As Liz Truss announced her resignation as Prime Minister after just 44 days, she declared that her replacement would be in place within the week.
She beat Rishi Sunak to the position in a lengthy leadership contest, but her words on Thursday indicated that the choice of a new premier would not be put to the members.
However, 1922 Committee chair Graham Brady said: "I have spoken to the party chairman Jake Berry and he has confirmed that it will be possible to conduct a ballot and conclude a leadership election by Friday the 28th of October.
“So we should have a new leader in place before the fiscal statement which will take place on the 31st.”
That's already proving controversial though, with opposition parties demanding a general election so the people can decide.
Boris Johnson was elected with a huge majority at the 2019 election but there will now be a second Prime Minister in a matter of months appointed without the direct say of the electorate.
Read More: 'I cannot deliver the mandate on which I was elected' - Liz Truss resigns after 44 days
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer said: “What a mess, this is not just a soap opera at the top of the Tory party, it’s doing huge damage to our economy and to the reputation of our country.
“The public are paying with higher prices, with higher mortgages, so we can’t have a revolving door of chaos.
“We can’t have another experiment at the top of the Tory party.
“There is an alternative and that’s a stable Labour government and the public are entitled to have their say and that’s why there should be a general election.”
First Minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon also called for a general election.
She wrote on Twitter: "There are no words to describe this utter shambles adequately.
"It’s beyond hyperbole – & parody. Reality tho is that ordinary people are paying the price.
“The interests of the Tory party should concern no-one right now.
“A general election is now a democratic imperative.”
Should there be a general election? Have your say in our poll below.
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