Nom, why aren’t you asking why the PM made several denials, lied about what had occurred, even told the House that there was no party on the 13th of November when he was subsequently found to have been present, then had to backtrack about everything?
I don’t really care about Starmer, by offering his immediate resignation if found to be in breach of the law he took the sting out of the whole story, I’m more interested in the PM, who made all the rules and with whom the buck stops. Inexplicably, the parliamentary standards committee think the same.
Why would they do that?
Or maybe the PM just attracts that sort of scrutiny because of his scurrilous behaviour throughout his career?
But of course you won’t see that, he’s a god to you.