Johnson must go immediately

MayBee70

Johnson has blocked a vote of no confidence….( in him!!!)

Is that the Labour one? How can he do that?

The Conservatives want the vote wording changed. No point in having a vote of no confidence on Boris he has resigned. Little point in having it anyway as it stands no chance of going through

I haven’t been keeping up but this

Caroline Lucas
@CarolineLucas
·
11m
Our law-breaking PM has seen 50 Ministers resign, but still refuses to leave office for another 2 months

Now he's blocking Parliament's right to vote down his crumbling Govt

It's not a procedural nicety - it's a constitutional outrage with serious consequences for our democracy

So if parliament is sovereign how can this happen?

No mention of it on the news. Too busy with the leadership campaign. Just because there’s no chance of a vote being passed is no reason not to allow it. And it would have proved that Conservative MP’s were still supporting their disgraced leader so they can’t, in future, say they had more integrity than him. I don’t understand the in’s and out’s of it ( so much going on at the moment) but it seems wrong that Johnson is still wielding so much power.

We are living in interesting times (as the Chinese curse goes)
I don’t know enough to understand the wording of the no confidence vote. Maybe it’s because it’s aimed at the PM who has kind of resigned so nothing to see here move along.

I see the argument for a PM who wasn’t in Johnson’s cabinet. That rules out the charlatans and the not very bright

I think the vote is because he’s still in power for two months. And todays events prove that he’s still wielding that power even though he’s been found to be unfit for office. I don’t understand if it was meant to push for an election or just to get him removed from office immediately.

He only appears to have resigned as leader of the tory party. He is still PM. The vote of no confidence is about his PM ship, not about the tory party leadership. That one is already settled.

Is anyone monitoring what bills are being pushed through parliament at the moment while nobodies looking?

Whitewavemark2

So if parliament is sovereign how can this happen?

Because the Tory party still have a large majority, they don’t want to replace Johnson until their new leader is selected. There is no point in a vote of confidence when it’s going to be lost, there are other business that needs to be done before the holiday.
Some might even be good.

There is a political point in a no confidence vote. I'm afraid that's how politics work, Katie59.

Johnson is unfit to be a PM, as most voters know. Despite the TV vox pops, polling shows that most voters want him gone. A no confidence vote, even if lost, presses home the point that tory MPs are still prepared to prop up Johnson and are lacking in integrity. Party before country yet again.

Another compelling reason for a confidence vote and an earlier exit for Johnson is the security risk that he poses.

Parliamentary business can be carried out perfectly well under a caretaker PM.

It is the marker. It records where people stand on all this before they can use their lies to try and change history.

The truth has been shown not to matter to this government or its supporters. I doubt anyone is surprised that they have tried, once more, to suppress any opposition or even, simply, the truth. I think we have all got used to this.

These people should remember that nothing lasts forever. It will become a part of written history. It will be remembered, including how groups of minorities in the population behaved.

I understand it makes a political point about accountability, he has already been hounded out by his own party, he has no personal political power, whatever gets approved is the will of parliament.
We could of course demand a public enquiry and waste a few million on that, it changes nothing, for better or worse we are getting a new PM. Most likely it will be what the ERG agree to that will count, they dogged Cameron and May backed Johnson and will rule new policy.

rosie1959

The Conservatives want the vote wording changed. No point in having a vote of no confidence on Boris he has resigned. Little point in having it anyway as it stands no chance of going through

That could save a lot of time. Just decide how a vote will go before you have it then cancel it.

The test of confidence thereby provides both the authority and the legitimacy of our government in this parliamentary system.

And because the test of confidence is so important, then the application of that test must take priority over any other parliamentary business.

Green puts the legal view. The article is well worth a read as it is a very comprehensive argument.

Green says, further on:
Either parliament, through its elected representatives, is supreme or it is not.

Either the government of the day has the confidence of a majority of Members of Parliament, or it does not.

From a legal standpoint, not allowing confidence in parliament to be voted on denies our constitutional right. But then, that's Conservatism these days, isn't it.

Law and Policy Blog davidallengreen.com/

"Downing Street has told Keir Starmer that they will not give him the time in the House of Commons for the debate and vote to go ahead."

This shouldn't be possible. The government should not control parliament in this way.

You might think the Queen will have something to say about this.

We need a new constitution

Petera

rosie1959

The Conservatives want the vote wording changed. No point in having a vote of no confidence on Boris he has resigned. Little point in having it anyway as it stands no chance of going through

That could save a lot of time. Just decide how a vote will go before you have it then cancel it.

I imagine this will play out over the next few days Petra. Of course the Conservatives do not want Johnson mentioned and Labour do.

Surely the leader of the House has a say in whether there is "time" to spare to consider a vote of no confidence?

And surely the question of whether the PM and the Government of the day has the confidence of the House in conducting national business should be settled BEFORE conducting any other business?

The parody Johnson twitter account says it all really:

Parody Boris
@Parody_PM
·
17h
^I’m not allowing time for a no confidence vote tomorrow.
One of the benefits of having a system of conventions that relies on people doing the decent thing is that when you are morally bankrupt you can do what the fuck you like.^

Elegran

Surely the leader of the House has a say in whether there is "time" to spare to consider a vote of no confidence?

And surely the question of whether the PM and the Government of the day has the confidence of the House in conducting national business should be settled BEFORE conducting any other business?

And who is the Leader of the House, Elegran?

Jacob Rees-Mogg

Unfortunately Mark Spencer (current Leader of the House) represents the government in parliament.

I think this says more about the role of the Speaker and his legal team than any political role.

Mark Spencer took over in February Maizie. I am wholly willing to believe it has changed again since then. In fact, with the resignations, do they have someone?

MaizieD

Elegran

Surely the leader of the House has a say in whether there is "time" to spare to consider a vote of no confidence?

And surely the question of whether the PM and the Government of the day has the confidence of the House in conducting national business should be settled BEFORE conducting any other business?

And who is the Leader of the House, Elegran?

Jacob Rees-Mogg

Whoops! No, he isn't any more. He's the Minister for Unicorns and sunny uplands.

But when he was, it was he who set the timetable for debates on Bills and made sure they were rushed through without time for debate and scrutiny.

But, of course, the current Leader of the House is a tory and the government has made it quite clear that scrutiny is anathema to them.

DaisyAnne

Unfortunately Mark Spencer (current Leader of the House) represents the government in parliament.

I think this says more about the role of the Speaker and his legal team than any political role.

You got in before I had time to correct my error

Could the Speaker's role and the Speaker's office be strengthened, do you think? As we can no longer rely on 'gentlemanly' behaviour (if we ever could), is that one area where more could/should be codified?