Boris Johnson has at least three problems this morning.
First, he does not know what he is for, apart from holding the position of prime minister so that no one else can.
Second, he is widely known now to be incompetent, a liar and a law-breaker.
Third, some Tory MPs have added these two together and are asking why Johnson is a worthwhile leader of their party as a result.
I have no better clue as to how many Tory MPs are explicit about this than anyone else. Rumour has it that the figure saying they have submitted letters suggesting that they wish for a leadership election is close to 30. Fifty-four are required to trigger an election on whether he should remain leader, or not. When Theresa May faced a similar situation with the 48 letters required to trigger such an election having been submitted only 27 had been declared publicly. There is every reason to think that the same ratio might apply now. In that case Johnson might face a vote on whether he should remain leader of the Tories as early as next week.
The chance that the Conservatives will win the two by-elections in June is, in that case, remote. Their chance is destroyed by internal party disputes. Tory MPs need to take that into account.
The likelihood of winning the next election is equally remote: no leader can be confident in the presentation of their case to the country when they know their own party has major doubts about them. Tory MPs should also take that into account.
But, and this is my concern, that does not mean that Johnson will go now.
Despite the obvious evidence in favour of doing so I am not convinced most Tory MPs will vote against him if there were to be a vote on his leadership next week. They are stupid, after all, with evidence and reasoning appearing to be of little consequence to them.
And if he scrapes home by even the smallest margin I am sure Johnson would not resign.
I am not even confident he would resign if he lost: I think his Cabinet would have to force him out, which would be ugly and fatal for Tory hopes. But in Johnson's world, only Johnson matters.
So, do I think the Johnson era is over as yet? I very much doubt it. We must suffer for longer, and under 1922 Committee rules if Johnson survives a leadership challenge another cannot be staged for a further twelve months. Whether that would be politically realistic or not is hard to tell. But what is likely is that the disaster that is Johnson's premiership will be inflicted on us for a while longer yet, even though even his own party is losing faith.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I might have said this already, in which case sorry, but in case I havnt, it seems to me that his Premiership highlights the need to seriously look at the way PM’s are appointed.
I suggest that especially in the case of a change outside a General Election that the largest Party should submit its candidate for ratification by the entire House of Commons with the candidate being required to answer a series of standard questions and be subject to a report by The Security Services outlining any potential issues not in the public domain.
I would suggest that by convention Parliament should not over rule the ruling parties choice UNLESS the Candidate is clearly unfit for the role which is obviously the case with Johnson.
Could Johnson carrying on, which he would, after a narrow result of a Tory leadership election, which ever way it went, be in the best long-term interests of the country, despite the undoubted short- and medium-term harms his continuing would inflict?
Taking the Tory party out of serious consideration for a generation? Allowing the, more, progressive parties time to heal the damages and enact much needed reforms to the electoral and constitutional systems? Or, would those reforms, PR, fully elected HoL, written constitution, abolition of the monarchy, etc, need the threat of an electable Tory party to outweigh the short-term allure of electoral dictatorship?
Apologies for the edit: “most Tory MPs”……..”are stupid,…with evidence and reasoning appear to be of little consequence to them.”
Quite!
The ones with two neurons to rub together & with modest majorities are the ones that are most likely to do something. ON a related note, at the moment, Mendacious Fatberg is Liebore’s biggest electoral asset (ditto the Lying Dems) -which tells you all you need to know about Liebore and the Lying Dems. The country deserves better, but English serfs (& this is the problem) seem incapable of voting for (or even being able to identify) politicos that have even a modicum of competence – maybe that is changing, but I am not hopeful.
I have edited – done in too much haste this morning
I never saw Johnson going to be honest – he was put there by BREXIT entryists who are well-heeled and want change at all costs. He and the people who put them there will cling on. And then you have those Tories supporting the Cameron and Osbourne objective – to pick up where Thatcher left off – and go further. They want inner-party stability to finish the job.
We must remember that behind all this ridiculousness and shame is naked money-power.
Parliament has tolerated the 1922 Committee for far too long. You cannot have a sovereignty within sovereignty in my view but the Tories have always been the leading lights on exceptionalism. The Committee should have its powers curbed by law in my view. Disregarding a democratic voting system is so typically bourgeois anyway.
Any change in leader with any party should be accompanied by a GE unless the change is through ill-health or death in which John Boxall’s comments seem eminently sensible when applied to the stand-in.
Hopefully one day we’ll have a leadership role under PR, where the role is to ensure that the parties involved deliver policy for the country.
“Parliament has tolerated the 1922 Committee for far too long.”
I’m glad that I’m not the only one thinking this, why is this group within the Conservative Party treated as sacrosanct?
I’d love to see a parliamentary committee on the 1922 committee.
A hostile one.
In discussing what might and should be done about Johnson it is obvious but of primary importance to remember that like Trump, he is a symptom of the disease not the cause.
What is needed is a complete constitutional overhaul and the opposition parties need to be honest about this, rather than as I suspect they will, campaigning within the ever-narrowing window of political discussion permitted by our ruling triumvirate of Tory party, City of London and UK media.
If after the Banking collapse, Austerity, Brexit, Covid, the “Cost of Living Crisis” and Johnson there is still not a sufficient majority of UK voters that understands the problem and is prepared to do something about it then I doubt that there ever will be,
“Power is delicious, absolute power is absolutely delightful”. Do Tory MP’s with comfortable life styles (80k salary, 200k expenses) vote for change? Or just hang on, and work for a profitable exit from Parliament?
Another example of a failing state, with self interest replacing public interest.
£200k of expenses is the cost of running an office in the main. Can we keep perspective on this?
I am sure that we have both got experience of running an office. MP’s are at Westminster around 160 days a year, say £150 a day housing & cheap subsidised meals, roughly £25000, office rental £25000 (including power/ rates). What staff? Office administrator, say £30000, researcher (lots of graduate students around) £20000. Total £100,000. Travel costs yes, but surely £200k is completely OTT.
If I was their boss, my response to a £200k claim would be Yer right.
I think you are hopelessly out of touch with Westminster, the needs of a family in two places and employment costs
And they need a constituency office as well as a London one
Sorry John, but convention was part of the reason why we are in this mess. It relies on the “good chap” theory and you may have noticed, we have a bounder in charge.
I think the imperial measures gambit is a sign of desperation which is apparent to Tory MPs as much as anyone else so Johnson’s days are numbered. This government will flounder on regardless. Labour will complacently assume we are in for another 1997 with the electorate swinging to them by default. I’m not so sure.
Starmer is a weak leader with no ideas, charisma, courage or conviction. The front bench is similarly lacklustre and they are being directed by the likes of Mandelson who long ago ceased to have any connection with ordinary people.
I don’t think this is necessarily a bad thing as a Labour led coalition government may lead to a concession on electoral reform assuming that the Liberals and Greens are prepared to play hardball for it. That has to be the foundation for any overall reform.
The problem is that even if he is deposed and someone else takes over the Tories will seek to present this as a “fresh start” and claim they are turning over a new leaf and will ignore the past as just a blip in the road
Rachel Reeves did well in Parliament to spin the “we thought of it first” line with the Windfall tax. However, the Labour proposals were far more generous to the energy sector than those announced by Rishi Sunak and supported by Boris Johnson. So we have just seen Starmer and Reeves outflanked on the left by Johnson and Sunak. Who would have thought that? Naturally this is much to the annoyance of the Tory hard right as expressed by John Redwood.
Meanwhile we have Starmer and Reeves pushing the “spendthrift” line and blaming the Tories for “running up” large debts. There’s a lot to blame the Tories for but recent deficits and debts have largely been outside their control.
So maybe the lack of any noticeable ideology isn’t such a bad thing?
The following quite possible scenario would lead to a full blown constitutional crisis:
1. The 58 letters are submitted.
2. Johnson wins the vote on his leadership.
3. Johnson is suspended from parliament for more than 10 days by the privileges committee
4. Johnson is recalled and either does not stand in or loses the resulting bye-election.
5. Johnson refuses to resign as PM
6. The Tories defeat a vote of no confidence in the government.
As I understand it from talking to constitutional lawyers (I am related to one but not one myself), there is no constitutional requirement for a prime minister to be a member of either the Commons or the Lords. The only requirement is that he commands the confidence of the house and 6, together with 2, could be interpreted as confirming that he does.
Are the Tories stupid enough to allow this to happen? Sadly, I think they are.
This is where the Queen is meant to step in and fulfill her constitutional duty. Though, much like in the proroguing case, she may well opt out.
Well – it’s time to mention the ‘F’ word isn’t it?
Fascism – rule by minority interests. That is where we are.
As long as we remain blinded by an irrational fear of socialism rather than Fascism , democracy will be endangered.
No remediation of democracy can take place until we have a serious conversation about Fascism and the techniques it uses that are all to often pitfalls in our current democracy.
Dividing people in order to get them to vote is just not on. But that’s what we do!
why are you so obsessed with Johnson going now? Surely the longer he stays the greater the likelihood Starmer is the next PM? Isn’t that what you want?
I am not party political
I want good government
So far Labour is not offering much to induce confidence on that issue