[origin_path]

That's very unlikely in this case. Johnson already tried to hang on longer than he really should have done, albeit he did survive a motion of no confidence. It took the mass resignations of his cabinet to force him out.

The "never back down or admit defeat" seems mostly to apply to bureaucrats and public health officials. Conservative MPs are famous for resigning when they think honorable norms have been violated (as they see it), and getting rid of leaders once they become an electoral liability.

[pmyteh]

I mean, Thomas Dugdale is famous for resigning when he thought an honourable norm had been violated (he took responsibility for the maladministration of his officials, which is the essentially theoretical responsibility of a minister) but that was in 1954. And even in that case it turned out in retrospect that he was responsible for some of the maladministration himself.

Knifing ineffective leaders, yes - that is a reputation they still have. But I wouldn't see any of the recent resignations as anything other than opportunistic: they knew perfectly well that Johnson was an untrustworthy scoundrel well before they joined his government.

[origin_path]

All British governments see regular resignations of ministers with the cited reasons always being policy disagreements or dishonourable behavior. You seem to believe the last time it happened was 1954 but that's not correct. Look at this graph of ministerial resignations by Prime Minister (second on the page):

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/boris-s-premiership-in-s...

All PMs regardless of Party experience continuous attrition of ministers, because being willing to resign from a government job for moral or policy reasons is considered a fundamental part of the honor code of being MP.

[pmyteh]

Policy disagreements, sure. And you can certainly read those as questions of honour/morality. Robin Cook over the Iraq war, perhaps, or Michael Heseltine over the Westland affair.

As for 'resignations' on the grounds of ministerial misbehaviour, I'm afraid they almost always come down to one of two things. Either the PM isn't personally prepared to put up with it (in which case a resignation is requested) or the political fallout has become so severe that either the minister doesn't want to face the music any more (in which case they will resign more or less in disgrace) or the PM can't afford the political cost of extending cover any further (in which case they will be asked to resign more or less in disgrace).

I am quite sure there are honourable people in politics. Estelle Morris famously resigned as Secretary of State for Education on the basis that she didn't feel up to it. There are probably a handful of others. But resigning without being forced on the grounds of a self-identified moral lapse is astonishingly rare.

Again, you occasionally get people resigning on the basis they think their PM is dishonourable, but even then it's mainly just politics. (Everyone currently leaving Johnson's cabinet knew of his objectionable character before signing on, for example).

The modern Conservative party mostly has a reputation for corruption (which we politely call 'sleaze') rather than honour and probity. That dates back to at least the early 90s and has been recently reinforced. Labour's reputation is in the gutter too, though possibly not to quite the same extent.

(I teach political communication in a British university and have previously interned in Parliament, FWIW. The strong tension between our 'good chaps' theory of government (with its actors behaving honourably at all times) and the nakedly political behaviour of ministers and parliamentarians in actual practice has been part of what we teach politics students for decades).

[origin_path]

"But resigning without being forced on the grounds of a self-identified moral lapse is astonishingly rare."

It just happened en-masse, and has been happening to Johnson regularly this year. The ministers resigned because they didn't want to continue supporting Johnson and doing the things he wanted them to do. So how can you say it's rare?

"Everyone currently leaving Johnson's cabinet knew of his objectionable character before signing on, for example"

Ah, I see. Mind reading skills. Because you personally don't like Johnson, nobody who is now resigning and explicitly stating it is for honor reasons can possibly be telling the truth. That isn't a charitable or fair reading of what's happened.

"The modern Conservative party mostly has a reputation for corruption ... I teach political communication in a British university"

If that's meant to increase your credibility it has the opposite effect. An anti-conservative academic, what a shock. And one who teaches politics no less, whilst claiming (presumably to students) that none of the many ministers resigning for clearly communicated honor reasons are actually doing so, thanks to aforementioned mind reading skills.

[pmyteh]

They're not resigning because they've suddenly realised he's a wrong 'un, they're leaving because he's become an electoral liability. But I suspect you know that - it's how politics works essentially everywhere, including the United States, for parties of all ideological persuasions.

If not, you might want to start with this short article in the Spectator[0] (one of the Conservative house journals, which Johnson used to edit) by Toby Young (a Tory) fifteen years ago (after his rise to prominence, but before his rise to power). The man's a scoundrel and his party have always known it. And even generally honest politicians aren't going to write "We gave you a go because we hoped you'd win the election, but we underestimated just how unpopular you'd get - please go now" in a resignation letter.

[0]: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/having-your-cake-eating-...

[origin_path]

You're projecting your own views onto other people without any evidence. In their letters they make it clear that they do now feel his behaviour has become unacceptable, and that's why he's become an electoral liability. They're years away from an election so your argument that it's all about electoral liability lacks explanatory power (why now) and boils down to "politicians innit", which isn't really an argument at all.

If you're a columnist or random commentator, fine, argue whatever you like. It's kind of absurd that you teach politics though. Surely such people are supposed to work hard to be as neutral as possible. I don't believe for one second you're politically neutral on this topic.