If Johnson must resign, so must Starmer – we can’t have one rule for the Tories and another for Labour

I am rather surprised at your story where Kier Starmer says that Boris Johnson should resign because of the Downing Street parties, now that photographs are emerging of Starmer partying in lockdown also, and with him using the same excuse as Johnson that “it was in the workplace”.

If Johnson must resign, Starmer must resign also. We cannot have one rule for the Tories, and another for Labour.

Ian McNicholas

Ebbw Vale, Wales

I am concerned about descriptions of the Omicron virus as “milder” than previous variants. Hospitalisations are going through the roof and hundreds are dying every day, in spite of vaccines that we didn’t previously have.

I presume that not all the victims are vaccine-avoiders. I would like to read an article or three balancing the different claims doing the rounds with actual evidence.

Cole Davis

Norwich

As your editorial (14 January) points out, the frequency and scale of Johnson’s Partygate scandal may lie beyond the authority of Sue Gray – whatever her strong reputation for rigour and integrity – particularly while her normal line manager, the cabinet secretary, is excluded through his own role in the affair. This leaves the Big Dog, namely Boris Johnson, alone to mark and presumably clear himself, whatever she finds.

So, it would seem the problem rests with not only the appallingly wayward behaviour of an individual prime minister, but the absence of a written constitution that would have in place a mechanism to independently investigate abuses by the executive – rather like the role of the special prosecutor in the United States.

At present: where the ruling Tory party continues to give confidence to the PM, the Met remain hesitant to investigate and the opposition parties have insufficient numbers to vote Johnson out of office, the only other course that seems open is to judicialy remove him through the process of parliamentary impeachment – which, while an archaic (1376) and rather blunt instrument that has rarely been employed, remains on the statute book, allowing members of the Commons to bring “charges of various misdemeanors” before the bar of the House of Lords.

If permitted, it would provide a dramatic and long-drawn-out public trial most Tories would surely dread.

Paul Dolan

Cheshire

Gunter Straub (letters, Saturday) wonders what will become of Johnson’s hideously expensive wallpaper when he leaves No 10. Perhaps someone will give it a couple of coats of emulsion, in a tasteful shade of magnolia?

Susan Alexander

South Gloucestershire

Sir, I thought it wise to mention a brief addendum to the splendid article by Sean O’Grady (underwhelming history of foreign powers who sought influence in our parliament, 15 January).

Conservative MP Raymond Mawby was elected for Totnes, Devon, in 1955 – and during the 1960s (and until 1971) passed secrets to the Czech security services. His code name was Laval and, similar to other people mentioned in said article, he appeared to pass mostly bar-room gossip, political manoeuvrings and – in addition – somewhat bizarrely, the floor plan of the House of Commons in his own handwriting.

Apparently, he was eventually on a retainer of £400 per annum – irrespective of the quantity or quality of information.

Robert Boston

Kent

I think we should all rally round our prime minister at this difficult time by doing all we can to support Operation Save Big Dog. When he eventually comes out of whatever industrial freezer he is currently hiding in and walks among us again, we should all greet him with enthusiastic “Woof Woofs”. It would be a big improvement on those strange elbow bumps he has insisted upon.

Now come on, everyone, remember we are all in this together!

Diane Reeder

Gavin Turner’s letter about the arrogance of Rees-Mogg’s description of Scottish Conservative leader Douglas Ross hits the nail on the head. As Nicola Sturgeon pointed out, Douglas Ross gets more respect from his opponents in the Scottish parliament than he does from Rees-Mogg and his extremist friends in Westminster.

Rees-Mogg and his allies are not welcome in Scotland as the Scottish Conservatives can see the damage they do to their support for the union. After spending half of my 76 years in Scotland, I am still here and, like Gavin, fully aware of the stupidity of Rees-Mogg’s comments.

Alan Lammin

Dumfries

The “hear no evil see no evil “ mantra being used by Boris Johnson seems to echo the approach by the Metropolitan Police. Can Cressida Dick seriously maintain the case that the Met will not investigate the various breaches of the law at 10 Downing Street? Are we really to believe that no police officer questioned what was going on during the various parties? 10 Downing Street is one of the most heavily fortified and protected buildings in London. Do we really believe that the police officers who normally pose in a macho fashion with their automatic weapons at the gates did not check the inside of the suitcase of booze? And then asked questions ? Or has the Met turned a blind eye? Cressida Dick obviously doesn’t have the appetite to enquire – or has she been nobbled by home secretary Priti Patel and warned not to rock the boat?

Gordon Ronald

Herts

The bill is proposed and being introduced by the Home Office, notably by Conservative peer Baroness Williams of Trafford and the home secretary Priti Patel. Baroness Williams stated that, in her view, the provisions of the bill are compatible with the European Convention of Human Rights.

Whilst the bill is partly meant to be a crackdown on human trafficking gangs and illegal abuse of the immigration system, it is also inhumane and unjust to those seeking entry on fair or reasonable grounds. It is punitively tough towards bona fide asylum seekers, refugees (including children) and deserved immigration applicants. It also seeks to allow the Home Office to deport and/or take away citizenship from people of a different ethnic origin – this is discriminatory.

The bill goes against the Equality Act 2010, the European Convention on Human Rights and the Geneva Convention in its treatment of refugees and asylum seekers. It would be embarrassing for the British government – and its people – if it ended up being challenged in the International Court of Justice in the Hague (a UN organisation).

Britain is a multi-cultured and cosmopolitan society, albeit due to its colonial past; Britain exploited, looted and extracted resources – enslaving many “natives” and took or settled on land that was not theirs – annihilating whole races in cases like the Aborigines in Australia and New Zealand; native Indians in Canada and the USA (in conjunction with other northern European colonials).

What about the contributions by old colonies to the world wars – in terms of wealth, resources, food and manpower – from India, Africa and others? The Indian army is recorded to be the largest volunteer (sic!) army in history with 2.5 million soldiers enlisted or indentured – this number is much more than the combined contribution from the dominions of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. Is there no moral conscience or sense of offering reparations?

Would it be acceptable if the British colonisers were asked to leave Australia, New Zealand and Canada and pay back what they extracted and be tried for their crimes against the natives, including annihilating most of the natives? Immigrants of ethnic origin have equal rights to be here, and introducing laws that make it easy to take away their passports or citizenship or deport them are unfair and unacceptable.

Prof Naresh Sethi

London