This no booze at lunchtime rule seems really puritanical to me, the sort of thing that started in the United States about 40 years ago and then slowly spread to everywhere else in the Anglosphere.
Seems perfectly reasonable to me. You dont need to get pissed during the working day, and if you werent intending to get pissed who cares if you have to have a coke not a beer?
Since when was the only reason to have a beer "to get pissed"?
When I saw all the partying at No 10 ... I thought, 'How stupid these people are? Did they really think they could get away with it'.
Now I see the party at Durham ... I think, 'How stupid these people are? Did they really think they could get away with it'.
No wonder the UK is such a mess, it really is run by stupid and stupider.
(Is Ed Davey really is to dull to be embroiled in a LibDem Tofu-gate. That must surely be next.)
Whatever happens now it is worth reminding ourselves that politics rarely runs in a straight line for any length of time and certainties about future election results are way off the line. The only time you can truly tell when politicians are telling fibs is when they open their mouths.
TBF, it must be almost impossible for a politician to run their lives perfectly when trying to run a top job. The amount of undeserved ordure they get dumped on them by opponents (and not just those in another party) is amazing.
Remember the controversy of Boris' bike ride during lockdown? How dare he?
On the previous thread, someone expressed that Starmer was running the campaign for a really important by-election. Well, Boris was trying to run the country through a pandemic. The stress on everyone involved must have been immense.
We want politicians to be 'like' us. Yet we also want them to be perfect in all ways. Sadly, I am not perfect. No-one reading this is perfect. If we were put under the same minute critical examination that Johnson, Starmer or any top politician has been, then we would have stories about us.
Very few people are angels. And they might not have the skills needed to run a country.
There's a lot to nail Boris for. But, "partygate" is small beer. It ought to be small beer for Starmer, but then, he's made so much of the issue.
It’s not small beer to those who had to struggle with the regulations, like not visiting dying relatives for example. Those that make the law should follow the law. If it was a bad law, that is the fault of the law maker.
Well, the same applies to Starmer, doesn't it? Why were people getting pi**ed at a do whilst others could not visit dying relatives? That's not small beer to those who had to struggle with the regulations.
Starmer voted for the law. Did he say it was a bad law when he voted for it (I assume not, but someone'll have more info.)
Starmer and Labour have been caught by their own witch hunt. It is pure incompetence on their part not to realise the trap they had laid for themselves.
Personally I think it’s less serious than a PM disobeying his own law, but as LoO Starmer also has some responsibility here. It doesn’t rally matter in any case politically after Starmer called for the PM to resign.
If Starmer is fined, the wise move politically might be to resign. If Starmer isn’t fined, some people will owe him an apology. Either way Boris should go. His offence is proven and as PM it is the most serious.
Starmer is a law maker too. If he'd been opposing the restrictions then it would be less serious but he actually was opposing the relaxation of the restrictions after his own party. Hypocrite.
Plus he's every bit as guilty or more as Boris is. After calling for him to go. Hypocrite.
Plus he's outright lied about the events saying he was eating between work, when his own memo says the party was at the end of the day. Liar.
I've said since last year Boris should go, but Starmer is every bit as bad if not worse for the sheer hypocrisy too.
Would your view change if Johnson ends up with four or five FPNs?
you are kidding, Boris could get rid of his whole family and Bart would still be cheerleading him.
When I saw all the partying at No 10 ... I thought, 'How stupid these people are? Did they really think they could get away with it'.
Now I see the party at Durham ... I think, 'How stupid these people are? Did they really think they could get away with it'.
No wonder the UK is such a mess, it really is run by stupid and stupider.
(Is Ed Davey really is to dull to be embroiled in a LibDem Tofu-gate. That must surely be next.)
Whatever happens now it is worth reminding ourselves that politics rarely runs in a straight line for any length of time and certainties about future election results are way off the line. The only time you can truly tell when politicians are telling fibs is when they open their mouths.
TBF, it must be almost impossible for a politician to run their lives perfectly when trying to run a top job. The amount of undeserved ordure they get dumped on them by opponents (and not just those in another party) is amazing.
Remember the controversy of Boris' bike ride during lockdown? How dare he?
On the previous thread, someone expressed that Starmer was running the campaign for a really important by-election. Well, Boris was trying to run the country through a pandemic. The stress on everyone involved must have been immense.
We want politicians to be 'like' us. Yet we also want them to be perfect in all ways. Sadly, I am not perfect. No-one reading this is perfect. If we were put under the same minute critical examination that Johnson, Starmer or any top politician has been, then we would have stories about us.
Very few people are angels. And they might not have the skills needed to run a country.
There's a lot to nail Boris for. But, "partygate" is small beer. It ought to be small beer for Starmer, but then, he's made so much of the issue.
It’s not small beer to those who had to struggle with the regulations, like not visiting dying relatives for example. Those that make the law should follow the law. If it was a bad law, that is the fault of the law maker.
Well, the same applies to Starmer, doesn't it? Why were people getting pi**ed at a do whilst others could not visit dying relatives? That's not small beer to those who had to struggle with the regulations.
Starmer voted for the law. Did he say it was a bad law when he voted for it (I assume not, but someone'll have more info.)
Starmer and Labour have been caught by their own witch hunt. It is pure incompetence on their part not to realise the trap they had laid for themselves.
Personally I think it’s less serious than a PM disobeying his own law, but as LoO Starmer also has some responsibility here. It doesn’t rally matter in any case politically after Starmer called for the PM to resign.
If Starmer is fined, the wise move politically might be to resign. If Starmer isn’t fined, some people will owe him an apology. Either way Boris should go. His offence is proven and as PM it is the most serious.
Starmer is a law maker too. If he'd been opposing the restrictions then it would be less serious but he actually was opposing the relaxation of the restrictions after his own party. Hypocrite.
Plus he's every bit as guilty or more as Boris is. After calling for him to go. Hypocrite.
Plus he's outright lied about the events saying he was eating between work, when his own memo says the party was at the end of the day. Liar.
I've said since last year Boris should go, but Starmer is every bit as bad if not worse for the sheer hypocrisy too.
Starmer has to go, but your hyperbole is ludicrous.
If this work event crossed the line and rules were breached which may be the case, so be it, but for you to then assert it is worse than multiple events attended, and or arranged by Johnson, who also lied to Parliament it has to be said, is absurd.
Why does Starmer have to go but Johnson can stay? Starmer set the bar to judge Johnson. Starmer being compromised by this incident neutralises any attack he can make on Johnson when more fines and the Gray Report are released. And of course the killer, rules don't apply to Boris Johnson.
The reason it's worse is because Starmer has himself set the threshold after the fact, while being in breach of his own threshold. Boris didn't do that.
Johnson can rightly or wrongly say he didn't think that what happened was wrong at the time and he didn't intend for people having cake at work etc to be illegal, but he's paid the FPN and accepted he made a mistake. Put his hands up.
Starmer can't do that as he's already set the threshold as to this being a resigning offence. He set a trap for the PM and jumped straight into it. How can Starmer accept he's made a mistake when he's said that it must be a resigning offence already?
You are as usual writing absolute and utter nonsense.
I have agreed with you Starmer set the bar by which a breach of Covid rules is measured, and as such he must go having been busted.
But worse than the man who wrote the rules, lied to Parliament and attended events which according to the already released bits of the Gray Report could number around eight.
You have Starmer, by the nuts, Johnson has his scalp, BigDog is saved and his foe vanquished. So why would you mislead the board by claiming Starmer's charge means multiple charges against Johnson are now trivial?
I never said Johnson's events are trivial, I said he should resign over them. I stand by that.
But Starmer is worse because he set the threshold of this being a resigning offence AFTER the facts came out. Boris didn't.
So Starmer has clearly surpassed his own resignation threshold he gave to Parliament. Was he lying to Parliament when he said that those investigated by the Police should resign? After the facts came out.
Boris can (wrongly in my view) grasp at the straw of saying "I made a mistake, I'm sorry, I didn't think this was against the rules. I'm sorry for what happened and lessons will be learnt."
Starmer has no straws to clutch at as he went in with a two footed studs first challenge over what Boris did.
Lying to parliament was the resigning matter.
In any event If Starmer is guilty then every film crew shooting at that time including TV outside broadcasts will also have to be priosecuted because when on location you are obliged to supply dinner for the crew by 9.00 pm (or if later then you pay for an extra day and you are still obliged to supply dinner).
I notice the Times 'scoop' have actually printed a copy of their 'call sheet' which specifies (among other things) all meal times. This will be so familiar to all TV companies working on location I'm surprised no one has mentioned it. Unless I've missed something I don't see the story?
Was anybody actually daft enough to follow the rules? At the height of lockdown I went to Livingston just to get various car bits zinc plated and to France (twice) via the Rotterdam 'underground railroad'.
I drove to Dundee in just my underpants and ate a whole Tobolerone.
Did you also buy the rights to K9, the robot dog on castors, from Dr Who
The one time in his life he does something vaguely interesting, he gets chased by a digital lynch mob
A mob he had a part in winding up, to be fair.
What has repelled me about Johnson’s behaviour is the brazen lying and contempt towards both Parliament and electorate. It now starts to look as though Starmer has been somewhat economical with the actualité too.
Complete disclosure when the photo first surfaced, and an apology, would have drawn a sharp distinction with the PM. As it is we’re in for weeks of tedious argument about the minutiae of regulations, which almost entirely misses the point.
Labour performance, in terms of numbers of councillors:
Welsh Labour +14.3% Scottish Labour +7.6% English Labour +1.3%
I think it is fair to conclude that Drakeford is Labour’s best leader, and Starmer is a dud.
Up 1.3% against an horrifically poor Tory government, mid-term, is just eye-wateringly pathetic.
Statistically nonsense. It's easier to get larger percentage increases among smaller populations, and a lot more people voted in London than in Wales, let alone England as a whole.
Actually, the Scottish and Welsh elections were multimember constituencies which should give a better picture of reality than FPTP in England. And the overall numbers of candidates were reasonable.
Was anybody actually daft enough to follow the rules? At the height of lockdown I went to Livingston just to get various car bits zinc plated and to France (twice) via the Rotterdam 'underground railroad'.
I think most people, and certainly me, were a bit of a muddle. Generally showing willing but not paying rigorous attention to every small detail. Many rules will have been breached.
However, first of all a lot of people really did follow most of the very harsh rules (visiting a dying relative for example).
Second, I dont regard it as hypocritical to hold those in power over us, and who asked us to give them that power, to a higher standard of behaviour and compliance.
When I saw all the partying at No 10 ... I thought, 'How stupid these people are? Did they really think they could get away with it'.
Now I see the party at Durham ... I think, 'How stupid these people are? Did they really think they could get away with it'.
No wonder the UK is such a mess, it really is run by stupid and stupider.
(Is Ed Davey really is to dull to be embroiled in a LibDem Tofu-gate. That must surely be next.)
Whatever happens now it is worth reminding ourselves that politics rarely runs in a straight line for any length of time and certainties about future election results are way off the line. The only time you can truly tell when politicians are telling fibs is when they open their mouths.
TBF, it must be almost impossible for a politician to run their lives perfectly when trying to run a top job. The amount of undeserved ordure they get dumped on them by opponents (and not just those in another party) is amazing.
Remember the controversy of Boris' bike ride during lockdown? How dare he?
On the previous thread, someone expressed that Starmer was running the campaign for a really important by-election. Well, Boris was trying to run the country through a pandemic. The stress on everyone involved must have been immense.
We want politicians to be 'like' us. Yet we also want them to be perfect in all ways. Sadly, I am not perfect. No-one reading this is perfect. If we were put under the same minute critical examination that Johnson, Starmer or any top politician has been, then we would have stories about us.
Very few people are angels. And they might not have the skills needed to run a country.
There's a lot to nail Boris for. But, "partygate" is small beer. It ought to be small beer for Starmer, but then, he's made so much of the issue.
It’s not small beer to those who had to struggle with the regulations, like not visiting dying relatives for example. Those that make the law should follow the law. If it was a bad law, that is the fault of the law maker.
Well, the same applies to Starmer, doesn't it? Why were people getting pi**ed at a do whilst others could not visit dying relatives? That's not small beer to those who had to struggle with the regulations.
Starmer voted for the law. Did he say it was a bad law when he voted for it (I assume not, but someone'll have more info.)
Starmer and Labour have been caught by their own witch hunt. It is pure incompetence on their part not to realise the trap they had laid for themselves.
Personally I think it’s less serious than a PM disobeying his own law, but as LoO Starmer also has some responsibility here. It doesn’t rally matter in any case politically after Starmer called for the PM to resign.
If Starmer is fined, the wise move politically might be to resign. If Starmer isn’t fined, some people will owe him an apology. Either way Boris should go. His offence is proven and as PM it is the most serious.
Starmer is a law maker too. If he'd been opposing the restrictions then it would be less serious but he actually was opposing the relaxation of the restrictions after his own party. Hypocrite.
Plus he's every bit as guilty or more as Boris is. After calling for him to go. Hypocrite.
Plus he's outright lied about the events saying he was eating between work, when his own memo says the party was at the end of the day. Liar.
I've said since last year Boris should go, but Starmer is every bit as bad if not worse for the sheer hypocrisy too.
Starmer has to go, but your hyperbole is ludicrous.
If this work event crossed the line and rules were breached which may be the case, so be it, but for you to then assert it is worse than multiple events attended, and or arranged by Johnson, who also lied to Parliament it has to be said, is absurd.
Why does Starmer have to go but Johnson can stay? Starmer set the bar to judge Johnson. Starmer being compromised by this incident neutralises any attack he can make on Johnson when more fines and the Gray Report are released. And of course the killer, rules don't apply to Boris Johnson.
The reason it's worse is because Starmer has himself set the threshold after the fact, while being in breach of his own threshold. Boris didn't do that.
Johnson can rightly or wrongly say he didn't think that what happened was wrong at the time and he didn't intend for people having cake at work etc to be illegal, but he's paid the FPN and accepted he made a mistake. Put his hands up.
Starmer can't do that as he's already set the threshold as to this being a resigning offence. He set a trap for the PM and jumped straight into it. How can Starmer accept he's made a mistake when he's said that it must be a resigning offence already?
You are as usual writing absolute and utter nonsense.
I have agreed with you Starmer set the bar by which a breach of Covid rules is measured, and as such he must go having been busted.
But worse than the man who wrote the rules, lied to Parliament and attended events which according to the already released bits of the Gray Report could number around eight.
You have Starmer, by the nuts, Johnson has his scalp, BigDog is saved and his foe vanquished. So why would you mislead the board by claiming Starmer's charge means multiple charges against Johnson are now trivial?
I never said Johnson's events are trivial, I said he should resign over them. I stand by that.
But Starmer is worse because he set the threshold of this being a resigning offence AFTER the facts came out. Boris didn't.
So Starmer has clearly surpassed his own resignation threshold he gave to Parliament. Was he lying to Parliament when he said that those investigated by the Police should resign? After the facts came out.
Boris can (wrongly in my view) grasp at the straw of saying "I made a mistake, I'm sorry, I didn't think this was against the rules. I'm sorry for what happened and lessons will be learnt."
Starmer has no straws to clutch at as he went in with a two footed studs first challenge over what Boris did.
Lying to parliament was the resigning matter. In any event I'd be amazed if he's broken the law so a FPN is most unlikely even with the incompetent police force we have.
If Starmer is guilty then every film crew shooting at that time including TV outside broadcasts will also have to be priosecuted because when on location you are obliged to supply dinner for the crew by 9.00 pm (or if later then you pay for an extra day and you are still obliged to supply dinner).
I notice the Times 'scoop' have actually printed a copy of their 'call sheet' which specifies (among other things) all meal times. This will be so familiar to all TV companies working on location I'm surprised no one has mentioned it. Unless I've missed something I don't see the story?
Is this why Allegra Stratton giggled? The journos in front of her were in on the truth that laws weren't being strictly applied or followed? Was the journo's question itself tongue-in-cheek?
When I saw all the partying at No 10 ... I thought, 'How stupid these people are? Did they really think they could get away with it'.
Now I see the party at Durham ... I think, 'How stupid these people are? Did they really think they could get away with it'.
No wonder the UK is such a mess, it really is run by stupid and stupider.
(Is Ed Davey really is to dull to be embroiled in a LibDem Tofu-gate. That must surely be next.)
Whatever happens now it is worth reminding ourselves that politics rarely runs in a straight line for any length of time and certainties about future election results are way off the line. The only time you can truly tell when politicians are telling fibs is when they open their mouths.
TBF, it must be almost impossible for a politician to run their lives perfectly when trying to run a top job. The amount of undeserved ordure they get dumped on them by opponents (and not just those in another party) is amazing.
Remember the controversy of Boris' bike ride during lockdown? How dare he?
On the previous thread, someone expressed that Starmer was running the campaign for a really important by-election. Well, Boris was trying to run the country through a pandemic. The stress on everyone involved must have been immense.
We want politicians to be 'like' us. Yet we also want them to be perfect in all ways. Sadly, I am not perfect. No-one reading this is perfect. If we were put under the same minute critical examination that Johnson, Starmer or any top politician has been, then we would have stories about us.
Very few people are angels. And they might not have the skills needed to run a country.
There's a lot to nail Boris for. But, "partygate" is small beer. It ought to be small beer for Starmer, but then, he's made so much of the issue.
It’s not small beer to those who had to struggle with the regulations, like not visiting dying relatives for example. Those that make the law should follow the law. If it was a bad law, that is the fault of the law maker.
Well, the same applies to Starmer, doesn't it? Why were people getting pi**ed at a do whilst others could not visit dying relatives? That's not small beer to those who had to struggle with the regulations.
Starmer voted for the law. Did he say it was a bad law when he voted for it (I assume not, but someone'll have more info.)
Starmer and Labour have been caught by their own witch hunt. It is pure incompetence on their part not to realise the trap they had laid for themselves.
Personally I think it’s less serious than a PM disobeying his own law, but as LoO Starmer also has some responsibility here. It doesn’t rally matter in any case politically after Starmer called for the PM to resign.
If Starmer is fined, the wise move politically might be to resign. If Starmer isn’t fined, some people will owe him an apology. Either way Boris should go. His offence is proven and as PM it is the most serious.
Starmer is a law maker too. If he'd been opposing the restrictions then it would be less serious but he actually was opposing the relaxation of the restrictions after his own party. Hypocrite.
Plus he's every bit as guilty or more as Boris is. After calling for him to go. Hypocrite.
Plus he's outright lied about the events saying he was eating between work, when his own memo says the party was at the end of the day. Liar.
I've said since last year Boris should go, but Starmer is every bit as bad if not worse for the sheer hypocrisy too.
There is also the lie about Rayner not being there.
It seems there are several inconsistencies in the story here which doesn’t help.
I have said I think there is nothing to this and there may well not be but labour have handled this appallingly.
Re Rayner the absurdity of the denial is that she is actually referenced with Starmer on the heading of this leaked memo
Not that I think it matters one iota, but for goodness sake was Rayner there or not. Wish they would make up their minds. She was there, then she wasn't, now she is again.
She was there and it matters as she is likely to receive a FPN if Starmer does
It's all bollox.
The police shouldn't be investigating, Johnson should never have got a FPN and neither should SKS. I can't believe Sunak got issued with one - poor bugger. For Sunak to get one this must amount to the strictest draconian application of the laws, well after the event - and in the context of none - yes nil - new infections in London on that particular day. I don't mean nil deaths I mean nil new infections.
Also worth mentioning that Johnson's birthday "party" was reported at the time and no-one gave a monkey's.
I have commented several times the idea the PM, COE, and leader and deputy leader of the labour party should lose their jobs over a FPN is surreal and it must not happen in the future in any health crisis
Except that’s not why they’re in trouble, is it ? You have accepted the framing of those trying get you to ignore their blatant mendacity.
Presumably if Keir gets a fine Boris will jump in to defend him and say he shouldn't resign? He cannot very well claim it's an outrage to get a fine, nor can he praise it as an honourable decision to stand down.
There's a certain life lesson here that in general being "the bigger person" can serve your own self interest.
When Boris was fined for breaking the rules then he was seriously damaged. Starmer had no need to go in with a two footed challenge himself, rejecting the apology, which has now come back to haunt him as his own words are thrown back at him.
Starmer could have been the bigger person and accepted the apology. Being cynical he could have done so while leaving it to his "attack dogs" on social media, the media and his MPs to do the attacks against Boris.
If Starmer had been the bigger person and accepted Boris's apology, this would not be a story now and if it became (a much smaller one) he could just issue his own apology to get rid of it and the precedent would have been set and the story would just look stupid after that.
You are on fire today! Be careful of the hyperbole burns.
Do you disagree with anything I said? If so, why?
I think it comes back to Starmer not being very good at politics. Blair and Cameron would never have found themselves in such a quandary, they left their vicious attacks to "attack dogs" so keeping their own hands clean.
Starmer could have been using his questions at PMQs about Cost of Living etc while leaving the party attacks to others. If he had done so, then this story now would seem ridiculous. The reason it doesn't, is because he has been so sanctimonious about it already.
Starmer now is like the stories of GOP politicians having a go at "family values" then it turns out they've had an affair themselves.
When I saw all the partying at No 10 ... I thought, 'How stupid these people are? Did they really think they could get away with it'.
Now I see the party at Durham ... I think, 'How stupid these people are? Did they really think they could get away with it'.
No wonder the UK is such a mess, it really is run by stupid and stupider.
(Is Ed Davey really is to dull to be embroiled in a LibDem Tofu-gate. That must surely be next.)
Whatever happens now it is worth reminding ourselves that politics rarely runs in a straight line for any length of time and certainties about future election results are way off the line. The only time you can truly tell when politicians are telling fibs is when they open their mouths.
TBF, it must be almost impossible for a politician to run their lives perfectly when trying to run a top job. The amount of undeserved ordure they get dumped on them by opponents (and not just those in another party) is amazing.
Remember the controversy of Boris' bike ride during lockdown? How dare he?
On the previous thread, someone expressed that Starmer was running the campaign for a really important by-election. Well, Boris was trying to run the country through a pandemic. The stress on everyone involved must have been immense.
We want politicians to be 'like' us. Yet we also want them to be perfect in all ways. Sadly, I am not perfect. No-one reading this is perfect. If we were put under the same minute critical examination that Johnson, Starmer or any top politician has been, then we would have stories about us.
Very few people are angels. And they might not have the skills needed to run a country.
There's a lot to nail Boris for. But, "partygate" is small beer. It ought to be small beer for Starmer, but then, he's made so much of the issue.
It’s not small beer to those who had to struggle with the regulations, like not visiting dying relatives for example. Those that make the law should follow the law. If it was a bad law, that is the fault of the law maker.
Well, the same applies to Starmer, doesn't it? Why were people getting pi**ed at a do whilst others could not visit dying relatives? That's not small beer to those who had to struggle with the regulations.
Starmer voted for the law. Did he say it was a bad law when he voted for it (I assume not, but someone'll have more info.)
Starmer and Labour have been caught by their own witch hunt. It is pure incompetence on their part not to realise the trap they had laid for themselves.
Personally I think it’s less serious than a PM disobeying his own law, but as LoO Starmer also has some responsibility here. It doesn’t rally matter in any case politically after Starmer called for the PM to resign.
If Starmer is fined, the wise move politically might be to resign. If Starmer isn’t fined, some people will owe him an apology. Either way Boris should go. His offence is proven and as PM it is the most serious.
Starmer is a law maker too. If he'd been opposing the restrictions then it would be less serious but he actually was opposing the relaxation of the restrictions after his own party. Hypocrite.
Plus he's every bit as guilty or more as Boris is. After calling for him to go. Hypocrite.
Plus he's outright lied about the events saying he was eating between work, when his own memo says the party was at the end of the day. Liar.
I've said since last year Boris should go, but Starmer is every bit as bad if not worse for the sheer hypocrisy too.
Starmer has to go, but your hyperbole is ludicrous.
If this work event crossed the line and rules were breached which may be the case, so be it, but for you to then assert it is worse than multiple events attended, and or arranged by Johnson, who also lied to Parliament it has to be said, is absurd.
Why does Starmer have to go but Johnson can stay? Starmer set the bar to judge Johnson. Starmer being compromised by this incident neutralises any attack he can make on Johnson when more fines and the Gray Report are released. And of course the killer, rules don't apply to Boris Johnson.
Johnson has only been 'done' for one event so far. The odds are that he'll be done for more - but who knows what'll come out about Starmer's behaviour? (nudge, nudge, wink, wink).
But IMV the Durham event was worse than the No. 10 ones.
PMSL, you are either deluded or had too much singing ginger
When I saw all the partying at No 10 ... I thought, 'How stupid these people are? Did they really think they could get away with it'.
Now I see the party at Durham ... I think, 'How stupid these people are? Did they really think they could get away with it'.
No wonder the UK is such a mess, it really is run by stupid and stupider.
(Is Ed Davey really is to dull to be embroiled in a LibDem Tofu-gate. That must surely be next.)
Whatever happens now it is worth reminding ourselves that politics rarely runs in a straight line for any length of time and certainties about future election results are way off the line. The only time you can truly tell when politicians are telling fibs is when they open their mouths.
TBF, it must be almost impossible for a politician to run their lives perfectly when trying to run a top job. The amount of undeserved ordure they get dumped on them by opponents (and not just those in another party) is amazing.
Remember the controversy of Boris' bike ride during lockdown? How dare he?
On the previous thread, someone expressed that Starmer was running the campaign for a really important by-election. Well, Boris was trying to run the country through a pandemic. The stress on everyone involved must have been immense.
We want politicians to be 'like' us. Yet we also want them to be perfect in all ways. Sadly, I am not perfect. No-one reading this is perfect. If we were put under the same minute critical examination that Johnson, Starmer or any top politician has been, then we would have stories about us.
Very few people are angels. And they might not have the skills needed to run a country.
There's a lot to nail Boris for. But, "partygate" is small beer. It ought to be small beer for Starmer, but then, he's made so much of the issue.
It’s not small beer to those who had to struggle with the regulations, like not visiting dying relatives for example. Those that make the law should follow the law. If it was a bad law, that is the fault of the law maker.
Well, the same applies to Starmer, doesn't it? Why were people getting pi**ed at a do whilst others could not visit dying relatives? That's not small beer to those who had to struggle with the regulations.
Starmer voted for the law. Did he say it was a bad law when he voted for it (I assume not, but someone'll have more info.)
Starmer and Labour have been caught by their own witch hunt. It is pure incompetence on their part not to realise the trap they had laid for themselves.
Personally I think it’s less serious than a PM disobeying his own law, but as LoO Starmer also has some responsibility here. It doesn’t rally matter in any case politically after Starmer called for the PM to resign.
If Starmer is fined, the wise move politically might be to resign. If Starmer isn’t fined, some people will owe him an apology. Either way Boris should go. His offence is proven and as PM it is the most serious.
Starmer is a law maker too. If he'd been opposing the restrictions then it would be less serious but he actually was opposing the relaxation of the restrictions after his own party. Hypocrite.
Plus he's every bit as guilty or more as Boris is. After calling for him to go. Hypocrite.
Plus he's outright lied about the events saying he was eating between work, when his own memo says the party was at the end of the day. Liar.
I've said since last year Boris should go, but Starmer is every bit as bad if not worse for the sheer hypocrisy too.
Starmer has to go, but your hyperbole is ludicrous.
If this work event crossed the line and rules were breached which may be the case, so be it, but for you to then assert it is worse than multiple events attended, and or arranged by Johnson, who also lied to Parliament it has to be said, is absurd.
Why does Starmer have to go but Johnson can stay? Starmer set the bar to judge Johnson. Starmer being compromised by this incident neutralises any attack he can make on Johnson when more fines and the Gray Report are released. And of course the killer, rules don't apply to Boris Johnson.
The reason it's worse is because Starmer has himself set the threshold after the fact, while being in breach of his own threshold. Boris didn't do that.
Johnson can rightly or wrongly say he didn't think that what happened was wrong at the time and he didn't intend for people having cake at work etc to be illegal, but he's paid the FPN and accepted he made a mistake. Put his hands up.
Starmer can't do that as he's already set the threshold as to this being a resigning offence. He set a trap for the PM and jumped straight into it. How can Starmer accept he's made a mistake when he's said that it must be a resigning offence already?
You are as usual writing absolute and utter nonsense.
I have agreed with you Starmer set the bar by which a breach of Covid rules is measured, and as such he must go having been busted.
But worse than the man who wrote the rules, lied to Parliament and attended events which according to the already released bits of the Gray Report could number around eight.
You have Starmer, by the nuts, Johnson has his scalp, BigDog is saved and his foe vanquished. So why would you mislead the board by claiming Starmer's charge means multiple charges against Johnson are now trivial?
I never said Johnson's events are trivial, I said he should resign over them. I stand by that.
But Starmer is worse because he set the threshold of this being a resigning offence AFTER the facts came out. Boris didn't.
So Starmer has clearly surpassed his own resignation threshold he gave to Parliament. Was he lying to Parliament when he said that those investigated by the Police should resign? After the facts came out.
Boris can (wrongly in my view) grasp at the straw of saying "I made a mistake, I'm sorry, I didn't think this was against the rules. I'm sorry for what happened and lessons will be learnt."
Starmer has no straws to clutch at as he went in with a two footed studs first challenge over what Boris did.
Lying to parliament was the resigning matter. In any event I'd be amazed if he's broken the law so a FPN is most unlikely even with the incompetent police force we have.
If Starmer is guilty then every film crew shooting at that time including TV outside broadcasts will also have to be priosecuted because when on location you are obliged to supply dinner for the crew by 9.00 pm (or if later then you pay for an extra day and you are still obliged to supply dinner).
I notice the Times 'scoop' have actually printed a copy of their 'call sheet' which specifies (among other things) all meal times. This will be so familiar to all TV companies working on location I'm surprised no one has mentioned it. Unless I've missed something I don't see the story?
Is this why Allegra Stratton giggled? The journos in front of her were in on the truth that laws weren't being strictly applied or followed? Was the journo's question itself tongue-in-cheek?
IIRC the journos on that film were actually civil servants pretending to be journos.
When I saw all the partying at No 10 ... I thought, 'How stupid these people are? Did they really think they could get away with it'.
Now I see the party at Durham ... I think, 'How stupid these people are? Did they really think they could get away with it'.
No wonder the UK is such a mess, it really is run by stupid and stupider.
(Is Ed Davey really is to dull to be embroiled in a LibDem Tofu-gate. That must surely be next.)
Whatever happens now it is worth reminding ourselves that politics rarely runs in a straight line for any length of time and certainties about future election results are way off the line. The only time you can truly tell when politicians are telling fibs is when they open their mouths.
TBF, it must be almost impossible for a politician to run their lives perfectly when trying to run a top job. The amount of undeserved ordure they get dumped on them by opponents (and not just those in another party) is amazing.
Remember the controversy of Boris' bike ride during lockdown? How dare he?
On the previous thread, someone expressed that Starmer was running the campaign for a really important by-election. Well, Boris was trying to run the country through a pandemic. The stress on everyone involved must have been immense.
We want politicians to be 'like' us. Yet we also want them to be perfect in all ways. Sadly, I am not perfect. No-one reading this is perfect. If we were put under the same minute critical examination that Johnson, Starmer or any top politician has been, then we would have stories about us.
Very few people are angels. And they might not have the skills needed to run a country.
There's a lot to nail Boris for. But, "partygate" is small beer. It ought to be small beer for Starmer, but then, he's made so much of the issue.
It’s not small beer to those who had to struggle with the regulations, like not visiting dying relatives for example. Those that make the law should follow the law. If it was a bad law, that is the fault of the law maker.
Well, the same applies to Starmer, doesn't it? Why were people getting pi**ed at a do whilst others could not visit dying relatives? That's not small beer to those who had to struggle with the regulations.
Starmer voted for the law. Did he say it was a bad law when he voted for it (I assume not, but someone'll have more info.)
Starmer and Labour have been caught by their own witch hunt. It is pure incompetence on their part not to realise the trap they had laid for themselves.
Personally I think it’s less serious than a PM disobeying his own law, but as LoO Starmer also has some responsibility here. It doesn’t rally matter in any case politically after Starmer called for the PM to resign.
If Starmer is fined, the wise move politically might be to resign. If Starmer isn’t fined, some people will owe him an apology. Either way Boris should go. His offence is proven and as PM it is the most serious.
Starmer is a law maker too. If he'd been opposing the restrictions then it would be less serious but he actually was opposing the relaxation of the restrictions after his own party. Hypocrite.
Plus he's every bit as guilty or more as Boris is. After calling for him to go. Hypocrite.
Plus he's outright lied about the events saying he was eating between work, when his own memo says the party was at the end of the day. Liar.
I've said since last year Boris should go, but Starmer is every bit as bad if not worse for the sheer hypocrisy too.
Would your view change if Johnson ends up with four or five FPNs?
you are kidding, Boris could get rid of his whole family and Bart would still be cheerleading him.
Bart has already said that "...old people are going to die anyway so what's the problem..."
This no booze at lunchtime rule seems really puritanical to me, the sort of thing that started in the United States about 40 years ago and then slowly spread to everywhere else in the Anglosphere.
Seems perfectly reasonable to me. You dont need to get pissed during the working day, and if you werent intending to get pissed who cares if you have to have a coke not a beer?
Also, why does the Palace of Westminster have eight (or whatever) pubs? It doesn't seem essential to the sound governance of the country. Shut them down.
Good morning I was just minding my own business reading about Bivol's clinical victory over Canelo when this text arrived. From an ex-pat Ukrainian friend. Not sure how it plays electorally but if Lynton could can this sentiment and put it on the front page of the DM (and the Mirror) it would bump up the Cons by five points.
"Hi TOPPING, hope all is well with you.
To say Thank You 🙏 for all the help from the UK 🇬🇧 to Ukraine 🇺🇦 for its struggle against the aggressor."
This no booze at lunchtime rule seems really puritanical to me, the sort of thing that started in the United States about 40 years ago and then slowly spread to everywhere else in the Anglosphere.
Seems perfectly reasonable to me. You dont need to get pissed during the working day, and if you werent intending to get pissed who cares if you have to have a coke not a beer?
Since when was the only reason to have a beer "to get pissed"?
That's an unhealthy attitude to alcohol.
You've misunderstood my post. I deliberately included a scenario where you didn't want to get pissed precisely so people wouldn't get snowflakey about it and pretend I said that was the only reason to have a drink.
As I said, if you dont want to get pissed who cares if you cannot have a beer, theres no harm to you in being asked to have a nonalcoholic beverage, and theres less harm overall from those who'd abuse the idea of drinking during work.
People crying about not being able to imbibe alcohol during work doesnt connect with me, people cannot go a few hours without it?
Labour performance, in terms of numbers of councillors:
Welsh Labour +14.3% Scottish Labour +7.6% English Labour +1.3%
I think it is fair to conclude that Drakeford is Labour’s best leader, and Starmer is a dud.
Up 1.3% against an horrifically poor Tory government, mid-term, is just eye-wateringly pathetic.
Statistically nonsense. It's easier to get larger percentage increases among smaller populations, and a lot more people voted in London than in Wales, let alone England as a whole.
Statistically nonsense.
Sampling error, Poisson error, sure ... but Wales is not so small that the statistics are dominated by those effects.
Llafur did much better than Starmer. That is undeniable.
This no booze at lunchtime rule seems really puritanical to me, the sort of thing that started in the United States about 40 years ago and then slowly spread to everywhere else in the Anglosphere.
On topic we don't know what the other fifty potential FPNs for Johnson are but on Beergate vs Partygate the former now seems much worse (scheduled dinner vs "ambush").
When I saw all the partying at No 10 ... I thought, 'How stupid these people are? Did they really think they could get away with it'.
Now I see the party at Durham ... I think, 'How stupid these people are? Did they really think they could get away with it'.
No wonder the UK is such a mess, it really is run by stupid and stupider.
(Is Ed Davey really is to dull to be embroiled in a LibDem Tofu-gate. That must surely be next.)
Whatever happens now it is worth reminding ourselves that politics rarely runs in a straight line for any length of time and certainties about future election results are way off the line. The only time you can truly tell when politicians are telling fibs is when they open their mouths.
TBF, it must be almost impossible for a politician to run their lives perfectly when trying to run a top job. The amount of undeserved ordure they get dumped on them by opponents (and not just those in another party) is amazing.
Remember the controversy of Boris' bike ride during lockdown? How dare he?
On the previous thread, someone expressed that Starmer was running the campaign for a really important by-election. Well, Boris was trying to run the country through a pandemic. The stress on everyone involved must have been immense.
We want politicians to be 'like' us. Yet we also want them to be perfect in all ways. Sadly, I am not perfect. No-one reading this is perfect. If we were put under the same minute critical examination that Johnson, Starmer or any top politician has been, then we would have stories about us.
Very few people are angels. And they might not have the skills needed to run a country.
There's a lot to nail Boris for. But, "partygate" is small beer. It ought to be small beer for Starmer, but then, he's made so much of the issue.
It’s not small beer to those who had to struggle with the regulations, like not visiting dying relatives for example. Those that make the law should follow the law. If it was a bad law, that is the fault of the law maker.
Well, the same applies to Starmer, doesn't it? Why were people getting pi**ed at a do whilst others could not visit dying relatives? That's not small beer to those who had to struggle with the regulations.
Starmer voted for the law. Did he say it was a bad law when he voted for it (I assume not, but someone'll have more info.)
Starmer and Labour have been caught by their own witch hunt. It is pure incompetence on their part not to realise the trap they had laid for themselves.
Personally I think it’s less serious than a PM disobeying his own law, but as LoO Starmer also has some responsibility here. It doesn’t rally matter in any case politically after Starmer called for the PM to resign.
If Starmer is fined, the wise move politically might be to resign. If Starmer isn’t fined, some people will owe him an apology. Either way Boris should go. His offence is proven and as PM it is the most serious.
Starmer is a law maker too. If he'd been opposing the restrictions then it would be less serious but he actually was opposing the relaxation of the restrictions after his own party. Hypocrite.
Plus he's every bit as guilty or more as Boris is. After calling for him to go. Hypocrite.
Plus he's outright lied about the events saying he was eating between work, when his own memo says the party was at the end of the day. Liar.
I've said since last year Boris should go, but Starmer is every bit as bad if not worse for the sheer hypocrisy too.
Starmer has to go, but your hyperbole is ludicrous.
If this work event crossed the line and rules were breached which may be the case, so be it, but for you to then assert it is worse than multiple events attended, and or arranged by Johnson, who also lied to Parliament it has to be said, is absurd.
Why does Starmer have to go but Johnson can stay? Starmer set the bar to judge Johnson. Starmer being compromised by this incident neutralises any attack he can make on Johnson when more fines and the Gray Report are released. And of course the killer, rules don't apply to Boris Johnson.
The reason it's worse is because Starmer has himself set the threshold after the fact, while being in breach of his own threshold. Boris didn't do that.
Johnson can rightly or wrongly say he didn't think that what happened was wrong at the time and he didn't intend for people having cake at work etc to be illegal, but he's paid the FPN and accepted he made a mistake. Put his hands up.
Starmer can't do that as he's already set the threshold as to this being a resigning offence. He set a trap for the PM and jumped straight into it. How can Starmer accept he's made a mistake when he's said that it must be a resigning offence already?
You are as usual writing absolute and utter nonsense.
I have agreed with you Starmer set the bar by which a breach of Covid rules is measured, and as such he must go having been busted.
But worse than the man who wrote the rules, lied to Parliament and attended events which according to the already released bits of the Gray Report could number around eight.
You have Starmer, by the nuts, Johnson has his scalp, BigDog is saved and his foe vanquished. So why would you mislead the board by claiming Starmer's charge means multiple charges against Johnson are now trivial?
I never said Johnson's events are trivial, I said he should resign over them. I stand by that.
But Starmer is worse because he set the threshold of this being a resigning offence AFTER the facts came out. Boris didn't.
So Starmer has clearly surpassed his own resignation threshold he gave to Parliament. Was he lying to Parliament when he said that those investigated by the Police should resign? After the facts came out.
Boris can (wrongly in my view) grasp at the straw of saying "I made a mistake, I'm sorry, I didn't think this was against the rules. I'm sorry for what happened and lessons will be learnt."
Starmer has no straws to clutch at as he went in with a two footed studs first challenge over what Boris did.
Lying to parliament was the resigning matter. In any event I'd be amazed if he's broken the law so a FPN is most unlikely even with the incompetent police force we have.
If Starmer is guilty then every film crew shooting at that time including TV outside broadcasts will also have to be priosecuted because when on location you are obliged to supply dinner for the crew by 9.00 pm (or if later then you pay for an extra day and you are still obliged to supply dinner).
I notice the Times 'scoop' have actually printed a copy of their 'call sheet' which specifies (among other things) all meal times. This will be so familiar to all TV companies working on location I'm surprised no one has mentioned it. Unless I've missed something I don't see the story?
Two separate intertwined stories, which is part of the point.
First- did Starmer break the rules of the time? Durham police are working in that one.
Second- is his recent account of those events to the media accurate?
The first one matters a lot in reality. The second one matters of you're the Daily Mail.
Oh and yes who on earth followed the rules at the time. No one I know. I suppose the same (5%-ish) of people who were wearing a mask in Tesco's yesterday.
Labour performance, in terms of numbers of councillors:
Welsh Labour +14.3% Scottish Labour +7.6% English Labour +1.3%
I think it is fair to conclude that Drakeford is Labour’s best leader, and Starmer is a dud.
Up 1.3% against an horrifically poor Tory government, mid-term, is just eye-wateringly pathetic.
Statistically nonsense. It's easier to get larger percentage increases among smaller populations, and a lot more people voted in London than in Wales, let alone England as a whole.
Statistically nonsense.
Sampling error, Poisson error, sure ... but Wales is not so small that the statistics are dominated by those effects.
Llafur did much better than Starmer. That is undeniable.
When I saw all the partying at No 10 ... I thought, 'How stupid these people are? Did they really think they could get away with it'.
Now I see the party at Durham ... I think, 'How stupid these people are? Did they really think they could get away with it'.
No wonder the UK is such a mess, it really is run by stupid and stupider.
(Is Ed Davey really is to dull to be embroiled in a LibDem Tofu-gate. That must surely be next.)
Whatever happens now it is worth reminding ourselves that politics rarely runs in a straight line for any length of time and certainties about future election results are way off the line. The only time you can truly tell when politicians are telling fibs is when they open their mouths.
TBF, it must be almost impossible for a politician to run their lives perfectly when trying to run a top job. The amount of undeserved ordure they get dumped on them by opponents (and not just those in another party) is amazing.
Remember the controversy of Boris' bike ride during lockdown? How dare he?
On the previous thread, someone expressed that Starmer was running the campaign for a really important by-election. Well, Boris was trying to run the country through a pandemic. The stress on everyone involved must have been immense.
We want politicians to be 'like' us. Yet we also want them to be perfect in all ways. Sadly, I am not perfect. No-one reading this is perfect. If we were put under the same minute critical examination that Johnson, Starmer or any top politician has been, then we would have stories about us.
Very few people are angels. And they might not have the skills needed to run a country.
There's a lot to nail Boris for. But, "partygate" is small beer. It ought to be small beer for Starmer, but then, he's made so much of the issue.
It’s not small beer to those who had to struggle with the regulations, like not visiting dying relatives for example. Those that make the law should follow the law. If it was a bad law, that is the fault of the law maker.
Well, the same applies to Starmer, doesn't it? Why were people getting pi**ed at a do whilst others could not visit dying relatives? That's not small beer to those who had to struggle with the regulations.
Starmer voted for the law. Did he say it was a bad law when he voted for it (I assume not, but someone'll have more info.)
Starmer and Labour have been caught by their own witch hunt. It is pure incompetence on their part not to realise the trap they had laid for themselves.
Personally I think it’s less serious than a PM disobeying his own law, but as LoO Starmer also has some responsibility here. It doesn’t rally matter in any case politically after Starmer called for the PM to resign.
If Starmer is fined, the wise move politically might be to resign. If Starmer isn’t fined, some people will owe him an apology. Either way Boris should go. His offence is proven and as PM it is the most serious.
Starmer is a law maker too. If he'd been opposing the restrictions then it would be less serious but he actually was opposing the relaxation of the restrictions after his own party. Hypocrite.
Plus he's every bit as guilty or more as Boris is. After calling for him to go. Hypocrite.
Plus he's outright lied about the events saying he was eating between work, when his own memo says the party was at the end of the day. Liar.
I've said since last year Boris should go, but Starmer is every bit as bad if not worse for the sheer hypocrisy too.
There is also the lie about Rayner not being there.
It seems there are several inconsistencies in the story here which doesn’t help.
I have said I think there is nothing to this and there may well not be but labour have handled this appallingly.
Re Rayner the absurdity of the denial is that she is actually referenced with Starmer on the heading of this leaked memo
Not that I think it matters one iota, but for goodness sake was Rayner there or not. Wish they would make up their minds. She was there, then she wasn't, now she is again.
She was there and it matters as she is likely to receive a FPN if Starmer does
It's all bollox.
The police shouldn't be investigating, Johnson should never have got a FPN and neither should SKS. I can't believe Sunak got issued with one - poor bugger. For Sunak to get one this must amount to the strictest draconian application of the laws, well after the event - and in the context of none - yes nil - new infections in London on that particular day. I don't mean nil deaths I mean nil new infections.
Also worth mentioning that Johnson's birthday "party" was reported at the time and no-one gave a monkey's.
I have commented several times the idea the PM, COE, and leader and deputy leader of the labour party should lose their jobs over a FPN is surreal and it must not happen in the future in any health crisis
Except that’s not why they’re in trouble, is it ? You have accepted the framing of those trying get you to ignore their blatant mendacity.
Yes just ignore alll the lying , cheating , blatant stealing , etc and try to pretend it was just an FPN. That is how lots of Tories seem to work, principles and morals totally absent.
When I saw all the partying at No 10 ... I thought, 'How stupid these people are? Did they really think they could get away with it'.
Now I see the party at Durham ... I think, 'How stupid these people are? Did they really think they could get away with it'.
No wonder the UK is such a mess, it really is run by stupid and stupider.
(Is Ed Davey really is to dull to be embroiled in a LibDem Tofu-gate. That must surely be next.)
Whatever happens now it is worth reminding ourselves that politics rarely runs in a straight line for any length of time and certainties about future election results are way off the line. The only time you can truly tell when politicians are telling fibs is when they open their mouths.
TBF, it must be almost impossible for a politician to run their lives perfectly when trying to run a top job. The amount of undeserved ordure they get dumped on them by opponents (and not just those in another party) is amazing.
Remember the controversy of Boris' bike ride during lockdown? How dare he?
On the previous thread, someone expressed that Starmer was running the campaign for a really important by-election. Well, Boris was trying to run the country through a pandemic. The stress on everyone involved must have been immense.
We want politicians to be 'like' us. Yet we also want them to be perfect in all ways. Sadly, I am not perfect. No-one reading this is perfect. If we were put under the same minute critical examination that Johnson, Starmer or any top politician has been, then we would have stories about us.
Very few people are angels. And they might not have the skills needed to run a country.
There's a lot to nail Boris for. But, "partygate" is small beer. It ought to be small beer for Starmer, but then, he's made so much of the issue.
It’s not small beer to those who had to struggle with the regulations, like not visiting dying relatives for example. Those that make the law should follow the law. If it was a bad law, that is the fault of the law maker.
Well, the same applies to Starmer, doesn't it? Why were people getting pi**ed at a do whilst others could not visit dying relatives? That's not small beer to those who had to struggle with the regulations.
Starmer voted for the law. Did he say it was a bad law when he voted for it (I assume not, but someone'll have more info.)
Starmer and Labour have been caught by their own witch hunt. It is pure incompetence on their part not to realise the trap they had laid for themselves.
Personally I think it’s less serious than a PM disobeying his own law, but as LoO Starmer also has some responsibility here. It doesn’t rally matter in any case politically after Starmer called for the PM to resign.
If Starmer is fined, the wise move politically might be to resign. If Starmer isn’t fined, some people will owe him an apology. Either way Boris should go. His offence is proven and as PM it is the most serious.
Starmer is a law maker too. If he'd been opposing the restrictions then it would be less serious but he actually was opposing the relaxation of the restrictions after his own party. Hypocrite.
Plus he's every bit as guilty or more as Boris is. After calling for him to go. Hypocrite.
Plus he's outright lied about the events saying he was eating between work, when his own memo says the party was at the end of the day. Liar.
I've said since last year Boris should go, but Starmer is every bit as bad if not worse for the sheer hypocrisy too.
Starmer has to go, but your hyperbole is ludicrous.
If this work event crossed the line and rules were breached which may be the case, so be it, but for you to then assert it is worse than multiple events attended, and or arranged by Johnson, who also lied to Parliament it has to be said, is absurd.
Why does Starmer have to go but Johnson can stay? Starmer set the bar to judge Johnson. Starmer being compromised by this incident neutralises any attack he can make on Johnson when more fines and the Gray Report are released. And of course the killer, rules don't apply to Boris Johnson.
The reason it's worse is because Starmer has himself set the threshold after the fact, while being in breach of his own threshold. Boris didn't do that.
Johnson can rightly or wrongly say he didn't think that what happened was wrong at the time and he didn't intend for people having cake at work etc to be illegal, but he's paid the FPN and accepted he made a mistake. Put his hands up.
Starmer can't do that as he's already set the threshold as to this being a resigning offence. He set a trap for the PM and jumped straight into it. How can Starmer accept he's made a mistake when he's said that it must be a resigning offence already?
You are as usual writing absolute and utter nonsense.
I have agreed with you Starmer set the bar by which a breach of Covid rules is measured, and as such he must go having been busted.
But worse than the man who wrote the rules, lied to Parliament and attended events which according to the already released bits of the Gray Report could number around eight.
You have Starmer, by the nuts, Johnson has his scalp, BigDog is saved and his foe vanquished. So why would you mislead the board by claiming Starmer's charge means multiple charges against Johnson are now trivial?
I never said Johnson's events are trivial, I said he should resign over them. I stand by that.
But Starmer is worse because he set the threshold of this being a resigning offence AFTER the facts came out. Boris didn't.
So Starmer has clearly surpassed his own resignation threshold he gave to Parliament. Was he lying to Parliament when he said that those investigated by the Police should resign? After the facts came out.
Boris can (wrongly in my view) grasp at the straw of saying "I made a mistake, I'm sorry, I didn't think this was against the rules. I'm sorry for what happened and lessons will be learnt."
Starmer has no straws to clutch at as he went in with a two footed studs first challenge over what Boris did.
Lying to parliament was the resigning matter. In any event I'd be amazed if he's broken the law so a FPN is most unlikely even with the incompetent police force we have.
If Starmer is guilty then every film crew shooting at that time including TV outside broadcasts will also have to be priosecuted because when on location you are obliged to supply dinner for the crew by 9.00 pm (or if later then you pay for an extra day and you are still obliged to supply dinner).
I notice the Times 'scoop' have actually printed a copy of their 'call sheet' which specifies (among other things) all meal times. This will be so familiar to all TV companies working on location I'm surprised no one has mentioned it. Unless I've missed something I don't see the story?
Is this why Allegra Stratton giggled? The journos in front of her were in on the truth that laws weren't being strictly applied or followed? Was the journo's question itself tongue-in-cheek?
I doubt it.
If the Starmer event turned into more of a party, then that's an issue, but there's a clear difference between the practical meal provision for people working away/working long hours, and gathering for xmas parties.
As many have pointed out, there were drink/food events (including the garden drinks) that the Met didn't think were worth further investigation. I'd imagine there are hundreds of meals similar to the one planned by Labour by both parties, that wouldn't get anyone a FPN.
Starmer's issue is the suggestion that it became much more of a social event.
This no booze at lunchtime rule seems really puritanical to me, the sort of thing that started in the United States about 40 years ago and then slowly spread to everywhere else in the Anglosphere.
Seems perfectly reasonable to me. You dont need to get pissed during the working day, and if you werent intending to get pissed who cares if you have to have a coke not a beer?
Since when was the only reason to have a beer "to get pissed"?
That's an unhealthy attitude to alcohol.
You've misunderstood my post. I deliberately included a scenario where you didn't want to get pissed precisely so people wouldn't get snowflakey about it and pretend I said that was the only reason to have a drink.
As I said, if you dont want to get pissed who cares if you cannot have a beer, theres no harm to you in being asked to have a nonalcoholic beverage, and theres less harm overall from those who'd abuse the idea of drinking during work.
People crying about not being able to imbibe alcohol during work doesnt connect with me, people cannot go a few hours without it?
I disagree. Just because you can go a few hours without it doesn't mean you should have to.
If you want a beer with a curry (for example) they pair nicely. Why should that be forbidden? If that's what someone wants they should be treated with the self respect to be able to do so as a responsible adult unless they cross the line.
Saying "yes you can have a coke" is like saying "why not have a vegetarian meal" or "can't you just leave out the carbs" or plenty of other dietary choices.
If people are being responsible, why strip away their choices?
Levelling up ideas to regenerate town centres which won’t have wealthy, entitled, southerners jealous resentment over the poorer parts of the country getting a few crumbs off the table.
Compulsory purchase of empty shops. Compulsory rental auctions. So much for property rights. Although Mr Speaker will not be happy that Jeremy Corbyn Boris has told the media before parliament.
Far be it from me to quibble. But surely shops are empty because no one wants to rent them? Unless this bill comes with demolition or change of use powers.
Quite a few are empty due to the high rents.
Butchers Deli has just closed in Durham. Low rents for the first six months while they establish themselves then they rocket up. A craft beer bar by my folks suddenly closed in April because they couldn’t come to an agreement on rental costs. It does happen. In the case of the latter they still have another bar a few miles away and are looking for new premises.
This no booze at lunchtime rule seems really puritanical to me, the sort of thing that started in the United States about 40 years ago and then slowly spread to everywhere else in the Anglosphere.
Seems perfectly reasonable to me. You dont need to get pissed during the working day, and if you werent intending to get pissed who cares if you have to have a coke not a beer?
Since when was the only reason to have a beer "to get pissed"?
That's an unhealthy attitude to alcohol.
You've misunderstood my post. I deliberately included a scenario where you didn't want to get pissed precisely so people wouldn't get snowflakey about it and pretend I said that was the only reason to have a drink.
As I said, if you dont want to get pissed who cares if you cannot have a beer, theres no harm to you in being asked to have a nonalcoholic beverage, and theres less harm overall from those who'd abuse the idea of drinking during work.
People crying about not being able to imbibe alcohol during work doesnt connect with me, people cannot go a few hours without it?
There is nothing about not being able to go without it , it is personal choice. Why should someone be forced to drink processed crap full of sugar and shit when they prefer a pure beer that only contains grain and water. One beer i sless harmful than one processed chemical crap drink. Get a grip Mary Whitehouse. You in the temperance society.
I don't think it would put Boris in a bind if KS stood down. I think he'd just carry on, because he can. People would say "Boris, you should stand down", and Boris would say "It's more important to deal with more important matter X" and that would be that.
Not only that, but weirdly I think it could help him. Subconsciously some people would think, "Starmer broke the rules so badly that he had to resign, but Boris only accidentally broke the rules which is why he hasn't."
You are taking the voters for fools, only fully signed up Johnsonians would believe that line.
It's similar to the argument advanced by many, that if global warming was really a crisis then the government would have done more about it.
People have an implicit expectation that reaction will follow action in a logical and consistent way. It's really not that silly to think that some people will work backwards from the reaction to make a judgement about the action.
So according to their own written records this was planned food and drink at the end of the day, with no work scheduled for afterwards?
I can't see any difference between this and the BYOB party now to be honest.
You can’t tell the difference between a meal and a ‘party? Breakfast must be a hoot round your place this morning.
An hour and a half scheduled for food and drinks at the end of the day, after work has finished.
How is that not a party, but having food at 1pm and then returning to work is?
They held an after work party and had no intention of returning to work after their party.
Done that plenty of times at work after a long slog at work in workshops and meetings. It’s about grabbing some sustenance and talking about the work informally before crawling into bed. Did it last week, when the boss came over from Germany. The last thing it is, is a party.
That's not what you were saying when the conversation was about Downing Street though was it? 🤔
Indeed, because the facts are different.
The prime fact being that this event involved someone with a red rosette while the others involved people with a blue one?
Nah. In this country the buck stops with the Prime Minister, not the leader of the opposition.
(Snip)
WTAF! Are you aware of what you're saying? The LOTO can break any law the government brings in - even if he votes for that law himself - because 'the buck stops with the PM' ?
I fully expect the loto to resign if he receives a fpn because I think he honestly thought that it was meal in a work event, but being a former cps he would stand by the law. It does mean that everyone who was at work during the time and had a shared lunch in the workplace is guilty as well.
Not really, if the assumption is that people go back to work after a lunch. Most workplaces do not allow booze during work hours (and rightly so IMO). In both the No. 10 and Durham cases, the presence of alcohol blows the 'work' excuse out of the water. But at least the No. 10 events occurred in the middle of the day, when going back to work was an option.
It wasn't in the Durham case. Unless that time I got pi**ed at the Fort St George and talked about some coding problems with an equally-drunk colleague one night could be called 'work'.
Neither event should have been illegal, given the situation. But Labour made it an issue, and they're getting caught out by their own witch hunt.
But alcohol is an integral part of many political working days, often because such days do extend well into the night - see votes in the House of Commons, for example. Beer and sandwiches at Downing Street were a staple of the Wilson and Callaghan years; Johnson himself has been photographed many times drinking alcohol while working.
whats different about "political working days" as opposed to working days ? Why do politicos get a let ?
MPs across the board love lecturing everyone on booze yet miraculously exonerate themselves.
Im more flexible if it's not within someones standard working pattern, eg midshift be that lunchtime or even time. If it's an all dayer then I'd concede it would be unreasonable to expect people to not be able to have a drink whilst taking a break at some point.
It's the unspoken assumption people are unable to go 4 hours without having alcohol and unreasonable to ask them not to I find laughable.
Hypocrisy is a much overrated vice, and it always puzzles me how much it is taken as awful in and of itself, rather than pointing to something more substantial and practical.
So many in authority seem to have broken these rules, including the politicians who made the laws, and a good number of the civil servants.
I would take from this not that all these people are horrible and heartless, but that the rules themselves were silly, overbearing and ambiguous around the edges. My anger is not that some people partied, its that they didn't allow others to party. Starmer's criticism of Johnson though was on completely the reverse basis, which has left him open to criticism for the very same hypocrisy he apparently considers such a cardinal sin.
It seems odd to me that no mainstream opposition politicians have used the rule-breaking as grounds to criticise the rules themselves, particularly as they make constant references to real-life horror stories of people suffering under them.
Is it likely that this was a one off campaign event that ended in a pre-timetabled social meal? There might be a dozen more from same time - all with different shadow cabinet members.
The next Lab leader might have to be someone who literally had to shield at home for two years during covid.
"Boris Johnson’s deputy chief of staff has criticised the female Tory MPs who exposed Neil Parish for watching pornography in parliament, reigniting anger about the treatment of women at Westminster. David Canzini allegedly said he was “shocked” that members of Parish’s own party had decided to disclose the incident in an open forum rather than raise it privately."
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 14m One thing clear from Lisa Nandy's interview. Labour have no coherent response to the new revelations, nor any way of credibly explaining why Starmer shouldn't resign if fined.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Hromadske/status/1523202068076498944 Airstrike on a school in Bilohorivka (Luhansk Oblast) killed at least 60 people. 30 people got from the rubble, 7 of them were injured. Rescuers were extinguishing the fire for almost four hours — Head of the Luhansk Regional Military Administration
When I saw all the partying at No 10 ... I thought, 'How stupid these people are? Did they really think they could get away with it'.
Now I see the party at Durham ... I think, 'How stupid these people are? Did they really think they could get away with it'.
No wonder the UK is such a mess, it really is run by stupid and stupider.
(Is Ed Davey really is to dull to be embroiled in a LibDem Tofu-gate. That must surely be next.)
Whatever happens now it is worth reminding ourselves that politics rarely runs in a straight line for any length of time and certainties about future election results are way off the line. The only time you can truly tell when politicians are telling fibs is when they open their mouths.
TBF, it must be almost impossible for a politician to run their lives perfectly when trying to run a top job. The amount of undeserved ordure they get dumped on them by opponents (and not just those in another party) is amazing.
Remember the controversy of Boris' bike ride during lockdown? How dare he?
On the previous thread, someone expressed that Starmer was running the campaign for a really important by-election. Well, Boris was trying to run the country through a pandemic. The stress on everyone involved must have been immense.
We want politicians to be 'like' us. Yet we also want them to be perfect in all ways. Sadly, I am not perfect. No-one reading this is perfect. If we were put under the same minute critical examination that Johnson, Starmer or any top politician has been, then we would have stories about us.
Very few people are angels. And they might not have the skills needed to run a country.
There's a lot to nail Boris for. But, "partygate" is small beer. It ought to be small beer for Starmer, but then, he's made so much of the issue.
It’s not small beer to those who had to struggle with the regulations, like not visiting dying relatives for example. Those that make the law should follow the law. If it was a bad law, that is the fault of the law maker.
Well, the same applies to Starmer, doesn't it? Why were people getting pi**ed at a do whilst others could not visit dying relatives? That's not small beer to those who had to struggle with the regulations.
Starmer voted for the law. Did he say it was a bad law when he voted for it (I assume not, but someone'll have more info.)
Starmer and Labour have been caught by their own witch hunt. It is pure incompetence on their part not to realise the trap they had laid for themselves.
Personally I think it’s less serious than a PM disobeying his own law, but as LoO Starmer also has some responsibility here. It doesn’t rally matter in any case politically after Starmer called for the PM to resign.
If Starmer is fined, the wise move politically might be to resign. If Starmer isn’t fined, some people will owe him an apology. Either way Boris should go. His offence is proven and as PM it is the most serious.
Starmer is a law maker too. If he'd been opposing the restrictions then it would be less serious but he actually was opposing the relaxation of the restrictions after his own party. Hypocrite.
Plus he's every bit as guilty or more as Boris is. After calling for him to go. Hypocrite.
Plus he's outright lied about the events saying he was eating between work, when his own memo says the party was at the end of the day. Liar.
I've said since last year Boris should go, but Starmer is every bit as bad if not worse for the sheer hypocrisy too.
Starmer has to go, but your hyperbole is ludicrous.
If this work event crossed the line and rules were breached which may be the case, so be it, but for you to then assert it is worse than multiple events attended, and or arranged by Johnson, who also lied to Parliament it has to be said, is absurd.
Why does Starmer have to go but Johnson can stay? Starmer set the bar to judge Johnson. Starmer being compromised by this incident neutralises any attack he can make on Johnson when more fines and the Gray Report are released. And of course the killer, rules don't apply to Boris Johnson.
The reason it's worse is because Starmer has himself set the threshold after the fact, while being in breach of his own threshold. Boris didn't do that.
Johnson can rightly or wrongly say he didn't think that what happened was wrong at the time and he didn't intend for people having cake at work etc to be illegal, but he's paid the FPN and accepted he made a mistake. Put his hands up.
Starmer can't do that as he's already set the threshold as to this being a resigning offence. He set a trap for the PM and jumped straight into it. How can Starmer accept he's made a mistake when he's said that it must be a resigning offence already?
You are as usual writing absolute and utter nonsense.
I have agreed with you Starmer set the bar by which a breach of Covid rules is measured, and as such he must go having been busted.
But worse than the man who wrote the rules, lied to Parliament and attended events which according to the already released bits of the Gray Report could number around eight.
You have Starmer, by the nuts, Johnson has his scalp, BigDog is saved and his foe vanquished. So why would you mislead the board by claiming Starmer's charge means multiple charges against Johnson are now trivial?
I never said Johnson's events are trivial, I said he should resign over them. I stand by that.
But Starmer is worse because he set the threshold of this being a resigning offence AFTER the facts came out. Boris didn't.
So Starmer has clearly surpassed his own resignation threshold he gave to Parliament. Was he lying to Parliament when he said that those investigated by the Police should resign? After the facts came out.
Boris can (wrongly in my view) grasp at the straw of saying "I made a mistake, I'm sorry, I didn't think this was against the rules. I'm sorry for what happened and lessons will be learnt."
Starmer has no straws to clutch at as he went in with a two footed studs first challenge over what Boris did.
Lying to parliament was the resigning matter. In any event I'd be amazed if he's broken the law so a FPN is most unlikely even with the incompetent police force we have.
If Starmer is guilty then every film crew shooting at that time including TV outside broadcasts will also have to be priosecuted because when on location you are obliged to supply dinner for the crew by 9.00 pm (or if later then you pay for an extra day and you are still obliged to supply dinner).
I notice the Times 'scoop' have actually printed a copy of their 'call sheet' which specifies (among other things) all meal times. This will be so familiar to all TV companies working on location I'm surprised no one has mentioned it. Unless I've missed something I don't see the story?
Is this why Allegra Stratton giggled? The journos in front of her were in on the truth that laws weren't being strictly applied or followed? Was the journo's question itself tongue-in-cheek?
I doubt it.
If the Starmer event turned into more of a party, then that's an issue, but there's a clear difference between the practical meal provision for people working away/working long hours, and gathering for xmas parties.
As many have pointed out, there were drink/food events (including the garden drinks) that the Met didn't think were worth further investigation. I'd imagine there are hundreds of meals similar to the one planned by Labour by both parties, that wouldn't get anyone a FPN.
Starmer's issue is the suggestion that it became much more of a social event.
I'm old fashioned. If the beer was being opened, then it is has just turned into a social event.
Guess I will not be a good jury member for the forthcoming trial?
So according to their own written records this was planned food and drink at the end of the day, with no work scheduled for afterwards?
I can't see any difference between this and the BYOB party now to be honest.
You can’t tell the difference between a meal and a ‘party? Breakfast must be a hoot round your place this morning.
An hour and a half scheduled for food and drinks at the end of the day, after work has finished.
How is that not a party, but having food at 1pm and then returning to work is?
They held an after work party and had no intention of returning to work after their party.
Done that plenty of times at work after a long slog at work in workshops and meetings. It’s about grabbing some sustenance and talking about the work informally before crawling into bed. Did it last week, when the boss came over from Germany. The last thing it is, is a party.
That's not what you were saying when the conversation was about Downing Street though was it? 🤔
Indeed, because the facts are different.
The prime fact being that this event involved someone with a red rosette while the others involved people with a blue one?
Nah. In this country the buck stops with the Prime Minister, not the leader of the opposition.
(Snip)
WTAF! Are you aware of what you're saying? The LOTO can break any law the government brings in - even if he votes for that law himself - because 'the buck stops with the PM' ?
I fully expect the loto to resign if he receives a fpn because I think he honestly thought that it was meal in a work event, but being a former cps he would stand by the law. It does mean that everyone who was at work during the time and had a shared lunch in the workplace is guilty as well.
Not really, if the assumption is that people go back to work after a lunch. Most workplaces do not allow booze during work hours (and rightly so IMO). In both the No. 10 and Durham cases, the presence of alcohol blows the 'work' excuse out of the water. But at least the No. 10 events occurred in the middle of the day, when going back to work was an option.
It wasn't in the Durham case. Unless that time I got pi**ed at the Fort St George and talked about some coding problems with an equally-drunk colleague one night could be called 'work'.
Neither event should have been illegal, given the situation. But Labour made it an issue, and they're getting caught out by their own witch hunt.
But alcohol is an integral part of many political working days, often because such days do extend well into the night - see votes in the House of Commons, for example. Beer and sandwiches at Downing Street were a staple of the Wilson and Callaghan years; Johnson himself has been photographed many times drinking alcohol while working.
whats different about "political working days" as opposed to working days ? Why do politicos get a let ?
MPs across the board love lecturing everyone on booze yet miraculously exonerate themselves.
Im more flexible if it's not within someones standard working pattern, eg midshift be that lunchtime or even time. If it's an all dayer then I'd concede it would be unreasonable to expect people to not be able to have a drink whilst taking a break at some point.
It's the unspoken assumption people are unable to go 4 hours without having alcohol and unreasonable to ask them not to I find laughable.
Nobody said unable though. It isn't about ability.
Why should someone be denied the choice? That's the question. The onus is on those looking to ban for justification, not those wanting a free choice.
If I'm a responsible adult and I as a responsible adult want beer and curry for my meal, why should I as a responsible adult be denied that choice?
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 14m One thing clear from Lisa Nandy's interview. Labour have no coherent response to the new revelations, nor any way of credibly explaining why Starmer shouldn't resign if fined.
Some in Labour will say he should resign because that'll force Johnson to resign. Two problems with that: firstly Johnson wouldn't take the blindest notice of what Labour do, and secondly: I thought Labour wanted to fight Johnson at the next election, and not potentially someone like Hunt or Wallace.
Labour performance, in terms of numbers of councillors:
Welsh Labour +14.3% Scottish Labour +7.6% English Labour +1.3%
I think it is fair to conclude that Drakeford is Labour’s best leader, and Starmer is a dud.
Up 1.3% against an horrifically poor Tory government, mid-term, is just eye-wateringly pathetic.
Statistically nonsense. It's easier to get larger percentage increases among smaller populations, and a lot more people voted in London than in Wales, let alone England as a whole.
Actually, the Scottish and Welsh elections were multimember constituencies which should give a better picture of reality than FPTP in England. And the overall numbers of candidates were reasonable.
Ed: which might also help explain the difference.
Wikipedia suggests that Welsh councils will get to choose individually if they want to move to STV, but the earliest that could happen would be 2027. But, yes, the different electoral system used in Scotland means that any comparison on councillors elected is complete nonsense.
None of this is to say that I think Starmer is a great leader, just that the "evidence" advanced for the claim is tosh.
Was anybody actually daft enough to follow the rules? At the height of lockdown I went to Livingston just to get various car bits zinc plated and to France (twice) via the Rotterdam 'underground railroad'.
Of course not.
People are complete hypocrites. Pretty much everyone broke the rules to varying degrees.
Not so. But probably most people believe that most other people followed or broke the rules to the same extent they did. That is why those voters, and indeed Members of Parliament, who did follow the rules are angry about the hypocrites at the top.
Levelling up ideas to regenerate town centres which won’t have wealthy, entitled, southerners jealous resentment over the poorer parts of the country getting a few crumbs off the table.
Compulsory purchase of empty shops. Compulsory rental auctions. So much for property rights. Although Mr Speaker will not be happy that Jeremy Corbyn Boris has told the media before parliament.
Far be it from me to quibble. But surely shops are empty because no one wants to rent them? Unless this bill comes with demolition or change of use powers.
Quite a few are empty due to the high rents.
Butchers Deli has just closed in Durham. Low rents for the first six months while they establish themselves then they rocket up. A craft beer bar by my folks suddenly closed in April because they couldn’t come to an agreement on rental costs. It does happen. In the case of the latter they still have another bar a few miles away and are looking for new premises.
Well yes. My only experience of trying to rent a commercial property was to visit a shop in a small village which had been empty for 18 months. I asked why the previous hairdressers had closed? Couldn't afford the rent said the agent. I asked what it was and got a ludicrous figure. Could that come down I asked? Nah. It's the market rate. But it's been empty for 18 months! Market rate, market rate. It's still empty four years on.
When I saw all the partying at No 10 ... I thought, 'How stupid these people are? Did they really think they could get away with it'.
Now I see the party at Durham ... I think, 'How stupid these people are? Did they really think they could get away with it'.
No wonder the UK is such a mess, it really is run by stupid and stupider.
(Is Ed Davey really is to dull to be embroiled in a LibDem Tofu-gate. That must surely be next.)
Whatever happens now it is worth reminding ourselves that politics rarely runs in a straight line for any length of time and certainties about future election results are way off the line. The only time you can truly tell when politicians are telling fibs is when they open their mouths.
TBF, it must be almost impossible for a politician to run their lives perfectly when trying to run a top job. The amount of undeserved ordure they get dumped on them by opponents (and not just those in another party) is amazing.
Remember the controversy of Boris' bike ride during lockdown? How dare he?
On the previous thread, someone expressed that Starmer was running the campaign for a really important by-election. Well, Boris was trying to run the country through a pandemic. The stress on everyone involved must have been immense.
We want politicians to be 'like' us. Yet we also want them to be perfect in all ways. Sadly, I am not perfect. No-one reading this is perfect. If we were put under the same minute critical examination that Johnson, Starmer or any top politician has been, then we would have stories about us.
Very few people are angels. And they might not have the skills needed to run a country.
There's a lot to nail Boris for. But, "partygate" is small beer. It ought to be small beer for Starmer, but then, he's made so much of the issue.
It’s not small beer to those who had to struggle with the regulations, like not visiting dying relatives for example. Those that make the law should follow the law. If it was a bad law, that is the fault of the law maker.
Well, the same applies to Starmer, doesn't it? Why were people getting pi**ed at a do whilst others could not visit dying relatives? That's not small beer to those who had to struggle with the regulations.
Starmer voted for the law. Did he say it was a bad law when he voted for it (I assume not, but someone'll have more info.)
Starmer and Labour have been caught by their own witch hunt. It is pure incompetence on their part not to realise the trap they had laid for themselves.
Personally I think it’s less serious than a PM disobeying his own law, but as LoO Starmer also has some responsibility here. It doesn’t rally matter in any case politically after Starmer called for the PM to resign.
If Starmer is fined, the wise move politically might be to resign. If Starmer isn’t fined, some people will owe him an apology. Either way Boris should go. His offence is proven and as PM it is the most serious.
Starmer is a law maker too. If he'd been opposing the restrictions then it would be less serious but he actually was opposing the relaxation of the restrictions after his own party. Hypocrite.
Plus he's every bit as guilty or more as Boris is. After calling for him to go. Hypocrite.
Plus he's outright lied about the events saying he was eating between work, when his own memo says the party was at the end of the day. Liar.
I've said since last year Boris should go, but Starmer is every bit as bad if not worse for the sheer hypocrisy too.
Starmer has to go, but your hyperbole is ludicrous.
If this work event crossed the line and rules were breached which may be the case, so be it, but for you to then assert it is worse than multiple events attended, and or arranged by Johnson, who also lied to Parliament it has to be said, is absurd.
Why does Starmer have to go but Johnson can stay? Starmer set the bar to judge Johnson. Starmer being compromised by this incident neutralises any attack he can make on Johnson when more fines and the Gray Report are released. And of course the killer, rules don't apply to Boris Johnson.
The reason it's worse is because Starmer has himself set the threshold after the fact, while being in breach of his own threshold. Boris didn't do that.
Johnson can rightly or wrongly say he didn't think that what happened was wrong at the time and he didn't intend for people having cake at work etc to be illegal, but he's paid the FPN and accepted he made a mistake. Put his hands up.
Starmer can't do that as he's already set the threshold as to this being a resigning offence. He set a trap for the PM and jumped straight into it. How can Starmer accept he's made a mistake when he's said that it must be a resigning offence already?
You are as usual writing absolute and utter nonsense.
I have agreed with you Starmer set the bar by which a breach of Covid rules is measured, and as such he must go having been busted.
But worse than the man who wrote the rules, lied to Parliament and attended events which according to the already released bits of the Gray Report could number around eight.
You have Starmer, by the nuts, Johnson has his scalp, BigDog is saved and his foe vanquished. So why would you mislead the board by claiming Starmer's charge means multiple charges against Johnson are now trivial?
I never said Johnson's events are trivial, I said he should resign over them. I stand by that.
But Starmer is worse because he set the threshold of this being a resigning offence AFTER the facts came out. Boris didn't.
So Starmer has clearly surpassed his own resignation threshold he gave to Parliament. Was he lying to Parliament when he said that those investigated by the Police should resign? After the facts came out.
Boris can (wrongly in my view) grasp at the straw of saying "I made a mistake, I'm sorry, I didn't think this was against the rules. I'm sorry for what happened and lessons will be learnt."
Starmer has no straws to clutch at as he went in with a two footed studs first challenge over what Boris did.
Lying to parliament was the resigning matter. In any event I'd be amazed if he's broken the law so a FPN is most unlikely even with the incompetent police force we have.
If Starmer is guilty then every film crew shooting at that time including TV outside broadcasts will also have to be priosecuted because when on location you are obliged to supply dinner for the crew by 9.00 pm (or if later then you pay for an extra day and you are still obliged to supply dinner).
I notice the Times 'scoop' have actually printed a copy of their 'call sheet' which specifies (among other things) all meal times. This will be so familiar to all TV companies working on location I'm surprised no one has mentioned it. Unless I've missed something I don't see the story?
Is this why Allegra Stratton giggled? The journos in front of her were in on the truth that laws weren't being strictly applied or followed? Was the journo's question itself tongue-in-cheek?
IIRC the journos on that film were actually civil servants pretending to be journos.
Yes, though most of them were SPADs rather than civil servants. That's the whole point. The Stratton leak was of a dress rehearsal just in case at a press conference any journalists asked "we hear there's been rule-breaking at No. 10 - has there"? I can't imagine why such a dress rehearsal was deemed necessary, unless.......
Labour performance, in terms of numbers of councillors:
Welsh Labour +14.3% Scottish Labour +7.6% English Labour +1.3%
I think it is fair to conclude that Drakeford is Labour’s best leader, and Starmer is a dud.
Up 1.3% against an horrifically poor Tory government, mid-term, is just eye-wateringly pathetic.
Statistically nonsense. It's easier to get larger percentage increases among smaller populations, and a lot more people voted in London than in Wales, let alone England as a whole.
Statistically nonsense.
Sampling error, Poisson error, sure ... but Wales is not so small that the statistics are dominated by those effects.
Llafur did much better than Starmer. That is undeniable.
It might be true that Labour did better in Wales than in England - but the percentage increase in numbers of councillors is nonsense on stilts as a metric to judge.
Compare the swings in vote share for similar sized populations. It may well show that Welsh Labour did better, and it would at least be a sensible comparison to make.
So according to their own written records this was planned food and drink at the end of the day, with no work scheduled for afterwards?
I can't see any difference between this and the BYOB party now to be honest.
You can’t tell the difference between a meal and a ‘party? Breakfast must be a hoot round your place this morning.
An hour and a half scheduled for food and drinks at the end of the day, after work has finished.
How is that not a party, but having food at 1pm and then returning to work is?
They held an after work party and had no intention of returning to work after their party.
Done that plenty of times at work after a long slog at work in workshops and meetings. It’s about grabbing some sustenance and talking about the work informally before crawling into bed. Did it last week, when the boss came over from Germany. The last thing it is, is a party.
Yep. I can think back to my trip to Romania the week before last. We were still talking about work a bottle of wine into the dinner. A lot of work dinners happen exactly like this - and it will seriously annoy the PB Tories and the PB "I'm not a" Tories when the police think the same. Remember folks, the LAW did not disallow this. "Should not" said the guidelines, as opposed to the "Must now" laws that has sunk Johnson.
Presumably if Keir gets a fine Boris will jump in to defend him and say he shouldn't resign? He cannot very well claim it's an outrage to get a fine, nor can he praise it as an honourable decision to stand down.
There's a certain life lesson here that in general being "the bigger person" can serve your own self interest.
When Boris was fined for breaking the rules then he was seriously damaged. Starmer had no need to go in with a two footed challenge himself, rejecting the apology, which has now come back to haunt him as his own words are thrown back at him.
Starmer could have been the bigger person and accepted the apology. Being cynical he could have done so while leaving it to his "attack dogs" on social media, the media and his MPs to do the attacks against Boris.
If Starmer had been the bigger person and accepted Boris's apology, this would not be a story now and if it became (a much smaller one) he could just issue his own apology to get rid of it and the precedent would have been set and the story would just look stupid after that.
You are on fire today! Be careful of the hyperbole burns.
Do you disagree with anything I said? If so, why?
I think it comes back to Starmer not being very good at politics. Blair and Cameron would never have found themselves in such a quandary, they left their vicious attacks to "attack dogs" so keeping their own hands clean.
Starmer could have been using his questions at PMQs about Cost of Living etc while leaving the party attacks to others. If he had done so, then this story now would seem ridiculous. The reason it doesn't, is because he has been so sanctimonious about it already.
Starmer now is like the stories of GOP politicians having a go at "family values" then it turns out they've had an affair themselves.
Yes I do. Your basic premise that Starmer's potential offence is worse than Johnson's offence, and multiple potential offences is false.
I know why you are trailing this lie. You believe that Starmer will resign (he must) and you know that Johnson will not, so you are trying to minimise Johnson's indiscretions and maximise Starmer's.
Starmer must go, and go now because he is comprised when it comes to Gray and more Johnson FPNs. I hate the notion that Johnson is let off the hook because Starmer is under suspicion. To quote David Davis "For the love of God, go now man" (Starmer).
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 14m One thing clear from Lisa Nandy's interview. Labour have no coherent response to the new revelations, nor any way of credibly explaining why Starmer shouldn't resign if fined.
Some in Labour will say he should resign because that'll force Johnson to resign. Two problems with that: firstly Johnson wouldn't take the blindest notice of what Labour do, and secondly: I thought Labour wanted to fight Johnson at the next election, and not potentially someone like Hunt or Wallace.
Neither Hunt nor Wallace would be an improvement on Boris at the next election. Boris at least is liked by some people.
The issue should be called Tweetgate not Beergate.
It was Starmer's tweet saying that just for being under a criminal investigation Johnson should resign that will or should be the undoing of him.
Yes he should resign now "to clear his name". Take the consolation prize of Attorney General in a Lisa Nandy Government. I don't believe he has the political nous to do that, mind.
Labour performance, in terms of numbers of councillors:
Welsh Labour +14.3% Scottish Labour +7.6% English Labour +1.3%
I think it is fair to conclude that Drakeford is Labour’s best leader, and Starmer is a dud.
Up 1.3% against an horrifically poor Tory government, mid-term, is just eye-wateringly pathetic.
Statistically nonsense. It's easier to get larger percentage increases among smaller populations, and a lot more people voted in London than in Wales, let alone England as a whole.
Absolute guff. If anything, Drakeford had the hardest job. He’s in office, was working from a high base, and it is always super tempting to kick the incumbent in low-importance mid-terms.
Presumably if Keir gets a fine Boris will jump in to defend him and say he shouldn't resign? He cannot very well claim it's an outrage to get a fine, nor can he praise it as an honourable decision to stand down.
There's a certain life lesson here that in general being "the bigger person" can serve your own self interest.
When Boris was fined for breaking the rules then he was seriously damaged. Starmer had no need to go in with a two footed challenge himself, rejecting the apology, which has now come back to haunt him as his own words are thrown back at him.
Starmer could have been the bigger person and accepted the apology. Being cynical he could have done so while leaving it to his "attack dogs" on social media, the media and his MPs to do the attacks against Boris.
If Starmer had been the bigger person and accepted Boris's apology, this would not be a story now and if it became (a much smaller one) he could just issue his own apology to get rid of it and the precedent would have been set and the story would just look stupid after that.
You are on fire today! Be careful of the hyperbole burns.
Do you disagree with anything I said? If so, why?
I think it comes back to Starmer not being very good at politics. Blair and Cameron would never have found themselves in such a quandary, they left their vicious attacks to "attack dogs" so keeping their own hands clean.
Starmer could have been using his questions at PMQs about Cost of Living etc while leaving the party attacks to others. If he had done so, then this story now would seem ridiculous. The reason it doesn't, is because he has been so sanctimonious about it already.
Starmer now is like the stories of GOP politicians having a go at "family values" then it turns out they've had an affair themselves.
Yes I do. Your basic premise that Starmer's potential offence is worse than Johnson's offence, and multiple potential offences is false.
I know why you are trailing this lie. You believe that Starmer will resign (he must) and you know that Johnson will not, so you are trying to minimise Johnson's indiscretions and maximise Starmer's.
Starmer must go, and go now because he is comprised when it comes to Gray and more Johnson FPNs. I hate the notion that Johnson is let off the hook because Starmer is under suspicion. To quote David Davis "For the love of God, go now man" (Starmer).
No you've completely misunderstood what I wrote and it's gone over your head it seems.
To be clear I am NOT saying that what Starmer allegedly did in Durham is better or worse than what Boris and others allegedly did in Downing Street.
What is worse for Starmer is the fact that Boris has claimed that making a mistake is something worthy of an apology, while Starmer has claimed that it requires resignation.
Boris can keep repeating his "I have apologised" line until the cows come home, but can Starmer apologise in the same way having said that anyone fined must resign?
It's his own words, not just his actions, that are haunting him now. He's put himself into a checkmate position if he's fined.
Labour performance, in terms of numbers of councillors:
Welsh Labour +14.3% Scottish Labour +7.6% English Labour +1.3%
I think it is fair to conclude that Drakeford is Labour’s best leader, and Starmer is a dud.
Up 1.3% against an horrifically poor Tory government, mid-term, is just eye-wateringly pathetic.
Statistically nonsense. It's easier to get larger percentage increases among smaller populations, and a lot more people voted in London than in Wales, let alone England as a whole.
Absolute guff. If anything, Drakeford had the hardest job. He’s in office, was working from a high base, and it is always super tempting to kick the incumbent in low-importance mid-terms.
It's very basic law of large numbers. Plus your chosen metric suffers from base effects. Your chosen metric is basically complete nonsense. It has zero useful information.
Labour performance, in terms of numbers of councillors:
Welsh Labour +14.3% Scottish Labour +7.6% English Labour +1.3%
I think it is fair to conclude that Drakeford is Labour’s best leader, and Starmer is a dud.
Up 1.3% against an horrifically poor Tory government, mid-term, is just eye-wateringly pathetic.
Statistically nonsense. It's easier to get larger percentage increases among smaller populations, and a lot more people voted in London than in Wales, let alone England as a whole.
Statistically nonsense.
Sampling error, Poisson error, sure ... but Wales is not so small that the statistics are dominated by those effects.
Llafur did much better than Starmer. That is undeniable.
I don't see how we get to the, my two votes for Labour in the Vale were an endorsement of Drakeford, they weren't.
The alcohol is a red herring (and speaking of fish, so is the food). The simple issue is whether Covid rules were broken or not. In my Civil Service days, we regularly had meetings in hotels, after dinner, to review the day's work, over a pint or a glass of wine. They were work meetings, not parties, as any witnesses who had ever been to an actual party would testify.
Presumably if Keir gets a fine Boris will jump in to defend him and say he shouldn't resign? He cannot very well claim it's an outrage to get a fine, nor can he praise it as an honourable decision to stand down.
There's a certain life lesson here that in general being "the bigger person" can serve your own self interest.
When Boris was fined for breaking the rules then he was seriously damaged. Starmer had no need to go in with a two footed challenge himself, rejecting the apology, which has now come back to haunt him as his own words are thrown back at him.
Starmer could have been the bigger person and accepted the apology. Being cynical he could have done so while leaving it to his "attack dogs" on social media, the media and his MPs to do the attacks against Boris.
If Starmer had been the bigger person and accepted Boris's apology, this would not be a story now and if it became (a much smaller one) he could just issue his own apology to get rid of it and the precedent would have been set and the story would just look stupid after that.
You are on fire today! Be careful of the hyperbole burns.
Do you disagree with anything I said? If so, why?
I think it comes back to Starmer not being very good at politics. Blair and Cameron would never have found themselves in such a quandary, they left their vicious attacks to "attack dogs" so keeping their own hands clean.
Starmer could have been using his questions at PMQs about Cost of Living etc while leaving the party attacks to others. If he had done so, then this story now would seem ridiculous. The reason it doesn't, is because he has been so sanctimonious about it already.
Starmer now is like the stories of GOP politicians having a go at "family values" then it turns out they've had an affair themselves.
Yes I do. Your basic premise that Starmer's potential offence is worse than Johnson's offence, and multiple potential offences is false.
I know why you are trailing this lie. You believe that Starmer will resign (he must) and you know that Johnson will not, so you are trying to minimise Johnson's indiscretions and maximise Starmer's.
Starmer must go, and go now because he is comprised when it comes to Gray and more Johnson FPNs. I hate the notion that Johnson is let off the hook because Starmer is under suspicion. To quote David Davis "For the love of God, go now man" (Starmer).
If you were a CP supporter would you want Starmer to resign? I'm not sure whether I would. He is qualities IMO but on the other hand he isn't greatly popular.
Levelling up ideas to regenerate town centres which won’t have wealthy, entitled, southerners jealous resentment over the poorer parts of the country getting a few crumbs off the table.
Compulsory purchase of empty shops. Compulsory rental auctions. So much for property rights. Although Mr Speaker will not be happy that Jeremy Corbyn Boris has told the media before parliament.
Far be it from me to quibble. But surely shops are empty because no one wants to rent them? Unless this bill comes with demolition or change of use powers.
Quite a few are empty due to the high rents.
Butchers Deli has just closed in Durham. Low rents for the first six months while they establish themselves then they rocket up. A craft beer bar by my folks suddenly closed in April because they couldn’t come to an agreement on rental costs. It does happen. In the case of the latter they still have another bar a few miles away and are looking for new premises.
Well yes. My only experience of trying to rent a commercial property was to visit a shop in a small village which had been empty for 18 months. I asked why the previous hairdressers had closed? Couldn't afford the rent said the agent. I asked what it was and got a ludicrous figure. Could that come down I asked? Nah. It's the market rate. But it's been empty for 18 months! Market rate, market rate. It's still empty four years on.
However. Oversupply is the fundamental issue.
If the landlord has several properties if they drop the rent on one they drop them on all. Or that’s the logic.
Labour performance, in terms of numbers of councillors:
Welsh Labour +14.3% Scottish Labour +7.6% English Labour +1.3%
I think it is fair to conclude that Drakeford is Labour’s best leader, and Starmer is a dud.
Up 1.3% against an horrifically poor Tory government, mid-term, is just eye-wateringly pathetic.
Statistically nonsense. It's easier to get larger percentage increases among smaller populations, and a lot more people voted in London than in Wales, let alone England as a whole.
Actually, the Scottish and Welsh elections were multimember constituencies which should give a better picture of reality than FPTP in England. And the overall numbers of candidates were reasonable.
Ed: which might also help explain the difference.
Wikipedia suggests that Welsh councils will get to choose individually if they want to move to STV, but the earliest that could happen would be 2027. But, yes, the different electoral system used in Scotland means that any comparison on councillors elected is complete nonsense.
None of this is to say that I think Starmer is a great leader, just that the "evidence" advanced for the claim is tosh.
England and Wales both use FPTP, as you say.
In Wales, all the Councillors in every Council were up for Election. In (most of) England, only a third of the councillors in some Councils were up for election.
The Welsh elections were all the councils in the whole country. It is a more representative sample (of Wales) than the the English results are (of England).
So, in Wales, there were 1232 Council ward elections. This is the dataset we are examining when we look at changes in Councillors.
This sample size is comparable to a typical YouGov polling sample for the polls for the ENTIRE UK.
Sampling error and Poisson noise are not dominating the results in changes of councillors in Wales.
The alcohol is a red herring (and speaking of fish, so is the food). The simple issue is whether Covid rules were broken or not. In my Civil Service days, we regularly had meetings in hotels, after dinner, to review the day's work, over a pint or a glass of wine. They were work meetings, not parties, as any witnesses who had ever been to an actual party would testify.
It's not a simple issue though is it. The letter of the law or the spirit? What about common sense?
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 14m One thing clear from Lisa Nandy's interview. Labour have no coherent response to the new revelations, nor any way of credibly explaining why Starmer shouldn't resign if fined.
I don't think it would put Boris in a bind if KS stood down. I think he'd just carry on, because he can. People would say "Boris, you should stand down", and Boris would say "It's more important to deal with more important matter X" and that would be that.
Not only that, but weirdly I think it could help him. Subconsciously some people would think, "Starmer broke the rules so badly that he had to resign, but Boris only accidentally broke the rules which is why he hasn't."
You are taking the voters for fools, only fully signed up Johnsonians would believe that line.
It's similar to the argument advanced by many, that if global warming was really a crisis then the government would have done more about it.
People have an implicit expectation that reaction will follow action in a logical and consistent way. It's really not that silly to think that some people will work backwards from the reaction to make a judgement about the action.
The alcohol is a red herring (and speaking of fish, so is the food). The simple issue is whether Covid rules were broken or not. In my Civil Service days, we regularly had meetings in hotels, after dinner, to review the day's work, over a pint or a glass of wine. They were work meetings, not parties, as any witnesses who had ever been to an actual party would testify.
It's not a simple issue though is it. The letter of the law or the spirit? What about common sense?
I guess that the Durham police are interested in the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law, or common sense. So FPNs will only be issued if the letter of the law has been broken. Same for the Met, of course. Aside from that, it's a matter of political judgement.
Presumably if Keir gets a fine Boris will jump in to defend him and say he shouldn't resign? He cannot very well claim it's an outrage to get a fine, nor can he praise it as an honourable decision to stand down.
There's a certain life lesson here that in general being "the bigger person" can serve your own self interest.
When Boris was fined for breaking the rules then he was seriously damaged. Starmer had no need to go in with a two footed challenge himself, rejecting the apology, which has now come back to haunt him as his own words are thrown back at him.
Starmer could have been the bigger person and accepted the apology. Being cynical he could have done so while leaving it to his "attack dogs" on social media, the media and his MPs to do the attacks against Boris.
If Starmer had been the bigger person and accepted Boris's apology, this would not be a story now and if it became (a much smaller one) he could just issue his own apology to get rid of it and the precedent would have been set and the story would just look stupid after that.
You are on fire today! Be careful of the hyperbole burns.
Do you disagree with anything I said? If so, why?
I think it comes back to Starmer not being very good at politics. Blair and Cameron would never have found themselves in such a quandary, they left their vicious attacks to "attack dogs" so keeping their own hands clean.
Starmer could have been using his questions at PMQs about Cost of Living etc while leaving the party attacks to others. If he had done so, then this story now would seem ridiculous. The reason it doesn't, is because he has been so sanctimonious about it already.
Starmer now is like the stories of GOP politicians having a go at "family values" then it turns out they've had an affair themselves.
Yes I do. Your basic premise that Starmer's potential offence is worse than Johnson's offence, and multiple potential offences is false.
I know why you are trailing this lie. You believe that Starmer will resign (he must) and you know that Johnson will not, so you are trying to minimise Johnson's indiscretions and maximise Starmer's.
Starmer must go, and go now because he is comprised when it comes to Gray and more Johnson FPNs. I hate the notion that Johnson is let off the hook because Starmer is under suspicion. To quote David Davis "For the love of God, go now man" (Starmer).
If you were a CP supporter would you want Starmer to resign? I'm not sure whether I would. He is qualities IMO but on the other hand he isn't greatly popular.
As BigG. demonstrated yesterday there is the vague hope in Conservative Party circles that Starmer will be replaced by someone utterly unelectable, like Long- Bailey, giving Johnson a free run.
Labour performance, in terms of numbers of councillors:
Welsh Labour +14.3% Scottish Labour +7.6% English Labour +1.3%
I think it is fair to conclude that Drakeford is Labour’s best leader, and Starmer is a dud.
Up 1.3% against an horrifically poor Tory government, mid-term, is just eye-wateringly pathetic.
Statistically nonsense. It's easier to get larger percentage increases among smaller populations, and a lot more people voted in London than in Wales, let alone England as a whole.
Absolute guff. If anything, Drakeford had the hardest job. He’s in office, was working from a high base, and it is always super tempting to kick the incumbent in low-importance mid-terms.
It's very basic law of large numbers. Plus your chosen metric suffers from base effects. Your chosen metric is basically complete nonsense. It has zero useful information.
Don’t tell Anas Sarwar. He’s been hailed a genius on the back of those numbers.
Labour performance, in terms of numbers of councillors:
Welsh Labour +14.3% Scottish Labour +7.6% English Labour +1.3%
I think it is fair to conclude that Drakeford is Labour’s best leader, and Starmer is a dud.
Up 1.3% against an horrifically poor Tory government, mid-term, is just eye-wateringly pathetic.
Statistically nonsense. It's easier to get larger percentage increases among smaller populations, and a lot more people voted in London than in Wales, let alone England as a whole.
Statistically nonsense.
Sampling error, Poisson error, sure ... but Wales is not so small that the statistics are dominated by those effects.
Llafur did much better than Starmer. That is undeniable.
I don't see how we get to the, my two votes for Labour in the Vale were an endorsement of Drakeford, they weren't.
I have not said your votes, or any votes, were an endorsement of the Drake.
People vote for all kinds of crazy, wild, lunatic or sentimental reasons. Maybe you were thinking of what you wee going to do to the Drake when you get your free tree, who knows?
I said Labour did much better in Wales than in England, and the evidence suggesting this from the change in number of councillors is perfectly valid.
Presumably if Keir gets a fine Boris will jump in to defend him and say he shouldn't resign? He cannot very well claim it's an outrage to get a fine, nor can he praise it as an honourable decision to stand down.
There's a certain life lesson here that in general being "the bigger person" can serve your own self interest.
When Boris was fined for breaking the rules then he was seriously damaged. Starmer had no need to go in with a two footed challenge himself, rejecting the apology, which has now come back to haunt him as his own words are thrown back at him.
Starmer could have been the bigger person and accepted the apology. Being cynical he could have done so while leaving it to his "attack dogs" on social media, the media and his MPs to do the attacks against Boris.
If Starmer had been the bigger person and accepted Boris's apology, this would not be a story now and if it became (a much smaller one) he could just issue his own apology to get rid of it and the precedent would have been set and the story would just look stupid after that.
You are on fire today! Be careful of the hyperbole burns.
Do you disagree with anything I said? If so, why?
I think it comes back to Starmer not being very good at politics. Blair and Cameron would never have found themselves in such a quandary, they left their vicious attacks to "attack dogs" so keeping their own hands clean.
Starmer could have been using his questions at PMQs about Cost of Living etc while leaving the party attacks to others. If he had done so, then this story now would seem ridiculous. The reason it doesn't, is because he has been so sanctimonious about it already.
Starmer now is like the stories of GOP politicians having a go at "family values" then it turns out they've had an affair themselves.
Yes I do. Your basic premise that Starmer's potential offence is worse than Johnson's offence, and multiple potential offences is false.
I know why you are trailing this lie. You believe that Starmer will resign (he must) and you know that Johnson will not, so you are trying to minimise Johnson's indiscretions and maximise Starmer's.
Starmer must go, and go now because he is comprised when it comes to Gray and more Johnson FPNs. I hate the notion that Johnson is let off the hook because Starmer is under suspicion. To quote David Davis "For the love of God, go now man" (Starmer).
If you were a CP supporter would you want Starmer to resign? I'm not sure whether I would. He is qualities IMO but on the other hand he isn't greatly popular.
As BigG. demonstrated yesterday there is the vague hope in Conservative Party circles that Starmer will be replaced by someone utterly unelectable, like Long- Bailey, giving Johnson a free run.
My point was be careful for what you wish.
Long-Bailey has as much chance of succeeding Starmer as I have. Zero.
Labour performance, in terms of numbers of councillors:
Welsh Labour +14.3% Scottish Labour +7.6% English Labour +1.3%
I think it is fair to conclude that Drakeford is Labour’s best leader, and Starmer is a dud.
Up 1.3% against an horrifically poor Tory government, mid-term, is just eye-wateringly pathetic.
Statistically nonsense. It's easier to get larger percentage increases among smaller populations, and a lot more people voted in London than in Wales, let alone England as a whole.
Actually, the Scottish and Welsh elections were multimember constituencies which should give a better picture of reality than FPTP in England. And the overall numbers of candidates were reasonable.
Ed: which might also help explain the difference.
Wikipedia suggests that Welsh councils will get to choose individually if they want to move to STV, but the earliest that could happen would be 2027. But, yes, the different electoral system used in Scotland means that any comparison on councillors elected is complete nonsense.
None of this is to say that I think Starmer is a great leader, just that the "evidence" advanced for the claim is tosh.
England and Wales both use FPTP, as you say.
In Wales, all the Councillors in every Council were up for Election. In (most of) England, only a third of the councillors in some Councils were up for election.
The Welsh elections were all the councils in the whole country. It is a more representative sample (of Wales) than the the English results are (of England).
So, in Wales, there were 1232 Council ward elections. This is the dataset we are examining when we look at changes in Councillors.
This sample size is comparable to a typical YouGov polling sample for the polls for the ENTIRE UK.
Sampling error and Poisson noise are not dominating the results in changes of councillors in Wales.
"The Welsh elections were all the councils in the whole country. It is a more representative sample (of Wales) than the the English results are (of England)." Yes, so the two are not comparable. Particularly not by looking at percentage increase in councillor numbers, because of base effects. Everyone knows that the local elections this year in England overrepresented areas of Labour strength, which means they will have started with a higher proportion of sitting councillors - making it harder to achieve the same percentage increase in councillors elected.
I make no judgement on the relative performance of Labour in Wales or England - just that the numbers presented in the original post are complete and utter cobblers and tell us nothing about the relative Labour performances.
Levelling up ideas to regenerate town centres which won’t have wealthy, entitled, southerners jealous resentment over the poorer parts of the country getting a few crumbs off the table.
Compulsory purchase of empty shops. Compulsory rental auctions. So much for property rights. Although Mr Speaker will not be happy that Jeremy Corbyn Boris has told the media before parliament.
Far be it from me to quibble. But surely shops are empty because no one wants to rent them? Unless this bill comes with demolition or change of use powers.
Quite a few are empty due to the high rents.
Butchers Deli has just closed in Durham. Low rents for the first six months while they establish themselves then they rocket up. A craft beer bar by my folks suddenly closed in April because they couldn’t come to an agreement on rental costs. It does happen. In the case of the latter they still have another bar a few miles away and are looking for new premises.
Well yes. My only experience of trying to rent a commercial property was to visit a shop in a small village which had been empty for 18 months. I asked why the previous hairdressers had closed? Couldn't afford the rent said the agent. I asked what it was and got a ludicrous figure. Could that come down I asked? Nah. It's the market rate. But it's been empty for 18 months! Market rate, market rate. It's still empty four years on.
However. Oversupply is the fundamental issue.
That makes no sense at all, from a rational landlord.
Does anyone have any insight as to what’s going on behind the scenes in the retail letting market? Are the landlords simply happy with the capital appreciation, and will their behaviour change as property prices react to interest rate changes?
The alcohol is a red herring (and speaking of fish, so is the food). The simple issue is whether Covid rules were broken or not. In my Civil Service days, we regularly had meetings in hotels, after dinner, to review the day's work, over a pint or a glass of wine. They were work meetings, not parties, as any witnesses who had ever been to an actual party would testify.
But the argument has changed. Before last night the argument was that they were working and needed to get food.
Now the argument is that the dinner was work itself.
I don't think it would put Boris in a bind if KS stood down. I think he'd just carry on, because he can. People would say "Boris, you should stand down", and Boris would say "It's more important to deal with more important matter X" and that would be that.
Not only that, but weirdly I think it could help him. Subconsciously some people would think, "Starmer broke the rules so badly that he had to resign, but Boris only accidentally broke the rules which is why he hasn't."
You are taking the voters for fools, only fully signed up Johnsonians would believe that line.
It's similar to the argument advanced by many, that if global warming was really a crisis then the government would have done more about it.
People have an implicit expectation that reaction will follow action in a logical and consistent way. It's really not that silly to think that some people will work backwards from the reaction to make a judgement about the action.
An alternative option for Starmer - assuming a FPN is issued - is to distinguish Johnson's response of accepting the fine by challenging the fine at magistrates court. Prominent QC raising reasonable doubt about the appropriateness of the fine and being exonerated would serve Starmer's purposes of being cleared and pointing out that Johnson didn't challenge as he knew he would be convicted.
When I saw all the partying at No 10 ... I thought, 'How stupid these people are? Did they really think they could get away with it'.
Now I see the party at Durham ... I think, 'How stupid these people are? Did they really think they could get away with it'.
No wonder the UK is such a mess, it really is run by stupid and stupider.
(Is Ed Davey really is to dull to be embroiled in a LibDem Tofu-gate. That must surely be next.)
Whatever happens now it is worth reminding ourselves that politics rarely runs in a straight line for any length of time and certainties about future election results are way off the line. The only time you can truly tell when politicians are telling fibs is when they open their mouths.
TBF, it must be almost impossible for a politician to run their lives perfectly when trying to run a top job. The amount of undeserved ordure they get dumped on them by opponents (and not just those in another party) is amazing.
Remember the controversy of Boris' bike ride during lockdown? How dare he?
On the previous thread, someone expressed that Starmer was running the campaign for a really important by-election. Well, Boris was trying to run the country through a pandemic. The stress on everyone involved must have been immense.
We want politicians to be 'like' us. Yet we also want them to be perfect in all ways. Sadly, I am not perfect. No-one reading this is perfect. If we were put under the same minute critical examination that Johnson, Starmer or any top politician has been, then we would have stories about us.
Very few people are angels. And they might not have the skills needed to run a country.
There's a lot to nail Boris for. But, "partygate" is small beer. It ought to be small beer for Starmer, but then, he's made so much of the issue.
It’s not small beer to those who had to struggle with the regulations, like not visiting dying relatives for example. Those that make the law should follow the law. If it was a bad law, that is the fault of the law maker.
Well, the same applies to Starmer, doesn't it? Why were people getting pi**ed at a do whilst others could not visit dying relatives? That's not small beer to those who had to struggle with the regulations.
Starmer voted for the law. Did he say it was a bad law when he voted for it (I assume not, but someone'll have more info.)
Starmer and Labour have been caught by their own witch hunt. It is pure incompetence on their part not to realise the trap they had laid for themselves.
Personally I think it’s less serious than a PM disobeying his own law, but as LoO Starmer also has some responsibility here. It doesn’t rally matter in any case politically after Starmer called for the PM to resign.
If Starmer is fined, the wise move politically might be to resign. If Starmer isn’t fined, some people will owe him an apology. Either way Boris should go. His offence is proven and as PM it is the most serious.
Starmer is a law maker too. If he'd been opposing the restrictions then it would be less serious but he actually was opposing the relaxation of the restrictions after his own party. Hypocrite.
Plus he's every bit as guilty or more as Boris is. After calling for him to go. Hypocrite.
Plus he's outright lied about the events saying he was eating between work, when his own memo says the party was at the end of the day. Liar.
I've said since last year Boris should go, but Starmer is every bit as bad if not worse for the sheer hypocrisy too.
Starmer has to go, but your hyperbole is ludicrous.
If this work event crossed the line and rules were breached which may be the case, so be it, but for you to then assert it is worse than multiple events attended, and or arranged by Johnson, who also lied to Parliament it has to be said, is absurd.
Why does Starmer have to go but Johnson can stay? Starmer set the bar to judge Johnson. Starmer being compromised by this incident neutralises any attack he can make on Johnson when more fines and the Gray Report are released. And of course the killer, rules don't apply to Boris Johnson.
The reason it's worse is because Starmer has himself set the threshold after the fact, while being in breach of his own threshold. Boris didn't do that.
Johnson can rightly or wrongly say he didn't think that what happened was wrong at the time and he didn't intend for people having cake at work etc to be illegal, but he's paid the FPN and accepted he made a mistake. Put his hands up.
Starmer can't do that as he's already set the threshold as to this being a resigning offence. He set a trap for the PM and jumped straight into it. How can Starmer accept he's made a mistake when he's said that it must be a resigning offence already?
You are as usual writing absolute and utter nonsense.
I have agreed with you Starmer set the bar by which a breach of Covid rules is measured, and as such he must go having been busted.
But worse than the man who wrote the rules, lied to Parliament and attended events which according to the already released bits of the Gray Report could number around eight.
You have Starmer, by the nuts, Johnson has his scalp, BigDog is saved and his foe vanquished. So why would you mislead the board by claiming Starmer's charge means multiple charges against Johnson are now trivial?
I never said Johnson's events are trivial, I said he should resign over them. I stand by that.
But Starmer is worse because he set the threshold of this being a resigning offence AFTER the facts came out. Boris didn't.
So Starmer has clearly surpassed his own resignation threshold he gave to Parliament. Was he lying to Parliament when he said that those investigated by the Police should resign? After the facts came out.
Boris can (wrongly in my view) grasp at the straw of saying "I made a mistake, I'm sorry, I didn't think this was against the rules. I'm sorry for what happened and lessons will be learnt."
Starmer has no straws to clutch at as he went in with a two footed studs first challenge over what Boris did.
Lying to parliament was the resigning matter.
In any event If Starmer is guilty then every film crew shooting at that time including TV outside broadcasts will also have to be priosecuted because when on location you are obliged to supply dinner for the crew by 9.00 pm (or if later then you pay for an extra day and you are still obliged to supply dinner).
I notice the Times 'scoop' have actually printed a copy of their 'call sheet' which specifies (among other things) all meal times. This will be so familiar to all TV companies working on location I'm surprised no one has mentioned it. Unless I've missed something I don't see the story?
I don't think it would put Boris in a bind if KS stood down. I think he'd just carry on, because he can. People would say "Boris, you should stand down", and Boris would say "It's more important to deal with more important matter X" and that would be that.
Not only that, but weirdly I think it could help him. Subconsciously some people would think, "Starmer broke the rules so badly that he had to resign, but Boris only accidentally broke the rules which is why he hasn't."
You are taking the voters for fools, only fully signed up Johnsonians would believe that line.
It's similar to the argument advanced by many, that if global warming was really a crisis then the government would have done more about it.
People have an implicit expectation that reaction will follow action in a logical and consistent way. It's really not that silly to think that some people will work backwards from the reaction to make a judgement about the action.
Just that it was one that people can't help making.
As to Obama, there are many logical explanations - they are prioritising short-term utility over the long-term, they don't care about leaving the property for their children to inherit, they have enough wealth that they can lose a $12m property to sea level rise with little concern, they have a touching faith in the ability of the world to respond rapidly to the threat posed, etc.
Labour performance, in terms of numbers of councillors:
Welsh Labour +14.3% Scottish Labour +7.6% English Labour +1.3%
I think it is fair to conclude that Drakeford is Labour’s best leader, and Starmer is a dud.
Up 1.3% against an horrifically poor Tory government, mid-term, is just eye-wateringly pathetic.
Statistically nonsense. It's easier to get larger percentage increases among smaller populations, and a lot more people voted in London than in Wales, let alone England as a whole.
Actually, the Scottish and Welsh elections were multimember constituencies which should give a better picture of reality than FPTP in England. And the overall numbers of candidates were reasonable.
Ed: which might also help explain the difference.
Wikipedia suggests that Welsh councils will get to choose individually if they want to move to STV, but the earliest that could happen would be 2027. But, yes, the different electoral system used in Scotland means that any comparison on councillors elected is complete nonsense.
None of this is to say that I think Starmer is a great leader, just that the "evidence" advanced for the claim is tosh.
England and Wales both use FPTP, as you say.
In Wales, all the Councillors in every Council were up for Election. In (most of) England, only a third of the councillors in some Councils were up for election.
The Welsh elections were all the councils in the whole country. It is a more representative sample (of Wales) than the the English results are (of England).
So, in Wales, there were 1232 Council ward elections. This is the dataset we are examining when we look at changes in Councillors.
This sample size is comparable to a typical YouGov polling sample for the polls for the ENTIRE UK.
Sampling error and Poisson noise are not dominating the results in changes of councillors in Wales.
"The Welsh elections were all the councils in the whole country. It is a more representative sample (of Wales) than the the English results are (of England)." Yes, so the two are not comparable. Particularly not by looking at percentage increase in councillor numbers, because of base effects. Everyone knows that the local elections this year in England overrepresented areas of Labour strength, which means they will have started with a higher proportion of sitting councillors - making it harder to achieve the same percentage increase in councillors elected.
I make no judgement on the relative performance of Labour in Wales or England - just that the numbers presented in the original post are complete and utter cobblers and tell us nothing about the relative Labour performances.
Your original assertion was that "It's easier to get larger percentage increases among smaller populations"
I am pointing out that we are very far from sample sizes in that statistical regime.
The alcohol is a red herring (and speaking of fish, so is the food). The simple issue is whether Covid rules were broken or not. In my Civil Service days, we regularly had meetings in hotels, after dinner, to review the day's work, over a pint or a glass of wine. They were work meetings, not parties, as any witnesses who had ever been to an actual party would testify.
Except that we have already established, that a birthday cake delivered to the boss at a work meeting, by the boss’s wife, is worthy of a penalty notice.
Labour performance, in terms of numbers of councillors:
Welsh Labour +14.3% Scottish Labour +7.6% English Labour +1.3%
I think it is fair to conclude that Drakeford is Labour’s best leader, and Starmer is a dud.
Up 1.3% against an horrifically poor Tory government, mid-term, is just eye-wateringly pathetic.
Statistically nonsense. It's easier to get larger percentage increases among smaller populations, and a lot more people voted in London than in Wales, let alone England as a whole.
Absolute guff. If anything, Drakeford had the hardest job. He’s in office, was working from a high base, and it is always super tempting to kick the incumbent in low-importance mid-terms.
It's very basic law of large numbers. Plus your chosen metric suffers from base effects. Your chosen metric is basically complete nonsense. It has zero useful information.
Don’t tell Anas Sarwar. He’s been hailed a genius on the back of those numbers.
Bad data is bad data however many people use it wrong-headedly.
The alcohol is a red herring (and speaking of fish, so is the food). The simple issue is whether Covid rules were broken or not. In my Civil Service days, we regularly had meetings in hotels, after dinner, to review the day's work, over a pint or a glass of wine. They were work meetings, not parties, as any witnesses who had ever been to an actual party would testify.
Much of the guff being issued on this story is either plain wrong (confusing guidelines with law) or heresay (the ST "scoop" apparently from a Corbynite that "to the best of my knowledge" no work was done - because they weren't actually in attendance or they would know wouldn't they?
The purpose of the Wail push was to distract from the coming apocalypse at the locals. And they have been successful. The Wail itself set out what different numbers of seat losses would mean and by their own published infographic the Tory performance was "catastrophic".
So, Tories got a deserved beating, Labour didn't capitalise enough, LibDems pulled off spectacular gains, Sinn Fein and Alliance got their result in norniron. All good.
Labour performance, in terms of numbers of councillors:
Welsh Labour +14.3% Scottish Labour +7.6% English Labour +1.3%
I think it is fair to conclude that Drakeford is Labour’s best leader, and Starmer is a dud.
Up 1.3% against an horrifically poor Tory government, mid-term, is just eye-wateringly pathetic.
Statistically nonsense. It's easier to get larger percentage increases among smaller populations, and a lot more people voted in London than in Wales, let alone England as a whole.
Actually, the Scottish and Welsh elections were multimember constituencies which should give a better picture of reality than FPTP in England. And the overall numbers of candidates were reasonable.
Ed: which might also help explain the difference.
Wikipedia suggests that Welsh councils will get to choose individually if they want to move to STV, but the earliest that could happen would be 2027. But, yes, the different electoral system used in Scotland means that any comparison on councillors elected is complete nonsense.
None of this is to say that I think Starmer is a great leader, just that the "evidence" advanced for the claim is tosh.
England and Wales both use FPTP, as you say.
In Wales, all the Councillors in every Council were up for Election. In (most of) England, only a third of the councillors in some Councils were up for election.
The Welsh elections were all the councils in the whole country. It is a more representative sample (of Wales) than the the English results are (of England).
So, in Wales, there were 1232 Council ward elections. This is the dataset we are examining when we look at changes in Councillors.
This sample size is comparable to a typical YouGov polling sample for the polls for the ENTIRE UK.
Sampling error and Poisson noise are not dominating the results in changes of councillors in Wales.
"The Welsh elections were all the councils in the whole country. It is a more representative sample (of Wales) than the the English results are (of England)." Yes, so the two are not comparable. Particularly not by looking at percentage increase in councillor numbers, because of base effects. Everyone knows that the local elections this year in England overrepresented areas of Labour strength, which means they will have started with a higher proportion of sitting councillors - making it harder to achieve the same percentage increase in councillors elected.
I make no judgement on the relative performance of Labour in Wales or England - just that the numbers presented in the original post are complete and utter cobblers and tell us nothing about the relative Labour performances.
Your original assertion was that "It's easier to get larger percentage increases among smaller populations"
I am pointing out that we are very far from sample sizes in that statistical regime.
It was just the most obvious reason why the comparison was bogus. It doesn't mean that there aren't others, and the statistics as presented are nonsense.
An alternative option for Starmer - assuming a FPN is issued - is to distinguish Johnson's response of accepting the fine by challenging the fine at magistrates court. Prominent QC raising reasonable doubt about the appropriateness of the fine and being exonerated would serve Starmer's purposes of being cleared and pointing out that Johnson didn't challenge as he knew he would be convicted.
If he wants the media frenzy on this for the next few months, that is a great idea.
Malcolm Tucker would not advise this. The Daily Mail might.
Craziness is not retrocted to Russia. This is what Trumps former Defence Secretary has been saying:
"Former President Donald J. Trump asked Mark T. Esper, his defense secretary, about the possibility of launching missiles into Mexico to “destroy the drug labs” and wipe out the cartels, maintaining that the United States’ involvement in a strike against its southern neighbor could be kept secret"
"When Mr. Esper raised various objections, Mr. Trump said that “we could just shoot some Patriot missiles and take out the labs, quietly,” adding that “no one would know it was us.” Mr. Trump said he would just say that the United States had not conducted the strike, Mr. Esper recounts, writing that he would have thought it was a joke had he not been staring Mr. Trump in the face."
Presumably if Keir gets a fine Boris will jump in to defend him and say he shouldn't resign? He cannot very well claim it's an outrage to get a fine, nor can he praise it as an honourable decision to stand down.
There's a certain life lesson here that in general being "the bigger person" can serve your own self interest.
When Boris was fined for breaking the rules then he was seriously damaged. Starmer had no need to go in with a two footed challenge himself, rejecting the apology, which has now come back to haunt him as his own words are thrown back at him.
Starmer could have been the bigger person and accepted the apology. Being cynical he could have done so while leaving it to his "attack dogs" on social media, the media and his MPs to do the attacks against Boris.
If Starmer had been the bigger person and accepted Boris's apology, this would not be a story now and if it became (a much smaller one) he could just issue his own apology to get rid of it and the precedent would have been set and the story would just look stupid after that.
You are on fire today! Be careful of the hyperbole burns.
Do you disagree with anything I said? If so, why?
I think it comes back to Starmer not being very good at politics. Blair and Cameron would never have found themselves in such a quandary, they left their vicious attacks to "attack dogs" so keeping their own hands clean.
Starmer could have been using his questions at PMQs about Cost of Living etc while leaving the party attacks to others. If he had done so, then this story now would seem ridiculous. The reason it doesn't, is because he has been so sanctimonious about it already.
Starmer now is like the stories of GOP politicians having a go at "family values" then it turns out they've had an affair themselves.
Yes I do. Your basic premise that Starmer's potential offence is worse than Johnson's offence, and multiple potential offences is false.
I know why you are trailing this lie. You believe that Starmer will resign (he must) and you know that Johnson will not, so you are trying to minimise Johnson's indiscretions and maximise Starmer's.
Starmer must go, and go now because he is comprised when it comes to Gray and more Johnson FPNs. I hate the notion that Johnson is let off the hook because Starmer is under suspicion. To quote David Davis "For the love of God, go now man" (Starmer).
If you were a CP supporter would you want Starmer to resign? I'm not sure whether I would. He is qualities IMO but on the other hand he isn't greatly popular.
As BigG. demonstrated yesterday there is the vague hope in Conservative Party circles that Starmer will be replaced by someone utterly unelectable, like Long- Bailey, giving Johnson a free run.
My point was be careful for what you wish.
You are deluded Pete.
Reeves/ Streeting/ Nandy will be the awful choice.
The alcohol is a red herring (and speaking of fish, so is the food). The simple issue is whether Covid rules were broken or not. In my Civil Service days, we regularly had meetings in hotels, after dinner, to review the day's work, over a pint or a glass of wine. They were work meetings, not parties, as any witnesses who had ever been to an actual party would testify.
Much of the guff being issued on this story is either plain wrong (confusing guidelines with law) or heresay (the ST "scoop" apparently from a Corbynite that "to the best of my knowledge" no work was done - because they weren't actually in attendance or they would know wouldn't they?
The purpose of the Wail push was to distract from the coming apocalypse at the locals. And they have been successful. The Wail itself set out what different numbers of seat losses would mean and by their own published infographic the Tory performance was "catastrophic".
So, Tories got a deserved beating, Labour didn't capitalise enough, LibDems pulled off spectacular gains, Sinn Fein and Alliance got their result in norniron. All good.
But the only reason the Heil have been able to capitalise on Starmer is because Starmer himself said this was something to resign over, having done it himself.
He went in with a studs up two footed challenge against Sunak as well as Boris. Seems likely he might get a red card now, not simply because of Durham, but Durham combined with his own two footed challenge.
Levelling up ideas to regenerate town centres which won’t have wealthy, entitled, southerners jealous resentment over the poorer parts of the country getting a few crumbs off the table.
Compulsory purchase of empty shops. Compulsory rental auctions. So much for property rights. Although Mr Speaker will not be happy that Jeremy Corbyn Boris has told the media before parliament.
Far be it from me to quibble. But surely shops are empty because no one wants to rent them? Unless this bill comes with demolition or change of use powers.
Quite a few are empty due to the high rents.
Butchers Deli has just closed in Durham. Low rents for the first six months while they establish themselves then they rocket up. A craft beer bar by my folks suddenly closed in April because they couldn’t come to an agreement on rental costs. It does happen. In the case of the latter they still have another bar a few miles away and are looking for new premises.
I support law changes to repossess these places. So much property is owned by investment companies - often not UK-based - who see the unit as an asset on the balance sheet not a building in a community. If they set a viable rent it devalues the asset which costs them money - which is why we see a preference to maintain high rents even if that leaves the unit shuttered. For years.
Time to end this. Add a purpose dimension to ownership of assets in town and cities. Unless you are actively trying to make use of the asset for the purpose it was built for - or are changing its purpose - then you need to sell it. Towns like Rochdale where its more shuttered than open are dead because of balance sheet protection.
The alcohol is a red herring (and speaking of fish, so is the food). The simple issue is whether Covid rules were broken or not. In my Civil Service days, we regularly had meetings in hotels, after dinner, to review the day's work, over a pint or a glass of wine. They were work meetings, not parties, as any witnesses who had ever been to an actual party would testify.
Except that we have already established, that a birthday cake delivered to the boss at a work meeting, by the boss’s wife, is worthy of a penalty notice.
You're missing my point. Cake is also a red herring (sorry). I don't imagine that the Met issued an FPN simply because of cake, but you'd have to ask them. I don't think there was any mention of cake in Covid laws, so there must have been some other law broken for the Met to proceed with the FPN.
For what it's worth, I've been consistent on this - I don't think the Met should have investigated the historic events at No. 10, a waste of time. Boris's lying to parliament, however, is a different matter.
It's a sunny day. Am off to the Holker Hall Spring Fair.
Have a lovely day everyone. Xx
Interesting, with respect I don't recall "not this still" being your attitude with regards to Downing Street. And let's not forget that Starmer wanted hospitality locked down for longer, even after this event.
Oh and yes who on earth followed the rules at the time. No one I know. I suppose the same (5%-ish) of people who were wearing a mask in Tesco's yesterday.
On this theme I hat the pleasure of meeting Alice Roberts of iSAGE fame(amongst other far more worthy achievements) and also Kit Yates, also of iSAGE. Graduation ceremony with around 700 people in attendance. Around 10 people wore masks. Can you guess if the pair above did, including while accepting an honorary degree and speaking in response?
I doubt Starmer will be fined, probably a warning at most, though even if he was I also doubt he would step down. He clearly wants to be PM and can just say he will stand down if the PM stands down after his fine which he won't either.
As Rayner was also at this gathering she would probably have to go too if the police took action. That would likely leave Rachel Reeves and Wes Streeting as probable successors if Starmer did go
Presumably if Keir gets a fine Boris will jump in to defend him and say he shouldn't resign? He cannot very well claim it's an outrage to get a fine, nor can he praise it as an honourable decision to stand down.
There's a certain life lesson here that in general being "the bigger person" can serve your own self interest.
When Boris was fined for breaking the rules then he was seriously damaged. Starmer had no need to go in with a two footed challenge himself, rejecting the apology, which has now come back to haunt him as his own words are thrown back at him.
Starmer could have been the bigger person and accepted the apology. Being cynical he could have done so while leaving it to his "attack dogs" on social media, the media and his MPs to do the attacks against Boris.
If Starmer had been the bigger person and accepted Boris's apology, this would not be a story now and if it became (a much smaller one) he could just issue his own apology to get rid of it and the precedent would have been set and the story would just look stupid after that.
You are on fire today! Be careful of the hyperbole burns.
Do you disagree with anything I said? If so, why?
I think it comes back to Starmer not being very good at politics. Blair and Cameron would never have found themselves in such a quandary, they left their vicious attacks to "attack dogs" so keeping their own hands clean.
Starmer could have been using his questions at PMQs about Cost of Living etc while leaving the party attacks to others. If he had done so, then this story now would seem ridiculous. The reason it doesn't, is because he has been so sanctimonious about it already.
Starmer now is like the stories of GOP politicians having a go at "family values" then it turns out they've had an affair themselves.
Yes I do. Your basic premise that Starmer's potential offence is worse than Johnson's offence, and multiple potential offences is false.
I know why you are trailing this lie. You believe that Starmer will resign (he must) and you know that Johnson will not, so you are trying to minimise Johnson's indiscretions and maximise Starmer's.
Starmer must go, and go now because he is comprised when it comes to Gray and more Johnson FPNs. I hate the notion that Johnson is let off the hook because Starmer is under suspicion. To quote David Davis "For the love of God, go now man" (Starmer).
If you were a CP supporter would you want Starmer to resign? I'm not sure whether I would. He is qualities IMO but on the other hand he isn't greatly popular.
As BigG. demonstrated yesterday there is the vague hope in Conservative Party circles that Starmer will be replaced by someone utterly unelectable, like Long- Bailey, giving Johnson a free run.
My point was be careful for what you wish.
I am not sure I did say that and consider it very unlikely but there is sufficient evidence to suggest this crises for Starmer is being fuelled by the left within labour and not the conservatives
It has also just come to light that Adam Wagner, the lawyer who defended him on Sky, actually shares a Chambers with Starmer, though Sky did not mention it
Craziness is not retrocted to Russia. This is what Trumps former Defence Secretary has been saying:
"Former President Donald J. Trump asked Mark T. Esper, his defense secretary, about the possibility of launching missiles into Mexico to “destroy the drug labs” and wipe out the cartels, maintaining that the United States’ involvement in a strike against its southern neighbor could be kept secret"
"When Mr. Esper raised various objections, Mr. Trump said that “we could just shoot some Patriot missiles and take out the labs, quietly,” adding that “no one would know it was us.” Mr. Trump said he would just say that the United States had not conducted the strike, Mr. Esper recounts, writing that he would have thought it was a joke had he not been staring Mr. Trump in the face."
When I saw all the partying at No 10 ... I thought, 'How stupid these people are? Did they really think they could get away with it'.
Now I see the party at Durham ... I think, 'How stupid these people are? Did they really think they could get away with it'.
No wonder the UK is such a mess, it really is run by stupid and stupider.
(Is Ed Davey really is to dull to be embroiled in a LibDem Tofu-gate. That must surely be next.)
Whatever happens now it is worth reminding ourselves that politics rarely runs in a straight line for any length of time and certainties about future election results are way off the line. The only time you can truly tell when politicians are telling fibs is when they open their mouths.
TBF, it must be almost impossible for a politician to run their lives perfectly when trying to run a top job. The amount of undeserved ordure they get dumped on them by opponents (and not just those in another party) is amazing.
Remember the controversy of Boris' bike ride during lockdown? How dare he?
On the previous thread, someone expressed that Starmer was running the campaign for a really important by-election. Well, Boris was trying to run the country through a pandemic. The stress on everyone involved must have been immense.
We want politicians to be 'like' us. Yet we also want them to be perfect in all ways. Sadly, I am not perfect. No-one reading this is perfect. If we were put under the same minute critical examination that Johnson, Starmer or any top politician has been, then we would have stories about us.
Very few people are angels. And they might not have the skills needed to run a country.
There's a lot to nail Boris for. But, "partygate" is small beer. It ought to be small beer for Starmer, but then, he's made so much of the issue.
It’s not small beer to those who had to struggle with the regulations, like not visiting dying relatives for example. Those that make the law should follow the law. If it was a bad law, that is the fault of the law maker.
Well, the same applies to Starmer, doesn't it? Why were people getting pi**ed at a do whilst others could not visit dying relatives? That's not small beer to those who had to struggle with the regulations.
Starmer voted for the law. Did he say it was a bad law when he voted for it (I assume not, but someone'll have more info.)
Starmer and Labour have been caught by their own witch hunt. It is pure incompetence on their part not to realise the trap they had laid for themselves.
Personally I think it’s less serious than a PM disobeying his own law, but as LoO Starmer also has some responsibility here. It doesn’t rally matter in any case politically after Starmer called for the PM to resign.
If Starmer is fined, the wise move politically might be to resign. If Starmer isn’t fined, some people will owe him an apology. Either way Boris should go. His offence is proven and as PM it is the most serious.
Starmer is a law maker too. If he'd been opposing the restrictions then it would be less serious but he actually was opposing the relaxation of the restrictions after his own party. Hypocrite.
Plus he's every bit as guilty or more as Boris is. After calling for him to go. Hypocrite.
Plus he's outright lied about the events saying he was eating between work, when his own memo says the party was at the end of the day. Liar.
I've said since last year Boris should go, but Starmer is every bit as bad if not worse for the sheer hypocrisy too.
Starmer has to go, but your hyperbole is ludicrous.
If this work event crossed the line and rules were breached which may be the case, so be it, but for you to then assert it is worse than multiple events attended, and or arranged by Johnson, who also lied to Parliament it has to be said, is absurd.
Why does Starmer have to go but Johnson can stay? Starmer set the bar to judge Johnson. Starmer being compromised by this incident neutralises any attack he can make on Johnson when more fines and the Gray Report are released. And of course the killer, rules don't apply to Boris Johnson.
The reason it's worse is because Starmer has himself set the threshold after the fact, while being in breach of his own threshold. Boris didn't do that.
Johnson can rightly or wrongly say he didn't think that what happened was wrong at the time and he didn't intend for people having cake at work etc to be illegal, but he's paid the FPN and accepted he made a mistake. Put his hands up.
Starmer can't do that as he's already set the threshold as to this being a resigning offence. He set a trap for the PM and jumped straight into it. How can Starmer accept he's made a mistake when he's said that it must be a resigning offence already?
You are as usual writing absolute and utter nonsense.
I have agreed with you Starmer set the bar by which a breach of Covid rules is measured, and as such he must go having been busted.
But worse than the man who wrote the rules, lied to Parliament and attended events which according to the already released bits of the Gray Report could number around eight.
You have Starmer, by the nuts, Johnson has his scalp, BigDog is saved and his foe vanquished. So why would you mislead the board by claiming Starmer's charge means multiple charges against Johnson are now trivial?
I never said Johnson's events are trivial, I said he should resign over them. I stand by that.
But Starmer is worse because he set the threshold of this being a resigning offence AFTER the facts came out. Boris didn't.
So Starmer has clearly surpassed his own resignation threshold he gave to Parliament. Was he lying to Parliament when he said that those investigated by the Police should resign? After the facts came out.
Boris can (wrongly in my view) grasp at the straw of saying "I made a mistake, I'm sorry, I didn't think this was against the rules. I'm sorry for what happened and lessons will be learnt."
Starmer has no straws to clutch at as he went in with a two footed studs first challenge over what Boris did.
Lying to parliament was the resigning matter.
In any event If Starmer is guilty then every film crew shooting at that time including TV outside broadcasts will also have to be priosecuted because when on location you are obliged to supply dinner for the crew by 9.00 pm (or if later then you pay for an extra day and you are still obliged to supply dinner).
I notice the Times 'scoop' have actually printed a copy of their 'call sheet' which specifies (among other things) all meal times. This will be so familiar to all TV companies working on location I'm surprised no one has mentioned it. Unless I've missed something I don't see the story?
Of course you don't
I am shocked
I'm shocked too that they could feed 30 people for £200! Add dinks fruit and Vegetarian options and it becomes positively parsimonious. But as you are sure he's guilty how about taking the bet that MrEd refused (after guaranteeing he will be found guilty). £100 evens that he doesn't get an FPN?
The alcohol is a red herring (and speaking of fish, so is the food). The simple issue is whether Covid rules were broken or not. In my Civil Service days, we regularly had meetings in hotels, after dinner, to review the day's work, over a pint or a glass of wine. They were work meetings, not parties, as any witnesses who had ever been to an actual party would testify.
Much of the guff being issued on this story is either plain wrong (confusing guidelines with law) or heresay (the ST "scoop" apparently from a Corbynite that "to the best of my knowledge" no work was done - because they weren't actually in attendance or they would know wouldn't they?
The purpose of the Wail push was to distract from the coming apocalypse at the locals. And they have been successful. The Wail itself set out what different numbers of seat losses would mean and by their own published infographic the Tory performance was "catastrophic".
So, Tories got a deserved beating, Labour didn't capitalise enough, LibDems pulled off spectacular gains, Sinn Fein and Alliance got their result in norniron. All good.
But the only reason the Heil have been able to capitalise on Starmer is because Starmer himself said this was something to resign over, having done it himself.
He went in with a studs up two footed challenge against Sunak as well as Boris. Seems likely he might get a red card now, not simply because of Durham, but Durham combined with his own two footed challenge.
Sure - the Sword of Damocles above his head is one that he put there himself.
However, there is a huge amount of noise about largely irrelevant stuff - did they lie about Rayner, the shocking memo, the "to the best of my knowledge" leak, the students who shot the video etc etc etc.
Ultimately the question is simple - was this a campaign event or not? If it was then no fine. If it wasn't then Starmer and Rayner have to resign and the Tories have to try and bear the pressure of Johnson not resigning for his FPNs plural.
Whether the food was planned or what it cost or was there a beer or any of that bollocks doesn't matter if the police accept this was a campaign event. For what its worth having been to such things I've said from the start that this was a campaign event. Which the laws *of the time" allowed - and the laws were not the same as the laws when Number 10 held its BYOB party or the Christmas Party or the "fuck the Queen" party etc etc. But I will wee myself laughing if they get slapped with fines and have to resign...
Comments
That's an unhealthy attitude to alcohol.
In any event If Starmer is guilty then every film crew shooting at that time including TV outside broadcasts will also have to be priosecuted because when on location you are obliged to supply dinner for the crew by 9.00 pm (or if later then you pay for an extra day and you are still obliged to supply dinner).
I notice the Times 'scoop' have actually printed a copy of their 'call sheet' which specifies (among other things) all meal times. This will be so familiar to all TV companies working on location I'm surprised no one has mentioned it. Unless I've missed something I don't see the story?
What has repelled me about Johnson’s behaviour is the brazen lying and contempt towards both Parliament and electorate.
It now starts to look as though Starmer has been somewhat economical with the actualité too.
Complete disclosure when the photo first surfaced, and an apology, would have drawn a sharp distinction with the PM. As it is we’re in for weeks of tedious argument about the minutiae of regulations, which almost entirely misses the point.
Ed: which might also help explain the difference.
However, first of all a lot of people really did follow most of the very harsh rules (visiting a dying relative for example).
Second, I dont regard it as hypocritical to hold those in power over us, and who asked us to give them that power, to a higher standard of behaviour and compliance.
You have accepted the framing of those trying get you to ignore their blatant mendacity.
I think it comes back to Starmer not being very good at politics. Blair and Cameron would never have found themselves in such a quandary, they left their vicious attacks to "attack dogs" so keeping their own hands clean.
Starmer could have been using his questions at PMQs about Cost of Living etc while leaving the party attacks to others. If he had done so, then this story now would seem ridiculous. The reason it doesn't, is because he has been so sanctimonious about it already.
Starmer now is like the stories of GOP politicians having a go at "family values" then it turns out they've had an affair themselves.
"Hi TOPPING, hope all is well with you.
To say Thank You 🙏 for all the help from the UK 🇬🇧 to Ukraine 🇺🇦 for its struggle against the aggressor."
As I said, if you dont want to get pissed who cares if you cannot have a beer, theres no harm to you in being asked to have a nonalcoholic beverage, and theres less harm overall from those who'd abuse the idea of drinking during work.
People crying about not being able to imbibe alcohol during work doesnt connect with me, people cannot go a few hours without it?
Sampling error, Poisson error, sure ... but Wales is not so small that the statistics are dominated by those effects.
Llafur did much better than Starmer. That is undeniable.
First- did Starmer break the rules of the time? Durham police are working in that one.
Second- is his recent account of those events to the media accurate?
The first one matters a lot in reality. The second one matters of you're the Daily Mail.
No more blue on blue: Johnson’s strategist lambasts female MPs over porn complaint
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/1f116f5c-ce38-11ec-8423-5db7bbe7a364
If the Starmer event turned into more of a party, then that's an issue, but there's a clear difference between the practical meal provision for people working away/working long hours, and gathering for xmas parties.
As many have pointed out, there were drink/food events (including the garden drinks) that the Met didn't think were worth further investigation. I'd imagine there are hundreds of meals similar to the one planned by Labour by both parties, that wouldn't get anyone a FPN.
Starmer's issue is the suggestion that it became much more of a social event.
If you want a beer with a curry (for example) they pair nicely. Why should that be forbidden? If that's what someone wants they should be treated with the self respect to be able to do so as a responsible adult unless they cross the line.
Saying "yes you can have a coke" is like saying "why not have a vegetarian meal" or "can't you just leave out the carbs" or plenty of other dietary choices.
If people are being responsible, why strip away their choices?
Butchers Deli has just closed in Durham. Low rents for the first six months while they establish themselves then they rocket up. A craft beer bar by my folks suddenly closed in April because they couldn’t come to an agreement on rental costs. It does happen. In the case of the latter they still have another bar a few miles away and are looking for new premises.
https://mobile.twitter.com/RALee85/status/1523193649151897601
This might be the first TB2 UCAV aviation kill. It looks like a Russian Mi-8 helicopter was struck while dismounting soldiers onto Snake Island.
Get a grip Mary Whitehouse. You in the temperance society.
People have an implicit expectation that reaction will follow action in a logical and consistent way. It's really not that silly to think that some people will work backwards from the reaction to make a judgement about the action.
It's the unspoken assumption people are unable to go 4 hours without having alcohol and unreasonable to ask them not to I find laughable.
So many in authority seem to have broken these rules, including the politicians who made the laws, and a good number of the civil servants.
I would take from this not that all these people are horrible and heartless, but that the rules themselves were silly, overbearing and ambiguous around the edges. My anger is not that some people partied, its that they didn't allow others to party. Starmer's criticism of Johnson though was on completely the reverse basis, which has left him open to criticism for the very same hypocrisy he apparently considers such a cardinal sin.
It seems odd to me that no mainstream opposition politicians have used the rule-breaking as grounds to criticise the rules themselves, particularly as they make constant references to real-life horror stories of people suffering under them.
Is it likely that this was a one off campaign event that ended in a pre-timetabled social meal? There might be a dozen more from same time - all with different shadow cabinet members.
The next Lab leader might have to be someone who literally had to shield at home for two years during covid.
"Boris Johnson’s deputy chief of staff has criticised the female Tory MPs who exposed Neil Parish for watching pornography in parliament, reigniting anger about the treatment of women at Westminster. David Canzini allegedly said he was “shocked” that members of Parish’s own party had decided to disclose the incident in an open forum rather than raise it privately."
It was Starmer's tweet saying that just for being under a criminal investigation Johnson should resign that will or should be the undoing of him.
(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
14m
One thing clear from Lisa Nandy's interview. Labour have no coherent response to the new revelations, nor any way of credibly explaining why Starmer shouldn't resign if fined.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1523210544781553664
https://mobile.twitter.com/Hromadske/status/1523202068076498944
Airstrike on a school in Bilohorivka (Luhansk Oblast) killed at least 60 people. 30 people got from the rubble, 7 of them were injured. Rescuers were extinguishing the fire for almost four hours — Head of the Luhansk Regional Military Administration
Guess I will not be a good jury member for the forthcoming trial?
Why should someone be denied the choice? That's the question. The onus is on those looking to ban for justification, not those wanting a free choice.
If I'm a responsible adult and I as a responsible adult want beer and curry for my meal, why should I as a responsible adult be denied that choice?
None of this is to say that I think Starmer is a great leader, just that the "evidence" advanced for the claim is tosh.
Couldn't afford the rent said the agent.
I asked what it was and got a ludicrous figure.
Could that come down I asked?
Nah. It's the market rate.
But it's been empty for 18 months!
Market rate, market rate.
It's still empty four years on.
However. Oversupply is the fundamental issue.
Compare the swings in vote share for similar sized populations. It may well show that Welsh Labour did better, and it would at least be a sensible comparison to make.
I know why you are trailing this lie. You believe that Starmer will resign (he must) and you know that Johnson will not, so you are trying to minimise Johnson's indiscretions and maximise Starmer's.
Starmer must go, and go now because he is comprised when it comes to Gray and more Johnson FPNs. I hate the notion that Johnson is let off the hook because Starmer is under suspicion. To quote David Davis "For the love of God, go now man" (Starmer).
To be clear I am NOT saying that what Starmer allegedly did in Durham is better or worse than what Boris and others allegedly did in Downing Street.
What is worse for Starmer is the fact that Boris has claimed that making a mistake is something worthy of an apology, while Starmer has claimed that it requires resignation.
Boris can keep repeating his "I have apologised" line until the cows come home, but can Starmer apologise in the same way having said that anyone fined must resign?
It's his own words, not just his actions, that are haunting him now. He's put himself into a checkmate position if he's fined.
In Wales, all the Councillors in every Council were up for Election. In (most of) England, only a third of the councillors in some Councils were up for election.
The Welsh elections were all the councils in the whole country. It is a more representative sample (of Wales) than the the English results are (of England).
So, in Wales, there were 1232 Council ward elections. This is the dataset we are examining when we look at changes in Councillors.
This sample size is comparable to a typical YouGov polling sample for the polls for the ENTIRE UK.
Sampling error and Poisson noise are not dominating the results in changes of councillors in Wales.
No 10 investigated for 12 events v Starmer for 1 .
https://nypost.com/article/inside-obamas-marthas-vineyard-estate/
My point was be careful for what you wish.
People vote for all kinds of crazy, wild, lunatic or sentimental reasons. Maybe you were thinking of what you wee going to do to the Drake when you get your free tree, who knows?
I said Labour did much better in Wales than in England, and the evidence suggesting this from the change in number of councillors is perfectly valid.
I make no judgement on the relative performance of Labour in Wales or England - just that the numbers presented in the original post are complete and utter cobblers and tell us nothing about the relative Labour performances.
Does anyone have any insight as to what’s going on behind the scenes in the retail letting market? Are the landlords simply happy with the capital appreciation, and will their behaviour change as property prices react to interest rate changes?
Now the argument is that the dinner was work itself.
I am shocked
Just that it was one that people can't help making.
As to Obama, there are many logical explanations - they are prioritising short-term utility over the long-term, they don't care about leaving the property for their children to inherit, they have enough wealth that they can lose a $12m property to sea level rise with little concern, they have a touching faith in the ability of the world to respond rapidly to the threat posed, etc.
I am pointing out that we are very far from sample sizes in that statistical regime.
The purpose of the Wail push was to distract from the coming apocalypse at the locals. And they have been successful. The Wail itself set out what different numbers of seat losses would mean and by their own published infographic the Tory performance was "catastrophic".
So, Tories got a deserved beating, Labour didn't capitalise enough, LibDems pulled off spectacular gains, Sinn Fein and Alliance got their result in norniron. All good.
Malcolm Tucker would not advise this. The Daily Mail might.
It's a sunny day. Am off to the Holker Hall Spring Fair.
Have a lovely day everyone. Xx
Reeves/ Streeting/ Nandy will be the awful choice.
Socialists not welcome here
He went in with a studs up two footed challenge against Sunak as well as Boris. Seems likely he might get a red card now, not simply because of Durham, but Durham combined with his own two footed challenge.
Time to end this. Add a purpose dimension to ownership of assets in town and cities. Unless you are actively trying to make use of the asset for the purpose it was built for - or are changing its purpose - then you need to sell it. Towns like Rochdale where its more shuttered than open are dead because of balance sheet protection.
For what it's worth, I've been consistent on this - I don't think the Met should have investigated the historic events at No. 10, a waste of time. Boris's lying to parliament, however, is a different matter.
Have a lovely day though.
As Rayner was also at this gathering she would probably have to go too if the police took action. That would likely leave Rachel Reeves and Wes Streeting as probable successors if Starmer did go
It has also just come to light that Adam Wagner, the lawyer who defended him on Sky, actually shares a Chambers with Starmer, though Sky did not mention it
However, there is a huge amount of noise about largely irrelevant stuff - did they lie about Rayner, the shocking memo, the "to the best of my knowledge" leak, the students who shot the video etc etc etc.
Ultimately the question is simple - was this a campaign event or not? If it was then no fine. If it wasn't then Starmer and Rayner have to resign and the Tories have to try and bear the pressure of Johnson not resigning for his FPNs plural.
Whether the food was planned or what it cost or was there a beer or any of that bollocks doesn't matter if the police accept this was a campaign event. For what its worth having been to such things I've said from the start that this was a campaign event. Which the laws *of the time" allowed - and the laws were not the same as the laws when Number 10 held its BYOB party or the Christmas Party or the "fuck the Queen" party etc etc. But I will wee myself laughing if they get slapped with fines and have to resign...