010, after the Election, Brown faced a hung Parliament-it was either the Lib-Lab or Lib-Con. Brown had volunteered to step down as Labour leader in 6 months time, which would have necessitated either a Lib PM or their agreement for an alternative.
The LibDems refused. Only then did Brown go to the Queen and recommend that Cameron be invited to form a Government, and resigned as Labour leader. His PM role ended the minute Cameron formed a Government without him or Labour in it. Because of the General Election, not his choice.
Back to Johnson. Do the Tories now see why Johnson referred to "blood on their hands" and refuses to agree he has done anything wrong?
He might be a Liar. But he's no fool.
I think you are missing my point completely. It is unusual in any walk of life to find an instance where any leader that is forced to resign due to their misconduct, incompetence, or poor performance is allowed to remain in post for a period of around three months.
Not missing it at all.
I'm not saying I agree with the Rules. I don't. But the starting point in any democracy is to obey the rules. And never try to change them retrospectively.
I'm just saying what they are. And why the Tories have difficulties in relation to trying to play their hand under their House Rules.
I find it difficult to believe that politicians failed to consider that a PM would do whatever suited him, as opposed to the Party. Because Boris is not the first narcissist to be PM.
Compare/contrast with the honourable way May left.
What would happen if a confidence vote was called next week, and due to the fact that the Tories werent in favour of an election, they voted for Boris, and he won, would this alter his position. Could he claim to be back in business, because he had won a confidence vote?
You persist in believing that someone who resigns as PM and Leader of the Party with immediate effect is the same as someone who resigns only 1 of those posts with immediate effect.
In 2010, after the Election, Brown faced a hung Parliament-it was either the Lib-Lab or Lib-Con. Brown had volunteered to step down as Labour leader in 6 months time, which would have necessitated either a Lib PM or their agreement for an alternative.
The LibDems refused. Only then did Brown go to the Queen and recommend that Cameron be invited to form a Government, and resigned as Labour leader. His PM role ended the minute Cameron formed a Government without him or Labour in it. Because of the General Election, not his choice.
Back to Johnson. Do the Tories now see why Johnson referred to "blood on their hands" and refuses to agree he has done anything wrong?
He might be a Liar. But he's no fool.
I think you are missing my point completely. It is unusual in any walk of life to find an instance where any leader that is forced to resign due to their misconduct, incompetence, or poor performance is allowed to remain in post for a period of around three months.
Not missing it at all.
I'm not saying I agree with the Rules. I don't. But the starting point in any democracy is to obey the rules. And never try to change them retrospectively.
I'm just saying what they are. And why the Tories have difficulties in relation to trying to play their hand under their House Rules.
I find it difficult to believe that politicians failed to consider that a PM would do whatever suited him, as opposed to the Party. Because Boris is not the first narcissist to be PM.
Compare/contrast with the honourable way May left.
Keir Starmer, and Angela Rayner have no case to answer.
I have it on good authority Boris is offering new ministerial posts on a zero hours contract.
He is going to have to persuade many of those that have resigned to take their jobs back.
Many will agree to do exactly that, provided it is agreed that he should be interim leader, rather than Raab.
Suspect Gove won't be there
Defenders of Boris, almost to a man, will say that he got all the big calls correct, but f..k.d up the day to day running of the government completely. Lets just accept for a minute that this is true. The Tories plan is that for the next 2 or 3 months, we have to accept Boris being allowed to continue. He will not be permitted to make any big calls, and only be responsible for the day to day running of the government. This sounds very sensible?
Of course not. But it is probably the least worst option. What are the alternatives:-
1. Put Raab in for about 2 months. Expect him to create a new Cabinet, and without him having any power, control the egos while they all grandstand to show they should be the next PM 2. Dispense with the rules for new leader, put one in place without a vote, call an election 3. Try and fight an election without a leader
This is why Labour and the other opposition Parties will call for a vote of confidence. Knowing fine well that the Tories will have no practical choices other than to be seen to endorse Boris or call an election.
And politicians do what is best for them. They will have to be seen to back Boris. Because it is impossible to fight an election without a Leader.
The key driver for the Tories will be how quickly they can install a new Leader without it appearing rushed or ill-considered. Still, at least the Tory faithful are starting to unite-mainly in seeking to attack Rishi Sunak...
Everything tainted by Johnson’s lies needs to be undone. That includes his Brexit
Comments
1. Put Raab in for about 2 months. Expect him to create a new Cabinet, and without him having any power, control the egos while they all grandstand to show they should be the next PM
2. Dispense with the rules for new leader, put one in place without a vote, call an election
3. Try and fight an election without a leader
This is why Labour and the other opposition Parties will call for a vote of confidence. Knowing fine well that the Tories will have no practical choices other than to be seen to endorse Boris or call an election.
And politicians do what is best for them. They will have to be seen to back Boris. Because it is impossible to fight an election without a Leader.
The key driver for the Tories will be how quickly they can install a new Leader without it appearing rushed or ill-considered. Still, at least the Tory faithful are starting to unite-mainly in seeking to attack Rishi Sunak...
Seemingly the opposition parties are only threatening a confidence vote because Boris has been left in place.
There is no reason to expect Raab to create a new Cabinet for the sake of 2 or 3 months.
I think they could speed up the procedure without compromising the process of electing a new leader.
Although there would be no need if Raab was in place.
Their deadline seems to be the Party Conference, which is near enough 3 months away.
Assuming Boris remains in place he will apparently be forced to tick over, and not make any big changes.
The same rules could apply to Raab.
If there is any grandstanding, it will probably occur, whoever is in charge.
I think the biggest motivation for Boris is that if he is allowed to remain in power he will exceed the length of time that Theresa May lasted for as PM.
Firstly, the Conservative Party constitutionally won the last election. And installed Boris as PM, as promised.
There are only 3 ways, under the constitution as it stands, that someone can sit as PM:-
1. A person elected as PM (or, in exigent circumstances, such as Death or Major Illness, his Deputy)
2. A person elected by the Party that won the election
3. The Queen-and only provided there are no good alternatives under 1/2 above, or calling an Election
The Conservatives have traditionally been seen as the Party to uphold traditional values. Under Boris, much of that tradition has been trashed. As a Party, they need to be seeking to regain that traditional advantage. Not trash it further.
There would be the self-same vote of confidence if Raab stepped up. It would be dressed up differently. But it would still be done for political advantage, in exactly the same way. Instead claiming (correctly) that there was currently no constitutional basis to instal Raab. And, instead, the Tories would be left with the option of calling an election without a leader or being seen to ride roughshod over traditional values.
"Speed up the procedure"? There are clear rules in place for the election of a new leader. The best they can hope for is some sort of deal whereby the last 2 agree to divvy up the jobs, in a way that doesn't look too obvious. 6-8 weeks, instead of 3 months.
There are sound political reasons why the current leadership will ignore people like John Major. Because they have to deal with the problems facing the Conservatives today.
In every case a temporary replacement is always appointed, until a permanent successor can be found.
Ask supporters of Margaret Thatcher. Or Gordon Brown.
Do you fancy the Tories chances of getting Boris to agree to all this?
Let's put it this way.
Either you are right. and the Conservative Party don't understand politics.
Or I am right. And they do.
Because Boris has resigned as Leader of the Conservative Party. But he has not yet relinquished his role as PM. It will take a new, duly elected, Leader of the Conservative Party to do that.
John Major succeeded as Tory leader five days after Mrs Thatcher's resignation.
Boris has not resigned with immediate effect. Not from being PM. Only to be Caretaker until a duly democratically elected replacement is found.
You can't just replace a duly elected leader against their will with an unelected replacement. Not in a Democracy.
Return to the backbenches (2010–2015)
On 13 May 2010, in his first public appearance since leaving 10 Downing Street, two days after resigning as Prime Minister and Leader of the Labour Party, Brown confirmed he intended to stay on in Parliament, serving as a Labour backbencher, to serve the people of his Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath constituency.[12
It remains to be seen what action the 1922 will take on Monday.
I think that there is a valid comparison between Boris and Theresa May.
Where there might have been a consensus that Theresa May hanging on until a replacement was found, would not be a problem, because even though she might have been considered not very good, she was reliable enough to avoid causing any damage to the Tories.
Many Tory MPs have a different view of Boris.
Whatever you have to say, there seems to be a queue of Tory MPs waiting to appear on TV to suggest that Raab taking over was a better option than leaving Boris in position.
What seems to be absolutely clear is that both Labour, and the Lib Dems, are only threatening a confidence vote in response to Boris remaining in power.
So if the Tories feel the need to avoid this then the answer is clear.
In 2010, after the Election, Brown faced a hung Parliament-it was either the Lib-Lab or Lib-Con. Brown had volunteered to step down as Labour leader in 6 months time, which would have necessitated either a Lib PM or their agreement for an alternative.
The LibDems refused. Only then did Brown go to the Queen and recommend that Cameron be invited to form a Government, and resigned as Labour leader. His PM role ended the minute Cameron formed a Government without him or Labour in it. Because of the General Election, not his choice.
Back to Johnson. Do the Tories now see why Johnson referred to "blood on their hands" and refuses to agree he has done anything wrong?
He might be a Liar. But he's no fool.
I am not advocating either of these measures, merely reporting their suggestions.
It is unusual in any walk of life to find an instance where any leader that is forced to resign due to their misconduct, incompetence, or poor performance is allowed to remain in post for a period of around three months.
I'm not saying I agree with the Rules. I don't. But the starting point in any democracy is to obey the rules. And never try to change them retrospectively.
I'm just saying what they are. And why the Tories have difficulties in relation to trying to play their hand under their House Rules.
I find it difficult to believe that politicians failed to consider that a PM would do whatever suited him, as opposed to the Party. Because Boris is not the first narcissist to be PM.
Compare/contrast with the honourable way May left.
Could he claim to be back in business, because he had won a confidence vote?
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/everything-tainted-by-johnson-s-lies-needs-to-be-undone-that-includes-his-brexit/ar-AAZmNIN?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=d94df17048ec4cb2a3cb0b4fbfa32c27