Talk:2022 vote of confidence in the Conservative Party leadership of Boris Johnson

Politics of the United Kingdom Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Second Johnson ministry#February2022 – present|the cabinet]]

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Table of MPs who publicly called for resignation

I don't think this is the best way to show this information to our readers as a massive table in the middle of the article (especially for our mobile readers). What are some other ways we could display this? Pinging major editors Wilwal1, Arandompersonlol, Martinevans123, Kvalit. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 15:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It could at least be collapsed by default? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that this should be collapsed. It's pretty redundant now, following the vote. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to deletion then. Seems more appropriate for the Partygate article anyways since it's MPs calling for resignation and not for a vote. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 21:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two of us suggested it be collapsed? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my bad! I misread. I've reintroduced the table as collapsed initially, but I still think it merits inclusion in the parent article and not on this one. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 21:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an unreasonable point. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ixtal, but which do you think is the 'parent article' that covers all the topics that have contributed to the call for the confidence vote - do you think it is the main Boris Johnson article itself? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DeFacto, Partygate. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 22:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I'm using parent article here as a useful approximate term rather than something like a content split definition of parent and child articles. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 22:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Partygate is not the only factor involved in this. There is a whole section at Premiership of Boris Johnson#Turbulence since autumn 2021 covering a range of issues. That more overarching article would be a much more appropriate "parent article" for such a table. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is a much better section indeed, Ghmyrtle. The absolute chaos in Number 10 will be quite an effort to document in an encyclopedic manner. I wonder if WP:POLUK or a similar WikiProject has some kind of organized effort to improve how we do so, as many of the articles related to Johnson are in a terrible state either MOS-wise or content-wise due to the pace the controversy surrounding him has become increasingly complex. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 15:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ixtal, but the Partygate article only covers part of the story, so wouldn't be an appropriate place for the table. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @DeFacto. The article only covers a part of the story. Arandompersonlol (talk) 07:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 June 2022

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 01:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 vote of confidence in the parliamentary leadership of Boris Johnson → 2022 vote of no confidence in Boris Johnson – Not ideal I know, but "vote of no confidence" seems to be the common name used in news reports. Also tried to cut down the length of the title. QueenofBithynia (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the current length is too long. I think it might also be a bit unclear what a "parliamentary leadership" is in this case (as it is not a motion in the House of Commons), so I would alternatively propose 2022 vote of no confidence in the Conservative leadership of Boris Johnson. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 16:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"2022 vote of no confidence in the Conservative leadership of Boris Johnson" looks like a good title to me. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It was not a "vote of no confidence" in anything, the Tory party do not hold those. It was a "vote of confidence", and it was an internal party vote of confidence in Johnson's leadership in the party (see the BBC announcement of it here). But I would support a change to Vote of confidence in Boris Johnson or Conservative Party vote of confidence in Boris Johnson to clarify the scope. It doesn't need the year as it is the only such vote in Johnson ever held. If more are held in the future, then it can be moved appropriately. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why do so many WP:RS news sources use "vote of no confidence"? e.g.The Guardian, The Washington Post, The Independent, The Daily Telegraph, SkyNews, Financial Times, New York Times, etc., etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Martinevans123 the terms are interchangeable, but the votes are usually cast after someone files a motion of having no confidence in the leader, thus resulting in the voting issue. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 18:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well there's no "motion of having no confidence" in this case, but there are letters expressing no confidence, which amounts to the same I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A vote of no confidence would mean a 'yes' was against him - "yes, I vote no confidence in him" and a 'no' was for him - "no, I have full confidence in him. And that would be ridiculous. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are biased against Johnson perhaps? Or because news media like sensationalist headlines? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see. So The Daily Telegraph is "biased against Johnson" and/or "sensationalist"? That seems somewhat surprising. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen much evidence of it putting its weight behind him since Brexit? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Considering Boris has referred to the Telegraph as 'his real boss', and the Telegraph has major links with the Tory party, such as through many MPs & ex-leaders writing columns for it, I would say generally they are not biased against Boris or the Tory party. Quinby (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had time to read all the references, but do any of them use the 'vote of no confidence' line anywhere outside of their (totally unreliable) headlines? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend you make time to read those RS sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Put simply, there is a different between the motion and the vote (which can be taken to mean the result of the motion). Yes, this was a motion of no confidence, but a majority of Conservative MPs voted against it. Therefore, the article title should the vote of confidence in Johnson's leadership. See also: 2019 vote of confidence in the May ministry, in which the Commons motion was defeated. I would support a change to 1922 Committee vote of confidence in Boris Johnson or Conservative Party vote of confidence in Boris Johnson. Willwal1 (talk) 19:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why does the May vote article have the year 2019 in the title? Why does it use the word "ministry"? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Martinevans123 Fair point about the year, I would support including the year 2022 in the title of this article. However, the reason why "ministry" is included in the May article is that it was a Commons motion regarding confidence in her government. Yesterday's vote was specifically regarding Johnson's leadership of the Conservative Party, not his government. Big difference, especially considering the different implications of a successful no confidence motion by the 1922 Committee (the party leader resigns, new leadership election) vs by the House of Commons (Parliament is dissolved, snap general election). Willwal1 (talk) 19:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Willwal1 Just adding this on as a side note, 2019 vote of confidence in the May ministry should not be confused with the internal Tory party vote of no confidence in December 2018 (of which there doesn't seem to be an article for) Quinby (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Quinnnnnby Very good point -- would explain the point about the article's wording, as raised by Martinevans123. I would still argue that the title of this article should describe it as a vote of confidence in Johnson's leadership of the party. The proposed "vote of no confidence in Boris Johnson" seems vague and misleading. Willwal1 (talk) 20:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Willwal1 To an extent, I guess this pulls into question whether this article should exist at all. It could easily be broken down into parts and put into pages like Partygate and Next Conservative Party leadership election. The precedent for creating a page like this does not exist, especially when the Prime Minister survives it.

Though on the naming front, I would say I support any wording, though the current title seems a tad long and confusing, Quinby (talk) 20:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Quinnnnnby Yes, I must admit that I was unsure why this article was created. I would support deletion for the reasons you've stated. Willwal1 (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not crazy about the idea that the title for such votes would be contingent on the success of the motion. While there's much to be said for consistency with 2019 vote of confidence in the May ministry (which would still warrant a rename here), it's also worth considering WP:COMMONNAME and consistency with some other articles. The type of vote is described at Motion of no confidence, and variants without "no" redirect there. Motions of no confidence in the United Kingdom lists includes both successful and unsuccessful motions, though more of the former. --BDD (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BDD, I think you are confusing the Tory Party internal 'vote of confidence' process (in which just Tory MPs decide if they have confidence in their party's leader) with the parliamentary vote of no confidence processes where parliament (MPs of all parties) decide if they have confidence in the government and prime minister. In the Tory process which is the subject of this article, sitting Tory MPs vote 'yes they are' or 'no they aren't' in favour of having confidence in the their leader. The result is either 'they are in favour of having confidence in [the leader]' or 'they are not in favour of having confidence in [the leader] - it is called a 'vote of confidence', if they are not in favour, then a Tory leadership election is triggered. The process has only ever been used three times: once for Iain Duncan Smith (who was never the prime minister), once for Theresa May (no, not the same thing you linked to above which is the parliamentary process about confidence in the government), and here for Boris Johnson. The parliamentary system of votes, or motions, of no confidence is a different kettle of fish altogether, involving parliamentary votes. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Tory Party process is also frequently called, in WP:RS news sources, a "vote of no confidence". I wonder what process, if any, the Labour Party employs. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some news media call it that - mistakenly, or non-neutrally - yes. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would it still be called a "vote of confidence" if the result was 51% to 49% against? Or do we always start from the assumption that the Tory Party leader has the overall support of his MPs? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Tory process is called a vote of confidence. A simple majority is all that matters. If there are more votes in favour of having confidence than against then the result is that the parliamentary party does have confidence in him as the leader of the Conservative Party. If the result was the opposite, then replce 'does' with 'does not'. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably the Tory Party's preferred nomenclature is clearly written down somewhere? Of course there's no war in Ukraine, it's just a "special operation". There's no Uyghur genocide, just a "re-education program", etc., etc. Not all political terminology is necessarily "neutral". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly am! Thanks for setting me straight. And the reason I had looked this up was wondering how Labour members voted. I was surprised not to see anything on that. :) We still might consider COMMONNAME, but I'm clearly not knowledgeable enough about British politics to advocate strongly for a change. -- BDD (talk) 22:20, 9 June 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.

Parent and child articles

DeFacto has introduced a {{cn}} tag to the phrase Beginning in late 2021, the British government was criticised over a number of social gatherings and parties which occurred at government buildings (including the prime minister's residence at 10 Downing Street) while such meetings were legally prohibited due to the COVID-19 pandemic. I believe that this tag is unnecessary due to the {{Further information}} link above to Partygate. I am bringing this up in the talk page as they have reverted my revert of the tag. Pinging other active editors, @Wilwal1, Quinby, Martinevans123, and Ghmyrtle: (do tell me if you have the page watchlisted so I know not to ping you in the future). — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 22:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlisted, thanks. Technically, and predictable pedantically, DeFacto is correct. But the reader is not being misled. If someone cares enough to add a tag, and is also extremely familiar with Partygate, it should be very little extra effort to copy across a suitable source. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's something like being "correct" in this case (in fact, there is no actual requirement that said statement requires an in-line citation, see WP:MINREF, although I think we all agree we have a duty to go past the bare minimum). Whether the citation (or tag) is needed in this case is more of a subjective decision regarding when to cite. I see the link to the Partygate article (which explains the issue described in the sentence above in great detail) and the clear explanation in the sentence following (The ensuing scandal, which was dubbed "Partygate" [...]) enough to satisfy verifiability concerns. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 22:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was okay with it being 'verifiable', but without inline cites, until my additions were reverted as they were not supported by the cited source! Well, as we know, none of it was. So I guess this is why everything needs citing. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is going to complain if you add some sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:58, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Vote of confidence" and "vote of no confidence" redirects

As can be easily seen, both Vote of confidence and Vote of no confidence redirect to Motion of no confidence. Are these redirects correct? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say they should probably both be DAB pages. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A good idea. Or the target article could at least mention the Tory Party use in the UK section. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those redirects seem correct to me. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 14:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article for December 2018 Confidence Vote in Theresa May

From reading the move discussion, some editors have questioned the purpose of this article when Conservative MPs ultimately did express confidence in Johnson, and the fact that this wasn't a parliamentary vote of no confidence in the full House of Commons (i.e., a vote tabled by Keir Starmer) in the manner of the 2019 vote of confidence in the May ministry.

Therefore, if we are to retain this article and not delete/move some of its contents (e.g., to Partygate and Next Conservative Party leadership election), surely we should also have an article for Theresa May successfully surviving her confidence vote in December 2018? Perhaps the relevant content from 2019 Conservative Party leadership election could be moved to a new page and expanded upon?

JLo-Watson (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd encourage you to make a draft article and then see what the community opinion is on its stand-alone value (see WP:NOPAGE) , JLo-Watson. Once the community has something to judge it'll be an easier decision. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 15:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson's subsequent resignation

In noting the events of this vote, the buildup to it and its fallout, it seems manifestly clear that noting that Johnson announced his resignation a month after the vote. I have attempted to put in an explanation and discussion, which DeFacto has repeatedly reverted, claiming only that it is irrelevant, and that consensus has decided it is irrelevant. As this information had never been previously added to the article, or mentioned here, I am unclear as to why they think that. I asked for expansion, so far they have refused. Any comment or advice welcome. WorthPoke2 (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WorthPoke2, you are edit-warring your opinion into the article, even after it was disputed, without getting a consensus first. Why do you think your opinion trumps Wiki policy at WP:ONUS, which says: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have given reasons as to the inclusion multiple times. Including above. You have replied without making any argument against inclusion. (Beyond the blatantly obvious, [[1]]'s introduction includes the line "The following year would see Thatcher once again challenged and eventually resigning following further unrest and discontent with her party." You have yet to give any argument as to why you believe the prime minister announcing his resignation a month after a confidence vote should not be mentioned in the confidence vote's article. You claim I'm including "my opinion", when I've included sourced detailed facts accepted uncontrovesially elsewhere. What exactly is it that you think I have included that is opinion? WorthPoke2 (talk) 21:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WorthPoke2, it is your opinion that this should be included in the article. I challenged that giving my opinion that "these later events are irrelevant". You should now, per WP:ONUS, wait for a consensus before including it again.

What may have happened in other articles has no bearing here. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained my reasoning. Stating that something is irrelevant, without providing evidence, does not amount to a cogent argument. You misstate policy. The piece you link does not say that what happened in other articles has no bearing here, merely that what happens in other articles does not necessarily determine what happens here: these are not the same. (Per your link "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this". )

My argument is "Anyone reading an article about a Prime Minister surviving a confidence vote in the future will be interested in the context that Johnson resigned shortly after. Other examples of Tory PMs surviving internal challenges mention their relatively swift subsequent exits, and all references to this confidence vote in the media subsequent to Johnson's resignation mention his resignation.".

Are you confirming that the entirety of your argument is, as you say in the edit summary, that you believe there is no way that the month-subsequent resignation of Johnson can be mentioned in this article? I'd assumed you misunderstood. If so, do you wish to invite any other editor, who's contributed here previously or not, to weigh in? WorthPoke2 (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WorthPoke2, currently we have deadlock - I do not support your addition so it should be removed. Other interested editors will have this on their watchlist and will chip in if they feel inclined. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging JLo-Watson and Martinevans123 to see their view on the suggestion that it is inherently utterly irrelevant to mention Johnson's subsequent resignation on this page, as most recent other editors to comment here. WorthPoke2 (talk) 14:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe additions are helpful. It is certainly true in my view that the vote of confidence being called, and indeed the fact that Johnson's win was narrower than expected by observers but also his team themselves, helped to remove Johnson's perceived "immortality". The Chris Pincher scandal was viewed as "Johnson's last straw" and it was preceded by the vote of confidence a mere month earlier. Therefore, I support its inclusion. JLo-Watson (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WorthPoke2, but they weren't the most recent other editors to comment here, there were four others more recent than the first you called, and seven more recent than the second. So what criteria did you use to select those two? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see four others more recent? These are the two who started the topics before this one. I explicitly asked if you wanted to call anyone. You didn't, so I went for the two immediately above. Seems like consensus is with expanding, will revert shortly. WorthPoke2 (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WorthPoke2, here is the history of this talkpage and it shows what I said. And please read WP:CONSENSUS to see that it does not seem like there is yet anything like a consensus to keep your recent addition. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the additions are good as well. It would be good if we had a source which discussed an explicit link, but it would be silly for the article not to mention that he resigned only a month later. SmartSE (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you allude, this addition implies a link, and without reliable sources supporting that link, it would be pure original research, so a no-no.

This sub-article is specifically about the confidence vote, not what happened a month after it and is unrelated to it. The overview article (Premiership of Boris Johnson) covers the timeline of events either side of this, and includes summaries of, and links to, all of the numerous other sub-articles covering the details of the other events.

Per WP:IRRELEVANT, it does not add anything to the understanding of this event to summarise future events which could not have been foretold when this event happened, and are totally unrelated to it. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be complaining about me not tagging Cewbot in for discussion? You do not appear to be assuming good faith, and I am having severe trouble believing it from you.

It seems we have consensus. Multiple independent editors have expressed reasoned arguments as to why this addition should be included. One editor has said "it is irrelevant" without expansion and has consistently chosen not to expand on it.

Your argument was that you did not have to justify anything as burden of proof was on those seeking to add. Now you've had days of discussing without choosing to raise any specific concerns beyond "I think it's irrelevant and I do not have to say why", without engaging with substantive points, attempting to refine added material or raising any specific concerns. It is not clear to me that any concerns have been raised. WorthPoke2 (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WorthPoke2, it is you who is not assuming good faith. You said you 'tagged' the most recent other editors to comment here. I pointed out that that was not actually true as there were four other editors who had made more recent comments than the first editor you 'tagged' and seven more recent than the second, and asked you what criteria you used to select the two you 'tagged'. After you gave your answer I realised that you were confusing comments made with new discussion subjects created, and probably weren't up to speed with how consensus discussions work. I thus assumed good faith and gave you the benefit of the doubt I had that you might have selected editors based on what you thought their views might be rather than because they were recent contributors, and left it at that, advising you to read WP:CONSENSUS which explains how consensuses are reached and how canvassing can corrupt the process. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]