If Signal doesn't get the vote

M

Merrykoala

Well-known member
What does it mean for the country?

The consensus seems to be it's a vote of no confidence in him and it will lead to a GE and a labour landslide.

That's all well and good, my worry is that Johnson crawls out from under his rock and edges it with some help from Garage in the red wall again.

Please god not another 5 years of these heartless crooks.
 
Merrykoala said:
What does it mean for the country?

The consensus seems to be it's a vote of no confidence in him and it will lead to a GE and a labour landslide.

That's all well and good, my worry is that Johnson crawls out from under his rock and edges it with some help from Garage in the red wall again.

Please god not another 5 years of these heartless crooks.
Click to expand...
Johnson is not an MP anymore, no way he could be installed as Tory leader again before an election.
 
I'm not sure a GE will be triggere TVd, regardless of what happens with tonight's vote.

Regardless of who may/may not lead the party, the Conservatives will want to preserve power for as long as possible, particularly given the likelihood that they lose it at the next election.
 
sherlock1969 said:
I don't think what they have done with Cameron could apply to a PM.

The Conservative Party constitution says that the leader of the party "shall be drawn from those elected to Parliament".
Click to expand...
I'm sure they'd try and find some way to gerrymander it, even if it involved someone in a safe seat standing down.
 
He will get the vote because the MP's in his party care more about optics and any potential saving of their seat than the actual rule of law or upholding decent values.

Decent conservative values don't exist, its about their pocket, their class and their seats .. nothing more.
 
Starmer has said that the Rwanda vote will absolutely sail through and everyone in Westminster knows it. The posturing about worrying it won't is just for attention.
 
Mayor Goldie Wilson said:
Starmer has said that the Rwanda vote will absolutely sail through and everyone in Westminster knows it. The posturing about worrying it won't is just for attention.
Click to expand...
He's probably right. Empty vessels make the most noise. But it will only make it worse for Sunak on the second reading of the bill.
 
ThePrisoner said:
He's probably right. Empty vessels make the most noise. But it will only make it worse for Sunak on the second reading of the bill.
Click to expand...
Third reading - tonight is the second. Bizarre I know. And I agree, it all falls apart in February, so we could be looking at an April election
 
sherlock1969 said:
I don't think what they have done with Cameron could apply to a PM.

The Conservative Party constitution says that the leader of the party "shall be drawn from those elected to Parliament".
Click to expand...
The PM doesn't have to be party leader. Technically, they could have an MP as party leader and propose someone else as PM, but I'm not sure the Monarch would go along with this
 
JackG said:
I'm not sure the Monarch would go along with this
Click to expand...
Ha.

That would mean that we actually had a functioning head of state rather than a bloke in a posh hat whose only function is to produce an heir and snip ribbons to open new foodbanks (in any order you like)
 
Muttley said:
Ha.

That would mean that we actually had a functioning head of state rather than a bloke in a posh hat whose only function is to produce an heir and snip ribbons to open new foodbanks (in any order you like)
Click to expand...
I've used the title rather than name as a shorthand for the advisors of a constitutional monarch. In the absence of a written constitution, the process is both opaque and lacks accountability, but I don't think the King would invite a non-MP to form a government. The issue last arose with Sir Alec Douglas-Home (formerly the Earl of Home) who was temporarily a member of neither House when he first became PM.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top