Boris Johnson's government denied a Labour request for a vote of no confidence in it yesterday.
This matters. A government has to be able to command a majority in the House of Commons. That is a basic rule of our unwritten constitution. And the Opposition does in no small part exist to test whether that is true or not. As such under Erskine May - the 'bible' on these issues - a request for a vote of no confidence has to be accepted, albeit not necessarily on the day demanded. There is also no set formula for these votes, but they must be in the government and not an individual.
It seems as though Labour made a value request.
The government refused it.
It does not have the right to do that.
So Johnson is now squatting illegally in Number 10, no doubt plotting his January 6 moment.
The collapse of legal government in the UK goes on, by the day.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
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!
What would be being said now if a Labour government was in that situation?
Mr Speaker! Please! Do your effing job!!
I wonder what John Bercow would have said about this?
Having been on the stump with Mr Bercow, I suggest that the matter would be sorted out round the back of the bins………
’round the back of the bins’
Since we are dealing with what amounts to a mutinous Tory party, I think the location most apt.
I agree with the first comment. Lindsay Hoyle ahould surely have reviewed this and upheld the request. It appears there is precedent. Furthermore this very action is the proof ( if any were needed) that Johnson is dangerous and unprincipled and should go now, not be left in place to create more chaos and division. I blame the Speaker’s lack of discipline.
I am very angry about this. Rare for me.
Johnson should not be in office. Our constitution is quite flexible and it should be possible to vote for the removal of an individual minister ( the PM is a minister)
or for the suspension of an individual MP. If Johnson can’t come to the House, he can’t be PM)
I see there is a suggestion that he might nominate peers for the Lords. (remember he made his brother a Lord for no reason).
What message does this send about what is permissible in politics and to the rest of the world?
I can’t help feeling that this is a class issue and that Johnson is seen as ‘one of us’ by the establishment. Rees-Mogg was criticising Sunak today for ‘disloyalty”.
This a PM forced out of office for a lack of integrity and honesty. A judgement f his own party’s ministers. He should leave office. He can stay in his flat until he finds somewhere. He can even take his £480 a roll wallpaper but not be Prime Minister.
According to a relative who is an academic constitutional lawyer, the important issue is whether or not Johnson commands the confidence of the House. If he loses a vote of no confidence then it is clear he does not and if he does not resign, then the monarch should dismiss him and ask someone else to form a government. The last prime minister to be dismissed by the sovereign was William Lamb in 1834.
There is no requirement that a minister, including the prime minister, be a member of either the Commons or the Lords. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries it has been quite common for prime ministers in the Lords as there was no way of revoking membership.
Historically there have been several ministers who were members of neither house, most recent example being Patrick Gordon Walker who was a minister for a short time in the Wilson government. Although it has never actually happened, nothing says the prime minister has to be a member of the Lords or the Commons.
This could be a critical decision for Speaker Hoyle, is he above Erskine May. These are dangerous moments for the trajectory of Parliament; will Hoyle be a political abuse enabler? I have to say Chris Bryant has been eloquent and effective in Parliament.
Hoyle is a tool, of the Tories
I love your use of punctuation above.