Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

How will the BoJo survival betting look next Friday morning? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited May 3 in General
imageHow will the BoJo survival betting look next Friday morning? – politicalbetting.com

I really love this betting chart on Johnson’s exit date which gives a snapshot of how those like me who bet on politics view his survival chances and are prepared to risk money backing their views up.

Read the full story here

«13456711

Comments

  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,246
    Test
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 9,629
    It’s not just about nerve Mike, it’s about the replacement. I think Truss just blew it.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 46,234
    This is such a great story, I had to repost it:

    I presume everyone has been following the most interesting story of recent days:

    Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Catholic Church and Milo Yiannopoulos:

    https://www.salon.com/2022/04/27/marjorie-taylor-greene-to-right-wing-catholic-site-how-come-god-hasnt-destroyed-america/
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 41,202
    Russia has passed legislation to legalise plunder, and is stealing grain from occupied territory.
    https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/04/29/threatening-kherson-farmers-russian-troops-steal-grain-from-ukraine/?swcfpc=1
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 41,202
    Interesting question - if Musk runs Twitter, will it be Chinese censorship that we have to worry about ?
    Marriott International, Delta Airlines, H&M, Zara: there are many reasons why China is the elephant in the room when it comes to Elon Musk's acquisition of Twitter...
    https://twitter.com/lizalinwsj/status/1519541595657232384
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 40,208
    Lots of expectations management going on from everyone with regard to the local elections.

    The 2023 PM exit date seems like the value to me. A change of leader after the local elections next year, with the new leader having a year to turn things around before the GE.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 9,629

    HYUFD said:

    YouGov are the only pollster to correctly weigh geographical sub-samples.

    London
    Lab 50%
    Con 21%
    LD 12%
    Grn 8%

    Rest of South
    Con 41%
    Lab 33%
    LD 14%
    Grn 7%
    Ref 3%

    Midlands and Wales
    Con 40%
    Lab 38%
    LD 9%
    Ref 5%
    Grn 4%

    North
    Lab 51%
    Con 29%
    Grn 8%
    LD 8%
    Ref 3%

    Scotland
    SNP 47%
    Lab 23%
    Con 14%
    LD 7%
    Grn 3%

    (YouGov / The Times; Sample Size: 1779; Fieldwork: 26th - 27th April 2022)

    Still Conservatives lead in the Midlands and South, unless that changes and he also makes more progress in Scotland, Starmer is not going to get a majority even if he does win London and the North convincingly
    The markets agree with you.

    NOM 1.91
    Con Maj 3.55
    Lab Maj 5
    Whether Starmer makes progress in Scotland will be irrelevant unless Labour gains are sufficient to make the difference between being the largest party in a minority government and gaining an overall majority. This is unlikely. Scotland doesn’t have enough seats to make a significant difference.
    Under the new boundaries Starmer and Sarwar need to get SLab to 30%+ before they start picking up seats, and 35%+ before gaining significant numbers.
    Although they are now clear of the floundering SCons, they are still miles off those benchmarks. Yesterday’s YouGov:

    SNP 47%
    SLab 23%
    SCon 14%
    SLD 7%
    Grn 3%

    I can see exactly where Labour in Scotland are going wrong, but the current leaders can’t. That delights me. It also surprises me: they’ve had plenty of time to reflect and learn.

    14% for the SCons is core vote. The Ruth Davidson Says No Party is deceased. Back to normal.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 41,202
    Congress passed Lend Lease bill.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 43,638
    rcs1000 said:

    This is such a great story, I had to repost it:

    I presume everyone has been following the most interesting story of recent days:

    Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Catholic Church and Milo Yiannopoulos:

    https://www.salon.com/2022/04/27/marjorie-taylor-greene-to-right-wing-catholic-site-how-come-god-hasnt-destroyed-america/

    Truly stunning. These people are genuinely insane. The fact that they have such a grip on one of the major parties in the US is frightening.

    One of my favourite books about America is the cold six thousand by James Ellroy. The dystopian picture of the US that he paints of Mafia, Klan, out of control government agencies, Howard Hughes etc all operating in a supposed democracy seems startlingly real when you get glimpses of their modern equivalments like this.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 33,420
    edited April 29
    In the "facepalm of the day" contest Nadine Dorries is putting in a strong performance:

    https://twitter.com/Jake_Kanter/status/1519794080900960263?t=kZ6kwxAZTHck-BrJweTkKg&s=19

    In making the case for selling Channel 4, Nadine Dorries points to the success of Channel 5's privatisation, not once, but twice. Channel 5 has never been owned by the government. https://t.co/Ru927I9dO7
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 36,885
    edited April 29

    HYUFD said:

    YouGov are the only pollster to correctly weigh geographical sub-samples.

    London
    Lab 50%
    Con 21%
    LD 12%
    Grn 8%

    Rest of South
    Con 41%
    Lab 33%
    LD 14%
    Grn 7%
    Ref 3%

    Midlands and Wales
    Con 40%
    Lab 38%
    LD 9%
    Ref 5%
    Grn 4%

    North
    Lab 51%
    Con 29%
    Grn 8%
    LD 8%
    Ref 3%

    Scotland
    SNP 47%
    Lab 23%
    Con 14%
    LD 7%
    Grn 3%

    (YouGov / The Times; Sample Size: 1779; Fieldwork: 26th - 27th April 2022)

    Still Conservatives lead in the Midlands and South, unless that changes and he also makes more progress in Scotland, Starmer is not going to get a majority even if he does win London and the North convincingly
    The markets agree with you.

    NOM 1.91
    Con Maj 3.55
    Lab Maj 5
    Whether Starmer makes progress in Scotland will be irrelevant unless Labour gains are sufficient to make the difference between being the largest party in a minority government and gaining an overall majority. This is unlikely. Scotland doesn’t have enough seats to make a significant difference.
    Under the new boundaries Starmer and Sarwar need to get SLab to 30%+ before they start picking up seats, and 35%+ before gaining significant numbers.
    Although they are now clear of the floundering SCons, they are still miles off those benchmarks. Yesterday’s YouGov:

    SNP 47%
    SLab 23%
    SCon 14%
    SLD 7%
    Grn 3%

    I can see exactly where Labour in Scotland are going wrong, but the current leaders can’t. That delights me. It also surprises me: they’ve had plenty of time to reflect and learn.

    14% for the SCons is core vote. The Ruth Davidson Says No Party is deceased. Back to normal.
    Labour only need to come out for independence and they are back
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 43,638
    Foxy said:

    In the "facepalm of the day" contest Nadine Dorries is putting in a strong performance:

    https://twitter.com/Jake_Kanter/status/1519794080900960263?t=kZ6kwxAZTHck-BrJweTkKg&s=19

    In making the case for selling Channel 4, Nadine Dorries points to the success of Channel 5's privatisation, not once, but twice. Channel 5 has never been owned by the government. https://t.co/Ru927I9dO7

    The day is young and the opportunities of government ministers to say stupid things almost endless. But it will be a contender, I'll give you that.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 33,420
    edited April 29
    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    In the "facepalm of the day" contest Nadine Dorries is putting in a strong performance:

    https://twitter.com/Jake_Kanter/status/1519794080900960263?t=kZ6kwxAZTHck-BrJweTkKg&s=19

    In making the case for selling Channel 4, Nadine Dorries points to the success of Channel 5's privatisation, not once, but twice. Channel 5 has never been owned by the government. https://t.co/Ru927I9dO7

    The day is young and the opportunities of government ministers to say stupid things almost endless. But it will be a contender, I'll give you that.
    Thogh JRM is also putting in a competitive entry. Apparently implementing customs control over imports at the Channel as required by Brexit would be "an act of self harm"

    https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1519700895830884352?t=GtYAkyqHRzzEQm2PXvJknA&s=09
  • felixfelix Posts: 14,261
    edited April 29
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 9,629
    malcolmg said:

    HYUFD said:

    YouGov are the only pollster to correctly weigh geographical sub-samples.

    London
    Lab 50%
    Con 21%
    LD 12%
    Grn 8%

    Rest of South
    Con 41%
    Lab 33%
    LD 14%
    Grn 7%
    Ref 3%

    Midlands and Wales
    Con 40%
    Lab 38%
    LD 9%
    Ref 5%
    Grn 4%

    North
    Lab 51%
    Con 29%
    Grn 8%
    LD 8%
    Ref 3%

    Scotland
    SNP 47%
    Lab 23%
    Con 14%
    LD 7%
    Grn 3%

    (YouGov / The Times; Sample Size: 1779; Fieldwork: 26th - 27th April 2022)

    Still Conservatives lead in the Midlands and South, unless that changes and he also makes more progress in Scotland, Starmer is not going to get a majority even if he does win London and the North convincingly
    The markets agree with you.

    NOM 1.91
    Con Maj 3.55
    Lab Maj 5
    Whether Starmer makes progress in Scotland will be irrelevant unless Labour gains are sufficient to make the difference between being the largest party in a minority government and gaining an overall majority. This is unlikely. Scotland doesn’t have enough seats to make a significant difference.
    Under the new boundaries Starmer and Sarwar need to get SLab to 30%+ before they start picking up seats, and 35%+ before gaining significant numbers.
    Although they are now clear of the floundering SCons, they are still miles off those benchmarks. Yesterday’s YouGov:

    SNP 47%
    SLab 23%
    SCon 14%
    SLD 7%
    Grn 3%

    I can see exactly where Labour in Scotland are going wrong, but the current leaders can’t. That delights me. It also surprises me: they’ve had plenty of time to reflect and learn.

    14% for the SCons is core vote. The Ruth Davidson Says No Party is deceased. Back to normal.
    Labour only need to come out for independence and they are back.
    Labour only need to come out as neutral on independence and they are back.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 40,208
    Nigelb said:

    Congress passed Lend Lease bill.

    Well done America, glad to see the change of heart there. This will lead to huge amounts of modern equipment heading to Ukraine.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 9,068
    rcs1000 said:

    This is such a great story, I had to repost it:

    I presume everyone has been following the most interesting story of recent days:

    Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Catholic Church and Milo Yiannopoulos:

    https://www.salon.com/2022/04/27/marjorie-taylor-greene-to-right-wing-catholic-site-how-come-god-hasnt-destroyed-america/

    It's easy to laugh at this stuff, but it also reads like the flashback parts of the Handmaid's Tale that explain how America became Gilead.
  • pingping Posts: 2,398
    edited April 29
    Btw how the hell is Geoffrey Cox’s behaviour remotely acceptable?

    If he wants to take the dime for defending the indefensible, resign from parliament, ffs.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 52,814
    ping said:

    Btw how the hell is Geoffrey Cox’s behaviour remotely acceptable?

    If he wants to take the dime for defending the indefensible, resign from parliament, ffs.

    Good morning

    What has he done ?
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 9,629
    Sandpit said:

    felix said:
    Oh, what a surprise.

    If you’re going to go in really hard on your political opponents, for relative trivialities from two years ago, then you’d better be sure that you’re whiter than white yourself.

    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
    All the Tories have done since they came to power in 2010 is play stupid games. The prizes include a mendacious buffoon as head of government, demonising closest allies and trading partners and an historic decline in living standards.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 6,482
    Unless the results are 1994-style bad for the Conservatives (unlikely, given the mix of seats up this time), there will presumably be enough crumbs of comfort for the Conservatives that they will be able to justify delaying a decision on BoJo's future for a bit longer.

    Which will suit the PM just fine.
  • pingping Posts: 2,398
    edited April 29

    ping said:

    Btw how the hell is Geoffrey Cox’s behaviour remotely acceptable?

    If he wants to take the dime for defending the indefensible, resign from parliament, ffs.

    Good morning

    What has he done ?
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61266526.amp
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 52,814
    BBC news reporting on Angela Rayner being present with Keir Starmer at the controversial gathering despite Labour denying she was there and now saying it was an honest mistake

    The wider issue here is if Durham Police do not investigate events as they are out of time, but the Met Police do and issue FPNs then the law is not being applied equally across England

    This story is not going away
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 52,814
    edited April 29
    ping said:

    ping said:

    Btw how the hell is Geoffrey Cox’s behaviour remotely acceptable?

    If he wants to take the dime for defending the indefensible, resign from parliament, ffs.

    Good morning

    What has he done ?
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61266526.amp
    I misread your post and note Cox involvement
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 9,629

    Unless the results are 1994-style bad for the Conservatives (unlikely, given the mix of seats up this time), there will presumably be enough crumbs of comfort for the Conservatives that they will be able to justify delaying a decision on BoJo's future for a bit longer.

    Which will suit the PM just fine.

    And suits Labour, the SNP and the Lib Dems just fine. Let’s be honest.

    The New Brexit Party is digging it’s own grave. PR Mr Starmer. PR.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 8,731
    Sandpit said:

    felix said:
    Oh, what a surprise.

    If you’re going to go in really hard on your political opponents, for relative trivialities from two years ago, then you’d better be sure that you’re whiter than white yourself.

    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
    The Durham police not going after Starmer as it would be selective, as would have been Cummings case, is problematic. How many parties/events from 2020 are the met investigating?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 52,814

    Unless the results are 1994-style bad for the Conservatives (unlikely, given the mix of seats up this time), there will presumably be enough crumbs of comfort for the Conservatives that they will be able to justify delaying a decision on BoJo's future for a bit longer.

    Which will suit the PM just fine.

    And suits Labour, the SNP and the Lib Dems just fine. Let’s be honest.

    The New Brexit Party is digging it’s own grave. PR Mr Starmer. PR.
    The conservative mps will take action when they see their jobs threatened and I have predicted Boris may be gone by the end of May

    However, if they keep him in place then that is their responsibility, but even so I would suggest stranger things have happened then Boris winning in 24
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 52,814

    Sandpit said:

    felix said:
    Oh, what a surprise.

    If you’re going to go in really hard on your political opponents, for relative trivialities from two years ago, then you’d better be sure that you’re whiter than white yourself.

    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
    The Durham police not going after Starmer as it would be selective, as would have been Cummings case, is problematic. How many parties/events from 2020 are the met investigating?
    I really do not know but this has the potential to become a story of one rule for the PM and another for the leader and deputy leader of the labour party
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 9,629

    Unless the results are 1994-style bad for the Conservatives (unlikely, given the mix of seats up this time), there will presumably be enough crumbs of comfort for the Conservatives that they will be able to justify delaying a decision on BoJo's future for a bit longer.

    Which will suit the PM just fine.

    And suits Labour, the SNP and the Lib Dems just fine. Let’s be honest.

    The New Brexit Party is digging it’s own grave. PR Mr Starmer. PR.
    The conservative mps will take action when they see their jobs threatened and I have predicted Boris may be gone by the end of May

    However, if they keep him in place then that is their responsibility, but even so I would suggest stranger things have happened then Boris winning in 24
    Then get down the bookies. You can get Con Maj 5/2

    That’s a terrific return in the current economic climate. Or idiocy. You choose.
  • prh47bridgeprh47bridge Posts: 388
    ping said:

    ping said:

    Btw how the hell is Geoffrey Cox’s behaviour remotely acceptable?

    If he wants to take the dime for defending the indefensible, resign from parliament, ffs.

    Good morning

    What has he done ?
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61266526.amp
    Cox is a barrister. Barristers are required to work on the cab rank principle - if someone wants your services in an area of law in which you have expertise at a time when you are available and are willing to pay your standard rate, you are required to represent them. Failure to do so can result in you being struck off. So, if you are defendant in a criminal case, your chosen barrister is required to defend you however distasteful they find you and however much they think you are guilty. The only grounds on which they can refuse to defend you is if you admit you are guilty.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 52,814

    Unless the results are 1994-style bad for the Conservatives (unlikely, given the mix of seats up this time), there will presumably be enough crumbs of comfort for the Conservatives that they will be able to justify delaying a decision on BoJo's future for a bit longer.

    Which will suit the PM just fine.

    And suits Labour, the SNP and the Lib Dems just fine. Let’s be honest.

    The New Brexit Party is digging it’s own grave. PR Mr Starmer. PR.
    The conservative mps will take action when they see their jobs threatened and I have predicted Boris may be gone by the end of May

    However, if they keep him in place then that is their responsibility, but even so I would suggest stranger things have happened then Boris winning in 24
    Then get down the bookies. You can get Con Maj 5/2

    That’s a terrific return in the current economic climate. Or idiocy. You choose.
    I am not someone who bets but no doubt some will
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 9,629

    Sandpit said:

    felix said:
    Oh, what a surprise.

    If you’re going to go in really hard on your political opponents, for relative trivialities from two years ago, then you’d better be sure that you’re whiter than white yourself.

    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
    The Durham police not going after Starmer as it would be selective, as would have been Cummings case, is problematic. How many parties/events from 2020 are the met investigating?
    I really do not know but this has the potential to become a story of one rule for the PM and another for the leader and deputy leader of the labour party
    Yawn.

    Boris is a Lying Shit = traction

    Rayner is a Lying Shit = who?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 23,620
    More from Frost: "My negotiating team was treated brutally as the supplicant representatives of a renegade province, culminating in us being shut in the meeting room in the Berlaymont until 2am on the final night of talks".
    https://twitter.com/BEERG/status/1519917192392941568

    Why didn’t he just point out that we held all the cards?
    https://twitter.com/seanjonesqc/status/1519928836217085954
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 9,629

    Unless the results are 1994-style bad for the Conservatives (unlikely, given the mix of seats up this time), there will presumably be enough crumbs of comfort for the Conservatives that they will be able to justify delaying a decision on BoJo's future for a bit longer.

    Which will suit the PM just fine.

    And suits Labour, the SNP and the Lib Dems just fine. Let’s be honest.

    The New Brexit Party is digging it’s own grave. PR Mr Starmer. PR.
    The conservative mps will take action when they see their jobs threatened and I have predicted Boris may be gone by the end of May

    However, if they keep him in place then that is their responsibility, but even so I would suggest stranger things have happened then Boris winning in 24
    Then get down the bookies. You can get Con Maj 5/2

    That’s a terrific return in the current economic climate. Or idiocy. You choose.
    I am not someone who bets but no doubt some will
    One of the biggest problems on this blog. Gey few punters.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 36,881
    felix said:
    She was there on Zoom!!!! The desperation here is genuinely hilarious.

  • pingping Posts: 2,398
    edited April 29

    ping said:

    ping said:

    Btw how the hell is Geoffrey Cox’s behaviour remotely acceptable?

    If he wants to take the dime for defending the indefensible, resign from parliament, ffs.

    Good morning

    What has he done ?
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61266526.amp
    Cox is a barrister. Barristers are required to work on the cab rank principle - if someone wants your services in an area of law in which you have expertise at a time when you are available and are willing to pay your standard rate, you are required to represent them. Failure to do so can result in you being struck off. So, if you are defendant in a criminal case, your chosen barrister is required to defend you however distasteful they find you and however much they think you are guilty. The only grounds on which they can refuse to defend you is if you admit you are guilty.
    Pft. That’s not how it works in practice - in the case/client he’s chosen to take on. He has full agency, no?
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 9,629
    Scott_xP said:

    More from Frost: "My negotiating team was treated brutally as the supplicant representatives of a renegade province, culminating in us being shut in the meeting room in the Berlaymont until 2am on the final night of talks".
    https://twitter.com/BEERG/status/1519917192392941568

    Why didn’t he just point out that we held all the cards?
    https://twitter.com/seanjonesqc/status/1519928836217085954

    Ho ho. Tell folk you despise them and then get all tetchy when they keep you at arm’s length.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 36,881

    Sandpit said:

    felix said:
    Oh, what a surprise.

    If you’re going to go in really hard on your political opponents, for relative trivialities from two years ago, then you’d better be sure that you’re whiter than white yourself.

    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
    The Durham police not going after Starmer as it would be selective, as would have been Cummings case, is problematic. How many parties/events from 2020 are the met investigating?
    I really do not know but this has the potential to become a story of one rule for the PM and another for the leader and deputy leader of the labour party
    It does. But the problem the Tories have here is that Johnson broke the rules he imposed on everyone else and Starmer didn’t. However much the Mail might dissemble in seeking to show otherwise, that’s the bottom line.

  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 9,629

    felix said:
    She was there on Zoom!!!! The desperation here is genuinely hilarious.

    They are now deep into headless-chicken territory.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 52,814

    Sandpit said:

    felix said:
    Oh, what a surprise.

    If you’re going to go in really hard on your political opponents, for relative trivialities from two years ago, then you’d better be sure that you’re whiter than white yourself.

    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
    The Durham police not going after Starmer as it would be selective, as would have been Cummings case, is problematic. How many parties/events from 2020 are the met investigating?
    I really do not know but this has the potential to become a story of one rule for the PM and another for the leader and deputy leader of the labour party
    Yawn.

    Boris is a Lying Shit = traction

    Rayner is a Lying Shit = who?
    You seem to have a view that the law is OK to be applied to the PM which is correct, but not bothered if it is not applied equally to other politicians
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 52,814

    felix said:
    She was there on Zoom!!!! The desperation here is genuinely hilarious.

    She was there in person along with Starmer at this controversial event despite Labour denying she was

    Nothing to do with zoom
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,522

    Sandpit said:

    felix said:
    Oh, what a surprise.

    If you’re going to go in really hard on your political opponents, for relative trivialities from two years ago, then you’d better be sure that you’re whiter than white yourself.

    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
    The Durham police not going after Starmer as it would be selective, as would have been Cummings case, is problematic. How many parties/events from 2020 are the met investigating?
    I really do not know but this has the potential to become a story of one rule for the PM and another for the leader and deputy leader of the labour party
    It does. But the problem the Tories have here is that Johnson broke the rules he imposed on everyone else and Starmer didn’t. However much the Mail might dissemble in seeking to show otherwise, that’s the bottom line.

    Not really. Starmer didn’t come out and say he was against the rules, or they should be relaxed. Quite the opposite - he wanted the rules tightened further. So, yes, he was trying to ‘impose’ rules he didn’t follow even if he didn’t have the power himself to enforce them
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 9,629

    Sandpit said:

    felix said:
    Oh, what a surprise.

    If you’re going to go in really hard on your political opponents, for relative trivialities from two years ago, then you’d better be sure that you’re whiter than white yourself.

    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
    The Durham police not going after Starmer as it would be selective, as would have been Cummings case, is problematic. How many parties/events from 2020 are the met investigating?
    I really do not know but this has the potential to become a story of one rule for the PM and another for the leader and deputy leader of the labour party
    Yawn.

    Boris is a Lying Shit = traction

    Rayner is a Lying Shit = who?
    You seem to have a view that the law is OK to be applied to the PM which is correct, but not bothered if it is not applied equally to other politicians
    Top tip: take a look at the name of this blog: political + betting.

    Trends and traction are important to political betting outcomes. I know Labour are a bunch of mendacious shits. You know that Labour are a bunch of mendacious shits. But frankly, who cares? What matters is who *the electorate* think are the biggest mendacious shits. There the Tories win hands down.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 41,202
    edited April 29

    ping said:

    ping said:

    Btw how the hell is Geoffrey Cox’s behaviour remotely acceptable?

    If he wants to take the dime for defending the indefensible, resign from parliament, ffs.

    Good morning

    What has he done ?
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61266526.amp
    Cox is a barrister. Barristers are required to work on the cab rank principle - if someone wants your services in an area of law in which you have expertise at a time when you are available and are willing to pay your standard rate, you are required to represent them. Failure to do so can result in you being struck off. So, if you are defendant in a criminal case, your chosen barrister is required to defend you however distasteful they find you and however much they think you are guilty. The only grounds on which they can refuse to defend you is if you admit you are guilty.
    In this case, I'd respectfully suggest that the invocation of the 'cab rank principle' is utter tripe.
    Representing overseas governors is a matter of choice.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 44,983
    malcolmg said:

    HYUFD said:

    YouGov are the only pollster to correctly weigh geographical sub-samples.

    London
    Lab 50%
    Con 21%
    LD 12%
    Grn 8%

    Rest of South
    Con 41%
    Lab 33%
    LD 14%
    Grn 7%
    Ref 3%

    Midlands and Wales
    Con 40%
    Lab 38%
    LD 9%
    Ref 5%
    Grn 4%

    North
    Lab 51%
    Con 29%
    Grn 8%
    LD 8%
    Ref 3%

    Scotland
    SNP 47%
    Lab 23%
    Con 14%
    LD 7%
    Grn 3%

    (YouGov / The Times; Sample Size: 1779; Fieldwork: 26th - 27th April 2022)

    Still Conservatives lead in the Midlands and South, unless that changes and he also makes more progress in Scotland, Starmer is not going to get a majority even if he does win London and the North convincingly
    The markets agree with you.

    NOM 1.91
    Con Maj 3.55
    Lab Maj 5
    Whether Starmer makes progress in Scotland will be irrelevant unless Labour gains are sufficient to make the difference between being the largest party in a minority government and gaining an overall majority. This is unlikely. Scotland doesn’t have enough seats to make a significant difference.
    Under the new boundaries Starmer and Sarwar need to get SLab to 30%+ before they start picking up seats, and 35%+ before gaining significant numbers.
    Although they are now clear of the floundering SCons, they are still miles off those benchmarks. Yesterday’s YouGov:

    SNP 47%
    SLab 23%
    SCon 14%
    SLD 7%
    Grn 3%

    I can see exactly where Labour in Scotland are going wrong, but the current leaders can’t. That delights me. It also surprises me: they’ve had plenty of time to reflect and learn.

    14% for the SCons is core vote. The Ruth Davidson Says No Party is deceased. Back to normal.
    Labour only need to come out for independence and they are back
    In Scotland. Kills them in England though.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 36,881

    felix said:
    She was there on Zoom!!!! The desperation here is genuinely hilarious.

    She was there in person along with Starmer at this controversial event despite Labour denying she was

    Nothing to do with zoom

    No she wasn’t. She was with him earlier for an online Zoom rally. She was not there later when he was having his entirely legal beer and takeaway with the election tram.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 41,202
    Michelle Mone's home raided by police over multi-million pound PPE fraud probe
    https://mobile.twitter.com/MirrorPolitics/status/1519794800370888705
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,522

    Unless the results are 1994-style bad for the Conservatives (unlikely, given the mix of seats up this time), there will presumably be enough crumbs of comfort for the Conservatives that they will be able to justify delaying a decision on BoJo's future for a bit longer.

    Which will suit the PM just fine.

    And suits Labour, the SNP and the Lib Dems just fine. Let’s be honest.

    The New Brexit Party is digging it’s own grave. PR Mr Starmer. PR.
    The conservative mps will take action when they see their jobs threatened and I have predicted Boris may be gone by the end of May

    However, if they keep him in place then that is their responsibility, but even so I would suggest stranger things have happened then Boris winning in 24
    Then get down the bookies. You can get Con Maj 5/2

    That’s a terrific return in the current economic climate. Or idiocy. You choose.
    Too far out so I won’t bet now. But I did ask a former SPAD on who he thought would win in 2024 and, without skipping a beat, said Johnson will lead the Tories into the next election and win.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 36,881

    Sandpit said:

    felix said:
    Oh, what a surprise.

    If you’re going to go in really hard on your political opponents, for relative trivialities from two years ago, then you’d better be sure that you’re whiter than white yourself.

    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
    The Durham police not going after Starmer as it would be selective, as would have been Cummings case, is problematic. How many parties/events from 2020 are the met investigating?
    I really do not know but this has the potential to become a story of one rule for the PM and another for the leader and deputy leader of the labour party
    Yawn.

    Boris is a Lying Shit = traction

    Rayner is a Lying Shit = who?
    You seem to have a view that the law is OK to be applied to the PM which is correct, but not bothered if it is not applied equally to other politicians

    You want Starmer to have broken the law. Your problem is that he didn’t!

  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 52,814

    Sandpit said:

    felix said:
    Oh, what a surprise.

    If you’re going to go in really hard on your political opponents, for relative trivialities from two years ago, then you’d better be sure that you’re whiter than white yourself.

    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
    The Durham police not going after Starmer as it would be selective, as would have been Cummings case, is problematic. How many parties/events from 2020 are the met investigating?
    I really do not know but this has the potential to become a story of one rule for the PM and another for the leader and deputy leader of the labour party
    It does. But the problem the Tories have here is that Johnson broke the rules he imposed on everyone else and Starmer didn’t. However much the Mail might dissemble in seeking to show otherwise, that’s the bottom line.

    Do you really believe that

    Starmer backed the law and indeed wanted stronger restrictions and this event does seem to breach the rules at the time but Durham Police have effectively called it a timed out event when the Met Police correctly hand Boris a FPN
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,522

    Sandpit said:

    felix said:
    Oh, what a surprise.

    If you’re going to go in really hard on your political opponents, for relative trivialities from two years ago, then you’d better be sure that you’re whiter than white yourself.

    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
    The Durham police not going after Starmer as it would be selective, as would have been Cummings case, is problematic. How many parties/events from 2020 are the met investigating?
    Tricky for Labour as:

    - if Durham do reopen, pressure on Starmer and makes him / Labour look like hypocrites;

    - if Durham doesn’t reopen, you highlight the fact their Police Commissioner is a Labour hack and say draw your own conclusions…
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 16,785
    edited April 29

    Sandpit said:

    felix said:
    Oh, what a surprise.

    If you’re going to go in really hard on your political opponents, for relative trivialities from two years ago, then you’d better be sure that you’re whiter than white yourself.

    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
    The Durham police not going after Starmer as it would be selective, as would have been Cummings case, is problematic. How many parties/events from 2020 are the met investigating?
    I really do not know but this has the potential to become a story of one rule for the PM and another for the leader and deputy leader of the labour party
    It does. But the problem the Tories have here is that Johnson broke the rules he imposed on everyone else and Starmer didn’t. However much the Mail might dissemble in seeking to show otherwise, that’s the bottom line.

    This is clearly the work of Lyhton Crosby's henchmen engaged at Downing Street, in conjunction with Dacre. It is quite a clever, if disingenuous tactic. If Boris Johnson can't be whitewashed, cover the opposition with confected ordure and a plague on both their houses.

    At the moment there is nothing more important in the realms of UK Government than "saving Big Dog". The PB Johnsonian Tories have bought into it with enthusiasm.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 50,178

    felix said:
    She was there on Zoom!!!! The desperation here is genuinely hilarious.

    She was there in person along with Starmer at this controversial event despite Labour denying she was

    Nothing to do with zoom
    The problem for the Tories is if this event gets reopened and fines are issued, so might other events that the police can't be bothered to investigate be reopened and investigated.*

    In which case Johnson could end up being fined even more heavily, and still have to explain a pattern of lawbreaking.

    Moreover just as the Tories supported Labour's policies leading up to 2007-8 and still escaped censure for the crash by virtue of not being in charge, the Tories have the small problem that they are in government and the buck stops with them. Nobody is going to be unduly exercised about Starmer's call for further restrictions and one fine for a one-off breach if the government have openly and repeatedly trampled on their own laws. Even though they possibly should be.

    *Please let that include the one at the DfE, because that would actually be funnier than Boris Johnson trying to read an autocue...
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 36,881
    MrEd said:

    Sandpit said:

    felix said:
    Oh, what a surprise.

    If you’re going to go in really hard on your political opponents, for relative trivialities from two years ago, then you’d better be sure that you’re whiter than white yourself.

    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
    The Durham police not going after Starmer as it would be selective, as would have been Cummings case, is problematic. How many parties/events from 2020 are the met investigating?
    I really do not know but this has the potential to become a story of one rule for the PM and another for the leader and deputy leader of the labour party
    It does. But the problem the Tories have here is that Johnson broke the rules he imposed on everyone else and Starmer didn’t. However much the Mail might dissemble in seeking to show otherwise, that’s the bottom line.

    Not really. Starmer didn’t come out and say he was against the rules, or they should be relaxed. Quite the opposite - he wanted the rules tightened further. So, yes, he was trying to ‘impose’ rules he didn’t follow even if he didn’t have the power himself to enforce them
    Except he did follow the rules. And therein lies the Tories’ problem with this line of attack.

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,394

    Sandpit said:

    felix said:
    Oh, what a surprise.

    If you’re going to go in really hard on your political opponents, for relative trivialities from two years ago, then you’d better be sure that you’re whiter than white yourself.

    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
    The Durham police not going after Starmer as it would be selective, as would have been Cummings case, is problematic. How many parties/events from 2020 are the met investigating?
    I really do not know but this has the potential to become a story of one rule for the PM and another for the leader and deputy leader of the labour party
    Yawn.

    Boris is a Lying Shit = traction

    Rayner is a Lying Shit = who?
    You seem to have a view that the law is OK to be applied to the PM which is correct, but not bothered if it is not applied equally to other politicians

    You want Starmer to have broken the law. Your problem is that he didn’t!

    As someone who was told off for chatting to friends in a pub car park around the time of this indoor incident, I think Starmer very much did break the rules.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,148
    ping said:

    ping said:

    Btw how the hell is Geoffrey Cox’s behaviour remotely acceptable?

    If he wants to take the dime for defending the indefensible, resign from parliament, ffs.

    Good morning

    What has he done ?
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61266526.amp
    And?

    Barristers represent any number of awful people,
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,522
    felix said:
    Even better was the quote from a senior Labour official when the Mail originally asked the question about Ratner on Jan 14th:

    “Goodness me, with all that’s going on, it’s an old story”

    As usual, one rule for Labour….
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 9,629

    malcolmg said:

    HYUFD said:

    YouGov are the only pollster to correctly weigh geographical sub-samples.

    London
    Lab 50%
    Con 21%
    LD 12%
    Grn 8%

    Rest of South
    Con 41%
    Lab 33%
    LD 14%
    Grn 7%
    Ref 3%

    Midlands and Wales
    Con 40%
    Lab 38%
    LD 9%
    Ref 5%
    Grn 4%

    North
    Lab 51%
    Con 29%
    Grn 8%
    LD 8%
    Ref 3%

    Scotland
    SNP 47%
    Lab 23%
    Con 14%
    LD 7%
    Grn 3%

    (YouGov / The Times; Sample Size: 1779; Fieldwork: 26th - 27th April 2022)

    Still Conservatives lead in the Midlands and South, unless that changes and he also makes more progress in Scotland, Starmer is not going to get a majority even if he does win London and the North convincingly
    The markets agree with you.

    NOM 1.91
    Con Maj 3.55
    Lab Maj 5
    Whether Starmer makes progress in Scotland will be irrelevant unless Labour gains are sufficient to make the difference between being the largest party in a minority government and gaining an overall majority. This is unlikely. Scotland doesn’t have enough seats to make a significant difference.
    Under the new boundaries Starmer and Sarwar need to get SLab to 30%+ before they start picking up seats, and 35%+ before gaining significant numbers.
    Although they are now clear of the floundering SCons, they are still miles off those benchmarks. Yesterday’s YouGov:

    SNP 47%
    SLab 23%
    SCon 14%
    SLD 7%
    Grn 3%

    I can see exactly where Labour in Scotland are going wrong, but the current leaders can’t. That delights me. It also surprises me: they’ve had plenty of time to reflect and learn.

    14% for the SCons is core vote. The Ruth Davidson Says No Party is deceased. Back to normal.
    Labour only need to come out for independence and they are back
    In Scotland. Kills them in England though.
    Just a fifth of English voters oppose ending Union

    https://www.thenational.scot/news/19337786.scottish-independence-just-fifth-english-voters-oppose-ending-union/
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 6,482
    MrEd said:

    Sandpit said:

    felix said:
    Oh, what a surprise.

    If you’re going to go in really hard on your political opponents, for relative trivialities from two years ago, then you’d better be sure that you’re whiter than white yourself.

    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
    The Durham police not going after Starmer as it would be selective, as would have been Cummings case, is problematic. How many parties/events from 2020 are the met investigating?
    I really do not know but this has the potential to become a story of one rule for the PM and another for the leader and deputy leader of the labour party
    It does. But the problem the Tories have here is that Johnson broke the rules he imposed on everyone else and Starmer didn’t. However much the Mail might dissemble in seeking to show otherwise, that’s the bottom line.

    Not really. Starmer didn’t come out and say he was against the rules, or they should be relaxed. Quite the opposite - he wanted the rules tightened further. So, yes, he was trying to ‘impose’ rules he didn’t follow even if he didn’t have the power himself to enforce them
    Some of the mud The Mail is throwing is pretty watery. For example, the Starmer Birthday Cake thing happened when the lockdown restrictions were pretty minimal. And reheating the "Rayner was laughing, so it can't be that serious" is the sort of thing all bullies say when called out.

    Besides. If this were a real scandal, rather than a Maily Wail, you would expect some other paper to pick up on it by now.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 30,749

    Sandpit said:

    felix said:
    Oh, what a surprise.

    If you’re going to go in really hard on your political opponents, for relative trivialities from two years ago, then you’d better be sure that you’re whiter than white yourself.

    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
    The Durham police not going after Starmer as it would be selective, as would have been Cummings case, is problematic. How many parties/events from 2020 are the met investigating?
    I really do not know but this has the potential to become a story of one rule for the PM and another for the leader and deputy leader of the labour party
    It does. But the problem the Tories have here is that Johnson broke the rules he imposed on everyone else and Starmer didn’t. However much the Mail might dissemble in seeking to show otherwise, that’s the bottom line.

    Do you really believe that

    Starmer backed the law and indeed wanted stronger restrictions and this event does seem to breach the rules at the time but Durham Police have effectively called it a timed out event when the Met Police correctly hand Boris a FPN
    Even if Durham Police behaved correctly (does that imply the Med did not?), the whole thing looks highly dodgy.

    Starmer's main selling point is that he is not a clown, but a highly-experienced, highly-competent lawyer. It's fair enough saying that Johnson should have known the law because he drafted it; Starmer should have known because that's his USP.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,148
    rcs1000 said:

    This is such a great story, I had to repost it:

    I presume everyone has been following the most interesting story of recent days:

    Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Catholic Church and Milo Yiannopoulos:

    https://www.salon.com/2022/04/27/marjorie-taylor-greene-to-right-wing-catholic-site-how-come-god-hasnt-destroyed-america/

    I hadn't realised Milo was now "ex-gay."

    MTG really is mad as a box of frogs.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 1,773

    malcolmg said:

    HYUFD said:

    YouGov are the only pollster to correctly weigh geographical sub-samples.

    London
    Lab 50%
    Con 21%
    LD 12%
    Grn 8%

    Rest of South
    Con 41%
    Lab 33%
    LD 14%
    Grn 7%
    Ref 3%

    Midlands and Wales
    Con 40%
    Lab 38%
    LD 9%
    Ref 5%
    Grn 4%

    North
    Lab 51%
    Con 29%
    Grn 8%
    LD 8%
    Ref 3%

    Scotland
    SNP 47%
    Lab 23%
    Con 14%
    LD 7%
    Grn 3%

    (YouGov / The Times; Sample Size: 1779; Fieldwork: 26th - 27th April 2022)

    Still Conservatives lead in the Midlands and South, unless that changes and he also makes more progress in Scotland, Starmer is not going to get a majority even if he does win London and the North convincingly
    The markets agree with you.

    NOM 1.91
    Con Maj 3.55
    Lab Maj 5
    Whether Starmer makes progress in Scotland will be irrelevant unless Labour gains are sufficient to make the difference between being the largest party in a minority government and gaining an overall majority. This is unlikely. Scotland doesn’t have enough seats to make a significant difference.
    Under the new boundaries Starmer and Sarwar need to get SLab to 30%+ before they start picking up seats, and 35%+ before gaining significant numbers.
    Although they are now clear of the floundering SCons, they are still miles off those benchmarks. Yesterday’s YouGov:

    SNP 47%
    SLab 23%
    SCon 14%
    SLD 7%
    Grn 3%

    I can see exactly where Labour in Scotland are going wrong, but the current leaders can’t. That delights me. It also surprises me: they’ve had plenty of time to reflect and learn.

    14% for the SCons is core vote. The Ruth Davidson Says No Party is deceased. Back to normal.
    Labour only need to come out for independence and they are back
    In Scotland. Kills them in England though.
    Labour have several tightropes to walk. I can see that neutrality on independence might play well among SNP-inclined voters in Scotland but it would be a gift to the Tories in certain parts of England.

    Backing Brexit (or at least pretending it doesn’t exist as they do now) shores up support in some WWC areas but loses them a strong line of attack that’s not going away anytime soon. At the moment it probably doesn’t lose them remain votes though.

    Then there’s the trans issue, and planning, and public transport vs road building, and a whole lot of other smaller issues where their target support in one part of the country thinks very differently from their target support elsewhere.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 40,208

    malcolmg said:

    HYUFD said:

    YouGov are the only pollster to correctly weigh geographical sub-samples.

    London
    Lab 50%
    Con 21%
    LD 12%
    Grn 8%

    Rest of South
    Con 41%
    Lab 33%
    LD 14%
    Grn 7%
    Ref 3%

    Midlands and Wales
    Con 40%
    Lab 38%
    LD 9%
    Ref 5%
    Grn 4%

    North
    Lab 51%
    Con 29%
    Grn 8%
    LD 8%
    Ref 3%

    Scotland
    SNP 47%
    Lab 23%
    Con 14%
    LD 7%
    Grn 3%

    (YouGov / The Times; Sample Size: 1779; Fieldwork: 26th - 27th April 2022)

    Still Conservatives lead in the Midlands and South, unless that changes and he also makes more progress in Scotland, Starmer is not going to get a majority even if he does win London and the North convincingly
    The markets agree with you.

    NOM 1.91
    Con Maj 3.55
    Lab Maj 5
    Whether Starmer makes progress in Scotland will be irrelevant unless Labour gains are sufficient to make the difference between being the largest party in a minority government and gaining an overall majority. This is unlikely. Scotland doesn’t have enough seats to make a significant difference.
    Under the new boundaries Starmer and Sarwar need to get SLab to 30%+ before they start picking up seats, and 35%+ before gaining significant numbers.
    Although they are now clear of the floundering SCons, they are still miles off those benchmarks. Yesterday’s YouGov:

    SNP 47%
    SLab 23%
    SCon 14%
    SLD 7%
    Grn 3%

    I can see exactly where Labour in Scotland are going wrong, but the current leaders can’t. That delights me. It also surprises me: they’ve had plenty of time to reflect and learn.

    14% for the SCons is core vote. The Ruth Davidson Says No Party is deceased. Back to normal.
    Labour only need to come out for independence and they are back
    In Scotland. Kills them in England though.
    The SNats have been saying this for ages, that if only Labour comes to the dark side then life will be good for them.

    Same as telling SLab that they should really be focussing on the evil Tories.

    It’s never been true, but it would help the Nat cause if it were to happen.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 36,881

    felix said:
    She was there on Zoom!!!! The desperation here is genuinely hilarious.

    They are now deep into headless-chicken territory.
    Their strategy is very clear. The public now realises that Johnson is a grifting liar. There is no going back from that. The only possible way to neuter this is to try to convince people that Starmer is the same. It’s classic muckraking but, as the best PM polling shows, it’s not working.

  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 9,629
    Nigelb said:

    Michelle Mone's home raided by police over multi-million pound PPE fraud probe
    https://mobile.twitter.com/MirrorPolitics/status/1519794800370888705

    The Queen of Scottish Tory mendacity.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 41,202
    edited April 29
    Sean_F said:

    ping said:

    ping said:

    Btw how the hell is Geoffrey Cox’s behaviour remotely acceptable?

    If he wants to take the dime for defending the indefensible, resign from parliament, ffs.

    Good morning

    What has he done ?
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61266526.amp
    And?

    Barristers represent any number of awful people,
    Most of them aren't Attorneys General who go looking overseas for multi million pound briefs, though.

    Though you have a point as he also represented this government...
  • TimSTimS Posts: 1,773

    MrEd said:

    Sandpit said:

    felix said:
    Oh, what a surprise.

    If you’re going to go in really hard on your political opponents, for relative trivialities from two years ago, then you’d better be sure that you’re whiter than white yourself.

    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
    The Durham police not going after Starmer as it would be selective, as would have been Cummings case, is problematic. How many parties/events from 2020 are the met investigating?
    I really do not know but this has the potential to become a story of one rule for the PM and another for the leader and deputy leader of the labour party
    It does. But the problem the Tories have here is that Johnson broke the rules he imposed on everyone else and Starmer didn’t. However much the Mail might dissemble in seeking to show otherwise, that’s the bottom line.

    Not really. Starmer didn’t come out and say he was against the rules, or they should be relaxed. Quite the opposite - he wanted the rules tightened further. So, yes, he was trying to ‘impose’ rules he didn’t follow even if he didn’t have the power himself to enforce them
    Some of the mud The Mail is throwing is pretty watery. For example, the Starmer Birthday Cake thing happened when the lockdown restrictions were pretty minimal. And reheating the "Rayner was laughing, so it can't be that serious" is the sort of thing all bullies say when called out.

    Besides. If this were a real scandal, rather than a Maily Wail, you would expect some other paper to pick up on it by now.
    Well the Daily Mail was telling us all to move on and get a grip so presumably they don’t see any issue with Starmer cracking open a beer bottle.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 36,881

    Sandpit said:

    felix said:
    Oh, what a surprise.

    If you’re going to go in really hard on your political opponents, for relative trivialities from two years ago, then you’d better be sure that you’re whiter than white yourself.

    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
    The Durham police not going after Starmer as it would be selective, as would have been Cummings case, is problematic. How many parties/events from 2020 are the met investigating?
    I really do not know but this has the potential to become a story of one rule for the PM and another for the leader and deputy leader of the labour party
    It does. But the problem the Tories have here is that Johnson broke the rules he imposed on everyone else and Starmer didn’t. However much the Mail might dissemble in seeking to show otherwise, that’s the bottom line.

    Do you really believe that

    Starmer backed the law and indeed wanted stronger restrictions and this event does seem to breach the rules at the time but Durham Police have effectively called it a timed out event when the Met Police correctly hand Boris a FPN
    Even if Durham Police behaved correctly (does that imply the Med did not?), the whole thing looks highly dodgy.

    Starmer's main selling point is that he is not a clown, but a highly-experienced, highly-competent lawyer. It's fair enough saying that Johnson should have known the law because he drafted it; Starmer should have known because that's his USP.
    Yes, indeed. He knows the law. And he followed the law.

  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,522

    MrEd said:

    Sandpit said:

    felix said:
    Oh, what a surprise.

    If you’re going to go in really hard on your political opponents, for relative trivialities from two years ago, then you’d better be sure that you’re whiter than white yourself.

    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
    The Durham police not going after Starmer as it would be selective, as would have been Cummings case, is problematic. How many parties/events from 2020 are the met investigating?
    I really do not know but this has the potential to become a story of one rule for the PM and another for the leader and deputy leader of the labour party
    It does. But the problem the Tories have here is that Johnson broke the rules he imposed on everyone else and Starmer didn’t. However much the Mail might dissemble in seeking to show otherwise, that’s the bottom line.

    Not really. Starmer didn’t come out and say he was against the rules, or they should be relaxed. Quite the opposite - he wanted the rules tightened further. So, yes, he was trying to ‘impose’ rules he didn’t follow even if he didn’t have the power himself to enforce them
    Some of the mud The Mail is throwing is pretty watery. For example, the Starmer Birthday Cake thing happened when the lockdown restrictions were pretty minimal. And reheating the "Rayner was laughing, so it can't be that serious" is the sort of thing all bullies say when called out.

    Besides. If this were a real scandal, rather than a Maily Wail, you would expect some other paper to pick up on it by now.
    Yup, it’s the Mail so you take it with a pinch of salt. However, its readers are the ones BJ needs to convince to stay on so it helps BJ if some think “Labour is as bad”

    In any event, accusing the PM of lying and then saying you made a ‘honest mistake’ about your own failings doesn’t look good on any level - it’s just a basic reaction
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 9,629
    MrEd said:

    Unless the results are 1994-style bad for the Conservatives (unlikely, given the mix of seats up this time), there will presumably be enough crumbs of comfort for the Conservatives that they will be able to justify delaying a decision on BoJo's future for a bit longer.

    Which will suit the PM just fine.

    And suits Labour, the SNP and the Lib Dems just fine. Let’s be honest.

    The New Brexit Party is digging it’s own grave. PR Mr Starmer. PR.
    The conservative mps will take action when they see their jobs threatened and I have predicted Boris may be gone by the end of May

    However, if they keep him in place then that is their responsibility, but even so I would suggest stranger things have happened then Boris winning in 24
    Then get down the bookies. You can get Con Maj 5/2

    That’s a terrific return in the current economic climate. Or idiocy. You choose.
    Too far out so I won’t bet now. But I did ask a former SPAD on who he thought would win in 2024 and, without skipping a beat, said Johnson will lead the Tories into the next election and win.
    You ain’t no Mark Senior.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 40,208
    ydoethur said:

    felix said:
    She was there on Zoom!!!! The desperation here is genuinely hilarious.

    She was there in person along with Starmer at this controversial event despite Labour denying she was

    Nothing to do with zoom
    The problem for the Tories is if this event gets reopened and fines are issued, so might other events that the police can't be bothered to investigate be reopened and investigated.*

    In which case Johnson could end up being fined even more heavily, and still have to explain a pattern of lawbreaking.

    Moreover just as the Tories supported Labour's policies leading up to 2007-8 and still escaped censure for the crash by virtue of not being in charge, the Tories have the small problem that they are in government and the buck stops with them. Nobody is going to be unduly exercised about Starmer's call for further restrictions and one fine for a one-off breach if the government have openly and repeatedly trampled on their own laws. Even though they possibly should be.

    *Please let that include the one at the DfE, because that would actually be funnier than Boris Johnson trying to read an autocue...
    Or, how’s about the police stop wasting their time on politically-motivated trivialities from years ago, when violent crime is rising and public confidence in the police is lower than it’s ever been, especially when it comes to burglaries and online fraud.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 52,814

    felix said:
    She was there on Zoom!!!! The desperation here is genuinely hilarious.

    She was there in person along with Starmer at this controversial event despite Labour denying she was

    Nothing to do with zoom

    No she wasn’t. She was with him earlier for an online Zoom rally. She was not there later when he was having his entirely legal beer and takeaway with the election tram.

    She was thee and this is the confirmation and explanation by labour the the dally mail


    'In a sensational U-turn, Labour acknowledged that Angela Rayner was also at the event on April 30 last year at which Sir Keir was filmed enjoying a beer with officials at a time when indoor socialising was banned. Labour spokesman said last night: 'Angela was present.' A party source claimed the previous denials had been 'an honest mistake'. It directly contradicts assurances given to the Daily Mail over the past three months that Mrs Rayner was 'not there'.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 30,749

    Sandpit said:

    felix said:
    Oh, what a surprise.

    If you’re going to go in really hard on your political opponents, for relative trivialities from two years ago, then you’d better be sure that you’re whiter than white yourself.

    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
    The Durham police not going after Starmer as it would be selective, as would have been Cummings case, is problematic. How many parties/events from 2020 are the met investigating?
    I really do not know but this has the potential to become a story of one rule for the PM and another for the leader and deputy leader of the labour party
    It does. But the problem the Tories have here is that Johnson broke the rules he imposed on everyone else and Starmer didn’t. However much the Mail might dissemble in seeking to show otherwise, that’s the bottom line.

    Do you really believe that

    Starmer backed the law and indeed wanted stronger restrictions and this event does seem to breach the rules at the time but Durham Police have effectively called it a timed out event when the Met Police correctly hand Boris a FPN
    Even if Durham Police behaved correctly (does that imply the Med did not?), the whole thing looks highly dodgy.

    Starmer's main selling point is that he is not a clown, but a highly-experienced, highly-competent lawyer. It's fair enough saying that Johnson should have known the law because he drafted it; Starmer should have known because that's his USP.
    Yes, indeed. He knows the law. And he followed the law.
    Are you really sure about that?

    Johnson fans were saying that for ages until the Met reopened the case.

    Do you think the case should be reopened?
  • prh47bridgeprh47bridge Posts: 388
    ping said:

    ping said:

    ping said:

    Btw how the hell is Geoffrey Cox’s behaviour remotely acceptable?

    If he wants to take the dime for defending the indefensible, resign from parliament, ffs.

    Good morning

    What has he done ?
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61266526.amp
    Cox is a barrister. Barristers are required to work on the cab rank principle - if someone wants your services in an area of law in which you have expertise at a time when you are available and are willing to pay your standard rate, you are required to represent them. Failure to do so can result in you being struck off. So, if you are defendant in a criminal case, your chosen barrister is required to defend you however distasteful they find you and however much they think you are guilty. The only grounds on which they can refuse to defend you is if you admit you are guilty.
    Pft. That’s not how it works in practice - in the case/client he’s chosen to take on. He has full agency, no?
    It absolutely is how it works in practice. If it wasn't, many defendants in criminal cases would struggle to get representation. If you are a barrister working in criminal law, you have to accept that you will end up defending some very distasteful people.

    Perhaps you would prefer a world in which barristers could refuse to represent defendants they didn't like, leaving some innocent people undefended.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 52,814

    Sandpit said:

    felix said:
    Oh, what a surprise.

    If you’re going to go in really hard on your political opponents, for relative trivialities from two years ago, then you’d better be sure that you’re whiter than white yourself.

    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
    The Durham police not going after Starmer as it would be selective, as would have been Cummings case, is problematic. How many parties/events from 2020 are the met investigating?
    I really do not know but this has the potential to become a story of one rule for the PM and another for the leader and deputy leader of the labour party
    Yawn.

    Boris is a Lying Shit = traction

    Rayner is a Lying Shit = who?
    You seem to have a view that the law is OK to be applied to the PM which is correct, but not bothered if it is not applied equally to other politicians

    You want Starmer to have broken the law. Your problem is that he didn’t!

    I want fairness in the law

    The evidence indicates that Starmer acted exactly as Boris did but the Durham Police have timed out the event while the Met haven't
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,522

    MrEd said:

    Sandpit said:

    felix said:
    Oh, what a surprise.

    If you’re going to go in really hard on your political opponents, for relative trivialities from two years ago, then you’d better be sure that you’re whiter than white yourself.

    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
    The Durham police not going after Starmer as it would be selective, as would have been Cummings case, is problematic. How many parties/events from 2020 are the met investigating?
    I really do not know but this has the potential to become a story of one rule for the PM and another for the leader and deputy leader of the labour party
    It does. But the problem the Tories have here is that Johnson broke the rules he imposed on everyone else and Starmer didn’t. However much the Mail might dissemble in seeking to show otherwise, that’s the bottom line.

    Not really. Starmer didn’t come out and say he was against the rules, or they should be relaxed. Quite the opposite - he wanted the rules tightened further. So, yes, he was trying to ‘impose’ rules he didn’t follow even if he didn’t have the power himself to enforce them
    Except he did follow the rules. And therein lies the Tories’ problem with this line of attack.

    Did he? Both Johnson and Starmer were found in the first instance that they hadn’t broken any rules. The difference between the two cases was that BJ’s case was reopened after pressure and Starmer’s wasn’t (yet). If you had accepted the original judgement, BJ would have been deemed to have followed the rules.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 36,881

    felix said:
    She was there on Zoom!!!! The desperation here is genuinely hilarious.

    She was there in person along with Starmer at this controversial event despite Labour denying she was

    Nothing to do with zoom

    No she wasn’t. She was with him earlier for an online Zoom rally. She was not there later when he was having his entirely legal beer and takeaway with the election tram.

    She was thee and this is the confirmation and explanation by labour the the dally mail


    'In a sensational U-turn, Labour acknowledged that Angela Rayner was also at the event on April 30 last year at which Sir Keir was filmed enjoying a beer with officials at a time when indoor socialising was banned. Labour spokesman said last night: 'Angela was present.' A party source claimed the previous denials had been 'an honest mistake'. It directly contradicts assurances given to the Daily Mail over the past three months that Mrs Rayner was 'not there'.

    Sandpit said:

    felix said:
    Oh, what a surprise.

    If you’re going to go in really hard on your political opponents, for relative trivialities from two years ago, then you’d better be sure that you’re whiter than white yourself.

    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
    The Durham police not going after Starmer as it would be selective, as would have been Cummings case, is problematic. How many parties/events from 2020 are the met investigating?
    I really do not know but this has the potential to become a story of one rule for the PM and another for the leader and deputy leader of the labour party
    It does. But the problem the Tories have here is that Johnson broke the rules he imposed on everyone else and Starmer didn’t. However much the Mail might dissemble in seeking to show otherwise, that’s the bottom line.

    Do you really believe that

    Starmer backed the law and indeed wanted stronger restrictions and this event does seem to breach the rules at the time but Durham Police have effectively called it a timed out event when the Met Police correctly hand Boris a FPN
    Even if Durham Police behaved correctly (does that imply the Med did not?), the whole thing looks highly dodgy.

    Starmer's main selling point is that he is not a clown, but a highly-experienced, highly-competent lawyer. It's fair enough saying that Johnson should have known the law because he drafted it; Starmer should have known because that's his USP.
    Yes, indeed. He knows the law. And he followed the law.
    Are you really sure about that?

    Johnson fans were saying that for ages until the Met reopened the case.

    Do you think the case should be reopened?
    The Met case against Johnson was not reopened. They did not previously investigate. Durham police did:

    Durham Police clear Sir Keir Starmer of breaking coronavirus rules https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60286234

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 36,881
    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:

    Sandpit said:

    felix said:
    Oh, what a surprise.

    If you’re going to go in really hard on your political opponents, for relative trivialities from two years ago, then you’d better be sure that you’re whiter than white yourself.

    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
    The Durham police not going after Starmer as it would be selective, as would have been Cummings case, is problematic. How many parties/events from 2020 are the met investigating?
    I really do not know but this has the potential to become a story of one rule for the PM and another for the leader and deputy leader of the labour party
    It does. But the problem the Tories have here is that Johnson broke the rules he imposed on everyone else and Starmer didn’t. However much the Mail might dissemble in seeking to show otherwise, that’s the bottom line.

    Not really. Starmer didn’t come out and say he was against the rules, or they should be relaxed. Quite the opposite - he wanted the rules tightened further. So, yes, he was trying to ‘impose’ rules he didn’t follow even if he didn’t have the power himself to enforce them
    Except he did follow the rules. And therein lies the Tories’ problem with this line of attack.

    Did he? Both Johnson and Starmer were found in the first instance that they hadn’t broken any rules. The difference between the two cases was that BJ’s case was reopened after pressure and Starmer’s wasn’t (yet). If you had accepted the original judgement, BJ would have been deemed to have followed the rules.
    The Met initially declined to investigate. Durham police did investigate. No new evidence has been presented in the Starmer case so why would it be reopened?

  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 52,814

    Sandpit said:

    felix said:
    Oh, what a surprise.

    If you’re going to go in really hard on your political opponents, for relative trivialities from two years ago, then you’d better be sure that you’re whiter than white yourself.

    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
    The Durham police not going after Starmer as it would be selective, as would have been Cummings case, is problematic. How many parties/events from 2020 are the met investigating?
    I really do not know but this has the potential to become a story of one rule for the PM and another for the leader and deputy leader of the labour party
    It does. But the problem the Tories have here is that Johnson broke the rules he imposed on everyone else and Starmer didn’t. However much the Mail might dissemble in seeking to show otherwise, that’s the bottom line.

    This is clearly the work of Lyhton Crosby's henchmen engaged at Downing Street, in conjunction with Dacre. It is quite a clever, if disingenuous tactic. If Boris Johnson can't be whitewashed, cover the opposition with confected ordure and a plague on both their houses.

    At the moment there is nothing more important in the realms of UK Government than "saving Big Dog". The PB Johnsonian Tories have bought into it with enthusiasm.
    A genuine question.

    Do you not see the possible contradiction or interpretation of the law between to English Police forces and the implications for fairness?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 36,881

    Sandpit said:

    felix said:
    Oh, what a surprise.

    If you’re going to go in really hard on your political opponents, for relative trivialities from two years ago, then you’d better be sure that you’re whiter than white yourself.

    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
    The Durham police not going after Starmer as it would be selective, as would have been Cummings case, is problematic. How many parties/events from 2020 are the met investigating?
    I really do not know but this has the potential to become a story of one rule for the PM and another for the leader and deputy leader of the labour party
    Yawn.

    Boris is a Lying Shit = traction

    Rayner is a Lying Shit = who?
    You seem to have a view that the law is OK to be applied to the PM which is correct, but not bothered if it is not applied equally to other politicians

    You want Starmer to have broken the law. Your problem is that he didn’t!

    I want fairness in the law

    The evidence indicates that Starmer acted exactly as Boris did but the Durham Police have timed out the event while the Met haven't
    The evidence does not suggest that. Different rules were in place.

  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,522

    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:

    Sandpit said:

    felix said:
    Oh, what a surprise.

    If you’re going to go in really hard on your political opponents, for relative trivialities from two years ago, then you’d better be sure that you’re whiter than white yourself.

    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
    The Durham police not going after Starmer as it would be selective, as would have been Cummings case, is problematic. How many parties/events from 2020 are the met investigating?
    I really do not know but this has the potential to become a story of one rule for the PM and another for the leader and deputy leader of the labour party
    It does. But the problem the Tories have here is that Johnson broke the rules he imposed on everyone else and Starmer didn’t. However much the Mail might dissemble in seeking to show otherwise, that’s the bottom line.

    Not really. Starmer didn’t come out and say he was against the rules, or they should be relaxed. Quite the opposite - he wanted the rules tightened further. So, yes, he was trying to ‘impose’ rules he didn’t follow even if he didn’t have the power himself to enforce them
    Except he did follow the rules. And therein lies the Tories’ problem with this line of attack.

    Did he? Both Johnson and Starmer were found in the first instance that they hadn’t broken any rules. The difference between the two cases was that BJ’s case was reopened after pressure and Starmer’s wasn’t (yet). If you had accepted the original judgement, BJ would have been deemed to have followed the rules.
    The Met initially declined to investigate. Durham police did investigate. No new evidence has been presented in the Starmer case so why would it be reopened?

    If Rayner had been present when originally it was denied she was there?
  • eekeek Posts: 20,255
    edited April 29

    Sandpit said:

    felix said:
    Oh, what a surprise.

    If you’re going to go in really hard on your political opponents, for relative trivialities from two years ago, then you’d better be sure that you’re whiter than white yourself.

    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
    The Durham police not going after Starmer as it would be selective, as would have been Cummings case, is problematic. How many parties/events from 2020 are the met investigating?
    I really do not know but this has the potential to become a story of one rule for the PM and another for the leader and deputy leader of the labour party
    It does. But the problem the Tories have here is that Johnson broke the rules he imposed on everyone else and Starmer didn’t. However much the Mail might dissemble in seeking to show otherwise, that’s the bottom line.

    Do you really believe that

    Starmer backed the law and indeed wanted stronger restrictions and this event does seem to breach the rules at the time but Durham Police have effectively called it a timed out event when the Met Police correctly hand Boris a FPN
    Even if Durham Police behaved correctly (does that imply the Med did not?), the whole thing looks highly dodgy.

    Starmer's main selling point is that he is not a clown, but a highly-experienced, highly-competent lawyer. It's fair enough saying that Johnson should have known the law because he drafted it; Starmer should have known because that's his USP.
    Starmer did know the law - because Durham Police investigated and found nothing wrong first time round nor are they investigating it a second time regardless of what Guido read into that FOI request

    https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/20101899.durham-police-not-re-investigating-starmers-lockdown-breach/

    All I'm seeing with the continual focus on this non-event is that the Tories are desperate to deflect the blame and don't have anything to work with..

  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 52,814

    MrEd said:

    Sandpit said:

    felix said:
    Oh, what a surprise.

    If you’re going to go in really hard on your political opponents, for relative trivialities from two years ago, then you’d better be sure that you’re whiter than white yourself.

    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
    The Durham police not going after Starmer as it would be selective, as would have been Cummings case, is problematic. How many parties/events from 2020 are the met investigating?
    I really do not know but this has the potential to become a story of one rule for the PM and another for the leader and deputy leader of the labour party
    It does. But the problem the Tories have here is that Johnson broke the rules he imposed on everyone else and Starmer didn’t. However much the Mail might dissemble in seeking to show otherwise, that’s the bottom line.

    Not really. Starmer didn’t come out and say he was against the rules, or they should be relaxed. Quite the opposite - he wanted the rules tightened further. So, yes, he was trying to ‘impose’ rules he didn’t follow even if he didn’t have the power himself to enforce them
    Some of the mud The Mail is throwing is pretty watery. For example, the Starmer Birthday Cake thing happened when the lockdown restrictions were pretty minimal. And reheating the "Rayner was laughing, so it can't be that serious" is the sort of thing all bullies say when called out.

    Besides. If this were a real scandal, rather than a Maily Wail, you would expect some other paper to pick up on it by now.
    The BBC reported on it this morning
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 36,881
    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:

    Sandpit said:

    felix said:
    Oh, what a surprise.

    If you’re going to go in really hard on your political opponents, for relative trivialities from two years ago, then you’d better be sure that you’re whiter than white yourself.

    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
    The Durham police not going after Starmer as it would be selective, as would have been Cummings case, is problematic. How many parties/events from 2020 are the met investigating?
    I really do not know but this has the potential to become a story of one rule for the PM and another for the leader and deputy leader of the labour party
    It does. But the problem the Tories have here is that Johnson broke the rules he imposed on everyone else and Starmer didn’t. However much the Mail might dissemble in seeking to show otherwise, that’s the bottom line.

    Not really. Starmer didn’t come out and say he was against the rules, or they should be relaxed. Quite the opposite - he wanted the rules tightened further. So, yes, he was trying to ‘impose’ rules he didn’t follow even if he didn’t have the power himself to enforce them
    Except he did follow the rules. And therein lies the Tories’ problem with this line of attack.

    Did he? Both Johnson and Starmer were found in the first instance that they hadn’t broken any rules. The difference between the two cases was that BJ’s case was reopened after pressure and Starmer’s wasn’t (yet). If you had accepted the original judgement, BJ would have been deemed to have followed the rules.
    The Met initially declined to investigate. Durham police did investigate. No new evidence has been presented in the Starmer case so why would it be reopened?

    If Rayner had been present when originally it was denied she was there?

    She wasn’t there when Starmer had his beer.

  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 16,785

    Sandpit said:

    felix said:
    Oh, what a surprise.

    If you’re going to go in really hard on your political opponents, for relative trivialities from two years ago, then you’d better be sure that you’re whiter than white yourself.

    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
    The Durham police not going after Starmer as it would be selective, as would have been Cummings case, is problematic. How many parties/events from 2020 are the met investigating?
    I really do not know but this has the potential to become a story of one rule for the PM and another for the leader and deputy leader of the labour party
    Yawn.

    Boris is a Lying Shit = traction

    Rayner is a Lying Shit = who?
    You seem to have a view that the law is OK to be applied to the PM which is correct, but not bothered if it is not applied equally to other politicians

    You want Starmer to have broken the law. Your problem is that he didn’t!

    I want fairness in the law

    The evidence indicates that Starmer acted exactly as Boris did but the Durham Police have timed out the event while the Met haven't
    The Mail narrative has been spun by Crosby's team in anticipation of Gray's report.

    Perhaps we should just wait for the Gray report.

    The attacks on Starmer and Rayner are confected but brutal. Team Johnson have taken British politics still further down the toilet. For BigG. to equate the Starmer beer with his lunch/ evening meal event with Johnson's behaviour (wait for the Gray Report) suggests mission accomplished.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,522

    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:

    Sandpit said:

    felix said:
    Oh, what a surprise.

    If you’re going to go in really hard on your political opponents, for relative trivialities from two years ago, then you’d better be sure that you’re whiter than white yourself.

    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
    The Durham police not going after Starmer as it would be selective, as would have been Cummings case, is problematic. How many parties/events from 2020 are the met investigating?
    I really do not know but this has the potential to become a story of one rule for the PM and another for the leader and deputy leader of the labour party
    It does. But the problem the Tories have here is that Johnson broke the rules he imposed on everyone else and Starmer didn’t. However much the Mail might dissemble in seeking to show otherwise, that’s the bottom line.

    Not really. Starmer didn’t come out and say he was against the rules, or they should be relaxed. Quite the opposite - he wanted the rules tightened further. So, yes, he was trying to ‘impose’ rules he didn’t follow even if he didn’t have the power himself to enforce them
    Except he did follow the rules. And therein lies the Tories’ problem with this line of attack.

    Did he? Both Johnson and Starmer were found in the first instance that they hadn’t broken any rules. The difference between the two cases was that BJ’s case was reopened after pressure and Starmer’s wasn’t (yet). If you had accepted the original judgement, BJ would have been deemed to have followed the rules.
    The Met initially declined to investigate. Durham police did investigate. No new evidence has been presented in the Starmer case so why would it be reopened?

    If Rayner had been present when originally it was denied she was there?

    She wasn’t there when Starmer had his beer.

    But, according to the Mail, she was.
  • eekeek Posts: 20,255
    MrEd said:

    Sandpit said:

    felix said:
    Oh, what a surprise.

    If you’re going to go in really hard on your political opponents, for relative trivialities from two years ago, then you’d better be sure that you’re whiter than white yourself.

    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
    The Durham police not going after Starmer as it would be selective, as would have been Cummings case, is problematic. How many parties/events from 2020 are the met investigating?
    Tricky for Labour as:

    - if Durham do reopen, pressure on Starmer and makes him / Labour look like hypocrites;

    - if Durham doesn’t reopen, you highlight the fact their Police Commissioner is a Labour hack and say draw your own conclusions…
    Not really - you highlight the fact that round here we select Police Commissioners who know what policing is (all Labour candidates in Durham have worked @ Durham police at some point) rather than the latest failed Tory candidate in a local seat (every Tory candidate since the position first appeared).

    And you remember that Durham Police are rather good and the Tory candidates only manifesto commitment was to waste £2m a year (with an extra £10m required up front) to keep custody suites local rather than replacing the existing inadequate ones with a centralised one...
  • kjhkjh Posts: 7,080

    MrEd said:

    Unless the results are 1994-style bad for the Conservatives (unlikely, given the mix of seats up this time), there will presumably be enough crumbs of comfort for the Conservatives that they will be able to justify delaying a decision on BoJo's future for a bit longer.

    Which will suit the PM just fine.

    And suits Labour, the SNP and the Lib Dems just fine. Let’s be honest.

    The New Brexit Party is digging it’s own grave. PR Mr Starmer. PR.
    The conservative mps will take action when they see their jobs threatened and I have predicted Boris may be gone by the end of May

    However, if they keep him in place then that is their responsibility, but even so I would suggest stranger things have happened then Boris winning in 24
    Then get down the bookies. You can get Con Maj 5/2

    That’s a terrific return in the current economic climate. Or idiocy. You choose.
    Too far out so I won’t bet now. But I did ask a former SPAD on who he thought would win in 2024 and, without skipping a beat, said Johnson will lead the Tories into the next election and win.
    You ain’t no Mark Senior.
    Nice to see names from the past referenced. Missed.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 18,315
    81 of Labour's 123 general election targets are voting on Thursday. How many would Starmer have to "win" to avoid coming under pressure in terms of the leadership?
  • prh47bridgeprh47bridge Posts: 388
    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:

    Sandpit said:

    felix said:
    Oh, what a surprise.

    If you’re going to go in really hard on your political opponents, for relative trivialities from two years ago, then you’d better be sure that you’re whiter than white yourself.

    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
    The Durham police not going after Starmer as it would be selective, as would have been Cummings case, is problematic. How many parties/events from 2020 are the met investigating?
    I really do not know but this has the potential to become a story of one rule for the PM and another for the leader and deputy leader of the labour party
    It does. But the problem the Tories have here is that Johnson broke the rules he imposed on everyone else and Starmer didn’t. However much the Mail might dissemble in seeking to show otherwise, that’s the bottom line.

    Not really. Starmer didn’t come out and say he was against the rules, or they should be relaxed. Quite the opposite - he wanted the rules tightened further. So, yes, he was trying to ‘impose’ rules he didn’t follow even if he didn’t have the power himself to enforce them
    Except he did follow the rules. And therein lies the Tories’ problem with this line of attack.

    Did he? Both Johnson and Starmer were found in the first instance that they hadn’t broken any rules. The difference between the two cases was that BJ’s case was reopened after pressure and Starmer’s wasn’t (yet). If you had accepted the original judgement, BJ would have been deemed to have followed the rules.
    The Met initially declined to investigate. Durham police did investigate. No new evidence has been presented in the Starmer case so why would it be reopened?

    If Rayner had been present when originally it was denied she was there?

    She wasn’t there when Starmer had his beer.

    But, according to the Mail, she was.
    And, according the Mail, there is video evidence that she was and Labour has now backtracked and admitted she was physically present.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 52,814
    edited April 29

    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:

    Sandpit said:

    felix said:
    Oh, what a surprise.

    If you’re going to go in really hard on your political opponents, for relative trivialities from two years ago, then you’d better be sure that you’re whiter than white yourself.

    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
    The Durham police not going after Starmer as it would be selective, as would have been Cummings case, is problematic. How many parties/events from 2020 are the met investigating?
    I really do not know but this has the potential to become a story of one rule for the PM and another for the leader and deputy leader of the labour party
    It does. But the problem the Tories have here is that Johnson broke the rules he imposed on everyone else and Starmer didn’t. However much the Mail might dissemble in seeking to show otherwise, that’s the bottom line.

    Not really. Starmer didn’t come out and say he was against the rules, or they should be relaxed. Quite the opposite - he wanted the rules tightened further. So, yes, he was trying to ‘impose’ rules he didn’t follow even if he didn’t have the power himself to enforce them
    Except he did follow the rules. And therein lies the Tories’ problem with this line of attack.

    Did he? Both Johnson and Starmer were found in the first instance that they hadn’t broken any rules. The difference between the two cases was that BJ’s case was reopened after pressure and Starmer’s wasn’t (yet). If you had accepted the original judgement, BJ would have been deemed to have followed the rules.
    The Met initially declined to investigate. Durham police did investigate. No new evidence has been presented in the Starmer case so why would it be reopened?

    If Rayner had been present when originally it was denied she was there?

    She wasn’t there when Starmer had his beer.

    How many times - yes she was and that labour lied that she was and is now saying it was an honest mistake

    Can you not see a problem here ?
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 1,701
    This is all very confusing !

    Were there two events in Durham ?

    One where Rayner attended for the Miners where she was at and ‘ beer gate ‘ where only Starmer was in attendance .
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,522
    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    felix said:
    Oh, what a surprise.

    If you’re going to go in really hard on your political opponents, for relative trivialities from two years ago, then you’d better be sure that you’re whiter than white yourself.

    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
    The Durham police not going after Starmer as it would be selective, as would have been Cummings case, is problematic. How many parties/events from 2020 are the met investigating?
    I really do not know but this has the potential to become a story of one rule for the PM and another for the leader and deputy leader of the labour party
    It does. But the problem the Tories have here is that Johnson broke the rules he imposed on everyone else and Starmer didn’t. However much the Mail might dissemble in seeking to show otherwise, that’s the bottom line.

    Do you really believe that

    Starmer backed the law and indeed wanted stronger restrictions and this event does seem to breach the rules at the time but Durham Police have effectively called it a timed out event when the Met Police correctly hand Boris a FPN
    Even if Durham Police behaved correctly (does that imply the Med did not?), the whole thing looks highly dodgy.

    Starmer's main selling point is that he is not a clown, but a highly-experienced, highly-competent lawyer. It's fair enough saying that Johnson should have known the law because he drafted it; Starmer should have known because that's his USP.
    Starmer did know the law - because Durham Police investigated and found nothing wrong first time round nor are they investigating it a second time regardless of what Guido read into that FOI request

    https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/20101899.durham-police-not-re-investigating-starmers-lockdown-breach/

    All I'm seeing with the continual focus on this non-event is that the Tories are desperate to deflect the blame and don't have anything to work with..

    That’s not really the point. Look at Big_G - he doesn’t want BJ as PM (I think) but he obviously thinks this should be investigated further. There are going to be a fair few people who look at this and think SKS’s a sanctimonious hypocrite. Given Labour already has a certain branding problem in that department, it’s not helpful.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 5,884
    MrEd said:

    Unless the results are 1994-style bad for the Conservatives (unlikely, given the mix of seats up this time), there will presumably be enough crumbs of comfort for the Conservatives that they will be able to justify delaying a decision on BoJo's future for a bit longer.

    Which will suit the PM just fine.

    And suits Labour, the SNP and the Lib Dems just fine. Let’s be honest.

    The New Brexit Party is digging it’s own grave. PR Mr Starmer. PR.
    The conservative mps will take action when they see their jobs threatened and I have predicted Boris may be gone by the end of May

    However, if they keep him in place then that is their responsibility, but even so I would suggest stranger things have happened then Boris winning in 24
    Then get down the bookies. You can get Con Maj 5/2

    That’s a terrific return in the current economic climate. Or idiocy. You choose.
    Too far out so I won’t bet now. But I did ask a former SPAD on who he thought would win in 2024 and, without skipping a beat, said Johnson will lead the Tories into the next election and win.
    There are three contingencies there, a Tory win and Boris leading and 2024 being the date. If each one is as high as an 80% chance the real probability is about 50%.
    IMHO the probability is about 25%.

  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,522
    eek said:

    MrEd said:

    Sandpit said:

    felix said:
    Oh, what a surprise.

    If you’re going to go in really hard on your political opponents, for relative trivialities from two years ago, then you’d better be sure that you’re whiter than white yourself.

    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
    The Durham police not going after Starmer as it would be selective, as would have been Cummings case, is problematic. How many parties/events from 2020 are the met investigating?
    Tricky for Labour as:

    - if Durham do reopen, pressure on Starmer and makes him / Labour look like hypocrites;

    - if Durham doesn’t reopen, you highlight the fact their Police Commissioner is a Labour hack and say draw your own conclusions…
    Not really - you highlight the fact that round here we select Police Commissioners who know what policing is (all Labour candidates in Durham have worked @ Durham police at some point) rather than the latest failed Tory candidate in a local seat (every Tory candidate since the position first appeared).

    And you remember that Durham Police are rather good and the Tory candidates only manifesto commitment was to waste £2m a year (with an extra £10m required up front) to keep custody suites local rather than replacing the existing inadequate ones with a centralised one...
    You have that knowledge and insight - how many voters nationally knows the ins and outs of Durham’s police commissioners? Most will see Labour politician backing Labour politician
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 52,814

    Sandpit said:

    felix said:
    Oh, what a surprise.

    If you’re going to go in really hard on your political opponents, for relative trivialities from two years ago, then you’d better be sure that you’re whiter than white yourself.

    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
    The Durham police not going after Starmer as it would be selective, as would have been Cummings case, is problematic. How many parties/events from 2020 are the met investigating?
    I really do not know but this has the potential to become a story of one rule for the PM and another for the leader and deputy leader of the labour party
    Yawn.

    Boris is a Lying Shit = traction

    Rayner is a Lying Shit = who?
    You seem to have a view that the law is OK to be applied to the PM which is correct, but not bothered if it is not applied equally to other politicians

    You want Starmer to have broken the law. Your problem is that he didn’t!

    I want fairness in the law

    The evidence indicates that Starmer acted exactly as Boris did but the Durham Police have timed out the event while the Met haven't
    The Mail narrative has been spun by Crosby's team in anticipation of Gray's report.

    Perhaps we should just wait for the Gray report.

    The attacks on Starmer and Rayner are confected but brutal. Team Johnson have taken British politics still further down the toilet. For BigG. to equate the Starmer beer with his lunch/ evening meal event with Johnson's behaviour (wait for the Gray Report) suggests mission accomplished.
    I am responding to a potential injustice and do not forget I want Boris replaced

    It is clear that the event that Starmer, and now confirmed by labour, Rayner also attended was in breach of the rules at the time

    If nothing else this is very embarrassing for labour
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 36,881
    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:

    Sandpit said:

    felix said:
    Oh, what a surprise.

    If you’re going to go in really hard on your political opponents, for relative trivialities from two years ago, then you’d better be sure that you’re whiter than white yourself.

    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
    The Durham police not going after Starmer as it would be selective, as would have been Cummings case, is problematic. How many parties/events from 2020 are the met investigating?
    I really do not know but this has the potential to become a story of one rule for the PM and another for the leader and deputy leader of the labour party
    It does. But the problem the Tories have here is that Johnson broke the rules he imposed on everyone else and Starmer didn’t. However much the Mail might dissemble in seeking to show otherwise, that’s the bottom line.

    Not really. Starmer didn’t come out and say he was against the rules, or they should be relaxed. Quite the opposite - he wanted the rules tightened further. So, yes, he was trying to ‘impose’ rules he didn’t follow even if he didn’t have the power himself to enforce them
    Except he did follow the rules. And therein lies the Tories’ problem with this line of attack.

    Did he? Both Johnson and Starmer were found in the first instance that they hadn’t broken any rules. The difference between the two cases was that BJ’s case was reopened after pressure and Starmer’s wasn’t (yet). If you had accepted the original judgement, BJ would have been deemed to have followed the rules.
    The Met initially declined to investigate. Durham police did investigate. No new evidence has been presented in the Starmer case so why would it be reopened?

    If Rayner had been present when originally it was denied she was there?

    She wasn’t there when Starmer had his beer.

    But, according to the Mail, she was.

    That's not what the Mail story says. It's very carefully worded. It talks about Rayner being in the building where Starmer "was later seen drinking".

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 24,114

    MrEd said:

    Sandpit said:

    felix said:
    Oh, what a surprise.

    If you’re going to go in really hard on your political opponents, for relative trivialities from two years ago, then you’d better be sure that you’re whiter than white yourself.

    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
    The Durham police not going after Starmer as it would be selective, as would have been Cummings case, is problematic. How many parties/events from 2020 are the met investigating?
    I really do not know but this has the potential to become a story of one rule for the PM and another for the leader and deputy leader of the labour party
    It does. But the problem the Tories have here is that Johnson broke the rules he imposed on everyone else and Starmer didn’t. However much the Mail might dissemble in seeking to show otherwise, that’s the bottom line.

    Not really. Starmer didn’t come out and say he was against the rules, or they should be relaxed. Quite the opposite - he wanted the rules tightened further. So, yes, he was trying to ‘impose’ rules he didn’t follow even if he didn’t have the power himself to enforce them
    Some of the mud The Mail is throwing is pretty watery. For example, the Starmer Birthday Cake thing happened when the lockdown restrictions were pretty minimal. And reheating the "Rayner was laughing, so it can't be that serious" is the sort of thing all bullies say when called out.

    Besides. If this were a real scandal, rather than a Maily Wail, you would expect some other paper to pick up on it by now.
    The BBC reported on it this morning
    Are you sure it wasn't just the newspaper headlines thing? No such story is visible on the website. And a lot of those stories are as much about the Daily Mail being shite as the shite it makes up and sprays around. It's less accurate a portrayal of political affairs than Viz is of modern parenting practice.
This discussion has been closed.