UK Politics: Johnson in a Pinch(er)

[Fragile Bird]

32 minutes ago, Werthead said:

The chief whip is supposed to be the Prime Minister's enforcer and disciplinarian. Him actively telling ministers and MPs to withdraw their support for the PM is unbelievable.

We really need that “wow” emoji!

[Fragile Bird]

6 minutes ago, mormont said:

We need to get one thing straight, because even some of our UK boarders seem to not get this part of how the constitutional settlement works.

Theoretically the Queen can independently decide to do this or that under our constitution. In practice, the Queen has made it perfectly clear over the course of her career, she will never do any of it. No, not that. Or that. Not even if that happens.

The practical situation is that the Queen has these powers in name only. Should she ever try to use them under any circumstances, she believes (correctly) she would damage the role of the monarchy and probably be stripped of those powers anyway. She doesn't believe it's her role to say no to a Prime Minister under any circumstances.

And she's right. At least the PM is an elected dictator. Unelected ones are not the answer.

Same situation in Canada. The Governor-General had to make some hard decisions in the past, even just 15 years ago.

[Werthead]

Priti Patel has told Johnson he must go, not because she wants him to, but because he has lost the support of the Parliamentary party and the party in the country.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

4 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Priti Patel has told Johnson he must go, not because she wants him to, but because he has lost the support of the Parliamentary party and the party in the country.

She also probably wants a PM that lets her be even worse of a human being to refugees. 

[A wilding]

So Mrs W's hopes of a Priti vs Mad Nad cat fight might yet come to fruition?

[DMC]

2 hours ago, Maltaran said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascelles_Principles

I'm very disappointed this was not covered in The Crown - if only to give Tommy Lascelles some more well-deserved screentime.

[mormont]

14 minutes ago, Werthead said:

If the Prime Minister asks to do something that is effectively amoral or illegal to will cause damage to the country, the monarch is perfectly legally entitled to say no.

Agreed. But in practice, even in those circumstances, she absolutely will not in fact do so.

14 minutes ago, Werthead said:

But it is completely possible that a situation would arise where the PM asks the monarch to do something that they are forced to say no to.

This is where the misunderstanding is. Such a situation doesn't exist. The monarch does not make such judgements, not with her advisers, not with her lawyers, not with her closest personal friends. If Johnson had gone to her with the famous prorogation, she'd have done it without question, because it isn't her role to ask those questions. That's the constitutional settlement. The 'crown in parliament' exists only as long as the crown does nothing. 

[Werthead]

1 minute ago, mormont said:

Agreed. But in practice, even in those circumstances, she absolutely will not in fact do so.

This is where the misunderstanding is. Such a situation doesn't exist. The monarch does not make such judgements, not with her advisers, not with her lawyers, not with her closest personal friends. If Johnson had gone to her with the famous prorogation, she'd have done it without question, because it isn't her role to ask those questions. That's the constitutional settlement. The 'crown in parliament' exists only as long as the crown does nothing. 

I think you are underestimating the degree to which we are in unprecedented waters.

We've had 55 Prime Ministers and absolutely any of the other 54 would have resigned long before now, and none of them would be trying to dig in and hold onto power despite having clearly lost the support of his party and the country. This situation is unique.

I agree that where the situation is unmuddied and clear, the Queen will automatically fulfil the Prime Minister's direction. Where the situation is muddied and unclear, that is not a given.

If the Prime Minister goes to the Queen and tells her he wants to dissolve Parliament and install himself as Prime Minister of Britain For Life and also King of the Moon, she would not, in fact, comply with that because it is illegal and unconstitutional.

Boris going to the Queen and asking to dissolve Parliament and call a general election not because he had lost a majority, not because the normal four or five year tenure was up and not because Parliament as a whole had agreed to it (as in 2019), but solely to hang onto power for his own personal gain and no other reason, likewise takes us into a highly unprecedented situation, especially when the law allows other options to be fulfilled, such as an alternative Prime Minister presenting themselves.

[Werthead]

The BBC is now reporting that "several" of the cabinet ministers who have spoken to Johnson had resignation letters of their own to present if he did not resign.

Since they have not announced those resignations, there is some feeling now that Johnson may have accepted the gig is up.

[Derfel Cadarn]

27 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Priti Patel has told Johnson he must go, not because she wants him to, but because he has lost the support of the Parliamentary party and the party in the country.

And because any excuse to kick someone out their house

[Werthead]

From Newsnight:

 

Quote

 

I just asked an ally of a cabinet minister who is in No 10 calling on the PM to go: what would happen if he refuses?

"Then Boris Johnson won't have a cabinet," came the swift reply.

 

 

[Spockydog]

He appears to be telling everyone to get stuffed. He's gonna have to be dragged from there.

 

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

4 minutes ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

And because any excuse to kick someone out their house

Boris Johnson will always have a place to stay in Rwanda. 

[Rorshach]

He really does give off the impression that everything is always 100% about himself.

As such, it's no wonder he won't accept the kick in his status resigning would be. Rather, try to fight until he's beyond dead would seem to be his MO.

[mormont]

10 minutes ago, Werthead said:

I think you are underestimating the degree to which we are in unprecedented waters.

I'm just not assuming that because we are in unprecedented waters, that a particular unprecedented thing will happen.

10 minutes ago, Werthead said:

If the Prime Minister goes to the Queen and tells her he wants to dissolve Parliament and install himself as Prime Minister of Britain For Life and also King of the Moon, she would not, in fact, comply with that because it is illegal and unconstitutional.

Boris going to the Queen and asking to dissolve Parliament and call a general election not because he had lost a majority, not because the normal four or five year tenure was up and not because Parliament as a whole had agreed to it (as in 2019), but solely to hang onto power for his own personal gain and no other reason, likewise takes us into a highly unprecedented situation, especially when the law allows other options to be fulfilled, such as an alternative Prime Minister presenting themselves.

But the latter is not like the former.

If there's a constitutional crisis, the Queen's priority is to avoid it being in any way about her role. The best way to do that is to be a rubber stamp. She'll give Johnson an election if he asks. No question.

Just now, Rorschach - 2 said:

He really does give off the impression that everything is always 100% about himself.

No, he's staying because it would be irresponsible for him to quit! Didn't you read what his (few remaining) supporters are saying? He's doing it for us! And for Ukraine!

[SeanF]

12 minutes ago, Werthead said:

I think you are underestimating the degree to which we are in unprecedented waters.

We've had 55 Prime Ministers and absolutely any of the other 54 would have resigned long before now, and none of them would be trying to dig in and hold onto power despite having clearly lost the support of his party and the country. This situation is unique.

I agree that where the situation is unmuddied and clear, the Queen will automatically fulfil the Prime Minister's direction. Where the situation is muddied and unclear, that is not a given.

If the Prime Minister goes to the Queen and tells her he wants to dissolve Parliament and install himself as Prime Minister of Britain For Life and also King of the Moon, she would not, in fact, comply with that because it is illegal and unconstitutional.

Boris going to the Queen and asking to dissolve Parliament and call a general election not because he had lost a majority, not because the normal four or five year tenure was up and not because Parliament as a whole had agreed to it (as in 2019), but solely to hang onto power for his own personal gain and no other reason, likewise takes us into a highly unprecedented situation, especially when the law allows other options to be fulfilled, such as an alternative Prime Minister presenting themselves.

I am quite certain that the Queen's advisors (who are in touch with the Cabinet and senior civil servants) would advise her to refuse a dissolution of Parliament in those circumstances.  In fact, I think that they would advise her to dismiss a PM who had plainly lost the confidence of the House of Commons, but refused to step down.  It is only a convention that a PM who has lost the confidence of the Commons should resign, but I think that a Head of State would be acting entirely correctly to dismiss a PM who refused to.  

[Derfel Cadarn]

Looks like he’s not going and will drag this out until Monday, at the least. Almost a week of excruciating limbo and farce for the Tory party as they can’t get rid of the bastard

[SeanF]

I think that a constitutional monarch who just rubber stamped anything the PM did, would end up the same way as the monarchs of Italy and Greece.

When a PM goes rogue, it's the job of the Head of State to dismiss him.

[A wilding]

Couldn't have happened to a more deserving bunch.

[Werthead]

Sky News reporting that he is saying he won't go.

So that's interesting. Has he called his Cabinet's bluff and they've folded? Or are they waiting for a certain point before resigning?

The country could go into paralysis for several days until the committee changes the rules, holds the no-confidence vote and boots him out.