An 18pt majority for Labour, and a 13pt majority for the Liberal Democrats!
Can someone remind me if the 1922 Committee can accept letters again so soon after Johnson’s last vote of no confidence, or did he and his cronies change the rules on that too? 
Currently the rules state that twelve months must elapse. The committee can change this. I suspect they will.
Thanks for clarifying.
I thought it was something like that!
Which cupboard are they hiding in?
Johnson today blocked a vote of no confidence in his government called for by Keir Starmer.
Now, it might be that he would win - Tory MPs would put self interest first and with the majority still safe I can’t see them voting themselves out of a job, the most it would achieve would be exposing Tory hypocrisy in decrying Johnson at the end of last week only to support him this.
But for a government to block a VoNC like this is (once again) and assult on or democracy - which we seem to be watching dissolve in front of our eyes.
Just in case anyone thought Johnson would step down neatly once a new leader is selected.
Things have moved on, a motion of ‘vote of confidence’ has now been tabled by the government as opposed to a VONC proposed by Labour, apparently there was a dispute over the wording of Labour’s motion.
Yes, it was the wording - Starmer’s motion was
N° 10 objected to the specific mention of Johnson’s premiership, I suspect Starmer worded it that way to make it easier for Tories to support it.
The clerks would have known what Erskine May said… were they being mischievous by not pointing out the glaring mistake? The motion would have been run by them before being tabled…
Labour claimed precedent
Specifically Edward Heath’s 1965 VoNC in Harold Wilson’s government
Ref: Hansard
Frankly it would have been more amusing if they’d used the above verbatim.
Yes, I think that the use of the words “the Prime Minister’s conduct” were key here… in the Labour proposed motion this time round, they used the Prime Minister effectively by name by citing his constituency which was mischievously accepted by the clerks of the House giving way to the Government side to claim it should be debated in Opposition time, not Government time, as would be the convention. Semantics perhaps but a “home goal” nonetheless by the Opposition.
Possibly
My reading is that by attaching it specifically to Johnson’s premiership the hope was that Tories sufficiently disgruntled with Johnson would support it because they were voting against the man, not the party - and it was rejected by N° 10 for precisely the same reason.
Edit:
Note that the line about the PM’s conduct is from the 1965 Edward Heath motion against Harold Wilson’s government.
Starmer’s motion goes further to make the VoNC effectively against Johnson alone, rather than the Tories as a party.
If this story is true then it is a depressing indictment of how corrupt and damaging to UK politics Johnson has been.
The man who was accused by the Sunday Times of being involved in a cash for access scheme and who was ennobled by Johnson against the advice of the ethics committee, is now reneging on his £500k donation to the Tory party if Johnson goes. I wonder why that is?!?
Dont Pannick!
This is a brilliant summary of the shit show that has been BJ’s premiership:
Lets hope Boris comes back…would guarantee Labour win in 2024!
By 2024 there may be no United Kingdom.
And no Great in Britain
Very true, UK needs a NI and GB needs a Scotland,
Election of BJ will very probably hasten departure of both.
Get me a sick bag 
one little ray of sunshine today is Dorries has bogged off today 
Boris Johnson rewards key allies in resignation honours list
Two least worthy, Rees Mogg and Michael Fabricant.
Absolutely appalling.
Does fabricant get a special mini gong for his wig do you think?
Completely appalling they should get anything but a kick in the pants.