In which Keir Starmer slightly muffs his letter and Boris Johnson send a slightly dodgy reply. THREAD.
So here's Keir's letter. Note the difference between what he reports he said in the House "it remains very unlikely" and then his (different) citation of the advice "it is therefore very unlikely". 
Then here's Boris Johnson's reply, in which he accuses Keir Starmer of "in the House" quoting the advice selectively and misleadingly by ignoring the critical context.
So who's right? Well the bit of the advice that Keir Starmer relied on in the House does NOT contain the context Boris Johnson relies on.
But there is ANOTHER bit of that advice which DOES contain that context. And Keir Starmer's letter lets Boris Johnson off the hook by citing as proof of his statement in the House the WRONG bit of the advice, ie the bit that contains the context Johnson is then able to rely on.
Standing back? Starmer should have done better. His letter lets Johnson off the hook. But I'm also not sure Starmer's point was that great to start with: the context Johnson cites is relevant (even if it wasn't the immediate context to the advice Starmer cited in the House.)
(The advice is here if you want to read it gov.uk/government/pub…).
