“STARMER TO QUIT”, a number of front pages read this morning, and while the following word “IF” is a pretty crucial caveat, it still feels like a huge deal.
If you’ve not being following the Beergate story – the Labour leader’s takeaway curry towards the end of a work day in Durham, which relentless coverage has made into an awkward counterpoint to the Downing Street Partygate scandal – you may be quite surprised by Starmer’s promise to go if he is fined over the incident.
So how do the two controversies compare? And was it good politics for Starmer to raise the possibility that he might be forced to resign? Today’s newsletter takes you through all that, as well as new details that help explain his decision. First, an apology: I know “-gate” is the most overdone suffix in journalism. But we are where we are. Here are the headlines.
Five big stories
Politics | Boris Johnson’s government will force through police powers to prevent disruptive yet peaceful protests as one of 38 new bills in Tuesday’s Queen’s speech.
Monarchy | The Queen is to miss the state opening of parliament for only the third time in her reign because of mobility issues. The Prince of Wales will read the speech on her behalf.
Russia | Vladimir Putin told Russian soldiers they are “fighting for the same thing their fathers and grandfathers did” as he used his Victory Day speech to justify his invasion of Ukraine. Volodymyr Zelenskiy called on the international community to end a Russian blockade of Ukrainian ports.
Philippines | Ferdinand Marcos Jr, son and namesake of the late dictator, has won the country’s presidency. Marcos Jr’s landslide victory signals an extraordinary rehabilitation for the notorious political family.
Economy | High inflation rates could last years, not months, and may even rise above 10% or higher, senior economists have warned. Andy Haldane, the Bank of England’s former chief economist, said the Bank should have taken tougher action sooner.
In depth: Partygate v Beergate
In the end, Starmer appears to have concluded that he had no choice but to make his dramatic promise to go if he is fined over the incident: if his enemies are going to continue pursuing the Beergate story, he might as well get ahead of it and make Boris Johnson look as unprincipled as possible over Partygate. (For good measure, his deputy Angela Rayner – also present at the event in question – made the same promise.) Here’s a primer on how the stories compare, and the logic behind Starmer’s decision.
***
How widespread were the events?
Partygate In terms of scale, it’s pretty hard to argue that Partygate and Beergate were alike. The Partygate roster runs from May 2020 to April 2021. In total, 16 events were examined by civil servant Sue Gray for her report, 12 of which were also the subject of police investigation. Boris Johnson is reported to have been present for six of those 12 events. So far, he has been issued with a fixed penalty notice in relation to one incident, though there could be other fines in the future.
Beergate The incident took place on 30 April 2021, at the office of Durham MP Mary Foy. It’s the only occasion on which Starmer has been accused of breaking lockdown rules.
***
What kind of gatherings were they?
Partygate The most difficult issues for the prime minister and colleagues in attendance are the events with solely social explanations like Christmas parties and birthday celebrations – including when the strictest lockdown rules were in place. Among a number of examples: in November 2020, Johnson is alleged to have given a speech at a leaving party for special adviser Lee Cain when England was in a month-long lockdown barring meeting people from other households indoors except for work purposes.
Beergate When the photograph of Starmer was taken, people in England were subject to “step two” rules, which prevented general socialising but had an exemption for work purposes. Starmer says that he and his colleagues ate briefly in the middle of a long evening of work. But a number of stories have challenged that narrative.
The Sunday Times reported claims that some of those attending were “getting pissed”. The Mail on Sunday obtained an internal Labour memo showing that the meal was scheduled, and made the questionable assertion that this showed it was in breach of the rules.
During its 12 days of coverage (which began the day after a front page story complaining of Johnson’s critics “Don’t They Know There’s A War On?”), the Daily Mail has reported that an initial denial that Angela Rayner was present was wrong – a fact which Labour claims was an honest mistake.
The obvious point of mitigation to a neutral would appear to be that on the night in question, hospitalisations and deaths were close to their lowest ebb at any point during the pandemic. On the other hand, several of the Downing Street events took place at times of the most severe national crisis.
Because Starmer has presented himself as – in the words of shadow cabinet member Lisa Nandy – “Mr Rules”, it’s very hard for him and his supporters to make that kind of contextual argument without appearing to accept the underlying claim.
Still, Starmer’s fundamental defence – that he briefly broke off from work to eat and then continued – has not changed, or been undermined by a smoking gun.
***
What are the risks of Starmer’s decision?
First, the uncomfortable part for the Labour leader: those resignation headlines on almost every front page this morning. However unequivocally he denies doing anything wrong, those only now tuning into the story may draw a pretty blunt conclusion.
There are serious long-term downsides attached for Starmer, too. Most obviously, there is the fact that he has removed any discretion about what to do if he gets fined – not a complicated point, but a big one.
He meanwhile creates a grey area if the police find there may have been a breach but decide against a fine – exactly what the Durham force did in the case of Dominic Cummings. He appeared to rule out resigning in those circumstances yesterday, but his integrity vs sleaze case will get knottier.
Finally, if he does quit, there is little reason to think that Boris Johnson – never that fussed about the high ground – will follow suit, so long as he has the support of the party membership and no obvious successor. The scale of Mr Rules’ moral victory may feel quite limited if he has to leave his job, and the prime minister hangs on to his.
***
What are the benefits?
He clearly sees the longer-term arguments in favour as persuasive – particularly if he has concluded that a fine would mean he has to go whether he promises to or not.
First, he creates a straightforward contrast with Johnson’s adamant refusal to follow the same logic. (Quite a few members of the shadow cabinet sent tweets featuring the word “integrity” last night.)
Second, he probably moves the story past an awkward focus on his own previous insistence that Johnson should go simply because he was under investigation.
Third, an ally of Starmer is quoted in this morning’s newspapers saying that the move “puts some pressure on Durham police” over the consequences if they fine him. (The Daily Mail describes that as a “cynical ploy” today. Yesterday it said he was “under intense pressure to say whether he would resign.”)
***
So why has he done it?
While some of the more excitable reactions to Starmer’s move seemed to underestimate how much of an issue that would be for Labour, a report by the Guardian’s chief political correspondent, Jessica Elgot, provides pretty strong evidence for why he feels he’s on safe ground.
She’s seen WhatsApp records which appear to confirm Starmer’s insistence that work did continue after the takeaway - messages continuing about a campaign video edit until nearly 2am. Labour says it also has evidence of edits to the video script well after the food is said to have arrived.
Those details were mysteriously absent from reports in the Mail and the Sun on the story this morning. But if they are decisive as Durham police consider his case, Starmer will probably get over it.
What else we’ve been reading
In the Ukrainian city of Zaporizhzhia, Emma Graham-Harrison reports on the evacuees who have finally escaped Mariupol’s Azovstal steelworks. Her story is a remarkable account of what they’ve been through. Archie
Simon Jenkins sees the Partygate/Beergate stories as trivial - and argues that both side have been punished, and should return to more serious matters. (You may worry that equating the two feeds a toxic sense that politicians are ‘all the same’ - but he makes a persuasive case.) Archie
Kendrick Lamar has released his first single in five years, and, unsurprisingly, he’s still got it. Ben Beaumont-Thomas writes why this song – and the upcoming album that it’s part of – is so culturally significant. When you have a moment, the music video is a must-watch. Nimo
In an enlightening and challenging article, Anna Moore takes a look at the programs designed to change the behaviour of abusive men. Moore, who speaks to programme organisers and perpetrators, leaves me questioning what justice can and should look on domestic abuse. Nimo
If a five star review of an exhibit described as being “as close to state-funded psychedelic drugs as you can get” doesn’t pique your interest, there’s nothing for you here. “The space blackens, which you perceive through your eyelids,” writes Jonathan Jones. Don’t worry, he enjoyed it. Archie
Sport
Football | Erling Haaland is poised to become a Manchester City player this week after passing a medical. Manchester City intend to activate the striker’s release clause at Borussia Dortmund and offer him a five-year contract on a basic £350,000 a week.
Football | Northampton Town, who missed out on League Two promotion after a 7-0 victory for rivals Bristol Rovers over Scunthorpe United, have lodged a formal complaint over Scunthorpe’s team selection. Scunthorpe fielded seven teenagers.
Rugby | A new biennial north vs south tournament featuring the world’s leading rugby nations will be under consideration at talks on Tuesday. The format is understood to have been agreed with players from the nations involved.
The front pages
The Guardian today leads with “Starmer’s gamble: leader pledges to quit if he is fined over Beergate”. “Get a fine? We will resign” – the Metro pictures Starmer alongside Angela Rayner, his deputy who has made the same promise. The Times says “Starmer: I will quit if police fine me for beer”; the i says much the same. “This is what honour looks like, Mr Johnson” – that is the Mirror’s verdict and the Financial Times takes up that theme too: “Starmer challenges Johnson on integrity with vow to quit if fined”. The Daily Mail has it as “Starmer accused of piling pressure on police”. The Telegraph’s lead is “Queen to miss State Opening of Parliament”. “Crown and out” says the Sun of that. The top story in the Express is on the contents of the Queen’s speech: “PM: I’ll strive night and day to ‘level up Britain’”.
Today in Focus
What does Sinn Féin’s win mean for Northern Ireland?
The Irish nationalist party Sinn Féin won the most seats in the Northern Ireland assembly last week for the first time. Rory Carroll explains what happens now.
Cartoon of the day | Steve Bell
The Upside
A bit of good news to remind you that the world’s not all bad
In 2007, a forest in the Bomet county of Kenya was all bet levelled after a series of violent protests broke out. In the years since, the Kipsigis people, an indigenous tribe who have relied in the forest for years, have taken a participatory collective responsibility to replant and conserve the forest. 90,000 trees later, the Kipsigis have managed to preserve their environment and their livelihood as well.
Sign up here for a weekly roundup of The Upside, sent to you every Sunday
