For anyone outside the UK, it's hard to overstate both how big this is and what an absolute farce it's been. We've had major news channels keeping running totals of the resignations in the corner...
For anyone outside the UK, it's hard to overstate both how big this is and what an absolute farce it's been. We've had major news channels keeping running totals of the resignations in the corner like sports scores, Nadhim Zahawi being appointed Chancellor by Boris and then publicly calling for his resignation literally the following day, Michael Gove (a man aptly summed up by this comic) being fired for "disloyalty" even in the midst of everyone else walking out, one of our most serious and respected news shows replacing their end credits with a list of resignations set to Bittersweet Symphony, and just now a 24 hour scandal over the possibility that he was holding on for the extra three months to use the country residence for his wedding party (something that's now been moved because apparently the optics of that were a step too far).
It's very much one of those weeks that couldn't be fictionalised because nobody would believe it.
That's a thing of beauty, and pretty much spot on for the mood on the ground (at least among my liberal metropolitan elite™ bubble). Heartening to see it's #1 on trending right now, even above the...
That's a thing of beauty, and pretty much spot on for the mood on the ground (at least among my liberal metropolitan elite™ bubble). Heartening to see it's #1 on trending right now, even above the BBC footage.
He hasn't actually said he's going to resign. He has said that he will step aside when the Conservative Party elects a new leader. A lot could happen between now and then, and my concern is that...
He hasn't actually said he's going to resign. He has said that he will step aside when the Conservative Party elects a new leader. A lot could happen between now and then, and my concern is that he will find a way to prolong the process of leadership election. This is the man who illegally prorogued parliament, lied to the queen, continually broke the law (in a limited and specific way) in office, and has managed to wriggle out of every other scandal thus far. I won't trust that he's actually leaving until he is dragged from No.10.
Best case scenario that I see is his selfishness drags the party into an early general election - we might actually have a chance of meaningful change that way, rather than giving another two...
Best case scenario that I see is his selfishness drags the party into an early general election - we might actually have a chance of meaningful change that way, rather than giving another two years for the new leader to distance themselves from all this in the eyes of the public.
Admittedly I don't think it's likely, but stranger things have happened, and Boris is hardly the type to put party or country above even the tiniest glimmer of perceived self interest.
We've seen how well that works. A number have been impeached but none have actually been removed from office. Impeachment is also a legal trial, so certain thresholds have to be met to prove...
We've seen how well that works. A number have been impeached but none have actually been removed from office. Impeachment is also a legal trial, so certain thresholds have to be met to prove someone guilty.
I guess the U.S. is a bit different in that the general public directly vote on the president and vice president, as opposed to them being chosen by the majority party.
That is a failure of the people elected to office, not the system itself. When Trump was impeached, the problem we had was that almost nobody from his own party was willing to act against him. In...
That is a failure of the people elected to office, not the system itself. When Trump was impeached, the problem we had was that almost nobody from his own party was willing to act against him. In Boris Johnson's case, nearly his entire cabinet resigned in protest of his behavior.
I respectfully disagree. I think the system itself is broken. Republicans have shown that they are willing to break the norms and conventions of decades/centuries to get their end goals...
I respectfully disagree. I think the system itself is broken. Republicans have shown that they are willing to break the norms and conventions of decades/centuries to get their end goals accomplished, so the normal checks and balances just don’t work any more. They’ve so corrupted the system.
The system can technically provide a process while making it practically impossible, and I think you have to evaluate things in the context of their ecosystem. We could technically have a...
The system can technically provide a process while making it practically impossible, and I think you have to evaluate things in the context of their ecosystem. We could technically have a constitutional convention for some things that a strong majority of the population are in favor of, but the system is set up to require it be in the interest of (small) states so it's not a realistic option.
For impeachment you could argue that if the U.S. wasn't FPTP we wouldn't be stuck with two parties. In turn that would make it more likely for the leading party to only have a plurality allowing impeachment from a majority coalition. It would also make it less punishing to support impeachment of ones own party since you might defect to a more similar party (e.g., Liz Cheney can't get support as a Dem but you might go Labour->Lib Dem).
The system also includes how impeachment proceedings run, what information is accessible, the majority needed, etc., and all of that influences the feasibility of impeachment. A 2nd impeachment presided by the chief justice of the SCOTUS would have looked differently. Having the ability to get Trump to testify under oath or look at his finances may have changed things. Requiring 55% instead of a 2/3s majority or allowing anonymous votes might tempt defectors who otherwise would be ending their political career by opposing Trump.
You could also say that the confidence vote last month, which would have been binding, is more analogous to impeachment. It's not precisely the same - they're voting on exactly what it sounds...
You could also say that the confidence vote last month, which would have been binding, is more analogous to impeachment. It's not precisely the same - they're voting on exactly what it sounds like, their confidence in the leadership rather than his guilt of a crime - but it's a formal process to remove a sitting politician.
He narrowly made it through that, so he's legally allowed to stay, but he ended up being pushed out by overwhelming practical pressure (i.e. his entire government walking out around him) anyway.
As you say, both come down to his own party being willing to move against him, but I still find it interesting that he survived the de jure process and ended up being ousted by the de facto one.
It's not fundamentally different than what just happened in the UK. What is different is that even the Tories eventually do the right thing, whereas almost nobody in the GOP has enough of a spine...
It's not fundamentally different than what just happened in the UK. What is different is that even the Tories eventually do the right thing, whereas almost nobody in the GOP has enough of a spine to so much as speak critically of their dear leader.
The mechanics are slightly different: US Presidents are elected specifically to the role, whereas British Prime Ministers hold the office as a function of leading the ruling party, but it's still...
The mechanics are slightly different: US Presidents are elected specifically to the role, whereas British Prime Ministers hold the office as a function of leading the ruling party, but it's still possible for a president to resign while in office. It's only happened once (Nixon), but it can happen.
Of course there's the "would it happen?" question which is arguably more impactful than the "can it happen?" - I can't imagine Nixon stepping down if Watergate happened today, for example, but I could potentially imagine Biden being pressed to do so by his party if he made a fuck up of sufficient magnitude. It'd have to be big, and I don't think there's the same accountability within the Republican party for it to happen on their side, but I'd say it's still just about within the realms of possibility for the Democrats.
Not wanting to really continue the stereotypical American thing of making events in other countries somehow also about the US, but it is hilarious that we've gotten to a point that Nixon,...
Not wanting to really continue the stereotypical American thing of making events in other countries somehow also about the US, but it is hilarious that we've gotten to a point that Nixon, Richard-Fucking-Nixon, is a moralistically higher bar than what we have now/recently.
As @Greg said, they can resign, but it has only happened once and that was because Nixon knew he would be impeached and removed from office by Congress in the next few days if he didn't leave...
As @Greg said, they can resign, but it has only happened once and that was because Nixon knew he would be impeached and removed from office by Congress in the next few days if he didn't leave willingly.
For anyone outside the UK, it's hard to overstate both how big this is and what an absolute farce it's been. We've had major news channels keeping running totals of the resignations in the corner like sports scores, Nadhim Zahawi being appointed Chancellor by Boris and then publicly calling for his resignation literally the following day, Michael Gove (a man aptly summed up by this comic) being fired for "disloyalty" even in the midst of everyone else walking out, one of our most serious and respected news shows replacing their end credits with a list of resignations set to Bittersweet Symphony, and just now a 24 hour scandal over the possibility that he was holding on for the extra three months to use the country residence for his wedding party (something that's now been moved because apparently the optics of that were a step too far).
It's very much one of those weeks that couldn't be fictionalised because nobody would believe it.
Epic ranter Jonathan Pie had a particularly epic rant about the news in his usual style: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKrLBPmRsrM
That's a thing of beauty, and pretty much spot on for the mood on the ground (at least among my liberal metropolitan elite™ bubble). Heartening to see it's #1 on trending right now, even above the BBC footage.
Thing of beauty, indeed. “Not so much reshuffling deck chairs on the Titanic, more reshuffling cat shit on a litter tray.” 🤣
He hasn't actually said he's going to resign. He has said that he will step aside when the Conservative Party elects a new leader. A lot could happen between now and then, and my concern is that he will find a way to prolong the process of leadership election. This is the man who illegally prorogued parliament, lied to the queen, continually broke the law (in a limited and specific way) in office, and has managed to wriggle out of every other scandal thus far. I won't trust that he's actually leaving until he is dragged from No.10.
Best case scenario that I see is his selfishness drags the party into an early general election - we might actually have a chance of meaningful change that way, rather than giving another two years for the new leader to distance themselves from all this in the eyes of the public.
Admittedly I don't think it's likely, but stranger things have happened, and Boris is hardly the type to put party or country above even the tiniest glimmer of perceived self interest.
Boris Johnson blocks no confidence vote in his own government tomorrow
I wish there was a process like this for the U.S., instead we are stuck with shitty leaders for their full term.
Impeachment?
We've seen how well that works. A number have been impeached but none have actually been removed from office. Impeachment is also a legal trial, so certain thresholds have to be met to prove someone guilty.
I guess the U.S. is a bit different in that the general public directly vote on the president and vice president, as opposed to them being chosen by the majority party.
That is a failure of the people elected to office, not the system itself. When Trump was impeached, the problem we had was that almost nobody from his own party was willing to act against him. In Boris Johnson's case, nearly his entire cabinet resigned in protest of his behavior.
I respectfully disagree. I think the system itself is broken. Republicans have shown that they are willing to break the norms and conventions of decades/centuries to get their end goals accomplished, so the normal checks and balances just don’t work any more. They’ve so corrupted the system.
The system can technically provide a process while making it practically impossible, and I think you have to evaluate things in the context of their ecosystem. We could technically have a constitutional convention for some things that a strong majority of the population are in favor of, but the system is set up to require it be in the interest of (small) states so it's not a realistic option.
For impeachment you could argue that if the U.S. wasn't FPTP we wouldn't be stuck with two parties. In turn that would make it more likely for the leading party to only have a plurality allowing impeachment from a majority coalition. It would also make it less punishing to support impeachment of ones own party since you might defect to a more similar party (e.g., Liz Cheney can't get support as a Dem but you might go Labour->Lib Dem).
The system also includes how impeachment proceedings run, what information is accessible, the majority needed, etc., and all of that influences the feasibility of impeachment. A 2nd impeachment presided by the chief justice of the SCOTUS would have looked differently. Having the ability to get Trump to testify under oath or look at his finances may have changed things. Requiring 55% instead of a 2/3s majority or allowing anonymous votes might tempt defectors who otherwise would be ending their political career by opposing Trump.
You could also say that the confidence vote last month, which would have been binding, is more analogous to impeachment. It's not precisely the same - they're voting on exactly what it sounds like, their confidence in the leadership rather than his guilt of a crime - but it's a formal process to remove a sitting politician.
He narrowly made it through that, so he's legally allowed to stay, but he ended up being pushed out by overwhelming practical pressure (i.e. his entire government walking out around him) anyway.
As you say, both come down to his own party being willing to move against him, but I still find it interesting that he survived the de jure process and ended up being ousted by the de facto one.
Impeachment is a powerless action in today's congress. The only one that counts is conviction by the Senate, and I think it needs a supermajority.
It's not fundamentally different than what just happened in the UK. What is different is that even the Tories eventually do the right thing, whereas almost nobody in the GOP has enough of a spine to so much as speak critically of their dear leader.
Can they not resign? That's essentially what's happening here after everyone in the govt either quit in protest or told him he should quit.
The mechanics are slightly different: US Presidents are elected specifically to the role, whereas British Prime Ministers hold the office as a function of leading the ruling party, but it's still possible for a president to resign while in office. It's only happened once (Nixon), but it can happen.
Of course there's the "would it happen?" question which is arguably more impactful than the "can it happen?" - I can't imagine Nixon stepping down if Watergate happened today, for example, but I could potentially imagine Biden being pressed to do so by his party if he made a fuck up of sufficient magnitude. It'd have to be big, and I don't think there's the same accountability within the Republican party for it to happen on their side, but I'd say it's still just about within the realms of possibility for the Democrats.
Not wanting to really continue the stereotypical American thing of making events in other countries somehow also about the US, but it is hilarious that we've gotten to a point that Nixon, Richard-Fucking-Nixon, is a moralistically higher bar than what we have now/recently.
As @Greg said, they can resign, but it has only happened once and that was because Nixon knew he would be impeached and removed from office by Congress in the next few days if he didn't leave willingly.