In his column (The Yorkshire Post, July 8), Bill Carmichael sets out the aspect of our creaking constitution of which Johnson and many of his supporters seemed unaware, namely that it is based on the sovereignty of parliament not on the leader of one party receiving less than 30 per cent of the popular vote.
True to his record of apologising for Johnson over the last three inglorious years he skates over the many instances when he has seriously undermined the constitution and treats his persistent casual lying as little more than peccadillos motivated by misplaced personal loyalty.
He trots out the usual so-called achievements.
The support for Ukraine shared by UK politicians of all parties, although others didn’t shamelessly exploit the tragedy as a diversionary tactic to avoid domestic criticism.
It’s unlikely that we will see any improvement in governance under any new Tory leader, as all the contenders have consistently defended the style of the Johnson premiership and are only now discovering such concepts as integrity and openness.
To the very end in his resignation statement he refused to acknowledge his own failings, but as he always does, he blamed others for his downfall, no apology to the British people for the mess into which he led the country.
No, Bill Carmichael, the biggest tragedy of the last three years is that this charlatan has occupied No 10.
From: Malcolm Naylor, Ilkley.
Boris Johnson was a loose canon. And that was his downfall. The last thing the Establishment wants is a loose canon and the collateral damage it will cause.
He had little respect for rules, convention and regulations. His guidance came from neither the Bible or the Conservative rule book. So was he a sinner or a saint? Compared to Blair he is definitely a saint.
He was the very antithesis of conservatism but contradictorily was genetically, socially, educationally and economically a conservative. An enigma.
His attitude to Conservative tradition, although respectful and deferential was if “it” gets in my way, tough, give it the boot. Because of his extrovert personality, he was generally regarded as a buffoon and his intelligence severely underestimated.
Make no mistake. Johnson’s intelligence is exceptional, even if his morals are not.
So what is more important in a Prime Minister? Morals or intelligence? Is it possible for an ambitious politician to have both? Apparently not!
The concentration is now, sadly, on his replacement, not the system that produced him. The Establishment will deliberately focus attention on this rather than reviewing the system on which their power and control depends.