UK General Discussion:The Rt. Hon Alex Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, Populist Hero

[YL]

Yeah, the Lascelles Principles only stop a dissolution if there's an alternative PM available, so I think they only stop a Johnson General Election gambit once the Conservative Party actually has a new leader.  I don't think that was the scenario being floated; rather the idea is that Johnson, after losing or nearly losing a Tory VONC, comes out with some "the MPs have spoken, but let's now ask The People" line and goes to the country.  Alternatively, he does it to pre-empt the Tory VONC.  In either of those scenarios I think the Queen agrees to the dissolution.

That can't be right, surely? It would be obvious that there would be an alternative who can win the confidence of Parliament-the winner of the leadership election. I don't see why the identity of the individual would need to be known if it's a fact that they will exist.

I think knowing the identity of the individual is pretty key to knowing if they would be able to command the confidence of parliament, like let's say the PM reject's boris's call for a snap election. Are you going to trust Boris to be caretaker prime-minister while the conservative leadership contest happens ?

That's basically my thinking, yes.  Plus one consequence of having a hereditary head of state is that it's hard for them to do anything particularly controversial, and not granting a dissolution to an elected PM who hasn't yet lost confidence of Parliament is definitely in the "controversial" category.

I don't really think Johnson will do this, but he's unpredictable enough that it's not completely impossible.

[Pericles]

Yeah, the Lascelles Principles only stop a dissolution if there's an alternative PM available, so I think they only stop a Johnson General Election gambit once the Conservative Party actually has a new leader.  I don't think that was the scenario being floated; rather the idea is that Johnson, after losing or nearly losing a Tory VONC, comes out with some "the MPs have spoken, but let's now ask The People" line and goes to the country.  Alternatively, he does it to pre-empt the Tory VONC.  In either of those scenarios I think the Queen agrees to the dissolution.

That can't be right, surely? It would be obvious that there would be an alternative who can win the confidence of Parliament-the winner of the leadership election. I don't see why the identity of the individual would need to be known if it's a fact that they will exist.

I think knowing the identity of the individual is pretty key to knowing if they would be able to command the confidence of parliament, like let's say the PM reject's boris's call for a snap election. Are you going to trust Boris to be caretaker prime-minister while the conservative leadership contest happens ?

If someone can win a Conservative leadership election, then anyone has to assume they would command the confidence of a Parliament with around 360 Conservative MPs.

[brucejoel99]

If he does it before the 54th letter triggers the 1922 VoNC, then I think that both Blair & YL are right in that, although it'd clearly be fishy, HM would agree to the request because she wouldn't yet, at that point, have a constitutional basis to not. But, I think that Pericles is also right in that she'd shoot down an attempted dissolution by Boris after a race is triggered, because once it is, then his ability to command the confidence of a majority in the Commons is legitimately questionable from that moment thereafter 'til the result of the 1922 vote is resolved, & either Boris wins & continues to command the House's confidence, which he invokes to demand a dissolution that the Queen would undeniably grant at that point, or a contest is triggered & will imminently produce a PM who may, reasonably for Tories, inform HM that no election is needed. Either way, she'd be just as able to delay consideration of his request in the meantime as G.G. Jean was with Harper in '08.

Yeah, the Lascelles Principles only stop a dissolution if there's an alternative PM available, so I think they only stop a Johnson General Election gambit once the Conservative Party actually has a new leader.  I don't think that was the scenario being floated; rather the idea is that Johnson, after losing or nearly losing a Tory VONC, comes out with some "the MPs have spoken, but let's now ask The People" line and goes to the country.  Alternatively, he does it to pre-empt the Tory VONC.  In either of those scenarios I think the Queen agrees to the dissolution.

That can't be right, surely? It would be obvious that there would be an alternative who can win the confidence of Parliament-the winner of the leadership election. I don't see why the identity of the individual would need to be known if it's a fact that they will exist.

I think knowing the identity of the individual is pretty key to knowing if they would be able to command the confidence of parliament, like let's say the PM reject's boris's call for a snap election. Are you going to trust Boris to be caretaker prime-minister while the conservative leadership contest happens ?

Knowing the alternative's identity isn't key to knowing if Boris commands the confidence of the Commons, & from the moment he loses a VoNC, he just straight up doesn't. Ironically enough, as was so often stated at the beginning of his term, he'd be a PM in name but not in power, except quite literally this time because the Queen would quite literally be constitutionally bound to delay consideration of his advice 'til all consultations (recall that Boris is only the Prime Minister, a first among equals; she has others!) have fully determined that somebody - &, namely, somebody else - does command the House's confidence. As for BoJo still being the caretaker, though, then yeah, Liz would also be constitutionally bound by convention to keep him on board, short of receiving a message from the 1922 to call upon literally any Tory to serve as an interim PM for the duration of a contest because literally anybody but Boris would command their confidence at that point.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

Yeah, the Lascelles Principles only stop a dissolution if there's an alternative PM available, so I think they only stop a Johnson General Election gambit once the Conservative Party actually has a new leader.  I don't think that was the scenario being floated; rather the idea is that Johnson, after losing or nearly losing a Tory VONC, comes out with some "the MPs have spoken, but let's now ask The People" line and goes to the country.  Alternatively, he does it to pre-empt the Tory VONC.  In either of those scenarios I think the Queen agrees to the dissolution.

That can't be right, surely? It would be obvious that there would be an alternative who can win the confidence of Parliament-the winner of the leadership election. I don't see why the identity of the individual would need to be known if it's a fact that they will exist.

I think knowing the identity of the individual is pretty key to knowing if they would be able to command the confidence of parliament, like let's say the PM reject's boris's call for a snap election. Are you going to trust Boris to be caretaker prime-minister while the conservative leadership contest happens ?

If someone can win a Conservative leadership election, then anyone has to assume they would command the confidence of a Parliament with around 360 Conservative MPs.

The issue is that any situation where Boris is calling for a snap election following a VONC, implies he has at least some personal support from the conservative caucus that would not nessciarly have the support. In essence, the Queen would be forced to make an explicitly political choice which is something she's been very loath to do.

Also talking about precedent is now a parliamentary bill that governs the calling for election, that explicitly strips judicial review from the process.

https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/41467/documents/206

[Pericles]

Yeah, the Lascelles Principles only stop a dissolution if there's an alternative PM available, so I think they only stop a Johnson General Election gambit once the Conservative Party actually has a new leader.  I don't think that was the scenario being floated; rather the idea is that Johnson, after losing or nearly losing a Tory VONC, comes out with some "the MPs have spoken, but let's now ask The People" line and goes to the country.  Alternatively, he does it to pre-empt the Tory VONC.  In either of those scenarios I think the Queen agrees to the dissolution.

That can't be right, surely? It would be obvious that there would be an alternative who can win the confidence of Parliament-the winner of the leadership election. I don't see why the identity of the individual would need to be known if it's a fact that they will exist.

I think knowing the identity of the individual is pretty key to knowing if they would be able to command the confidence of parliament, like let's say the PM reject's boris's call for a snap election. Are you going to trust Boris to be caretaker prime-minister while the conservative leadership contest happens ?

If someone can win a Conservative leadership election, then anyone has to assume they would command the confidence of a Parliament with around 360 Conservative MPs.

The issue is that any situation where Boris is calling for a snap election following a VONC, implies he has at least some personal support from the conservative caucus that would not nessciarly have the support. In essence, the Queen would be forced to make an explicitly political choice which is something she's been very loath to do.

Also talking about precedent is now a parliamentary bill that governs the calling for election, that explicitly strips judicial review from the process.

https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/41467/documents/206

If he loses the vote, he can't call it, and he can't use it to pre empt an imminent vote either imo. If he wins the vote then he has the same authority as Prime Minister regardless of whether he gets 300 votes or wins by a single vote.

[CumbrianLefty]

Hilarious briefing that Boris will call a snap election- something ofc that would be most likely rejected by the Queen, and which would happen under the old election boundaries.

The results from Wales alone would knock back their majority by a good chunk…

If BoJo went to the Palace right now & requested that HM dissolve Parliament, would 28 letters of no-confidence publicly submitted to Brady so far out of the 54 that are required to trigger a vote that he'd likely win rn by a 2/3rds+ or so margin anyway be enough reason for her to believe that her PM no longer has the House's confidence & justify a delay or refusal?

It's not so much about the PM not having confidence of the House:

In so far as this matter can be publicly discussed, it can be properly assumed that no wise Sovereign—that is, one who has at heart the true interest of the country, the constitution, and the Monarchy—would deny a dissolution to his Prime Minister unless he were satisfied that:
(1) the existing Parliament was still vital, viable, and capable of doing its job;
(2) a General Election would be detrimental to the national economy;
(3) he could rely on finding another Prime Minister who could carry on his Government, for a reasonable period, with a working majority in the House of Commons.

Tories still have an ample majority, so the current Parliament definitely qualifies as "vital, viable and capable of doing its job". If the 54th letter arives, Boris somehow loses the vote and decides to exit with a bang, the third point applies.

But Parliament is inherently no longer "vital, viable, and capable of doing its job" if somebody who does command the confidence of a majority in the House of Commons says as much (or else most requests for a snap election, like Feb. 1974, 1966 or 1955 under Liz, would never have been approved), hence my inquiry about a pre-trigger dissolution request.

It would not smell right and would be seen as him trying to avoid a leadership contest by triggering a general election- it’s another question whether it would actually be rejected but there’s generally opposition to allowing PMs to use elections in such a transparent manner at times like these.

And of course if much of his Cabinet and several of his own MPs are not on board, what then?

It would be a recipe for the sort of genuine chaos not seen even thus far.

[Torrain]

Is there even precedent for a monarch to refuse dissolution of Parliament? The only situation I could imagine this even being a discussion would be if Johnson tried to call an election between Brady calling the vote, and it actually being held (which would be brazen even for Boris).

If he survives the vote, he can do what he wants - if he loses the vote, he’s compelled by Conservative rules to resign as party leader (and would likely be forced out of the party, creating a vacancy, if he refused). And if he tries to call an election tomorrow, presumably before the threshold has been met - I struggle to see the Queen breaching precedent and refusing the request.

This is all academic though - Johnson is almost certainly just wielding the power his backbenchers gave him in March, to use an impending election as a threat against vulnerable members. It’s all a bit Book of Revelations “No man shall know the day, no man shall know the hour…” Only instead of the return of Jesus, it’s another round of bitter electoral politicking.

[Sestak]

I think the realistic threat here is only of an election call if he narrowly does hold on. If he loses his hands will be tied quite fast if he tries to go in that direction.

[Blair]

It's quite funny that a lot of Tories are forgetting what happens after you call an election- you have to have one!

An early election during a time with high inflation, stagnant wages & where your Government has not really done much would be very brave!

It's been forgotten very quickly just how bad 2017 was for Theresa May because ordinary voters did not understand why there was any need for an election- which built the assumption that it was to give her a majority to bring back fox hunting & grammar schools.

People do not like early elections that are triggered without a good reason!

[Oryxslayer]

It's quite funny that a lot of Tories are forgetting what happens after you call an election- you have to have one!

An early election during a time with high inflation, stagnant wages & where your Government has not really done much would be very brave!

It's been forgotten very quickly just how bad 2017 was for Theresa May because ordinary voters did not understand why there was any need for an election- which built the assumption that it was to give her a majority to bring back fox hunting & grammar schools.

People do not like early elections that are triggered without a good reason!

Yes, the only larger goal of calling a snap would be to vindictively punish those internally who turned against the PM, given that any vote right now could all-but only return a Labour government in some form.

[MaxQue]

Is there even precedent for a monarch to refuse dissolution of Parliament?

In British Columbia 2018 election, the Liberal Premier lost her majoirty, but still had the most seats. Her Throne Speech was voted down by an alliance of both Opposition and she tried to get her Majesty representative to dissolve the Assembly, but the representative refused and appointed the Opposition Leader as Premier.

So, there is precedent to refuse dissolution.

[EastAnglianLefty]

It's quite funny that a lot of Tories are forgetting what happens after you call an election- you have to have one!

An early election during a time with high inflation, stagnant wages & where your Government has not really done much would be very brave!

It's been forgotten very quickly just how bad 2017 was for Theresa May because ordinary voters did not understand why there was any need for an election- which built the assumption that it was to give her a majority to bring back fox hunting & grammar schools.

People do not like early elections that are triggered without a good reason!

Yes, the only larger goal of calling a snap would be to vindictively punish those internally who turned against the PM, given that any vote right now could all-but only return a Labour government in some form.

I suspect if he tried to do it the 1922 would immediately change the rules to let them no-confidence him again, and the Palace wouldn't grant a dissolution under those circumstances. They also tend to take a dim view of anything that forces the monarchy into a political crisis, and whilst they'd generally try to avoid making it worse they certainly wouldn't have an incentive to be helpful.

[Torrain]

Brief aside from the constitutional chat (which has been one of most engaging conversations on this thread in a while), to bring you a geographic visualisation of the Tory rebels (credit to @Viregel on Twitter):


A couple of clusters seem notable - one group of rebels in Labour-trending London, and another cluster in Cornwall and the South-West, historically a Lib Dem-Tory swing area. Furthermore, MPs from the devolved nations seem more disposed to stay quiet - unclear whether that’s due to political pressure, or a desire to keep themselves, and their slim majorities, out of the news.

And as a former resident (briefly) of Southampton, it’s interesting to see that the city, and one or two of its adjoining constituencies seem to be a hotspot of activity. I assume this is largely because local MP Caroline Nokes has been a strong critic of Johnson for a while (wholly understandable given her interactions with the Johnson family - awful stuff), but also interesting given the swingy nature of the city’s seats, it’s recent council history (swinging between Con and Lab control in the last few cycles), and vote for Brexit. I believe we have a local on the forum - would be intrigued to get his take.

[Alcibiades]

It's quite funny that a lot of Tories are forgetting what happens after you call an election- you have to have one!

An early election during a time with high inflation, stagnant wages & where your Government has not really done much would be very brave!

It's been forgotten very quickly just how bad 2017 was for Theresa May because ordinary voters did not understand why there was any need for an election- which built the assumption that it was to give her a majority to bring back fox hunting & grammar schools.

People do not like early elections that are triggered without a good reason!

Indeed, and considering that the economic situation is likely to be better by 2024/25 (or at least I think it’s very unlikely it will be much worse; wage growth is more up in the air, but inflation will almost surely be back to much more normal levels), it would be frankly insane for the interests of the Tory Party as a whole — which, of course, Boris does not necessarily view as synonymous with his own interests — not to wait until then.

[Blair]

Lol at Boris Johnson and his wife getting booed outside St Paul’s before the Queens service.

I don’t think the Tories realise how unpopular he is.

[CumbrianLefty]

Mr Dan Hodges, a "journalist", thinks Starmer not actually being cheered was just as bad though.

[Torrain]

Lol at Boris Johnson and his wife getting booed outside St Paul’s before the Queens service.

I don’t think the Tories realise how unpopular he is.

I’m sure the Tory press will say that this is just the “London lefties” attacking our glorious PM.

But these are the sorts of people who queued for hours to see the Royal Family walk into a church, and are in London to celebrate the Jubilee. If Boris has lost that demographic, then I’m really not sure which group of Britons he’s supposed to appeal to.

I mean, “Royalists boo Tory PM” sounds just like the sort of headline that gets pulled from the archive when describing the last days of a government.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This is like a LibDem leader getting heckled at a train spotters convention.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

This is like a LibDem leader getting heckled at a train spotters convention.

Or a Labour leader getting heckled at a union meeting, oh wait.

[Torrain]

Will be seriously amused if this is true:
https://mobile.twitter.com/Tony_Diver/status/1532737266203996161
Boris has almost nothing valuable to offer the members being mentioned, other than his resignation.

Also, it may already be a moot point. The article includes this:

Some senior Conservatives believe the target of 54 letters has already been reached, with one Tory source speculating that the total could already be as high as 70.

So indications are that Johnson is now looking at keeping the 180 votes he’ll need to stay in office, rather than prevent the vote.

[Blair]

I don’t think people have considered how badly he could do in a secret ballot.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This is like a LibDem leader getting heckled at a train spotters convention.

Or a Labour leader getting heckled at a union meeting, oh wait.

No, that's just traditional and expected. It used to be that the people who always did it were called Reg or Ray and so on, but these days it's more likely to be a Mick or a Mike.

[afleitch]

What's significant is that it was not a crowd out for blood.

The War Criminal, Crash and Call Me Dave all didn't get booed. They even got a few woops.

[brucejoel99]

I don’t think people have considered how badly he could do in a secret ballot.

He may still be MPs' best option, but if he just scrapes by, that certainly might not do him much good, as May can attest.

[Wiswylfen]

Lol at Boris Johnson and his wife getting booed outside St Paul’s before the Queens service.

I don’t think the Tories realise how unpopular he is.

I’m sure the Tory press will say that this is just the “London lefties” attacking our glorious PM.

But these are the sorts of people who queued for hours to see the Royal Family walk into a church, and are in London to celebrate the Jubilee. If Boris has lost that demographic, then I’m really not sure which group of Britons he’s supposed to appeal to.

I mean, “Royalists boo Tory PM” sounds just like the sort of headline that gets pulled from the archive when describing the last days of a government.

FWIW I know a local Labour councillor who's down in London for the Jubilee. It's far from just a Conservative thing.