Given that Mr Johnson has been found guilty, fined, and admitted guilt, do I take it to meant that you consider the conservative party to the party of lawlessness, who considers proven lawlessness to be no big deal? That you consider misleading parliament to be absolutely fine with no sanction required? You are, after all, actively defending such from the holder of the highest office in the land - a man who is, by definition, "right honourable" despite being a proven law-breaker, a liar, a cheat and a cad.
If I may quote your own words, from when Mr Cummings took his family out of London "While there might have been extenuating personal circumstances relating to his situation, the same is true for very many people across the country who are dutifully obeying both the letter and the spirit of the rules...
I have, therefore, spent yesterday and today urging the Prime Minister, and all those closely connected to him, to recognise the strength of feeling which exists on this issue and to dismiss Mr Cummings without further delay"
Just to remind you, Mr Cummings was found to have broken only the spirit, but not the letter of the law. Mr Johnson has been found (and admitted) to breaking both the spirit and the letter.
You are quite correct to say that we don't yet know the full extent of the wrongdoings of Messrs Johnson and Sunak, but we know enough to say that they categorically broke the law, and categorically misled parliament. Whilst intent is impossible to prove, we know that they either did so deliberately, or that they possess less situational awareness than the average 7 year old, who can tell the difference between a party and not-a-party. We don't know the full details, but what we do know is enough to say that neither is fit to hold high office. More details and more fines can only make the situation untenable. It is also worth noting that (I believe) tomorrow's vote is for an investigation AFTER the police investigations have completed - which won't be too late, even by your own reckoning.
We "really do need to be all in this together" - except for Messrs Johnson and Sunak, apparently. Are you happy that in setting this precedent, it could be used as justification for future law-breaking by your political opponents; and your constituents, for that matter.
