9th May 2022
There are many ways to look at the ‘Beergate’ political story – about the police investigation into what Leader of the Opposition did and did not do at (or after) a campaign function.
One way is to follow the political soap opera – and to ponder if the Leader of the Opposition will resign if he faces a penalty, if this will then backfire on the government supporters who have made this such a political story, and if voters will get tired and dismiss this and ‘Partygate’ with the shrug that says ‘they are all the same’.
Another way is to anxiously scrutinise the applicable law and to query whether the gathering was for work purposes or not.
And there is a third way, which requires stepping back to wonder if something more significant is going on.
Do ‘Partygate’ and ‘Beergate’ signify a shift in standard political tactics towards using reports to the police of one’s political opponents and encouraging investigations and sanctions?
For it is one thing to campaign against one’s political opponents.
But it seems another to actively seek that they face police attention.
Of course, from time to time – and in a society under the rule of law – politicians will get arrested, prosecuted, convicted and punished.
And that can be in respect of ‘political’ offences – such as regulate electoral matters – or more straightforward criminal activity.
Sometimes such investigations may have potentially important political implications – such as the cash for honours scandal about fifteen years ago, or the more recent parliamentary expenses scandals.
But in each of these cases, the involvement of the police seemed exceptional – and not part of the mundane, day-to-day politicking of Westminster.
And generally it seemed police involvement was not weaponised for political advantage (though there were one or two exceptions of minor Members of Parliament who liked referring matters to Scotland Yard).
Now, however, police involvement could not be more central to politics.
The fate of the Prime Minister and of the Leader of the Opposition depend, in part, on exercises of police discretion.
Not even a court is involved – just decisions of police officers as to whether it is reasonable to believe covid rules were broken.
(It would only become a matter for the courts if those police decisions are not accepted.)
Perhaps all this is just a one-off – just an extraordinary result of intrusive pandemic regulations that are no longer in place.
Or perhaps this marks a shift to using police involvement as a regular aspect of political activity.
So before we get carried away – one way or another – with clamouring for penalties to be imposed on which politicians you like least, perhaps we should think about where this is going.
For it may not be a good place for our politics to go.
**
Thank you for reading – and please do support this blog, so that it can carry on for you and others.
These free-to-read law and policy posts every week-day do take time and opportunity cost to put together, as do the comments to pre-moderate.
So for more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.
You can also become an email subscriber.
***
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.
For more on this blog’s Comments Policy see this page.
Putin v Navalny comes to mind.
It’s a profoundly troubling turn of events. The Met’s decision-making was opaque and confused, and the public is not allowed to see the relevant photographs or ‘Sue Gray’ report, which would allow important context and understanding.
Now we have Durham Police investigating a takeaway meal after weeks of concerted Government-sponsored media; one wonders what the Attorney General and Home Secretary have been saying behind the scenes.
As you say the police decision could be made on the whim of a single office who may be under considerable political pressure.
In addition the media – including the BBC – are treating as equivalent the evidence of sustained parties in Downing St and the allegation of a meal taken during a working day not being aligned with the rules. As you say this simply tars all politics with the Boris Johnson brush.
Truly Johnson seems to destroy everything he touches.
Possibly it should be the other way – that there has long been a feeling of “One rule for us and another for them” where people feel that elites get away with things because the police don’t take an interest in their rule/law-breaking.
And if they also faced the same attention as the average person then they might (maybe, possibly) think more closely about the laws they make.
The involvement of the police in the question of whether rules were broken is also distracting from the far more important issue that the PM appears to have lied about these events in Parliament. That’s a much bigger issue for our democracy, if it becomes acceptable that the PM’s words in Parliament can’t be trusted to be true in at least some sense of the word.
There’s an irony that the police investigations would almost #certainly not be happening if the PM had admitted the events happened and apologised. And also that it was his decision to allow the police to issue fixed penalty notices, rather than restricting prosecution to the most severe breaches and relying on the magistrates. Which eventually tracks back to Johnson’s assumption that British people would refuse to comply with public health measures unless forced to, which turned out to be wrong.
It is perhaps more worrying that this is occurring because of differences in what is considered acceptable behaviour across the political spectrum. And that this is partisan in nature.
Parties do not appear to hold their own members to the same standards as they hold the opposition and this is supported by the press. We have seen this in both the US and UK and those holding themselves to arguable higher moral standards do not seem to benefit. There is no longer a downside to refusing to resign.
Is this because the electorate no longer cares or is it because of how the press reports these stories (e.g. false equivalence and a high tempo news cycle that does not support nuance)?
It will be revealing if Keir Starmer does choose to resign. If Johnson also goes the system arguable works. If he does not where does that leave us?
Up a certain kind of creek sans paddle.
Interesting – and important – point.
On the one hand, politicians should not – must not – be above the law. Therefore, if an ordinary citizen, or even another politician, has reason to believe someone else has broken the law, he/she should consider seriously whether they should report it to the police in the expectation that prosecution, or at least consequences, should follow if the law has indeed been broken.
On the other hand, it would not be a healthy society if the police were to be seen as the ‘referee’ who could impose a (fixed) penalty if an opponent does something one does not like. All the more so if the person calling for police intervention is, or is closely associated with, the ‘boss’ of the police.
The nature of the alleged offence will obviously be important here. I don’t think many people would consider the infringement of a 30 mph speed limit on a road which is sometimes 40 mph in itself a resigning matter, unless there were serious compounding circumstances but there are plenty of ‘slightly’ worse offences where the dividing line is likely to be affected not just by the offence itself but by one’s opinion of the offender.
In the current position, it is blindingly obvious, from where I sit, that the alleged offence in Durham is of a quite different nature to the multiple events that appear to have taken place in Downing Street, but other people may not share my perception. In the end, it is perhaps less important what the ‘offender’ has done and more important what that says about what he or she will do in the future: and that is, once again, a matter of perception.
I think there are a number of reasons why this is becoming increasingly common:
1. There is more regulation (GDPR, COVID regulations, FOI, referendum funding) – often badly drafted – it’s hardly surprising politicians and political parties fall foul of these more frequently
2. Social media and FOI means rule-breaking is more easily discovered than in the past leading to great opportunities for things to be reported to the police
3. The political consequences of rule breaking seem (to me) to have diminished, therefore activists are turning to the law instead
I would also say that in common with their mostly white, male, upper class peers the legal infractions of politicians continues to be massively under policed compared to their most marginalised constituents.
If the regulations were models of clarity and the offence is admitted, then accept the FPN. If there is any doubt then challenge it. Is it reasonable to expect politicians to accept that they have committed an offence if there is doubt? Of course you are right to point out the slippery slope but if not challenged it will repeat and get worse and as others have said it’s about much more than committing one offence.
Surely we also need to consider the role of sections of the press in this business – and specifically the role of the Mail on Sunday. The question, surely, is: has it actually pressured the Durham police into taking action? If so, it might be argued that it’s the role of the press to unmask wrongdoing (which indeed it is) but the problem here is that the attitude of the MoS and its stablemates to proven wrongdoing by Johnson (“nothing to see here”) is diametrically opposed to its attitude to as yet only alleged wrondoing by Starmer “throw the book at him”). This looks suspiciously like the MoS acting not as a member of the Fourth Estate but as a kangaroo court.
I think there is a difference in the way the 2 investigations were triggered. For partygate, no credible account of events was ever given. They were instead denied, then obfuscated by reference to the ongoing (Sue Gray) investigation.
The result was the matter remained open and unresolved. The impression given was something underhand had occurred, and so the police became involved.
For the beergate investigation in contrast, a credible explanation was given, and the prior investigation found the event to be legal.
The matter was therefore closed, and only re-opened by the current media campaign.
Your previous (also excellent), blog posts have highlighted the way our constitution has been exposed as fairly toothless should a governing party, with a large majority decide to ride roughshod over the previous norms/unwritten rules/customs of our parliament. It is hard (for me), not to deduce that it is the impossibility of all the opposition party’s to properly hold the governing party to account that has been the major drive of ‘forcing’ them down the line of wanting police involvement in this particular case.
This is a tactic that has been around in US politics for some time. It is nearly thirty years since Ken Starr investigated Bill Clinton hoping for something more damaging than a stain on a blue dress. More recently Trump campaigned heavily on “lock her up”.
Perhaps not a surprise that it might be becoming currency over here. There are more than a there are more than a few comparisons between the trump presidency and the Johnson presi- prime ministership.
And the Tory platform for a decade has been that it would be the end of the world if the other guy ( Milibrand, Corbyn, [insert name of current Labour leader] ) got in. So it is not that much of a step to use accusation as a tactic now that Johnson has become a known and obvious lawbreaker.
I think that there also should be close attention paid to the direct interference in any stage of the criminal justice system by those holding the reins of power.
The number of police investigations that have been supressed due to political sensitivity, through to the politicians like Raab shooting for headlines by taking parole decisions to court. (Yes he got… somewhat rubuked… to put it lightly, but “the fact he tried” will be the point he sells).
Very interesting points. I’ve been very critical of Johnson’s apparent flouting of COVID regulations, not so much because “it was only a piece of cake” but mainly because he appears to have lied about it in the Commons, which should, as far as I understand, be a resigning matter. This feeling is driven by the fact that I can’t stand the man or his government or his apologists.
While I’m a Labour Party member and I have respect for Kier Starmer, even if I find him slightly uninspiring, I can’t very rail against Johnson and gloss over Starmer doing the wrong thing, IF that’s what he’s done. I await events, dear boy, events.
I see no difficulty at all in distinguishing between Starmer and Johnson. One was in charge of devising and imposing the law and the other wasn’t. If someone imposes a law, they should respect it. For others we can judge the law and the context. In the case of parties, it makes no sense to ban a social gathering which is merely a short extension of a work gathering. The virus does not know the purpose of the gathering and if you have spent many hours with a group of people another hour or two is no going to significantly increase the risk.
Furthermore, it’s possible that the Starmer gathering was legal. I can’t find the regulations in force at the time, but several versions say that gatherings for work purposes are legal. A gathering can be for work purposes even if its entire duration does not consist of work. And maybe a gathering can be for work purposes even if no work takes place due to people turning up in order to work but then getting distracted by something else. It’s much harder to defend a meeting where it was clear in advance that it was a party (i.e. people turned up who would not otherwise have been there).
I completely agree. And will blame Johnson if Starmer resigns. The two events were wholly different as you say, not to mention the suitcase of booze and Johnson’s history of revolting falsehoods.
It doesn’t matter who wrote the law. If members if HMG or TLO (Loyal Opposition) break it, then there is no distinction unless the breakers opposed the law and were making some sort of deliberate protest (but it would still be breaking the law). Starmer wanted to have his cake and eat it. Apart from the two legs good, four legs bad display, it shows incredibly clumsy political tactics to go all in on Boris when you are vulnerable yourself.
Well for one thing we don’t yet know whether Starmer did break the law. It is significantly different to make the law, make loud and continuing pronouncements about it, then break it, and lie about it again and again, and lie about it in Parliament, on top of all Johnson’s other lies, as compared with Starmer, who was no different from any other citizen with regard to that law except in so far as MPs should adhere to a higher standard than the rest of us. I would blame Johnson if Starmer resigned because, although I wave no particular flag for Starmer, the whole dirty mess was created and manipulated by Johnson. Come near him and one is snared and smeared with his muck.
Oh come on. Think with your head not your political affiliation. Starmer did the equivalent of a QC taking a question he doesn’t know the answer to. He opened a can of worms and is now having to talk about it which as Cummings liked to say is as good as admitting it as far as the polls go. No one except a dévot or a lawyer is going to care about the legalistic and moral distinctions. Seen from the real world, both parties did the same thing. Boris will emerge with less damage than he ought to unless Starmer resigns which would be a huge self inflicted wound on Lab and might help Cons by firing a leadership change well before a GE.
What about the parties Johnson was at that the Police are still investigating? Not birthday parties he wasn’t aware of but full-on booze-ups he most certainly was. Unless it turns out Starmer was attending satanic orgies during lockdown, the public will become aware that the multiple parties Johnson was involved in and the drinks and curry event Starmer is known to have attended were not equivalent.
But the point remains, the parties that the police decide were illegal are just evidence of law breaking. Evidence that Johnson misled Parliament. He won’t have to resign because of the parties. If he resigns it will be because it will be proved he lied in the House.
Still thinking like one of the few. The average voter already thinks Boris is a liar. Now he/she thinks Starmer is not much better because from down here it looks like they all think teh rules are for someone else.
MPs who commit minor crimes (i.e. with no custodial sentence) aren’t required to resign or subject to recall. Johnson’s fines were proof he had broken the law, when he repeatedly said in Parliament that he had not. It’s not that he broke the law, but that he lied about it in Parliament.
The mistake Starmer made was attacking Johnson for breaking the law and not resigning, when he should have stuck to the “lying in Parliament about the parties” line. But clearly he thought he was safe to do so as the Durham Police had said they were not investigating his meeting with drinks. The question now is if Starmer receives a fixed penalty notice and resigns will Johnson feel he must follow suit?
Legal hairsplitting is irrelevant. To the average punter Starmer did the same as Boris, proving all politicians think they are above the law. Boris will be able to spin this enough that the scandal will die and his relative damage will be less than it would have been if Starmer hadn’t been caught.
Takeaway. Even though Boris is trying hard to bury himself it may take two leaders for Lab to recover from the disastrous post Blair years. Possible second takeaway: lawyers dont make great political leaders (usually) especially for a turnaround.
I wasn’t hair splitting, I was stating the facts. The reason Johnson is in trouble over partygate is that he repeatedly lied about it. If he’d owned up it would all have blown over a year ago. He couldn’t help himself. Starmer is in trouble because he took his eye off the ball and focussed on the findings of law breaking, having possibly borken the same law himself.
By saying he will resign if he gets a fine, Starmer has relieved the pressure on himself and put it firmly back on Johnson.
The average voter may well not understand this but the average voter won’t get a say either unless it’s still going on in May 2024.
You are debating far above the average voter and as a supporter of Starmer. Joe Public simply sees both of them as rule breakers. Boris is already mistrusted but Starmer took the spotlight off him and is now spinning which simply lessens the relative damage. Starmer has damaged himself and given Boris cover. Only the outsider politicians benefit. This isn how the Le Pens of the world get traction: when it looks like all the establishment politicians are the same.
If you read my post closely you will see I criticised Starmer. I wasnt speaking as a Labour supporter, I was trying to be factual.
You are assuming the entire population thinks the same. Some will no doubt agree with your analysis but others will see a difference in scale between what Starmer and Johnson allegedly did wrong.
I would argue that it’s Tory supporters who will see Starmer’s actions as equivalent to Johnson. Labour supporters certainly won’t. The momentum wing will certainly celebrate Starmer’s problems though.
Hardcore party will back each leader. Lab will make the distinctions, Cons will comfort itself with what aboutism. But the less committed will probably view Starmer as somewhat damaged goods. Boris is already off the scale for the average voter so with Starmer being linked to the same breach the affair may end up harming Starmer more than Boris who gets away with “it’s Boris” as much as generating outrage.
No defence of Boris but I think Starmer goofed and I suspect it is part of the reason he has been less than stellar even if more decent. Blair would have sliced and diced Boris by now and even the rather nasty Brown would have been battering away.
I’ve already said he made a mistake by demanding Johnson resign for breaking the covid rules. How else did he goof over this? Had Starmer not stated that he would resign if the police issue a fine the press campaign about his alleged rule break would continue to grow. Stating he would resign in that case spiked their guns.
Still thinking like a part of the elite. To the rest he is just parsing. Look, I dont think Starmer is that bad. I just think he goofed and has let Boris off the hook.
We have not seen what has been submitted to the Durham Police. The Daily Mail has published a redacted email but not the whole email and even that may only be a fraction of what was submitted and what caused the Durham Police to re-open the investigation.
It may be that false allegations have been made. It may be that the Durham Police have acted on the assumption that such allegations might be true – as the Met did in connection with Leon Brittan and Harvey Procter and the Wiltshire police did in connection with Edward Heath.
Carl Beech was eventually prosecuted and convicted as a result of lying to the police. The Daily Mail (22 Jan 2022: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10445693/Why-police-refusing-prosecute-two-fantasists-falsely-accused-innocent-VIPs-sex-abuse.html) has alleged that the police have failed to prosecute two others who also lied to the police – and accused the Met of being engaged in a cover up.
There are a number of scenarios in which the Mail and certain Conservatives could end up with egg on their faces. First, the Durham Police might announce that there were no grounds for issuing a Fixed Penalty Notice against Sir Keir Starmer. Second, the Durham Police might issue an FPN but Sir Keir might refer the matter to a Court which found that he had not broken the law.
Third, the Durham Police might refer false allegations against Sir Keir to the CPS with a view to the prosecution of those who had made them.
In which case the attacks on Sir Keir will prove, in the memorable phrase of Ken Clarke, to be a boomerang loaded with high explosive.
In answer to Jim – do the electorate not really care? There are now nearly 500 Conservative ex-councillors who found that the public cared very much.
Hence all the song and dance about beergate. If Starmer did resign as Leader it would be interesting to see who won the job. Starmer’s lawyerly approach is not the most effective with Johnson. Another (Who?) might be better here.
Do you not mean that it is not a good place for poltics to be ? For here we are already. How can we fix it?
I cannot recall reading a more Schroedinger post: I fundamentally agree and disagree at the same time.
You are right that we have reached a new low in the use of police for petty political malingering, but at the same time we don’t see any call for the police to take an interest in the real crimes of corruption and misconduct.
You may recall the furore over the Ball vs Johnson case: the outrage at the idea that politicians might be called out in court for the lies they tell to win votes.
That seems to remain the prevailing attitude over the important things, like for example the Northern Ireland agreement.
Why the opposition put up with mud slinging over trivia when the government’s criminal misconduct is damaging the integrity of the nation is a mystery.
We should be wary of political opponents throwing allegations of criminality at each other and encouraging the police to get involved in the political process.
One of the tools used by authoritarians is burdening opponents with criminal accusations – along with controlling the broadcasters and the press, to silence or denigrate opposition messages; controlling the electoral commission that sets the rules to disadvantage and disqualify opposition candidates; gerrymandering boundaries; and control of voter eligibility rules that make it more difficult for supporters of the opposition to register and cast their votes. Control enough of that in advance and there is no need to do anything as obvious as stuffing the ballot box. Almost inevitably, the ruling party is better placed to do those things than the opposition.
But on the other hand, politicians are not above the law, and should be investigated and prosecuted just as others would be if there is credible evidence that they have committed an offence.
Durham police say they have received “significant” new evidence about Starmer to justify reopening their investigation, so let us see. (I wonder what might it take to get them to review their investigation of Dominic Cummings?) Perhaps they will decide that no action is required again. Perhaps they will levy a fixed penalty, and Starmer can either accept it or defend himself in court.
Meanwhile, the Met have not finished with their investigations of “gatherings” at Downing Street, and we have still not seen Sue Gray’s final report which once seemed so important.
Given previous attempts at denial, deflection and minimisation, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Conservatives are trying to throw as much mud as possible in the hope that some sticks, to distract attention from their poor showing in the local elections, and to create a false parallel between the repeated lies of their leader and the much more straightforward actions of the leader of the opposition.
Best commentary on Beergate so far. It is understandable that “the same for them as for us” should be applied but this does seem to be a cheapening of the police role just when it has serious issues about policing itself and assault of women.
Perhaps the most surprising thing is the apparent stupidity of Starmer to launch a full blooded attack on an admittedly unattractive and vulnerable No10 when he had dirty laundry in his own closet.
What is the “dirty laundry”?
He was doing the same thing in Durham (and quite possibly elsewhere). It may not have been on the same scale but to the average person to looks like the double standards that went on in the US as well where politicians of all stripes were breaking the rules.
Same thing?
It is not the same thing at all, even if the “average person” has been hoodwinked into thinking all politicians are as bad as each other.
Despite the repeated denials, there were numerous “gatherings” at Downing Street, many attended by the prime minister. Some took place between 26 March and 1 June 2020, when the COVID regulations in place at that time prohibited any person leaving the place where they are living (without reasonable excuse, such as travelling for the purposes of work) and prohibited any gathering of more than two people (with very limited exceptions, including “where the gathering is essential for work”). “Essential” is a high bar. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/regulation/7/2020-03-26
It is difficult to see how, for example, the drinks in the Downing Street garden on 20 May 2020 would be acceptable under any reasonable interpretation of the work “essential”.
From 1 June to 4 July 2020, and at various dates since then under the flurry of different restriction regimes, gatherings have been prohibited, subject to various exceptions, including if “the gathering is reasonably necessary … for work purposes”.
Examples:
* https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/regulation/7/2020-06-01
* https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1374/schedule/2/2021-01-20
A social gathering of work colleagues to sing happy birthday around a cake is not “reasonably necessary … for work purposes”.
Stopping work to eat a takeaway meal (with accompanying beverage) before recommencing work, that sounds to me like the sort of thing that was meant by “reasonably necessary … for work purposes”. It is certainly not unreasonable to eat a meal.
“Possibly elsewhere” is just a smear without times, dates, names.
Legal distinctions are meaningless. Starmer is having to talk and deny/parse which is for the average voter as good as admitting guilt. Boris will lose only half a cat’s life and Starmer will yet again knock his leadership back. Think politics not law.
I agree. “The same thing”, “possibly elsewhere” and “The average voter” – what next? The wrong people voted?
The odious Cummings would have considered the Starmer blunder a victory for Boris and would have dismissed the attempts to distinguish between the two as digging a deeper hole. He maintained that as soon as you had got an opponent to address, spin and/or deny an accusation the public would assume that there was some truth in it (Stormy’s lawyer made the same point when he tried to blackmail Nike). That was why he was happy to make false claims on Brexit: getting Remain to answer and argue gave the claims legitimacy which is sadly a feature of modern politics unless you have a strong counter which isn’t just denial.
In this case Starmer has admitted that drinking and eating occurred but is trying to parse distinctions. It doesn’t matter that No 10 was larger, more often and had champers instead of beer. The average voter – not the party faithful – sees it as proof that all politicians think the rules dont apply to them.
You have a point, Simon, that politics is not usually or even mainly about truth or the law, although reality may come back to bite politicians in the end.
Perhaps I am a hopeless optimist, but it would be nice to return to a more grown up form of politics, where people actually engage with facts and policy argument rather than spinning lines and skipping away.
Starmer has many flaws, but I believe he is at core a decent honest bloke trying to do his best. The other guy isn’t, and I think people are fully aware of his character flaws now.
The deflection of attention created around “Beergate” is clearly working at some level for the time being, until another shiny thing comes along to distract everyone.
Starmer is clearly a decent person and a welcome replacement to the un-decent Corbyn, just as Boris was an indecent replacement for May who in turn was a big step down from Cameron. He just isn’t that good in spite of being bright. I still that it is still Boris’s GE to lose which is amazing given everything.
Sadly the Commons is light on decent and talented MPs at the moment. I cant think of a less competent and attractive cabinet in modern history and the shadow is not much better
I don’t recall the opposition calling for the police to be called in, although it is very difficult to keep up. As I remember it, they intervened at the last minute “off their own bat” and stymied publication of the Sue Gray report
The real issue of partygate is the Prime Minister repeatedly lying to the House of Commons about what happened, what he knew happened and whether the rules were broken. The fact that the Met belatedly decided to intervene and issue fines is not relevant. Remember, the police only began investigating the very day Sue Gray was about to release her report. Receiving a FPN probably isn’t a clear resignation offence but misleading the House of Commons (and not correcting the record promptly) certainly is.
The problem for Starmer is that he linked issue of an FPN to Johnson having to resign. Had he not done so he would not have had to state today that he would resign if he gets one too. However it must have been a very tempting charge for him to make at the time, knowing his “beer at work” was not being investigated by Durham Police and assuming that political pressure would not force them to look again.
Starmer and Rayner have taken a gamble in stating they will resign if they receive FPNs, but it’s a gamble which is well worth taking. Firstly it defuses the immediate beergate pressure. Secondly in the unlikely event Durham Police do issue FPNs to them it puts enormous moral pressure on Tory MPs to reconsider their support for Johnson should he continue to fail to resign.
Durham Police and the Met have a lot to answer for in this regard. Especially Durham Police who have “previous” in strange decisions about lockdown law-breaking decisions.
Apologies for the fact that this comment heads off in a completely different direction to the rest of the replies to the article.
When all is said and done, the “Covid-19 Legislation” (whatever it was correctly named) either was or should have been very simple, unambiguous and clear.
If we are feeling incredibly, outrageously generous (I’m not, but there you go) then we might be willing to concede that both the Prime Minster and his colleagues, as well as Sir Kier Starmer and the other participants of the Durham event now under investigation were all required to observe the same legislation and all believed that they were within the law.
Was that because these rules were unclear? I ask this because if anyone involved in any of the incidents that have been or are being investigated believed their actions to be within the law, then perhaps this is a rather shoddy law.
This is an entirely different problem to the original point (politicisation of legislation) but it goes go the heart of what we should expect from our parliament. Writing good and effective laws is what we pay our MPs and Ministers to do on our behalf.
If they can’t do that – and we are continually being offered a wealth of evidence that they can’t – then, really, what is the point.
Had the legislation in question been written to favour the Conservative Party over Labour, or had the decision to investigate the Labour gathering been influenced by Westminster in some way, then I would agree with David that we have taken a wrong turn and need to reset our (moral) compass.
But whatever the ultimate results of these investigations reveals, the fact remains that of all the people in the country who “should have known better”, it was our elected leaders.
“Do as I say, not as I do” is not a reasonable approach for any elected MP, irrespective of whether they sit with the majority, are back-bench or front bench, or even hold cabinet office.
It would not only have been reasonable, I would argue that it would have been the “right thing to do” for the leaders of all represented parties in the Commons to have called a parliamentary party meeting and said, “Look, this legislation is going to be unpopular, but we signed it in to law for the good of the country. It is crucial not just for us to “do the right thing” but to be seen to “do the right thing”. So: no breaking the rules. No taking extensive road trips to test your eyesight. No office parties. Don’t even think of doing anything that could be misconstrued to look like an office party. Use Zoom. Don’t meet in person unless it is unavoidable – and send me a justification of any such meeting, so that if it hits the press I can knock it flat right away…”
One of my friends worked for a county Police Force for many years… and when discussing the general principles of law and order would say (in response to someone discussing a speeding ticket):-
“Oh, hey, I know how to guarantee that you’ll never get a speeding ticket again.”
“Really? What’s that?”
“Don’t break the speed limit.”
And…
“Remember, everyone in prison today is a volunteer. Every last one of them had a choice.”
On which basis I have zero sympathy and zero tolerance for any MP or Minster found to be in breach of the law. I fear we are already too polarised/apathetic as a society to “do the right thing”, which would be to recall any MP found to have breached these rules, call a local election and send a new representative to Westminster. The national parties might not like that, but if that is the only way that they can learn that we pay their wages and won’t tolerate attitudes like this, then so be it.
Not everyone who goes to prison is a volunteer. The injustice of the Post Office computer scandal is but one example!
The problem was the rules regarding work meetings weren’t clear. It was up to businesses to decide what was a necessary or reasonably necessary meeting. Then the police can potentially apply a different meaning to necessary and issue a FPN.
You can’t word such a law to cover every circumstance. Given that it’s impractical to refer every meeting to the police for clearance, businesses, and political parties, must be allowed some latitude in their interpretation. In the case of local campaigning, zoom meetings are hardly practical.
In the case of Starmer’s beer and curry, there is an argument that work continued after the food and drink was provided. So Starmer can claim it was a work event where food was provided. Most of the Downing St events show no sign that work continued after the booze appeared. They were after work events and clearly illegal.
As for automatic recall of all cases of MPs breaking the law, I think that is ridiculously harsh. Cases that don’t go to court should not be put in the same category. I would say something that carreies a custodial sentence would justify automatic recall. You say it’s simple, e.g. don’t speed, but it is all to easy to briefly break the speed limit inadvertently and get caught by a camera. You wouldn’t lose your job for such an offence and I don’t think the frequent recall elections that would result would be welcomed. MPs are not and should not be expected to be paragons of virtue. Honesty would be nice though.
The UK is the country which gave the world the sound bite “Brexit means Brexit”.
Faced with an internal political storm (entirely of its own making) the question posed here is where is this all going in terms of the constitution ?
The rest of the world has a pretty good idea .
And the winner of the “non-sequitur of the week award goes to…”
A further thought arose from a headline stating “Police instructed to investigate Starmer.”
In fact, the Police were not instructed to do anything. There was request (or referral) to the Police and it was for them to decide what to do.
Police Forces are supposedly independent of the executive though, in practice, there is a lot (too much) of Home Office direction. Is this independence being eroded further?
Who needs a running commentary from the police or indeed anyone in politics when we have the DAG blog.
Must be about time for some more Met police fines.
For the avoidance of doubt Jim2 is the new handle for one of the Jims.
I must say I feel (slightly) sorry for the police in this matter. Having to deal with a good honest drug dealer or murderer would seem a relatively clean job compared with sorting out politicians having a bevy. Different class of liar and lawyer. A taser shoot out would seem an apt response.
The phenomenon of politicians seeking to harm each other by reporting each other to the police with accusations of law-breaking leads me to imagine a situation where a senior police officer has, in effect, the fate of the nation in his hands in the persons of the aspirants to the top job. This in turn leads me to recall how rival bidders for the Roman imperial “crown” addressed their bids to the Pretorian Guard. In today’s terms, “Back me and I’ll guarantee you have as many officers as you like plus any equipment you fancy that you’ve spotted in the catalogue.”
A thought provoking final flourish.
If prosecution is the bar used to measure what we would otherwise see as transgressions of morals or honour, if police investigation were to become the defacto tool used to remove “transgressors” from their positions, then it follows that coercion or direct control of the police becomes a major lever of power, with the logical conclusion that the police *become* the Power.
Simon: “Oh come on. Think with your head not your political affiliation. Starmer did the equivalent of a QC taking a question he doesn’t know the answer to. He opened a can of worms and is now having to talk about it which as Cummings liked to say is as good as admitting it as far as the polls go. No one except a dévot or a lawyer is going to care about the legalistic and moral distinctions. Seen from the real world, both parties did the same thing. Boris will emerge with less damage than he ought to unless Starmer resigns which would be a huge self inflicted wound on Lab and might help Cons by firing a leadership change well before a GE.”
Because I loathed both Johnson and Corbyn, I switched affiliation to the LidDems! I posted my comments because I do care about the legalistic and moral distinctions and there’s no point my commenting from anyone else’s point of view than my own. I stand by what I have written.
Jeez, talk about going down into the abyss! LibDem have been an absolute solids show until recently and Davey has distinguished himself in the coalition and since as ineffectual and unpleasant. It’s an understandable protest vote but talk about a party that consistently fails to rise to the occasion. I wont go so far as to say that its front bench makes the Tories look talented but they run them close.
What is the point of your comments, other than to insult? They have nothing to do with Beergate or any other Gate. My choice of party is down to the dire state of the other parties, which choice should have been clear from my previous post.
You’re attacking someone commenting here for their political choice. Ask yourself, is that right?
Thank you!
Is this the first time DAG’s blog brings out the Twitter in comments?
Thoroughly agree again Kevin!
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1524695671135211521?s=20&t=EnrP0ncUIPwsfG4Vx7fcYA
More Britons see Keir Starmer as principled, competent, and trustworthy than Boris Johnson
Principled
Starmer: 41%
Johnson: 14%
Competent
Starmer: 40%
Johnson: 25%
Trustworthy
Starmer: 31%
Johnson: 12%
How did he goof? He went all in on Boris and the party affair without apparently being sure he wasn’t vulnerable to a similar attack. I would have gone after Boris but I might have thought twice if I knew that my lot had done something that could be seen in the same light. At the very least I would have got out ahead of the story and framed the attack on Boris in terms of comparison, painting myself as doing what other ordinary workers were doing at the office. Instead he only started spinning when the news leaked which was way to late. Starmer and his office just seem to lack political smarts.
Sorry about elite. It was shorthand to say that anyone on this thread is essentially a minority who think these things through in a different way from the average voter (IMO). The fact we can discuss degree of transgression, the legal differences of the possible law breaking etc, is just a different world from someone who is fed up with the whole lot and sees it as information that they are all the same.
Depressingly Boris will ride this out because people already expect him to be a toad but Starmer will take real damage.
I had already mentioned that as being his mistake. In reply you didn’t acknowledge that and just stated he had goofed, as if you meant something else.
I don’t agree that the average voter will equate Johnson’s and Starmer’s behaviour. The recent election results show that the mood of average voters is turning against Johnson.
Indeed the Week today says, “It would be ‘irresistibly funny” if Starmer had to resign while Johnson stayed,’ said Charles Moore in the Daily Telegraph. But it would also be ‘preposterous’. Starmer’s curry, which harmed nobody, ‘just does not matter nearly enough’. Minor police investigations over confusing rules should not ‘force elected leaders out of office’. Let’s have an amnesty for all those accused of petty Covid offences. Petty or not, they were the rules, said Sam Leith in The Spectator, and many people ‘ suffered from obeying them’. But we have to acknowledge that ‘Beergate’ is quite different from the alleged breaches in Downing Street. This is one event versus 18; and Johnson actually drew up those rules. The Tories have been pushing this story because they hope it gets Johnson off the hook. It won’t. ‘Every righteous blow that lands on Sir Keir rebounds twice as hard on the Prime Minister’.
And I have a workman in my house today saying the Gates are different.
There’s a lot to digest in this thread.
Firstly, I agree that Starmer is guilty of astonishing political naivety in choosing to attack Johnson in an area where he himself is vulnerable. No matter how convinced he is of his own innocence, the mere existence of the possibility of a semi-credible allegation against him of the “same” transgression should have been reason enough to steer clear. There’s plenty of other targets he could aim at. Some of them much bigger and easier to hit.
Secondly, I also agree that ultimately the rule of law must prevail and that the police should investigate politicians where there are reasonable grounds to do so, without fear or favour. No one is above the law.
Which rather begs the question, given the 100+ FPNs that have been handed out at the time I’m writing this, what on earth were the Met officers on duty around Downing Street doing when the parties were going on? Turning a blind eye? Not paying attention to the jolly party goers streaming by them? Or having the wool pulled over their eyes by people who knew they were breaking the rules?
Lastly, and returning to the main thrust of David’s original post, IMO at least two things make it pretty clear that the Tory party are encouraging the investigation of Starmer for purely political reasons (as if that wasn’t self evident):
1. Priti Patel was seen congratulating Tory MP Richard Holden, who has been vociferous in his calls for Durham police to reinvestigate Starmer.
2. Several Tory MPs, including Culture minister Chris Philp, have accused Starmer of “putting pressure” on Durham police by offering to resign if he is fined.
The clear implication of the latter accusation is that the police will now feel reluctant to issue an FPN because of the resulting political fall out. And that this was (at least partly) the reason Starmer made the offer to resign.
It shows how little confidence these MPs have in the integrity of Durham police.
The explicit, on the record Tory position is that Starmer is a hypocrite if he doesn’t say he will resign, and is attempting to pervert the course of justice if he does. Talk about damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
This is blatant politicisation of the rule of law.
Johnson lied to Parliament. No question, no quibble.
That is a resigning offence. Nothing to do with any Police force.
However the current Speaker is utterly spineless.
Parliament needs John Bercow to come back to get some real democracy working in Parliament.
The Conservative party hate John Bercow to the bottom of their souls (*if they have such a thing).
The accusations about bullying are probably as true as Putin claiming that Ukraine attacked Russia first.