Ask yourself these two questions.
If and when Johnson is found to have flouted more rules (that he made!) do you think he'd go?
Do you think he and his acolytes... and also a significant portion of the electorate, would equate different forms of breaking the rules, with some more valid than others... or do yout think any breaking of the rules would be used as justification for Johnson to remain?
It won't matter what Sue Gray writes, it won't matter what the grey areas are - if Starmer is hit with a fine, he'll be totally unable to hold government to account on this issue and others if *he* stays.
There's a long line building up for Johnson, and in some way it'd end up all as bad as each other in a comparison between having a beer, and acting unlawfully in releasing people back into care homes. Somewhere, standards have to be adhered to, so that people keep what little faith they have in politicians, or regain some small amount of trust. The current joke in power shows no sign of caring about that, so it's up to the Leader of the Opposition to hold the mirror to that. If that means resigning for a perceived small misdemeanour, then that's for the greater good really. We can't allow the current disgrace to drag the office down any more than he has already, regardless of political persuasion, as the ramifications down the line go further than just whether a man had a birthday party or not.