Vote of no confidence

[El Pollo Diablo]

A small correction there, chops - May got 64% of the Tory MP vote in December 2018 and announced she would resign in May 2019, leaving office in July, so she lasted a little over seven months.

[Tessa K]

No doubt there are a lot of 'secret' conversations happening today with threats and promises.

[WFJ]

As for some other results. In 2018 Theresa May won 64% of the vote and carried on for another year. In 1995 John Major won 66% and carried on until 1997.

So it looks like 60% would mean that Johnson would be able to carry on, at least for another year. Worst case for the Tory party would be if Johnson got between 51 and 59 per cent but refused to resign.

A major difference to consider here is that these were confidence votes largely over policy—Europe in both cases—although Major's in particular was also a question of leadership. No single potential leader at these times could have united the parliamentary party on these policies.

Boris faces very little opposition on policy and are few divisions in the party after the post-Brexit purge. Those voting against would be saying he is unfit to lead the party or be PM due to his personal failings.

[El Pollo Diablo]

Johnson's anti-corruption tsar has resigned. He's also the husband of Dido Harding.

https://mobile.twitter.com/JohnPenroseN ... 8483061760

[Woodchopper]

A small correction there, chops - May got 64% of the Tory MP vote in December 2018 and announced she would resign in May 2019, leaving office in July, so she lasted a little over seven months.

Yes, that's correct.

[Woodchopper]

As for some other results. In 2018 Theresa May won 64% of the vote and carried on for another year. In 1995 John Major won 66% and carried on until 1997.

So it looks like 60% would mean that Johnson would be able to carry on, at least for another year. Worst case for the Tory party would be if Johnson got between 51 and 59 per cent but refused to resign.

A major difference to consider here is that these were confidence votes largely over policy—Europe in both cases—although Major's in particular was also a question of leadership. No single potential leader at these times could have united the parliamentary party on these policies.

Boris faces very little opposition on policy and are few divisions in the party after the post-Brexit purge. Those voting against would be saying he is unfit to lead the party or be PM due to his personal failings.

Yes, I agree. Johnson can't rely upon a bloc of MPs who will support him because they are ideologically opposed to his opponents.

[Stranger Mouse]

Boris Johnson’s anti corruption tsar resigns - letter doesn’t mince words

https://twitter.com/timd_ifg/status/153 ... _tU66v-yAw

[jimbob]

Jeremy rhyming slang has withdrawn his support

https://nitter.net/Jeremy_Hunt/status/1 ... 99657728#m

I mean he's not wrong but it was clear 18 months ago at the most generous to Johnson that he lacked integrity or competence

[jimbob]

If Johnson survives, those letters are going to be good ammunition for the opposition in the next election

[lpm]

There is zero chance Johnson will still be PM at the next election. He's totally finished.

There's even a chance they'll kill him tonight, instead of merely leaving him with a mortal wound that will fester for a few months.

[El Pollo Diablo]

Johnson repealed the Fixed Term Parliaments act yet? Is there any chance he'll wreak his rewengy by calling an election?

Edit: Just checked, it was repealed in March this year.

[lpm]

Yeah, that fixed thing is gone.

Which means technically the next election can be as late as Jan 2025, instead of the May 2024 date. Bought them up to 8 months longer in power. Though an autumn 2024 election would be more likely than a winter election.

[lpm]

But Johnson can't call an election just because he loses the leadership. Her Majesty is required to reject a request for dissolution in that circumstance.

[Trinucleus]

There is zero chance Johnson will still be PM at the next election. He's totally finished.

There's even a chance they'll kill him tonight, instead of merely leaving him with a mortal wound that will fester for a few months.

Or they leave him in place to have to deal with all the economic crap that's coming up

[dyqik]

Best case scenario is he survives with about 40% voting against. Tories then get trashed in by-elections but are stuck with a weak leader for a year.

I think this is unlikely though. If it's clear he won't be defeated, most won't vote against. He'll either be voted out or around 15-20 MPs at most will vote against.

Having 40% voting against you is pretty uncomfortable, possibly too uncomfortable to remain as leader. Which is probably why what you say about "if it's clear he won't be defeated..." might be true - they wouldn't necessarily want to put the leader in such a difficult position with any alternative rather less popular.

There is zero chance Johnson will still be PM at the next election. He's totally finished.

There's even a chance they'll kill him tonight, instead of merely leaving him with a mortal wound that will fester for a few months.

Or they leave him in place to have to deal with all the economic crap that's coming up

40% of his party opposed to him would also mean that he is very unlikely to survive a parliamentary no confidence vote. Unless Labour actually want to keep him in power to demonstrate the depth of his and Tory party's failings. I don't think that look would be good for Labour though.

[Stranger Mouse]

Nadine v Jeremy

https://twitter.com/bethrigby/status/15 ... _tU66v-yAw

[Woodchopper]

Leadership contest fought live on Twitter: https://twitter.com/nadinedorries/statu ... of43WwmEsA

[FlammableFlower]

She's on form.

[Brightonian]

Paddy Power has Johnson 4-1 on to win the confidence vote.

#unt and Tug-end-hat (such as suitable name when meeting Her Maj) both on 4-1 for next Tory leader.

My father wonders if Johnson will be accused of being damaged if he wins and might decide to call a general election to "prove" he has the confidence of the people.

[Brightonian]

Duplicate.

[lpm]

Where do we reckon to the various ranges for size of rebel vote?

Something like this?

< 100 rebels = massive victory for Johnson
< 117 = better than Theresa May
100-130 = reasonable victory for Johnson, safe for a year
130-150 = walking dead, urged to do the honorable thing (ha ha)
150-178 = immediate stabbing in the back, cabinet ministers resign
179 = wins by one vote, maximum lols
180 = kicked out (I believe there are 359 Tory MPs under the whip, although one is banned from Westminster for being a rapist? A 179-179 draw would be amusing.)

Ladbrokes odds for rebel vote:

0-49 - 66/1
50-99 - 3/1
100-149 - 15/8
150-199 - 2/1

My personal guess: 150.

[Woodchopper]

Man doing a tally of declarations of support for Johnson is up to 90
https://twitter.com/johnestevens/status ... G-vvIoDgag

Still a long way to go for Johnson

[Woodchopper]

David Allen Green on the prospects for a constitutional crisis.

But what happens if he loses today’s vote and then refuses to resign is less clear. Johnson did not step down after seeking to breach the very Brexit agreement he signed or receiving a fixed penalty for breaking the pandemic laws his government imposed. He may not voluntarily relinquish office.

If Johnson refused to resign the Queen would almost certainly not oblige him to do so. It would be seen as a party matter, and the presumption would be that he would continue as premier until and unless it was demonstrable that he did not command the support of the House of Commons.

This would require another vote of confidence by the House as a whole. And even if he were to lose that, Johnson could hang on and seek a general election. In 1979 the then Labour premier James Callaghan lost such a vote and went to the country for a fresh mandate.

But there is a plausible scenario in which Johnson loses today’s vote, refuses to resign as prime minister but uses the threat of a general election to evade a loss of confidence vote in the House of Commons. We would then be in a remarkable situation where Johnson knew the Queen would not sack him, his party would have no confidence in him but neither parliament nor the electorate would be able to force his departure.

We would then have a potential constitutional crisis — a serious situation without a predictable resolution. The politics of a defeat for Johnson today probably mean that he resigns the premiership voluntarily, averting this. But the sheer possibility of such a scenario is alarming — that we have a prime minister who would take the very constitution to the line to protect his own position.

https://www.ft.com/content/56f74dc1-9c4 ... 84142a658b

[Gfamily]

She's on form.

She's also confirmed as a government minister that the government's pandemic preparation was inadequate and found wanting.

[lpm]

Jeez, DAG has gone badly wrong. That's all utter nonsense, start to finish. I fear he's coming down with Covid and his brain has gone fuzzy. Why did the FT publish that?

It's simple. For the time being this is only about leadership of the Conservative Party. Nothing to do with who is PM or who the govt is.

If he loses the vote Johnson remains PM. Just like Thatcher, Cameron and May did. The Conservative party then spends days, weeks or months selecting their new leader.

That new leader then gets cheered to the rafters by the Tories when he or she comes to celebrate victory in Westminster.

At this point, August say, Johnson resigns as PM, the Queen sends for the new leader, a new cabinet is formed etc etc.

It would be funny if Johnson refused to resign at that point. But he wouldn't have a cabinet or any govt ministers. The Queen would send for him and dismiss him, for not being able to command the House, and she'd immediately appoint the new leader. This is how the constitution works and there wouldn't be the slightest controversy about the Queen's action.

There's absolutely no need to go to a "This House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government" motion. Nor is there any need to dissolve parliament, even if Johnson asked. It would be clear there was a new leader who could command the support of the House for a reasonable length of time and request for dissolution would automatically be denied under the constitution.

DAG is also factually wrong about Callaghan. In 1979 a new general election would have been held by the autumn anyway, there was no other candidate able to command the House and dissolution was agreed to be appropriate by all parties. Simply not relevant for the current parliament where a party has an 80 seat majority and 2.5 years to a required election.

The constitution is very clear about all of this process. There's no crisis anywhere on the horizon.