Sajid Javid just resigned

[achillestoes]

That’s all.

I’m uncomfortable with any party who lies about biology so Labour’s out for me

I don’t care if Johnson goes at this point, although the media circus has been insane and I find that fairly unbearable, but I’d choose ending the pain of this turmoil over worrying about a change in rules

Blossom

But first they have to be elected by the whole electorate, and anyone can be a Tory member.

Then I chose to keep him Marsha, if the new Prime Minster starts his job by breaking rules then we are already on a slippery slope.

Samphire completely agree, it actually makes me sick to think I have no one to vote for.

The rules are set by the committee

Presumably it is within their remit to address what they are

If the process exists to change them then I don’t see the issue - if it’s by consensus or whatever the criteria is.

Breaking rules suggests there is no path way to change

So why are there only 250,000 Tory members? And why don’t you acknowledge the process is a million miles away from democratic?

No politician in history has ever been elected by the whole electorate. You clearly have no understanding of our political system.

@Blossomtoes

I understand the system. I think it’s democratic. What would be undemocratic is to have people who are not elected passing judgment on the people who are. That’s why we don’t do it: the electorate wields the power, not administrators.

So why are there only 250,000 Tory members? Because that's how many people bought tickets!

Don't read too much into it. Even UKIP have more, far more!

We aren't party stalwarts any more. We are all possible swing voters - to borrow a phrase.

It's been building for years, but this is the state of UK politics. We built it. This is where/when we pay for it!

I'm heavily involved in local politics and government. The truth is far more depressing than this. The state we are in, politically, in Britain is down to the fact that ordinary people are just too knackered, too busy, carry too heavy a load to hold any kind of civic role or position alongside everything else. People have mortgages and bills, jobs, kids and caring obligations; they don't have the energy for anything else.

So you end up with people who have fewer responsibilities. If someone is under the age of retirement, you generally discover why those people have fewer responsibilities. And it's usually not good.

In every political or civic body or organisation I come across, Pareto plays out. 20% of the people do 80% of the work. These people carry an entire regional branch, an entire council, an entire community group on their backs; after a while, it's shattering. As a rule, these people are never the ones that end up where we need them as a society: using their experience and knowledge to consider and make good law and policy. No, the accolades fall onto the twats, the self-promoters, the Machiavellis, the psychos, and they are the ones who end up on executive boards, and as councillors and MPs.

The pool from which politicians are drawn is inaccessible to most people. And it is inaccessible because most people just do not have the time or the energy to get to a point where they can jump into it. It's not even about money most of the time, it's about having a spare evening a week to spend on something that doesn't make you money, care for your family or provide a respite from your frantic life.

That's why British politics is a mess. We don't need people with passion; we need pragmatic, thoughtful people with a decent amount of life experience who are in the position where they can give up a few spare evenings a week to ask pertinent questions and stop utterly stupid decisions being made (and who will read fucking briefing papers beforehand, to boot).

What would be undemocratic is to have people who are not elected passing judgment on the people who are

That’s exactly what we do now 🤷‍♀️ It’s literally how political parties work.

I'm sat here trying to work out how to make the Town Council resign. I say Town, it's a Parish council and the majority of members have been there for 20+ years. New people arrive, stay for 6 months - 2 years and leave, with a loud outcry.

But nothing changes.

At District level we have :

Britain First bloke masquerading as Labour

A weird woman who keeps shouting that she knows what is best for, and I quote "this backward corner of England"

A tree hugger who makes Neil of the Young Ones look dynamic. He wants every tree named and adopted, looked after by a resident!

And someone else who appears and disappears but seems to be quite vocal

And the Independent incumbent. Who probably won because he is quite quiet.

Our MP is a longstanding "much loved" Tory...

I am in the hinterlands and nobody cares!

It is disturbing to imagine the committee will overthrow an elected PM and a huge mandate to lead.

IF that happens we are all screwed. It will mean that men in the grey suits - unelected technocrats in the back rooms can interfere and meddle and basically create a coup to remove any working PM. How will the public react to such a loss of credibility and democracy?

And how would any potential PM take over knowing the rules were ‘fixed’ to facilitate their promotion to lead country? The people of this country have not voted for them, have not agreed to this at all and are unlikely to give them the time of day. It’s a poisoned chalice.

No wonder Truss and others are staying entirely silent. No one will want to be implicated in such shady corruption of our politics.

Johnson can call a GE at any time

If the anti-Boris Camp get enough people on the 1922 Committee to get a majority they can force a rule change.

If they can force a rule change, they can have a vote of no confidence sooner than the current rules allow.

Pippa Crerar AT PippaCrerar
NEW: Downing Street confirms that Boris Johnson would fight any new confidence vote - and says PM believes he still has the support of a majority of his MPs.

Except there is a problem.

Boris Johnson needed 180 of his 359 MPs to vote for him in order to stay on as party leader and prime minister. He got 211. He had 40% of his party vote against him. Thats most of the backbenchers. If you are in government there is an expectation that you will vote to support your PM in a confidence vote. If you don't, you quit government and become a backbencher.

In response to Pippa Crerar tweet above:

Alex White AT AlexWhite1812
No chance. Take the 18 resignations (so far) and switch them to the other side - that's enough

In other words. If the 1922 Committee (which is made up of all the Tory backbenchers) can get an anti-Boris majority, he's gone.

The numbers are now very firmly against Johnson. Its now just a question of who is in what role as to whether it can be forced, and when that might happen.

@Blossomtoes

Their judgment is on him as leader of the parliamentary party. That is correct. What would not be correct is to have unelected people removing the PM.

‘If you are in government there is an expectation that you will vote to support your PM in a confidence vote. If you don't, you quit government and become a backbencher.’

That does not mean they did.

red and this level of interference and corruption will just blindly be accepted by the public you imagine in your wildest dreams?

Johnson will call an election before that happens. Autumn 22 and let’s see what the people have to say….

What would not be correct is to have unelected people removing the PM

Isn’t that what happens when governments lose general elections? 🤔

The fairest way to resolve this is to take it the people.

@Blossomtoes

By a democratic majority, yes. That’s all Parliament is: a collection of representatives of the electorate. We have the right to remove a government. No individual bureaucrat or group of bureaucrats does.

Starmer agrees with you.

BUT the government haven’t lost the election, it was a landslide victory for Johnson, and yes I rather think that is undisputed!

By a democratic majority, yes

No government has ever had a democratic majority. First past the post doesn’t allow it.

Great that Starmer agrees, quire whether he will be in a position to fight an election remains to be seen…

Did anyone say it had?

Mikey Smith AT mikeysmith
Well-placed source convinced Boris Johnson won’t quit, even if the 22 change the rules, and he loses a VONC.

Instead, he’ll claim he has a mandate from 14m voters, and will threaten to force an election - but not before deselecting everyone who voted against him.

This was more or less the scorched-earth strategy the PM employed during the 2018 Brexit crisis, which saw him withdraw the whip from 21 MPs who tried to stop him bringing the UK’s fragile constitution to its knees.

That said, he had a somewhat punchier team of advisors behind him at the time…

And others who know the PM well are telling me he’s “done.”

Point is, as William Goldman would say, nobody knows anything.

But if I were planning on leaving any time soon, I wouldn’t bother turning up to the Liaison Committee today.

Should add that this isn’t the first time this scenario has been suggested to me. The first time was a few months back by a former Tory MP, who said “It’ll take him losing an election, and maybe not even then.”

Rob Ford AT robfordmancs
Bear with me a minute on this thought experiment.

Say 60% of Con MPs vote no confidence in Johnson, he refuses to go, and expels all of them. They form a new grouping in Commons "Real Conservative Party". It then has more MPs than the Johnson Con party. What happens?

Lets take it one step further and say Real Con Party elected their own leader, and then announce their leader, who has majority of support from the majority faction in Commons, is the real PM. What then? Who decides who is real PM if there are two candidates with strong claims?

Curious what parliament/constitution tweeps think would happen in this (unlikely, but lets face it not impossible) scenario

MattD82 AT JohnvOhlen
Vote of confidence in the Commons. BoJo loses. Then a new government needs to be formed under a PM who commands a majority. Like they did it in the 18th century. This is not a new scenario - parties are not essential to the working of the HoC.

Rob Ford AT robfordmancs
A lot of responses saying confidence vote would resolve this.Maybe. But who gets to call one? Is it just the incumbent PM? But (a) is Johnson still the incumbent PM if he's lost a leadership vote? On what grounds? (b) What if Johnson refuses to call one? Can anyone else call one?

Nick Anstead AT NickAnstead
I'm not quite sure of the mechanics (now FTPA is gone) but surely basic principle would be like Lloyd-George Liberals and Asquith Liberals after the split?

1. Can anyone form a government? If not...
2. Election.

One other interesting question is who gets the intellectual property (and actual property for that matter)? Who gets to run as a Conservative on the ballot paper? That could possibly end up before Electoral Commission or in the Courts?

Confidence vote looks likely this or next week according to R4

Starmer’s biggest success is riding on the coattails of a campaign to get rid of Johnson, charge of the lightweight brigade or whatever it was is more befitting Labour