posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 02:21 PM
a reply to: Cobaltic1978
The key event was obviously the defection of Michael Gove (cherchez la femme, I think). I suspect his own ambition was a factor, and he may have
But if Gove is right in thinking that Boris could not hold together the Parliamentary party, then his rejection of Boris and Boris' decision to stand
down were both the right thing to do.
I have always thought that it was a MASSIVE mistake for the parties to broaden out leadership elections to the membership at large. In British
constitutional practice, the P.M. rests on the support of his Parliamentary party. Their majority is what makes him P.M., formally speaking, and their
votes in the Commons decide whether he can govern. They should be the ones who choose him leader in the first place, as always used to happen.
The Corbyn situation proves the point. This is the Reductio ad Absurdam. It is grotesque that the Parliamentary party should have forced on them a
leader they cannot respect or trust, and that they might be forced to take him back (unless they have the guts to resign the whip en masse and form a
new parliamentary grouping with its own leader).
I have liked Boris ever since his HIGNFY days. But a Boris chosen by the party at large without being able to win the confidence of the party in the
Commons would have been a less extreme version of the Corbyn situation.
In those circumstances, standing for election would have been the selfish and divisive thing to do. Whereas standing down is actually the more
realistic and statesmanlike act. People should not be jeering at him because of it.
edit on 30-6-2016 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)