Boris Johnson resigned (1 Viewer)

[Optimus Prime]

It actually looked like he was going to survive all the missteps
================
LONDON (AP) — British Prime Minister Boris Johnson resigned Thursday, acknowledging that it was “clearly the will” of his party that he should go.

He stepped down immediately as leader of his Conservative Party but plans to remain as prime minister while the leadership contest is held. He said he has appointed a new Cabinet following a multitude of resignations, but many are calling for him to go now.

It is a humiliating defeat for Johnson, who succeeded in leading Britain out of the European Union and was credited with rolling out one of the world’s most successful mass vaccination campaigns to combat COVID-19.

The announcement came after the latest ethics scandal around Johnson’s leadership led some 50 senior lawmakers to quit the government and left him unable to govern.

Speaking outside No. 10 Downing St., Johnson said he was “immensely proud of the achievements of this government,” from Brexit to steering the country through the pandemic, and leading the West in standing up to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

But he acknowledged that “in politics, no one is remotely indispensable.”

Johnson had clung to power for two days, defiantly telling lawmakers on Wednesday that he had a “colossal mandate” from voters and intended to get on with the business of government……..

Johnson resigns, remains UK prime minister for now

LONDON (AP) — British Prime Minister Boris Johnson resigned Thursday, acknowledging that it was “clearly the will” of his party that he should go. He stepped down immediately as leader of his Conservative Party but plans to remain as prime minister while the leadership contest is held.

apnews.com

 

[Optimus Prime]

For years, Boris Johnson’s superpower was his lack of shame. The British prime minister first gained mainstream attention years ago as a punching bag for comedians on a satirical, anti-establishment panel show.

Later, accusations of cronyism, corruption, incompetence and infidelity fell beside his meteoric political rise like water off a duck’s back.


But while Britain’s Conservatives once delighted in his ability to weather anything his many critics threw at him, Johnson’s brazenness is now a major problem for them.

Johnson may not feel any embarrassment, but his colleagues ended up affected by it vicariously.

Finally forced to announce his resignation Thursday, Johnson ended up the first British prime minister brought down not by personal shame, but by a collective cringe…….

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/07/07/boris-johnson-cring-shameless-liability/

 

[bird]

Would that Donnie the dim-wit had as much self-awareness.

 

[MT15]

Would that Donnie the dim-wit had as much self-awareness.

The self-awareness of Johnson is a pretty dim bulb, but you are correct that Trump lacks even that flicker.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

UK has a vastly superior form of government. They also have a vastly superior sense of morality/propriety. What brought down Boris Johnson pales in comparison to Trump's antics.

 

[Optimus Prime]

UK has a vastly superior form of government. The also have a vastly superior sense of morality/propriety. What brought down Boris Johnson pales in comparison to Trump's antics.

The resignation of British Prime Minister Boris Johnson is testament to the power of elected politicians to hold their leaders accountable. It is a lesson that has been lost on Republican Party officials as they have weighed repeatedly how to deal with former president Donald Trump.


Johnson’s resignation Thursday came after a collapse in support among members of his government and Conservative Party backbenchers.

Nothing like that has happened to Trump, not during his first impeachment, nor his second impeachment, not even after the role he played in the attack on the Capitol by his supporters on Jan. 6, 2021.

In each case, all but a handful of Republican elected officials rallied behind Trump — and still do…….

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/07/boris-johnson-faced-revolt-his-party-trump-never-had-that-problem/

 

[MT15]

UK has a vastly superior form of government. The also have a vastly superior sense of morality/propriety. What brought down Boris Johnson pales in comparison to Trump's antics.

I’m not willing to say their system is superior, i know that’s your thing. But, it would appear they have the actual ability to hold a leader accountable. At some point anyway. Unlike our GOP.

 

[zztop]

UK has a vastly superior form of government. The also have a vastly superior sense of morality/propriety. What brought down Boris Johnson pales in comparison to Trump's antics.

I was just thinking about that today. Apparently 50-ish members of his party resigned in protest due to his poor handling of a situation and lack of ethics/morals. Imagine if 50 republicans had the spine to do the same thing when Trump was shirtting all over the country for 4 years.. oh wait.. hardly any of them even voted to impeach him.

 

[Nolaswede]

The resignation of British Prime Minister Boris Johnson is testament to the power of elected politicians to hold their leaders accountable. It is a lesson that has been lost on Republican Party officials as they have weighed repeatedly how to deal with former president Donald Trump.


Johnson’s resignation Thursday came after a collapse in support among members of his government and Conservative Party backbenchers.

Nothing like that has happened to Trump, not during his first impeachment, nor his second impeachment, not even after the role he played in the attack on the Capitol by his supporters on Jan. 6, 2021.

In each case, all but a handful of Republican elected officials rallied behind Trump — and still do…….

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/07/boris-johnson-faced-revolt-his-party-trump-never-had-that-problem/

Yeah, and that’s the sad part! Pretty much all of GOP laughed at Trump when he ran for Office! And doesn’t matter how many ******* he grabs, he is now the chosen one!

 

[RobF]

I was just thinking about that today. Apparently 50-ish members of his party resigned in protest due to his poor handling of a situation and lack of ethics/morals. Imagine if 50 republicans had the spine to do the same thing when Trump was shirtting all over the country for 4 years.. oh wait.. hardly any of them even voted to impeach him.

Substitute 'poor handling of a situation and lack of ethics/morals' with 'crashing polls and loss in two recent by-elections'.

He's been handling situations poorly and repeatedly demonstrating a lack of ethics and morals since long before he even became Prime Minister and his party has (mostly) been right behind him. He'd only been Prime Minister for a month before he attempted to illegally suspend Parliament to avoid scrutiny of his Brexit plans, and there's been calls for him to resign ever since, punctuated by one scandal or crisis after another. Even after nearly three years of this, he actually won a no-confidence vote in his party less than a month ago, with nearly 60% of Conservative MPs backing him.

This is a 'Enough Conservative MPs thinking they'll definitely lose the next election if they don't give him the boot to push the rest past the tipping point where they see Johnson as finally doomed and rush to distance themselves from him in the hopes of being able to get in with whoever the next leader turns out to be' thing. It was not a 'Conservative MPs have spines' thing. If he was still polling adequately, they'd still be right with him.

That is, the Conservative party here is on the same "We'll overlook pretty much anything for the perception of an increased chance of power," track as the Republicans there, albeit not collectively as far along it. So, while I would say there are certainly differences, it wasn't a systematic difference (although not directly electing the PM probably helped), and it was only 'a vastly superior sense of morality/propriety' in the sense that was reflected in the polling.

But ultimately the Conservatives here turned on Johnson just because they didn't see him as being able to offer power any longer.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

Substitute 'poor handling of a situation and lack of ethics/morals' with 'crashing polls and loss in two recent by-elections'.

He's been handling situations poorly and repeatedly demonstrating a lack of ethics and morals since long before he even became Prime Minister and his party has (mostly) been right behind him. He'd only been Prime Minister for a month before he attempted to illegally suspend Parliament to avoid scrutiny of his Brexit plans, and there's been calls for him to resign ever since, punctuated by one scandal or crisis after another. Even after nearly three years of this, he actually won a no-confidence vote in his party less than a month ago, with nearly 60% of Conservative MPs backing him.

This is a 'Enough Conservative MPs thinking they'll definitely lose the next election if they don't give him the boot to push the rest past the tipping point where they see Johnson as finally doomed and rush to distance themselves from him in the hopes of being able to get in with whoever the next leader turns out to be' thing. It was not a 'Conservative MPs have spines' thing. If he was still polling adequately, they'd still be right with him.

That is, the Conservative party here is on the same "We'll overlook pretty much anything for the perception of an increased chance of power," track as the Republicans there, albeit not collectively as far along it. So, while I would say there are certainly differences, it wasn't a systematic difference (although not directly electing the PM probably helped), and it was only 'a vastly superior sense of morality/propriety' in the sense that was reflected in the polling.

But ultimately the Conservatives here turned on Johnson just because they didn't see him as being able to offer power any longer.

Certainly they weren't entirely altruistic but it speaks volume of the overall character of the UK that the Conservatives didn't double and triple down on insanity/corruption like the GOP did with Trump.

 

[bird]

Certainly they weren't entirely altruistic but it speaks volume of the overall character of the UK that the Conservatives didn't double and triple down on insanity/corruption like the GOP did with Trump.

Yeah, and the electorate here…squirrel!

Where the bleep is my sarcasm button?

 

[RobF]

Certainly they weren't entirely altruistic but it speaks volume of the overall character of the UK that the Conservatives didn't double and triple down on insanity/corruption like the GOP did with Trump.

I don't disagree with the general premise - in an insanity contest between the Republicans and Trump, and the Conservatives and Johnson, there's clearly only one winner - but there's also a whole bunch of other things that are currently speaking volumes to the overall character of the UK, including but not at all limited to the ongoing shambles that is Brexit, and our current attempts to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda, a policy that's simultaneously cruel, futile, and self-contradictory in its justifications, and one that's also supported to some extent (according to polling) by around 44% of the population (and around 74% of of Conservative voters) with only 40% opposing or tending to oppose it.

And we should probably wait to see who the Conservatives pick as their next leader (and hence the PM) before we declare them not continuing down the insane and corrupt path. Some of the candidates... well, they aren't great.

From those candidates, the next PM of the UK will be decided by a party with just 200,000 members, to the extent those members even have a say. The list of candidates is first reduced to two through Conservative MPs voting on them, and then it's just those two the party members vote on. Unless it gets to that point and one of them suddenly withdraws (which is what happened when Theresa May became leader, after the second candidate, Andrea Leadsom, withdrew).

Essentially the process is a bit of a stitch up, with lots of backroom deals being made and donors' weight being thrown around behind the scenes to get it down to the 'right' two candidates, where 'right' is largely determined by the self-interests of MPs and donors.

I'm not saying they won't select a candidate with, let's say, actual integrity - they might, if they think that's their best shot at winning the next election - but ultimately, it's the same MPs, same donors, same members, and the same process, that selected and elected Johnson, and continued supporting him through every scandal, every failure, and every policy for nearly three years, despite knowing exactly who he was from the start.

So I can't say I'm optimistic. This could easily be a pit stop on the road of insanity and corruption, not a turnaround.

 

[bird]

I don't disagree with the general premise - in an insanity contest between the Republicans and Trump, and the Conservatives and Johnson, there's clearly only one winner - but there's also a whole bunch of other things that are currently speaking volumes to the overall character of the UK, including but not at all limited to the ongoing shambles that is Brexit, and our current attempts to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda, a policy that's simultaneously cruel, futile, and self-contradictory in its justifications, and one that's also supported to some extent (according to polling) by around 44% of the population (and around 74% of of Conservative voters) with only 40% opposing or tending to oppose it.

And we should probably wait to see who the Conservatives pick as their next leader (and hence the PM) before we declare them not continuing down the insane and corrupt path. Some of the candidates... well, they aren't great.

From those candidates, the next PM of the UK will be decided by a party with just 200,000 members, to the extent those members even have a say. The list of candidates is first reduced to two through Conservative MPs voting on them, and then it's just those two the party members vote on. Unless it gets to that point and one of them suddenly withdraws (which is what happened when Theresa May became leader, after the second candidate, Andrea Leadsom, withdrew).

Essentially the process is a bit of a stitch up, with lots of backroom deals being made and donors' weight being thrown around behind the scenes to get it down to the 'right' two candidates, where 'right' is largely determined by the self-interests of MPs and donors.

I'm not saying they won't select a candidate with, let's say, actual integrity - they might, if they think that's their best shot at winning the next election - but ultimately, it's the same MPs, same donors, same members, and the same process, that selected and elected Johnson, and continued supporting him through every scandal, every failure, and every policy for nearly three years, despite knowing exactly who he was from the start.

So I can't say I'm optimistic. This could easily be a pit stop on the road of insanity and corruption, not a turnaround.

Well, that sounds, sadly enough, like what goes on here.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

 

[bird]

Boris and Tucker both have punchable faces. Tucker puts on his ”surprised” face and instead looks like a kid who wonders why his lie to his mom didn’t work.

 

[zztop]

no idea who this is, but his replacement

Liz Truss vows tax cuts after winning vote to be next British prime minister

She vowed to press ahead with promised tax cuts and action to tackle a deepening energy and cost of living crisis.

www.reuters.com

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

She was previously the Foreign Secretary under Johnson. From what I could tell neither she nor Sunak (the two finalists for the position) were going to be particular strong in terms of the ability to convince voters to vote Conservative over Labour -- that said, conventional wisdom seems to be that Truss is the weaker of the two in that regard.