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.
Of course the only PM and party leader to win a general election after more than 10 years of their party in power since universal suffrage in 1918 was John Major in 1992.
So if Boris goes the Conservatives would need to find another Major, maybe Wallace or Javid?
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.
This is why the police found no rules were broken.
The Mail are trying to make an equivalence when there isn’t one.
And the fact they keep writing the same story shows that they’ve got nothing.
Starmer is squeaky clean in a way no Labour leader recently 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.
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
But I’m lost, why would they investigate again when they already did and found no rules were broken?
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.
Has the Mail presented new evidence? Yes. Someone has given them some video footage with Ange on it, which is why lab have u turned about her being there. It's on their website.
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.
"We can't win, so promise to rig the system".
No. Turn a rigged system into a fair system. Some of us campaign for this because we believe in it not because we are after power. It was one of the prime reasons I got into politics.
Just to show how daft your argument is you could apply your argument to a dictatorship - 'we can't win so rig the system'. Except 'rig' should be changed to 'make fair'
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
But I’m lost, why would they investigate again when they already did and found no rules were broken?
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.
Has the Mail presented new evidence? Yes. Someone has given them some video footage with Ange on it, which is why lab have u turned about her being there. It's on their website.
But it’s Keir Starmer we are talking about. That’s my point.
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.
I think most voters, being experienced in the ways of politicians, if they give it any thought think that they were probably all at it.
The more Big G insists he wants BoJo gone the less I believe him.
He was calling him amazing just two months ago
When it comes to the PM, I am in a constant state of amazement tbf.
Both our local conservative mps would affirm that I have text them frequently over the last few months to replace Boris
I want a conservative government in 24 and the best way to achieve that is for Boris to go
Last few months whilst you were saying he was great and Rishi should take over?
Hedging your bets?
Rishi's decided he is so fcked he might as well start Doing The Right Thing 4 hard Working Families, like a prominent chancellor from the 2000s, instead of showing his legs to the tory faithful. hence windfall tax on oil.
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.
I can remember their attacks on Kinnock, for example. Seems to be pretty much par for the course.
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.
My comment on the Starmer photo is that the meeting doesn't seem to have followed the Social Distancing guidelines whereas the Downing Street events, despite being illegal in themselves apparently do.
The more Big G insists he wants BoJo gone the less I believe him.
He was calling him amazing just two months ago
When it comes to the PM, I am in a constant state of amazement tbf.
Both our local conservative mps would affirm that I have text them frequently over the last few months to replace Boris
I want a conservative government in 24 and the best way to achieve that is for Boris to go
Last few months whilst you were saying he was great and Rishi should take over?
Hedging your bets?
Rishi's decided he is so fcked he might as well start Doing The Right Thing 4 hard Working Families, like a prominent chancellor from the 2000s, instead of showing his legs to the tory faithful. hence windfall tax on oil.
Remember just two days ago when the Tories here said this was economically clueless and a stupid idea. Labour has no policies?
The BBC don’t seem too fussed about this story which will infuriate the Bozo lapdog Dorries .
With stories emanating in what people assume to be either pro Labour v pro Tory papers the public tend to be even more dubious.
Ultimately it will be upto Durham police to respond to the complaint received from Richard Holden MP but labour lying about Rayner's presence was foolish and has increased the pressure to reopen the investigation
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.
Absurd. I’m not a Tory. Yet I revile the left pretty much in its entirety - certainly the elite. So you could say I’m definitely on the right (whatever these terms mean any more, increasingly very little)
I loathed Corbyn, and I mean LOATHED. His election would have filled me with fear and anger
If Starmer, his immediate successor, is elected, I will sigh and feel a little gloomy but get on with my life 10 minutes later
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
But I’m lost, why would they investigate again when they already did and found no rules were broken?
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.
Has the Mail presented new evidence? Yes. Someone has given them some video footage with Ange on it, which is why lab have u turned about her being there. It's on their website.
But it’s Keir Starmer we are talking about. That’s my point.
The fact that he's lying about Ange being there raises fresh questions about the nature of the whole thing.
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
I'm fine thanks. Managed a 10-mile run yesterday and my bad ankle did not complain once. Yet walking to school this morning, it hurt like ****. Nerve damage is a *****.
In other news, our blue tit nest now has two eggs!
'Dull' can be a negative IMO: if you need to inspire people. There's probably a midway point between Johnson's comedic liveliness and Starmer's lawyerly blandness that would be magic. Blair was there, perhaps.
What's increasingly clear is that on the strictest interpretations of the rules every leading politician broke the rules at one time or another: Boris, Hancock, Sturgeon, Starmer, Rayner, Drakeford - the lot of them and more besides.
Partisan supporters of parties love to cast stones at their political opponents while defending their own team but quite frankly that isn't good enough and it is missing the big picture.
The root of the problem is that the rules were an ass. Stripping away fundamental civil liberties and basically telling people they can't do anything made rule breakers out of everyone who wanted to do things and who wouldn't normally be rule breakers.
There's a reason our fundamental civil liberties are what they are, there is a reason other nations like Sweden managed to get through the pandemic without stripping people of their civil liberties.
The PM and other leading politicians deserve to go because they inflicted these rules on us without following them themselves, but the root of the problem is the rules they chose to inflict. They bear responsibility for passing them but we should learn a lesson and say that never again will we ever do that 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
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
So what. What difference does it make?
You haven't answered what was the breach of the rules?
The BBC don’t seem too fussed about this story which will infuriate the Bozo lapdog Dorries .
With stories emanating in what people assume to be either pro Labour v pro Tory papers the public tend to be even more dubious.
Ultimately it will be upto Durham police to respond to the complaint received from Richard Holden MP but labour lying about Rayner's presence was foolish and has increased the pressure to reopen the investigation
The police apparently confirmed to the BBC that they won’t be re-opening the case.
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
But I’m lost, why would they investigate again when they already did and found no rules were broken?
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.
Has the Mail presented new evidence? Yes. Someone has given them some video footage with Ange on it, which is why lab have u turned about her being there. It's on their website.
But it’s Keir Starmer we are talking about. That’s my point.
The fact that he's lying about Ange being there raises fresh questions about the nature of the whole thing.
No it doesn’t.
The Mail should produce new evidence that Starmer broke the rules if they want it investigated again.
They’re going after somebody else. Because they have nothing
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.
And you presumably stick to your line as it was for Johnson - that the rules were stupid and any transgression by Labour people is a triviality that we should not be bothered about?
Or do you criticise Starmer et al for the hypocrisy of pushing the regulations and breaking them? If so, that was the main criticism from most of us for Johnson - being a hypocrite, not the actual breaking of stupid regulations. In that case I still have a harsher view of the person who had complete control over the nature of the regulations breaking them than anyone else.
Starmer ay be as guilty here of rule breaking as Johnson (I don't have enough of the facts to judge). I'm no aware that he lied to parliament about it, but the transgression could be similar.
Without excusing any wrongdoing, I just wish there was as much interest in investigating the origin & spread of this virus as in scrutinising the miserable actions of politicians.
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
I'm fine thanks. Managed a 10-mile run yesterday and my bad ankle did not complain once. Yet walking to school this morning, it hurt like ****. Nerve damage is a *****.
In other news, our blue tit nest now has two eggs!
'Dull' can be a negative IMO: if you need to inspire people. There's probably a midway point between Johnson's comedic liveliness and Starmer's lawyerly blandness that would be magic. Blair was there, perhaps.
Sorry to hear this. I’ve been suffering from terrible shin splints I’m only just getting over.
You should post some photos of the nest here!
Dull can be a negative but I don’t perceive it to be one for Starmer
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
So what. What difference does it make?
You haven't answered what was the breach of the rules?
This is a smear by the Mail.
They gathered together at a time such gatherings were not permitted
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.
What say you?
I've told you a dozen plus times that was before Sunak shat the bed raising taxes. I even wrote a frigging header article on this site on the day of the Budget about it that was published here the next day that I know you responded to.
How many times are you going to ask the same thing? Raising taxes is screwing Britain over - it is wrong, counterproductive and shouldn't be happening. It trashes the economy by taking away people's disposable income that they can spend which creates the roaring twenties.
Sunak trashed it. Blame Sunak not me, I had no idea when I wrote that what a catastrophic own goal Sunak would do.
On Starmer's beer, and I have no axe to grind for Labour, there is no suggestion that he was present at anything other than a work event. It is reasonable to have a meal when working away from home - IIRC at the time only take aways were available, it would be normal in those circumstances to eat at one's desk (or meeting room). There was nothing in the rules at the time requiring us to eat in monastic solitude, or prohibiting beer.
For me, Rayner's presence strengthens the case that it was a work event and legal, as, how to put it? I can't imagine the pair of them meeting socially much.
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.
What say you?
I've told you a dozen plus times that was before Sunak shat the bed raising taxes. I even wrote a frigging header article on this site on the day of the Budget about it that was published here the next day that I know you responded to.
How many times are you going to ask the same thing? Raising taxes is screwing Britain over - it is wrong, counterproductive and shouldn't be happening. It trashes the economy by taking away people's disposable income that they can spend which creates the roaring twenties.
Sunak trashed it. Blame Sunak not me, I had no idea when I wrote that what a catastrophic own goal Sunak would do.
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?
The Mail suggesting Starmer is boring, or is out of touch, and a Labour Government would be incompetent on the economy, would be too woke is one thing. Much like the Guardian saying Johnson is not serious enough, is out of touch, and a Conservative Government are incompetent on the economy and not woke enough.
What the Mail did with Rayner on Sunday and is doing to Starmer now has pushed the boundaries of reality to the extreme. The Durham/ No 10 narrative is being painted as one of, on his birthday Johnson was unfairly ambushed by cake, whilst Starmer was quaffing ale with his mates. The narrative is patently false. This is not partisan news, or analysis, it is verging on Trumpian danger best left out of our quaint political discourse.
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.
And you presumably stick to your line as it was for Johnson - that the rules were stupid and any transgression by Labour people is a triviality that we should not be bothered about?
Or do you criticise Starmer et al for the hypocrisy of pushing the regulations and breaking them? If so, that was the main criticism from most of us for Johnson - being a hypocrite, not the actual breaking of stupid regulations. In that case I still have a harsher view of the person who had complete control over the nature of the regulations breaking them than anyone else.
Starmer ay be as guilty here of rule breaking as Johnson (I don't have enough of the facts to judge). I'm no aware that he lied to parliament about it, but the transgression could be similar.
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.
Of course the only PM and party leader to win a general election after more than 10 years of their party in power since universal suffrage in 1918 was John Major in 1992.
So if Boris goes the Conservatives would need to find another Major, maybe Wallace or Javid?
Yes, but the '92 parliament kind-of proves my point. The Conservative Party was so tired that it was virtually ungovernable. I quite like Major, but I'd never, ever say that his government was anything other than poor. He tried, though.
The question is: would the Conservative Party (and the country) be in a better place if Kinnock had won in 1992, and the Conservative Party had been forced to change itself earlier? Or were the scandals between 1992 and 1997, along with Blairism, the kick in the backside they needed? (*)
Perhaps it would be best for the party you are so loyal to to lose, and pick up reinvigorated at the GE after next?
(*) The 'Kinnock wins in 1992' is quite an interesting alternate history - especially as he might not have had a large majority. We probably would not have had Blairism, for instance.
On Starmer's beer, and I have no axe to grind for Labour, there is no suggestion that he was present at anything other than a work event. It is reasonable to have a meal when working away from home - IIRC at the time only take aways were available, it would be normal in those circumstances to eat at one's desk (or meeting room). There was nothing in the rules at the time requiring us to eat in monastic solitude, or prohibiting beer.
For me, Rayner's presence strengthens the case that it was a work event and legal, as, how to put it? I can't imagine the pair of them meeting socially much.
Yeah so some inside info on Rayner Starmer.
They hate each other. And Rayner still has her leadership bid documents in a drawer.
But they do put these issues aside when the politics matters and I respect them for 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
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
But I’m lost, why would they investigate again when they already did and found no rules were broken?
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.
Has the Mail presented new evidence? Yes. Someone has given them some video footage with Ange on it, which is why lab have u turned about her being there. It's on their website.
But it’s Keir Starmer we are talking about. That’s my point.
The fact that he's lying about Ange being there raises fresh questions about the nature of the whole thing.
No it doesn’t.
The Mail should produce new evidence that Starmer broke the rules if they want it investigated again.
They’re going after somebody else. Because they have nothing
I'm not being partisan about this, but you are simply wrong. Straightforward principle of evidence, if someone is lying about one aspect of something it puts their whole story in doubt.
Actually I am in doubt about the beer too. In the 80s I worked for a notoriously drunk even by the standards of the 80s, 3 hour lunches, firm of solicitors in the City, and even there nobody would have thought of drinking alcohol at any form of meeting, in-house or with clients. I sooo doubt it happens in the 2020s in the labour party.
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
But I’m lost, why would they investigate again when they already did and found no rules were broken?
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.
Has the Mail presented new evidence? Yes. Someone has given them some video footage with Ange on it, which is why lab have u turned about her being there. It's on their website.
But it’s Keir Starmer we are talking about. That’s my point.
The fact that he's lying about Ange being there raises fresh questions about the nature of the whole thing.
No it doesn’t.
The Mail should produce new evidence that Starmer broke the rules if they want it investigated again.
They’re going after somebody else. Because they have nothing
I'm not being partisan about this, but you are simply wrong. Straightforward principle of evidence, if someone is lying about one aspect of something it puts their whole story in doubt.
Actually I am in doubt about the beer too. In the 80s I worked for a notoriously drunk even by the standards of the 80s, 3 hour lunches, firm of solicitors in the City, and even there nobody would have thought of drinking alcohol at any form of meeting, in-house or with clients. I sooo doubt it happens in the 2020s in the labour party.
It might damage their credibility but that isn’t grounds for reopening the investigation.
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.
What say you?
I've told you a dozen plus times that was before Sunak shat the bed raising taxes. I even wrote a frigging header article on this site on the day of the Budget about it that was published here the next day that I know you responded to.
How many times are you going to ask the same thing? Raising taxes is screwing Britain over - it is wrong, counterproductive and shouldn't be happening. It trashes the economy by taking away people's disposable income that they can spend which creates the roaring twenties.
Sunak trashed it. Blame Sunak not me, I had no idea when I wrote that what a catastrophic own goal Sunak would do.
I told you Sunak was terrible over a year ago.
I'm not disagreeing since he raised NI. 🤷♂️
If like a goldfish you forget this conversation but again bring up the roaring twenties remark just don't be surprised when I yet again respond saying about Sunak raising taxes. That is the problem, the Chancellor, and it is why I quit the Tories despite once tipping Sunak for next PM at 250/1.
What's increasingly clear is that on the strictest interpretations of the rules every leading politician broke the rules at one time or another: Boris, Hancock, Sturgeon, Starmer, Rayner, Drakeford - the lot of them and more besides.
Partisan supporters of parties love to cast stones at their political opponents while defending their own team but quite frankly that isn't good enough and it is missing the big picture.
The root of the problem is that the rules were an ass. Stripping away fundamental civil liberties and basically telling people they can't do anything made rule breakers out of everyone who wanted to do things and who wouldn't normally be rule breakers.
There's a reason our fundamental civil liberties are what they are, there is a reason other nations like Sweden managed to get through the pandemic without stripping people of their civil liberties.
The PM and other leading politicians deserve to go because they inflicted these rules on us without following them themselves, but the root of the problem is the rules they chose to inflict. They bear responsibility for passing them but we should learn a lesson and say that never again will we ever do that again.
"Partisan supporters of parties love to cast stones at their political opponents while defending their own team but quite frankly that isn't good enough and it is missing the big picture."
Lol. You wouldn't do that would you Barty?
That said, I tend to agree with the general gist of the last paragraph , though much as I hold none of the other politicians you mention in high esteem (indeed loath Sturgeon), I think the suggestion that they infringed the rules to the same degree as Johnson is risible.
Just read the Mail story. Seems the new allegation is that a Labour Press Secretary was marginally inaccurate several month ago on the whereabouts of Angela Rayner. Turns out she was outside the building when the beer photo was taken.
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.
Absurd. I’m not a Tory. Yet I revile the left pretty much in its entirety - certainly the elite. So you could say I’m definitely on the right (whatever these terms mean any more, increasingly very little)
I loathed Corbyn, and I mean LOATHED. His election would have filled me with fear and anger
If Starmer, his immediate successor, is elected, I will sigh and feel a little gloomy but get on with my life 10 minutes later
That's a strange comment from @SouthamObserver which is plainly completely misguided.
Tories loathe Starmer more than Corbyn? Weird.
They may not much like Starmer - as he's Labour - but he's not the existential threat to our values that Corbyn appeared to be. For instance, Sir Keir has been pretty solid on Ukraine. Nah, from a dyed-in-the-wool Tory perspective Labour could have done a lot worse.
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.
What say you?
I've told you a dozen plus times that was before Sunak shat the bed raising taxes. I even wrote a frigging header article on this site on the day of the Budget about it that was published here the next day that I know you responded to.
How many times are you going to ask the same thing? Raising taxes is screwing Britain over - it is wrong, counterproductive and shouldn't be happening. It trashes the economy by taking away people's disposable income that they can spend which creates the roaring twenties.
Sunak trashed it. Blame Sunak not me, I had no idea when I wrote that what a catastrophic own goal Sunak would do.
I told you Sunak was terrible over a year ago.
I'm not disagreeing since he raised NI. 🤷♂️
If like a goldfish you forget this conversation but again bring up the roaring twenties remark just don't be surprised when I yet again respond saying about Sunak raising taxes. That is the problem, the Chancellor, and it is why I quit the Tories despite once tipping Sunak for next PM at 250/1.
That’s not the only reason he’s terrible. He’s been making bad decisions for over a year. You call him bad now because of this one thing.
I think the local elections will be spotty, on the whole pretty good for Labour, LibDems and some Greens, but with enough exceptions for Johnson's team to shrug them off. Procrastinating Tory MPs will start talking about NEXT year's local elections as more important...
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
I'm fine thanks. Managed a 10-mile run yesterday and my bad ankle did not complain once. Yet walking to school this morning, it hurt like ****. Nerve damage is a *****.
In other news, our blue tit nest now has two eggs!
'Dull' can be a negative IMO: if you need to inspire people. There's probably a midway point between Johnson's comedic liveliness and Starmer's lawyerly blandness that would be magic. Blair was there, perhaps.
Sorry to hear this. I’ve been suffering from terrible shin splints I’m only just getting over.
You should post some photos of the nest here!
Dull can be a negative but I don’t perceive it to be one for Starmer
What's increasingly clear is that on the strictest interpretations of the rules every leading politician broke the rules at one time or another: Boris, Hancock, Sturgeon, Starmer, Rayner, Drakeford - the lot of them and more besides.
Partisan supporters of parties love to cast stones at their political opponents while defending their own team but quite frankly that isn't good enough and it is missing the big picture.
The root of the problem is that the rules were an ass. Stripping away fundamental civil liberties and basically telling people they can't do anything made rule breakers out of everyone who wanted to do things and who wouldn't normally be rule breakers.
There's a reason our fundamental civil liberties are what they are, there is a reason other nations like Sweden managed to get through the pandemic without stripping people of their civil liberties.
The PM and other leading politicians deserve to go because they inflicted these rules on us without following them themselves, but the root of the problem is the rules they chose to inflict. They bear responsibility for passing them but we should learn a lesson and say that never again will we ever do that again.
"Partisan supporters of parties love to cast stones at their political opponents while defending their own team but quite frankly that isn't good enough and it is missing the big picture."
Lol. You wouldn't do that would you Barty?
That said, I tend to agree with the general gist of the last paragraph , though much as I hold none of the other politicians you mention in high esteem (indeed loath Sturgeon), I think the suggestion that they infringed the rules to the same degree as Johnson is risible.
I deliberately didn't get into a pissing match about suggesting degrees of rule-breaking, or suggesting they're all as bad as each other, that is when it gets into partisan mud-slinging.
On a strict interpretation they all broke the rules though and that is a problem. In normal circumstances it'd be shocking if any leading politician broke so serious a rule let alone all of them.
The problem is the rules - but the politicians with the PM first and foremost wrote and passed the rules so the buck stops with them. But their successors should learn the lesson and never again pass such draconian rules.
Just read the Mail story. Seems the new allegation is that a Labour Press Secretary was marginally inaccurate several month ago on the whereabouts of Angela Rayner. Turns out she was outside the building when the beer photo was taken.
What's increasingly clear is that on the strictest interpretations of the rules every leading politician broke the rules at one time or another: Boris, Hancock, Sturgeon, Starmer, Rayner, Drakeford - the lot of them and more besides.
Partisan supporters of parties love to cast stones at their political opponents while defending their own team but quite frankly that isn't good enough and it is missing the big picture.
The root of the problem is that the rules were an ass. Stripping away fundamental civil liberties and basically telling people they can't do anything made rule breakers out of everyone who wanted to do things and who wouldn't normally be rule breakers.
There's a reason our fundamental civil liberties are what they are, there is a reason other nations like Sweden managed to get through the pandemic without stripping people of their civil liberties.
The PM and other leading politicians deserve to go because they inflicted these rules on us without following them themselves, but the root of the problem is the rules they chose to inflict. They bear responsibility for passing them but we should learn a lesson and say that never again will we ever do that again.
"Partisan supporters of parties love to cast stones at their political opponents while defending their own team but quite frankly that isn't good enough and it is missing the big picture."
Lol. You wouldn't do that would you Barty?
That said, I tend to agree with the general gist of the last paragraph , though much as I hold none of the other politicians you mention in high esteem (indeed loath Sturgeon), I think the suggestion that they infringed the rules to the same degree as Johnson is risible.
I deliberately didn't get into a pissing match about suggesting degrees of rule-breaking, or suggesting they're all as bad as each other, that is when it gets into partisan mud-slinging.
On a strict interpretation they all broke the rules though and that is a problem. In normal circumstances it'd be shocking if any leading politician broke so serious a rule let alone all of them.
The problem is the rules - but the politicians with the PM first and foremost wrote and passed the rules so the buck stops with them. But their successors should learn the lesson and never again pass such draconian rules.
Erh no they didn’t? Which rules did Starmer break?
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.
Absurd. I’m not a Tory. Yet I revile the left pretty much in its entirety - certainly the elite. So you could say I’m definitely on the right (whatever these terms mean any more, increasingly very little)
I loathed Corbyn, and I mean LOATHED. His election would have filled me with fear and anger
If Starmer, his immediate successor, is elected, I will sigh and feel a little gloomy but get on with my life 10 minutes later
That's a strange comment from @SouthamObserver which is plainly completely misguided.
Tories loathe Starmer more than Corbyn? Weird.
They may not much like Starmer - as he's Labour - but he's not the existential threat to our values that Corbyn appeared to be. For instance, Sir Keir has been pretty solid on Ukraine. Nah, from a dyed-in-the-wool Tory perspective Labour could have done a lot worse.
It is possible for all the following to be true:
Tories loathe Corbyn and dislike Starmer Tories very strongly prefer Starmer ahead of Corbyn as PM Yet Tories preferred Corbyn as LOTO rather than Starmer
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.
What say you?
I've told you a dozen plus times that was before Sunak shat the bed raising taxes. I even wrote a frigging header article on this site on the day of the Budget about it that was published here the next day that I know you responded to.
How many times are you going to ask the same thing? Raising taxes is screwing Britain over - it is wrong, counterproductive and shouldn't be happening. It trashes the economy by taking away people's disposable income that they can spend which creates the roaring twenties.
Sunak trashed it. Blame Sunak not me, I had no idea when I wrote that what a catastrophic own goal Sunak would do.
I thought you were one of Sunak's leading cheerleaders? Your support for him was only surpassed by your last redoubt defence of The Clown, before even you realised defending him made you look a little silly. I also reacall you boasting how you had cleverly tipped Sunak for next PM? That one not looking so good now?
You have changed your name once, how about changing it to Barty Weathervane?
The BBC don’t seem too fussed about this story which will infuriate the Bozo lapdog Dorries .
With stories emanating in what people assume to be either pro Labour v pro Tory papers the public tend to be even more dubious.
Ultimately it will be upto Durham police to respond to the complaint received from Richard Holden MP but labour lying about Rayner's presence was foolish and has increased the pressure to reopen the investigation
The police apparently confirmed to the BBC that they won’t be re-opening the case.
The BBC don’t seem too fussed about this story which will infuriate the Bozo lapdog Dorries .
With stories emanating in what people assume to be either pro Labour v pro Tory papers the public tend to be even more dubious.
Ultimately it will be upto Durham police to respond to the complaint received from Richard Holden MP but labour lying about Rayner's presence was foolish and has increased the pressure to reopen the investigation
The police apparently confirmed to the BBC that they won’t be re-opening the case.
Just read the Mail story. Seems the new allegation is that a Labour Press Secretary was marginally inaccurate several month ago on the whereabouts of Angela Rayner. Turns out she was outside the building when the beer photo was taken.
What, just passing by? What are the odds? Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks past that one? OR she was outside it because she had just been or was about to be inside it?
As for "marginally inaccurate," bollocks. This was a big deal when the press sec said she wasn't there, not a routine court circular, and multiple people know exactly where Rayner is at all times when she's on the job - press secs, diary secs, grid planners, SKS, her.
You are doing a comical Ali. I want this to be a storm in a teacup as much as you do, but arguments which wouldn't get past a 5 year old don't help.
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.
What say you?
If you think the UK is the only nation to have a CoL crisis and to be suffering from inflation, you need to lok around the world a bit more.
We are in a sticky situation to be sure. I have huge sympathy for those who are struggling, such as those who are disabled, or have caring responsibilities and cannot easily earn more money by working,
However we have a labour shortage, so anyone who wants a job should be able to get one.
We need to find a way to make working pay enough to live a happy, well lived life. I don't know the answer to that one. I do suspect that younger people forget, or don't realise that previous generations had it hard too. My parents didn't go out for months on end when they were young parents of my sister. Once, my grandfather gave them a tenner to pay some bills, and they instead went to the pub for drink for the first time in months.
This is not about saying if you give up latte you'll afford a house by Christmas, but to point out that times have been hard in the past too.
What's increasingly clear is that on the strictest interpretations of the rules every leading politician broke the rules at one time or another: Boris, Hancock, Sturgeon, Starmer, Rayner, Drakeford - the lot of them and more besides.
Partisan supporters of parties love to cast stones at their political opponents while defending their own team but quite frankly that isn't good enough and it is missing the big picture.
The root of the problem is that the rules were an ass. Stripping away fundamental civil liberties and basically telling people they can't do anything made rule breakers out of everyone who wanted to do things and who wouldn't normally be rule breakers.
There's a reason our fundamental civil liberties are what they are, there is a reason other nations like Sweden managed to get through the pandemic without stripping people of their civil liberties.
The PM and other leading politicians deserve to go because they inflicted these rules on us without following them themselves, but the root of the problem is the rules they chose to inflict. They bear responsibility for passing them but we should learn a lesson and say that never again will we ever do that again.
"Partisan supporters of parties love to cast stones at their political opponents while defending their own team but quite frankly that isn't good enough and it is missing the big picture."
Lol. You wouldn't do that would you Barty?
That said, I tend to agree with the general gist of the last paragraph , though much as I hold none of the other politicians you mention in high esteem (indeed loath Sturgeon), I think the suggestion that they infringed the rules to the same degree as Johnson is risible.
I deliberately didn't get into a pissing match about suggesting degrees of rule-breaking, or suggesting they're all as bad as each other, that is when it gets into partisan mud-slinging.
On a strict interpretation they all broke the rules though and that is a problem. In normal circumstances it'd be shocking if any leading politician broke so serious a rule let alone all of them.
The problem is the rules - but the politicians with the PM first and foremost wrote and passed the rules so the buck stops with them. But their successors should learn the lesson and never again pass such draconian rules.
Erh no they didn’t? Which rules did Starmer break?
It was against the rules at the time for campaigners to meet indoors. It was illegal at the time for socialisation indoors.
On a strict interpretation, Starmer clearly broke one or both of those rules.
Just read the Mail story. Seems the new allegation is that a Labour Press Secretary was marginally inaccurate several month ago on the whereabouts of Angela Rayner. Turns out she was outside the building when the beer photo was taken.
What, just passing by? What are the odds? Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks past that one? OR she was outside it because she had just been or was about to be inside it?
As for "marginally inaccurate," bollocks. This was a big deal when the press sec said she wasn't there, not a routine court circular, and multiple people know exactly where Rayner is at all times when she's on the job - press secs, diary secs, grid planners, SKS, her.
You are doing a comical Ali. I want this to be a storm in a teacup as much as you do, but arguments which wouldn't get past a 5 year old don't help.
I think the local elections will be spotty, on the whole pretty good for Labour, LibDems and some Greens, but with enough exceptions for Johnson's team to shrug them off. Procrastinating Tory MPs will start talking about NEXT year's local elections as more important...
On which point they'd be correct. Not many Tory MP's have their Councils up this time.
What's increasingly clear is that on the strictest interpretations of the rules every leading politician broke the rules at one time or another: Boris, Hancock, Sturgeon, Starmer, Rayner, Drakeford - the lot of them and more besides.
Partisan supporters of parties love to cast stones at their political opponents while defending their own team but quite frankly that isn't good enough and it is missing the big picture.
The root of the problem is that the rules were an ass. Stripping away fundamental civil liberties and basically telling people they can't do anything made rule breakers out of everyone who wanted to do things and who wouldn't normally be rule breakers.
There's a reason our fundamental civil liberties are what they are, there is a reason other nations like Sweden managed to get through the pandemic without stripping people of their civil liberties.
The PM and other leading politicians deserve to go because they inflicted these rules on us without following them themselves, but the root of the problem is the rules they chose to inflict. They bear responsibility for passing them but we should learn a lesson and say that never again will we ever do that again.
"Partisan supporters of parties love to cast stones at their political opponents while defending their own team but quite frankly that isn't good enough and it is missing the big picture."
Lol. You wouldn't do that would you Barty?
That said, I tend to agree with the general gist of the last paragraph , though much as I hold none of the other politicians you mention in high esteem (indeed loath Sturgeon), I think the suggestion that they infringed the rules to the same degree as Johnson is risible.
I deliberately didn't get into a pissing match about suggesting degrees of rule-breaking, or suggesting they're all as bad as each other, that is when it gets into partisan mud-slinging.
On a strict interpretation they all broke the rules though and that is a problem. In normal circumstances it'd be shocking if any leading politician broke so serious a rule let alone all of them.
The problem is the rules - but the politicians with the PM first and foremost wrote and passed the rules so the buck stops with them. But their successors should learn the lesson and never again pass such draconian rules.
Erh no they didn’t? Which rules did Starmer break?
It was against the rules at the time for campaigners to meet indoors. It was illegal at the time for socialisation indoors.
On a strict interpretation, Starmer clearly broke one or both of those rules.
YouGov are the only pollster to correctly weigh geographical sub-samples.
London Lab 50% Con 21% LD 12% Grn 8%
Rest of South Con 41% Lab 33% LD 14% Grn 7% Ref 3%
Midlands and Wales Con 40% Lab 38% LD 9% Ref 5% Grn 4%
North Lab 51% Con 29% Grn 8% LD 8% Ref 3%
Scotland SNP 47% Lab 23% Con 14% LD 7% Grn 3%
(YouGov / The Times; Sample Size: 1779; Fieldwork: 26th - 27th April 2022)
Still Conservatives lead in the Midlands and South, unless that changes and he also makes more progress in Scotland, Starmer is not going to get a majority even if he does win London and the North convincingly
The markets agree with you.
NOM 1.91 Con Maj 3.55 Lab Maj 5
Whether Starmer makes progress in Scotland will be irrelevant unless Labour gains are sufficient to make the difference between being the largest party in a minority government and gaining an overall majority. This is unlikely. Scotland doesn’t have enough seats to make a significant difference.
Under the new boundaries Starmer and Sarwar need to get SLab to 30%+ before they start picking up seats, and 35%+ before gaining significant numbers. Although they are now clear of the floundering SCons, they are still miles off those benchmarks. Yesterday’s YouGov:
SNP 47% SLab 23% SCon 14% SLD 7% Grn 3%
I can see exactly where Labour in Scotland are going wrong, but the current leaders can’t. That delights me. It also surprises me: they’ve had plenty of time to reflect and learn.
14% for the SCons is core vote. The Ruth Davidson Says No Party is deceased. Back to normal.
Labour only need to come out for independence and they are back
In Scotland. Kills them in England though.
Labour have several tightropes to walk. I can see that neutrality on independence might play well among SNP-inclined voters in Scotland but it would be a gift to the Tories in certain parts of England.
Backing Brexit (or at least pretending it doesn’t exist as they do now) shores up support in some WWC areas but loses them a strong line of attack that’s not going away anytime soon. At the moment it probably doesn’t lose them remain votes though.
Then there’s the trans issue, and planning, and public transport vs road building, and a whole lot of other smaller issues where their target support in one part of the country thinks very differently from their target support elsewhere.
It’s almost as if Scotland and England were two different countries 🤔
Just read the Mail story. Seems the new allegation is that a Labour Press Secretary was marginally inaccurate several month ago on the whereabouts of Angela Rayner. Turns out she was outside the building when the beer photo was taken.
What, just passing by? What are the odds? Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks past that one? OR she was outside it because she had just been or was about to be inside it?
As for "marginally inaccurate," bollocks. This was a big deal when the press sec said she wasn't there, not a routine court circular, and multiple people know exactly where Rayner is at all times when she's on the job - press secs, diary secs, grid planners, SKS, her.
You are doing a comical Ali. I want this to be a storm in a teacup as much as you do, but arguments which wouldn't get past a 5 year old don't help.
Just read the Mail story. Seems the new allegation is that a Labour Press Secretary was marginally inaccurate several month ago on the whereabouts of Angela Rayner. Turns out she was outside the building when the beer photo was taken.
What, just passing by? What are the odds? Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks past that one? OR she was outside it because she had just been or was about to be inside it?
As for "marginally inaccurate," bollocks. This was a big deal when the press sec said she wasn't there, not a routine court circular, and multiple people know exactly where Rayner is at all times when she's on the job - press secs, diary secs, grid planners, SKS, her.
You are doing a comical Ali. I want this to be a storm in a teacup as much as you do, but arguments which wouldn't get past a 5 year old don't help.
Still lost, why is Rayner important?
I have just said this (and you replied to it0
Straightforward principle of evidence, if someone is lying about one aspect of something it puts their whole story in doubt.
Russia are just barbarian savages. The origins of Russia were with the constitutional Kievan Rus and Novgorod Republic. They were clearly European in orientation. But then the Khans came, and the Duchy of Moscow came to prominence by stealing from their fellow countrymen to extra tribute for their conquerors. Eventually they shook off Mongol rule, but continued to rule like Khans. Whether Tsarist, Bolsheviks or Siloviki, they have led not by building up their people but by autocratic extraction and exploitation. No wonder Ukraine wants to get away from them. Hopefully in time, Belarus can do the same.
On Starmer's beer, and I have no axe to grind for Labour, there is no suggestion that he was present at anything other than a work event. It is reasonable to have a meal when working away from home - IIRC at the time only take aways were available, it would be normal in those circumstances to eat at one's desk (or meeting room). There was nothing in the rules at the time requiring us to eat in monastic solitude, or prohibiting beer.
For me, Rayner's presence strengthens the case that it was a work event and legal, as, how to put it? I can't imagine the pair of them meeting socially much.
Great minds and similar user names think alike (kjh and pjh)
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.
What say you?
I've told you a dozen plus times that was before Sunak shat the bed raising taxes. I even wrote a frigging header article on this site on the day of the Budget about it that was published here the next day that I know you responded to.
How many times are you going to ask the same thing? Raising taxes is screwing Britain over - it is wrong, counterproductive and shouldn't be happening. It trashes the economy by taking away people's disposable income that they can spend which creates the roaring twenties.
Sunak trashed it. Blame Sunak not me, I had no idea when I wrote that what a catastrophic own goal Sunak would do.
I thought you were one of Sunak's leading cheerleaders? Your support for him was only surpassed by your last redoubt defence of The Clown, before even you realised defending him made you look a little silly. I also reacall you boasting how you had cleverly tipped Sunak for next PM? That one not looking so good now?
You have changed your name once, how about changing it to Barty Weathervane?
When the facts change, I change my mind, what do you do, sir?
I'm proud still of the tip for Sunak as next PM. As @MikeSmithson himself always say tips are about identifying value, not guaranteed winners, and there was value in tipping Sunak for next PM at 250/1. I even mentioned it in the tip as a potential trading bet, so anyone who backed that then later layed it off will have made a handsome profit thank you very much.
The Tories lost my support at the last Budget, because they went back on what they promised and what was in their manifesto which is what I believed in. Unlike partisan shills, I backed the Tories because I believed in what they were standing on, not because they were "my team" - so if you go against my beliefs, you lose my support.
I believe in what I believe in, not whatever a particular team stands for today. Currently no party represents my views, the Lib Dems would be closest but they're too NIMBY for me, so no party gets my support presently.
They say Starmer broke lockdown guidance when he was given a birthday cake . There was no lockdown in September 2020.
I am not sure they have ever been too concerned about accuracy. I suspect they will hope that gets traction to try damage limit Johnson's cavalier attitude to the rules. The problem is that this kind of fake news simply further damages peoples' confidence in politics
Just read the Mail story. Seems the new allegation is that a Labour Press Secretary was marginally inaccurate several month ago on the whereabouts of Angela Rayner. Turns out she was outside the building when the beer photo was taken.
What, just passing by? What are the odds? Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks past that one? OR she was outside it because she had just been or was about to be inside it?
As for "marginally inaccurate," bollocks. This was a big deal when the press sec said she wasn't there, not a routine court circular, and multiple people know exactly where Rayner is at all times when she's on the job - press secs, diary secs, grid planners, SKS, her.
You are doing a comical Ali. I want this to be a storm in a teacup as much as you do, but arguments which wouldn't get past a 5 year old don't help.
The press secretary said she wasn't at the meeting the photo was taken at. She wasn't. But it appears she was in the vicinity, Who's being the five year old?
Just read the Mail story. Seems the new allegation is that a Labour Press Secretary was marginally inaccurate several month ago on the whereabouts of Angela Rayner. Turns out she was outside the building when the beer photo was taken.
What, just passing by? What are the odds? Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks past that one? OR she was outside it because she had just been or was about to be inside it?
As for "marginally inaccurate," bollocks. This was a big deal when the press sec said she wasn't there, not a routine court circular, and multiple people know exactly where Rayner is at all times when she's on the job - press secs, diary secs, grid planners, SKS, her.
You are doing a comical Ali. I want this to be a storm in a teacup as much as you do, but arguments which wouldn't get past a 5 year old don't help.
Just read the Mail story. Seems the new allegation is that a Labour Press Secretary was marginally inaccurate several month ago on the whereabouts of Angela Rayner. Turns out she was outside the building when the beer photo was taken.
What, just passing by? What are the odds? Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks past that one? OR she was outside it because she had just been or was about to be inside it?
As for "marginally inaccurate," bollocks. This was a big deal when the press sec said she wasn't there, not a routine court circular, and multiple people know exactly where Rayner is at all times when she's on the job - press secs, diary secs, grid planners, SKS, her.
You are doing a comical Ali. I want this to be a storm in a teacup as much as you do, but arguments which wouldn't get past a 5 year old don't help.
Still lost, why is Rayner important?
I have just said this (and you replied to it0
Straightforward principle of evidence, if someone is lying about one aspect of something it puts their whole story in doubt.
The whole story for which you have evidence to the contrary? The Mail should present some.
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
So what. What difference does it make?
You haven't answered what was the breach of the rules?
This is a smear by the Mail.
They gathered together at a time such gatherings were not permitted
That is just not correct. It was a meeting. Meetings were allowed. And what has Rayner's presence or otherwise got anything to do with it?
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.
What say you?
I've told you a dozen plus times that was before Sunak shat the bed raising taxes. I even wrote a frigging header article on this site on the day of the Budget about it that was published here the next day that I know you responded to.
How many times are you going to ask the same thing? Raising taxes is screwing Britain over - it is wrong, counterproductive and shouldn't be happening. It trashes the economy by taking away people's disposable income that they can spend which creates the roaring twenties.
Sunak trashed it. Blame Sunak not me, I had no idea when I wrote that what a catastrophic own goal Sunak would do.
I thought you were one of Sunak's leading cheerleaders? Your support for him was only surpassed by your last redoubt defence of The Clown, before even you realised defending him made you look a little silly. I also reacall you boasting how you had cleverly tipped Sunak for next PM? That one not looking so good now?
You have changed your name once, how about changing it to Barty Weathervane?
When the facts change, I change my mind, what do you do, sir?
I'm proud still of the tip for Sunak as next PM. As @MikeSmithson himself always say tips are about identifying value, not guaranteed winners, and there was value in tipping Sunak for next PM at 250/1. I even mentioned it in the tip as a potential trading bet, so anyone who backed that then later layed it off will have made a handsome profit thank you very much.
The Tories lost my support at the last Budget, because they went back on what they promised and what was in their manifesto which is what I believed in. Unlike partisan shills, I backed the Tories because I believed in what they were standing on, not because they were "my team" - so if you go against my beliefs, you lose my support.
I believe in what I believe in, not whatever a particular team stands for today. Currently no party represents my views, the Lib Dems would be closest but they're too NIMBY for me, so no party gets my support presently.
Having seen some of your views, I am sure they are not exactly crying in their soup.
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.
What say you?
I've told you a dozen plus times that was before Sunak shat the bed raising taxes. I even wrote a frigging header article on this site on the day of the Budget about it that was published here the next day that I know you responded to.
How many times are you going to ask the same thing? Raising taxes is screwing Britain over - it is wrong, counterproductive and shouldn't be happening. It trashes the economy by taking away people's disposable income that they can spend which creates the roaring twenties.
Sunak trashed it. Blame Sunak not me, I had no idea when I wrote that what a catastrophic own goal Sunak would do.
I thought you were one of Sunak's leading cheerleaders? Your support for him was only surpassed by your last redoubt defence of The Clown, before even you realised defending him made you look a little silly. I also reacall you boasting how you had cleverly tipped Sunak for next PM? That one not looking so good now?
You have changed your name once, how about changing it to Barty Weathervane?
When the facts change, I change my mind, what do you do, sir?
I'm proud still of the tip for Sunak as next PM. As @MikeSmithson himself always say tips are about identifying value, not guaranteed winners, and there was value in tipping Sunak for next PM at 250/1. I even mentioned it in the tip as a potential trading bet, so anyone who backed that then later layed it off will have made a handsome profit thank you very much.
The Tories lost my support at the last Budget, because they went back on what they promised and what was in their manifesto which is what I believed in. Unlike partisan shills, I backed the Tories because I believed in what they were standing on, not because they were "my team" - so if you go against my beliefs, you lose my support.
I believe in what I believe in, not whatever a particular team stands for today. Currently no party represents my views, the Lib Dems would be closest but they're too NIMBY for me, so no party gets my support presently.
Sunak was always terrible even when he was 250/1. Do you agree?
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.
Absurd. I’m not a Tory. Yet I revile the left pretty much in its entirety - certainly the elite. So you could say I’m definitely on the right (whatever these terms mean any more, increasingly very little)
I loathed Corbyn, and I mean LOATHED. His election would have filled me with fear and anger
If Starmer, his immediate successor, is elected, I will sigh and feel a little gloomy but get on with my life 10 minutes later
That's a strange comment from @SouthamObserver which is plainly completely misguided.
Tories loathe Starmer more than Corbyn? Weird.
They may not much like Starmer - as he's Labour - but he's not the existential threat to our values that Corbyn appeared to be. For instance, Sir Keir has been pretty solid on Ukraine. Nah, from a dyed-in-the-wool Tory perspective Labour could have done a lot worse.
@SouthamObserver is one of those strange people who puts party loyalty above country. He hates all Tories and he hates, especially, popular Tories that win elections (like Thatcher or Boris). He presumes others are as deviant as him. We are not
The Tories are tired, corrupt and they’ve run out of ideas. It is time for someone else. I really really wish the alternative was more inspiring than Kir Royale Starmer but he’s orders of magnitude preferable to Corbyn.
That said, I can still see Boris sneaking a win in 2024. Partly because Starmer is so dreary. Also because the times are so strange. We could be deeply immersed in ongoing cold/hot war in 2024
Just read the Mail story. Seems the new allegation is that a Labour Press Secretary was marginally inaccurate several month ago on the whereabouts of Angela Rayner. Turns out she was outside the building when the beer photo was taken.
What, just passing by? What are the odds? Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks past that one? OR she was outside it because she had just been or was about to be inside it?
As for "marginally inaccurate," bollocks. This was a big deal when the press sec said she wasn't there, not a routine court circular, and multiple people know exactly where Rayner is at all times when she's on the job - press secs, diary secs, grid planners, SKS, her.
You are doing a comical Ali. I want this to be a storm in a teacup as much as you do, but arguments which wouldn't get past a 5 year old don't help.
The press secretary said she wasn't at the meeting the photo was taken at. She wasn't. But it appears she was in the vicinity, Who's being the five year old?
She was at the meeting and this is the cause of this row
Labour have admitted she was present with Starmer, nothing to do with being outside
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.
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.
What say you?
I've told you a dozen plus times that was before Sunak shat the bed raising taxes. I even wrote a frigging header article on this site on the day of the Budget about it that was published here the next day that I know you responded to.
How many times are you going to ask the same thing? Raising taxes is screwing Britain over - it is wrong, counterproductive and shouldn't be happening. It trashes the economy by taking away people's disposable income that they can spend which creates the roaring twenties.
Sunak trashed it. Blame Sunak not me, I had no idea when I wrote that what a catastrophic own goal Sunak would do.
I thought you were one of Sunak's leading cheerleaders? Your support for him was only surpassed by your last redoubt defence of The Clown, before even you realised defending him made you look a little silly. I also reacall you boasting how you had cleverly tipped Sunak for next PM? That one not looking so good now?
You have changed your name once, how about changing it to Barty Weathervane?
When the facts change, I change my mind, what do you do, sir?
I'm proud still of the tip for Sunak as next PM. As @MikeSmithson himself always say tips are about identifying value, not guaranteed winners, and there was value in tipping Sunak for next PM at 250/1. I even mentioned it in the tip as a potential trading bet, so anyone who backed that then later layed it off will have made a handsome profit thank you very much.
The Tories lost my support at the last Budget, because they went back on what they promised and what was in their manifesto which is what I believed in. Unlike partisan shills, I backed the Tories because I believed in what they were standing on, not because they were "my team" - so if you go against my beliefs, you lose my support.
I believe in what I believe in, not whatever a particular team stands for today. Currently no party represents my views, the Lib Dems would be closest but they're too NIMBY for me, so no party gets my support presently.
Having seen some of your views, I am sure they are not exactly crying in their soup.
Which views would those be perchance?
Try actual views, not your warped interpretation of my views because you can't get past my stance on Brexit.
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.
Absurd. I’m not a Tory. Yet I revile the left pretty much in its entirety - certainly the elite. So you could say I’m definitely on the right (whatever these terms mean any more, increasingly very little)
I loathed Corbyn, and I mean LOATHED. His election would have filled me with fear and anger
If Starmer, his immediate successor, is elected, I will sigh and feel a little gloomy but get on with my life 10 minutes later
That's a strange comment from @SouthamObserver which is plainly completely misguided.
Tories loathe Starmer more than Corbyn? Weird.
They may not much like Starmer - as he's Labour - but he's not the existential threat to our values that Corbyn appeared to be. For instance, Sir Keir has been pretty solid on Ukraine. Nah, from a dyed-in-the-wool Tory perspective Labour could have done a lot worse.
@SouthamObserver is one of those strange people who puts party loyalty above country. He hates all Tories and he hates, especially, popular Tories that win elections (like Thatcher or Boris). He presumes others are as deviant as him. We are not
The Tories are tired, corrupt and they’ve run out of ideas. It is time for someone else. I really really wish the alternative was more inspiring than Kir Royale Starmer but he’s orders of magnitude preferable to Corbyn.
That said, I can still see Boris sneaking a win in 2024. Partly because Starmer is so dreary. Also because the times are so strange. We could be deeply immersed in ongoing cold/hot war in 2024
At least be doesn’t pretend. You’re one of the biggest Tories on this site
What's increasingly clear is that on the strictest interpretations of the rules every leading politician broke the rules at one time or another: Boris, Hancock, Sturgeon, Starmer, Rayner, Drakeford - the lot of them and more besides.
Partisan supporters of parties love to cast stones at their political opponents while defending their own team but quite frankly that isn't good enough and it is missing the big picture.
The root of the problem is that the rules were an ass. Stripping away fundamental civil liberties and basically telling people they can't do anything made rule breakers out of everyone who wanted to do things and who wouldn't normally be rule breakers.
There's a reason our fundamental civil liberties are what they are, there is a reason other nations like Sweden managed to get through the pandemic without stripping people of their civil liberties.
The PM and other leading politicians deserve to go because they inflicted these rules on us without following them themselves, but the root of the problem is the rules they chose to inflict. They bear responsibility for passing them but we should learn a lesson and say that never again will we ever do that again.
"Partisan supporters of parties love to cast stones at their political opponents while defending their own team but quite frankly that isn't good enough and it is missing the big picture."
Lol. You wouldn't do that would you Barty?
That said, I tend to agree with the general gist of the last paragraph , though much as I hold none of the other politicians you mention in high esteem (indeed loath Sturgeon), I think the suggestion that they infringed the rules to the same degree as Johnson is risible.
I deliberately didn't get into a pissing match about suggesting degrees of rule-breaking, or suggesting they're all as bad as each other, that is when it gets into partisan mud-slinging.
On a strict interpretation they all broke the rules though and that is a problem. In normal circumstances it'd be shocking if any leading politician broke so serious a rule let alone all of them.
The problem is the rules - but the politicians with the PM first and foremost wrote and passed the rules so the buck stops with them. But their successors should learn the lesson and never again pass such draconian rules.
Erh no they didn’t? Which rules did Starmer break?
It was against the rules at the time for campaigners to meet indoors. It was illegal at the time for socialisation indoors.
On a strict interpretation, Starmer clearly broke one or both of those rules.
No it wasn’t. Read the rules again
I was freezing my tits off in a pub garden because of rules Starmer voted for. They were clearly having a social event indoors, which was against the rules.
I think the local elections will be spotty, on the whole pretty good for Labour, LibDems and some Greens, but with enough exceptions for Johnson's team to shrug them off. Procrastinating Tory MPs will start talking about NEXT year's local elections as more important...
I think you might not be criticised for rather hoping The Clown stays in post
Just read the Mail story. Seems the new allegation is that a Labour Press Secretary was marginally inaccurate several month ago on the whereabouts of Angela Rayner. Turns out she was outside the building when the beer photo was taken.
What, just passing by? What are the odds? Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks past that one? OR she was outside it because she had just been or was about to be inside it?
As for "marginally inaccurate," bollocks. This was a big deal when the press sec said she wasn't there, not a routine court circular, and multiple people know exactly where Rayner is at all times when she's on the job - press secs, diary secs, grid planners, SKS, her.
You are doing a comical Ali. I want this to be a storm in a teacup as much as you do, but arguments which wouldn't get past a 5 year old don't help.
The press secretary said she wasn't at the meeting the photo was taken at. She wasn't. But it appears she was in the vicinity, Who's being the five year old?
She was at the meeting and this is the cause of this row
Labour have admitted she was present with Starmer, nothing to do with being outside
So what? How does this prove Starmer broke the rules?
What's increasingly clear is that on the strictest interpretations of the rules every leading politician broke the rules at one time or another: Boris, Hancock, Sturgeon, Starmer, Rayner, Drakeford - the lot of them and more besides.
Partisan supporters of parties love to cast stones at their political opponents while defending their own team but quite frankly that isn't good enough and it is missing the big picture.
The root of the problem is that the rules were an ass. Stripping away fundamental civil liberties and basically telling people they can't do anything made rule breakers out of everyone who wanted to do things and who wouldn't normally be rule breakers.
There's a reason our fundamental civil liberties are what they are, there is a reason other nations like Sweden managed to get through the pandemic without stripping people of their civil liberties.
The PM and other leading politicians deserve to go because they inflicted these rules on us without following them themselves, but the root of the problem is the rules they chose to inflict. They bear responsibility for passing them but we should learn a lesson and say that never again will we ever do that again.
"Partisan supporters of parties love to cast stones at their political opponents while defending their own team but quite frankly that isn't good enough and it is missing the big picture."
Lol. You wouldn't do that would you Barty?
That said, I tend to agree with the general gist of the last paragraph , though much as I hold none of the other politicians you mention in high esteem (indeed loath Sturgeon), I think the suggestion that they infringed the rules to the same degree as Johnson is risible.
I deliberately didn't get into a pissing match about suggesting degrees of rule-breaking, or suggesting they're all as bad as each other, that is when it gets into partisan mud-slinging.
On a strict interpretation they all broke the rules though and that is a problem. In normal circumstances it'd be shocking if any leading politician broke so serious a rule let alone all of them.
The problem is the rules - but the politicians with the PM first and foremost wrote and passed the rules so the buck stops with them. But their successors should learn the lesson and never again pass such draconian rules.
Erh no they didn’t? Which rules did Starmer break?
It was against the rules at the time for campaigners to meet indoors. It was illegal at the time for socialisation indoors.
On a strict interpretation, Starmer clearly broke one or both of those rules.
No it wasn’t. Read the rules again
I was freezing my tits off in a pub garden because of rules Starmer voted for. They were clearly having a social event indoors, which was against the rules.
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.
What say you?
I've told you a dozen plus times that was before Sunak shat the bed raising taxes. I even wrote a frigging header article on this site on the day of the Budget about it that was published here the next day that I know you responded to.
How many times are you going to ask the same thing? Raising taxes is screwing Britain over - it is wrong, counterproductive and shouldn't be happening. It trashes the economy by taking away people's disposable income that they can spend which creates the roaring twenties.
Sunak trashed it. Blame Sunak not me, I had no idea when I wrote that what a catastrophic own goal Sunak would do.
I thought you were one of Sunak's leading cheerleaders? Your support for him was only surpassed by your last redoubt defence of The Clown, before even you realised defending him made you look a little silly. I also reacall you boasting how you had cleverly tipped Sunak for next PM? That one not looking so good now?
You have changed your name once, how about changing it to Barty Weathervane?
When the facts change, I change my mind, what do you do, sir?
I'm proud still of the tip for Sunak as next PM. As @MikeSmithson himself always say tips are about identifying value, not guaranteed winners, and there was value in tipping Sunak for next PM at 250/1. I even mentioned it in the tip as a potential trading bet, so anyone who backed that then later layed it off will have made a handsome profit thank you very much.
The Tories lost my support at the last Budget, because they went back on what they promised and what was in their manifesto which is what I believed in. Unlike partisan shills, I backed the Tories because I believed in what they were standing on, not because they were "my team" - so if you go against my beliefs, you lose my support.
I believe in what I believe in, not whatever a particular team stands for today. Currently no party represents my views, the Lib Dems would be closest but they're too NIMBY for me, so no party gets my support presently.
Sunak was always terrible even when he was 250/1. Do you agree?
No. He made a terrible error in raising NI.
His other decisions have been reasonable, he was even the most sceptical about lockdowns which created the mess that led to his stupid NI decision so I'll give him credit for that.
Tories loathe Corbyn and dislike Starmer Tories very strongly prefer Starmer ahead of Corbyn as PM Yet Tories preferred Corbyn as LOTO rather than Starmer
I think that is what SO was getting at?
K-Starmz is still a long way from the most adverse possible LoTO that the tories could have so they should count their blessings.
What's increasingly clear is that on the strictest interpretations of the rules every leading politician broke the rules at one time or another: Boris, Hancock, Sturgeon, Starmer, Rayner, Drakeford - the lot of them and more besides.
Partisan supporters of parties love to cast stones at their political opponents while defending their own team but quite frankly that isn't good enough and it is missing the big picture.
The root of the problem is that the rules were an ass. Stripping away fundamental civil liberties and basically telling people they can't do anything made rule breakers out of everyone who wanted to do things and who wouldn't normally be rule breakers.
There's a reason our fundamental civil liberties are what they are, there is a reason other nations like Sweden managed to get through the pandemic without stripping people of their civil liberties.
The PM and other leading politicians deserve to go because they inflicted these rules on us without following them themselves, but the root of the problem is the rules they chose to inflict. They bear responsibility for passing them but we should learn a lesson and say that never again will we ever do that again.
"Partisan supporters of parties love to cast stones at their political opponents while defending their own team but quite frankly that isn't good enough and it is missing the big picture."
Lol. You wouldn't do that would you Barty?
That said, I tend to agree with the general gist of the last paragraph , though much as I hold none of the other politicians you mention in high esteem (indeed loath Sturgeon), I think the suggestion that they infringed the rules to the same degree as Johnson is risible.
I deliberately didn't get into a pissing match about suggesting degrees of rule-breaking, or suggesting they're all as bad as each other, that is when it gets into partisan mud-slinging.
On a strict interpretation they all broke the rules though and that is a problem. In normal circumstances it'd be shocking if any leading politician broke so serious a rule let alone all of them.
The problem is the rules - but the politicians with the PM first and foremost wrote and passed the rules so the buck stops with them. But their successors should learn the lesson and never again pass such draconian rules.
Erh no they didn’t? Which rules did Starmer break?
It was against the rules at the time for campaigners to meet indoors. It was illegal at the time for socialisation indoors.
On a strict interpretation, Starmer clearly broke one or both of those rules.
No it wasn’t. Read the rules again
I was freezing my tits off in a pub garden because of rules Starmer voted for. They were clearly having a social event indoors, which was against the rules.
No they weren’t.
Yes they were. And Starmer voted for that and wanted it extending even.
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.
What say you?
I've told you a dozen plus times that was before Sunak shat the bed raising taxes. I even wrote a frigging header article on this site on the day of the Budget about it that was published here the next day that I know you responded to.
How many times are you going to ask the same thing? Raising taxes is screwing Britain over - it is wrong, counterproductive and shouldn't be happening. It trashes the economy by taking away people's disposable income that they can spend which creates the roaring twenties.
Sunak trashed it. Blame Sunak not me, I had no idea when I wrote that what a catastrophic own goal Sunak would do.
I thought you were one of Sunak's leading cheerleaders? Your support for him was only surpassed by your last redoubt defence of The Clown, before even you realised defending him made you look a little silly. I also reacall you boasting how you had cleverly tipped Sunak for next PM? That one not looking so good now?
You have changed your name once, how about changing it to Barty Weathervane?
When the facts change, I change my mind, what do you do, sir?
I'm proud still of the tip for Sunak as next PM. As @MikeSmithson himself always say tips are about identifying value, not guaranteed winners, and there was value in tipping Sunak for next PM at 250/1. I even mentioned it in the tip as a potential trading bet, so anyone who backed that then later layed it off will have made a handsome profit thank you very much.
The Tories lost my support at the last Budget, because they went back on what they promised and what was in their manifesto which is what I believed in. Unlike partisan shills, I backed the Tories because I believed in what they were standing on, not because they were "my team" - so if you go against my beliefs, you lose my support.
I believe in what I believe in, not whatever a particular team stands for today. Currently no party represents my views, the Lib Dems would be closest but they're too NIMBY for me, so no party gets my support presently.
Sunak was always terrible even when he was 250/1. Do you agree?
No. He made a terrible error in raising NI.
His other decisions have been reasonable, he was even the most sceptical about lockdowns which created the mess that led to his stupid NI decision so I'll give him credit for that.
But he's a Tory so you're bound to hate him.
Eat out to Help Out was a disaster. Then I called him an idiot and I was proven right
What's increasingly clear is that on the strictest interpretations of the rules every leading politician broke the rules at one time or another: Boris, Hancock, Sturgeon, Starmer, Rayner, Drakeford - the lot of them and more besides.
Partisan supporters of parties love to cast stones at their political opponents while defending their own team but quite frankly that isn't good enough and it is missing the big picture.
The root of the problem is that the rules were an ass. Stripping away fundamental civil liberties and basically telling people they can't do anything made rule breakers out of everyone who wanted to do things and who wouldn't normally be rule breakers.
There's a reason our fundamental civil liberties are what they are, there is a reason other nations like Sweden managed to get through the pandemic without stripping people of their civil liberties.
The PM and other leading politicians deserve to go because they inflicted these rules on us without following them themselves, but the root of the problem is the rules they chose to inflict. They bear responsibility for passing them but we should learn a lesson and say that never again will we ever do that again.
"Partisan supporters of parties love to cast stones at their political opponents while defending their own team but quite frankly that isn't good enough and it is missing the big picture."
Lol. You wouldn't do that would you Barty?
That said, I tend to agree with the general gist of the last paragraph , though much as I hold none of the other politicians you mention in high esteem (indeed loath Sturgeon), I think the suggestion that they infringed the rules to the same degree as Johnson is risible.
I deliberately didn't get into a pissing match about suggesting degrees of rule-breaking, or suggesting they're all as bad as each other, that is when it gets into partisan mud-slinging.
On a strict interpretation they all broke the rules though and that is a problem. In normal circumstances it'd be shocking if any leading politician broke so serious a rule let alone all of them.
The problem is the rules - but the politicians with the PM first and foremost wrote and passed the rules so the buck stops with them. But their successors should learn the lesson and never again pass such draconian rules.
Erh no they didn’t? Which rules did Starmer break?
It was against the rules at the time for campaigners to meet indoors. It was illegal at the time for socialisation indoors.
On a strict interpretation, Starmer clearly broke one or both of those rules.
No it wasn’t. Read the rules again
I was freezing my tits off in a pub garden because of rules Starmer voted for. They were clearly having a social event indoors, which was against the rules.
No they weren’t.
Yes they were. And Starmer voted for that and wanted it extending even.
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.
What say you?
I've told you a dozen plus times that was before Sunak shat the bed raising taxes. I even wrote a frigging header article on this site on the day of the Budget about it that was published here the next day that I know you responded to.
How many times are you going to ask the same thing? Raising taxes is screwing Britain over - it is wrong, counterproductive and shouldn't be happening. It trashes the economy by taking away people's disposable income that they can spend which creates the roaring twenties.
Sunak trashed it. Blame Sunak not me, I had no idea when I wrote that what a catastrophic own goal Sunak would do.
I thought you were one of Sunak's leading cheerleaders? Your support for him was only surpassed by your last redoubt defence of The Clown, before even you realised defending him made you look a little silly. I also reacall you boasting how you had cleverly tipped Sunak for next PM? That one not looking so good now?
You have changed your name once, how about changing it to Barty Weathervane?
When the facts change, I change my mind, what do you do, sir?
I'm proud still of the tip for Sunak as next PM. As @MikeSmithson himself always say tips are about identifying value, not guaranteed winners, and there was value in tipping Sunak for next PM at 250/1. I even mentioned it in the tip as a potential trading bet, so anyone who backed that then later layed it off will have made a handsome profit thank you very much.
The Tories lost my support at the last Budget, because they went back on what they promised and what was in their manifesto which is what I believed in. Unlike partisan shills, I backed the Tories because I believed in what they were standing on, not because they were "my team" - so if you go against my beliefs, you lose my support.
I believe in what I believe in, not whatever a particular team stands for today. Currently no party represents my views, the Lib Dems would be closest but they're too NIMBY for me, so no party gets my support presently.
Sunak was always terrible even when he was 250/1. Do you agree?
No. He made a terrible error in raising NI.
His other decisions have been reasonable, he was even the most sceptical about lockdowns which created the mess that led to his stupid NI decision so I'll give him credit for that.
But he's a Tory so you're bound to hate him.
Eat out to Help Out was a disaster. Then I called him an idiot and I was proven right
Eat out to Help Out was a good thing. For only a teeny tiny sum of money he got people encouraged to get out of their house and get back to normal living, how was it a disaster?
What was a disaster was going back into lockdown. We should have stayed out.
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.
What say you?
I've told you a dozen plus times that was before Sunak shat the bed raising taxes. I even wrote a frigging header article on this site on the day of the Budget about it that was published here the next day that I know you responded to.
How many times are you going to ask the same thing? Raising taxes is screwing Britain over - it is wrong, counterproductive and shouldn't be happening. It trashes the economy by taking away people's disposable income that they can spend which creates the roaring twenties.
Sunak trashed it. Blame Sunak not me, I had no idea when I wrote that what a catastrophic own goal Sunak would do.
I told you Sunak was terrible over a year ago.
I'm not disagreeing since he raised NI. 🤷♂️
If like a goldfish you forget this conversation but again bring up the roaring twenties remark just don't be surprised when I yet again respond saying about Sunak raising taxes. That is the problem, the Chancellor, and it is why I quit the Tories despite once tipping Sunak for next PM at 250/1.
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.
"We can't win, so promise to rig the system".
Isn't that what the Tories are actually doing?
What, by making voting as secure as picking up a parcel from the sorting office?
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.
What say you?
I've told you a dozen plus times that was before Sunak shat the bed raising taxes. I even wrote a frigging header article on this site on the day of the Budget about it that was published here the next day that I know you responded to.
How many times are you going to ask the same thing? Raising taxes is screwing Britain over - it is wrong, counterproductive and shouldn't be happening. It trashes the economy by taking away people's disposable income that they can spend which creates the roaring twenties.
Sunak trashed it. Blame Sunak not me, I had no idea when I wrote that what a catastrophic own goal Sunak would do.
I thought you were one of Sunak's leading cheerleaders? Your support for him was only surpassed by your last redoubt defence of The Clown, before even you realised defending him made you look a little silly. I also reacall you boasting how you had cleverly tipped Sunak for next PM? That one not looking so good now?
You have changed your name once, how about changing it to Barty Weathervane?
When the facts change, I change my mind, what do you do, sir?
I'm proud still of the tip for Sunak as next PM. As @MikeSmithson himself always say tips are about identifying value, not guaranteed winners, and there was value in tipping Sunak for next PM at 250/1. I even mentioned it in the tip as a potential trading bet, so anyone who backed that then later layed it off will have made a handsome profit thank you very much.
The Tories lost my support at the last Budget, because they went back on what they promised and what was in their manifesto which is what I believed in. Unlike partisan shills, I backed the Tories because I believed in what they were standing on, not because they were "my team" - so if you go against my beliefs, you lose my support.
I believe in what I believe in, not whatever a particular team stands for today. Currently no party represents my views, the Lib Dems would be closest but they're too NIMBY for me, so no party gets my support presently.
Sunak was always terrible even when he was 250/1. Do you agree?
No. He made a terrible error in raising NI.
His other decisions have been reasonable, he was even the most sceptical about lockdowns which created the mess that led to his stupid NI decision so I'll give him credit for that.
But he's a Tory so you're bound to hate him.
Eat out to Help Out was a disaster. Then I called him an idiot and I was proven right
Eat out to help out was fine. It helped keep a lot of restaurants and pubs running for not very much money and got people going out again. The NI rise is the biggest mistake. Not squaring up to cutting the state post COVID is another one. Suggesting that the government can increase spending is laughable. Labour will face all of these issues too.
What really fucks me off is that CHB is one of the worst COVID rampers on here. And here he is, defending Starmer. Even if you think Starmer didn’t break the rules, he clearly wasn’t doing everything he could minimise the spread of COVID.
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.
What say you?
I've told you a dozen plus times that was before Sunak shat the bed raising taxes. I even wrote a frigging header article on this site on the day of the Budget about it that was published here the next day that I know you responded to.
How many times are you going to ask the same thing? Raising taxes is screwing Britain over - it is wrong, counterproductive and shouldn't be happening. It trashes the economy by taking away people's disposable income that they can spend which creates the roaring twenties.
Sunak trashed it. Blame Sunak not me, I had no idea when I wrote that what a catastrophic own goal Sunak would do.
I told you Sunak was terrible over a year ago.
I'm not disagreeing since he raised NI. 🤷♂️
If like a goldfish you forget this conversation but again bring up the roaring twenties remark just don't be surprised when I yet again respond saying about Sunak raising taxes. That is the problem, the Chancellor, and it is why I quit the Tories despite once tipping Sunak for next PM at 250/1.
Thiis disgraceful doxxing must stop!!
Did I put my name there?
I don't mind you guys knowing who I am, I don't want my name used though. Is that really that complicated to understand?
Just read the Mail story. Seems the new allegation is that a Labour Press Secretary was marginally inaccurate several month ago on the whereabouts of Angela Rayner. Turns out she was outside the building when the beer photo was taken.
What, just passing by? What are the odds? Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks past that one? OR she was outside it because she had just been or was about to be inside it?
As for "marginally inaccurate," bollocks. This was a big deal when the press sec said she wasn't there, not a routine court circular, and multiple people know exactly where Rayner is at all times when she's on the job - press secs, diary secs, grid planners, SKS, her.
You are doing a comical Ali. I want this to be a storm in a teacup as much as you do, but arguments which wouldn't get past a 5 year old don't help.
The press secretary said she wasn't at the meeting the photo was taken at. She wasn't. But it appears she was in the vicinity, Who's being the five year old?
She was at the meeting and this is the cause of this row
Labour have admitted she was present with Starmer, nothing to do with being outside
Oh for goodness sake Big G, having meeting was legal and so whether she was there or not is irrelevant. It is a smear to make all politicians look as bad as Boris.
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.
What say you?
I've told you a dozen plus times that was before Sunak shat the bed raising taxes. I even wrote a frigging header article on this site on the day of the Budget about it that was published here the next day that I know you responded to.
How many times are you going to ask the same thing? Raising taxes is screwing Britain over - it is wrong, counterproductive and shouldn't be happening. It trashes the economy by taking away people's disposable income that they can spend which creates the roaring twenties.
Sunak trashed it. Blame Sunak not me, I had no idea when I wrote that what a catastrophic own goal Sunak would do.
I told you Sunak was terrible over a year ago.
I'm not disagreeing since he raised NI. 🤷♂️
If like a goldfish you forget this conversation but again bring up the roaring twenties remark just don't be surprised when I yet again respond saying about Sunak raising taxes. That is the problem, the Chancellor, and it is why I quit the Tories despite once tipping Sunak for next PM at 250/1.
What really fucks me off is that CHB is one of the worst COVID rampers on here. And here he is, defending Starmer. Even if you think Starmer didn’t break the rules, he clearly wasn’t doing everything he could minimise the spread of COVID.
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.
What say you?
I've told you a dozen plus times that was before Sunak shat the bed raising taxes. I even wrote a frigging header article on this site on the day of the Budget about it that was published here the next day that I know you responded to.
How many times are you going to ask the same thing? Raising taxes is screwing Britain over - it is wrong, counterproductive and shouldn't be happening. It trashes the economy by taking away people's disposable income that they can spend which creates the roaring twenties.
Sunak trashed it. Blame Sunak not me, I had no idea when I wrote that what a catastrophic own goal Sunak would do.
I thought you were one of Sunak's leading cheerleaders? Your support for him was only surpassed by your last redoubt defence of The Clown, before even you realised defending him made you look a little silly. I also reacall you boasting how you had cleverly tipped Sunak for next PM? That one not looking so good now?
You have changed your name once, how about changing it to Barty Weathervane?
When the facts change, I change my mind, what do you do, sir?
I'm proud still of the tip for Sunak as next PM. As @MikeSmithson himself always say tips are about identifying value, not guaranteed winners, and there was value in tipping Sunak for next PM at 250/1. I even mentioned it in the tip as a potential trading bet, so anyone who backed that then later layed it off will have made a handsome profit thank you very much.
The Tories lost my support at the last Budget, because they went back on what they promised and what was in their manifesto which is what I believed in. Unlike partisan shills, I backed the Tories because I believed in what they were standing on, not because they were "my team" - so if you go against my beliefs, you lose my support.
I believe in what I believe in, not whatever a particular team stands for today. Currently no party represents my views, the Lib Dems would be closest but they're too NIMBY for me, so no party gets my support presently.
Having seen some of your views, I am sure they are not exactly crying in their soup.
Which views would those be perchance?
Try actual views, not your warped interpretation of my views because you can't get past my stance on Brexit.
You are probably right. Trying to understand your views is a little like trying to nail the proverbial jelly. I think I have got "past your stance on Brexit" many times, as you, like all apologists for the most absurd and pointless policy this country has enacted in 100 years, have been unable to give a genuine rational argument in its favour. Sure, you have tried to convince yourself many times, and I guess you will now give some silly shopping list of "benefits" as you see them, but the reality is that more and more people are waking up to it being pointless. This is because it has benefitted no-one other than Boris Johnson and his dumbest acolytes. I am sure you will also eventually wake up to its pointlessness, just like it took you a while to realise Boris Johnson is unfit for office as you are a late adopter of the obvious lol. Have nice Friday, I must do some work!
Comments
With stories emanating in what people assume to be either pro Labour v pro Tory papers the public tend to be even more dubious.
So if Boris goes the Conservatives would need to find another Major, maybe Wallace or Javid?
The Mail are trying to make an equivalence when there isn’t one.
And the fact they keep writing the same story shows that they’ve got nothing.
Starmer is squeaky clean in a way no Labour leader recently has been
Just to show how daft your argument is you could apply your argument to a dictatorship - 'we can't win so rig the system'. Except 'rig' should be changed to 'make fair'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61256397
Crickets now!
I loathed Corbyn, and I mean LOATHED. His election would have filled me with fear and anger
If Starmer, his immediate successor, is elected, I will sigh and feel a little gloomy but get on with my life 10 minutes later
In other news, our blue tit nest now has two eggs!
'Dull' can be a negative IMO: if you need to inspire people. There's probably a midway point between Johnson's comedic liveliness and Starmer's lawyerly blandness that would be magic. Blair was there, perhaps.
Partisan supporters of parties love to cast stones at their political opponents while defending their own team but quite frankly that isn't good enough and it is missing the big picture.
The root of the problem is that the rules were an ass. Stripping away fundamental civil liberties and basically telling people they can't do anything made rule breakers out of everyone who wanted to do things and who wouldn't normally be rule breakers.
There's a reason our fundamental civil liberties are what they are, there is a reason other nations like Sweden managed to get through the pandemic without stripping people of their civil liberties.
The PM and other leading politicians deserve to go because they inflicted these rules on us without following them themselves, but the root of the problem is the rules they chose to inflict. They bear responsibility for passing them but we should learn a lesson and say that never again will we ever do that again.
You haven't answered what was the breach of the rules?
This is a smear by the Mail.
The Mail should produce new evidence that Starmer broke the rules if they want it investigated again.
They’re going after somebody else. Because they have nothing
Or do you criticise Starmer et al for the hypocrisy of pushing the regulations and breaking them? If so, that was the main criticism from most of us for Johnson - being a hypocrite, not the actual breaking of stupid regulations. In that case I still have a harsher view of the person who had complete control over the nature of the regulations breaking them than anyone else.
Starmer ay be as guilty here of rule breaking as Johnson (I don't have enough of the facts to judge). I'm no aware that he lied to parliament about it, but the transgression could be similar.
Without excusing any wrongdoing, I just wish there was as much interest in investigating the origin & spread of this virus as in scrutinising the miserable actions of politicians.
You should post some photos of the nest here!
Dull can be a negative but I don’t perceive it to be one for Starmer
How many times are you going to ask the same thing? Raising taxes is screwing Britain over - it is wrong, counterproductive and shouldn't be happening. It trashes the economy by taking away people's disposable income that they can spend which creates the roaring twenties.
Sunak trashed it. Blame Sunak not me, I had no idea when I wrote that what a catastrophic own goal Sunak would do.
For me, Rayner's presence strengthens the case that it was a work event and legal, as, how to put it? I can't imagine the pair of them meeting socially much.
What the Mail did with Rayner on Sunday and is doing to Starmer now has pushed the boundaries of reality to the extreme. The Durham/ No 10 narrative is being painted as one of, on his birthday Johnson was unfairly ambushed by cake, whilst Starmer was quaffing ale with his mates. The narrative is patently false. This is not partisan news, or analysis, it is verging on Trumpian danger best left out of our quaint political discourse.
The question is: would the Conservative Party (and the country) be in a better place if Kinnock had won in 1992, and the Conservative Party had been forced to change itself earlier? Or were the scandals between 1992 and 1997, along with Blairism, the kick in the backside they needed? (*)
Perhaps it would be best for the party you are so loyal to to lose, and pick up reinvigorated at the GE after next?
(*) The 'Kinnock wins in 1992' is quite an interesting alternate history - especially as he might not have had a large majority. We probably would not have had Blairism, for instance.
They hate each other. And Rayner still has her leadership bid documents in a drawer.
But they do put these issues aside when the politics matters and I respect them for that
Actually I am in doubt about the beer too. In the 80s I worked for a notoriously drunk even by the standards of the 80s, 3 hour lunches, firm of solicitors in the City, and even there nobody would have thought of drinking alcohol at any form of meeting, in-house or with clients. I sooo doubt it happens in the 2020s in the labour party.
If like a goldfish you forget this conversation but again bring up the roaring twenties remark just don't be surprised when I yet again respond saying about Sunak raising taxes. That is the problem, the Chancellor, and it is why I quit the Tories despite once tipping Sunak for next PM at 250/1.
Lol. You wouldn't do that would you Barty?
That said, I tend to agree with the general gist of the last paragraph , though much as I hold none of the other politicians you mention in high esteem (indeed loath Sturgeon), I think the suggestion that they infringed the rules to the same degree as Johnson is risible.
Tories loathe Starmer more than Corbyn? Weird.
They may not much like Starmer - as he's Labour - but he's not the existential threat to our values that Corbyn appeared to be. For instance, Sir Keir has been pretty solid on Ukraine. Nah, from a dyed-in-the-wool Tory perspective Labour could have done a lot worse.
On a strict interpretation they all broke the rules though and that is a problem. In normal circumstances it'd be shocking if any leading politician broke so serious a rule let alone all of them.
The problem is the rules - but the politicians with the PM first and foremost wrote and passed the rules so the buck stops with them. But their successors should learn the lesson and never again pass such draconian rules.
Tories loathe Corbyn and dislike Starmer
Tories very strongly prefer Starmer ahead of Corbyn as PM
Yet Tories preferred Corbyn as LOTO rather than Starmer
I think that is what SO was getting at?
You have changed your name once, how about changing it to Barty Weathervane?
They say Starmer broke lockdown guidance when he was given a birthday cake . There was no lockdown in September 2020.
As for "marginally inaccurate," bollocks. This was a big deal when the press sec said she wasn't there, not a routine court circular, and multiple people know exactly where Rayner is at all times when she's on the job - press secs, diary secs, grid planners, SKS, her.
You are doing a comical Ali. I want this to be a storm in a teacup as much as you do, but arguments which wouldn't get past a 5 year old don't help.
We are in a sticky situation to be sure. I have huge sympathy for those who are struggling, such as those who are disabled, or have caring responsibilities and cannot easily earn more money by working,
However we have a labour shortage, so anyone who wants a job should be able to get one.
We need to find a way to make working pay enough to live a happy, well lived life. I don't know the answer to that one. I do suspect that younger people forget, or don't realise that previous generations had it hard too. My parents didn't go out for months on end when they were young parents of my sister. Once, my grandfather gave them a tenner to pay some bills, and they instead went to the pub for drink for the first time in months.
This is not about saying if you give up latte you'll afford a house by Christmas, but to point out that times have been hard in the past too.
It was illegal at the time for socialisation indoors.
On a strict interpretation, Starmer clearly broke one or both of those rules.
Straightforward principle of evidence, if someone is lying about one aspect of something it puts their whole story in doubt.
I'm proud still of the tip for Sunak as next PM. As @MikeSmithson himself always say tips are about identifying value, not guaranteed winners, and there was value in tipping Sunak for next PM at 250/1. I even mentioned it in the tip as a potential trading bet, so anyone who backed that then later layed it off will have made a handsome profit thank you very much.
The Tories lost my support at the last Budget, because they went back on what they promised and what was in their manifesto which is what I believed in. Unlike partisan shills, I backed the Tories because I believed in what they were standing on, not because they were "my team" - so if you go against my beliefs, you lose my support.
I believe in what I believe in, not whatever a particular team stands for today. Currently no party represents my views, the Lib Dems would be closest but they're too NIMBY for me, so no party gets my support presently.
The Tories are tired, corrupt and they’ve run out of ideas. It is time for someone else. I really really wish the alternative was more inspiring than Kir Royale Starmer but he’s orders of magnitude preferable to Corbyn.
That said, I can still see Boris sneaking a win in 2024. Partly because Starmer is so dreary. Also because the times are so strange. We could be deeply immersed in ongoing cold/hot war in 2024
Labour have admitted she was present with Starmer, nothing to do with being outside
Try actual views, not your warped interpretation of my views because you can't get past my stance on Brexit.
Row, ROFL the public don’t care
His other decisions have been reasonable, he was even the most sceptical about lockdowns which created the mess that led to his stupid NI decision so I'll give him credit for that.
But he's a Tory so you're bound to hate him.
Shame on him, hypocrite.
What was a disaster was going back into lockdown. We should have stayed out.
I don't mind you guys knowing who I am, I don't want my name used though. Is that really that complicated to understand?