I'm actually surprised that he has resigned (but apparently not left) and wonder if its misdirection as he plots a way back in. If there's a lesson that the last years have taught politicians, it seems to be that if you just violate norms, never admit defeat, and never back down and just ride things out, you can get away with an awful lot.
That's very unlikely in this case. Johnson already tried to hang on longer than he really should have done, albeit he did survive a motion of no confidence. It took the mass resignations of his cabinet to force him out.
The "never back down or admit defeat" seems mostly to apply to bureaucrats and public health officials. Conservative MPs are famous for resigning when they think honorable norms have been violated (as they see it), and getting rid of leaders once they become an electoral liability.
I mean, Thomas Dugdale is famous for resigning when he thought an honourable norm had been violated (he took responsibility for the maladministration of his officials, which is the essentially theoretical responsibility of a minister) but that was in 1954. And even in that case it turned out in retrospect that he was responsible for some of the maladministration himself.
Knifing ineffective leaders, yes - that is a reputation they still have. But I wouldn't see any of the recent resignations as anything other than opportunistic: they knew perfectly well that Johnson was an untrustworthy scoundrel well before they joined his government.
All British governments see regular resignations of ministers with the cited reasons always being policy disagreements or dishonourable behavior. You seem to believe the last time it happened was 1954 but that's not correct. Look at this graph of ministerial resignations by Prime Minister (second on the page):
All PMs regardless of Party experience continuous attrition of ministers, because being willing to resign from a government job for moral or policy reasons is considered a fundamental part of the honor code of being MP.
Policy disagreements, sure. And you can certainly read those as questions of honour/morality. Robin Cook over the Iraq war, perhaps, or Michael Heseltine over the Westland affair.
As for 'resignations' on the grounds of ministerial misbehaviour, I'm afraid they almost always come down to one of two things. Either the PM isn't personally prepared to put up with it (in which case a resignation is requested) or the political fallout has become so severe that either the minister doesn't want to face the music any more (in which case they will resign more or less in disgrace) or the PM can't afford the political cost of extending cover any further (in which case they will be asked to resign more or less in disgrace).
I am quite sure there are honourable people in politics. Estelle Morris famously resigned as Secretary of State for Education on the basis that she didn't feel up to it. There are probably a handful of others. But resigning without being forced on the grounds of a self-identified moral lapse is astonishingly rare.
Again, you occasionally get people resigning on the basis they think their PM is dishonourable, but even then it's mainly just politics. (Everyone currently leaving Johnson's cabinet knew of his objectionable character before signing on, for example).
The modern Conservative party mostly has a reputation for corruption (which we politely call 'sleaze') rather than honour and probity. That dates back to at least the early 90s and has been recently reinforced. Labour's reputation is in the gutter too, though possibly not to quite the same extent.
(I teach political communication in a British university and have previously interned in Parliament, FWIW. The strong tension between our 'good chaps' theory of government (with its actors behaving honourably at all times) and the nakedly political behaviour of ministers and parliamentarians in actual practice has been part of what we teach politics students for decades).
"But resigning without being forced on the grounds of a self-identified moral lapse is astonishingly rare."
It just happened en-masse, and has been happening to Johnson regularly this year. The ministers resigned because they didn't want to continue supporting Johnson and doing the things he wanted them to do. So how can you say it's rare?
"Everyone currently leaving Johnson's cabinet knew of his objectionable character before signing on, for example"
Ah, I see. Mind reading skills. Because you personally don't like Johnson, nobody who is now resigning and explicitly stating it is for honor reasons can possibly be telling the truth. That isn't a charitable or fair reading of what's happened.
"The modern Conservative party mostly has a reputation for corruption ... I teach political communication in a British university"
If that's meant to increase your credibility it has the opposite effect. An anti-conservative academic, what a shock. And one who teaches politics no less, whilst claiming (presumably to students) that none of the many ministers resigning for clearly communicated honor reasons are actually doing so, thanks to aforementioned mind reading skills.
They're not resigning because they've suddenly realised he's a wrong 'un, they're leaving because he's become an electoral liability. But I suspect you know that - it's how politics works essentially everywhere, including the United States, for parties of all ideological persuasions.
If not, you might want to start with this short article in the Spectator[0] (one of the Conservative house journals, which Johnson used to edit) by Toby Young (a Tory) fifteen years ago (after his rise to prominence, but before his rise to power). The man's a scoundrel and his party have always known it. And even generally honest politicians aren't going to write "We gave you a go because we hoped you'd win the election, but we underestimated just how unpopular you'd get - please go now" in a resignation letter.
You're projecting your own views onto other people without any evidence. In their letters they make it clear that they do now feel his behaviour has become unacceptable, and that's why he's become an electoral liability. They're years away from an election so your argument that it's all about electoral liability lacks explanatory power (why now) and boils down to "politicians innit", which isn't really an argument at all.
If you're a columnist or random commentator, fine, argue whatever you like. It's kind of absurd that you teach politics though. Surely such people are supposed to work hard to be as neutral as possible. I don't believe for one second you're politically neutral on this topic.
For those wondering why: Johnson has faced mass resignations from his cabinet in recent days.
There is no one event that triggered this. The resignation letters don't mention any specific event. Rather, it was a constant flow of scandals and poor decisions that caused his party to lose confidence in him, starting primarily with "partygate" in which it was revealed that senior members of the Government and No 10 were repeatedly ignoring their own COVID regulations often for trivial reasons like holding parties, at a time when theoretically people weren't allowed out of their own homes. He apologized but the damage done was extraordinary. Then the Tories lost safe seats in by-elections due to tactical voting, there were some other scandals of the type that are common in politics, and it all added up to too much. Johnson is no longer seen as a vote winner but rather a vote loser. Since partygate it was all downhill for him, especially as he kept sending his cabinet ministers to defend him on news programmes, often with them discovering they were repeating lies he'd told them, sometimes whilst literally live on TV.
In resigning, or rather being forced to resign, British politics and the Conservative party is at least showing that these sorts of acts ultimately do have consequences in the UK, even for someone who goes kicking and screaming like Boris. In this, the country is doing better than most places. Leaders telling people about the importance of lockdowns whilst simultaneously flouting the rules became an epidemic all by itself in the past few years. The same thing has happened in many parts of the world, and probably many more where they didn't get caught. Even Prof Neil Ferguson - the architect of lockdowns - was immediately caught ignoring the rules in order to visit his married lover.
It says a lot about the quality of leadership and 'expertise' our society is afflicted with, that nobody stopped to think about how effectively fanatical and unreasonable rules could actually be enforced on the people creating them, and what would happen when that failed. Johnson's fall is the perhaps inevitable consequence of what started in March 2020.
Resigns as leader of the Conservative Party, not (yet) as Prime Minister. He's hoping to extend his term to the autumn, while the internal party election to replace him goes on. It's not clear he has the support to do so.
In the meantime, he keeps control of the Parliamentary agenda, control of nuclear weapons, his salary etc.
Misleading title as he is still, currently, the Prime Minister of the UK. It's theoretically possible for him to stay on as Prime Minister even without being party leader, which is what he resigned from.
Though it would be quite a wild, and probably unprecedented, way of staying in office. Because it undermines the cohesion and legitimacy of the Conservative party itself.
Not a huge fan of him but Brits needed him to get the toxic wart that brexit brought on itself dealt with. He did a good job with the negotiation for UK. And Covid vaccination too. Credits where it’s due.
I doubt Brits will have a better leader though. Michael Gove is a far worse candidate than BoJo. Or Sajid or Rishi even I would argue. It’s probably once of the latter twos. And their labor party is just as bad with messaging. There is an epidemic of leadership crisis facing Europe (or the whole Western Hemisphere) and this is all in the face of the growing threat of WWIII. Not good.
Are you Nadine Dorries in disguise? That toxic wart is precisely _becuase_ of Boris. We crashed out with no deal - how is that a good negotiation? And then the subsequent agreement he did manage to get he's now unilaterally pulling out of, breaking international law in the process.
Yes, vacinnation went very well. But the dithering on lock-downs, constant u-turns on any decision of note, and populism over science led to the death of literally thousands.
If you doubt we could have a better leader than someone repeatedly sacked throughout their carreer for lying, and then being ousted for breaking the law, lying to the Queen, lying in parliament, and getting his ministers to lie on his behalf, then lying again, then we're in even deeper shit than I thought.
> That toxic wart is precisely _becuase_ of Boris.
What do you mean precisely because of Boris? There were referendums and UK voted to leave. It wasn’t upto him to decide, although he had led campaigns for it. But ultimately it’s the majority of the Brits that wanted out. He got the dwindling state of uncertainty and got it over with. It may not have been a good deal but it’s over and thank goodness for that. Because otherwise it would undermine trust in referendum and voters choices. And you could argue any deal would have been just as bad.
> populism over science
I am not sure what you mean by that. He mostly followed the recommendations from the health department (not for himself of course which is why he got in trouble in public eyes, but for the general public I mean), I never saw him questioning the health departments to the extent like they had over here in US.
> lying
oh come on! You forgot Tony Blair clearly. Just a recent example.
Ultimately it’s a win for parliamentary democracy. In presidential system we have, he would be still the president. There is still faith in democracy.
Edit to add an interesting article about who might replace him: https://www.axios.com/2022/07/06/uk-prime-minister-johnson-r...