Thank you. Not a bad attempt at a definition. Lets break it down in context then:
Far-right: certainly not applicable to Boris. Any glance at his policies during his time in power show that. Massive increases in state handouts being the most obvious example but his social policy isn't even moderately right-wing.
Autocratic: Perhaps applicable, though you have in your previous post lambasted the idea of appealing to the people as the source of his power as being "fascistic", at worst it is populist and arguably even a democratic principle.
Control through militarism: I must have missed the part where we massively boosted the size and prominence of the armed forces, created quasi-military youth organisations, and brought back national service.
Traditionalism: he is fully on-board with gender ideology, LGBT, abortion on demand, and no-fault divorce. Very traditional...
Conquest and racial purity: Let me repeat a point from my previous deleted post; his government issued 1,000,000 permanent visas in the last 12 months. Go browse a .gov.uk website for a bit, you will barely see a straight, white male on there.
The Conservative Party are, at worst centrist, but in reality soft-left-liberals. Your own definitions show up the extent to which your original post is simply melodramatic hyperbole.
Johnson made his appeal to the people directly because he has completely lost support of the parliamentary wing of the party, to a level that is disproportionate to the support he has lost of those who voted for him.
Where does sovereignty reside in a democracy?
Far-right:
The reality Boris has very few real policies that are not specifically about him retaining his position, if he needs to appeal to racist nationalists then he will and has. The massive increases in state handouts were necessary, and based on the problems with the banking bailout where the vast majority of the money was used to prop up a broken system and continue to pay the bankers bonuses the only way to keep the economy even marginally afloat was to insert money directly to the lower levels of the economic strata. It was still massively abused by the very wealthy and major corporations though. Did Boris even have a social policy?
If it is this from the manifesto then:
Extra funding for the NHS, with 50,000 more nurses and 50 million more GP surgery appointments a year
– empty statement no actual policies developed and cash figures were massively manipulated, and he bought numerous people into cabinet who are all for much wider privatisation of the NHS.
20,000 more police and tougher sentencing for criminals
– more police the go to policy for those on the right
An Australian-style points-based system to control immigration
– not a problem in itself but the way cabinet colleagues were framing it was specifically racist.
Millions more invested every week in science, schools, apprenticeships and infrastructure while controlling debt
. empty statement – in fact the changes made were increasing student tuition costs, reducing access to student loans and increasing debt repayments – the only beneficiary in that case being the banks.
Reaching Net Zero by 2050 with investment in clean energy solutions and green infrastructure to reduce carbon emissions and pollution.
Empty statement.
We will not raise the rate of income tax, VAT or National Insurance.
They did.
Autocratic: Perhaps applicable, though you have in your previous post lambasted the idea of appealing to the people as the source of his power as being "fascistic", at worst it is populist and arguably even a democratic principle.
Boris is an autocrat and the worse type, a disinterested autocrat. He is simply concerned about his own position. The source of whatever power he had was in the media particularly right leaning, libertarian free market biased, social society opposition.
Control through militarism: I must have missed the part where we massively boosted the size and prominence of the armed forces, created quasi-military youth organisations, and brought back national service.
The increasing militarisation of the police force and their additional powers, the call for more armed officers, additional stop and search powers, purchasing water canon for use on the public whilst Mayor of London, specifically illegal under British law. Recent restrictions on demonstrations, and additional legal powers for police, he has unjustifiably prorogued parliament, and of course was partying like it was 1999 whilst at the same the old bill were going about threatening all and sundry for going to funerals. Boris has a disdain for law and order himself but expects the population to be cowed under a strong police force that has little or no accountability.
Traditionalism: he is fully on-board with gender ideology, LGBT, abortion on demand, and no-fault divorce. Very traditional...
Boris has made numerous comments against gays in the military and stated that police were cowed by the Macpherson report, he has been critical of single mothers, working women, is fundamentally racist, Letterboxes and pikaninnies comes quickly to mind. The fact that he has been divorced three times has sired numerous children out of wedlock just points to an individual who has no moral guidelines at all particularly when it is read in conjunction with his comments, That is a traditional autocratic approach do as I say not as I do . . . . . very traditional
Conquest and racial purity: Let me repeat a point from my previous deleted post; his government issued 1,000,000 permanent visas in the last 12 months. Go browse a .gov.uk website for a bit, you will barely see a straight, white male on there.
No they didn’t - the figure is actually less than a quarter of a million working visas of which just 37,000 were unskilled (government figures). The number of visas also includes dependents of those granted working visas.
The Conservative Party are, at worst centrist, but in reality soft-left-liberals. Your own definitions show up the extent to which your original post is simply melodramatic hyperbole.
If you think the BJ government is centrist what would even constitute a right leaning government. I fail to see how you can even contemplate that this last government were soft left liberals, unless you are simply in favour of actual fascism, with all of its attendant actions.
Johnson made his appeal to the people directly because he has completely lost support of the parliamentary wing of the party, to a level that is disproportionate to the support he has lost of those who voted for him.
BJ was never supported popularly by the British public for any length of his time in office, he had two periods where he had positive approval ratings a couple of months from june 2019 and a couple of months from may 2020. His disapproval ratings have often topped 70%. There is probably a good 25% of the population who will vote Tory no matter what. Actual boris supporters wer genuinely thin on the ground.
This introduction to an article in Politico perfectly sums up the Boris problem.
Boris Johnson became the British prime minister because the Conservative party felt they had no other choice. They were, in summer 2019, on the verge of splitting — with no Parliamentary majority, no agreement on a deal to leave the EU, and the prospect of an election against a left-wing Labour leader who they felt represented an existential risk to the country. They turned to Johnson as a last resort, knowing full well his reputation for dishonesty and lack of material career achievements. But he was the only Member of Parliament (MP) who had both campaigned for Brexit and was reasonably popular with potential Conservative voters. So in desperation they took the plunge.
The hope was that he would accept being a charismatic frontman while some sensible grown-ups made the decisions. But it quickly became apparent this wasn’t going to happen. Instead we saw an extraordinarily shambolic administration, with no agenda, making announcements mostly designed to appeal to tabloid newspapers. It’s hard to think of any important or useful initiatives that emerged from his government over the past two and a half years on domestic or economic policy.
Where does sovereignty reside in a democracy?
First of all do you think it doesn’t and secondly you would need to define both sovereignty and democracy to really answer that and going to Miriam Webster or Google Dictionary isn’t going to get you the definitions?
I’m kind of hoping that your comments are just simply wind ups, but I get the feeling they aren’t. 
