Also, ConservativeHome is interesting again today. A fair few BTL comments saying the 148 'rebels' should be identified and deselected! As a Labourite, I'd love to see them do this, but of course it's not going to happen. My point here is that comments like this from the Conservative grassroots suggest that (in the event of a future leadership contest) they would only vote for a new leader who was politically 'extreme' and unlikely to appeal to the wider electorate. And as Conservative MPs are fully aware of that, would this have an impact on who they back for the final two?
Hi Sam, re your edit: is it possible the "rebels" don't need to wait for re-election to the '22? Could backbenchers be content with the current slate and, indeed, view them as their best option for potential rule changes and "timing be damned"? Given current balance (and political "independence" of some members) , would it make more sense to pressure the *current* committee to consider rule changes? That would, in a way, look more "honest" than a perception of a fixed committee later this year?
As far as Boris is concerned it was a great result - he is still PM! Boris is a narcissist who only views the world from his perspective. He is not concerned with doing a great job, increasing the UK's prosperity or delivering on any of his blustering headlines such as levelling up, build back better. He is a journalist so he cannot think further than the clickbait headline. It should be noted that anyone who he ever worked for or with have had bad experiences and have said that he should never have been PM. (Max Hastings, Michael Gove, Matthew Parris...)
'... but that just makes it harder to pass legislation, and the PM doesn’t care much about legislation.' - the bleakest political observation i've read in a while
Once again a very interesting and informative piece. I wonder if you have time to turn your attention to the situation in Scotland.
Internally it seems to me that the situation is not unlike that of the UK with an ineffective government that seems little interested in solving practical problems. The Tories at UK level are at last getting some opposition but that is not yet the case in Scotland. Only Labour can take on nationalism in Scotland but it does not yet seem to have a clear strategy for doing so.
The really interesting point I think, and one not often enough discussed, is the impact on the UK if Scotland is forced out of the union. It is possible to envisage a carve up between the SNP and Tories in which one party gets Scotland and the other strengthens its position in the rest of the country. If Johnson lasts this is just the kind of gamble he might go for.
You might say that the possible closure of the Faslane base would be a sticking point for the right. Whatever Nicola Sturgeon might promise in a referendum campaign, Faslane would be an important bargaining chip in withdrawal negotiations and would be likely traded for surface vessel orders and other things. Welching on referendum promises is surely something Johnson understands well.
Given that the logic is so clear that the support Johnson received would put the party in the worst possible position, the obvious question is why would they do that? Do this can be explained by the chaos of politics or is there likely to be a deeper reason. For example, what if his supporters wanted him to make any reconciliation with Europe harder to achieve for the next guy, or maybe sign other trade deals which prevented us joining the European trade body? Could this explain it?
Hi Sam, thank you for another excellent analysis: 'bleak' is definitely the word to sum up the current situation.
Do you think a potential trigger for Johnson's removal could be seen in ever-worsening polling results (especially post by-elections)? If the Conservatives slump into the high or even mid 20s in successive polls, would that spark sufficient panic in the ranks to force the situation, ie by pressing the 1922 Committee to change the rules immediately? Could the increasingly-visible prospect of electoral wipeout mean that perceived 'propriety' over rule changes/further challenges would take second place?
This piece was so interesting to read and answered all the questions I’ve had. Thank you for your time, effort, energy and clarity.
Love the clarity and logic of this piece - such an insightful analysis!
Also, ConservativeHome is interesting again today. A fair few BTL comments saying the 148 'rebels' should be identified and deselected! As a Labourite, I'd love to see them do this, but of course it's not going to happen. My point here is that comments like this from the Conservative grassroots suggest that (in the event of a future leadership contest) they would only vote for a new leader who was politically 'extreme' and unlikely to appeal to the wider electorate. And as Conservative MPs are fully aware of that, would this have an impact on who they back for the final two?
Hi Sam, re your edit: is it possible the "rebels" don't need to wait for re-election to the '22? Could backbenchers be content with the current slate and, indeed, view them as their best option for potential rule changes and "timing be damned"? Given current balance (and political "independence" of some members) , would it make more sense to pressure the *current* committee to consider rule changes? That would, in a way, look more "honest" than a perception of a fixed committee later this year?
Sam, the Committee’s Tom Randall has come out as supportive of Johnson as of this evening.
As far as Boris is concerned it was a great result - he is still PM! Boris is a narcissist who only views the world from his perspective. He is not concerned with doing a great job, increasing the UK's prosperity or delivering on any of his blustering headlines such as levelling up, build back better. He is a journalist so he cannot think further than the clickbait headline. It should be noted that anyone who he ever worked for or with have had bad experiences and have said that he should never have been PM. (Max Hastings, Michael Gove, Matthew Parris...)
'... but that just makes it harder to pass legislation, and the PM doesn’t care much about legislation.' - the bleakest political observation i've read in a while
Once again a very interesting and informative piece. I wonder if you have time to turn your attention to the situation in Scotland.
Internally it seems to me that the situation is not unlike that of the UK with an ineffective government that seems little interested in solving practical problems. The Tories at UK level are at last getting some opposition but that is not yet the case in Scotland. Only Labour can take on nationalism in Scotland but it does not yet seem to have a clear strategy for doing so.
The really interesting point I think, and one not often enough discussed, is the impact on the UK if Scotland is forced out of the union. It is possible to envisage a carve up between the SNP and Tories in which one party gets Scotland and the other strengthens its position in the rest of the country. If Johnson lasts this is just the kind of gamble he might go for.
You might say that the possible closure of the Faslane base would be a sticking point for the right. Whatever Nicola Sturgeon might promise in a referendum campaign, Faslane would be an important bargaining chip in withdrawal negotiations and would be likely traded for surface vessel orders and other things. Welching on referendum promises is surely something Johnson understands well.
Hi Sam
Another great article. Thanks.
Given that the logic is so clear that the support Johnson received would put the party in the worst possible position, the obvious question is why would they do that? Do this can be explained by the chaos of politics or is there likely to be a deeper reason. For example, what if his supporters wanted him to make any reconciliation with Europe harder to achieve for the next guy, or maybe sign other trade deals which prevented us joining the European trade body? Could this explain it?
Hi Sam, thank you for another excellent analysis: 'bleak' is definitely the word to sum up the current situation.
Do you think a potential trigger for Johnson's removal could be seen in ever-worsening polling results (especially post by-elections)? If the Conservatives slump into the high or even mid 20s in successive polls, would that spark sufficient panic in the ranks to force the situation, ie by pressing the 1922 Committee to change the rules immediately? Could the increasingly-visible prospect of electoral wipeout mean that perceived 'propriety' over rule changes/further challenges would take second place?