It is certainly an interesting turn of events for sure.

He is either VERY sure he will not get fined or he is VERY sure he will be.

With the later part perhaps seeming a bit odd but humour me here. This latest round of local elections have shown that Labour are not achieving what they need to if they are going to win a majority come the next election. I am sure they have some clever metrics going on by which they knew they had to achieve a certain level of success, primarily in northern seats, and it's just not happening. Outside of London and Scotland, Labour actually lost councillors.

Now I am adamant that Starmer set out, following what Corybn achieved in the 2017 election, to ensure that Labour lost the next GE, and his role in pushing their moronic second referendum position was the primary cause of that. He then becomes leader and throws Corbyn out of the party. Essentially job done. But this man is not a charismatic politician. He is a civil servant who only got elected in 2015.

So this now offers him an honourable exit. Can be a man of his word and embarrass Johnson at the same time. He then retires to the backbenches, maybe even stands down altogether and gets himself on the circuit, trousering £100,000's a time for giving speeches for the likes of Goldman Sachs. That's how this s*** works.

Leaving room for a new leader to emerge...

Now I don't know enough about how Labour works in terms of its leadership process but I do wonder if they will somehow fudge it, perhaps try and delay it until their next conference. Rayner could step up, and get mauled until such a time as they can bring their 'King over the water' back.

One David Miliband.

Of course, this could all just be me being me, and happy to be torn to shreds on this, but we live in strange times.

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

They have no doubt both been told that the investigation is lip service only and that no fines will be issued.
They can then have yet another partygate pop at Boris!

More agreement, what is wrong with me
The problem I have is the Tory policies are just rubbish atm and Labour don't have any.

If a Police force has already fined a sitting Prime Minister, who got elected on the back of a huge victory and who can essentially do what he wants, then this idea that somebody like Starmer can intimidate another Police force makes little sense to me. And even if they do decide not to prosecute him, this does not go away. If anything, the pressure gets ratcheted up.

And based on that leaked memo, then as the law stood at the time, Starmer is guilty as is anybody else who was there. The meal was clearly planned in advance and came at the end of a days 'work'. A cheeky curry for lunch, then he might have a point. But at the end of the day? With it all pre-planned in advance? There is no valid defence as far as I can see.

But Starmer could have survived. Instead, he appears to be committing political suicide. Maybe it is just what it is, but these f***ers plan every move several steps ahead.

Something very fishy going on here. Like an episode of 'The Thick of It'. Whoever leaked that memo is a very, very naughty boy/gir/it/thingy.

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

I don't see how. The law appears quite straightforward. The defence about Boris was that it was just a spontaneous event that he got caught up in by mistake. Sunak was even more hard-done by. But in Starmers case, the meal was pre-planned, as evidenced by that memo. You can make the work-related argument for say lunch, which I assumed originally was the case here because you have something to eat and then go back out on the metaphorical cobbles. Who can deny somebody the chance to grab a bite to eat half way through the day?

But at the end of the day? You get something to eat on the way home or wait until you are back are your hotel or similar. I would have guessed the safest bet for somebody in Starmers position would have been a packed lunch. He is guilty, based on the letter of the law. Seems pretty clear to me and I suspect the legal advice he had received.

So he resigns as a matter of 'principle'. Changes the narrative. The question is who follows him? But I cannot see him surviving this.

However, to be fair, I said the same about Johnson but Starmer is not in his league when it comes to this political malarkey.

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

You clearly have not researched this. The use of the campaigning get-out still comes with the proviso of it being only with one other person.

Starmer was eating with people, in a pre-planned meal, at the end of a day of campaigning. That most clearly falls outside of the law. As I said, lunch could be excused but why would eating a meal in such a large gathering at the end of the day be justified?

Makes little sense. His only defence is the same one that Johnson claimed in that the gathering was a work-related one. And we know how that ended.

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.