Talk:July 2022 United Kingdom government crisis/Archive 1

WP:NOTNEWS
A reminder about Wikipedia policy about gossip. I have removed the following line: "Despite not having made any public statements, Justice Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister Dominic Raab, Foreign Secretary Liz Truss, and Defence Secretary Ben Wallace are believed to be staying loyal to the Prime Minister." Mkwia (talk) 21:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Sir Graham Brady "wise advise"
Sorry, I'm not certain how to cite this properly, but ITV journalist Paul Brand has tweeted about Brady's "wise counsel" for the PM and this has been corroborated and included into an article from The Independent (Adam Forrest). The tweet seems to imply Wise Counsel constitutes "It's time for you to go mate", but that's perhaps an inference.SRCollier (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-1922-committee-rules-b2117289.html

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1544730023101403140?s=20&t=go4PowkMjStgelsSneDcdA

I barely touch wikipedia so if these are suitable citation, could someone edit these in? --SRCollier (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)


 * It's been added in, but I'll add the sources now. Thanks. Alextheconservative (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose merging 2022 United Kingdom government crisis into Chris Pincher scandal (or, possibly, vice versa) because the two topics are inseparable: the entire reason these resignations are occurring is in response to PM Johnson's role in retaining and appointing Pincher. If needed, a separate list of officials who have resigned can be compiled in an another article. MSG17 (talk) 17:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree, but I'm not sure which article to retain. I guess this one because whatever the cause ultimately it led to a political crisis. But going forward do we then merge this into the ensuing Conservative leadership article? This is Paul (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that a number of resignation letters don't cite the specific incidents (for example, Claire Coutinho describes "the events of recent weeks and months [that] are preventing us from [being successful]"). This crisis could therefore be a result of Partygate, as well as Chris Pincher. Alextheconservative (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Good point about the other controversies. Chris Pincher scandal mentions the impact of other scandals under the Johnson premiership, as well as the previous confidence vote, so maybe the Pincher scandal is just the trigger after a series of contentious events. MSG17 (talk) 18:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose: not all resignations have specifically focused on the Pincher scandal. Plus, this is an ongoing constitutional crisis that is noteworthy and deserves its own article, separate to the Pincher article. Willwal1 (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Not every resignation from the crisis is linked with the Chris Pincher scandal, Partygate and the second jobs controversy plays a major factor in it as well.  KeyKing666 (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Both articles are telling a different story. If the Chris Pincher scandal were merged into 2022 United Kingdom government crisis, then any subsequent developments in the Pincher story which are unrelated to the crisis in Johnson's government (i.e., if Pincher resigns as MP) would be out-of-place in the article on 2022 United Kingdom government crisis. Vice versa, if Johnson ends up ousted, that would be out-of-place in the article on Chris Pincher. I think the articles should remain separate. Lavn2 (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose: MPs are resigning for various reasons, not just Pincher. Wjfox2005 (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Willwal1: This is a significant and noteworthy event in UK politics and as such it would not be sensible to be linked with just the Pincher scandal. TRAVBRUHH (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. In the morning I searched “2022 resignations” to try and find a Wikipedia article about the subject but was surprised when I did not. Sahaib (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Much more nuanced than just the Pincher scandal. TheKaphox   T  20:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose For most of the reasons above. Whilst the Pincher scandal played a part in the triggering of this crisis, it is not entirely related. There are also several other causes, as are listed on the article itself. Rwpardey01 (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Would one merge FA Cup Final with an article about the guy who sells the hotdogs? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Would clog up page unnecessarily, most sources would describe the pincher affair as the straw which broke the camels back.Llewee (talk) 21:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support or at least rename the article. Calling this a government crises, is over-dramatic. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * What alternative do you suggest? Mkwia (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * What about "July 2022 United Kingdom MP resignations"?  Peter Ormond &#128172;  21:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If we are to rename then I would suggest July 2022 British government resignations, as per a similar article (June 2016 British shadow cabinet resignations). Willwal1 (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Can't think of a new name, thus my preference for merging. There's no crises, as the prime minister will either resign, be dismissed by the monarch (highly unlikely) or the '1922 committee' will change their 'once-a-year' confidence vote rule & favour non-confidence, thus 'forcing' a resignation or dismissal. GoodDay (talk) 00:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, or at least rename. "Government crisis?" It's one scandal, and this is the the aftermath of it. EoRdE6(Talk) 21:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose: As many have said before, these resignations are a culmination of past scandals, but also a valid point is that the future trajectory of each event can be drastically different (If there are to be some future developments in the Pincher scandal, it wouldn't be appropriate to have a detailed account of both the resignations AND Pincher's future on one page. It would be too much content going in two separate directions.) CJJ400 (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose: It derives from various scandals, the Chris Pincher scandal is the straw that broke the camel's back. The government crisis also comes in direct aftermath of Partygate and the Owen Paterson scandal. KeyKing666 (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose: I think we should keep them apart for now till we see how this scandal fully plays out. Catholic nerd
 * Oppose per everyone else. Love of Corey (talk) 02:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Minor inaccuracy in lede
The lede claims (without direct support from its reference) that OVER a third of HMG resigned before the PM. But 59/179 is, in fact, a little under a third: 0.3296. Llew Mawr (talk) 12:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The reference to the proportion being greater than a third first appeared in the article when the number of resignations was 60 (not counting Michael Gove's departure, characterised as a sacking rather than a resignation), and 60 is indeed greater than a third of 179. You should be more careful to check what you say before you contradict another person. Treltnitcher (talk) 12:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Treltnitcher Thanks for the clarification. I was merely concerned about the article's internal consistency as it only listed 59 at the time I wrote my comment here. Llew Mawr (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, Treltnitcher 60/179 is a whole 0.2195530726257‬% more than a third. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed needs to assume rather more good faith in his colleagues than he currently does. Perhaps (nearly) a third of his online approach is collegiate and friendly, but has resigned en mass over 72 hours... 2A02:C7C:36B1:FB00:ED40:DFAB:9D73:1D7 (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've changed it to "about one-third". As well as avoiding petty arguments over whether it was 59 or 60, it's also more accurate and precise. "Over a third" could mean 34%, 50%, 80%, 99.9%.....   Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Ghmyrtle It's also more WP:NPOV, come to think. Llew Mawr (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

How many of the resignations have been accepted?
Sajid Javid and Rishi Sunak's resignations were obviously accepted, because replacement ministers were appointed to their former positions, but how many of the other 60-odd have actually formally been accepted?

It's possible to guess that "they all have"; it's equally possible to guess that "none of them have" (apart from the two mentioned).

I have no idea what the answer is, or else I wouldn't have asked the question.

If someone thinks they do know, can they give sources please! Treltnitcher (talk) 11:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Isn't it parliamentary protocol for a Prime Minister to reply in writing to a letter of resignation? Perhaps these are not (always) made public. Or will he just stick up a general letter on the barn door? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's nothing to do with parliament. If a minister offers his resignation by writing a letter to the prime minister, the understanding being that the letter will then appear in the press, then yes the normal thing is for the PM to send him a reply that is also published. But in almost any job the resigning person has only officially left his post once his resignation has been accepted. This is important with regard to pensions, for example. There have been examples of ministers' resignations that have not been accepted. Given the sheer number of ministers who have resigned from the British government since Tuesday, one possible way that things might develop is that Boris Johnson will leave his post either without waiting for a successor to be appointed, or after a successor is appointed very fast - say by the end of next week - with most of the resigning ministers actually remaining in their posts. It's extremely unlikely that ~60 replacements will be appointed and none of the resigners will return to their old jobs - in my opinion.
 * Anyway the political journalists of the country are pathetic not to ask the basic question about the acceptance or otherwise of the resignations, preferring to publish scribble about whether Boris Johnson wants to stay in office as caretaker mostly so that he can have a big party at Chequers (which is a garish notion that sticks in the mind, but is almost certainly false).
 * Treltnitcher (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I feel sorry for poor Laura. There she was, strapping on her new big interview ears and in comes someone from Bradford and gets all the glory. Sorry, gets all the slagging off for being pathetic. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC) p.s. Chequers probably a dud, as no nearby Co-Op for suitcase of discount Bolly
 * "It's extremely unlikely that ~60 replacements will be appointed and none of the resigners will return to their old jobs." Will Quince is already "back in his old job" as children's minister. (Source.) There may be others already. Seriously where in parliament would one find 60 new faces ready to serve as ministers in a caretaker administration that is "committed" to avoid developing any policies? :-) Treltnitcher (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * And those in the forthcoming beauty pageant who might have any talent will surely all refuse, just to avoid being tainted by the Johnson mantle? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Images
May we please just have the Boris Johnson pending resignation image, at the top of the page? GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think the photograph with Sunak and Javid should be removed. The article isn't all about Johnson; it's about him as well as the all of resignations, and the top image reflects that as it shows the two main cabinet ministers that resigned. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could move the Javid and Sunak photo to the beginning of the "Collapse of the government" section (depending on how that looks with the side bar) as it is the place where it makes most sense for it to be. Cakelot1 (talk) 23:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 7 July 2022_2

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

2022 United Kingdom government crisis → 2022 British government crisis – related articles (e.g. 2022 British cabinet reshuffle) use "British" the verb, not "United Kingdom" the noun. The latter doesn't appear to make grammatical sense. Willwal1 (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak support. More idiomatic (and less misparsing chance) than current title (even though the current one is well-formed if "United Kingdom" modifies "government"). Prefer this to to other move suggestion (as they'd change scope of article). Llew Mawr (talk) 17:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Neutral - How are other such pages named? BTW: Is it a good idea, to have 'two' RMs concurrently running? GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I do prefer this title to any other move suggestion, as mentioned already by Llew Mawr. Edl-irishboy (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Neutral but agree that starting this request while there is already a name change request in progress was not a good idea. Fork me (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Simply for the reason that I actually think that article is mistitled. He is not the Prime Minister of Britain, and it is not the Cabinet of Britain, it's not the Government of Britain. They may be referred to as such domestically, but this is written for an international audience, and the name of the country is the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Calling it the British government is writing for domestic audience, IMO. Fbifriday (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Minister-by-minister resignation letters
Do we really need a minister-by-minister list of all individuals who resigned with Twitter links to their resignation letters? Will it matter in 10 years' time that the Prime Ministerial Trade Envoy to Angola and Zambia, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Children and Families and Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs resigned, or will it just matter that X cabinet ministers and Y other ministers resigned, including [a few particularly significant examples]? I'm particularly concerned by these direct links to letters that, besides being faux emotional crocodile tears nonsense with no important factual content, are uncritical republishings of Tory propaganda and MP press releases. This is a big NPOV problem. — Bilorv ( talk ) 08:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I think the current basic list format under 'list of departures' seems appropriate, especially given everyone there is obviously notable enough to have their own wiki page. I think in this section it is appropriate to include the links to their resignation letters as they are valuable and relevant primary sources that aren't being used in an inappropriate way (e.g., SYNTH). That said, I would agree that any narrative elements should be as concise as possible and only include name the most significant of the resignations. John wiki: If you have a problem, don't mess with my puppy... 18:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * What do we learn from each letter? Maybe there are some general themes, but these things are for the most part boilerplate text nonsense. If we've got journalists analysing what we can learn then we can include that, but I do oppose the inclusion of each letter, as they're mostly on Twitter it's likely going to lead to linkrot. — Bilorv ( talk ) 16:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Fay Jones has Resigned
Fay Jones has resigned recently here is evidence (sorry I don't know how to hyperlink them): -- BanzaiSi (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * https://nation.cymru/news/welsh-conservative-mp-fay-jones-resigns-despite-boris-johnsons-pledge-to-go/
 * https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-politics-62075177


 * Yes Fay Jones, a very popular local MP, should be added. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll add it now Alextheconservative (talk) 09:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Too early
This article seems to say that Johnson has already resigned. This seems to be premature. Jack Upland (talk) 09:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, the reporting is not clear, e.g. The Guardian says: "Boris Johnson is to resign on Thursday as Conservative leader but will push to stay on as prime minister until autumn, prompting a backlash from some Tory MPs who say he has to go now.... Johnson resigned after an extraordinary standoff with his cabinet, which ended after Nadhim Zahawi, his new chancellor, told him to quit. By that point, more than 50 ministers had walked out, citing his mishandling of a string of scandals and failure of ethics.". Martinevans123 (talk) 10:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I changed it back to "is expected to resign", WP:NOTNEWS; maybe wait a bit until we get clearer news. Nythar (talk) 10:10, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

"announcement of a new leader in autumn 2022". Autumn has been and gone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Local Potentate (talk • contribs) 01:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Should the timeline of the article be changed from "ongoing" to 7th July 2022?
Johnson's resignation is what seemed to be the end goal of everyone resigning and unless something major happens like a cabinet member being charged with a crime or something then it seems like johnson going is the end of the crisis. 2.27.241.133 (talk) 23:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)


 * There's still some discussion about replacing Johnson with a caretaker PM. I'd leave it for a bit longer to see if those discussions lead to anything. Alextheconservative (talk) 06:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Greenhalgh
I do not think that Greenhalgh should be included as part of the list of departures but did not delete due to the invisible note. Greenhalgh resigned after the mass ministerial resignations and in his letter states that he resigned after Johnson has stated his intention as he thought it was the right time so I do not see the relevance to this article. He is listed in the ministerial departures articles anyways so I see no reason for him to be here as this article is about the collapse of the Johnson administration. Encyloedit (talk) 14:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Needs an Aftermath Section
An aftermath section that talks about what happened after the Prime Minister's statement could be useful for context. Could also include things like statement about the government remaining in a caretaker/lame duck capacity where it wouldn't take long term actions or add new changes to current plans. Another thing is controversies that happened after like the comments from the New Leveling Up Secretary about Angela Rayner despite the PM's stance on said issue. (He described it as trife) or Staff & MP's voicing opposition after the PM's Statements being moved to the aftermath section. Aswell as the opposition party's announced intentions of filing a Motion of No Confidence for Tuesday 12th July 2022. Daesin (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)


 * It could be helpful for reorganizing the page for the proposed merger & rename too. Also please pardon my formatting, I didn't want to break anything by trying to fit everything in a neater way on the Mobile Editor. Daesin (talk) 16:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Lead description
The description of Boris' resignation in the lead should be changed to state he didn't immediately leave office - rather than saying he pledged to remain in power after promising to resign. This is more accurate and neutral within the context of the article - a resignation involves stepping down from a position - so the sentence should acknowledge his actions are factually at odds with his words.

This is also important in relation to the reaction to his announcement, due to fear (mentioned in the article) that he was abusing his power by remaining in office despite his promise. Stating that his actions objectivley contradicted his words contextualises this. I don't mean in a biased sense towards those reactions - I mean that the article body would be an expansion of the lead's summary - as is its purpose of course. This was how the lead was before and it's better if it stays that way. 'He promised to resign, pledging to stay in office' is about two different opposing things - and this should be clarified - also for the sake of coherent sentence structure. 78.149.121.207 (talk) 16:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't see how stating he would remain as Prime Minister until the Conservative Party leadership election winner is officialised could be considered inaccurate or not neutral. The current wording describes the reality of the situation, in that he would (future tense) resign but will stay on until a new leader is chosen.
 * However, part of this might be born out of the fact that there is confusion whether or not his resignation as leader is immediate or not (I see this dispute currently taking place at both Leader of the Conservative Party (UK) and Conservative Party (UK). I am inclined to leave the wording as it is as I do not find any inaccuracies in it. — Czello 16:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You've misunderstood me - I don't have a problem with that clause you highlighted. I just think the clause should be something like "however, he did not immediately leave office - stating he would remain as Prime Minister until the Conservative Party leadership election winner is officialised". Because the use of 'however' implies that remaining as PM even temporarily is factually at odds with saying you'll resign - which is true - and is important element of the article. 78.149.121.207 (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Words like "however" should generally be avoided (see WP:HOWEVER) as it inherently implies something - as you've detailed in your comment, it's implying Johnson's actions are hypocritical. That's not the case, though - he never promised an immediate resignation, he announced he would resign as PM when a new leader is chosen. The current wording is the most to-the-point and factual. I can't see how saying you will resign is in anyway "at odds" with temporarily remaining PM. — Czello 16:55, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Because a temporary resignation isn't a resignation - it's factually an oxymoron. 78.149.121.207 (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No one said anything about a "temporary resignation" - I'm not sure what that means. — Czello 16:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the confusion- my morphology was awkward.
 * I meant to say that the phrase 'unimmediate resignation' is factually oxymoronical - a resignation by its very nature involves leaving a position - not promising to stay, regardless of the time period. This isn't a case where he's promised to resign and is saying he needs a few days to organise before he leaves - this is him staying in power rather than out of power - the latter being the whole point of a resignation 78.149.121.207 (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This would make sense if he promised his immediate resignation, which he didn't. It's pretty clear - he announced he would resign (again, future tense). — Czello 17:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * But that's the problem - regardless of what he announced - it's not possible for anyone (him or otherwise) to promise to resign but temporarily stay in power. It's a paradox 78.149.121.207 (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Why is it? It'd be a paradox if he said he would immediately resign, but he only ever said he will resign when a new leader is chosen. How is this a paradox? — Czello 17:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No paradox but a flexible Notice period, between resignation date and last working date? See the following part of the 7 July speech: "I have today appointed a cabinet to serve - as I will - until a new leader is in place". Uwappa (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any need for a "however". More generally, we should say less if we're not certain what the precise situation is. Whether he is party leader today is unclear. On the model of what happened when May and Howard left, this citation implies Johnson can no longer be leader now the contest to replace him has started. Lots of articles say Johnson "has resigned" but there may be some ambiguity as they don't state as of when. Articles like this in the Guardian or this in the Washington Post contrast Johnson resigning as party leader but not as PM, implying he has gone as leader. I think that's all sufficient to say he is now an ex-party leader, but I understand some editors want something more explicit. I certainly don't think we can assert that he remains leader in the absence of WP:Verification. Bondegezou (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The article should describe the doubts, with sources for different points of view. Uwappa (talk) 19:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No. There's no debate or doubt in the sources - which would be the only reason to expose it in the article per WP:NPOV. This is not an issue the sources care about. The doubts are the correct interpretation those sources as expressed by Wikipedia editors. That shouldn't be exposed in the article but should follow WP:CONSENSUS. Two different concepts. DeCausa (talk) 19:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * We're still waiting for the Conservative party's take. They still have BoJo on their website. GoodDay (talk) 05:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If the Conservative Party makes a statement on this matter, that will be useful, but we don’t need to wait for them. As Wikipedians, we should use reliable sources to write articles. We favour secondary sources over WP:PRIMARY ones. The Tory party website has lots of pictures of Boris, but I can’t see where it says he is still leader.
 * Here’s another article that says Johnson “has resigned” as party leader but remains PM. Bondegezou (talk) 06:44, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Full Fact looked into this, and here's what they say: "The Conservative party has confirmed to Full Fact that Mr Johnson is also still currently party leader". -- DeFacto (talk). 07:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That article concludes Johnson was party leader on 8 July, but it also says that he may not be leader once the leadership campaign formally begins, as it did yesterday. It points out that May stayed on as party leader for a short time, but ceased to be when the leadership election to succeed her started. Which leaves us with some ongoing ambiguity. Bondegezou (talk) 07:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This makes sense and it should be stated clearly in the lead, since the way it is worded now leaves room for confusion. That is, he will remain party leader and PM until the conclusion of the election for a new party leader. Nxavar (talk) 08:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is completely clear that he remains party leader until the conclusion of the election for a new party leader. With May and Howard, they only remained party leader until the start of the election for a new party leader. However, the Full Fact piece posted is probably the clearest thing we've got, so, OK, happy to use that. Bondegezou (talk) 09:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The Full Fact source actually supports the current status of the lead: that the only thing we can do is guess. Since Boris can formally resign at any point until the election, we can never be sure. Nxavar (talk) 09:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)


 * For goodness sake, will you please let the Conservative party have the final say on the topic? GoodDay (talk) 13:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The Full Fact article is a secondary source, links to several sources with different views. Isn't the Conservative Party a primary source, close to the event? Uwappa (talk) 13:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Per PRIMARYNOTBAD, The Conservative Party are the authoritative source on who is the leader of the party, and on how the party leadership is decided JeffUK (talk) 14:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The Conservative Party has updated its website, nothing about who is the leader of the party. See https://www.conservatives.com/leadership-faqs and https://www.conservatives.com/news Uwappa (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Change article name or give a larger scope?
I suggest this article changes name to the July 2022 UK government crisis or something to that effect.

From my perspective, however, the better option is to expand the scope of the article. Whether the PM ends up resigning or not, this week’s happenings are not independent from all the other 2022 developments, and must be put into context.

First off, it must mention the vote of confidence organised by the 1922 committee in June. At that time, media repeatedly reported that Johnson won but still may resign later this year, citing Thatcher and May as precedents.

There are several other incidents that also make up the background to the current proceedings, most notably the June by-elections.

Should the PM chose to resign, the article will have to include a much broader scope, as his and the mass resignations during the first week of July surely cannot be understood solely on the basis of the Pincher affair. OJH (talk) 08:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If there's going to be a stand-alone article separate from the Chris Pincher scandal article, I think widening the scope to include the confidence vote and Partygate and COVID contracts and so on is definitely the way to go - but maybe the name of the article should be changed to something like "Resignation of Boris Johnson"? NHCLS (talk) 10:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the resignation of the PM took care of the naming question. It now is the one and only very major UK government crisis of the year. I withdraw my previous comment! OJH (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)