If anybody’s wondering:
…the prime minister with the total shortest period in office was George Canning, whose sole term lasted 119 days from 12 April 1827 until his death on 8 August 1827.
There are caveats as to who owns this record - see the wiki for details. But give it a few more days and I suspect there will be no further need for those caveats.
No, I hadn’t heard of George Canning either.
j
It is if she takes the whole party with her!
In some sense Canning “cheated” by dying rather than being defenstrated.
This fellow seems a better model for Truss to emulate. He lasted a whopping 144 days before resigning in failure, apparently having made a hash of it all.
After having been left, of course, quite the festering mess by his immediate predecessor. Which distinction Truss also shares.
It Truss getting ousted? I’m hearing just terrible things and rumors the party wants to drop kick her out.
Who CAN be prime minister at this point?
There’s this fellow with prior experience you may be familiar with named Boris…
Ugh, please no!
Here is an overview of newspaper headlines:
Heh. Very nicely put. As to the next PM (I’m thinking Wednesday?) there’s a suggestion that we might be in for a stand-in to see us through to the next election. Possibly Michael Gove? A prospect that would have horrified me two years ago, but now it can’t happen soon enough.
(As for the mechanism by which this might happen, ‘fraid I don’t know the party rules well enough to say.)
j
I’m not following the play-by-play close enough to know whether Truss is doomed in the immediate future.
But ISTM her logical successor today is the fellow who came second in the recent leadership contest: Rishi Sunak. To this USAian he certainly seems more plausible than someone who fared even worse in the recent running, or someone who, e.g. Gove, didn’t run at all.
Separate to the above …
ISTM that, akin to the current US R party, there’s a real dearth of “elder statesmen” who could be called upon to lead a caretaker government calmly and competently until the next real election could be held sooner rather than later. Absent such a credible “elder statesman” (of whichever sex), best to ignore the caretaker idea and have the Conservatives simply elect who they can to best operate, not caretake, the rest of this Parliament’s natural term.
I think the talk is of MPs deciding by gentleman’s agreement to arrive at one front-runner and everyone else dropping out to ensure the party members don’t get the chance to vote for anyone else. If Hunt doesn’t make a further Horlicks of fiscal policy, he might be in with a chance.
As well as these
Y’all are missing the obvious candidate: Larry the Number 10 cat. if he can see off an intruder twice his size, he can certainly deal with any obstreperous cabinet members, plus he’s got years of experience in government.
Nope, they all left. At least, that was what it felt like at the time. Back to Brexit again - the elder statesmen (and wiser heads) largely declined to have anything to do with it post-referendum. Michael Heseltine was kinda the spokesman for that moment; I haven’t been able to find the quote - if anyone can find it, then it’s well worth posting - but it was something along the lines of “It is for those who brought about this result to make it work.” And with that, it seemed, much of that generation of Conservative MPs were gone. And here we are with Truss.
j
I just love the sights & smells of democracy in action. NOT!
Technically, does not the Monarch still have the power to dissolve Parliament?
Royal prerogative in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia
This prerogative is normally exercised at the request of the prime minister, either at his or her discretion or following a motion of no confidence. Constitutional theorists have had differing views as to whether a unilateral dissolution of Parliament would be possible today; Sir Ivor Jennings wrote that a dissolution involves “the acquiescence of ministers”, and as such the monarch could not dissolve Parliament without ministerial consent; “if ministers refuse to give such advice, she can do no more than dismiss them”. A. V. Dicey, however, believed that in certain extreme circumstances the monarch could dissolve Parliament single-handedly, on the condition that “an occasion has arisen on which there is fair reason to suppose that the opinion of the House is not the opinion of the electors … A dissolution is allowable, or necessary, whenever the wishes of the legislature are, or may fairly be presumed to be, different from the wishes of the nation.”[16]
Possibly. Once.
Before coronation? So shortest PM career ever, followed by shortest reign ever? I am all for it, we need bad examples to scare the dimwits away. Seems like the proper role for the UK in their current state.
The Conservatives under Boris Johnson expelled 21 senior members to consolidate control by the Brexit faction.
So a search for a wiser head would be restricted to fishing in a pond that favours party hacks and chancers rather than statesmen and states women.
What I thought funny / odd about that was while reading @DrDeth’s cite I said to myself “Naaah, the Queen would never do that”. It was only a minute or two later that I said “Hey, wait a minute, the Queen (Qe2) will never do that now that she’s deceased.”
It really is quite reflexive that “UK Monarch” === “QE2”. Even though very clearly it’s not.
As a USAian I’m not exposed to nearly as much UK media hoopla about Charles, Charles, Charles! that serves to reinforce the change. But I have to imagine those incongruous thoughts & realizations are still happening to folks all over HM’s realms.
It is quite a process, re-setting the mental scenery - though (or perhaps because) it’s not in the forefront of most people’s concerns.
I’m coming to the point where I’m so genuinely excited to see rock bottom.
The referendum in 2016 tore me up, partially because I’m half Dutch/half English. Partially because it was just awful. For a long time during the whole farce, I was hoping for The Best Outcome, whatever that could possibly mean. Every stupid election I’d hope the best candidate would be elected PM and that that might help the country. I hoped maybe that would make it better and we could start improving.
But I’m reminded of an app group we made for a very depressed friend when he was addicted to drugs and alcohol. We were discussing how we could help him and when we could stage an intervention. But the problem was: he was delighted with his own plan of going out in a haze of cocaine and booze. So I said: we have to wait. We, as human friends, can’t compete with cocaine. The sheen of dying in a glorious haze of drugs and alcohol has to wear off and he has to hit some form of rock bottom. Rock bottom was indeed not far off and when he no longer saw dying in a drugged up frenzy as his life’s mission, we told him how much we loved him and he could start getting better. He’s clean and working very hard on getting better and I’m immensely proud of him.
But you need that point where you look at the whole mess and see that you no longer want that. You can’t get better until you truly reject the old situation.
I feel like we’re looking at the last dregs of the deranged sods, high on delusions of empire, snorting “take back controle” and injecting racism between their toes with a revolting, senile, toothless grin.
I’m not sure what rock bottom will look like but I really hope that we’ll get there and build from there. We must reach a turning point where we all together zoom out, take a look at this mess and, feeling slightly sick, agree that this is not what we want. It will mean truly letting go. I no longer believe that electing someone sightly less awful can be the start of changing course.
So maybe Liz Truss goes and we get Sunak for now, and it won’t quite be rock bottom yet, just a delay while his own party’s racists devour him. Maybe we rock on with Truss a while longer. Rock bottom will come when we collectively vomit up this whole travesty. Which will end first: the monarchy, the conservative party or FPTP?
I can’t wait to see. I’m here for it. I’m ready for rock bottom.