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 coordinated political project is reshaping Britain in the image of Trump’s MAGA movement.
Reform UK—fuelled by wealthy donors, ideologically aligned think tanks, and a network of right-wing media—has ambitions unlike anything in modern UK politics.
The goal is clear: install Farage as PM, backed by policies and rhetoric that mirror America’s populist right.
Recent events, including JD Vance’s high-profile visit, reveal a deliberate and potentially transformational transatlantic political strategy.
Politicians, right-wing news media and far-right extremists opportunistically exploit public concern over asylum seekers in hotels, inciting protests and potential violence.
How did we get here? And why the gulf between public perception and reality?
The government spent nearly a third less on hotels to house asylum seekers between April 2024 and March 2025.
The Home Office's annual accounts show £2.1bn was spent on hotel accommodation - an average of about £5.77m per day, down from £3bn or £8.3m per day, the previous year.
GB "News", which employs 75% of Reform UK MPs, is not a news channel - it's Reform's propaganda wing, co-funded by billionaire Paul Marshall and Dubai-based investment firm Legatum, who see it as an investment opportunity to help protect their wealth and interests.
@Ofcom
In the UK, since 1990, 'due impartiality' and 'due accuracy' have been fundamental components of broadcasting - especially for news and current affairs - and imho are essential for a well-informed citizenry and a fair-minded functional democracy.
GB "News" appears to disagree.
The first broadcasting standards in the UK emerged with the BBC in 1922.
Formal standards took shape with the Royal Charter in 1927, which mandated that the BBC provide information, education, and entertainment while maintaining impartiality and serving the public interest.
Voters need to know how right-wing populist nationalist politicians and radical/far-right nativist extremists construct their divisive discourse and rhetoric to exploit the anti-elite climate and fuel violence and division - and what to do about it.
So what can be done to counter divisive narratives and framing and to help Britain to become a more open, inclusive, fairer, less polarised and better multicultural society?
I make several suggestions in the above article, but make more below,
Countering the extreme right’s narrative of feeling "attacked" and needing to "defend" national identity requires a strategic, multi-faceted approach that challenges their framing while addressing underlying concerns and emotions.
The shameless lie that "Britain is lawless" is categorically false, as it contradicts empirical data on crime trends, rule of law metrics, and the functioning of UK institutions. Reform UK often use fearmongering exaggeration and selective framing to create a sense of crisis.
Official data from the ONS and Home Office indicate that overall crime rates in England and Wales have fluctuated but do not support the notion of a "lawless" state. The ONS reported a 7% decrease in total recorded crime (excluding fraud) from 2023 to 24.
#OnThisDay, 21 July, 1969, the Chicago Daily News published: The ‘love it or leave it’ nonsense, by Sydney J. Harris.
It began: One of the most ignorant and hateful statements that a person can make is “If you don’t like it here, why don’t you leave?”
I reproduce it, below.
Harris was born in London in 1917, moving to the US in 1922. A formidable journalist who established a distinct voice integrating incisive social commentary with wit and humour, his weekday column, ‘Strictly Personal’, was syndicated in 200 US newspapers.
The ‘love it or leave it’ nonsense, by Sydney J. Harris.
One of the most ignorant and hateful statements that a person can make is “If you don’t like it here, why don’t you leave?”
That attitude is the main reason America was founded, in all its hope and energy and goodness.