Talk:July 2022 United Kingdom government crisis
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the July 2022 United Kingdom government crisis article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
![]() | An item related to this article has been nominated to appear on the Main Page in the "In the news" section. You can visit the nomination to take part in the discussion. Editors are encouraged to update the article with information obtained from reliable news sources to include recent events. Notice date: 7 July 2022. Please remove this template when the nomination process has concluded, replacing it with Template:ITN talk if appropriate. |
Merger proposal
The following discussion 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.
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#Analysis 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 💬 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)
- What alternative do you suggest? Mkwia (talk) 21:26, 6 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Requested move 7 July 2022
![]() | It has been proposed in this section that July 2022 United Kingdom government crisis be renamed and moved to July 2022 British government resignations. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}} . Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. |
2022 United Kingdom government crisis → July 2022 British government resignations – Similar to June 2016 British shadow cabinet resignations. Also, it is not really a crisis. Peter Ormond 💬 10:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Jeremy Corbyn wasn't prime minister. Also, such events could be referred to as crises. And why "British", specifically? Why not UK? Nythar (talk) 10:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose The number of resignations have reached a level at which whole swathes of the government cannot function. That seems to be a crisis 213.105.55.131 (talk) 10:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Support: more specific, unambiguous and gives more information (without being much wordier). Is this uniquely the "crisis" of the UK government in 2022? June 2016 British shadow cabinet resignations is a good precedent for article title. — Bilorv (talk) 10:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose This is a government and cabinet event, rather than a shadow cabinet. The consequences of this event has included the resignation of the Prime Minister himself and the mass amount of resignations has proven to be record-breaking. This crisis has created a situation in which the UK government currently cannot function entirely. An event like this is large and consequential enough to be considered a government crisis. The short-term and long-term consequences of this event is more than just resignations, therefore I don't believe it would be accurately described as simply that. Bnwkr (talk) 11:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- The word "crisis" doesn't mean "has important consequences", "breaks records", or "causes something not to function". It comes from a medical context in which it means a point (or a very short period of time) after which an ill person either recovers or dies. I detest the journalistic usage, where so many developments are referred to as "crises" practically every week. This kind of entry at Wikipedia, however, is basically journalistic, so the word "crisis" fits here well. Politicians and statesmen and journalists give their audiences what they want: excitement.
- If it were true that Boris Johnson would either fall imminently from office or else turn the tables and proceed along a path of becoming stronger in office, and also true that which of those two outcomes would occur were currently being fought over, with the winner undecided but about to emerge in the very near future, then "crisis" might be a good word. But it is not true, given that he is obviously on his way out of the door. There is no "crisis".
- Having said all of the above, I neither support nor oppose this motion. Better to concentrating on producing a good article. Treltnitcher (talk) 11:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose We don't yet know what the right title for the article is as it's still playing out. Likely, the the theme of the title will be along the lines of Resignation of Boris Johnson or the Collapse of the Boris Johnson Premiership. Leave as is until it all plays out. DeCausa (talk) 11:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Love the title Collapse of the Boris Johnson Premiership Haveanimpact (talk) 11:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- I wasn't actually suggesting that as a title, which was a red link when I posted the message. DeCausa (talk) 12:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Love the title Collapse of the Boris Johnson Premiership Haveanimpact (talk) 11:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Keep it as it is, we currently don't know how or when this will end and is far more significant that previous resignations due to it's sheer volume and the speed at which it's toppled a party leader (and PM). Kalamikid (talk) 12:25, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose There are significant constitutional implications even after Johnson's announcement, and the scale of resignations impeded the work of government - some government departments even had to cancel high-level meetings simply because there weren't enough ministers for the meetings (or any - such as Education for a while). The consequences are still unfolding, but are not confined to the resigning group or their political party, as the shadow cabinet resignations were. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 12:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose This was a political and constitutional crisis without precedent. The article should be titled in a way that reflects the significance of this event. Willwal1 (talk) 12:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Also agree with previous, including @Kalamikid and @DeCausa. We don't know how this situation will play out -- I suspect it will only be over once a new PM has kissed hands with HM. Willwal1 (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose I would most definitely characterise this is as a crisis. Additionally, adding "July" to the beginning of the article's title is completely unnecessary. Unless another crisis were to take place later this year, there's absolutely no need to specific in which month it occurred in the title Rwpardey01 (talk) 13:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose As per above KeyKing666 (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose This is a government and cabinet event, rather than a shadow cabinet. The consequences of this event has included the resignation of the Prime Minister himself and the mass amount of resignations has proven to be record-breaking. This crisis has created a situation in which the UK government currently cannot function entirely. An event like this is large and consequential enough to be considered a government crisis. The short-term and long-term consequences of this event is more than just resignations, therefore I don't believe it would be accurately described as simply that. Bnwkr (talk) 11:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps a case could be made that July 2022 British government resignations should be an article in itself, with the scope of this page expanded to include the previous crises that overlap with this one, i.e. Partygate and the vote of no confidence 131.111.243.147 (talk) 15:01, 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)
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)