[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Firstly, it should go without saying that if Starmer broke the rules he voted in favour of and called others out on, he should resign. He may not take Johnson down with him as Starmer seems to being held to a higher level of accountability than Johnson (may be due to his previous role as Head of DPP?) but I'm sure the Sue Gray report will bury Johnson's leadership.

As an aside, some of the figures that seem to be banded around as gospel - 30 people and a takeaway bill of £200 for curry and beer are contradictory - you would be looking at about £15 per head for that minimum which equates to about 13 people.

In terms of it being a party, we seem to have the word of one person against the word of many people. It's a risk for that one person to stick their neck out with a jail term attached for giving false information so the investigation will be interesting if that witness does follow through and speak to the police. If they don't then I can't see their investigation result changing.

I do think people have got excited about some details eg initially advising Rayner not being there. This to me looks like poor administration as the presence of the Deputy Leader would actually be stronger evidence that it was a work event. The question that surely should be asked is "Does it materially affect the evidence?".

I don't see this error as falling under the headings of "perverting the course of justice" or "giving false information to the police". Incidentally, Starmer will be very familiar with these laws as the consent of the the Director of Public Prosecutions is required before someone can be prosecuted.

The political winners in this situation, whether or not Johnson or Starmer remain in power, are probably the Liberal Democrats.

You wouldn't be presenting all these contorted arguments if it was a Johnson curry, methinks.