This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/13/world/europe/boris-johnson-oust.html

The article has changed 15 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 13 Version 14
How Boris Johnson Could Fall, or Hang On, as U.K. Prime Minister How Boris Johnson Fell, and What Happens Next
(6 months later)
LONDON — One of his lawmakers called him a “dead man walking,” and another switched sides to the main opposition party. A former cabinet colleague told him: “In the name of God, go.” His longest-serving senior adviser sent him a stinging resignation letter. LONDON — One of his predecessors described him as a “greased piglet”: a man who could slip out of any tight situation.
And the police have sent him a list of questions about events at his home and office. And despite a damaging scandal involving parties during Britain’s coronavirus lockdown that brought him a fine and a stinging official report, Prime Minister Boris Johnson might have expected to be in a strong position.
A little more than two years ago, Prime Minister Boris Johnson led the Conservative Party to its biggest election victory in decades. Now, after apologizing for attending a party in Downing Street during Britain’s first and fiercest coronavirus lockdown, and with the police following up with an internal inquiry into other potentially rule-breaking gatherings, Mr. Johnson is in trouble. A little less than three years ago, Mr. Johnson led the Conservative Party to its biggest election victory in decades. Until the next general election — on a date set by the prime minister, and potentially as late as January 2025 — only his own party’s lawmakers could force him out.
Here is a guide to just how much trouble, and what could happen next. Early in June, they declined to do so, backing him in a no-confidence vote. And yet on July 7, after a new scandal prompted a torrent of resignations and denunciations from cabinet ministers and other officials, he announced that he would step down once his party had chosen a successor.
For months, Mr. Johnson has been grappling with a series of reports about parties in Downing Street, where British prime ministers both live and work, while Covid lockdown rules were in force. Here’s a guide to how he got to that point, and to the process that will decide his replacement.
An internal inquiry by a senior civil servant, Sue Gray, delivered an update last month on the gatherings, tallying accusations about 16 events, 12 substantial enough for the police to investigate. The police then said that they had sent written questions to more than 50 people — including Mr. Johnson, his office confirmed on Feb. 11. The police also said they would review a decision not to investigate one event after a photograph emerged from it featuring Mr. Johnson and what appeared to be an open bottle of sparkling wine. Since late last year, Mr. Johnson has been grappling with a series of reports about parties in Downing Street, where British prime ministers both live and work, while Covid lockdown rules were in force. The scandal became known as “partygate.”
Any police action is likely to come in a form akin to a speeding ticket — a “fixed penalty notice” — rather than a full prosecution. But in a country that banned almost all social contact for months, and kept lesser but still onerous restrictions far longer, these claims pack an extraordinary emotional punch. Members of Parliament have responded to Mr. Johnson’s denials, and then his apologies, with testimony from people who were barred from visiting dying relatives at the time of the gatherings. In May, a long-awaited internal inquiry by a senior civil servant, Sue Gray, found that 83 people violated the rules at parties, during which some drank heavily, fought with each other and damaged property. The London police said they had imposed 126 fines for breaches of social distancing. Mr. Johnson himself received only one, for a surprise lunchtime birthday celebration, despite being present at several gatherings for which others were fined.
After Mr. Johnson spoke about Ms. Gray’s initial findings in Parliament, a lawmaker from his own party recounted the austere arrangements he had made for his grandmother’s funeral — held not long before one of the most talked-about Downing Street gatherings — and asked: “Does the prime minister think I am a fool?” But in a country that banned almost all social contact for months and kept lesser, but still onerous, restrictions far longer, the claims of rule-breaking have packed an extraordinary emotional punch. Members of Parliament responded to Mr. Johnson’s initial denials of wrongdoing, and then to his apologies, with testimony from people who were barred from visiting dying relatives at the time of the gatherings.
Ms. Gray’s update gave no details about any parties — a relief for Mr. Johnson after weeks of swirling gossip about aides filling a suitcase with wine and breaking his child’s garden swing — and it leveled no direct criticism at the prime minister. A series of sexual misconduct scandals among Conservative lawmakers further damaged Mr. Johnson. July’s wave of resignations came after the departure of Chris Pincher, a deputy chief whip — responsible for keeping Conservative lawmakers in line — who was placed in that job by Mr. Johnson despite accusations of inappropriate behavior. Ministers and other officials denied on Mr. Johnson’s behalf that he had been aware of those accusations, only for successive accounts to rapidly unravel.
Because of the police investigations, she said, “I am extremely limited in what I can say.” In Britain, it is hard to get rid of a prime minister, but far from impossible. The job goes to the leader of the political party with a parliamentary majority. The party can oust its leader and choose another one, changing prime ministers without a general election.
But she declared that “at least some of the gatherings” constituted “a serious failure to observe not just the high standards expected of those working at the heart of government but also of the standards expected of the entire British population at the time.” Under the Conservative Party’s rules, its members of Parliament could hold a binding vote of no confidence in Mr. Johnson if 15 percent of them — which currently means 54 lawmakers — wrote to formally request one. That moment came for Mr. Johnson on June 6, with a vote the same evening.
In Britain, it is hard to get rid of a prime minister, but far from impossible. The nation’s top job goes to the leader of the political party with a parliamentary majority. The party can oust its leader and choose another one, changing prime ministers without a general election. Mr. Johnson received 211 votes — just under 60 percent of his party’s 359 lawmakers — with 148 against him.
Under the Conservative Party’s rules, its members of Parliament can hold a binding vote of no confidence in Mr. Johnson if 54 of them write to formally request one. That was a weaker result than it sounds, because almost half of those lawmakers also had government jobs that normally oblige them to back Mr. Johnson. The vote was a secret ballot, however, so it is impossible to know if all of them did.
The request letters are confidential. Only one senior lawmaker knows what has been sent, and he won’t discuss the issue until it’s time for a vote. For a prime minister in trouble, winning a no-confidence vote is essential, but not always enough. Margaret Thatcher and Theresa May were both out of office within a year of defeating a leadership challenge, by larger margins than Mr. Johnson.
In a no-confidence vote, held by secret ballot, Mr. Johnson would keep his job by winning a simple majority of Conservative lawmakers. They would then have to wait at least a year before holding another such vote, unless they changed the rules. One key factor is whether cabinet ministers rebel. The catalyst for Mrs. Thatcher’s demise in 1990 was the resignation of Geoffrey Howe, a disaffected former ally, and Mrs. May lost several ministers, including Mr. Johnson, who quit as foreign secretary in 2018.
So far, relatively few Conservative members of Parliament have publicly called on Mr. Johnson to quit, one of whom, Christian Wakeford, then announced that he had left the party and joined the Labour opposition. But one senior Conservative — Andrew Mitchell — announced that he was withdrawing his support as Mr. Johnson fielded angry questions in Parliament, and several more have since followed suit. On the evening of July 5, two of Mr. Johnson’s top ministers — Rishi Sunak, the chancellor of the Exchequer, and Sajid Javid, the health secretary — resigned within minutes of one another. More decisively, a flood of further resignations followed, with more than 50 members of Parliament quitting cabinet roles or other government positions by July 7, including some appointed to replace those who had already resigned.
Cabinet rebellions destabilize prime ministers and can push them toward the exit. The catalyst for Margaret Thatcher’s demise in 1990 was the resignation of Geoffrey Howe, a disaffected former ally, and Theresa May lost several ministers — including Mr. Johnson, who quit as foreign secretary in 2018. The next stage was once known as a visit from the “men in gray suits,” a phrase dating from an age when all key power brokers were men. In those days, when a group known as the “magic circle” chose the Conservative leader, such bigwigs could withdraw support, too. And leaders can sometimes still be persuaded to depart on their own terms rather than be booted out.
As prime minister, Mr. Johnson has more or less maintained cabinet discipline so far, though on Feb. 8 he slightly rejigged his top team in order to replace the officials responsible for keeping rank-and-file members of Parliament in line. Mrs. May resigned in 2019, after surviving a leadership vote, when it was clear that her position had become hopeless. Similar pressure, accompanied by ministerial resignations, was used to evict Tony Blair, the Labour Party prime minister, from Downing Street in 2007. On July 6, Downing Street was practically a catwalk for gray suits, with a parade of ministers and party officials visiting Mr. Johnson and seeking to convince him that his position was untenable.
At this point, the most stinging resignation has come from outside the Parliament or the cabinet: Munira Mirza, a senior Downing Street adviser who had worked closely with Mr. Johnson for well over a decade, quit on Feb. 3 with a sharp letter accusing him of a “grave error of judgment” over a gibe he directed at the opposition leader, Keir Starmer, during the debate over Ms. Gray’s findings. Mr. Johnson accused Mr. Starmer, a former chief prosecutor, of failing to pursue one of Britain’s most notorious pedophiles — a case in which he was not involved. That controversy grew after Mr. Starmer was mobbed on Feb. 7 by anti-vaccine protesters, some of whom appeared to echo Mr. Johnson’s accusation. Mr. Johnson was not easily convinced. That night, he even fired his housing secretary, Michael Gove, a fellow Brexit campaigner and Conservative power broker who was reportedly among the first to make a private appeal to him that day.
A minister frequently discussed as Mr. Johnson’s potential successor, Rishi Sunak, the chancellor of the Exchequer, distanced himself from the accusation, taking the latest in what commentators have interpreted as a series of small steps away from the prime minister. He was slow to express support after Mr. Johnson’s first apology and later cut short a television interview while being asked about Mr. Johnson’s position. The next morning, Mr. Johnson let it be known that he had changed his mind, acknowledging in a speech later that day that it was clearly “the will of the parliamentary Conservative Party” that he step aside.
Once this was known as a visit from the “men in gray suits,” a phrase dating from an age when all key power brokers were men. In those days, when a group known as the “magic circle” chose the Conservative leader, such bigwigs could withdraw support, too, and ask the prime minister to resign. Nowadays things aren’t quite like that, but leaders can still be persuaded to depart on their own terms rather than endure being booted out. One of the reasons that Mr. Johnson’s ousting was so messy is because there is no consensus on who would replace him.
Mrs. May resigned in 2019, after surviving a leadership vote, when it was clear that her position had become hopeless. Similar pressure, accompanied by ministerial resignations, was used to evict Tony Blair, the Labour Party prime minister, from Downing Street in 2007. Mr. Sunak, long considered the most likely successor, has himself suffered a fall from grace. He was fined for attending the same party as Mr. Johnson, and has also faced damaging reports around the tax status of his wealthy wife.
Timing a coup is never easy. Critics are unlikely to force a confidence vote unless they think Mr. Johnson would lose. That point may be near but, critically, there is no consensus on who would replace him and therefore no single cabal orchestrating a challenge. Liz Truss, the foreign secretary, remained in the government and is a leading contender. So is Penny Mordaunt, a former defense secretary who was demoted by Mr. Johnson and can present herself as more of a clean break.
Mr. Sunak is the front-runner and Liz Truss, the foreign secretary, is a leading contender, but several others may run. They all need to be careful. In the past, ambitious rivals have suffered from being seen as disloyal (though not Mr. Johnson, who opposed Mrs. May and then succeeded her). The process that will decide Mr. Johnson’s successor, however, has a record of producing surprises.
For most Conservative lawmakers, the question is whether a change would help them. None of Mr. Johnson’s potential successors have shown that they can match the appeal he demonstrated in leading the party to a landslide victory in 2019. Mr. Johnson’s plan to remain in 10 Downing Street until a successor is chosen follows the pattern of his two most recent predecessors.
Most Conservative lawmakers seem to have been waiting for Ms. Gray’s inquiry. But what she published last week looks unlikely to decide the matter. The police have set no firm timetable for their investigation or any action that might result. But the timetable for the leadership contest is not in his hands, and it does not follow a published set of rules.
Escaping scrapes is one of the prime minister’s defining skills. A Conservative former prime minister, David Cameron, once described Mr. Johnson as a “greased piglet”: His career has contained no shortage of dismissals and humiliations, each followed by triumph. Though the broad outlines of the two-stage process remain constant, the details and the schedule are set each time by the same committee of backbench Conservative lawmakers that makes decisions about no-confidence votes. It is called the 1922 Committee, in honor of the meeting that decided another episode of party tumult a century ago.
To slip out of this tight corner, Mr. Johnson needs to avert cabinet resignations and prevent a rush of letters demanding a no-confidence vote. First, Conservative lawmakers hold a series of ballots among themselves to whittle the number of contenders down to two. In 2019, when Mr. Johnson won, the process began with 10 candidates, and took six ballots. This time, lawmakers aim to be done before Parliament takes its summer vacation, which starts on July 21.
Mr. Johnson will then hope that Ms. Gray’s initial report was vague enough for him to survive, with the help of changes in his cabinet and his Downing Street team, and that public interest fades over the course of the police investigation. He also hopes to regain popularity, especially among his lawmakers, by lifting remaining Covid restrictions earlier than planned. Eleven lawmakers sought to run this time, but only three remained on Tuesday, after the first four rounds of voting. Mr. Sunak emerged in the lead, followed by Ms. Mordaunt, with Ms. Truss third.
Aside from the crisis over Downing Street parties, things look sticky for the government. Energy bills are soaring, inflation is spiking and interest rates have risen just as Mr. Johnson is about to raise taxes. Once it’s down to two candidates, the party’s entire dues-paying membership gets a ballot to chose between them. As of last year, according to a speech by a party official, there were about 200,000 Conservative members; they pay a standard annual subscription of 25 pounds, about $30.
Opinion polls show a collapse of support for Mr. Johnson personally and suggest that he is now dragging down his party, which faces local elections in May. Some recent surveys put the Conservatives as much as 10 points behind Labour. The last two candidates in 2019, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Hunt, were given six weeks to make their cases. The result was announced some 46 days after Mrs. May had resigned as party leader, and Mr. Johnson visited Queen Elizabeth to be appointed prime minister the next day.
Mr. Johnson became prime minister in 2019 because his party correctly judged that he would win them a general election. If it concludes that he will lose them the next one, his days are numbered. This time, the result is due on Sept. 5. That would give the new prime minister time to prepare for a major televised speech at the Conservative Party’s annual conference the next month.