Template:Vital article

Former good article nomineeBoris Johnson was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 12, 2005Articles for deletionKept
January 2, 2013Good article nomineeNot listed
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on July 24, 2019.
Current status: Former good article nominee

WikiProject iconGuild of Copy Editors
WikiProject iconThis article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 16 July 2021.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Lead changes

Hi all, I recently attempted to shape the lead summary of Boris' premiership into something resembling a chronological narrative while maintaining the current length. This was a bold edit and I'm not particularly surprised it has been largely (but not fully) reverted by EddieHugh. However, I believe the text I introduced was a major improvement on the previous version and made it far more useful to the reader, per WP:AUDIENCE, by turning it from an inaccessible list of contextless facts to a brief analytical summary of the notable features of tenure expanded upon in the article body. (A relevant essay on this WP:RF). Eddie Hugh removed two specific additions with the edit summary "cut opinion and length". Regarding length, the total number of additional words was 40, which I think is a very small increase in return for a significant increase in readability and imparted understanding for the reader; it's also a very minor change in relation MOS:LEADLENGTH, which recommends 3-4 paragraphs (the revised still falls comfortably within this range). Regarding the assertion that the additions are "opinion", I'd like to discuss both separately, explaining why I disagree with the revert rationale and why I think both changes are improvements: Jr8825 • Talk 18:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for engaging on the talk page instead of reverting – a blessed relief compared with my recent experiences. My edit summary was actually "cut opinion and length (the lead is a summary; only the most important information should be here)". In an article on a current, very high-profile politician, we know that more information will have to be added (eg, he'll be an ex-PM one day). Therefore, we need to be very selective about what's in the lead. Exact dates of agreements ("17 October") aren't needed, and commentary (or "analytical summary") should be extremely selective, reserved for things that require contextual expansion. I agree that the flow of the lead could be improved, but that can be done with wording tweaks instead of additional sentences. Specific points are below. EddieHugh (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for shortening your edit summary. I take your point about the exact date being unnecessary. My thought process is that a date is helpful as it provides context for the surrounding sentences (i.e. negotiations were ongoing but not completed during the September prorogation, the snap election was called soon after Johnson had successfully reached a new agreement with the EU). While this might not be essential in itself, I think a date – perhaps a less precise one, such as "In October," – does add value to the paragraph by helping the reader understand how events related to each other. Jr8825 • Talk 23:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prorogation

The reverted content is as follows:

−
Johnson [[Brexit negotiations in 2019|re-opened Brexit negotiations]] and in early September [[2019 British prorogation controversy|suspended Parliament]], a move widely seen as an attempt to avoid parliamentary scrutiny of the Government's Brexit plans; the [[Supreme Court of the United Kingdom|Supreme Court]] ruled the action unlawful later that month.
+
Johnson [[Brexit negotiations in 2019|re-opened Brexit negotiations]] and in early September [[2019 British prorogation controversy|suspended Parliament]]; the [[Supreme Court of the United Kingdom|Supreme Court]] ruled the action unlawful later that month.

This statement is supported a clear weight of sourcing – from across the political spectrum, as demonstrated by The Telegraph citation in the article body – and reflects what is said in both the body and in the article on the controversy itself in the briefest possible manner. I believe that the contextual knowledge provided (prorogation was widely described as a move designed to limit parliamentary scrutiny) is essential to understanding why it was considered controversial, ended up at the High Court and sparked a temporary political crisis which was a notable feature of his early premiership. Jr8825 • Talk 18:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's the relevance of commentary on how something was seen? The prorogation and SC decision seemed important at the time, but appear to have had a negligible impact. (You describe it as "a temporary political crisis" – that's right; very temporary, in fact. So why give it more attention than, say, his party's election win, where we offer no interpretation?) This is the article on Boris Johnson, not Brexit, or prorogation. Arguably, then, it's not worth mentioning at all in the lead, except that a PM's actions (actually the government's, so that could be rephrased for clarity) being ruled unlawful is unusual, so there's some merit to including "the Supreme Court ruled the action unlawful". EddieHugh (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I think it needs more space is not because it's necessarily more important to Johnson than the election win, it's because I think it's simply harder to explain to the reader, and consequently needs more words dedicated to it (I think cutting the clause about the political purpose results in the controversy of events not being spelt out clearly). My view is that its importance is established by its unique/unprecedented context within British constitutional history, a point sources made at the time. However, as there's disagreement about this, I agree this is something that other editors should weigh in on before inclusion. Jr8825 • Talk 23:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts, perhaps saying "...and in early September controversially suspended Parliament;" does the job adequately? Jr8825 • Talk 23:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Meh: it being declared illegal is enough to show that it was controversial. And what about a political leader's political actions isn't controversial? We could accurately report "After agreeing a controversial revised Brexit withdrawal agreement with the EU but controversially failing to win parliamentary support for the agreement, Johnson controversially called a snap election". It doesn't add anything. EddieHugh (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The difference in my mind is that the snap election didn't spawn a "crisis". I respect your opinion though and I'm keen to hear whether other editors share your view. I don't object to the word being removed if it lacks consensus, I hope I made this clear with my edit summary. Jr8825 • Talk 17:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NI Protocol

The reverted content is as follows:

−
On 17 October, a revised [[Brexit withdrawal agreement]] was agreed with the EU, the most significant change being the replacement of the [[Irish backstop]] with a new [[Northern Ireland Protocol]]. After failing to win parliamentary support for the revised agreement...
+
After agreeing a revised [[Brexit withdrawal agreement]] with the EU but failing to win parliamentary support for the agreement...

This is a relatively uncontroversial statement and the NI Protocol is an exceptionally notable piece of legislation: dropping the unpopular backstop was a key part of Johnson's public agenda; the new NI Protocol was widely discussed at the time (and still is) and has had major political and economic repercussions for the UK & NI. It helps readers unfamiliar with the topic to understand that the NI Protocol (frequently mentioned in media sources) is connected with the revised withdrawal agreement, and explains the central difference between Johnson and May's approaches to Brexit. The other change to the withdrawal agreement was the political agreement, which received far less attention, and is not particularly notable to Johnson's life in its entirety (the subject of this article). I don't particularly object to its addition, but my concern was brevity and summarising the most important elements of Johnson's tenure. Additionally, the additional wording provides better chronological flow. I look forward to hearing others' opinions on these proposed changes. Jr8825 • Talk 18:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I've missed it somewhere in what is a mess of an article, the NI Protocol isn't mentioned. Yet the edit stated in Wikipedia's voice that this was "the most significant change". EddieHugh (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fair point – but most importantly it's an indication that the new NI protocol is missing from the "Brexit policy" sub-section of "First Ministry (July–December 2019)", a major oversight as it really should be there. This looks like the result of the prose simply being outdated: the whole section is inadequate as it completely fails to mention the finalised agreement and concludes with Johnson's failure to call a snap election on 15 October, even though the election was called soon after because of the lack of parliamentary support for the agreement. I'm happy to go ahead and rewrite it with a more detailed summary of the revised withdrawal agreement, with additional sources, over the next few days. The NI Protocol was the most significant of the changes in the 2019 renegotiations, I've little doubt the weight of RS analysis/news reports supports this. Johnson's opposition to the backstop is also mentioned in two other separate sections, "2019 Conservative Party leadership election" (within "Return to Parliament") and "Immigration and the European Union" (within "Political positions and ideology"). These mentions are insufficient though, as they're discussing his position prior to becoming PM and prior to the outcome of the 2019 negotiations. Although they demonstrate the importance of Johnson's opposition to the backstop to his political positions, they're relatively less notable compared to what he actually achieved in the revised agreement. As I touched upon above, aside from possibly the pandemic response, the withdrawal agreement, enabled by the NI protocol (and subsequent "Irish Sea border"), is very likely the most notable policy he has implemented as PM so far, so I think it's a very strong candidate for inclusion in the lead (and should be, in my view). Jr8825 • Talk 23:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@EddieHugh: I've gathered a selection of quotes from RS to demonstrate both that 1) the 2019 NI Protocol has been an extremely important policy within Johnson's PMship and 2) the new NI Protocol is unanimously considered to be "the most significant change" coming from his 2019 renegotiation. The protocol is likely to be heavily discussed in the short term as the UK and EU argue over whether it should be replaced, so I also backdated some searches to show how consistently mentions have been over the last few years. Frankly the list of sourcing for the importance of Johnson's NI Protocol is inexhaustible, but this is what came near the top of my results:
Sourcing demonstrating importance of NI Protocol
  • BBC: The government said border checks on goods from Great Britain it signed up to in the 2019 Brexit divorce deal had proved unsustainable. ... The checks are included in the Northern Ireland Protocol, a section of the Brexit deal designed to avoid border checks on the island of Ireland. [1]
  • CNBC: The U.K. has called for a complete overhaul of the Northern Ireland Protocol, a key tenet of the Brexit agreements that Prime Minister Boris Johnson agreed with the European Union in 2019. [2]
  • France24: The Northern Ireland Protocol in the Brexit withdrawal deal replaced the prospect of a problematic frontier between the UK and the Republic of Ireland with the reality of a problematic frontier between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. ... the Irish Sea border disrupted food supplies and online shopping deliveries ... graffiti opposing the customs border emerged in unionist areas while authorities had to suspend customs checks at Northern Irish ports due to “menacing behaviour” from some loyalist militants. [3]
  • Reuters (via France24): The Northern Ireland protocol was part of the Brexit settlement, backed by Prime Minister Boris Johnson, that finally sealed Britain's divorce from the EU four years after voters backed leaving in a referendum. [4]
  • Institute for Government: On becoming prime minister in July 2019, Boris Johnson declared May’s backstop “anti-democratic and inconsistent with the sovereignty of the UK as a state”.[4] By October 2019, the prime minister had made good on his promise to renegotiate the Withdrawal Agreement and ‘ditch’ the backstop. ... The new protocol made the Withdrawal Agreement acceptable to pro-Brexit Conservative MPs ... But it drew strong criticism from the Conservative Party’s then confidence-and-supply partner: the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP). After the Conservative victory in the December 2019 general election, the UK government pressed on with ratifying the deal despite the newly re-established Northern Ireland assembly unanimously rejecting it. [5]

Sources to show this has been continuously reported:

  • The Independent (Jan 2021): The Road Haulage Association has warned that the supply chain is “within days of falling apart” because of new Brexit paperwork making it much more complicated and expensive to transport goods from the British mainland to Northern Ireland. But Mr Johnson played down the seriousness of the problem, caused by the introduction of a customs border down the Irish Sea under the terms of the EU withdrawal agreement which he signed. He said he was ready if necessary to invoke Article 16 of the agreement’s Northern Ireland Protocol, which gives the UK the right to take “appropriate safeguard measures” without consulting Brussels if the settlement causes “serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties”. [6]
  • The Guardian (Jan 2021): The EU caused outrage on Friday evening when it invoked article 16 of the post-Brexit mechanism to stop the unimpeded flow of vaccines from the European bloc into the region. But it later abruptly reversed the move following condemnation from London, Belfast and Dublin. [7]
  • FT (Sept 2020): The UK government was explicitly warned in January that Boris Johnson’s Brexit divorce deal would leave Brussels able to claim jurisdiction over “large amounts” of UK state aid policy after the end of the transition period ... Under the Northern Ireland protocol, which was agreed to enable Brexit without creating a hard border on the island of Ireland, the UK agreed the region would follow EU state aid law for any matter that affected goods trade. [8]
  • The Irish Times (Sept 2020): ... threatens to derail the current EU-UK trade negotiations, which resume in London on Tuesday. Brexiters fear that the withdrawal agreement, which includes a protocol to avoid a return to a hard border in Northern Ireland, makes it impossible for the UK to be truly sovereign because it leaves London tethered to Brussels in key areas, including state aid and customs policy. [9]
  • Bloomberg (Aug 2020): The Brexit Withdrawal Agreement signed by Johnson in late 2019 effectively creates a customs border in the Irish Sea, where goods crossing from the rest of the U.K. to Northern Ireland must comply with EU rules and pay any potential post-Brexit tariffs. The solution was designed to avoid creating a hard border on the island of Ireland. [10]
  • Sky News (April 2020): But the government's command paper on how it plans to implement the Northern Ireland protocol paints a rather different picture of what has been agreed. There won't be checks on goods moving between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, but there will be "some new administrative processes" on products coming in the opposite direction. [11]
  • The Guardian (Nov 2019): Boris Johnson has been accused of misleading the public about his own Brexit deal, after footage emerged of him telling exporters in Northern Ireland they will not need to fill in extra paperwork. ... Under Johnson’s revised withdrawal agreement, Northern Ireland will continue to follow the EU customs code, which includes customs declarations and other formalities. [12]
  • FT(Dec 2019): Boris Johnson’s honesty was put under the spotlight on Friday after he insisted his Brexit deal would not require any checks on goods travelling within the UK across the Irish Sea, in spite of abundant evidence to the contrary. ... consequences for small traders of the Northern Ireland protocol agreed between the UK and EU as part of Mr Johnson’s withdrawal agreement. [13]
  • BBC (Oct 2019): Most of the changes - to the deal agreed by Theresa May with EU in November 2018 - are to do with the status of the Irish border after Brexit. This issue has dominated talks for months. ... The new protocol replaces the controversial Irish backstop plan in Theresa May's deal. Much of the rest of that deal will remain. [14]
  • Full Fact (Oct 2019): One of the key differences between the Withdrawal Agreement drawn up by this government and the EU, and the previous one signed off by Theresa May’s government, is the Northern Ireland protocol. It has been argued that the new withdrawal agreement will create a “border down the Irish Sea” with checks taking place on goods crossing into Northern Ireland from Great Britain. [15]
  • Washington Post (Oct 2019): Much of Johnson’s deal remains the same as his predecessor’s, with language on the transition timing, the rights of E.U. nationals and the amount of money Britain has to pay the E.U. — the “divorce bill” — largely the same. Where it differs significantly, however, is how it handles Northern Ireland and the risk of a hard border with Ireland. [16]
  • Politico (Oct 2019): The Political Declaration is not legally binding. But assuming nothing else has changed in the legally-binding Withdrawal Agreement other than the Northern Ireland Protocol (as appears to be the case)... [17]
  • FP (Oct 2019): Very little actually distinguishes Johnson’s proposal from that of his predecessor, former Prime Minister Theresa May. The only substantial difference is the economic status of Northern Ireland post-Brexit and, specifically, how to manage the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland [18]

Demonstration of JSTOR sourcing:

  • ...agreement was reached in October 2019 on a revised Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland. Johnson was certainly able to claim that the backstop had gone; with the revised Protocol,[17] the UK was no longer committed to a customs union with the EU if the future UK-EU relationship did not deliver on avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland. The reason was simple: in exchange for dropping the UK-wide Customs Union with the EU, Johnson had agreed that the Protocol's differentiated arrangements for Northern Ireland would be the default position at the end of transition. Westlake, M. (2020). Outside the EU: Options for Britain. Agenda Publishing. p. 168. ISBN 978-1-78821-312-7. JSTOR j.ctv16qjx9d.20.
  • Although the Irish border was becoming an external EU boundary both sides wanted to ensure that the integration on the island of Ireland was disrupted as little as possible in the process. ... [under the protocol] the UK agreed to apply the rules of the EU as if Northern Ireland were still in the EU's customs union and single market for goods. And the EU agreed to treat Northern Ireland on these terms, and to depend on the UK authorities to enforce its rules. This constitutes an extraordinary economic arrangement. It is unprecedented in terms of international law. Hayward, Katy (2020). "Customs, consent and compromise: The significance of the Brexit Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland". Fortnight (479): 22–24. ISSN 0141-7762. JSTOR 26991402.
I will try to update the body shortly to integrate some of the relevant detail about Johnson's Brexit policy during his first ministry. Jr8825 • Talk 15:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
( Done) – although further work is needed on the Brexit section's final paragraph to tie it into the "2019 general election" section. Specifically, information is missing on Johnson's failure to win approval for the revised withdrawal agreement and the subsequent calling of the election (his Benn Act-mandated Brexit extension might also warrant a passing mention, although it's a balancing act with clarity/brevity). Also, the "loss of working majority" section might benefit from minor contextual additions. These changes should make the chronology of events clearer. I've got some half-baked ideas about how to implement them, but I'm unsure when I'll get round to it so if someone else wants to go ahead, please feel free.
So, with the backstop & NI Protocol now discussed in the appropriate place in the article body, and the above sourcing demonstrating their significance, do others have objections to the following change?
−
After agreeing a revised [[Brexit withdrawal agreement]] with the EU but failing to win parliamentary support for the agreement...
+
In October, a revised [[Brexit withdrawal agreement]] was agreed with the EU which replaced the [[Irish backstop]] with a new [[Northern Ireland Protocol]]. After failing to win parliamentary support for the agreement...
Thanks, Jr8825 • Talk 23:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An abundance of sources – thank you. The only one that I see observing directly that this was pivotal is the one with "a key tenet", which isn't even "the key tenet". There were others at the time. But the rewording omits the original's "the most significant change", so I'm neutral on it. EddieHugh (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Prorogued" vs. "suspended" vs. "discontinued"

Which word is better in the lead?

I strongly prefer "suspended", because "prorogued" is not common vocabulary and "discontinued" is less clear (it implies a permanent end). A glance at the Wiktionary entry for the word indicates that its usage here is political jargon, as it's now rarely used to mean "deferral to a later time; postponement". As I explained in my edit summary, the relevant policy is WP:TECHNICAL (i.e. writing for the WP:AUDIENCE). There's a specific section on the importance of leaving technical details out of the lead. There's also MOS guidance at MOS:JARGON. Most sources introduce "prorogation" as "suspension/suspended" to aid readers' understanding: to pick two examples, see the BBC and Brookings. I'd appreciate it if the two editors who oppose this change, JLo-Watson and DeFacto, could offer policy based reasons for choosing the more technical constitutional term. Responding to JLo-Watson's edit summary about the prorogation article title, please see WP:OTHERCONTENT. As it happens, I don't think there's anything wrong with having an article called "2019 British prorogation controversy" and a piped link from "suspended" here; I don't have issue with that title, it's accurate because the controversy was legal/constitutional. Also, that article's second sentence explains "the prorogation, or suspension, of Parliament was... Jr8825 • Talk 17:34, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jr8825, I prefer the correct technical term - "prorogued" - as it is the least ambiguous and most accurate word for it. If there's a correct word for it then why compromise? And Wikitionary is not a reliable source, it can be changed by anyone, just like Wikipedia. You need to look at the OED for the definitive definition. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware Wiktionary is crowdsourced, I was trying to provide quick evidence for what I think is a relatively obvious fact – that prorogued is political jargon. The Cambridge definition says much the same. I think the willingness of multiple authoritative sources to call it "suspension" shows your concern about ambiguity/accuracy is not borne out by RS. Jr8825 • Talk 17:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jr8825, it's not 'jargon', it's the correct technical term for the ending of a parliamentary session. It happens most years. It isn't a 'suspension' - that implies the session will re-start at some time, which it will not. The next time parliamentary business starts, it will be a brand new session. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Prorogued" Is the correct term and we should use it. We link to the article explaining what that means so anybody unfamiliar with the term only has to click once to find out. It is fine as it is. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I've just pointed to a Cambridge dictionary definition which says it's a "specialized" "politics" term. "Special words and phrases that are used by particular groups of people, especially in their work" = jargon. Jargon doesn't mean something rarely happens, it's simply a term that's not understood by most people who don't work in that field (i.e. most people who don't work in parliament won't know what it means). If it's good enough for the Guardian, BBC, Brookings etc., and the term is confusing for the average reader, we should avoid it in the lead. At the risk of repeating myself, please read MOS:JARGON and the policies I've linked above. Jr8825 • Talk 18:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"At least 6"

I think that this article's perhaps infamous "At least 6" is unsourced. I can't find anything in references 3, 4 or 5 to suggest that Johnson has any more than six children. I'm going to change "At least 6" to "Number unconfirmed", to represent the fact that Johnson has not disclosed how many children he has. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed "Number unconfirmed" to "Number undisclosed" to better represent the sources. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've put it back to "At least 6" because consensus was reached, so you'll need consensus to change it. The fact that he has not disclosed how many children he has is already stated in the note. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 21:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right, I didn't know about the consensus. I was concerned about it being unsourced, but if a consensus has been reached then I'll leave it alone. Thanks for your help and for letting me know! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 09:17, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ewen Fergusson

This article reports that "Government passed over 171 candidates to pick Bullingdon Club ‘chum’ of Boris Johnson for sleaze watchdog role". It's also reported here and here and here, etc. etc. Is this notable? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where would it go? By itself in exclusion, probably not. There isn't a subsection in the second ministry where it would slot in, nor is there an obvious section that could be created for it – and there's WP:RECENTISM to contend with if it's added as a chronological event within his premiership (it's questionable how notable it will be in the scheme of his PMship, more likely it's just a minor scandal which will disappear in the next news cycle as people forget about it). While that's a bit of a sad reflection of the standards of public office, we're just here to follow the sources. Where I could envisage it fitting in is the reception section, as part of a sourced paragraph there detailing how allegations of "sleaze"/"cronyism"/"dishonesty" have been a consistent, notable aspect of critical coverage of his premiership/life (cronyism is already mentioned in the lead, suggesting there's due weight for this, there's also sources such as this [19]). Jr8825 • Talk 15:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I should have guessed, really. We now already have Ben Elliot and his cash-for-access club, which has now even touched our future King?! [20]. So Mr Bullingdon Fergusson will soon be forgotten I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan

Over the last month or two, we've witnessed two things: Boris Johnson (in quite a quiet, near-secretive manner at that) withdrawing the remainder of the UK military from Afghanistan ahead of the US withdrawal - and trying to back it up with the statements we now know to be false that I will come back to at the end - and the Taliban sweeping across Afghanistan in a month.

Afghanistan, as in the US, is also significant in the UK. We've been nearly as involved as they are, and although we haven't been quite as involved over the last several years as maybe the US has, Boris Johnson has been a major part of the withdrawal - and its effects - and let's be honest, it's blown up in his face nearly as badly as it blew up in President Biden's. Let me now use two of the quotes - "There is no military path to victory for the Taliban" (Boris Johnson, July), "I do not think the Taliban are capable of victory by military means" (Boris Johnson, also July). It's also important, if this section is approved, to include the criticism - particularly from the Leader of the Opposition's speech to the Commons on Wednesday 17th August, whereby he criticised PM Johnson for being "wrong and complacent", and where in particular his rather (in my opinion) vague and meagre plans for refugee housing - including 5,000 refugees that he'll send back at an undetermined point - were attacked, as well as where he stated the military's lives were "not in vain". It's very important to listen to both sides - especially when PM Johnson's side is clearly seen as wrong, including by his own MPs who were in agreement with most of his speech.

There's also been a very important development with Dominic Raab and Boris Johnson alike - their holidays at really, really, really pivotal times. Dominic Raab is still on holiday in Cyprus as I write this, unless I'm mistaken, and Boris Johnson went on holiday the day Kabul fell (and returned the following day). It doesn't need saying that this faced intense scrutiny and criticism, including the term dereliction of duty from military leaders.

This has been a major moment in Boris Johnson's premiership, and should be included in his article of his premiership. (talk) 10:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forvana, mischief-making by the opposition is not notable as that is predictable and not necessarily anything more then feigned indignation, so to add it would be to give it undue weight. However, if they were to support what the government were doing, that might well have due enough weight for inclusion.
That doesn't mean that robustly sourced comments by qualified expert commentators on this matter should be excluded though. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Categories