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.
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?
Boris told to go! Tory 1922 Committee to make rule change decision next week on PM's fate BORIS JOHNSON is to be given his marching orders tonight by "the men in grey suits" led by 1922 Committee chairman Sir Graham Brady or risk being forced out of office in ignominy, sources have claimed.
Comments
Boris told to go! Tory 1922 Committee to make rule change decision next week on PM's fate
BORIS JOHNSON is to be given his marching orders tonight by "the men in grey suits" led by 1922 Committee chairman Sir Graham Brady or risk being forced out of office in ignominy, sources have claimed.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1636430/Boris-Johnson-Graham-Brady-1922-committee-forced-out-leader-Conservartive-update
After such an ignominious downfall, how can he be allowed to set his own timetable?
https://www.newstatesman.com/quickfire/2022/07/boris-johnson-must-go-now-not-three-months
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/labour-poised-to-table-confidence-vote-on-tuesday-if-tory-mps-do-not-oust-boris-johnson-immediately/ar-AAZqt3i?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=ea3a297938574aea97ec276ae46b1394