A great article on Boris Johnson's resignation, by German journalist @annettedittert - who since 2008 has worked in London as senior correspondent & bureau chief for ARD German TV, & in 2019 was awarded "political journalist of the year" for her reporting on #Brexit.
Johnson's departure is a victory for democracy over Britain's declining political culture. And it shows that even a prime minister must not lie to parliament.
A commentary by Annette Dittert.
Johnson's political career ends as it began: with brazen lies.
In his farewell statement, which is more like the heated tantrum of a five-year-old than that of a former PM, Johnson explained his departure as the result of a "witch hunt" called for by anti-Brexit, pro-Europeans & other members of the "establishment". None of this is true.
He is solely to blame for his case. The parliamentary committee of inquiry, which after months of deliberations has now clearly come to the conclusion that Johnson lied to parliament, consists of a majority of Tories, the chairman, Bernard Jenkin, is even an arch-Brexiteer.
And even if Johnson leaves open a possible return to politics in his statement, the truth is different. Even if he'll definitely continue to haunt behind the political stage and occasionally set fire to one or the other backdrop - the party's over for him. And that's good.
The so-called Privileges Committee, the parliamentary investigative committee whose report is expected to be published in the next few days, has restored one of the essential principles of parliamentary democracy, that the parliament must not be lied to, even by its PM.
The exact text is not yet known, but it is clear from Johnson's statement that the report does not let him get off as a minor case. The consequence of such a finding would have been a ten-day expulsion from the House of Commons, followed by a by-election, which he may have lost.
Johnson's resignation is nothing more than a last-ditch effort to make the headlines again.
At least in Great Britain he should succeed in the next few days. But that shouldn't detract from what the Privileges Committee has achieved here:
a victory for democracy over Britain's increasingly deteriorating political culture. Even a prime minister is not allowed to lie to parliament, so the factual truth remains a valuable asset and the crucial foundation for holding politicians accountable in a democracy.
The extraordinarily strong position of the executive in the British parliamentary system has often been criticized in the past, & rightly so. A PM with a clear majority can do more or less whatever he wants on the island - if necessary, even disregard basic rules of parliament.
Johnson repeatedly took this to the extreme during his time as prime minister, the most extreme case being the illegal suspension of parliament in the middle of the legislative period in 2019 because Johnson did not like its attitude critical of Brexit.
But there are checks & balances in the British system. Weeks after overturning Parliament, the Supreme Court reinstated it in autumn 2019. The current decision of the Parliamentary Inquiry Committee is a similarly important event for British political culture in this respect.
It is not surprising that in his statement Johnson angrily insulted this committee as ridiculous and denounced it as an undemocratic "kangaroo court".
He leaves the political arena exactly as he came: with a lot of noise and full of contempt for the democratic institutions of Great Britain, which he used for a while but just couldn't completely destroy.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A multibillion-dollar scheme that exchanges cash from drug and gun sales in the UK for crypto—digital tokens hiding users’ identities—has enabling “sanctions evasions and the highest levels of organised crime, including providing money-laundering services to the Russian state”. theguardian.com/politics/2025/…
In 2023, the hedge fund co-founded by GB "News" owner Paul Marshall, who employs 60% of anti-Net Zero Reform UK's MPs, had £1.8 BILLION invested in fossil fuel firms.
Harborne (who has Thai citizenship under the name 'Chakrit Sakunkrit) also makes money from fossil fuels.
I and countless others are sick to death of the billionaire-funded Reform UK propaganda machine, GB “News”, and their decontextualised ‘facts’ that would make Goebbels blush.
Let’s examine the claim that “one quarter of foreign sex offenders come from just five countries”.
Yes, the raw data comes from a genuine Ministry of Justice (MoJ) prison census, but the way it’s being weaponised is deeply misleading.
The statistic sounds explosive, and deliberately so: a factoid engineered to sound like a revelation of hidden danger.
The right-wing information pipeline: a cherry-picked fragment of official data stripped of context, laundered through an opaquely funded “think tank” that isn't a think tank, amplified by billionaire-funded media, and weaponised by opportunistic politicians for electoral gain.
In the September 2025 @SkyNews Immigration Debate, chaired by Trevor “Muslims are not like us” Phillips, Reform UK’s head of policy Zia Yusuf made a series of inaccurate and highly misleading claims about migration, and more recently, on @BBCNewsnight, about social housing.
These assertions are easily disproved with publicly available data, but often go largely unchallenged on air, despite being about some of the most sensitive and polarised issues in politics.
Yusuf started by claiming that UK net migration “last year” was “about a million.”
When a newspaper repeatedly publishes misleading, distorted, or outright inaccurate stories, the public expects independent regulators to step in.
What if I told you the editor responsible for these stories is now in charge of writing the very rules that govern press ethics?
Privately educated Chris Evans, editor of The Daily Telegraph since 2014, has—since January 2024—simultaneously served as Chair of the IPSO Editors’ Code of Practice Committee, the body that drafts, reviews, and rewrites the ethical rulebook that the UK press is meant to follow.
Evans holds this regulatory role at a time when his own paper is producing more factual corrections and clarifications than almost any other major UK outlet — with an overwhelming concentration in politically weaponised right-wing themes.
The BBC isn’t perfect — but it’s ours. As coordinated attacks on its independence intensify, I warn that if we don’t defend it now, we may lose more than a broadcaster — we may lose a cornerstone of British democracy...
As a long-time critic of the @BBC, let me spell it out: what we’re seeing right now isn’t organic outrage — it’s a sophisticated coordinated campaign by ideological enemies and commercial competitors to undermine the BBC’s independence and funding.
If you can’t see that, you’re being played — and that’s exactly the point.
Let’s start with Michael Prescott, author of the dodgy dossier leaked exclusively to The Telegraph, who is a PR man and former political editor at Murdoch’s Sunday Times.
Growing numbers of people are angry and disillusioned with the political establishment.
Desperate voters are easy prey for manipulative populists—as they were in Germany in the 1930s.
But the problem isn't immigrants or religious minorities. It's always wealth distribution.
The story of wealth in Britain over the past eight decades since WWII is not one of ‘the invisible hand’, but of deliberate policy choices—choices that once built one of the most equal society in modern history, but now sustain one of the most unequal in the developed world.
Data tracking wealth distribution from 1945 to 2025 reveal a striking U-shaped curve: a rapid reduction in wealth inequality after World War II, making Britain one of the most equal countries on earth by the mid 1970s, followed by an unbroken rise.