Updated: Boris resigns as party leader

Originally Posted by jfman

Government is about far more than just legislation. Even where there is legislation this requires the direction of a Government department, it’s officials and it’s lawyers to draft, consult and introduce the legislation at a later date.

So this very much is a zombie Government regardless of the fact Parliament is in recess for a portion of that time.

Putin will be loving it!

Well we should probably let Putin have that one, he’s had precious little else to celebrate, what with his entire army slowly being ground to dust in Ukraine.

Precedent is an important part of the way this country operates. It creates genuine pressure against reckless or overweening use of power by those who hold it. It’s the reason why there was never any hope of Boris surviving this, despite his obvious personal disdain for it. The entire system runs on it and eventually the pressure was always going to be too great even for him to resist.

It is therefore wise not to upend precedent for short-term convenience. Insisting Boris go now, and installing a ‘caretaker’ for a mere 6-8 weeks, would be a piece of political theatre which in the short term might demonstrate just how really, really cross we all are with him, but in the longer term will chip away at the whole idea of the office being occupied by someone who demonstrably has the confidence of the House of Commons, which is normally evidenced by the largest party having held a leadership election.

[jfman]

I think the notion removing him upends anything is a creative interpretation of events.

The irony in your last sentence is he commands neither the support of his party or Parliament, when almost certainly there’s someone sitting behind him who would for an interim period.

This isn’t someone that the political winds shifted past them. This is a liar, a law-breaker, someone who meets a KGB agent following a NATO summit without the presence of officials. Starmer has every right to go for the open goal before him.

Originally Posted by Chris

Well we should probably let Putin have that one, he’s had precious little else to celebrate, what with his entire army slowly being ground to dust in Ukraine.

Precedent is an important part of the way this country operates. It creates genuine pressure against reckless or overweening use of power by those who hold it. It’s the reason why there was never any hope of Boris surviving this, despite his obvious personal disdain for it. The entire system runs on it and eventually the pressure was always going to be too great even for him to resist.

It is therefore wise not to upend precedent for short-term convenience. Insisting Boris go now, and installing a ‘caretaker’ for a mere 6-8 weeks, would be a piece of political theatre which in the short term might demonstrate just how really, really cross we all are with him, but in the longer term will chip away at the whole idea of the office being occupied by someone who demonstrably has the confidence of the House of Commons, which is normally evidenced by the largest party having held a leadership election.

As what you said.

Those demanding Johnson go now, are utterly insane, the final duty of any outgoing Prime Minister is to establish someone else to take over, who can command and have confidence in the House of Commons, for when he in person, hands his resignation, he has to name his successor for the Queen to then invite said person, to form a government that has Confidence of the House.

But in the interim, he is a lame duck Prime Minister, he cannot introduce any new policies. That however said, whatever scandals and drama that unfolds, to the rest of the world, there still has to be a functioning chief executive, that if provoked, it will still respond.

[jfman]

The idea that an interim would have less credibility, or authority, than Johnson in a crisis is fanciful

Originally Posted by jfman

The idea that an interim would have less credibility, or authority, than Johnson in a crisis is fanciful

Yeah but what you all said before my post about KGB meeting, is utterly fanciful. Yeah he broke a minor law, yeah he’s a liar, but so was Tony Blair, Cameron….. they remained in office until a successor was found.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Mick

Yeah but what you all said before my post about KGB meeting, is utterly fanciful. Yeah he broke a minor law, yeah he’s a liar, but so was Tony Blair, Cameron….. they remained in office until a successor was found.

He said himself he “probably” met with Lebedev without officials. That’s not fanciful.

Neither Blair nor Cameron were forced from office in the same manner as BJ.

Originally Posted by jfman

He said himself he “probably” met with Lebedev without officials. That’s not fanciful.

Neither Blair nor Cameron were forced from office in the same manner as BJ.

Still irrelevant. Stop trying to have last word, jfman, you won’t win. Let’s just agree to disagree.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Mick

Still irrelevant. Stop trying to have last word, jfman, you won’t win. Let’s just agree to disagree.

A sensible approach.

So when does everyone have to declare they are running by?

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by jfman

A sensible approach.

So when does everyone have to declare they are running by?

That'll be decided after Monday.

They need to think very carefully about who gets picked or voters will turn against them.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by Paul

You are delusional if you think everyone on the forum (or otherwise) abided by all the rules in lockdown.

If you look hard enough, you might find one or two saints out there.
The vast majority broke them at some point, I dont personally know of anyone who didnt.

Spot on Paul. And yet all those supposedly without sin are here, lining up to cast the first stone.

Originally Posted by jfman

I think the notion removing him upends anything is a creative interpretation of events.

The irony in your last sentence is he commands neither the support of his party or Parliament, when almost certainly there’s someone sitting behind him who would for an interim period.

This isn’t someone that the political winds shifted past them. This is a liar, a law-breaker, someone who meets a KGB agent following a NATO summit without the presence of officials. Starmer has every right to go for the open goal before him.

And yet if and when Starmer manages to get a confidence vote on the agenda, the Tory party will back Boris. Expect at that point Tory backbenchers to make basically the same argument I just did. Confidence extends to his keeping the seat warm while his successor is chosen, and no further.

There is indeed an open goal in front of Starmer right now but exploiting it consists of making a lot of noise about Boris still being in the job, not seriously expecting him to go until the Tory leadership election is finished. The moment Boris is out of Downing Street Starmer has to find something else to shout about. Politically it suits him for Boris not to go early, regardless of any public pronouncements he might make.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Chris

And yet if and when Starmer manages to get a confidence vote on the agenda, the Tory party will back Boris. Expect at that point Tory backbenchers to make basically the same argument I just did. Confidence extends to his keeping the seat warm while his successor is chosen, and no further.

There is indeed an open goal in front of Starmer right now but exploiting it consists of making a lot of noise about Boris still being in the job, not seriously expecting him to go until the Tory leadership election is finished. The moment Boris is out of Downing Street Starmer has to find something else to shout about. Politically it suits him for Boris not to go early, regardless of any public pronouncements he might make.

What if he wins the confidence vote and decides there is no reason to go ?

Originally Posted by papa smurf

What if he wins the confidence vote and decides there is no reason to go ?

He has already resigned as party leader - once there is a new party leader in place, another confidence motion can always be put to MPs. Though I suspect even Boris wouldn't be that brazen.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Kursk

Spot on Paul. And yet all those supposedly without sin are here, lining up to cast the first stone.

As said earlier, the country appear to be pretty much united in their response/obedience (of course there would have been some that broke the rules at the time) up until such time as DC went to Durham, that was the when the crack in the dam first started appearing in terms of non compliance.
then as news about partygate & beergate emerged more the crack got bigger until pretty much everyone went ah, well, if they can do it so can we.

It's the changing of stories, repeated lies, call if what you will, that wore a great deal of people's patience down with Boris, culminating in his own party turning against him for the same reasons.

The only person responsible for Boris's downfall, is Boris himself.

Originally Posted by Chris

Well we should probably let Putin have that one, he’s had precious little else to celebrate, what with his entire army slowly being ground to dust in Ukraine.

Precedent is an important part of the way this country operates. It creates genuine pressure against reckless or overweening use of power by those who hold it. It’s the reason why there was never any hope of Boris surviving this, despite his obvious personal disdain for it. The entire system runs on it and eventually the pressure was always going to be too great even for him to resist.

It is therefore wise not to upend precedent for short-term convenience. Insisting Boris go now, and installing a ‘caretaker’ for a mere 6-8 weeks, would be a piece of political theatre which in the short term might demonstrate just how really, really cross we all are with him, but in the longer term will chip away at the whole idea of the office being occupied by someone who demonstrably has the confidence of the House of Commons, which is normally evidenced by the largest party having held a leadership election.

Just to be clear, I don’t think he should go immediately.

I’m just concerned that if he hangs on until Party Conference in 12 weeks time, something might happen (or be arranged to happen) which he will use as an excuse not to go.

As one of his ex-mistresses (Petronella Wyatt) stated in the Times today

Then I began to wonder if Boris was fibbing to us again. Did he intend to go at all? Why, for instance, was he so determined to stay until October, surrounded by the very people he hates and despises, in short, his own assassins, if he didn’t think something would “turn up”? For all the years I have known him, Boris’s philosophy is “turning upism”..

Until now, it has worked a treat.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b...51709ac2043bf6