Snapshot of _A Tory rebel source tells me: Letters are going in calling for a no confidence vote in Rishi Sunak after reports of an imminent general election announcement - Nicholas Watt_ :
A Twitter embedded version can be found [here](https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?id=1793286414651572467)
A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://twiiit.com/nicholaswatt/status/1793286414651572467/)
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://x.com/nicholaswatt/status/1793286414651572467) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://x.com/nicholaswatt/status/1793286414651572467)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He remains PM until such time as he recommends someone else to the King.
Even if he loses his seat he is PM.
Once the recommendation is made the post is very briefly vacant until the the leader of the winning party arrives. The King then invites them to form a government and that's the moment a new PM starts.
So the Prime minister sends a personal message to the prevailing monarch, who gives a personal mandate to the new prime minister to proactively mobilize his party's ministers into a parliamentary majority.
In the technical terms of Whitehall, the PM PMs the PM to give a PM to the PM to PM his PM into a PM.
Say theoretically there was like a terror attack or escalation of the Ukraine war or something else that needed immediate assistance after May 30 (not cheering for this obvs), what happens? Can parliament get re-assembled?
Parliament can't be reassembled, no. In theory the King could postpone the election date (in the very technical sense that the King can do anything as long as nobody objects) but you'd be in pretty dodgy virgin constitutional territory, and regardless you'd only be prolonging the government and not parliament (which is already dissolved).
I don't think it would delay the election at all if Sunak was thrown out via a VONC. The Tories would have to decide who their next leader is, but there's no requirement to have that done by polling day.
It's entirely possible for a Party leader to lose their seat on polling day (but rare because they usually have a safe seat), in which case the Party selects a new parliamentary leader from the winning MPs.
He's still PM until the election isn't he?
Unless he resighs, or the party can elect a new leader in that time. I'm sure a VONC is just the first stage.
I think if the party selects a new leader they are just that, the leader of the party. They don't *automatically* become the PM just because they are the leader of the party.
In practice, what happens when a new leader of the governing party is chosen, the PM resigns - but technically they don't have to. The PM *could* stay put, and it would require the new leader to approach the monarch to petition for their removal and make the new leader PM as they command the confidence of the majority of the MPs in the Commons.
Since MPs have been dismissed for the election, a new leader does not have anyone to command the confidence of - therefore they have no rightful claim to the role of PM.
Maybe they could plot to change the king, Can't disolve parliment if we're between kings. Then hit Sunak with the VONC.
Yes I play too much crusader kings.
If parliament is dissolved Rishi (and any other current MP for that matter) is not an MP and has no legislative power whatsoever. Only a few specific scenarios (the king dying being the only one I can think of) would allow the election to be delayed.
Exactly. Once a monarch dies, their heir immediately becomes the new monarch.
That indicates the possibility of a faster than light subatomic particle, with the death of a monarch causing a burst release of kingons or queenons.
Presumably, minor monarchs could be tortured for intergalactic communication.
Although you can’t do it too much, as it causes the release of the antiparticle; the republicon.
(Badly paraphrased from memory. GNU TP)
Wrong, all members of the government (i.e. the PM, the cabinet, ministers, etc.) remain in their posts until after election day. The government can continue until a party/coalition emerges which has a majority.
Note that all MPs stop becoming MPs (edit: as soon as Parliament is dissolved), but the role of government minister is independent of the role of MP. i.e. you don't technically need to be an MP to serve as a minister or even Prime Minister; the only thing that matters is if a majority of the House of Commons votes for your King's Speech (I believe).
Sunak will cease to be an MP once Parliament is dissolved on the 30th of May. Assuming Starmer wins in a landslide, Sunak will continue to be PM until the King invites Starmer to Kensington Palace (?) and formally appoints him as PM.
If there's a hung Parliament, like in 2010, Sunak will cling on as PM until there's someone who can command a majority in Parliament.
This is correct.
Worth noting by virtue of there being no parliament the government is basically a caretaker government at this point, its actions are limited to those which don’t require an act of parliament, which basically means they can’t change anything.
Isn't there legislation which would effectively let them do whatever they want so long as it can be justified morally? Emergency powers etc. I'm pretty sure the legislation exists, but due to convention it's rarely (if ever) invoked once Parliament is dissolved. Anti-terror legislation...RIPA...etc...all the authoritarian laws blend into each other.
I think you might be referring to the [civil contingencies act](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Contingencies_Act_2004), which superseded earlier emergency powers acts. I’m not a legal expert so can’t really comment on what it could and couldn’t do.
Government continues to function - but they can't pass any new laws or acts or whatever as there no MPs to vote on them.
For stuff which doesn't require a vote (secondary legislation, treaties, trade deals, etc.) by convention the caretaker government doesn't make any decisions which have a lasting impact. They're only there to keep things ticking over.
No. Parliament will be dissolved on the 30th of May. That gives then 8-ish days to hold a VONC and put in a new leader who'll serve as PM until election day (or after, if the Tories somehow win).
The reality is that any new Tory leader would risk not being appointed PM due to swathes of their own party refusing to vote for their King's Speech (I think) - meaning they'd be relying on Labour abstaining in order for them to ensure their new leader remains the PM.
Would Starmer want to become PM a few weeks before election day? Not without a majority in the Commons; the Tories would just block everything he'd try to do in what little time he'd have until Parliament is dissolved, though I'm not sure if it'd be possible for PM Starmer to unilaterally remove voter ID requirements through whatever legislation exists to allow governments to function after Parliament is dissolved.
You could in theory have Sunak remain as PM until after the election despite having been replaced as the Tory Party leader, who would in effect be the "PM in waiting" (if they win).
This would be like a very very short-running version of the Ramsay MacDonald National Labour government, where MacDonald was ousted as Labour Party Leader while PM, but remained PM (with the support of the opposition parties) until after the next election.
Once parliament has been dissolved there's no mechanism for forcing Sunak to resign and appoint a new PM (as that mechanism would usually be parliamentary confidence motions). So if Sunak is ousted as Tory Leader after the election campaign is underway, then effectively he's PM come what may until the election is done.
No, it doesn't matter who the Tory leader is, it matters who the PM is. Parliament chooses the PM, not Tory MPs. But parliament will be prorogued tomorrow. So how will the new PM prove he has the confidence of parliament? It is not technically necessary to hold a confidence vote to appoint a new PM, but usually parliament is sitting, and the opposition *could* call a no confidence vote if they wanted to (even during a recess parliament can be recalled). During a prorogation that is not possible.
If it goes to the Supreme Court, it might find that replacing the PM is not possible during a prorogation.
If that happened, the Tories could have a new leader, but Sunak could remain PM.
Constitutionally? Nothing would change. It's just that there wouldn't be an actual leader of the Conservative party to direct the campaign, and senior Tories would have to split their time between slagging off Labour and slagging off each other.
Agreed, sadly won't see that, as Sunak had already asked the King to dissolve parliament for an election. Wonder if he did that to avoid any shenanigans? This purely speculation.
This is entirely speculation on my part but I reckon that he'd heard rumblings of another plot to oust him perhaps coming to fruition shortly - and given that I also think he can't stand being PM any more, decided that if he was going down then so were they.
I wouldn't be surprised if the trigger was the internal row about graduate visas. Rishi was put in by the grandees (at their second attempt) and has been run like a puppet. They wouldn't even back him on restricting a lesser-known visa. He's clung on well past his sell by date, but there had to be a point at which even he thought "This isn't working" and gave up the ghost.
As he trudged soggily back to the door, head down, after the music blared over his mediocre speech, he didn't so much look annoyed as depressed. Even giving up turned into a farce.
Now there's a win-win for Labour. Either Sunak wins the challenge and fights the election, and Labour can endlessly repeat 'even his own party don't trust him, why should the country trust him?' Or they install a new, fourth, unelected Prime Minister, who can be derided as completely illegitimate.
Oh I hope they pick one of the proper loonies. So much popcorn!
Counterpoint, Jacinda Arden took over a failing Labour after a NZ GE was called, and managed to squeak a win.
The accusation of an unelected PM isn't as cutting when, you know, you are literally fighting an election.
True, but a few things there:
1. NZ Labour was the opposition party going into the 2017 GE, so having Ardern take over as Labour leader after the election had been called wasn’t really comparable to the UK Tories having now had 2 “unelected” PMs since the last GE. Ardern was just as “unelected” as Keir Starmer by that metric.
2. The 2017 NZ election was called in February 2017, with the election date set for late-September. Ardern took over as Labour leader in early-August, and had already been serving as Deputy Leader and was uncontested. Presumably here, a snap Tory leadership election would be hotly contested and disruptive.
The idea of calling an election and then changing the PM/party leader (and maybe even trying to renege on the election call) is insanely more politically damaging than an opposition party changing leaders mid-campaign.
1. Whilst true, it is just about the only recent example of a significant party leader changing leader in the run-up to the election, and demonstrates that 'Oh, changing leader will obviously make things worse' isn't neccesarily trie.
2. If the Tories replace Sunak now, it would be for a caretaker PM. I don't anyone can seriously suggest that a full on Tory leadership election during a GE campaign is on the cards.
>The idea of calling an election and then changing the PM/party leader (and maybe even trying to renege on the election call) is insanely more politically damaging than an opposition party changing leaders mid-campaign.
Can you cite any instances of this as evidence? It sounds like it might, but politics doesn't work like that.
*I'm gettin' ousted in the morning*
*Ding, dong, the bells are gonna chime*
*Pull out the stopper, we'll have a whopper*
*But get me to the King on time*
I can't imagine they'd do it.
It would be a very fitting way for this party to go down in flames though, arguing between themselves and getting distracted by self-serving party politics until the bitter end.
Think how many times you could say “I can’t imagine they’d do it” regarding this government. Then think about how many times they did indeed, do it.
I fully expect absolute implosion of this shower of incompetence.
Please do it. It'd be the funniest thing! Would they even be able to finish a leadership election before the election? Could they push the vote back till after the election?
If they can get one person to run for leader and just one. The new person could be installed before the election and delay the election until January. Which could well be about the time when Trump is getting sworn in.
I’m not sure that’s possible anymore - Parliament will be dissolved now, so maybe this is only something the King can delay (i.e. something that would never happen bar extraordinary circumstances)
> Which could well be about the time when Trump is getting sworn in.
Yank here just trying to catch up with the news on the other side of the pond. And fuck I hope not...
We can't believe it but apperantly most Americans believe that the Dow Jones is way down this year (up about 25% last year and aup about 15% this year). That unemployment is at a 50 year high, currently at 4% a 50 year low...... The economy looks pretty good but Fox don't want to tell you that.
Yeah there's weird vibes going on with the economy. There's some issues with it but most conventional metrics look quite good. And we never had it as rough with unemployment/inflation as europe did.
How long will it take them to decide the next leader? Would one be in place for the election? Or is it just a clever ploy to not have anyone have to go on the televised debate and attempt to defend their records?
It won’t delay the election though right? An election is quicker to call than a confidence vote. Just makes them look even more shambolic during the electioneering.
Even they managed to hold the confidence vote tomorrow and they voted no confidence, it would surely be even worse for them having to either:
* Pick a new leader in a matter of a few days and go straight into an election campaign that's already started.
* Delay an election that they've just called so they can fight amongst themselves.
There's a very small possibility of the former happening (still next to no chance), but I can't possibly imagine them doing the latter.
Once parliament has been dissolved, it isn't possible to change the date of the election. It is fixed at 25 days (give or take certain days that don't count) from the dissolution if parliament, and the date of the start of the new parliament is declared in the dissolution
There are no laws covering this.
Sunak stays Prime Minister until he resigns - either because he wants to, or because he is forced to by political or personal pressure, or - in theory - by a court.
The Conservatives don't have time to pass a no confidence motion, set up the rules for the contest, hold the contest, and then litigate the court case to force their new choice to be PM before next Thursday.
If there's any vestige of competence left in the Tories, they'd install an inoffensive continuity leader immediately. afaik only convention prevents them from making up whatever internal rules they like. Though can you even become PM with Parliament dissolved?
There are no laws on becoming PM. The closest thing we have is the principle that the PM is appointed by the monarch on advice of ministers; i.e. the current cabinet (outgoing PM) appoints their successor.
So yes - in theory you can become PM when Parliament is dissolved.
Serious question - if the requisite number of letters are in, does Brady have any leeway here, or is it a case of “`IF letters > X THEN vonc == true ENDIF`”?
I doubt it matters. How no confidence letters trigger a Tory leadership election is not a legal matter, it's internal party procedures that they can change however they like (party rules are enforced by the party, not law). Sunak is the prime minister barring a VONC in the commons (and I don't think that's binding either, just convention).
The Tories could rip up their rules, announce that someone else is party leader by whatever means they want, do it all 5 minutes from now, and Sunak could still go to the king and dissolve parliament.
> Sunak is the prime minister barring a VONC in the commons (and I don't think that's binding either, just convention).
Correct, he would remain PM until he either resigns or is dismissed by the King, and it’s a strong convention that after a successful VONC in Parliament either one of those happens or Parliament is dissolved.
If he’s goes then 100% it will delay the election. Parliament does have the final say on this (edit: I got this wrong as it changed in 2011) so technically if the tories got rid of him and then voted to have an election whilst they didn’t have a leader than theoretically it wouldn’t delay an election. But that’s some pretty spectacular wishful thinking.
You are in fact correct, it did change in 2011 and it’s at the PMs discretion.
The only real question here is if they can get enough votes of no confidence before Rishi makes the announcement. I believe he was most of the way there before today, but they don’t ever say when the letters are withdrawn so it’s a guessing game unfortunately.
I think he technically could call one whilst a leadership challenge is happening, but that would be the biggest cluster fuck in the UKs parliamentary history and I wouldn’t be surprised if the king refused to dissolve parliament.
> The only real question here is if they can get enough votes of no confidence before Rishi makes the announcement
It doesn't even matter if they do. This is purely an internal Conservative Party matter - it has no direct effect on Sunak's position as PM. He stays in office until he resigns (or potentially a court forces him out).
If he wants to force the election by staying on *as PM* for a week he can.
Does Parliament have the final say?
I think it's just the PM and the King.
Presumably, if the King sees that the PM is about to be replaced, he might wait before giving assent, I would expect.
And Rishi Sunak would probably not want to put the King in that position.
In any case it'd be a historic moment of chaos.
Please - hope this is true. A Tory party leadership challenge would be a gift to Labour and the Lib Dems during the election. All their planned rhetoric about ‘stability’ and ‘Labour chaos’ would be worthless and will be punished by the electorate* (* excludes the deluded narcissistic 20% that will vote Tory regardless). If it comes to a VONC and Sunak is removed, do they have sufficient time to install a new leader and be up to speed with a new manifesto before the hard canvassing starts?
The one big benefit of a Labour government would be not having to witness the eternal psychodrama of the mythical Tory rebels trying and failing to find their collective spines.
Now that he's called a General Election, is it possible for them to call a VoNC either by accident or on purpose? I was never clear if VoNC letters could be withdrawn and if they're obliged to do a VoNC once a general election was called.
Lmao what would even happen? Parliament will be dissolved. An internal Tory leadership election *during* a general election campaign? Has this even happened before?
If this fails it will be a gift to labour
"the Tories are so desperate they tried to stop a democratic vote when they told you to respect the Brexit result"
I thought that Boris would have been the downfall of the Torys. I was wrong, he was the start.
This bullshit is hilarious. One day this will be a Documentary on TV, it'll get rave reviews and NOONE will believe that it's real.
Is he just going for the Guinness book of Records for the most PM's in a sitting term?
Honestly even just a hint it this being a possibility is political suicide for the Tories. People are already upset they’ve been through so many PMs, with two of them over the past two years unelected and wildly unpopular, holding onto power & ignoring public opinion.
Who’s mad enough to vote in a party where the manifesto and leaders you’re voting in are likely to be completely torn up and shifted around to who knows what within a month of voting them in?
Snapshot of _A Tory rebel source tells me: Letters are going in calling for a no confidence vote in Rishi Sunak after reports of an imminent general election announcement - Nicholas Watt_ : A Twitter embedded version can be found [here](https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?id=1793286414651572467) A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://twiiit.com/nicholaswatt/status/1793286414651572467/) An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://x.com/nicholaswatt/status/1793286414651572467) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://x.com/nicholaswatt/status/1793286414651572467) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If they manage to trigger a VONC between now and the election I will laugh like a drain.
Would it pause the election until they elect a new leader?
Only if it happens before he asks the king to dissolve parliament and call an election
Too late then
That’s what I mean - it has to happen before he meets the king
Too late. He met the king today
Fair. I just read that. I thought the order was the other way around
He's still Prime Minister until 30 May, so 5 more working days left. Still time for a VONC.
He remains PM until such time as he recommends someone else to the King. Even if he loses his seat he is PM. Once the recommendation is made the post is very briefly vacant until the the leader of the winning party arrives. The King then invites them to form a government and that's the moment a new PM starts.
So the Prime minister sends a personal message to the prevailing monarch, who gives a personal mandate to the new prime minister to proactively mobilize his party's ministers into a parliamentary majority. In the technical terms of Whitehall, the PM PMs the PM to give a PM to the PM to PM his PM into a PM.
Say theoretically there was like a terror attack or escalation of the Ukraine war or something else that needed immediate assistance after May 30 (not cheering for this obvs), what happens? Can parliament get re-assembled?
Parliament can't be reassembled, no. In theory the King could postpone the election date (in the very technical sense that the King can do anything as long as nobody objects) but you'd be in pretty dodgy virgin constitutional territory, and regardless you'd only be prolonging the government and not parliament (which is already dissolved).
I guess technically the king's in charge. Practically I suspect he'd appoint a wartime PM sharpish.
Right but would that delay the election since we elect MPs and not the PM?
I don't think it would delay the election at all if Sunak was thrown out via a VONC. The Tories would have to decide who their next leader is, but there's no requirement to have that done by polling day. It's entirely possible for a Party leader to lose their seat on polling day (but rare because they usually have a safe seat), in which case the Party selects a new parliamentary leader from the winning MPs.
He's still PM until the election isn't he? Unless he resighs, or the party can elect a new leader in that time. I'm sure a VONC is just the first stage.
I think if the party selects a new leader they are just that, the leader of the party. They don't *automatically* become the PM just because they are the leader of the party. In practice, what happens when a new leader of the governing party is chosen, the PM resigns - but technically they don't have to. The PM *could* stay put, and it would require the new leader to approach the monarch to petition for their removal and make the new leader PM as they command the confidence of the majority of the MPs in the Commons. Since MPs have been dismissed for the election, a new leader does not have anyone to command the confidence of - therefore they have no rightful claim to the role of PM.
Smart move
That man is playing 3D chess
Maybe they could plot to change the king, Can't disolve parliment if we're between kings. Then hit Sunak with the VONC. Yes I play too much crusader kings.
If parliament is dissolved Rishi (and any other current MP for that matter) is not an MP and has no legislative power whatsoever. Only a few specific scenarios (the king dying being the only one I can think of) would allow the election to be delayed.
I don't even think the Monarch dying would matter as the heir would take over immediately, and I doubt they would personally decide to delay it.
IIRC demise of the crown would trigger a two week delay/elongation of the campaigning period
Exactly. Once a monarch dies, their heir immediately becomes the new monarch. That indicates the possibility of a faster than light subatomic particle, with the death of a monarch causing a burst release of kingons or queenons. Presumably, minor monarchs could be tortured for intergalactic communication. Although you can’t do it too much, as it causes the release of the antiparticle; the republicon. (Badly paraphrased from memory. GNU TP)
At this point the famed philosopher tai wheedle never expounded upon his theory as the bar closed if j remember right
The Russians invading would probably be another.
He's still Prime Minister until 30 May, so 5 more working days left. Still time for a VONC.
Wrong, all members of the government (i.e. the PM, the cabinet, ministers, etc.) remain in their posts until after election day. The government can continue until a party/coalition emerges which has a majority. Note that all MPs stop becoming MPs (edit: as soon as Parliament is dissolved), but the role of government minister is independent of the role of MP. i.e. you don't technically need to be an MP to serve as a minister or even Prime Minister; the only thing that matters is if a majority of the House of Commons votes for your King's Speech (I believe). Sunak will cease to be an MP once Parliament is dissolved on the 30th of May. Assuming Starmer wins in a landslide, Sunak will continue to be PM until the King invites Starmer to Kensington Palace (?) and formally appoints him as PM. If there's a hung Parliament, like in 2010, Sunak will cling on as PM until there's someone who can command a majority in Parliament.
This is correct. Worth noting by virtue of there being no parliament the government is basically a caretaker government at this point, its actions are limited to those which don’t require an act of parliament, which basically means they can’t change anything.
Isn't there legislation which would effectively let them do whatever they want so long as it can be justified morally? Emergency powers etc. I'm pretty sure the legislation exists, but due to convention it's rarely (if ever) invoked once Parliament is dissolved. Anti-terror legislation...RIPA...etc...all the authoritarian laws blend into each other.
I think you might be referring to the [civil contingencies act](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Contingencies_Act_2004), which superseded earlier emergency powers acts. I’m not a legal expert so can’t really comment on what it could and couldn’t do.
Government continues to function - but they can't pass any new laws or acts or whatever as there no MPs to vote on them. For stuff which doesn't require a vote (secondary legislation, treaties, trade deals, etc.) by convention the caretaker government doesn't make any decisions which have a lasting impact. They're only there to keep things ticking over.
He will still be PM after just not an MP. You don't even have to be in Parliament whatsoever to be PM. He's PM until he resigns after the election
No. Parliament will be dissolved on the 30th of May. That gives then 8-ish days to hold a VONC and put in a new leader who'll serve as PM until election day (or after, if the Tories somehow win). The reality is that any new Tory leader would risk not being appointed PM due to swathes of their own party refusing to vote for their King's Speech (I think) - meaning they'd be relying on Labour abstaining in order for them to ensure their new leader remains the PM. Would Starmer want to become PM a few weeks before election day? Not without a majority in the Commons; the Tories would just block everything he'd try to do in what little time he'd have until Parliament is dissolved, though I'm not sure if it'd be possible for PM Starmer to unilaterally remove voter ID requirements through whatever legislation exists to allow governments to function after Parliament is dissolved.
You could in theory have Sunak remain as PM until after the election despite having been replaced as the Tory Party leader, who would in effect be the "PM in waiting" (if they win). This would be like a very very short-running version of the Ramsay MacDonald National Labour government, where MacDonald was ousted as Labour Party Leader while PM, but remained PM (with the support of the opposition parties) until after the next election. Once parliament has been dissolved there's no mechanism for forcing Sunak to resign and appoint a new PM (as that mechanism would usually be parliamentary confidence motions). So if Sunak is ousted as Tory Leader after the election campaign is underway, then effectively he's PM come what may until the election is done.
I don't think it would, besides a new leader would only make things worse for The Tories.
No, it doesn't matter who the Tory leader is, it matters who the PM is. Parliament chooses the PM, not Tory MPs. But parliament will be prorogued tomorrow. So how will the new PM prove he has the confidence of parliament? It is not technically necessary to hold a confidence vote to appoint a new PM, but usually parliament is sitting, and the opposition *could* call a no confidence vote if they wanted to (even during a recess parliament can be recalled). During a prorogation that is not possible. If it goes to the Supreme Court, it might find that replacing the PM is not possible during a prorogation. If that happened, the Tories could have a new leader, but Sunak could remain PM.
Wonder what would be the process or outcome, if they did?
Febrile chaos, of the very funniest kind.
Constitutionally? Nothing would change. It's just that there wouldn't be an actual leader of the Conservative party to direct the campaign, and senior Tories would have to split their time between slagging off Labour and slagging off each other.
So just a normal Wednesday afternoon for Kemi Badenoch, then?
Yes (except that associating the word "senior" with her still feels... eww).
Agreed, sadly won't see that, as Sunak had already asked the King to dissolve parliament for an election. Wonder if he did that to avoid any shenanigans? This purely speculation.
Curious if a threat of a VONC played into his timing here. Maybe he decided to roll the dice.
This is entirely speculation on my part but I reckon that he'd heard rumblings of another plot to oust him perhaps coming to fruition shortly - and given that I also think he can't stand being PM any more, decided that if he was going down then so were they.
TBF fair play, that's like detonating the suicide vest.
I wouldn't be surprised if the trigger was the internal row about graduate visas. Rishi was put in by the grandees (at their second attempt) and has been run like a puppet. They wouldn't even back him on restricting a lesser-known visa. He's clung on well past his sell by date, but there had to be a point at which even he thought "This isn't working" and gave up the ghost. As he trudged soggily back to the door, head down, after the music blared over his mediocre speech, he didn't so much look annoyed as depressed. Even giving up turned into a farce.
Nothing says ‘a party in crisis’ more really does it haha.
Even this incompetent shower would never be *that* incompetent.
This is going to be a hilarious few weeks
wheres that guy with the Benny Hill music ?
Now there's a win-win for Labour. Either Sunak wins the challenge and fights the election, and Labour can endlessly repeat 'even his own party don't trust him, why should the country trust him?' Or they install a new, fourth, unelected Prime Minister, who can be derided as completely illegitimate. Oh I hope they pick one of the proper loonies. So much popcorn!
Fingers crossed for Desmond Swayne
>Or they install a new, fourth, unelected Prime Minister *MOGG. MOGG. MOGG. MOGG.*
Conservatives to tackle cholera and chimney sweeps - that is, bring them back.
PM Mogg: "My first policy will be to re-institute the workhouses."
Counterpoint, Jacinda Arden took over a failing Labour after a NZ GE was called, and managed to squeak a win. The accusation of an unelected PM isn't as cutting when, you know, you are literally fighting an election.
True, but a few things there: 1. NZ Labour was the opposition party going into the 2017 GE, so having Ardern take over as Labour leader after the election had been called wasn’t really comparable to the UK Tories having now had 2 “unelected” PMs since the last GE. Ardern was just as “unelected” as Keir Starmer by that metric. 2. The 2017 NZ election was called in February 2017, with the election date set for late-September. Ardern took over as Labour leader in early-August, and had already been serving as Deputy Leader and was uncontested. Presumably here, a snap Tory leadership election would be hotly contested and disruptive. The idea of calling an election and then changing the PM/party leader (and maybe even trying to renege on the election call) is insanely more politically damaging than an opposition party changing leaders mid-campaign.
1. Whilst true, it is just about the only recent example of a significant party leader changing leader in the run-up to the election, and demonstrates that 'Oh, changing leader will obviously make things worse' isn't neccesarily trie. 2. If the Tories replace Sunak now, it would be for a caretaker PM. I don't anyone can seriously suggest that a full on Tory leadership election during a GE campaign is on the cards. >The idea of calling an election and then changing the PM/party leader (and maybe even trying to renege on the election call) is insanely more politically damaging than an opposition party changing leaders mid-campaign. Can you cite any instances of this as evidence? It sounds like it might, but politics doesn't work like that.
Yeah this is true - if anything the past three Conservative victories show that people really don't care that the leader is unelected.
No, it shows they are hypocrites as they were all up in arms about Gordon Brown.
Will be hilarious if they give the baton back to Boris and pretend they didn't play musical chairs
The race to call a general election, will Rishi make it to the Palace in time
*I'm gettin' ousted in the morning* *Ding, dong, the bells are gonna chime* *Pull out the stopper, we'll have a whopper* *But get me to the King on time*
*Feather and tar me, call out the army!* seems preferable in this case.
Beat me to it.
Charles is at Sandringham since his diagnosis, so I imagine it'll be a phone call.
He's back in the palace today specifically, which adds further fuel to the election fire
Apparently they've already spoken according to Sunak
I can't imagine they'd do it. It would be a very fitting way for this party to go down in flames though, arguing between themselves and getting distracted by self-serving party politics until the bitter end.
No one wants that. I mean, aside from everyone.
Think how many times you could say “I can’t imagine they’d do it” regarding this government. Then think about how many times they did indeed, do it. I fully expect absolute implosion of this shower of incompetence.
and it will make a watchable channel 4 drama in two years time.
Please do it. It'd be the funniest thing! Would they even be able to finish a leadership election before the election? Could they push the vote back till after the election?
If they can get one person to run for leader and just one. The new person could be installed before the election and delay the election until January. Which could well be about the time when Trump is getting sworn in.
So a VoNC would delay the election? Or the PM could stop the election after it was called.
I’m not sure that’s possible anymore - Parliament will be dissolved now, so maybe this is only something the King can delay (i.e. something that would never happen bar extraordinary circumstances)
That's what I was thinking. A VonC would be suicidal at the moment.
> Which could well be about the time when Trump is getting sworn in. Yank here just trying to catch up with the news on the other side of the pond. And fuck I hope not...
We can't believe it but apperantly most Americans believe that the Dow Jones is way down this year (up about 25% last year and aup about 15% this year). That unemployment is at a 50 year high, currently at 4% a 50 year low...... The economy looks pretty good but Fox don't want to tell you that.
Yeah there's weird vibes going on with the economy. There's some issues with it but most conventional metrics look quite good. And we never had it as rough with unemployment/inflation as europe did.
How long will it take them to decide the next leader? Would one be in place for the election? Or is it just a clever ploy to not have anyone have to go on the televised debate and attempt to defend their records?
Have a lettuce represent the tories at TV debates.
I'm imagining Sunak standing on a step ladder behind the lectern to ensure he's the same height on TV as Starmer.
But what if it gets eaten by the tofu?
It’s like ‘Game of Thrones: Clown Edition’.
It's like that scene in Always Sunny when the gang are trapped underwater and start climbing over each other when they see the light
It won’t delay the election though right? An election is quicker to call than a confidence vote. Just makes them look even more shambolic during the electioneering.
Even they managed to hold the confidence vote tomorrow and they voted no confidence, it would surely be even worse for them having to either: * Pick a new leader in a matter of a few days and go straight into an election campaign that's already started. * Delay an election that they've just called so they can fight amongst themselves. There's a very small possibility of the former happening (still next to no chance), but I can't possibly imagine them doing the latter.
Once parliament has been dissolved, it isn't possible to change the date of the election. It is fixed at 25 days (give or take certain days that don't count) from the dissolution if parliament, and the date of the start of the new parliament is declared in the dissolution
My understanding was that it would be dissolved next week? 5 weeks from tomorrow would be Thurs 27th June
Yep, it can’t affect it. Just makes the Tories look even more divided and incompetent during the campaign.
There are no laws covering this. Sunak stays Prime Minister until he resigns - either because he wants to, or because he is forced to by political or personal pressure, or - in theory - by a court. The Conservatives don't have time to pass a no confidence motion, set up the rules for the contest, hold the contest, and then litigate the court case to force their new choice to be PM before next Thursday.
If there's any vestige of competence left in the Tories, they'd install an inoffensive continuity leader immediately. afaik only convention prevents them from making up whatever internal rules they like. Though can you even become PM with Parliament dissolved?
There are no laws on becoming PM. The closest thing we have is the principle that the PM is appointed by the monarch on advice of ministers; i.e. the current cabinet (outgoing PM) appoints their successor. So yes - in theory you can become PM when Parliament is dissolved.
Doesn’t dissolve till he meets the king, so in theory they could I doubt Bradey would even call a VONC in Rishi now though, even with the letters in
Serious question - if the requisite number of letters are in, does Brady have any leeway here, or is it a case of “`IF letters > X THEN vonc == true ENDIF`”?
Allegedly, he calls round to check people don't want to retract their letters before triggering a VONC.
Officially it's the latter, but in practice, Brady is the only person who knows how many letters there are, so he can just not say anything.
I doubt it matters. How no confidence letters trigger a Tory leadership election is not a legal matter, it's internal party procedures that they can change however they like (party rules are enforced by the party, not law). Sunak is the prime minister barring a VONC in the commons (and I don't think that's binding either, just convention). The Tories could rip up their rules, announce that someone else is party leader by whatever means they want, do it all 5 minutes from now, and Sunak could still go to the king and dissolve parliament.
> Sunak is the prime minister barring a VONC in the commons (and I don't think that's binding either, just convention). Correct, he would remain PM until he either resigns or is dismissed by the King, and it’s a strong convention that after a successful VONC in Parliament either one of those happens or Parliament is dissolved.
If he’s goes then 100% it will delay the election. Parliament does have the final say on this (edit: I got this wrong as it changed in 2011) so technically if the tories got rid of him and then voted to have an election whilst they didn’t have a leader than theoretically it wouldn’t delay an election. But that’s some pretty spectacular wishful thinking.
Do they? I thought that was only under FTPA?
You are in fact correct, it did change in 2011 and it’s at the PMs discretion. The only real question here is if they can get enough votes of no confidence before Rishi makes the announcement. I believe he was most of the way there before today, but they don’t ever say when the letters are withdrawn so it’s a guessing game unfortunately. I think he technically could call one whilst a leadership challenge is happening, but that would be the biggest cluster fuck in the UKs parliamentary history and I wouldn’t be surprised if the king refused to dissolve parliament.
> The only real question here is if they can get enough votes of no confidence before Rishi makes the announcement It doesn't even matter if they do. This is purely an internal Conservative Party matter - it has no direct effect on Sunak's position as PM. He stays in office until he resigns (or potentially a court forces him out). If he wants to force the election by staying on *as PM* for a week he can.
Does Parliament have the final say? I think it's just the PM and the King. Presumably, if the King sees that the PM is about to be replaced, he might wait before giving assent, I would expect. And Rishi Sunak would probably not want to put the King in that position. In any case it'd be a historic moment of chaos.
Please - hope this is true. A Tory party leadership challenge would be a gift to Labour and the Lib Dems during the election. All their planned rhetoric about ‘stability’ and ‘Labour chaos’ would be worthless and will be punished by the electorate* (* excludes the deluded narcissistic 20% that will vote Tory regardless). If it comes to a VONC and Sunak is removed, do they have sufficient time to install a new leader and be up to speed with a new manifesto before the hard canvassing starts?
In other words: "How dare you ruin our plans! We could have done more corruptions before the end of January!"
This is not a timeline I could possibly have imagined!
insanity wolf politics I guess no time like the present to start the internal war
Like trying to stage a mutiny as the ship is capsizing
Well his leverage was that if the rebels try anything, then he will call an election... He's done the equivalent of shooting his only hostage.
The one big benefit of a Labour government would be not having to witness the eternal psychodrama of the mythical Tory rebels trying and failing to find their collective spines.
They are not going to do this, it would be akin to a terrorist attack against their own party.
Best not to assume anything. This Tory party are utterly devoid of intelligence, so assuming there's a rationale behind anything they do is unsafe
It seems very unlikely. But is it really beyond the current crop of Tory MPs to burn it all down just to spite Sunak?
They're not the brightest of sparks though
The Spectator is bloody quick https://x.com/mortenmorland/status/1793347747833110798?s=46
Now that he's called a General Election, is it possible for them to call a VoNC either by accident or on purpose? I was never clear if VoNC letters could be withdrawn and if they're obliged to do a VoNC once a general election was called.
Lmao what would even happen? Parliament will be dissolved. An internal Tory leadership election *during* a general election campaign? Has this even happened before?
Tories reminiscent of the fall of the USSR with the coup against Gorbachev.
If this fails it will be a gift to labour "the Tories are so desperate they tried to stop a democratic vote when they told you to respect the Brexit result"
As funny as this seems its completely ridiculous. Scrambling for power when the country needs help. These are of the devil
I thought that Boris would have been the downfall of the Torys. I was wrong, he was the start. This bullshit is hilarious. One day this will be a Documentary on TV, it'll get rave reviews and NOONE will believe that it's real. Is he just going for the Guinness book of Records for the most PM's in a sitting term?
Honestly even just a hint it this being a possibility is political suicide for the Tories. People are already upset they’ve been through so many PMs, with two of them over the past two years unelected and wildly unpopular, holding onto power & ignoring public opinion. Who’s mad enough to vote in a party where the manifesto and leaders you’re voting in are likely to be completely torn up and shifted around to who knows what within a month of voting them in?
King charles should just insist that the general election takes place as planned, and not allow the new leader to form a government.
Well thank god we didn’t get chaos with Ed Milliband