He is still PM. Until someone else is in place. But he has effectively lost his majority.
That does not remove his powers as PM. But it does affect things where commanding confidence matter. Like asking for dissolution when there is a viable alternative govt in your own party.
The simplest solution for conservatives is to quickly agree on a replacement. But that seems unlikely.
But he cannot remain as PM if he is supported by only a rump of the conservatives.
In those circs the only formal way to remove him is a Commons VONC.
That could lead to GE
If a majority in Parliament made clear to Palace there is an alternative govt that can be formed then Queen can turn to that.
But if they can't do that, Johnson would be fighting an election with a split party.
And if the final suggestion in the 'mad idea' is followed and he tried to deselect all who had voted against, you again have split party fighting election.
The really difficult question is what Tory rules say about who has control of the party and the finances if they have ousted him as leader. If they agree a new person, surely that leader inherits CCHQ.
But then you are really getting into civil war territory.
Utter madness.
But am sure Labour would love to have a GE in those circumstances.
I will repeat. This is a barmy threat.
But it is one we've heard he's contemplated before.
Johnson has just completely just played down the idea of an election.
So i guess this whole 'masterplan' is the nonsense i thought it was.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
ok, thread on interim/ acting/ caretaker PMs/ governments.
TL;DR: there are rules. But, yet again, its based on convention.
When PM has lost confidence - which includes losing leadership of your party as well as resigning - you can stay to govern until a replacement is in place, and there is an expectation that you will do so if there is no alternative.
This is why Brown was not 'squatting' in 2010.
The rules that apply are similar to those in place in an election campaign. You must deal with urgent business, crises, etc. We must have a functioning government. But you are expected to show discretion about business of a long-term character.
First exchange is on the balance between the role advising ministers on their interest AND investigating potential breaches of the code.
Geidt says that the dual role allows him to develop a 'bedrock' of knowledge about 'assessing ministerial behaviour'
Geidt goes straight into the Sunak non-dom case. Says this shows how role works. Both his team, private office and Perm Sec advises new minister on what they should declare versus what gets published.
My first take on the govt’s statement on the ministerial code revisions and role of adviser on it, is it contains some wrongheaded constitutional thinking that reveals a worrying trend.
This statement is accurate, the PM does solely advise on ministerial appts, and ministers hold office for as long as they have confidence of PM.
But it’s missing a key link. The PM ONLY holds that office while he has the confidence of Parliament.
The relationship to Parliament is not just accountability and PMs do not just serve until the ballot box decides differently. The executive is formed out of the legislature. Not wholly separate on this.
Allan defines bullying as 'intimidating or insulting behaviour that makes an individual feel uncomfortable, frightened, less respected or put down'
"Instances of the behaviour reported to the Cabinet Office would meet such a definition"
The report also criticises the Home Office for some of the failing relationship between Home Sec and dept. Does not ascribe blame to individuals, but must be seen in context of Rutnam resignation and ongoing employment case there.
But also lack of consensus and common endeavour on Manchester tiered change, and overall lack of sense of end goal from govt
Agreement from @ProfAnnJohn that Cummings was big hit to trust but also u-turns, and lack of transparency about what is driving decisions, including awarding contracts. #ifgcorona
Issue with Cummings was the ‘one rule for them’ says @ReicherStephen
Says govt went for paternalism followed by punishment. Most deprived groups hit hardest should not be blamed but supported.
“public must be partner not problem to be punished, blamed and managed” #ifgcorona
Looks like we'll talking Cabinet Secretaries for the next little while.
The role is a complex mix of duties and different levers of power.
The late Jeremy Heywood went over his duties in a speech to @instituteforgov in 2015. He even had a pie chart of how he spent his time...
Heywood on how the role shifts depending on the PM, though some of the basics stay the same:
“It doesn’t particularly change as one person succeeds another… but rather depends on the circumstances. It changes according to the tastes and preferences of the Prime Minister.”
1. The role of secretary to cabinet. "The one irreducible task of being Cabinet Secretary”
It might seem the most routine part - helping prepare agenda and papers, writing minutes and circulating action points - But from this the role as fulcrum in Cabinet Govt flows.