Liz Truss

The Stockport Iniesta said:
No chance of a GE mate, she was asked to call one at pm's questions in parliament.

Her answer was "the last thing we need is a general election"

The "we" is no doubt the parliamentary tory party, and not the country as a whole.
Click to expand...
Another symptom of our broken system. In order to facilitate the change that the majority of the nation wants, it requires a large group of MPs to essentially vote themselves out of a job
 
Then....
FZL-DjRXoAY61VW

Now...
FfDrDk_XwAAp24P
 
The perfect fumble said:
We're going round in circles.

Things have moved on since the early 1960s.

There are procedures in place now, Truss does not have it in her power to nominate her successor, so your scenario does not hold up.

Brown did not hang on hoping the Lib Dems would see sense, it was established early on that the Lib Dems weren't interested in a Lib/Lab whatever. He hung about while the Tories and Lib Dems haggled over cabinets positions, policy and whatnot, in fact if you read Alistair Campbell's account of that time Brown was forever on the blower telling them to get a move on.

MPs return to their constituencies this weekend, expect cabinet resignations early next week, back bench letters piling up at the 1922 and then the men in grey suits will come calling, but before they do there'll be a quiet coup, the Liz Truss libertarian fruitcakes will be told to shut the fuck up and they'll find a nice Tory corporatist and maybe a one nation Tory side kick to face up the post Truss government.

Remember the majority of the Conservative Parliamentary Party wanted Sunak, it was only the shire Tory fruitcakes that tipped it in Truss's favour.

In such a situation Truss will resign because if she doesn't it'll go to a vote of no confidence in Parliament and no PM wants that humiliation.
Click to expand...
There was a BBC radio prog that covered the 2010 negotiations (last 9 mins of https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/b00v1php ), and even after Brown agreed to resign the possibility remained of a Lab/LibDem agreement. https://www.france24.com/en/2010051...leader-uk-election-coalition-british-politics
I don't think that necessarily is at odds with the Campbell account - just a week being a long time in politics.

I'll defend the idea of the outgoing PM's involvement. See the Cabinet Manual 2.9: In modern times the convention has been that the Sovereign should not be drawn into party politics, and if there is doubt it is the responsibility of those involved in the political process, and in particular the parties represented in Parliament, to seek to determine and communicate clearly to the Sovereign who is best placed to be able to command the confidence of the House of Commons. As the Crown’s principal adviser this responsibility falls especially on the incumbent Prime Minister, who at the time of his or her resignation may also be asked by the Sovereign for a recommendation on who can best command the confidence of the House of Commons in his or her place.

2.18 covers the current situation: Where a Prime Minister chooses to resign from his or her individual position at a time when his or her administration has an overall majority in the House of Commons, it is for the party or parties in government to identify who can be chosen as the successor.


But I can't trace anything official for how "the party in government" would communicate that - especially if the resigning PM is telling the monarch a different preference. Does "the party" mean its MPs (it's the MPs who are the ones with an overall majority), or some make-it-up-as-the-1922-committee-feels-like process?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.