When Will It All Go Wrong For The Tories/ Johnson?

[Bald Rick]

Very much a generational thing I guess

I will say that I correctly remembered the number of the 87 all those years later. I don't remember all of them, but some of the 87 names were particularly evocative and this was one of them.

I wonder if she was born on 6 May 1960 (60/5/06) or 7 February 1987 (87/02/7) ? That really would be strange. (Have to admit I have no idea how old she is).

Whatever, with her right-wing views, I think the "Wolf of Badenoch" would be an appropriate nickname

Her husband is, naturally enough, a Badenoch. His first name is Hamish, which does imply a certain nationality.

 

[TwoYellas]

Getting Brexit done

Just goes which way the wind was blowing.

Vaccine rollout - far quicker than most comparable countries, which saved a lot of lives

Credit to the health workers - not politicians that try to make political gain out of it and tell us to stand outside and clap while health workers have to go to food banks.

Ukraine - seems to be widely recognised that early UK military support was a significant factor in Ukraine being able to hold back the Russian invasion in the early days, and it seems we also played some role in persuading more reluctant countries to support Ukraine, and in isolating Russia diplomatically

In my view we need statesmen that attempt to solve these issues before all the destruction and risk of nuclear annhilation. Some European leaders did make efforts. Of course, not always possible to negotiate a peace but Johnson isn't a great statesman. But he's good at photo ops in Ukraine to look good and divert from his problems domestically.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Credit to the health workers - not politicians that try to make political gain out of it and tell us to stand outside and clap while health workers have to go to food banks.

Well yes. ANY Government policy has to be carried out by workers on the ground, and certainly the health workers did a very good job during the pandemic, for which we all owe them. But the vaccine rollout was nevertheless organised under Boris's watch, and only happened as early as it did because the Government took an early decision to place advance orders for vaccines, thereby making sure that the various companies had the early funding in place to pay to develop them.

If you follow the logic of refusing to credit the Government for a policy because it was workers on the ground who implemented the policy, then you'll end up never ever crediting any Government for anything!

 

[Typhoon]

Grant Shapps must have believed the chart I posted above, he's just dropped out and endorsed Rishi Sunak.

BBC report that Raab is backing Sunak (as has Williamson!) It could be he has seen that the momentum is behind one candidate. Guido-Fawkes reckons that he now has 41 declared backers. Next is Mordaunt, Tugendhat and Truss.

Interestingly Rehman Chishti is still in the race - last in, I expected first out. I was wrong. He had an excruciating interview on local TV news yesterday, which he mistook for a speech. The fact that Johnson has turned to him in desperation to fill the ministerial roster says a lot about the PMs situation.

 

[The Ham]

So, any successes during Boris's reign were entirely down to other people, not him, but any and all failures were directly his fault ? Fair enough, as long as that standard is applied to all politicians in all parts of the UK.....

Off the top of my head...

1. Getting Brexit done (yes, I know lots of people don't like the particular details of the Brexit or think it was too hard or still wish we hadn't voted for Brexit in the referendum, but the point is - at the time Boris came to power, the UK was paralysed, with Parliament totally unable to agree on how to do Brexit, and for 3 years almost nothing had happened in UK politics besides arguing about Brexit. For better or worse, Boris did end that paralysis, achieve Brexit, and therefore allow the Government to start getting on to other stuff - at least until Covid came along).

Given that he's still wanting to make changes on Northern Ireland then (again at others have highlighted) how successful is this?

1. Vaccine rollout - far quicker than most comparable countries, which saved a lot of lives

Possibly, however it should also be noted that a lot of it being successful is down to his scientific and medical advisors as well a lot of people (both NHS staff and volunteers) who worked hard to deliver it. Yes his messaging helped (unlike that in Europe where they belittled the Oxford vaccine, which made it harder to accept any vaccine uptake), however it's hard to know if others would have done better/worse. I suspect broadly the same unless they were more like Trump.

1. Lockdown - wasn't perfect, but we did in the end have a lockdown that was both reasonably successful in keeping the virus contained until vaccines, but was also less restrictive and avoided most of the more bureaucratic absurdities of many other European countries.

Slow off the mark, lots of people were restricting themselves about a week before each step the government announced

1. Ukraine - seems to be widely recognised that early UK military support was a significant factor in Ukraine being able to hold back the Russian invasion in the early days, and it seems we also played some role in persuading more reluctant countries to support Ukraine, and in isolating Russia diplomatically

Again, how much another would have done the same/more/less is unknown. However given the level of cross party support hardly a unique position in the UK. Also arguably more should have been done to reduce the need for hydrocarbons, for instance insulating more, reopening solar payment schemes, etc. and so reducing the worldwide demand (as any that we don't use others could use, making it easier for others to come off their reliance on Russia).

1. HS2 - is being built, despite significant opposition to it at the time Boris came to power and much campaigning in Parliament for it to be cancelled

At every vote related to HS2 there's been very small levels of via against, for example under May 295 vs 12 in Jan 2018. Every PM since Brown had been for it, if anything Boris is the most against it.

1. Furlough - allowed lockdown to be implemented, while making sure most people still had an income (although we are now paying an economic price for it)

A sensible policy, although not unique in the world and lots of small business were critical of the support that they were offered (although it should be noted that Furlough was only one element of the support package given.

1. Railways kept being supported during the lockdown, and thanks to the Restoring your Railway scheme, we now have business cases being prepared for a number of possible re-openings.

Whilst supported, there's many who feel that this support has been used to harm the railways going forwards. Given the level of Furlough, closing the railways down may not have saved all that much, but would have made it hard for people to do what they needed to.

1. Environment - COP26 happened. Somewhat mixed in outcome, but very notable that the UK was heavily pushing for steeper CO2 reductions, and generally taking a more environmentalist approach than was the case under previous governments.

As well as pursuing the cycling and "bus back better", so fairly good in that regard. However the Tories have the Net Zero Scrutiny group, which tend to be fairly climate change skeptical (if not skeptical).

1. Hong Kong - there's perhaps not a lot we can do to ease the terrible situation there, but we have made it possible for not far off 100K people so far from Hong Kong to escape to the UK.

However in contrast, what about Afghanistan, where there's should have been a similar scheme and it's been slow.


Overall not all that great a list as many are things which would likely have happened anyway regardless of who was in charge (for instance hosting COP26 was down to it being our turn). Maybe each of the outcomes may have been a little better/a little worse depending on messaging of who was in charge, however that's unknowable.

Very little stands out as "without Boris x wouldn't have happened" other than possibly Brexit and about 1/2 the people who voted think that's a bad thing and at least some of the rest aren't sure they wanted what we've got.

 

[Falcon1200]

have no problem with that, but you need consistency, and the reverse is also true: If you want to blame Boris personally for the failures of his Government, then you should also give him credit for the successes. This bit of the discussion emerged from a post (#4921) that sought to blamed Boris personally for the failures of his Government while simultaneously finding excuses not to give him credit for the successes.

Agree.

In my view we need statesmen that attempt to solve these issues before all the destruction and risk of nuclear annhilation. Some European leaders did make efforts.

With a complete and total lack of success ! Whereas, since the inevitable invasion occurred, the UK under Boris has been at the forefront of supporting Ukraine.

Johnson isn't a great statesman. But he's good at photo ops in Ukraine to look good and divert from his problems domestically.

How did that work out for Boris then.......

 

[dosxuk]

Well yes. ANY Government policy has to be carried out by workers on the ground, and certainly the health workers did a very good job during the pandemic, for which we all owe them. But the vaccine rollout was nevertheless organised under Boris's watch, and only happened as early as it did because the Government took an early decision to place advance orders for vaccines, thereby making sure that the various companies had the early funding in place to pay to develop them.

If you follow the logic of refusing to credit the Government for a policy because it was workers on the ground who implemented the policy, then you'll end up never ever crediting any Government for anything!

I think we should congratulate ministers and the Government, including Boris, for things that they personally drove forward - things that wouldn't have happened, or wouldn't have been as smooth, under someone else's watch. I don't think people in public positions should be personally credited with successes that would (in all likelihood) have happened exactly the same way if someone else was in charge.

The Brexit we have today - Boris' Brexit - is a more troublesome version of what May was trying to get through Parliament. Boris's contribution to that deal is simply to galvanise the support for the party to get rid of the dissenting voices and allow a vote to succeed. I'll credit him with being a popular figure at the time that a significant proportion of the country could get behind, winning him a nice majority. Can I credit him with a fantastic oven-ready deal that will work brilliantly for the whole UK? - not a chance. Would he have ever got this deal through parliament in the same circumstances as May? - no way.

Vaccines / Lockdown / Furlough - none of these are Boris' policies - they're ideas on how to tackle Covid that will have been primarily organised and run by the civil service - if May was still in charge, or Cameron, or even Brown - I'm 100% confident that we would have the same policies announced. Under the others we might have been a bit more on top of public opinion regards lockdown too - with Boris' government forced to make changes after the public turned against him on numerous occasions.

With Ukraine - can I see May going over there? yup; Cameron? Yup; Brown? Yup; Blair? Yup; Major? Yup; Thatcher? Yup - and so on. And sadly I suspect that the others would be in another league with their statecraft compared to photo-op-Boris, who seems to have seen his figureheading the UK response as a personal opportunity rather than something that we should be doing as a nation. He keeps asking the question in the Commons about what would happen with Starmer in charge - and I see our response as being widely the same, no better, no worse. Corbyn I'd file as a bit less likely to want to get involved, but I could see him leaving the UK response to others rather than personally heading it.

If I was asked what are Boris' personal successes then I would limit it to simply being a populist leader who managed to win a convincing majority at the 2019 elections. From that point onwards, bluster, untruths and cover ups seem to have been his mainstay, always resorting to "I'm Boris, everything is great!" in the event of trouble.

 

[ainsworth74]

At every vote related to HS2 there's been very small levels of via against, for example under May 295 vs 12 in Jan 2018. Every PM since Brown had been for it, if anything Boris is the most against it.

Plus it's under his tenure it's been cut back with no Eastern arm and no Golborn link either. Robbing it of much of its transformative powers. If anything HS2 has done worse under his tenure than any other PM...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Plus it's under his tenure it's been cut back with no Eastern arm and no Golborn link either. Robbing it of much of its transformative powers. If anything HS2 has done worse under his tenure than any other PM...

COVID has robbed it of most of its transformative powers, as the service that would be most transformed by it is south WCML commuter services, something which is no longer really necessary due to permanently reduced commuting. The plans involved a metro-style service on the slow lines looking rather more like Thameslink than what is there now, but realistically a 2/4/6tph based service using 10.730 as is going to be implemented in December (minus the 730s themselves) is likely to suffice for the foreseeable future now, as commuting will only reduce further, it will never increase again.

It is now in a bit of an awkward position. I'd not cancel it, but if the plans were started post COVID I'd have opposed it, and I very much doubt it'd ever happen then. The only reason I ever supported it was south WCML capacity.

 

[ABB125]

This is also evident in Kwarteng recently having to find an alternative backer in the Sizewell proposals to remove the Chinese stake.

Here's a radical suggestion: why not let the government take over the Chinese stake? Claw back on the incredibly expensive fixed unit price the project was offered (although probably par for the course nowadays!).

Any candidate proposing this would get my (hypothetical) vote

 

[jfollows]

Priti Patel's said she won't be running, probably in her interest not to since I can't see she'd have won. But at least "her" votes will go to someone else in the first ballot anyway, after which she may have been eliminated.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

At least this run-up to the contest has provided numerous posting opportunities for our website membership, which they certainly have taken.

 

[WatcherZero]

Doesnt look like Patel managed to gather more than 12 endorsements, well short of the 20 in the first cut.

 

[brad465]

The way things are currently looking Javid, Braverman, Zahawi and Hunt are not looking like getting to the 20 threshold. I think Badenoch will scrape over the threshold (currently on 17), while Truss, Tugendhat, Mourdant and Sunak are all secure for the first round.

 

[jfollows]

Yep. That plus, according to reports, the original video included a clip that included footage showing Oscar Pistorius.

A total disaster in terms of making a campaigning video. Someone on her team definitely didn't do their due diligence properly. I wouldn't go as far as saying it makes her unsuitable for Prime Minister, but if I was a Tory MP thinking of voting for her, I'd certainly want to ask her how that happened and what care she'll be taking to avoid making mistakes like that again.

Penny Mordaunt has had to further edit her campaign video after complaints from Jo Cox's family. Not exactly sure-footed.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Penny Mordaunt has had to further edit her campaign video after complaints from Jo Cox's family. Not exactly sure-footed.

I suspect that this is what will condemn her: her ability to make unenforced errors under pressure. She played it well over the last week by staying out of it, but she's not going to convince the Conservative membership by making such blunders.

 

[Typhoon]

Penny Mordaunt has had to further edit her campaign video after complaints from Jo Cox's family. Not exactly sure-footed.

I deliberately didn't comment on that section as the wording made it not seem out of place "Conservatives do not have a monopoly on good people and good ideas" but to not ask the family - when one was presumably within easy reach was insensitive to say the least. There are a number of other people who, while not known, are easily identifiable. I hope they are actors, stock photos/ clips or have given permission. It is almost like slipping when getting out of the blocks in a sprint.

 

[jfollows]

Nadhim Zahawi, Suella Braverman, Jeremy Hunt & Sajid Javid are struggling to get the nominations required to stand in the first place. Kemi Badenoch also, but she's a bit closer to the line. There could be only 4 people standing - Rishi Sunak, Penny Mordaunt, Liz Truss & Tom Tugendhat. We'll find out in a couple of hours.

EDIT I'm repeating brad465's earlier post, sorry.

 

[The Ham]

COVID has robbed it of most of its transformative powers, as the service that would be most transformed by it is south WCML commuter services, something which is no longer really necessary due to permanently reduced commuting. The plans involved a metro-style service on the slow lines looking rather more like Thameslink than what is there now, but realistically a 2/4/6tph based service using 10.730 as is going to be implemented in December (minus the 730s themselves) is likely to suffice for the foreseeable future now, as commuting will only reduce further, it will never increase again.

It is now in a bit of an awkward position. I'd not cancel it, but if the plans were started post COVID I'd have opposed it, and I very much doubt it'd ever happen then. The only reason I ever supported it was south WCML capacity.

Much of the reduced "need" is due to reduced service patterns. It should also be noted that recently there's been several days (with the notable exceptions of around the bank holidays and strike days) where rail use is over 85% and approaching 95% of pre pandemic levels.

As I highlighted elsewhere on this forum with past long distance rail growth between 2009 and 2019 resulting in over 170 passengers for every 100 in 2009. Now even at 85% of pre pandemic levels (let's say 170 rather than anything higher) that's 144. Now the growth model for HS2 had passenger numbers at 150 for every 100 at the opening of phase 1 (2026), we are currently within 5% of that with a few years to go.

In fact to reach that by 2026 (4 years from now) would require rail growth of just 1% (if you want January 2026 rather than July that's 3.5 years of 1.15 growth).

Now commuting has been hit harder, however the thing is if we keep going with HS2 we might end up with rail capacity enhancements a little in advance of when we actually need them. However HS2 was useful for those commuter services in 2009, so unless passenger numbers are below what they were then by some margin the risk in continuing is fairly small, especially as its not going to cost nothing to stop building now.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Now commuting has been hit harder, however the thing is if we keep going with HS2 we might end up with rail capacity enhancements a little in advance of when we actually need them. However HS2 was useful for those commuter services in 2009, so unless passenger numbers are below what they were then by some margin the risk in continuing is fairly small, especially as its not going to cost nothing to stop building now.

Commuting will in my view only reduce - the railway's future is business travel and leisure, primarily the latter. I'd not however stop it now for the reason you say - but if we were talking about starting it now I would probably be against.

In essence the 85% doesn't tell you much on its own. It's more a case of "more than 100% of leisure travel, but considerably reduced commuting and business travel" I think.

 

[jfollows]

Number Ten is refusing to allow a Labour motion of no confidence in the government tomorrow.
Conventionally, they should allow this.
I don't think there's any chance of the government losing the vote, but they don't want the embarrassment of forcing their MPs to vote for Boris and his government, in which they clearly no longer have confidence, and Labour wants to see them squirm.
I predict, though, that Number Ten will climb down on this and as a result it will look worse for the government than if they'd just gone along with it in the first place. Same old story?

 

[Annetts key]

Major is the least bad Tory PM I can remember by a country mile; perhaps the best of my lifetime is Heath but I cannot remember him.

I definitely don’t agree with that. John Major’s government was the driving force behind railway privatisation. And what an absolute mess they made of it.

Mind, it’s a actually rather hard trying to find a Conservative government that did not do something silly, stupid or controversial. With Margaret Thatcher it was the poll tax, with Major it was railway privatisation (among other things)…

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jul 2022 ==

Grant Shapps must have believed the chart I posted above, he's just dropped out and endorsed Rishi Sunak.

Or all the MPs he asked for support said I’m not getting on your train…

 

[The Ham]

Commuting will in my view only reduce - the railway's future is business travel and leisure, primarily the latter. I'd not however stop it now for the reason you say - but if we were talking about starting it now I would probably be against.

In essence the 85% doesn't tell you much on its own. It's more a case of "more than 100% of leisure travel, but considerably reduced commuting and business travel" I think.

Given that in 2019 54% of travel by train was commuting and 26% was leisure, for overall numbers to be 15% lost and 25% leisure then (even assuming business, shopping and other travel was back to 20%) the net fall in commuting is 28%.

However 85% is often being surpassed, for example the day that Shapps said that rail usage had fallen by 20% rail use was recorded as being 90%.

Run the maths again at 90% of rail use (again assuming 100% of other rail uses) and the net fall in commuting is 20%.

For a train coach which used to have 80 passengers (so about 15-20 standing) that's now 58 to 64 passengers, so a few spare seats assuming no changes to frequency of service.

Yes those falls aren't helpful to the industry trying to recover. However given that rail travel was about 10% of traveled distance that extra capacity could be used to encourage people out of their cars.

 

[TwoYellas]

The platitudes coming from the contenders in their speeches/videos are just getting tedious now. It wouldn't surprise me if one of them used the music from the famous Hovis advert from the 70’s next!

 

[brad465]

Number Ten is refusing to allow a Labour motion of no confidence in the government tomorrow.
Conventionally, they should allow this.
I don't think there's any chance of the government losing the vote, but they don't want the embarrassment of forcing their MPs to vote for Boris and his government, in which they clearly no longer have confidence, and Labour wants to see them squirm.
I predict, though, that Number Ten will climb down on this and as a result it will look worse for the government than if they'd just gone along with it in the first place. Same old story?

Yes it's rather concerning that a no confidence motion (assuming this is a formal one than can lead to a GE in set conditions) can be brushed aside this easily, regardless of who comprises the Government.

Conservative Home are reporting survey results favouring Mourdant marginally ahead of Badenoch in second. If this changes little at most between now and early September then the winner would be would be too close to call if both were on the final ballot, or if only one of them does, the one that does could well get it, while despite all his MP endorsements, Sunak isn't looking like getting it:

Our latest Next Tory Leader Survey. Mordaunt leads Badenoch by under ten votes in over eight hundred. | Conservative Home

Sunak is third. Much can change - but were the former Chancellor in the ring now against either of the top two, I wouldn't fancy his chances.

conservativehome.com

Perhaps the reason is that some of them were involved in pushing out Boris Johnson. Or maybe it is that others tried to keep him on. Or perhaps it’s simply that yesterday’s candidates are old hat, amidst a culture that prizes sensation and novelty.

But whatever the explanation may be, the two chart-toppers in ConservativeHome’s first Next Tory Leader survey since Ben Wallace withdrew from the contest, aren’t members of the current Cabinet at all.

Penny Mordaunt has sat at the top table – under Theresa May as Defence Secretary – and is a senior Minister of State, now at Trade, previously at the Cabinet Office. She has been a strong performer in this section of the survey recently, coming second to Wallace recently in run-offs, and coming third during the previous outing last year (though with under ten per cent of the vote).

Kemi Badenoch’s ascent is faster. She served until resignation last week as a Minister of State, though she did so for less long: her bag is Equalities. Last year, her support languished at two per cent. Recently, it scraped six per cent – though she performed robustly in the play-offs, coming fifth. “Members clearly like the cut of her jib,” I wrote. So it seems.

Mordaunt has 20 per cent, Badenoch 19 per cent, Rishi Sunak 12 per cent, Suella Braverman ten per cent and Liz Truss ten per too. (Truss was top last December.) Two points follow.

First, these are early days, and among MPs Sunak is currently running first in declarations, though roughly half the Conservative Parliamentary is still sitting on its hands. Much can change – but were the former Chancellor in the ring now against either Mordaunt or Badenoch, I wouldn’t fancy his chances.

Second, much may depend on where the newly-elected ’22 Committee Executive sets any threshold for nominations. This site has called for candidates who wish to enter the ballot to declare 25 supporters; others have cited ten per cent, which would push the requirement up to the mid-30s.

As I write, Mordaunt has 24 declared supporters and Badenoch 13. The former ought to meet any minimum requirement on her present trajectory. I’m not quite so sure about the latter. William Atkinson notes that five members of the newly-elected committee are Tom Tugendhat supporters and one a Sajid Javid backer.

With 19 and 11 declared backers respectively, the camps of those candidates might be resistant to a relatively high threshold. Which raises the question of whether candidates popular with Party members but with relatively little MP support should be excluded from the ballot altogether.

Tomorrow, we will publish the full run-off results – and see what happens when Mordaunt and Badenoch square off against each other, and if there are any upsets further down the chain.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Number Ten is refusing to allow a Labour motion of no confidence in the government tomorrow.

Do they have a constitutional right to do that?

 

[jfollows]

Do they have a constitutional right to do that?

I believe it's driven by "convention" so there's nothing in which Labour has a "right" of any sort, just an expectation based on precedent.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jul 2022 ==

The problem is, that if a government refuses a "no confidence" motion from the opposition it looks like it's frightened of it in one way or another.

Nobody expects this motion to pass, but it appears that Number Ten is frightened of holding the debate which leads up to the formal vote and/or the wriggling necessary to get its MPs to vote for the (Boris's) government.

 

[Busaholic]

Just had a nap, with radio on, and I could swear I heard Priti Patel saying this before I drifted into sleep:-

'' It's disappointin' to me that some of my natural supporters had been persuaded to lend their signatures to others' nominations before I got a chance to launch my campai'n. I was too busy down on the beach at Dungeness shouting over the megaphone ''get back!, get back!'' to the obvious economic migrants attemptin' to invade our beloved country. They're startin' early now, babes in arms among 'em. Disgustin'! Still, I managed to queer Sunak's pitch, not all Hindus love one another! Don't worry, Surella's there to take the i'norant pi' vote that was destined for me, but I wasn't prepared to go cap in hand to some Welsh nancy boy fresh from a Magistrates' Court in order to secure his backin'. Priti has some values!!''

 

[nw1]

What I'm reading now isn't "get Brexit done" but "make Brexit better" and if that's true, I haven't a clue what that means.

If it means anything other than rejoining the single market and/or restoring of freedom of movement, it ain't better.

 

[jfollows]

Well, Number Ten says that the wording of Labour's motion is "playing politics" , I think that's a bit rich since they're both playing the same game (https://www.theguardian.com/politic...nak-labour-prime-minister-latest-updates-live):

10m ago17.08

No 10 says it refused Labour's no confidence debate because anti-PM wording meant Starmer 'playing politics'​

The government and Labour are currently involved in a briefing war about the rights and wrongs of the No 10 decision not to allow a no confidence debate in the government tomorrow. Labour is accusing Downing Street of “an abuse of power”, but No 10 says it is Labout that is actually abusing the system because it is “playing politics”.

Commons convention says the government is meant to allow time for a no confidence motion to be debated as soon as possible (normally the following day). The standard motion is: “That this house has no confidence in Her Majesty’s government.”

The Labour motion was slightly different. Reportely it read: “That this house has no confidence in Her Majesty’s government while the Rt Hon Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip [Boris Johnson] remains prime minister.”

As discussed earlier (see 9.24am), Labour tabled the motion not because it hoped Tory MPs would vote against the government, but because it hoped that would vote for Johnson. It would be useful for Labour to be able to campaign against individual MPs by saying ‘X voted to keep Johnson in Downing Street even after he resigned’.

Labour says its wording was approved by the Commons clerks (who have to decide if a motion is in order). They also says there is precedent for including criticism of the PM in a no confidence motion. In 1965 MPs voted on a motion saying: “That this house has no confidence in Her Majesty’s government and deplores the prime minister’s conduct of the nation’s affairs.” Harold Wilson was PM at the time, and he won by 13 votes.

But the government says that, since Boris Johnson has already said he is resigning as party leader, debating what would be effectively be a no confidence motion in him, and not the government, is a waste of time. (In 1965 Wilson had not resigned as party leader.) A government spokesperson said:

We have given Labour the option to table a straightforward vote of no confidence in the government.
They have chosen to play politics by tabling a vote of no confidence in the government and the prime minister. As the prime minister has already resigned and a leadership process is underway we do not feel this is a valuable use of parliamentary time.
Should Labour amend their motion appropriately, they can have the next business day for it to be debated.
The government is focused on delivering parliamentary business that impacts people’s everyday lives while we work through this transition.

Labour could come back and table a straightforword motion of no confidence in the government. But Labour MPs would find it much harder to use that division as evidence that Tory MPs were voting to keep Johnson personally in No 10, and so as an exercise in generating attack ads, it probably would not work.