Removal of a Prime Minister
Sir Woke XR Re… 24 Jan 22 03:57
Reply |

Rather odd that Her Maj l, having longtime since been willing to act (through her deputy) to remove the blameless Gough Whitman in the course of what was a perfectly regular and solveable constitutional pickle in Oz, doesn’t seem willing or able to act against the current incumbent in her own back yard, despite all the evidence of corruption, decay and moral negligence. She wouldn’t have to appoint a PM from a minority parliamentary party.

She could simply ask, say, Javid to form a government and if asked why, simply explain that he “seems less of a dick”.

Even risky doesn’t support Johnson any more, Come on. I thought the Queen would fold before riskers did.

The Whitlam crisis could have been solved if Whitlam had called an election rather having on for grim death, like Bodge.*

Not comparable otherwise given the UK lacks a full bicameral parliament and so can't have the blocking of supply that did Whitlam in.

*I liked Whitlam and he was one of the nicest pollies I've met.  But he caused the crisis by ignoring constitutional convention.

 

yes; though the absence of the ability to block supply (assuming a working majority in the.Commons) is, on the whole, a strength of the British system, I think.

Crippling the government’s ability to finance day to day governing, just in order to resolve what will often be a heavily partisan debate over political confidence in it, feels like dangerous overkill to me.

Can't compare those situation.

One was a dangerous socialist Antipodean, with convict genes (I mean there was a reason why all these criminals were deported).

BoJo comes from one of the best families, went to Eaton, and has defended the Realm against the Enemies of the People, repeatedly. Did I mention an 80 seat majority?