Within hours of becoming Prime Minister-in-waiting Theresa May was facing calls to order a general election.
Critics warned she would not be a credible leader if she was installed without a single vote being cast.
But many Tory MPs are currently desperate to avoid an election.
They are terrified that if they went to the country now they would lose their seats.
Indeed some would only back candidates vying for the leadership if they pledged not to trigger a vote.
The campaign of the early frontrunner Boris Johnson was damaged in its first weekend when it emerged that he was considering an election.
Tory MPs denounced the idea as “madness”.
Many backed a Remain vote in the referendum, but watched in horror as their constituencies voted Leave, some in overwhelming numbers.
To make matters worse, Ukip sources have suggested that they plan to target the seats of Remain MPs.
Some Tories now wonder if parts of England will experience an SNP-like surge in support for Ukip.
And if the result might be the loss of their seat and with it their job.
With a Commons majority that can only be described as tiny, losing constituencies is a risk that the ultra-sensible Mrs May is unlikely to take.
But many Tories are also keenly aware that Prime Ministers have not always benefited from delaying general elections in the past.
The most recent Labour resident of Downing Street is a case in point.
Gordon Brown decided not to call a vote in 2007. Three years later he lost to David Cameron and was ejected from No 10.
James Callaghan took over from Harold Wilson in 1976 and took the UK through the infamous Winter of Discontent before going to the polls in 1979.
He was defeated by Thatcher and Labour were out of power for 18 years.
But there are other examples.
John Major, for example, was elected the Tory leader in November 1990 after Margaret Thatcher's resignation.
Sir John, as he is now, held firm, rebuffing then Labour leader Neil Kinnock's call for an election.
He finally went to the polls in April 1992 and won another five year term, only leaving office after Tony Blair's landslide election victory in 1997.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel