Updated: Boris resigns as party leader

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Not at all. The Earl of Home comes to mind who regressed to Sir Alec Douglas Home and then took a Commons seat in a by-election.

An unelected bureaucrat lording it over us. And an incompetent one at that who walked before he was pushed! No thank you!

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Not at all. The Earl of Home comes to mind who regressed to Sir Alec Douglas Home and then took a Commons seat in a by-election.

In 1963.

IIRC the last peer to hold any of the great offices was Lord Carrington, who resigned as Foreign Secretary in 1982 having apparently given Argentina the impression that we wouldn’t defend the Falkland Islands.

The Prime Minister is appointed by the Queen, on advice from the outgoing PM who tells her who is most likely to enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons. It is vanishingly unlikely that even MPs on the government benches would support a candidate from the Lords. It would be absolutely impossible to justify to their constituents, it would breach almost 60 years of convention and it would give rise to all sorts of difficult headlines as the Lord PM sought to buy off a sitting MP in a sufficiently safe seat for him to try to get into the Commons at a by election.

All of which I’m sure you know, so what’s your point really?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The media should be concentrating on the real news, not the outbursts from that arrogant nobody with a grudge, Dominic Cummings.

I suspect that the Gray report will put the partygate affair in context and make a lot of people look very silly.

Once again…

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-600451

Ms Gray has been asked to look at the nature and purpose of the gatherings, including who went to them "with reference to adherence to the guidance in place at the time".

It is an internal investigation rather than an independent inquiry. It was ordered by Mr Johnson, he set the terms of reference and Ms Gray - who is required to be impartial - will report back to him.

Ms Gray's report is expected to give a factual account of what happened with reference to the guidance - this does not necessarily mean that she will say whether there have been breaches of it.

The terms of reference do not suggest that Ms Gray will decide whether laws have been broken.

When it comes to the PM, Ms Gray may "touch on the role of the prime minister but it isn't [her] place to judge his behaviour", says Catherine Haddon, of the Institute for Government think tank.

If there is evidence a minister has breached the Ministerial Code - such as potentially misleading parliament - it could be investigated by the prime minister's standards adviser Lord Geidt. Mr Johnson would need to give permission before any new inquiry was launched and he ultimately decides if any minister - including himself - has broken the code

Johnson, who set the terms of reference, and who will see the report first, will then decide if he’s done anything wrong, and if he wants to refer himself for further investigation, he could.

what has he done in the past that makes you think this might happen?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Once again…

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-600451

Johnson, who set the terms of reference, and who will see the report first, will then decide if he’s done anything wrong, and if he wants to refer himself for further investigation, he could.

what has he done in the past that makes you think this might happen?

Exactly.

The man who denied seeing any parties is now saying he's not seen any bullying by the whips. That's pretty much an admission that there has been such bullying.

If there's not a trending hashtag #LabourForBoJo then I'm sure there will be one soon.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Chris

In 1963.

IIRC the last peer to hold any of the great offices was Lord Carrington, who resigned as Foreign Secretary in 1982 having apparently given Argentina the impression that we wouldn’t defend the Falkland Islands.

The Prime Minister is appointed by the Queen, on advice from the outgoing PM who tells her who is most likely to enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons. It is vanishingly unlikely that even MPs on the government benches would support a candidate from the Lords. It would be absolutely impossible to justify to their constituents, it would breach almost 60 years of convention and it would give rise to all sorts of difficult headlines as the Lord PM sought to buy off a sitting MP in a sufficiently safe seat for him to try to get into the Commons at a by election.

All of which I’m sure you know, so what’s your point really?

1963 is irrelevant. The mechanism is available.

I was asked in an earlier post whom I suggest might replace Boris. I happen to think Frost would be a valid candidate. Plus John Redwood, of course.


---------- Post added at 14:06 ---------- Previous post was at 14:05 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Exactly.

The man who denied seeing any parties is now saying he's not seen any bullying by the whips. That's pretty much an admission that there has been such bullying.

If there's not a trending hashtag #LabourForBoJo then I'm sure there will be one soon.

Nice one!

Originally Posted by Damien

That's why it's important a Government doesn't waste its authority. This isn't the media's fault, it's their fault for displaying such disregard for their own rules and the public and their incompetence in handling it when they got caught out.

The media are reporting it because the public care. It's almost always the case that what the public and media care about is, to a neutral observer, objectively out of proportion to what is actually happening in the world.

At any one time there is turmoil on the Indian border with Kashmir, China's treatment of the Uyghurs, there has been a war in Yemen for years now and civil wars in some African states whilst our front pages will focus on the fact that Ant and/or Dec have crashed their car.

Thankfully when it comes to Ukraine the Foreign Office and MOD can just get on with it. They don't need Parliament and even if they did there is a consensus on it.

Sorry but I actually think the media have been pathetic here. How long have they sat on that Reynolds Email, too many gotcha moments. Sure Johnson and the No. 10 cabal, are clearly guilty of several misdemeanours, Starmer also breaking the rules too, having a beer with a colleague is not working in my eyes. If I started drinking on shift, while working I’d be sacked for gross misconduct, but I think there is a time and place to deal with this and I don’t think it’s during the potential prospect of a devastating war.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Exactly.

The man who denied seeing any parties is now saying he's not seen any bullying by the whips. That's pretty much an admission that there has been such bullying.

If there's not a trending hashtag #LabourForBoJo then I'm sure there will be one soon.

Oh, come off it, Andrew, this is becoming a farce and you are just feeding into it.

The world of politics is brutal, and the Whips have always strong-armed MPs to tow the party line - Whips on both sides, that is.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

1963 is irrelevant. The mechanism is available.

I was asked in an earlier post whom I suggest might replace Boris. I happen to think Frost would be a valid candidate. Plus John Redwood, of course.


---------- Post added at 14:06 ---------- Previous post was at 14:05 ----------



Nice one!

1963 is highly relevant. If you don’t understand the role and power of convention in parliamentary affairs you really have no business making such daft assertions.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Oh, come off it, Andrew, this is becoming a farce and you are just feeding into it.

The world of politics is brutal, and the Whips have always strong-armed MPs to tow the party line - Whips on both sides, that is.

This topic is becoming a farce. Look, when I started this poll, I actually voted he should go, but now I don’t. I get there is angry people out there, who sacrificed last minute chances go be with loved ones and many lies have been told by No. 10. But I actually think there is many people out there, who now don’t care, millions of people broke lockdown rules, and I’m convinced on here, there is quite a few of you who perhaps didn’t stick to them either.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

1963 is highly relevant. If you don’t understand the role and power of convention in parliamentary affairs you really have no business making such daft assertions.

You are correct to point at the importance of convention in parliamentary affairs. But to be fair to Seph, you should not discount the importance of precedents, which are equally important.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Chris

1963 is highly relevant. If you don’t understand the role and power of convention in parliamentary affairs you really have no business making such daft assertions.

If Frost wanted to be PM and he was elected Leader of the Conservatives, he would renounce his peerage, stand for election in a safe seat and, when elected, become PM in the normal way.

Don't you think this is possible?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You are correct to point at the importance of convention in parliamentary affairs. But to be fair to Seph, you should not discount the importance of precedents, which are equally important.

Again, just because you can arrange words in a sentence doesn’t mean you’re making any sense.

Precedent and convention are two cheeks of the same arse. There is a reason why the last member of the Lords to become PM sought election to the Commons at the earliest opportunity. By 1963 our parliamentary democracy had matured to the point where it was no longer acceptable for the Prime Minister not to be directly accountable to the elected house. In effect, the precedent of Alex Douglas Home resigning his peerage so he could get elected created the convention that the PM must be a sitting MP.

Neither precedent nor convention simply arise out of nowhere. There is always some pressing reason, whether it be a national emergency or a sea-change in attitudes around what’s deemed acceptable. It is highly unlikely that any national emergency is about to arise that would justify creating an unelected prime minister, even temporarily, and your attempt to raise precedent as a possible reason why it might happen is as daft as Seph’s.

---------- Post added at 14:52 ---------- Previous post was at 14:51 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

If Frost wanted to be PM and he was elected Leader of the Conservatives, he would renounce his peerage, stand for election in a safe seat and, when elected, become PM in the normal way.

Don't you think this is possible?

Politically, no, it’s not possible, and that’s all that actually matters. We have almost arrived at the point where the changing of a prime minister mid-term makes demands for a snap general election irresistible. To think any party would get away with arranging a safe by election seat for an ex-member of the House of Lords is pure fantasy.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Chris

Again, just because you can arrange words in a sentence doesn’t mean you’re making any sense.

Precedent and convention are two cheeks of the same arse. There is a reason why the last member of the Lords to become PM sought election to the Commons at the earliest opportunity. By 1963 our parliamentary democracy had matured to the point where it was no longer acceptable for the Prime Minister not to be directly accountable to the elected house. In effect, the precedent of Alex Douglas Home resigning his peerage so he could get elected created the convention that the PM must be a sitting MP.

Neither precedent nor convention simply arise out of nowhere. There is always some pressing reason, whether it be a national emergency or a sea-change in attitudes around what’s deemed acceptable. It is highly unlikely that any national emergency is about to arise that would justify creating an unelected prime minister, even temporarily, and your attempt to raise precedent as a possible reason why it might happen is as daft as Seph’s.

---------- Post added at 14:52 ---------- Previous post was at 14:51 ----------



Politically, no, it’s not possible, and that’s all that actually matters. We have almost arrived at the point where the changing of a prime minister mid-term makes demands for a snap general election irresistible. To think any party would get away with arranging a safe by election seat for an ex-member of the House of Lords is pure fantasy.

In your emphatic opinion.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

In your emphatic opinion.

It’s an informed opinion and I stand by it. We will not see any member of the House of Lords directly become prime minister in our lifetimes. The only possible route would be for a peer to renounce their title simply to attempt to become an MP and then attempt to become their party’s leader at some later date.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

If Frost wanted to be PM and he was elected Leader of the Conservatives, he would renounce his peerage, stand for election in a safe seat and, when elected, become PM in the normal way.

Don't you think this is possible?

Not in that sequence - the Leader of the Conservative Party has to be a MP; so he would need to renounce his peerage, stand for election (and win, which is fairly important), only then can he be nominated (and have to win the contest) to be Leader of the Party, then, at the end of this very long and convuluted sequence of events, could he possibly be PM.

I think Truss, Sunak, Raab, Patel, et al, may not sit idly by whilst this was happening...