Jump to content

Talk:July 2022 United Kingdom government crisis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fork me (talk | contribs) at 20:54, 7 July 2022 (→‎Requested move 7 July 2022). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Merger proposal

CLOSED
The result of this discussion is NOT MERGED. Overwhelming consensus is apparent on keeping the two articles separate. Many of those opposed to the merge reason that the Chris Pincher scandal is not the only cause for many resignations during this crisis. Nythar (talk) 03:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oppose: MPs are resigning for various reasons, not just Pincher. Wjfox2005 (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oppose Much more nuanced than just the Pincher scandal. TheKaphox T 20:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support or at least rename the article. Calling this a government crises, is over-dramatic. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What alternative do you suggest? Mkwia (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What about "July 2022 United Kingdom MP resignations"? Peter Ormond 💬 21:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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., Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Requested move 7 July 2022

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    Love the title Collapse of the Boris Johnson Premiership Haveanimpact (talk) 11:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose As per above KeyKing666 (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. An exodus of government officials in this volume is a cabinet crisis. NPOV is satisfied in my opinion. Bgv. (talk) 17:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. In my opinion, this is a crisis and is being described as such. ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support IMO, should be "2022" rather than "July 2022". But I do agree it shouldn't be called "crisis". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We're only half way through through the year.... But yes. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support Agree mostly with what Keivan.f said. It is a series of resignations, like it or not 'crisis' is value laden. This is a crisis in certain respects: it is a cabinet crisis as suggested by Bgv. and it is most certainly a crisis for Boris Johnson, but it is not a UK government crisis. This is really just an orchestrated political powerplay to force him out of office that has been timed to have minimal effect so a new leader can be appointed prior to parliament entering summer recess: certainly not ideal but far from a crisis, especially since Boris Johnson resigned within two days, effectively resolving the 'crisis' part of this saga. Just because some sources are describing it as a crisis does not justify labelling it as such: as I said it is clearly value laden and (mass) resignations appear to be the most widely used term. My main objection here is 'British': title should be July 2022 UK/United Kingdom government resignations as it is the UK government not the British governmen - I would point out that one of the resignations was the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis), Northern Ireland being part of the UK but not Britain.John wiki: If you have a problem, don't mess with my puppy... 18:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support as the current title seems to be hyperbole. However I wonder if the article would be better if it were reorganised to be about Johnson's resignation (and everything leading up to it), with the title Resignation of Boris Johnson. — Czello 18:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It is most definitely a crisis. No PM in history has had as many government resignations in such a short space of time, to name it anything else would be misleading particularly when it is so readily called a crisis in reliable sources as highlighted by Edl-irishboy. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 18:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Move to "Collapse of the Boris Johnson Premiership" because that is what has happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haveanimpact (talk • contribs) 18:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also support this per my comment above. — Czello 19:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support - Agree with general sentiment of all the supports so far but I think 'Resignation of Boris Johnson' is a better title to go with Tweedle (talk) 19:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a crisis - support of what @Stevie fae Scotland said. CallMeHyphen (talk) 19:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "UK government in crisis as 2 key British cabinet ministers quit". youtube.com/c/globalnews. 6 July 2022.
  2. ^ "UK gov't crisis deepens as new ministers tell Johnson to quit". Al Jazeera. 7 July 2022.
  3. ^ McGee, Luke (6 July 2022). "Boris Johnson is deep in another crisis. This time, it really could be game over". CNN.
  4. ^ "UK political crisis deepens as PM Johnson's leadership hangs in the balance". Business Standards. 6 July 2022..
Resignations" is better than "crisis" "Resignations" is information / content. "Crisis" is a useless subjective characterization. Maybe "mass resignations" is even more informative North8000 (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Any other country, we would be calling it a government crisis and no one would bat an eye. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It is/was a crisis because there were already so many ministerial resignations that effective government could not be carried on, which seems to have been why Johnson eventually quit. Errantios (talk) 20:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is the textbook definition of a crisis. Clamless (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [reply]
"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Yes, Treltnitcher 60/179 is a whole 0.2195530726257‬% more than a third. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed @Trelnitcher: 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Ghmyrtle It's also more WP:NPOV, come to think. Llew Mawr (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes Fay Jones, a very popular local MP, should be added. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did he actually resign?

Nowhere in the text of Johnson's speech did he actually say he was resigning, tending his resignation, etc. There has been speculation by some Labour MPs that he didn't actually resign and is going to try and "un-resign" at a later date. For example "Tweet from Chris Bryant".. I know many reputable sources are saying he has resigned, but I'm very confused as to what they are basing this on. MrAureliusRTalk! 16:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He's still the Prime Minister & also Conservative Party leader, until October 2022. Frustratingly, many editors & ips think his resignations of both positions are immediate. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He said in his statement that he’d asked the 1922 Committee to start a leadership contest. He cannot stand in this contest, hence he has resigned. All mainstream media are also tonight reporting this as a resignation. Whilst we can’t put any tactic passed him (!!), I think it is entirely reasonable to refer to this as his resignation. BeaujolaisFortune (talk) 18:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He hasn't resigned yet. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is some confusion concerning what it means to resign. If you resign from a job by handing in your letter of resignation to your boss, that does not mean you are immediately out of work. "When you resign, you are telling your employer you are going to stop working for them." Usually there is a notice period. Johnson gave a speech in which he was clear he "agreed with Sir Graham Brady, the chairman of our backbench MPs, that the process of choosing [a] new leader should begin now." Johnson has resigned AND he is still carrying out duties as PM, e.g., this afternoon - after the speech - he spoke to President Zelenskyy. --Andi Fugard [they/them] (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He hasn't resigned, yet. He only announced his pending resignation. That's why we don't have "July 7, 2022" as his end dates for his service as Prime Minister of the UK & Conservative Party leader, in his BLP's infobox. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 July 2022

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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'Doherty (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:July_2022_United_Kingdom_government_crisis&oldid=1096968306"