Stop voting for fucking Tories

[Paddington Bear]

As if they’re giving the members a say again.
If you give a chimp an AK47 and it starts firing it, you don’t blame the chimp.

The only way they avoid that is if at the end of this process they don't have two candidates.

With the divisions in the Parliamentary Party, I just can't see them getting agreement on a single candidate; & with the Egos we know are in play, & the mutual hatred between them, I can't see any of them being persuaded to back down in favour of someone the loath.

Reasonably strong case for the King dissolving parliament, whoever they choose they’ll be back here within 18 months max

[petej]

As if they’re giving the members a say again.
If you give a chimp an AK47 and it starts firing it, you don’t blame the chimp.

The only way they avoid that is if at the end of this process they don't have two candidates.

With the divisions in the Parliamentary Party, I just can't see them getting agreement on a single candidate; & with the Egos we know are in play, & the mutual hatred between them, I can't see any of them being persuaded to back down in favour of someone the loath.

Reasonably strong case for the King dissolving parliament, whoever they choose they’ll be back here within 18 months max

Never going to happen though it would be in the national interest.

[Mahoney]

Even if they've managed to forget the first 6 months of this year, have they also forgotten that Johnson strongly endorsed Truss?

Either his judgement is appalling or Cummings is right and he deliberately did so in the hope she'd fail and give him an opening to come back.

So dreadful judgement or prepared to sacrifice the nation for his self-interest? It's not a great recent record on which to become PM, is it?

[I like neeps]

The only way they avoid that is if at the end of this process they don't have two candidates.

With the divisions in the Parliamentary Party, I just can't see them getting agreement on a single candidate; & with the Egos we know are in play, & the mutual hatred between them, I can't see any of them being persuaded to back down in favour of someone the loath.

Reasonably strong case for the King dissolving parliament, whoever they choose they’ll be back here within 18 months max

Never going to happen though it would be in the national interest.

How exactly is a sovereign exercising executive power in the national interest? There is a huge amount I dislike about the UK's version of democracy but it's far preferable than the Royal Family getting involved in real politics rather than their irrelevant dog and pony show.

[laurent]

So the lettuce won ?

[tabascoboy]

Don't cry for Truss

[The sun god]

Don't cry for Truss

That should keep her out of the foodbanks for a while....

[tabascoboy]

So the lettuce won ?

[petej]

Reasonably strong case for the King dissolving parliament, whoever they choose they’ll be back here within 18 months max

Never going to happen though it would be in the national interest.

How exactly is a sovereign exercising executive power in the national interest? There is a huge amount I dislike about the UK's version of democracy but it's far preferable than the Royal Family getting involved in real politics rather than their irrelevant dog and pony show.

The norms of our unwritten constitution have already been trashed. Exercising executive power to give the people a vote on who leads them or go back to a tiny selection of people to vote in a conservative leadership campaign?

[tabascoboy]

"Unwritten Constitution" appears to mean make it up as you go along

[I like neeps]

Never going to happen though it would be in the national interest.

How exactly is a sovereign exercising executive power in the national interest? There is a huge amount I dislike about the UK's version of democracy but it's far preferable than the Royal Family getting involved in real politics rather than their irrelevant dog and pony show.

The norms of our unwritten constitution have already been trashed. Exercising executive power to give the people a vote on who leads them or go back to a tiny selection of people to vote in a conservative leadership campaign?

Not his choice. The King getting involved in dissolving a government without the government asking for is a far larger Constitutional crisis than anything that has been done so far.

Like his mother he should sit shtum even when parliament is being illegally dissolved etc.

[Slick]

How exactly is a sovereign exercising executive power in the national interest? There is a huge amount I dislike about the UK's version of democracy but it's far preferable than the Royal Family getting involved in real politics rather than their irrelevant dog and pony show.

The norms of our unwritten constitution have already been trashed. Exercising executive power to give the people a vote on who leads them or go back to a tiny selection of people to vote in a conservative leadership campaign?

Not his choice. The King getting involved in dissolving a government without the government asking for is a far larger Constitutional crisis than anything that has been done so far.

Like his mother he should sit shtum even when parliament is being illegally dissolved etc.

Wonder if he will be going to COP27 now that Liz doesn't need her photo op

[tabascoboy]

If BB does come back there are reportedly a few - hopefully damaging - stories that have been held back just for that eventuality, it is claimed

[_Os_]

There's a strong chance that whoever becomes PM this all gets repeated next year. Very obvious if Sunak becomes PM, there's a large Tory constituency that will refuse to accept it and immediately start trying to replace him. Also very obvious if it's Mordaunt/Truss/Badenoch, they will be forced to compromise by reality (NI protocol etc), the far right will start ranting about their favourite thing, "betrayal", then demand the removal of the candidate they themselves supported. Johnson could even stand again.

They're a huge fucking mess and still poll at 31%.

The answer to this post of mine of who replaces Truss next year sometime after she's knifed, is far more likely to be Johnson than anyone else. Most Tory members back Johnson above every other potential candidate.

Which is why the Daily Mail is going all in over multiple pages attacking Parliament/the privileges committee. It's also why there's been some talk of moving him to a safer seat if there's a general election. Because Johnson's chances drastically reduce if he's not an MP.

Just remembered these predictions. At the risk of replying to myself multiple times.

1. Wrong it would take a year for Truss to be knifed.
2. Correct Truss would be forced to compromise by reality and the far right would then rant about "betrayal".

Still think if the swivel eyed membership are involved then it's Johnson, but Truss blowing up so quickly may take the membership out as it's very easy to see they're directly to blame. If there's no membership vote (something it doesn't look like Johnson planned for), Johnson has no chance of regaining power and likely quits politics. Still think if the Tories remain in power, then the election results next May will be so bad that whoever is PM (and that PM will be weakened by then), moves will again start to replace them. Which means being back here again this time next year.

[Paddington Bear]

Reasonably strong case for the King dissolving parliament, whoever they choose they’ll be back here within 18 months max

Never going to happen though it would be in the national interest.

How exactly is a sovereign exercising executive power in the national interest? There is a huge amount I dislike about the UK's version of democracy but it's far preferable than the Royal Family getting involved in real politics rather than their irrelevant dog and pony show.

The Crown has a duty to ensure that any new government can command the confidence of the HoC. I'm putting it there that there is no Tory leader who can, so dissolving Parliament is the next logical step

[weegie01]

Don't cry for Truss

That should keep her out of the foodbanks for a while....

The point is that she can only use this to claim back up to £115k for office and other expenses expended in the pursuit of public duties. It is not, as some media seem to be trying to suggest, free money for her personal use.

[SaintK]

If BB does come back there are reportedly a few - hopefully damaging - stories that have been held back just for that eventuality, it is claimed

Cummings has been very quiet of late. Though did predict that "Hand Grenade" Truss would go BOOM! pretty quickly!
I think that all those junior ministers an PPS's who resigned and lots of anti BB MP's will have something to say if they attempt it.

I’ve been speaking to a couple of former government ministers who resigned from Boris Johnson’s government today.
A lot of them are gobsmacked that people are now touting Johnson’s name again as a contender for leader.
One asked if people had forgotten that he faces an investigation and could get kicked out of the Commons, and resigned after a series of mass resignations.

I'm told by senior Conservatives that there are MPs talking about triggering by-elections if Boris Johnson is serious about standing to be leader again.
I've heard from MPs tempted to themselves, and gathering evidence of defections and resignations in the event of his return.
It looks like things could get messy very quickly for the party if he does decide to stand, as some of his allies want him to.

[SaintK]

So 100 nominations required

Sir Graham Brady, chair of the 1922 Committe, is holding a briefing for journalists outside parliament with Jake Berry, the party chairman.

They are taking questions now.

Q: What is your message to the public? And do you want a unity candidate?

Berry says it is up to MPs to decide if there is one or two candidates. If there are two, members will get a choice.

Q: Are you stitching up the rules to keep Boris Johnson off the ballot?

Brady says the threshold for nomination is 100 supporters. That means there could be three candidates, he says.

Brady says there will be a hustings on Monday for Tory MP, in private.

Q: If only one candidate gets 100 nominations, are they the next leader?

Yes, Berry says.

[Hal Jordan]

As if they’re giving the members a say again.
If you give a chimp an AK47 and it starts firing it, you don’t blame the chimp.

That's what you get for not hailing to the chimp!

[_Os_]

So 100 nominations required

Sir Graham Brady, chair of the 1922 Committe, is holding a briefing for journalists outside parliament with Jake Berry, the party chairman.

They are taking questions now.

Q: What is your message to the public? And do you want a unity candidate?

Berry says it is up to MPs to decide if there is one or two candidates. If there are two, members will get a choice.

Q: Are you stitching up the rules to keep Boris Johnson off the ballot?

Brady says the threshold for nomination is 100 supporters. That means there could be three candidates, he says.

Brady says there will be a hustings on Monday for Tory MP, in private.

Q: If only one candidate gets 100 nominations, are they the next leader?

Yes, Berry says.

Based on the amount of MPs that turned up to say goodbye to Big Dog last month, he will have will at least 50 supporters.

[tabascoboy]

The pound rose against the dollar and government borrowing costs dipped as the markets reacted to Prime Minister Liz Truss's resignation.

Sterling hit $1.13 as the Ms Truss made her announcement and rose higher in the afternoon before falling back to $1.12.

One analyst said investors were "relieved" by the news, despite a lot of uncertainty remaining.

[sefton]

How exactly is a sovereign exercising executive power in the national interest? There is a huge amount I dislike about the UK's version of democracy but it's far preferable than the Royal Family getting involved in real politics rather than their irrelevant dog and pony show.

The norms of our unwritten constitution have already been trashed. Exercising executive power to give the people a vote on who leads them or go back to a tiny selection of people to vote in a conservative leadership campaign?

Not his choice. The King getting involved in dissolving a government without the government asking for is a far larger Constitutional crisis than anything that has been done so far.

Like his mother he should sit shtum even when parliament is being illegally dissolved etc.

Quite right, utterly dreadful idea.

[fishfoodie]

So 100 nominations required

Sir Graham Brady, chair of the 1922 Committe, is holding a briefing for journalists outside parliament with Jake Berry, the party chairman.

They are taking questions now.

Q: What is your message to the public? And do you want a unity candidate?

Berry says it is up to MPs to decide if there is one or two candidates. If there are two, members will get a choice.

Q: Are you stitching up the rules to keep Boris Johnson off the ballot?

Brady says the threshold for nomination is 100 supporters. That means there could be three candidates, he says.

Brady says there will be a hustings on Monday for Tory MP, in private.

Q: If only one candidate gets 100 nominations, are they the next leader?

Yes, Berry says.

100x Nominations is a canny bar to set, especially by Monday.

A lot of MPs will be keen not to waste their nominations; & I think that rules out a lot of the nutters. It also pushes them away from the Bumblecunt who's a busted flush electorally

[Niegs]

Simple solution...

[fishfoodie]

Truss might be the shortest serving PM today; but if they manage to get the Bumblecunt back in, he could be recalled within weeks too

[_Os_]

Apparently Big Dog has around 80 backers already. JRM has the Whatsapp group up and running.

This is some serious Tory alternate reality shit.

[Tichtheid]

Just as a matter of interest, parliament has not long come back from summer recess, there was a break for the Royal funeral - what the hell is Johnson doing on holiday in the Cari-fucking-bbean when he's supposed to be working?

[Hal Jordan]

Just as a matter of interest, parliament has not long come back from summer recess, there was a break for the Royal funeral - what the hell is Johnson doing on holiday in the Cari-fucking-bbean when he's supposed to be working?

Doing what he's always done. The absolute bare minimum on someone else's dollar.

[Tichtheid]

Just as a matter of interest, parliament has not long come back from summer recess, there was a break for the Royal funeral - what the hell is Johnson doing on holiday in the Cari-fucking-bbean when he's supposed to be working?

Doing what he's always done. The absolute bare minimum on someone else's dollar.

and yet as per Os' post, there is a growing campaign to get him back into the job he's been sacked from for being rubbish and having been caught lying, not for the first time.

I would advocate some kind of protest against this, if it were not for the fact that now that alone could get me an electronic ankle tag fitted so that all my day to day movements can be monitored by the police.

[_Os_]

All the UK constitutional experts will say "this is not a constitutional crisis", because that's what they always say and the reason they can say that is because it's unwritten so anyone powerful enough decides the rules. But there is a path now where Johnson comes back, and potentially if he does Tory MPs will either have to vote against what the privileges committee comes up with or they'll have to vote to punish him and potentially select another leader.

That would be a constitutional crisis, it's surely against any democratic norm. When Mbeki was got rid of he stayed that way, Zuma too. I can't think of anything in Sub-Saharan African democracies where this has happened. All I've got is Berlusconi in Italy, and Putin (but Russia isn't a democracy).

[Mahoney]

But these rules are perfectly well known. The country votes for MPs. The current Prime Minister advises the monarch who to ask to form a government. That new Prime Minister governs while they can pass confidence motions, notably the budget, in the House of Commons.

No-one has broken any of those rules yet. This parliament, two consecutive PMs have lost the confidence of the HoC, but it's not yet clear that no-one can command its confidence; you'd expect that with a majority of MPs from one party they ought to be able to find one of their number they can support.

It's working within the rules as they have been for the last 200 years or more (depending on when you think the monarch lost any personal choice in who to ask).

Whether those rules are appropriate now is another matter, but they're not just being made up on the fly.

[_Os_]

But these rules are perfectly well known. The country votes for MPs. The current Prime Minister advises the monarch who to ask to form a government. That new Prime Minister governs while they can pass confidence motions, notably the budget, in the House of Commons.

No-one has broken any of those rules yet. This parliament, two consecutive PMs have lost the confidence of the HoC, but it's not yet clear that no-one can command its confidence; you'd expect that with a majority of MPs from one party they ought to be able to find one of their number they can support.

It's working within the rules as they have been for the last 200 years or more (depending on when you think the monarch lost any personal choice in who to ask).

Whether those rules are appropriate now is another matter, but they're not just being made up on the fly.

There's a clear democratic issue if a PM removed for their behaviour, behaviour which led to them being investigated by the privileges committee (which can potentially lead to a by-election), then comes back as PM because party members (not MPs) selected them to return, and MPs then feel compelled to vote down any punishment the privileges committee came up with.

[Hal Jordan]

Just as a matter of interest, parliament has not long come back from summer recess, there was a break for the Royal funeral - what the hell is Johnson doing on holiday in the Cari-fucking-bbean when he's supposed to be working?

Doing what he's always done. The absolute bare minimum on someone else's dollar.

and yet as per Os' post, there is a growing campaign to get him back into the job he's been sacked from for being rubbish and having been caught lying, not for the first time.

I would advocate some kind of protest against this, if it were not for the fact that now that alone could get me an electronic ankle tag fitted so that all my day to day movements can be monitored by the police.

Johnson will easily get 100 MPs to back him. They know the voting public have a blind spot for posh, funny, bumbling, one of us Boris who gets away with all the shit the public wishes they could, he's the best hope the Conservatives have of a 1992 style election win.

[_Os_]

This potential situation does mirror when May was losing Meaningful Votes, and instead of building consensus for something anything. She doubled down with her deal appealed to the referendum as a source of legitimacy (a referendum that wasn't legally binding and happened in a previous parliament, ie external to that parliament), and then started attacking parliament itself and criticised MPs for disobeying the will of the people (which obviously makes no sense as MPs are representing the people).

Johnson is now using the 2019 general election as his source of legitimacy, when as you point out the UK doesn't have a presidential system and he's already lost the confidence of a majority of MPs once (edit: I should make clear not in a vote, but he resigned before he was pushed). And if he wins he's also going to rely on something totally external to this parliament, which is Tory members as the basis of his legitimacy. If he wins the politics of it will mean Tory MPs will be under extreme pressure to vote down the privileges committee punishment, which is an attack on parliament.

None of this will be called a constitutional crisis, because reasons.

[Mahoney]

If Johnson is asked to form a government again his legitimacy will depend on whether or not a majority of MPs vote with his government in confidence motions.

It's all up to the MPs. Always is. Would only take 35 Tory MPs to vote against him in a confidence motion to bring him down.

[_Os_]

If Johnson is asked to form a government again his legitimacy will depend on whether or not a majority of MPs vote with his government in confidence motions.

It's all up to the MPs. Always is. Would only take 35 Tory MPs to vote against him in a confidence motion to bring him down.

In this scenario his legitimacy will extend from being Tory leader which will come from Tory members (this is recent, Hague put it in place when the Tories were in opposition it very much is "make it up as it goes along"). The privileges committee will investigate him for misleading parliament, anyone can all see what happened it would be strange if it was decided there were no breaches. In a different system this would be a sealed legal process, instead if there is any punishment it goes to a parliamentary vote. Johnson's main armament in that vote will be that he's Tory leader a position given to him by a force outside parliament, his secondary weapon will be that his previous removal (for reasons highly connected to the privileges committee investigation) has already visited chaos on the Tory party which they may not want to repeat. Another way of looking at this is that the people in the form of MPs decided there were grounds for him having misled parliament, and the Tories could potentially create a political situation where they cannot punish him.

Yes there's confidence votes. But again in this scenario, Johnson will be Tory leader as selected by the Tory membership, so for Tory MPs the calculation will be if they can defeat Johnson in a no confidence vote, then defeat Johnson in a leadership contest, then fight a general election and win their seats back. Unless they act in the national interest and hit the self destruct button knowing they cannot win.

With parties/whipping/members selecting leaders, it seems obvious confidence votes don't mean everything. Johnson won a confidence vote among Tory MPs in June (but with a large minority against, convention dictated he must step down and basically not do what he's doing now, but of course Johnson refused). Johnson then won a Commons no confidence vote in his government in July. This was all whilst palpably not having a functioning government, he could potentially win confidence votes whilst not actually enjoying the confidence of most MPs.

[Uncle fester]

I think a big difference between then and now is

The email was to make history. It led, in time, to her resignation as special adviser, to the resignation of my successor as communications director, to Byers’s resignation as secretary of state and to the abolition of the department. It also provided one of the most memorable quotations ever from a Whitehall permanent secretary.


https://archive.ph/DobyN#selection-1065.54-1065.385

I agree that the current lot of charlattans and crooks are far worse than anything New Labour gave us, but Paddington’s point was that there has been a steady deterioration in political behaviour and commitment to the Country’s good. I think this was definitely a step on that journey.

I accept what Paddington's saying but to me the obvious turning point is the emergence of Farage, UKIP, and the Brexit referendum with associated dark money backers and the ERG.

A lot of the current malaise with Western democracy can be traced back to the lies that kicked off the Iraq war. That was the starting point for widespread breakdown in trust with governments.

[I like neeps]

Never going to happen though it would be in the national interest.

How exactly is a sovereign exercising executive power in the national interest? There is a huge amount I dislike about the UK's version of democracy but it's far preferable than the Royal Family getting involved in real politics rather than their irrelevant dog and pony show.

The Crown has a duty to ensure that any new government can command the confidence of the HoC. I'm putting it there that there is no Tory leader who can, so dissolving Parliament is the next logical step

In the 1700s maybe. The monarchy is not a serious political actor. We don't live in a dictatorship and we want to stay that way (I presume) so King Charles should sit out of it.

[Guy Smiley]

How exactly is a sovereign exercising executive power in the national interest? There is a huge amount I dislike about the UK's version of democracy but it's far preferable than the Royal Family getting involved in real politics rather than their irrelevant dog and pony show.

The Crown has a duty to ensure that any new government can command the confidence of the HoC. I'm putting it there that there is no Tory leader who can, so dissolving Parliament is the next logical step

In the 1700s maybe. The monarchy is not a serious political actor. We don't live in a dictatorship and we want to stay that way (I presume) so King Charles should sit out of it.

Your blind hatred of the Royal Family is hilarious.

[fishfoodie]

Labour would love if they brought the Bumblecunt back !

All of the By-Elections have shown that he's a busted flush, & that's before what the Standards commission decides.

Let's face facts; if there were a GE today; he couldn't even keep his own seat !, & all the opposing candidates will need to do, is focus on two things:

1) The Economy, & Cost of Living; that after 12 years in power is impossible for any Tory to duck.

&

2)



[ No Comment Needed ]

Any other Tory Leadership candidates just need to point out what a useless, lazy prick he was in the best of times; & ask the other MPs/Members what has changed with him ?

He appointed shit people, & was a lazy cunt from the day he entered office, with no ideas.

The UK is facing serious challanges on multiple fronts; & a lazy cunt with no ideas is the last thing the nation needs.