伦敦（美国有线电视新闻网）鲍里斯·约翰逊在周二晚上遭遇了他担任首相期间最严重的危机，数周的丑闻和丑闻最终导致他自己的许多保守党议员的大规模叛乱。
虽然政府最终在新的冠状病毒措施上赢得了一系列投票，但它这样做是通过依赖反对票的侮辱来实现的。共有 99 名保守党议员无视约翰逊，抹杀了他的 79 个席位多数席位，让约翰逊暴露无遗。
威斯敏斯特的嘴唇问题现在是：这对约翰逊来说有多糟糕？
一句话，非常。过去两周一直有报道称，他和他的团队于 2020 年冬天在唐宁街举行了社交聚会，而该国其他地区则受到冠状病毒的限制，此类聚会是非法的。
约翰逊坚称，他认为没有违反任何规则，并已要求他的一名高级公务员对涉嫌的当事人进行调查。
周三，出现了一张去年 12 月 14 日在保守党总部举行的圣诞派对的图片。
这张由《镜报》获得并发表的照片显示，有 24 人参加了在伦敦政党总部为保守党伦敦市长候选人肖恩·贝利 (Shaun Bailey) 举办的活动。
保守党没有回应美国有线电视新闻网就新发现的照片发表评论的呼吁，但保守党此前已采取行动与事件和贝利保持距离。
众所周知，圣诞节聚会或派对之门的问题在丑闻之后变得炙手可热，在丑闻中，约翰逊鞭打他的国会议员，以推翻被发现违反游说规则的保守党同事的 30 天停职。 . Owen Patterson 代表两家公司向政府官员发送了多封电子邮件，这些公司向他支付了 100,000 英镑（133,000 美元）的顾问薪水。他最初否认有任何不当行为，但最终辞去了议员职务。
关于首相如何支付翻新公寓的费用以及谁支付了他度过的豪华假期，还有其他丑闻。
民意调查显示，丑闻的堆积和党际间的困境对约翰逊的批评者来说是一份礼物——而且这些报道开始被公众所接受。每周，反对党领袖都可以在议会质询首相，周三，工党领袖基尔·斯塔默 (Keir Starmer) 转过身来，向约翰逊询问前一天晚上的叛乱。
“如果需要进一步投票来挽救生命，”工党将效仿斯塔默的领导，并在他自己的国会议员不支持他的情况下帮助通过必要的措施。斯塔默问道：“首相明白为什么他自己的国会议员不信任他吗？”约翰逊拒绝回答这个具体问题。
斯塔默问为什么人们应该遵守唐宁街许多人似乎都忽视的规则。约翰逊显然对这种询问感到恼火。
如果个人支持率或民意调查可以衡量的话，所有这些都严重损害了约翰逊的声誉。 Politico 的民意调查显示，保守党落后反对党工党 4 个百分点，而 65% 的人不赞成他的领导。
然而，总理可能不会立即面临失去工作的危险。为了让约翰逊下台，他的 15% 的国会议员需要致信一群后座保守党国会议员，即 1922 委员会，呼吁对其领导层进行信任投票。
发送的信件数量始终保密，但不会接近该阈值。即使能够达成，约翰逊也不太可能失去投票权。反过来，这将使他在 12 个月内免受另一项领导力挑战。那些寻求罢免约翰逊的人通过投票反对他而只是失败，这不符合他们的利益。并且有一种论点认为，让他在办公室受到足够的损害，以至于他可以被控制可能是目前最好的前进方式——没有人愿意收拾他的烂摊子。
议会投票导致他的政府垮台的可能性也很小。失去反对派投票的抗议投票与可能导致政府垮台并引发大选的投票非常不同。
但这并不意味着约翰逊是完全安全的。有一种理论认为，政治领导层的终结不是一枪，而是一千刀。
个别事件不会突然让人们回心转意，改变主意，但总的恶臭最终会赶上你。对于约翰逊这样的政治家来说，这很危险。
他上任时以不完全值得信赖而闻名。他赢得 2019 年大选的情况极为不同寻常（英国脱欧陷入僵局，当时的反对党领袖杰里米·科尔宾历来不受选民欢迎）。
约翰逊面临的危险在于，许多选民认为，如果有人可以就一件事撒谎，例如英国退欧运作方式的细节，那么相信他们会在任何事情上撒谎只是一小步。
不幸的是，对于约翰逊来说，他有可能已经度过了不归路，这些丑闻会一直伴随着他，直到他的领导生涯结束。 问题是这种情况多久会发生。
Boris Johnson is in deep trouble -- even his own party is turning on him
London (CNN)Boris Johnson suffered the worst crisis of his premiership on Tuesday night, as weeks of scandal and sleaze culminated in a mass rebellion by many of his own Conservative lawmakers.
While the government ultimately won a series of votes on new coronavirus measures, it did so through the indignity of relying on opposition votes. A total of 99 Conservative Members of Parliament defied Johnson, obliterating his 79-seat majority and leaving Johnson exposed.
The question on lips in Westminster is now: How bad is this for Johnson?
In a word, very. The past two weeks have been dominated by reports that he and his team held social gatherings in Downing Street in winter 2020 while the rest of the country was under coronavirus restrictions and such gatherings were illegal.
Johnson has insisted that he believes no rules were broken, and has asked one of his top civil servants to investigate the alleged parties.
And on Wednesday an image emerged of a Christmas party held at the Conservative Party headquarters on December 14 last year.
The photo, obtained and published by The Mirror newspaper, shows 24 people at an event for Conservative London mayoral candidate Shaun Bailey at the party HQ in London.
The Tories have not responded to CNN's calls for comment on the newly uncovered photograph, but the Conservative Party had previously moved to distance itself from the event and Bailey.
The issue of Christmas gatherings, or PartyGate, as it's known, came hot on the heels of a sleaze scandal in which Johnson whipped his MPs to overturn the 30-day suspension of a Conservative colleague who had been found to be in breach of lobbying rules. Owen Patterson had sent multiple emails to government officials on behalf of two companies that between them paid him a salary of ￡100,000 ($133,000) as a consultant. He initially denied any wrongdoing, but eventually resigned as an MP.
There have been other scandals concerning how the PM paid for the refurbishment of his flat and who paid for a luxury holiday he took.
The pile-up of scandals and inter-party woes is a gift for Johnson's critics -- and the reports are beginning to cut through with the public, opinion polls suggest. Every week, the leader of the opposition is able to question the prime minister in parliament, and on Wednesday, Labour leader Keir Starmer twisted the knife, asking Johnson about the previous night's rebellion.
"If further votes are needed to save lives," the Labour Party would follow Starmer's leadership and help pass the essential measures if his own MPs fail to support him. Starmer asked: "Does the Prime Minister understand why his own MPs don't trust him?" Johnson declined to answer this specific question.
Starmer asked why people should follow rules that seem to be ignored by many in Downing Street. Johnson was visibly irked by this line of inquiry.
All of this has badly hurt Johnson's reputation, if personal approval ratings or polls are anything to go by. Politico's poll of polls has the Conservatives four points behind the opposition Labour Party, while 65% of people disapprove of his leadership.
However, the PM is probably not in any immediate danger of losing his job. In order to remove Johnson from office, 15% of his MPs would need to send letters to the chairman of a group of backbench Conservative MPs, known as the 1922 Committee, calling for a vote of confidence in his leadership.
The number of letters sent is always kept private, but it's not thought to be anywhere near that threshold. Even if it were to be reached, it's unlikely Johnson would lose the vote. This would in turn would make him immune from another leadership challenge for 12 months. It would not be in the interests of those seeking to remove Johnson to show their hand by voting against him only to lose. And there is an argument that keeping him in office sufficiently damaged that he can be controlled might be the best way forward for now -- no one wants to pick up his mess.
There is also little prospect of a vote in parliament that could collapse his government. Losing a protest vote that your rebels know is going to pass on opposition votes is very different to a vote that could collapse a government and trigger a general election.
But none of this means Johnson is completely safe. There is a theory that political leaderships are ended not by a single shot, but by a thousand cuts.
Individual events don't suddenly turn people around and change minds, but the general stink eventually catches up with you. And for a politician like Johnson, this is dangerous.
He came into office with a reputation for not being entirely trustworthy. The circumstances under which he won the 2019 election were extremely unusual (Brexit was deadlocked and the then leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, was historically unpopular with voters).
The danger for Johnson is that many voters believe that if someone can lie about one thing, for example details of how Brexit works, it's a short step to believing they will lie about anything.
And unfortunately for Johnson, it's possible he's passed the point of no return and that these scandals will follow him around until the end of his leadership. The question is how soon will that happen.
