Gates

I'm getting rather tired of the unspeakable defending the indefensible. 

Cake and parties are irrelevant when discussing Boris' lawbreaking, it's about breaking the Ministerial Code. 

Lawyers, surgeons, scientists, engineers, financial advisors, teachers - all of the above need professional qualifications to practice. Some of them have to additionally adhere to rules of professional conduct and, if they break them they're booted out. All this engenders trust in their ability and integrity.

An MP or minister doesn't require a single qualification in order to be part of the legislature - ability doesn't enter into it. They don't even engage in Continuous Professional Development, unless that's measured by how well they can hoodwink and gaslight the more gullible members of the public. Is it therefore too much to require them, as law makers, to at least adhere to a code of practice? If not, then how can we trust them at all?

I can imagine how even the most staunch Boris fan would react if they were about to go under the knife and the surgeon said; "Oh, by the way, I fell foul of the Royal College of Surgeons and the GMC, but I apologised and didn't offer to resign. It was only the worst offence - a bit like a speeding fine."

As an example, Alex Salmond's QC in his libel case has been found guilty of professional misconduct and is facing being stripped of his licence to practice after he discussed the case on a train.

We should stop calling it Partygate, by the way, and call it what it is - Ministerial Codegate.

Tory MPs face 2 choices. 

1) Get rid of Boris now, and hope the party can be turned around before the next election by a leader with integrity, or 

2) Support Boris and be voted out in 2 years. 

It's not rocket science. 

The Prime Minister is the person to whom the resignation of a minister breaking the Ministerial Code is offered, it being assumed that a PM is an honourable person with integrity. Well, we don't have an honest PM with integrity, which has been shown time after time. Boris, as the person to whom resignations should be offered, wouldn't accept his own resignation anyway. Marking your own homework is not honourable. There needs to be an independent arbiter of the PM's conduct, not a tame House Elf like 'Dobby' Geidt who was appointed by Johnson.

A body that polices MPs and ministers' professional conduct needs to be totally separate from Parliament because of the potential for bias, especially in a situation when there's a large majority, as now. Perhaps an existing professional body might be the answer - it may suffer from bias, but nowhere near as much as one appointed by the PM. Perhaps the Bar Standards Board, the regulatory body for barristers.

The problem with farming it out to an existing body is that there's hardly a profession that Boris and his Cabinet hasn't annoyed - lawyers, teachers, scientists, doctors, etc, and so there's ample cause for bias at present, no matter who is appointed.

As an aside, Tories are demanding Durham police reinvestigate Starmer's constituency meeting where he had a beer. Yes - have it reinvestigated, if you want and, if they overturn their finding that exonerated him several times, fine him. However, he never lied about it and is not a government minister, so resignation is not an issue. I doubt those calling for Starmer to be issued a fine will be calling for Johnson to resign. This may turn into yet another own goal.