There are two obscure rules that may decide Boris Johnson’s future

It is part of the mystique of the 1922 Committee that it operates by rules that are not published anywhere, writes John Rentoul

It is possible that the PM will look for other ways to try to head off the next attempt to depose him (Reuters)

No sooner had Sir Graham Brady announced the result of the vote of confidence in Boris Johnson than disaffected Conservative MPs were eager to explain that the rules of the contest, which say that the prime minister cannot face another confidence vote for a year, can be changed.

They may sound like bad losers, but they are right. The rules can be changed, although there is some uncertainty about exactly how it could happen. The first thing to understand is that, as a House of Commons library briefing note drily explains, “The rules for votes of no confidence are a matter for the 1922 Committee and are not available in the public domain.”

It is part of the mystique of the committee that it operates by rules that are not published anywhere. Which means that, although we know that there is a 12-month rule, we cannot be sure how it could be changed.

However, we do know that it can be changed, because it nearly was, just three years ago. After Theresa May won her confidence vote in December 2018, she quickly ran into further trouble as she found herself unable to get her Brexit deal through parliament. By the time of the European parliament election in May 2019, the pressure among Tory MPs for her to go was such that the 18-member executive that runs the 1922 Committee met to discuss a change in the rule.

The executive, which is elected by all members of the 1922 Committee, made up of all Tory backbenchers, voted by a secret ballot on whether or not to reduce the 12-month rule to six months. Sir Graham, the chair, who was reported by the Daily Mail to have opposed the change himself, sealed the votes in an envelope, and it was agreed that the envelope would be opened if May refused to stand down voluntarily. As it was, we never discovered how the executive voted, because May announced the next day that she would resign as leader of the Conservative Party.

There remain two uncertainties about any attempt at a repeat performance. One is whether the current executive would vote for such a change. Given that the membership of the executive is balanced between supporters and opponents of the prime minister, this cannot be taken for granted. However, Harry Lambert of the New Statesman reports that rebels are confident that, if they don’t have a majority on the executive now, they will do after a new executive is elected in the autumn, when they will “win enough seats on that executive to change the rules”. Given that a majority of backbenchers voted no confidence in Johnson yesterday, this seems likely.

The other uncertainty is whether it is in the power of the executive to change the rules without putting the issue to a vote of the wider membership, or even to all Tory MPs including ministers. Two former chairs of the 1922 Committee wrote an article at the time of the controversy over May’s future, in which they said: “Conservative MPs are responsible for their party. If they wish to change these rules there is nothing standing in their way.” But they failed to make clear whether they meant the 1922 executive acting on behalf of backbenchers, or all backbenchers, or all Tory MPs.

There may not be much difference in practice. If another wave of discontent against Johnson’s leadership rises among the parliamentary party, it may be hard for Johnson to resist a change to the rules by whichever route.

However, it is possible that he will look for other ways to try to head off the next attempt to depose him. Hence the speculation about him calling a general election – or threatening to do so as a nuclear option to deter those plotting against him.

This involves another set of obscure rules – again, unpublished, but this time because they are part of the unwritten constitution. The written part is the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act, which was passed in March. It restored to the prime minister the power to call elections by repealing the Fixed-term Parliaments Act (FTPA). But because it revived the royal prerogative power as it existed before the FTPA, it also revived the ambiguity inherent in that power.

To keep up to speed with all the latest opinions and comment sign up to our free weekly Voices Dispatches newsletter by clicking here

Which is that, although the prime minister can advise the Queen to dissolve parliament, there are some situations in which she need not grant a dissolution – including when she could “rely on finding another prime minister who could govern for a reasonable period with a working majority in the House of Commons”, in the words of the Lascelles principles set out by the private secretary to George VI in 1950.

If Johnson tried to call an election in order to avoid a leadership challenge, and there were an alternative leader who the Conservative Party could support, he would not necessarily be allowed to do it (and that is ignoring what a terrible idea it would be, as it would in current circumstances result in him losing his own seat).

If Johnson faces a renewed attempt from his own party to unseat him over the next 12 months, the rules will not save him.