Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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".
And essentially says that she was there pointing to someone with hair remarkably like Angela Rayner’s being in the video shot.
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
Every time anyone sees that photo of Keir Starmer with his bottle of beer the only effect will be to compare and contrast it with the photos of 10 Downing St and Partygate.
The first rule of advertising; You can't persuade people of things they don't believe or unpersuade them of things they do.
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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
Rayner and Starmer attended an online Zoom rally from the Durham HQ of a Labour MP. That was not in breach of the rules. Durham Police have investigated the beer that Starmer had and found that it was not in breach of the rules. So where is the breach, Mr G?
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?
I would have to compare how they did in previous local elections when judged in this way, but I should think that "lots" would be a pretty decent first approximation in terms of how well he would need to do, as a minimum, to be set fair for doing well at the next GE.
However, in terms of leadership pressure, I don't think the relevant people will be looking at it in that level of detail. He will want to win the NEV, he will want some iconic gains, in London and somewhere "north", without losing ground anywhere (such as in Scotland or Wales).
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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?
No.
Each allegation was at the time, investigated Cummings, Starmer and both were deemed not of suffient seriousness or evidential to warrant formal action.
Don't forget initially Cressida Dick stated the Met do not retrospectively investigate wrongdoing (????). As the scale of Partygate unravelled however the mood in the Met changed and investigation became a public interest matter.
There is no contradiction, because the Durham cases and the Downing Street cases bear virtually no similarly except in the minds of partisan Johnson shills.
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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".
And essentially says that she was there pointing to someone with hair remarkably like Angela Rayner’s being in the video shot.
Ms Rayner has unique hair? What is she, a Californian Condor?
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%.
I’d think it would be higher but not a huge amount more. My point - which Scotland’s own Lenin-in-exile missed - was that I was surprised at how confident the person was. I was expecting some humming
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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.
They might have been pretty minimal but I was still required to sit my cricket team at separate tables OUTSIDE and not pull them together because covid.
On the whole I suspect Starmer's event probably would have merited a word with the police and no more (as in now, now sir, probably best not to do that), while the scale of the events in No 10 are vastly worse, including emails to 'bring your own booze' etc. The laws were ridiculous.
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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...
Yet this was something Joy Allen was also opposed to.
Anyway this whole Durham partygate is a waste of time. SKS has done nothing wrong. Mischief makers like Guido are simply wasting time and resource and local residents council tax money on this nonsense.
Durham Police are not the met. They are pretty good all in all. There is no conspiracy here, Joy Allen did not intervene to protect her own party as some claim. It is merely an attempt to distract from Johnsons FPN
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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".
And essentially says that she was there pointing to someone with hair remarkably like Angela Rayner’s being in the video shot.
Ms Rayner has unique hair? What is she, a Californian Condor?
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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
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.
Yes, a few Tories will pretend they are worried about justice not being done. The vast majority of people will see the Mail campaign for what it is: a desperate attempt to negate the very damaging fact that the vast majority of the electorate believe the leader of the Conservative party is a grifting liar.
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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
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.
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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'.
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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:
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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".
I am astonished that you continue to prevaricate when even labour admit she was with Starmer at beergate
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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
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.
Yes, a few Tories will pretend they are worried about justice not being done. The vast majority of people will see the Mail campaign for what it is: a desperate attempt to negate the very damaging fact that the vast majority of the electorate believe the leader of the Conservative party is a grifting liar.
I think you’re looking at this through the eyes of a Guardian reader. People generally don’t like people throwing mud when they’ve been found to be not whiter than white. As I said, look at Big_G’s reaction - not a BJ fan and not a foaming in the mouth Tory. If the likes of him think this is an issue, you probably have a wider problem than you think .
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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".
I am astonished that you continue to prevaricate when even labour admit she was with Starmer at beergate
I am not astonished that you desperately want it to be true that Starmer broke the lockdown rules and will not accept the Durham police force's conclusions that he did not.
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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.
Yes - it was reported on BBC news this morning and not as a newspaper headline, though Sky did show it as a newspaper headline
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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?
No.
Each allegation was at the time, investigated Cummings, Starmer and both were deemed not of suffient seriousness or evidential to warrant formal action.
Don't forget initially Cressida Dick stated the Met do not retrospectively investigate wrongdoing (????). As the scale of Partygate unravelled however the mood in the Met changed and investigation became a public interest matter.
There is no contradiction, because the Durham cases and the Downing Street cases bear virtually no similarly except in the minds of partisan Johnson shills.
To give some context, No 10 is already the venue of most fines issued during lockdown across the country, and we are only a fraction of the way through their parties.
Yes lots of people, myself included, also perhaps Starmer or perhaps not, broke the rules and pushed them to their limits occasionally. Very few did so regularly on an industrial scale. Then repeatedly lied about it.
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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
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.
Yes, a few Tories will pretend they are worried about justice not being done. The vast majority of people will see the Mail campaign for what it is: a desperate attempt to negate the very damaging fact that the vast majority of the electorate believe the leader of the Conservative party is a grifting liar.
I think you’re looking at this through the eyes of a Guardian reader. People generally don’t like people throwing mud when they’ve been found to be not whiter than white. As I said, look at Big_G’s reaction - not a BJ fan and not a foaming in the mouth Tory. If the likes of him think this is an issue, you probably have a wider problem than you think .
I don't read The Guardian. Big G's reaction is the reaction that you would expect of someone who dislikes the Labour party and does not want it to win power.
The significance of the Daily Mail story about Rayner/Starmer is not whether or not any Coronavirus restrictions were broken, but that it's the second story in quick succession from the Mail which is hostile to the Labour leadership.
A couple of years of this from the Mail presents a serious risk to Starmer's chances at the next GE.
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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
Rayner and Starmer attended an online Zoom rally from the Durham HQ of a Labour MP. That was not in breach of the rules. Durham Police have investigated the beer that Starmer had and found that it was not in breach of the rules. So where is the breach, Mr G?
The breach is the beergate meeting that Starmer and Rayner attended and labour lied about her presence
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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
Injystice, my ****!
If this gains traction and damages Labour and Starmer, which is quite possible it will be primarily as a result of the Mail and team Johnson inflating non events, Starmer's beer, Rayner's attendance and Rayner's Sharon Stone tribute.it adds to the false narrative that on one occasion, and one occasion only Johnson was "ambushed by cake".
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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
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.
Yes, a few Tories will pretend they are worried about justice not being done. The vast majority of people will see the Mail campaign for what it is: a desperate attempt to negate the very damaging fact that the vast majority of the electorate believe the leader of the Conservative party is a grifting liar.
But the Tories won't go into the next election with their "grifting liar".
Labour will go into it with their sanctimonious hypocrite of a leader and his "hmmmmm....." deputy.
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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
Rayner and Starmer attended an online Zoom rally from the Durham HQ of a Labour MP. That was not in breach of the rules. Durham Police have investigated the beer that Starmer had and found that it was not in breach of the rules. So where is the breach, Mr G?
The breach is the beergate meeting that Starmer and Rayner attended and labour lied about her presence
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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".
I am astonished that you continue to prevaricate when even labour admit she was with Starmer at beergate
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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
Why was it a breach of the rules and why has Rayner's attendance or otherwise got anything to do with it?
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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
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.
Yes, a few Tories will pretend they are worried about justice not being done. The vast majority of people will see the Mail campaign for what it is: a desperate attempt to negate the very damaging fact that the vast majority of the electorate believe the leader of the Conservative party is a grifting liar.
But the Tories won't go into the next election with their "grifting liar".
Labour will go into it with their sanctimonious hypocrite of a leader and his "hmmmmm....." deputy.
We'll see. But I do agree that dyed-in-the-wool Tories hate Starmer in a way they have not hated a Labour leader for a long time.
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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
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.
Yes, a few Tories will pretend they are worried about justice not being done. The vast majority of people will see the Mail campaign for what it is: a desperate attempt to negate the very damaging fact that the vast majority of the electorate believe the leader of the Conservative party is a grifting liar.
But the Tories won't go into the next election with their "grifting liar".
Labour will go into it with their sanctimonious hypocrite of a leader and his "hmmmmm....." deputy.
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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
Potential injustice?
So presumably the police should investigate everyone on this forum, and the entire internet who has admitted breaking the rules too?
Not to mention this dodgy looking maskless barman in the same town in the same week?
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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
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.
Yes, a few Tories will pretend they are worried about justice not being done. The vast majority of people will see the Mail campaign for what it is: a desperate attempt to negate the very damaging fact that the vast majority of the electorate believe the leader of the Conservative party is a grifting liar.
But the Tories won't go into the next election with their "grifting liar".
Labour will go into it with their sanctimonious hypocrite of a leader and his "hmmmmm....." deputy.
Don't hold your breath on the first point.
Well, don't bet on him hanging around is my advice.
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.
Ooh a Mr Ed tip.
I am hoping this one goes the way of the Mr Ed tips for USA20 and the French run off a fortnight ago.
The significance of the Daily Mail story about Rayner/Starmer is not whether or not any Coronavirus restrictions were broken, but that it's the second story in quick succession from the Mail which is hostile to the Labour leadership.
A couple of years of this from the Mail presents a serious risk to Starmer's chances at the next GE.
For it to have an impact, it needs to move beyond the Mail. But I agree with the overall premise. The Starmer v Johnson head to heads show that Starmer poses a serious threat to Tory hegemony, especially as there is no obvious replacement for Johnson (look at Starmer's head to head v Sunak!). They can't get Starmer on hating Britain or on being weird, and being boring is not really that much of a crime. So they have to find other angles: allegations of being a woke hypocrite look the most likely angle. Labour has to be alive to that.
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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
Injystice, my ****!
If this gains traction and damages Labour and Starmer, which is quite possible it will be primarily as a result of the Mail and team Johnson inflating non events, Starmer's beer, Rayner's attendance and Rayner's Sharon Stone tribute.it adds to the false narrative that on one occasion, and one occasion only Johnson was "ambushed by cake".
To be fair my interest in this story is not a defence of Boris as he is indefensible, but it is clear that Starmer attended a controversial event which it now appears Rayner was also in attendance, and labour initialled lied about her being there and now say it was an honest mistake
I believe in honesty and integrity and and if it is the case Durham Police did not investigate as diligently as the MET over the same law at the same time and different outcomes occur then that is just wrong
It is not helped by the sanctimonious way Starmer has portrayed himself as a man of principle and virtue when clearly this event has considerable similarities to Boris meeting in the cabinet office
I would concur however that the Rayner furore has fired up the mail against labour and it does look like it is open season on them at present
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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
Injystice, my ****!
If this gains traction and damages Labour and Starmer, which is quite possible it will be primarily as a result of the Mail and team Johnson inflating non events, Starmer's beer, Rayner's attendance and Rayner's Sharon Stone tribute.it adds to the false narrative that on one occasion, and one occasion only Johnson was "ambushed by cake".
It is a total and utter waste of hard pressed resources and valuable time in Durham Constabulary to deal with this crap.
The only issue is the lying/misremembering of Rayner being there. But so what.
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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
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.
Yes, a few Tories will pretend they are worried about justice not being done. The vast majority of people will see the Mail campaign for what it is: a desperate attempt to negate the very damaging fact that the vast majority of the electorate believe the leader of the Conservative party is a grifting liar.
But the Tories won't go into the next election with their "grifting liar".
Labour will go into it with their sanctimonious hypocrite of a leader and his "hmmmmm....." deputy.
We'll see. But I do agree that dyed-in-the-wool Tories hate Starmer in a way they have not hated a Labour leader for a long time.
They're just winding you up I think.
But in terms of hate -> Tories hated Corbyn plenty. His style, mannerisms, views were all personally offensive to them. With Starmer, I think it's more that he seems a genuine threat at the next election.
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%.
I’d think it would be higher but not a huge amount more. My point - which Scotland’s own Lenin-in-exile missed - was that I was surprised at how confident the person was. I was expecting some humming
Fair enough. BTW is any betting taking account of the fact that the next GE could be in 2025? The last possible date is 24 Jan 2025.
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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
Why was it a breach of the rules and why has Rayner's attendance or otherwise got anything to do with it?
Labour lied that Rayner was present which has caused this furore
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.
Ooh a Mr Ed tip.
I am hoping this one goes the way of the Mr Ed tips for USA20 and the French run off a fortnight ago.
Mr Ed's SPAD wasn't 'cut from the same cloth' as our HYUFD were they?
And those of us old enough with remember Heseltine forecasting a Tory win about 11pm on General Election night 1997.
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.
I'm not really feeling the outrage. If you are permitted to work another job whilst an MP, and some dont want that, then you will. Certainly some work activities will be questionable, but judging lawyers for their clients can be a slippery slope. But then again some do seem to find a niche working for dodgy folk.
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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
Injystice, my ****!
If this gains traction and damages Labour and Starmer, which is quite possible it will be primarily as a result of the Mail and team Johnson inflating non events, Starmer's beer, Rayner's attendance and Rayner's Sharon Stone tribute.it adds to the false narrative that on one occasion, and one occasion only Johnson was "ambushed by cake".
To be fair my interest in this story is not a defence of Boris as he is indefensible, but it is clear that Starmer attended a controversial event which it now appears Rayner was also in attendance, and labour initialled lied about her being there and now say it was an honest mistake
I believe in honesty and integrity and and if it is the case Durham Police did not investigate as diligently as the MET over the same law at the same time and different outcomes occur then that is just wrong
It is not helped by the sanctimonious way Starmer has portrayed himself as a man of principle and virtue when clearly this event has considerable similarities to Boris meeting in the cabinet office
I would concur however that the Rayner furore has fired up the mail against labour and it does look like it is open season on them at present
You want Starmer to be a sanctimonious hypocrite. You want him to have breached the rules. That's because you do not want him to lead Labour to power at the next election. Your reaction to this story is entirely understandable. The problem is that most people do not feel about Labour the way you do. The more the Tories focus on this, the more out of touch they will seem.
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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.
In other words, to use their own language, they’ve been lying about it for the past few months.
How’s about politicians of all stripes actually start debating policy for a change?
The significance of the Daily Mail story about Rayner/Starmer is not whether or not any Coronavirus restrictions were broken, but that it's the second story in quick succession from the Mail which is hostile to the Labour leadership.
A couple of years of this from the Mail presents a serious risk to Starmer's chances at the next GE.
Well that smacks of a breakdown of democracy. If the Mail can publish dubious smear after dubious smear and get away with it, they are following the Putin-Bot playbook.
Government policy is simply one of "save Big Dog", nothing else matters. Although Liz Truss seems not to be on board. "Operation Fizzy Lizzy for PM" runs counter to "Operation save Big Dog".
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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
Injystice, my ****!
If this gains traction and damages Labour and Starmer, which is quite possible it will be primarily as a result of the Mail and team Johnson inflating non events, Starmer's beer, Rayner's attendance and Rayner's Sharon Stone tribute.it adds to the false narrative that on one occasion, and one occasion only Johnson was "ambushed by cake".
It is a total and utter waste of hard pressed resources and valuable time in Durham Constabulary to deal with this crap.
The only issue is the lying/misremembering of Rayner being there. But so what.
In the scheme of things the same can be said of the partygate investigation. I would love to know how many officers, how many hours, and how much time it will cost in the end, and whether they can fund it from the fines issued.
I understand the anger of the nation, I really do, but there are bigger crimes going on and things from the pandemic to investigate, not least dodgy contracts for PPE etc. If people have pocketed public money and not supplied the products promised then they pay the money back or criminal proceedings follow.
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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
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.
Yes, a few Tories will pretend they are worried about justice not being done. The vast majority of people will see the Mail campaign for what it is: a desperate attempt to negate the very damaging fact that the vast majority of the electorate believe the leader of the Conservative party is a grifting liar.
But the Tories won't go into the next election with their "grifting liar".
Labour will go into it with their sanctimonious hypocrite of a leader and his "hmmmmm....." deputy.
We'll see. But I do agree that dyed-in-the-wool Tories hate Starmer in a way they have not hated a Labour leader for a long time.
If you are referring to me I do not hate leaders, not even Corbyn, but it is perfectly legitimate to criticise Starmer and not want a labour government
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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
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.
Yes, a few Tories will pretend they are worried about justice not being done. The vast majority of people will see the Mail campaign for what it is: a desperate attempt to negate the very damaging fact that the vast majority of the electorate believe the leader of the Conservative party is a grifting liar.
But the Tories won't go into the next election with their "grifting liar".
Labour will go into it with their sanctimonious hypocrite of a leader and his "hmmmmm....." deputy.
We'll see. But I do agree that dyed-in-the-wool Tories hate Starmer in a way they have not hated a Labour leader for a long time.
They're just winding you up I think.
But in terms of hate -> Tories hated Corbyn plenty. His style, mannerisms, views were all personally offensive to them. With Starmer, I think it's more that he seems a genuine threat at the next election.
I like the Tory attacks on Starmer because, as you say, they show he has them worried. I think the Tories liked Corbyn leading Labour and were very happy that Miliband did, too. Starmer is very far from being a superstar but he presents a serious threat because the Tories do not have anyone who could replace Johnson and change the narrative.
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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.
In other words, to use their own language, they’ve been lying about it for the past few months.
How’s about politicians of all stripes actually start debating policy for a change?
Perhaps Labour need to come out with some coherent well thought through policy? We're still waiting!
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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
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.
Yes, a few Tories will pretend they are worried about justice not being done. The vast majority of people will see the Mail campaign for what it is: a desperate attempt to negate the very damaging fact that the vast majority of the electorate believe the leader of the Conservative party is a grifting liar.
But the Tories won't go into the next election with their "grifting liar".
Labour will go into it with their sanctimonious hypocrite of a leader and his "hmmmmm....." deputy.
We'll see. But I do agree that dyed-in-the-wool Tories hate Starmer in a way they have not hated a Labour leader for a long time.
If you are referring to me I do not hate leaders, not even Corbyn, but it is perfectly legitimate to criticise Starmer and not want a labour government
No, I'm not referring to you. I don't see you as being a hateful person. A partisan, yes. But so am I!
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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
Injystice, my ****!
If this gains traction and damages Labour and Starmer, which is quite possible it will be primarily as a result of the Mail and team Johnson inflating non events, Starmer's beer, Rayner's attendance and Rayner's Sharon Stone tribute.it adds to the false narrative that on one occasion, and one occasion only Johnson was "ambushed by cake".
To be fair my interest in this story is not a defence of Boris as he is indefensible, but it is clear that Starmer attended a controversial event which it now appears Rayner was also in attendance, and labour initialled lied about her being there and now say it was an honest mistake
I believe in honesty and integrity and and if it is the case Durham Police did not investigate as diligently as the MET over the same law at the same time and different outcomes occur then that is just wrong
It is not helped by the sanctimonious way Starmer has portrayed himself as a man of principle and virtue when clearly this event has considerable similarities to Boris meeting in the cabinet office
I would concur however that the Rayner furore has fired up the mail against labour and it does look like it is open season on them at present
Dacre has got his vile a*** in the hot seat at the Mail once more. Expect more of the same. A seed of doubt can be crafted into full blown fake conspiracies.
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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
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..
I am not a Tory (tm). I've even said if there was a GE tomorrow, I'd vote Labour (local candidate depending). (*)
It just looks a little sniffy - and the hilarious "nothing to see here" from people who were encouraging the Met to look into the No. 10 shenanigans looks a little interesting.
If they think it's all above board, why not let the police reopen it?
(*) The locals are more interesting for me atm. Probably LD, mainly because we had an interesting conversation with the candidate on the doorstep. I missed the Conservative one, and we haven't seen the Labour one.
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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
Injystice, my ****!
If this gains traction and damages Labour and Starmer, which is quite possible it will be primarily as a result of the Mail and team Johnson inflating non events, Starmer's beer, Rayner's attendance and Rayner's Sharon Stone tribute.it adds to the false narrative that on one occasion, and one occasion only Johnson was "ambushed by cake".
To be fair my interest in this story is not a defence of Boris as he is indefensible, but it is clear that Starmer attended a controversial event which it now appears Rayner was also in attendance, and labour initialled lied about her being there and now say it was an honest mistake
I believe in honesty and integrity and and if it is the case Durham Police did not investigate as diligently as the MET over the same law at the same time and different outcomes occur then that is just wrong
It is not helped by the sanctimonious way Starmer has portrayed himself as a man of principle and virtue when clearly this event has considerable similarities to Boris meeting in the cabinet office
I would concur however that the Rayner furore has fired up the mail against labour and it does look like it is open season on them at present
You want Starmer to be a sanctimonious hypocrite. You want him to have breached the rules. That's because you do not want him to lead Labour to power at the next election. Your reaction to this story is entirely understandable. The problem is that most people do not feel about Labour the way you do. The more the Tories focus on this, the more out of touch they will seem.
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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.
In other words, to use their own language, they’ve been lying about it for the past few months.
How’s about politicians of all stripes actually start debating policy for a change?
Perhaps Labour need to come out with some coherent well thought through policy? We're still waiting!
You mean they should have been coming up with stuff like Rishi's shiny new windfall tax on the oil companies proposal.
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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
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..
I am not a Tory (tm). I've even said if there was a GE tomorrow, I'd vote Labour (local candidate depending). (*)
It just looks a little sniffy - and the hilarious "nothing to see here" from people who were encouraging the Met to look into the No. 10 shenanigans looks a little interesting.
If they think it's all above board, why not let the police reopen it?
(*) The locals are more interesting for me atm. Probably LD, mainly because we had an interesting conversation with the candidate on the doorstep. I missed the Conservative one, and we haven't seen the Labour one.
But didn’t they already reopen it and found no rules were broken?
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%.
I’d think it would be higher but not a huge amount more. My point - which Scotland’s own Lenin-in-exile missed - was that I was surprised at how confident the person was. I was expecting some humming
Fair enough. BTW is any betting taking account of the fact that the next GE could be in 2025? The last possible date is 24 Jan 2025.
Yes.
Betfair Exchange includes "2024 or later" in its market on Boris's leaving date (or you can get 1.14 on "July 2022" or later if you are confident he can hang on for another couple of months, and it will probably but not definitely take that long to select his replacement). For next PM or next Conservative Leader betting, the date is irrelevant. Ladbrokes has "2024 or later"; Hills have two markets whose outer bounds are "2023 or later" and "2024 or later". Oddschecker lists several other bookmakers as "2024 or later" but I've not checked these other sites.
Some worrying news emerging from America that James Corden is quitting his TV show to spend more time in the UK. If we dont resist this it will only be matter of time before he is invading our British screens again
Some worrying news emerging from America that James Corden is quitting his TV show to spend more time in the UK. If we dont resist this it will only be matter of time before he is invading our British screens again
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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
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.
Yes, a few Tories will pretend they are worried about justice not being done. The vast majority of people will see the Mail campaign for what it is: a desperate attempt to negate the very damaging fact that the vast majority of the electorate believe the leader of the Conservative party is a grifting liar.
But the Tories won't go into the next election with their "grifting liar".
Labour will go into it with their sanctimonious hypocrite of a leader and his "hmmmmm....." deputy.
We'll see. But I do agree that dyed-in-the-wool Tories hate Starmer in a way they have not hated a Labour leader for a long time.
I thought the photo of Starmer might backfire because of its lack of authenticity. Pretending to be a working class lad from up North with his bottle of beer had all the elements to really piss off his target voters but thanks to the Mail it's had precisely the opposite effect.
This is now becoming the settled view of Starmer and it couldn't be a better image. He has an impressive back story and now he might be able to cash in on it.
When I first saw the photo several months ago I immediately thought it was staged but maybe not. It's possible he has a backroom team who are much smarter than anyone is giving them credit for being
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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
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..
I am not a Tory (tm). I've even said if there was a GE tomorrow, I'd vote Labour (local candidate depending). (*)
It just looks a little sniffy - and the hilarious "nothing to see here" from people who were encouraging the Met to look into the No. 10 shenanigans looks a little interesting.
If they think it's all above board, why not let the police reopen it?
(*) The locals are more interesting for me atm. Probably LD, mainly because we had an interesting conversation with the candidate on the doorstep. I missed the Conservative one, and we haven't seen the Labour one.
I read the Mail article and it seems all they've got is a Labour official a few months ago denying Rayner was in Foy's office when Starmer was photographed drinking a beer, and now it seems maybe she was there. What am I missing?
If we’re headed for a recession as it looks like we are the Tories are screwed
The Tories are screwed anyway. They've been in power for twelve years, alone or in coalition, which is about the length of time any party remains in power before going very stale. They have a poor leader, a poor frontbench, and poor ideas. They have faced one unprecedented (in modern times) crisis, and now have a second on their hands. The books are all scribbled in red crayon, and there are few positive signs for the economy. They have suffered several self-inflicted ad unforced wounds in succession.
They're screwed.
Starmer is as charismatic as a grey winter's day in Margate (and without the advantage of the Horny Visitor Centre). His idea of an inspirational vision is an overlong WORN essay. He does not do human. But those are about his main negatives. On the other hand, he does seem competent, and obviously has hidden political nous.
Against this iteration of the Conservative party, that should be more than enough.
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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".
I am astonished that you continue to prevaricate when even labour admit she was with Starmer at beergate
I am not astonished that you desperately want it to be true that Starmer broke the lockdown rules and will not accept the Durham police force's conclusions that he did not.
Durham police won't investigate because they have had a policy of not prosecuting lockdown breaches except where miscreant caught red-handed. It would be unfair to treat prominent politicians different from general public.
We know this because they explicitly said so in the context of d Cummings. This completely ties their hands because investigating sks would breach that principle AND be treating lab different from conducting
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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".
I am astonished that you continue to prevaricate when even labour admit she was with Starmer at beergate
I am not astonished that you desperately want it to be true that Starmer broke the lockdown rules and will not accept the Durham police force's conclusions that he did not.
Durham police won't investigate because they have had a policy of not prosecuting lockdown breaches except where miscreant caught red-handed. It would be unfair to treat prominent politicians different from general public.
We know this because they explicitly said so in the context of d Cummings. This completely ties their hands because investigating sks would breach that principle AND be treating lab different from conducting
A plot twist for the ages
No that’s not what happened.
Durham Police did investigate and found no rules were broken.
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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
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..
I am not a Tory (tm). I've even said if there was a GE tomorrow, I'd vote Labour (local candidate depending). (*)
It just looks a little sniffy - and the hilarious "nothing to see here" from people who were encouraging the Met to look into the No. 10 shenanigans looks a little interesting.
If they think it's all above board, why not let the police reopen it?
(*) The locals are more interesting for me atm. Probably LD, mainly because we had an interesting conversation with the candidate on the doorstep. I missed the Conservative one, and we haven't seen the Labour one.
But didn’t they already reopen it and found no rules were broken?
What rules has Starmer broken?
Allegations have been made. It seems Labour have not been entirely open about it (e.g. saying Rayner was not there).
Admit it: if this was the Conservatives, you'd be all over it. And fair enough.
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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
The law is an opinion unless and until it gets tested in court. With that caveat, there doesn't seem to be any real doubt: Johnson broke the law and Starmer didn't. You don't just pursue the leader of the opposition for rule-breaking simply because the Prime Minister has been caught out.
In terms of perception it might have been better for Starmer to be photographed with a bottle of water rather than a bottle of beer at his work meeting, but drinking beer has never been against the law. I get that perceptions matter for politics and Starmer's opponents will use whatever ammunition they can lay their hands on. But let's not conflate the law with public perception of other people's behaviour.
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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?
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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
Injystice, my ****!
If this gains traction and damages Labour and Starmer, which is quite possible it will be primarily as a result of the Mail and team Johnson inflating non events, Starmer's beer, Rayner's attendance and Rayner's Sharon Stone tribute.it adds to the false narrative that on one occasion, and one occasion only Johnson was "ambushed by cake".
To be fair my interest in this story is not a defence of Boris as he is indefensible, but it is clear that Starmer attended a controversial event which it now appears Rayner was also in attendance, and labour initialled lied about her being there and now say it was an honest mistake
I believe in honesty and integrity and and if it is the case Durham Police did not investigate as diligently as the MET over the same law at the same time and different outcomes occur then that is just wrong
It is not helped by the sanctimonious way Starmer has portrayed himself as a man of principle and virtue when clearly this event has considerable similarities to Boris meeting in the cabinet office
I would concur however that the Rayner furore has fired up the mail against labour and it does look like it is open season on them at present
You want Starmer to be a sanctimonious hypocrite. You want him to have breached the rules. That's because you do not want him to lead Labour to power at the next election. Your reaction to this story is entirely understandable. The problem is that most people do not feel about Labour the way you do. The more the Tories focus on this, the more out of touch they will seem.
Hope you are keeping well
Given the number of people I know, who strictly kept to the rules, apart from X, the House of Commons is going to be quite empty in the near future. Possibly.
I can't see a problem with that.
Incidentally, BoJo is toast. He is burnt toast stuck in the machine. The problem is getting the piece of toast out - it is wedged in the machine.
If we’re headed for a recession as it looks like we are the Tories are screwed
The Tories are screwed anyway. They've been in power for twelve years, alone or in coalition, which is about the length of time any party remains in power before going very stale. They have a poor leader, a poor frontbench, and poor ideas. They have faced one unprecedented (in modern times) crisis, and now have a second on their hands. The books are all scribbled in red crayon, and there are few positive signs for the economy. They have suffered several self-inflicted ad unforced wounds in succession.
They're screwed.
Starmer is as charismatic as a grey winter's day in Margate (and without the advantage of the Horny Visitor Centre). His idea of an inspirational vision is an overlong WORN essay. He does not do human. But those are about his main negatives. On the other hand, he does seem competent, and obviously has hidden political nous.
Against this iteration of the Conservative party, that should be more than enough.
Hope you are keeping well.
Agree with everything you said. For me dull it’s not a negative, never has been
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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
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..
I am not a Tory (tm). I've even said if there was a GE tomorrow, I'd vote Labour (local candidate depending). (*)
It just looks a little sniffy - and the hilarious "nothing to see here" from people who were encouraging the Met to look into the No. 10 shenanigans looks a little interesting.
If they think it's all above board, why not let the police reopen it?
(*) The locals are more interesting for me atm. Probably LD, mainly because we had an interesting conversation with the candidate on the doorstep. I missed the Conservative one, and we haven't seen the Labour one.
But didn’t they already reopen it and found no rules were broken?
What rules has Starmer broken?
Allegations have been made. It seems Labour have not been entirely open about it (e.g. saying Rayner was not there).
Admit it: if this was the Conservatives, you'd be all over it. And fair enough.
I would be all over it but if the police said not rules were broken I’d have to suck it up?
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.
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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
Injystice, my ****!
If this gains traction and damages Labour and Starmer, which is quite possible it will be primarily as a result of the Mail and team Johnson inflating non events, Starmer's beer, Rayner's attendance and Rayner's Sharon Stone tribute.it adds to the false narrative that on one occasion, and one occasion only Johnson was "ambushed by cake".
To be fair my interest in this story is not a defence of Boris as he is indefensible, but it is clear that Starmer attended a controversial event which it now appears Rayner was also in attendance, and labour initialled lied about her being there and now say it was an honest mistake
I believe in honesty and integrity and and if it is the case Durham Police did not investigate as diligently as the MET over the same law at the same time and different outcomes occur then that is just wrong
It is not helped by the sanctimonious way Starmer has portrayed himself as a man of principle and virtue when clearly this event has considerable similarities to Boris meeting in the cabinet office
I would concur however that the Rayner furore has fired up the mail against labour and it does look like it is open season on them at present
Such thin gruel. The only reason you are interested in this story is to deflect attention from your hero Johnson's rule-breaking.
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.
I'm not really feeling the outrage. If you are permitted to work another job whilst an MP, and some dont want that, then you will. Certainly some work activities will be questionable, but judging lawyers for their clients can be a slippery slope. But then again some do seem to find a niche working for dodgy folk.
It also depends how you look at it - he is defending a black man, the head of a small country, who is being gone after by the American police. There's no history of any of that being a problem, no sir.
This is not to defend Mr Fahie - I think he is guilty as sin.
But it is interesting to look at different angles.
An American lawyer relative got called in by the NAACP a number of times about Title 9 stuff. "How could he question a victims narrative about being sexually assaulted?", you might ask. History & Justice, was his answer.
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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
I forgot for a moment that you want Boris replaced.
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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
Injystice, my ****!
If this gains traction and damages Labour and Starmer, which is quite possible it will be primarily as a result of the Mail and team Johnson inflating non events, Starmer's beer, Rayner's attendance and Rayner's Sharon Stone tribute.it adds to the false narrative that on one occasion, and one occasion only Johnson was "ambushed by cake".
To be fair my interest in this story is not a defence of Boris as he is indefensible, but it is clear that Starmer attended a controversial event which it now appears Rayner was also in attendance, and labour initialled lied about her being there and now say it was an honest mistake
I believe in honesty and integrity and and if it is the case Durham Police did not investigate as diligently as the MET over the same law at the same time and different outcomes occur then that is just wrong
It is not helped by the sanctimonious way Starmer has portrayed himself as a man of principle and virtue when clearly this event has considerable similarities to Boris meeting in the cabinet office
I would concur however that the Rayner furore has fired up the mail against labour and it does look like it is open season on them at present
Such thin gruel. The only reason you are interested in this story is to deflect attention from your hero Johnson's rule-breaking.
He is no hero of mine and you cannot have read my posts which affirm I wanted him long gone
Indeed I have predicted he will be gone by the 31st May
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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
I forgot for a moment that you want Boris replaced.
Of course I want Boris replaced but that does not give Starmer and labour a free pass
The significance of the Daily Mail story about Rayner/Starmer is not whether or not any Coronavirus restrictions were broken, but that it's the second story in quick succession from the Mail which is hostile to the Labour leadership.
A couple of years of this from the Mail presents a serious risk to Starmer's chances at the next GE.
Well that smacks of a breakdown of democracy. If the Mail can publish dubious smear after dubious smear and get away with it, they are following the Putin-Bot playbook.
Government policy is simply one of "save Big Dog", nothing else matters. Although Liz Truss seems not to be on board. "Operation Fizzy Lizzy for PM" runs counter to "Operation save Big Dog".
Daily Mail hostile to Labour?
Next the Guardian will publish stories that are hostile to the Tories?
Private Eye will publish a stories satirising corruption in public life?
The Sunday Sport will publish stories about Hitler being a woman and living with Elvis on a bus on the moon?
You mean exactly as things have been in living memory?
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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".
I am astonished that you continue to prevaricate when even labour admit she was with Starmer at beergate
I am not astonished that you desperately want it to be true that Starmer broke the lockdown rules and will not accept the Durham police force's conclusions that he did not.
Durham police won't investigate because they have had a policy of not prosecuting lockdown breaches except where miscreant caught red-handed. It would be unfair to treat prominent politicians different from general public.
We know this because they explicitly said so in the context of d Cummings. This completely ties their hands because investigating sks would breach that principle AND be treating lab different from conducting
A plot twist for the ages
No that’s not what happened.
Durham Police did investigate and found no rules were broken.
Yes, sorry, sort of right. But they have said that if they have another go and find different they still won't do anything
It’s not just about nerve Mike, it’s about the replacement. I think Truss just blew it.
How did Truss blow it exactly?
By being on the same page as Joe Biden that we need to do more to support Ukraine?
That might upset a few who want Britain to be appeasers of Russia but I don't think many of those will have a say in the next Tory leadership race or be able to get one of their own to be Prime Minister - I'd certainly hope not.
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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".
I am astonished that you continue to prevaricate when even labour admit she was with Starmer at beergate
I am not astonished that you desperately want it to be true that Starmer broke the lockdown rules and will not accept the Durham police force's conclusions that he did not.
Durham police won't investigate because they have had a policy of not prosecuting lockdown breaches except where miscreant caught red-handed. It would be unfair to treat prominent politicians different from general public.
We know this because they explicitly said so in the context of d Cummings. This completely ties their hands because investigating sks would breach that principle AND be treating lab different from conducting
A plot twist for the ages
No that’s not what happened.
Durham Police did investigate and found no rules were broken.
Yes, sorry, sort of right. But they have said that if they have another go and find different they still won't do anything
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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
Injystice, my ****!
If this gains traction and damages Labour and Starmer, which is quite possible it will be primarily as a result of the Mail and team Johnson inflating non events, Starmer's beer, Rayner's attendance and Rayner's Sharon Stone tribute.it adds to the false narrative that on one occasion, and one occasion only Johnson was "ambushed by cake".
It is a total and utter waste of hard pressed resources and valuable time in Durham Constabulary to deal with this crap.
The only issue is the lying/misremembering of Rayner being there. But so what.
In the scheme of things the same can be said of the partygate investigation. I would love to know how many officers, how many hours, and how much time it will cost in the end, and whether they can fund it from the fines issued.
I understand the anger of the nation, I really do, but there are bigger crimes going on and things from the pandemic to investigate, not least dodgy contracts for PPE etc. If people have pocketed public money and not supplied the products promised then they pay the money back or criminal proceedings follow.
I agree. I thought the Partygate investigation pretty much a waste of valuable time and resource and highly political. Two wrongs dont make a right.
If we’re headed for a recession as it looks like we are the Tories are screwed
The Tories are screwed anyway. They've been in power for twelve years, alone or in coalition, which is about the length of time any party remains in power before going very stale. They have a poor leader, a poor frontbench, and poor ideas. They have faced one unprecedented (in modern times) crisis, and now have a second on their hands. The books are all scribbled in red crayon, and there are few positive signs for the economy. They have suffered several self-inflicted ad unforced wounds in succession.
They're screwed.
Starmer is as charismatic as a grey winter's day in Margate (and without the advantage of the Horny Visitor Centre). His idea of an inspirational vision is an overlong WORN essay. He does not do human. But those are about his main negatives. On the other hand, he does seem competent, and obviously has hidden political nous.
Against this iteration of the Conservative party, that should be more than enough.
Tend to agree. Another 2 years of Boris and no change risks something approaching 1997, given the "Cost of Living Crisis."
The Tories need a new leader and a degree of reinvention or, at least, a doubling down on Levelling Up and the momentum that would provide. They won't win but would at least be competitive.
I suspect the local elections will, wrongly, be interpreted as the worst is over and a reason to stagger on with BJ.
The significance of the Daily Mail story about Rayner/Starmer is not whether or not any Coronavirus restrictions were broken, but that it's the second story in quick succession from the Mail which is hostile to the Labour leadership.
A couple of years of this from the Mail presents a serious risk to Starmer's chances at the next GE.
Well that smacks of a breakdown of democracy. If the Mail can publish dubious smear after dubious smear and get away with it, they are following the Putin-Bot playbook.
Government policy is simply one of "save Big Dog", nothing else matters. Although Liz Truss seems not to be on board. "Operation Fizzy Lizzy for PM" runs counter to "Operation save Big Dog".
Daily Mail hostile to Labour?
Next the Guardian will publish stories that are hostile to the Tories?
Private Eye will publish a stories satirising corruption in public life?
The Sunday Sport will publish stories about Hitler being a woman and living with Elvis on a bus on the moon?
You mean exactly as things have been in living memory?
I don't remember such sustained desperation as we have seen from the Mail in recent days. They seem to have stopped trying even to be interesting.
It’s not just about nerve Mike, it’s about the replacement. I think Truss just blew it.
How did Truss blow it exactly?
By being on the same page as Joe Biden that we need to do more to support Ukraine?
That might upset a few who want Britain to be appeasers of Russia but I don't think many of those will have a say in the next Tory leadership race or be able to get one of their own to be Prime Minister - I'd certainly hope not.
Dude you’re the one who said this was the roaring twenties and Brexit was going to power us through. Bottom for GDP growth now, CoL crisis and inflation.
The timing of the Starmer photo is also relevant, but rarely mentioned. It was at a period of far fewer restrictions, unlike some of the shenanigans in No 10.
Apparently it was an 'honest mistake' when they said Ms. Rayner wasn't there....
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
Injystice, my ****!
If this gains traction and damages Labour and Starmer, which is quite possible it will be primarily as a result of the Mail and team Johnson inflating non events, Starmer's beer, Rayner's attendance and Rayner's Sharon Stone tribute.it adds to the false narrative that on one occasion, and one occasion only Johnson was "ambushed by cake".
It is a total and utter waste of hard pressed resources and valuable time in Durham Constabulary to deal with this crap.
The only issue is the lying/misremembering of Rayner being there. But so what.
In the scheme of things the same can be said of the partygate investigation. I would love to know how many officers, how many hours, and how much time it will cost in the end, and whether they can fund it from the fines issued.
I understand the anger of the nation, I really do, but there are bigger crimes going on and things from the pandemic to investigate, not least dodgy contracts for PPE etc. If people have pocketed public money and not supplied the products promised then they pay the money back or criminal proceedings follow.
I agree. I thought the Partygate investigation pretty much a waste of valuable time and resource and highly political. Two wrongs dont make a right.
Perhaps they could try investigating both PPE contracts *and* the happenings at No.10?
Comments
It could just be The Mail petulantly lashing out after being called out for the Basic Instinct story.
The first rule of advertising; You can't persuade people of things they don't believe or unpersuade them of things they do.
However, in terms of leadership pressure, I don't think the relevant people will be looking at it in that level of detail. He will want to win the NEV, he will want some iconic gains, in London and somewhere "north", without losing ground anywhere (such as in Scotland or Wales).
Each allegation was at the time, investigated Cummings, Starmer and both were deemed not of suffient seriousness or evidential to warrant formal action.
Don't forget initially Cressida Dick stated the Met do not retrospectively investigate wrongdoing (????). As the scale of Partygate unravelled however the mood in the Met changed and investigation became a public interest matter.
There is no contradiction, because the Durham cases and the Downing Street cases bear virtually no similarly except in the minds of partisan Johnson shills.
On the whole I suspect Starmer's event probably would have merited a word with the police and no more (as in now, now sir, probably best not to do that), while the scale of the events in No 10 are vastly worse, including emails to 'bring your own booze' etc. The laws were ridiculous.
https://www.joy4durhampcc.com/2020/11/16/watch-durham-custody-suites-issue/
Anyway this whole Durham partygate is a waste of time. SKS has done nothing wrong. Mischief makers like Guido are simply wasting time and resource and local residents council tax money on this nonsense.
Durham Police are not the met. They are pretty good all in all. There is no conspiracy here, Joy Allen did not intervene to protect her own party as some claim. It is merely an attempt to distract from Johnsons FPN
She was present at both events and this has caused the furore this morning
Labour lying about her presence in the first place has opened a can of worms
What is it about lying in politics ?
Durham Police are pretty good overall.
Yes lots of people, myself included, also perhaps Starmer or perhaps not, broke the rules and pushed them to their limits occasionally. Very few did so regularly on an industrial scale. Then repeatedly lied about it.
Neil Oliver, Money, Govey, Galloway and JK Rowling ranting about women’s changing rooms.
You wouldn't have, being a Conservative supporter and Johnson being Leader!
And Good Morning one and all. At last, a decent night's sleep last night. All the physical niggles quietened, somehow!
A couple of years of this from the Mail presents a serious risk to Starmer's chances at the next GE.
If this gains traction and damages Labour and Starmer, which is quite possible it will be primarily as a result of the Mail and team Johnson inflating non events, Starmer's beer, Rayner's attendance and Rayner's Sharon Stone tribute.it adds to the false narrative that on one occasion, and one occasion only Johnson was "ambushed by cake".
Labour will go into it with their sanctimonious hypocrite of a leader and his "hmmmmm....." deputy.
They should have been clear about Rayners attendance in Durham if that was the case as ‘ honest mistake ‘ could be a line that no 10 might use .
At the end of the day though Durham police haven’t issued any fines and have confirmed to the BBC that they’re not reviewing the events.
So presumably the police should investigate everyone on this forum, and the entire internet who has admitted breaking the rules too?
Not to mention this dodgy looking maskless barman in the same town in the same week?
https://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/Article/2021/05/11/Has-the-Prime-Minister-been-to-a-pub-after-lockdown
I am hoping this one goes the way of the Mr Ed tips for USA20 and the French run off a fortnight ago.
I believe in honesty and integrity and and if it is the case Durham Police did not investigate as diligently as the MET over the same law at the same time and different outcomes occur then that is just wrong
It is not helped by the sanctimonious way Starmer has portrayed himself as a man of principle and virtue when clearly this event has considerable similarities to Boris meeting in the cabinet office
I would concur however that the Rayner furore has fired up the mail against labour and it does look like it is open season on them at present
The only issue is the lying/misremembering of Rayner being there. But so what.
But in terms of hate -> Tories hated Corbyn plenty. His style, mannerisms, views were all personally offensive to them. With Starmer, I think it's more that he seems a genuine threat at the next election.
And those of us old enough with remember Heseltine forecasting a Tory win about 11pm on General Election night 1997.
How’s about politicians of all stripes actually start debating policy for a change?
Government policy is simply one of "save Big Dog", nothing else matters. Although Liz Truss seems not to be on board. "Operation Fizzy Lizzy for PM" runs counter to "Operation save Big Dog".
I understand the anger of the nation, I really do, but there are bigger crimes going on and things from the pandemic to investigate, not least dodgy contracts for PPE etc. If people have pocketed public money and not supplied the products promised then they pay the money back or criminal proceedings follow.
If we’re headed for a recession as it looks like we are the Tories are screwed
It just looks a little sniffy - and the hilarious "nothing to see here" from people who were encouraging the Met to look into the No. 10 shenanigans looks a little interesting.
If they think it's all above board, why not let the police reopen it?
(*) The locals are more interesting for me atm. Probably LD, mainly because we had an interesting conversation with the candidate on the doorstep. I missed the Conservative one, and we haven't seen the Labour one.
Agreed!
What rules has Starmer broken?
Betfair Exchange includes "2024 or later" in its market on Boris's leaving date (or you can get 1.14 on "July 2022" or later if you are confident he can hang on for another couple of months, and it will probably but not definitely take that long to select his replacement). For next PM or next Conservative Leader betting, the date is irrelevant. Ladbrokes has "2024 or later"; Hills have two markets whose outer bounds are "2023 or later" and "2024 or later". Oddschecker lists several other bookmakers as "2024 or later" but I've not checked these other sites.
This is now becoming the settled view of Starmer and it couldn't be a better image. He has an impressive back story and now he might be able to cash in on it.
When I first saw the photo several months ago I immediately thought it was staged but maybe not. It's possible he has a backroom team who are much smarter than anyone is giving them credit for being
https://twitter.com/MaxFosterCNN/status/1519777425735008258
They're screwed.
Starmer is as charismatic as a grey winter's day in Margate (and without the advantage of the Horny Visitor Centre). His idea of an inspirational vision is an overlong WORN essay. He does not do human. But those are about his main negatives. On the other hand, he does seem competent, and obviously has hidden political nous.
Against this iteration of the Conservative party, that should be more than enough.
We know this because they explicitly said so in the context of d Cummings. This completely ties their hands because investigating sks would breach that principle AND be treating lab different from conducting
A plot twist for the ages
Durham Police did investigate and found no rules were broken.
Admit it: if this was the Conservatives, you'd be all over it. And fair enough.
In terms of perception it might have been better for Starmer to be photographed with a bottle of water rather than a bottle of beer at his work meeting, but drinking beer has never been against the law. I get that perceptions matter for politics and Starmer's opponents will use whatever ammunition they can lay their hands on. But let's not conflate the law with public perception of other people's behaviour.
I can't see a problem with that.
Incidentally, BoJo is toast. He is burnt toast stuck in the machine. The problem is getting the piece of toast out - it is wedged in the machine.
Agree with everything you said. For me dull it’s not a negative, never has been
This is not to defend Mr Fahie - I think he is guilty as sin.
But it is interesting to look at different angles.
An American lawyer relative got called in by the NAACP a number of times about Title 9 stuff. "How could he question a victims narrative about being sexually assaulted?", you might ask. History & Justice, was his answer.
Indeed I have predicted he will be gone by the 31st May
He was calling him amazing just two months ago
Next the Guardian will publish stories that are hostile to the Tories?
Private Eye will publish a stories satirising corruption in public life?
The Sunday Sport will publish stories about Hitler being a woman and living with Elvis on a bus on the moon?
You mean exactly as things have been in living memory?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/04/28/keir-starmer-wont-fined-lockdown-beer-even-found-have-broken/
By being on the same page as Joe Biden that we need to do more to support Ukraine?
That might upset a few who want Britain to be appeasers of Russia but I don't think many of those will have a say in the next Tory leadership race or be able to get one of their own to be Prime Minister - I'd certainly hope not.
Has the Mail presented new evidence? No.
Have the circumstances changed? No.
Therefore there is no case to answer. And the fact the Mail have the same photo again shows they are at a dead end.
It was the same for Johnson until new evidence was presented.
The Tories need a new leader and a degree of reinvention or, at least, a doubling down on Levelling Up and the momentum that would provide. They won't win but would at least be competitive.
I suspect the local elections will, wrongly, be interpreted as the worst is over and a reason to stagger on with BJ.
I want a conservative government in 24 and the best way to achieve that is for Boris to go
What say you?
Hedging your bets?
The way they are doing, at this very moment?