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.
The difference is, of course, that Boris made these absurd laws, and Starmer wanted the laws extended and strengthened, to lock us down longer
They are both obnoxious hypocrites. They should both resign. And yet I predict there will be another similarity: neither will resign. Starmer won't resign even if he gets fined. He's waited his whole life to be Labour leader, and he can now see the Prime Ministership in the distance. He can see the door of Number 10, and little Kir Royale, son of a nurse and a toolmaker, walking through the door
No way he gives that up over a curry and a few beers and a bit of a piss-up with his workmates. He will find some way to brazen it out, just like Boris
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.
You can get 100/1 on Rachel Reeves as Next UK Prime Minister
3 things need to occur for this bet to come to fruition:
1. Boris Johnson needs to survive as PM until the next General Election. I think this is LIKELY
2. Labour need to replace Keir Starmer with Rachel Reeves. I think this is POSSIBLE
3. The Conservatives need to lose their majority. I think this is POSSIBLE
Why do I think no. 2 might happen? If Starmer is felled by the beer & curry scandal then we go into a leadership contest. The standout Labour parliamentarian is Rachel Reeves. She won't be tainted by curry. She is highly intelligent with the right background and she's female.
I think at 100/1 this is astounding value. It doesn't mean it will happen. It means this is an exceptionally good flutter. I'm on.
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."
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.
Several people on here particularly @bigjohnowls are extrapolating that Labour's vote in Wales was a ringing endorsement of the Corbynista Drakeford, and Labour's underwhelming performance in England (outside London) was a rejection of Starmer and Labour's centre ground.
I did not vote for either Drakeford or Starmer on Thursday, but my two votes were placed against Llafur candidates.
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
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.
Have a lovely day though.
Actually, I have not commented for some considerable time on Downing Street and said months ago that the whole investigation should have been done and dusted in 2 weeks.
The whole thing - from the laws enacted, the rushed way they were enacted with little or no scrutiny, the confusion between law and guidance, the police not understanding the law, the cock up over prosecutions, the inconsistencies in how the laws have been applied, the frankly amateurish and unprofessional way the investigations have been conducted, the length of time taken etc - has been a disgrace.
On top of which there has been the contemptuous attitude by politicians to the sacrifices made by the rest of us.
And I've said so repeatedly and consistently.
I'm just bored by it all now. That's all. So no reason for you to try and make some snippy political point - if that is what you were doing. (And if you weren't, my apologies in advance.)
You can get 100/1 on Rachel Reeves as Next UK Prime Minister
3 things need to occur for this bet to come to fruition:
1. Boris Johnson needs to survive as PM until the next General Election. I think this is LIKELY
2. Labour need to replace Keir Starmer with Rachel Reeves. I think this is POSSIBLE
3. The Conservatives need to lose their majority. I think this is POSSIBLE
Why do I think no. 2 might happen? If Starmer is felled by the beer & curry scandal then we go into a leadership contest. The standout Labour parliamentarian is Rachel Reeves. She won't be tainted by curry. She is highly intelligent with the right background and she's female.
I think at 100/1 this is astounding value. It doesn't mean it will happen. It means this is an exceptionally good flutter. I'm on.
It's excellent value. She should be about 20/1 or even 15/1 imo.
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.
Socialists not welcome here
Over to you BJO, If Starmar resigns who should lead Labour?
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.
Socialists not welcome here
No BJO you are deluded, unless you desire infinite Conservative Governments by electing a Socialist candidate of purity, which I believe you do.
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."
Yes. For a start, anyone with two brain cells to rub together would know it was America who is now down half a dozen missiles on their inventory. Secondly, it is probably illegal under American as well as international (and Mexican) law. Thirdly, it is diplomatically clumsy, to say the least. Fourthly, there would inevitably be innocent civilians killed. Lastly, it is fairly pointless since labs can be rebuilt or replaced easily enough.
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.
Yes, you’re right and I do agree. I remember when mmm…glug, an artisan food and drink shop in Newcastle shut due to high rents. Their property was owned by an investment company in the Middle East.
I do think the demand is there, if the price is right. If the Tories can get this right it could be transformative.
SKS - There is some wiggle room for SKS as he was previously cleared by Durham police and should await the result of the new investigation. A Starmer FPN and he goes. Replace with Andy Burnham
BOZO - The man has no shame, honour or integrity. He should have been turfed out weeks ago. Odious man. Replace with Jeremy Hunt.
ED - A man so boring and devoid of charisma that he makes John Major interesting. Replace with Daisy Cooper.
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...
No you won't, you're desperate for them to stay, unfined, so the focus remains on Boris, who you hate with a lifelong passion, because they enacted the Brexit you voted for
You're all over the fucking place.
A campaign event might just be plausible if some late evening work organically evolved into coffees and feet on desks and a review of the day, and someone said "shall I get a couple of beers" and Starmer said, yes, that will be fine, let's finish up now
This is not what happened. A MEMO was sent out to lots of people, detailing the timing and the people who would be present (including Rayner, despite the lying denials), and they ordered curry for THIRTY, and lied about the reason ("everywhere else was shut" - turns out that wasn't true either)
Did the memo say "it is possible the day's work might spontaneously evolve into a few lagers and some chicken Madras but we can't say for sure!"
No, it did not. This is ridiculous. It's all trivial and pathetic but Starmer pompously decided THIS IS A RESIGNING MATTER months ago. So be it. Starmer and Rayner broke the rules. Just like Boris and Co
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
To be fair to Wagner he has defended people across the political divide over allegations of covid breaches including JRM. I think he’s quite fair minded on this issue.
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?
You seem out of touch on the price of a Chinese meal delivered
Our takeaway charges £6.80 so £200 equates to 30 meals and of course they may well have been some present who did not eat
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.
As someone who's main goal is not to see this party or that do well, but to see the government in the hands of more competent people, I have mixed feelings about all this. Starmer has done great work in bring Labour back to the realm of the sensible, and I would like to see that continue whether or not he remains leader.
A return to loony-right versus loony-left would be a hugely depressing development. It felt for a while like we were right on the edge of having both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party back from the nutters. Now it feels like we're back on the precipice.
Anything which gives hope to the far right and the far left at the same time really fills me with dread.
The last thing Labour needs is another London based leader. Reeves would be 4 in a row.
She's been a Leeds MP for 12 years now. Can she not be forgiven for being born in London? (Not my pick anyway, incidentally).
If Labour continues to pick leaders from the London chattering classes they will continue to lose general elections.
Describing a state school south London girl who has been Leeds MP for 12 years as "a member of the London chattering classes" only shows you up as being a bit of a prat.
SKS - There is some wiggle room for SKS as he was previously cleared by Durham police and should await the result of the new investigation. A Starmer FPN and he goes. Replace with Andy Burnham
BOZO - The man has no shame, honour or integrity. He should have been turfed out weeks ago. Odious man. Replace with Jeremy Hunt.
ED - A man so boring and devoid of charisma that he makes John Major interesting. Replace with Daisy Cooper.
Burnham isn't an MP.
The next leader will be one of Reeves, Cooper, Nandy, Rayner, Philipson imho. Surely they can't shy away from a woman yet again when there are two or three suitable candidates?
SKS - There is some wiggle room for SKS as he was previously cleared by Durham police and should await the result of the new investigation. A Starmer FPN and he goes. Replace with Andy Burnham
BOZO - The man has no shame, honour or integrity. He should have been turfed out weeks ago. Odious man. Replace with Jeremy Hunt.
ED - A man so boring and devoid of charisma that he makes John Major interesting. Replace with Daisy Cooper.
Burnham isn't an MP.
The next leader will be one of Reeves, Cooper, Nandy, Rayner, Philipson imho. Surely they can't shy away from a woman yet again when there are two or three suitable candidates?
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?
You seem out of touch on the price of a Chinese meal delivered
Our takeaway charges £6.80 so £200 equates to 30 meals and of course they may well have been some present who did not eat
I just checked a random Chinese on just-eat, King's Takeaway on Madoc Street. It's £6.50 for sweet and sour chicken and £3.50 for egg fried rice. That a tenner per person. Knock it down to about £8 each if people are happy to share rice.
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.
How do you get on yourself ?
Good! 5 candidates in Troup to elect 3 councillors. I came 3rd on first preference votes - which was amazing - but then slipped into 4th as Tory votes were reallocated to their 2nd candidate who overtook me. We picked up seats in Fraserburgh and Peterhead and had I actually campaigned in Troup it could have been closer.
Tories have actually ended up with 2 more councillors than they had last time converting tory independents to Tories. But I think we've successfully put the shits up David Duguid and his merry men (and they are all men).
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?
You seem out of touch on the price of a Chinese meal delivered
Our takeaway charges £6.80 so £200 equates to 30 meals and of course they may well have been some present who did not eat
The New Red Lantern not far from here and a few miles from the city centre, has mains starting at £5.70.
Plus if you place a bulk order you’d get a discount.
SKS - There is some wiggle room for SKS as he was previously cleared by Durham police and should await the result of the new investigation. A Starmer FPN and he goes. Replace with Andy Burnham
BOZO - The man has no shame, honour or integrity. He should have been turfed out weeks ago. Odious man. Replace with Jeremy Hunt.
ED - A man so boring and devoid of charisma that he makes John Major interesting. Replace with Daisy Cooper.
Burnham isn't an MP.
The next leader will be one of Reeves, Cooper, Nandy, Rayner, Philipson imho. Surely they can't shy away from a woman yet again when there are two or three suitable candidates?
You can scratch out Rayner.
Yes. If Starmer goes over the beer & curry then so does Rayner. Besides, much as I rather like her there is no way she will win over southern Britain.
Phillips is on a level with Liz Truss. The tories would love it.
Cooper is brilliant but not without faults and probably yesterday's person.
The last thing Labour needs is another London based leader. Reeves would be 4 in a row.
She's been a Leeds MP for 12 years now. Can she not be forgiven for being born in London? (Not my pick anyway, incidentally).
If Labour continues to pick leaders from the London chattering classes they will continue to lose general elections.
Describing a state school south London girl who has been Leeds MP for 12 years as "a member of the London chattering classes" only shows you up as being a bit of a prat.
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.
How do you get on yourself ?
Good! 5 candidates in Troup to elect 3 councillors. I came 3rd on first preference votes - which was amazing - but then slipped into 4th as Tory votes were reallocated to their 2nd candidate who overtook me. We picked up seats in Fraserburgh and Peterhead and had I actually campaigned in Troup it could have been closer.
Tories have actually ended up with 2 more councillors than they had last time converting tory independents to Tories. But I think we've successfully put the shits up David Duguid and his merry men (and they are all men).
SKS - There is some wiggle room for SKS as he was previously cleared by Durham police and should await the result of the new investigation. A Starmer FPN and he goes. Replace with Andy Burnham
BOZO - The man has no shame, honour or integrity. He should have been turfed out weeks ago. Odious man. Replace with Jeremy Hunt.
ED - A man so boring and devoid of charisma that he makes John Major interesting. Replace with Daisy Cooper.
Yesterday there was a debate about whether Johnson is uncoalition-able. I posted that we can't be sure he wont find a way to bring the DUP on board somehow. John Rentoul has written similar this morning I see.
In the debates about whether Tories can form a new government without a majority I don't think we can assume the unionists wont be in play.
. A Starmer FPN and he goes. Replace with Andy Burnham
Under NO circumstances:
He failed massively to win last time. Why? Because he is no bloody good.
He's not even an MP. Duh.
He will put off all the new Labour voters down sarf. And we still need them.
He has a penis.
So in the words of Maggie, 'No. No. No.'
What the fuck difference does it make that "he has a penis"? Are you high?
Says a man. And a tory man at that.
It makes 'the fuck difference' because Labour MUST choose a woman as next leader.
End of.
And I'm a Labour supporter. You're not. So piss off.
xx
No, you aren't. You're a Minsk troll using a VPN.
Also, do you reckon that after months of me pouring vitriol on the Conservatives you think "tory" is a good descriptor for me? Take your lunchbreak, Svetlana, try again later in the afternoon.
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?
You seem out of touch on the price of a Chinese meal delivered
Our takeaway charges £6.80 so £200 equates to 30 meals and of course they may well have been some present who did not eat
Pretty sure they didn't go to your local Chinese
The place they ordered from is fancy - £10.95 for a Chicken Tikka Masala, and £3.90 for pilau rice.
So, even if they just ordered mains, you're talking meals for 14 people.
SKS - There is some wiggle room for SKS as he was previously cleared by Durham police and should await the result of the new investigation. A Starmer FPN and he goes. Replace with Andy Burnham
BOZO - The man has no shame, honour or integrity. He should have been turfed out weeks ago. Odious man. Replace with Jeremy Hunt.
ED - A man so boring and devoid of charisma that he makes John Major interesting. Replace with Daisy Cooper.
How do they replace with Andy Burnham?
I suppose if the FPN doesn't come until mid summer and Burnham gets selected for Wakefield and on and on...
Lot of ifs frankly.
The party would have to have decided it wanted a coronation collectively and that, erm... seems unlikely.
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...
No you won't, you're desperate for them to stay, unfined, so the focus remains on Boris, who you hate with a lifelong passion, because they enacted the Brexit you voted for
You're all over the fucking place.
A campaign event might just be plausible if some late evening work organically evolved into coffees and feet on desks and a review of the day, and someone said "shall I get a couple of beers" and Starmer said, yes, that will be fine, let's finish up now
This is not what happened. A MEMO was sent out to lots of people, detailing the timing and the people who would be present (including Rayner, despite the lying denials), and they ordered curry for THIRTY, and lied about the reason ("everywhere else was shut" - turns out that wasn't true either)
Did the memo say "it is possible the day's work might spontaneously evolve into a few lagers and some chicken Madras but we can't say for sure!"
No, it did not. This is ridiculous. It's all trivial and pathetic but Starmer pompously decided THIS IS A RESIGNING MATTER months ago. So be it. Starmer and Rayner broke the rules. Just like Boris and Co
No, I will. Some of the funniest things that have happened in politics have been when my own lot have spectacularly imploded. Have I not torn apart why Labour screwed up the red wall? And was doing so when I was a Labour member in the red wall.
Here's the simple reality. The police don't care what you think. Or what I think. Or what the Daily Wail think. They just look at the evidence and the law. Plenty of people throwing out quotes of the guidelines - "should not" - like the stuff you are foaming on about. Guidelines are not law.
The MEMO you mention is exactly how such campaign events are organised. You think senior politicians just turn up somewhere at random? I've seen such memos come off the fax machine (I know) detailing when Prescott or Benn were arriving. Reams of details when it was Milliband.
Having food at a campaign event is legal. Or it wasn't legally permitted to be a campaign event at all. The rest is just noise.
Happy to take "you're all over the place" from you - suspect that more that I am moving from our swaying perspective than me actually moving.
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...
What "fuck the Queen" party are you talking about?
Do you mean the event that the PM was not present for of people who'd been working together earlier that day having food and alcohol afterwards together the night before Prince Philip's funeral?
Because it so, that was the same month that the event Starmer was present for where people who'd been working together earlier that day had food and alcohol afterwards together with.
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."
Yes, because a MIM-104 Patriot is a surface-to-air missile so they would probably have ended up shooting down a Mexican airliner instead.
I wasn't talking deets. I was talking principles. Getting the US military to wipe out the Mexican cartels is an idea with merit
No chance. With the margins what they are on drugs you just create vacuums which will get filled within 24 hours time and time again
Fun fact: drug of concern ATM in the us is carfentanil a drug so potent it is only licensed for 1 thing, tranquilising elephants. Not even very large mammals, just elephants
SKS - There is some wiggle room for SKS as he was previously cleared by Durham police and should await the result of the new investigation. A Starmer FPN and he goes. Replace with Andy Burnham
BOZO - The man has no shame, honour or integrity. He should have been turfed out weeks ago. Odious man. Replace with Jeremy Hunt.
ED - A man so boring and devoid of charisma that he makes John Major interesting. Replace with Daisy Cooper.
How do they replace with Andy Burnham?
I suppose if the FPN doesn't come until mid summer and Burnham gets selected for Wakefield and on and on...
Lot of ifs frankly.
The party would have to have decided it wanted a coronation collectively and that, erm... seems unlikely.
He's mayor to 2025 and I'd be surprised to see him break that commitment.
Is it too much to hope that one outcome out of this embarrassing nonsense might be that politicians of all stripes will be less quick to reach for legislation the next time we have some sort of crisis?
The Covid restrictions should have been limited to shops, restaurants and pubs opening times. Everything else should have been guidance. And the likes of Boris, SKS and Sturgeon would not have been made to look even more ridiculous than normal.
SKS - There is some wiggle room for SKS as he was previously cleared by Durham police and should await the result of the new investigation. A Starmer FPN and he goes. Replace with Andy Burnham
BOZO - The man has no shame, honour or integrity. He should have been turfed out weeks ago. Odious man. Replace with Jeremy Hunt.
ED - A man so boring and devoid of charisma that he makes John Major interesting. Replace with Daisy Cooper.
Burnham isn't an MP.
The next leader will be one of Reeves, Cooper, Nandy, Rayner, Philipson imho. Surely they can't shy away from a woman yet again when there are two or three suitable candidates?
You can scratch out Rayner.
Yes. If Starmer goes over the beer & curry then so does Rayner. Besides, much as I rather like her there is no way she will win over southern Britain.
Phillips is on a level with Liz Truss. The tories would love it.
Cooper is brilliant but not without faults and probably yesterday's person.
So it's Reeves vs Nandy.
No contest: Reeeves.
Ah, yes I had forgotten that Rayner was socialising with Starmer in Durham.
SKS - There is some wiggle room for SKS as he was previously cleared by Durham police and should await the result of the new investigation. A Starmer FPN and he goes. Replace with Andy Burnham
BOZO - The man has no shame, honour or integrity. He should have been turfed out weeks ago. Odious man. Replace with Jeremy Hunt.
ED - A man so boring and devoid of charisma that he makes John Major interesting. Replace with Daisy Cooper.
Burnham isn't an MP.
The next leader will be one of Reeves, Cooper, Nandy, Rayner, Philipson imho. Surely they can't shy away from a woman yet again when there are two or three suitable candidates?
You can scratch out Rayner.
Yes. If Starmer goes over the beer & curry then so does Rayner. Besides, much as I rather like her there is no way she will win over southern Britain.
Phillips is on a level with Liz Truss. The tories would love it.
Cooper is brilliant but not without faults and probably yesterday's person.
So it's Reeves vs Nandy.
No contest: Reeeves.
Phillips is head and shoulders more serious than Truss.
She sounds like me (although I have never addressed anyone as "Bab") so nobody would ever dream of voting for her.
. A Starmer FPN and he goes. Replace with Andy Burnham
Under NO circumstances:
He failed massively to win last time. Why? Because he is no bloody good.
He's not even an MP. Duh.
He will put off all the new Labour voters down sarf. And we still need them.
He has a penis.
So in the words of Maggie, 'No. No. No.'
What the fuck difference does it make that "he has a penis"? Are you high?
Says a man. And a tory man at that.
It makes 'the fuck difference' because Labour MUST choose a woman as next leader.
End of.
And I'm a Labour supporter. You're not. So piss off.
xx
. Your a Minsk troll using a VPN. .
At least if you are going to accuse me of being a troll pay attention to your grammar. It's something they teach us diligently in Moscow.
I'm beginning to think that some tories like yourself on here are not merely mendacious but incredibly incredibly thick pieces of gammon. The pertubation that use of a VPN generates is most amusing.
A VPN = trolling. Er, right ho. I don't know any youngster who streams who doesn't use a VPN and anyone with half a brain who is concerned about tracking should use one.
SKS - There is some wiggle room for SKS as he was previously cleared by Durham police and should await the result of the new investigation. A Starmer FPN and he goes. Replace with Andy Burnham
BOZO - The man has no shame, honour or integrity. He should have been turfed out weeks ago. Odious man. Replace with Jeremy Hunt.
ED - A man so boring and devoid of charisma that he makes John Major interesting. Replace with Daisy Cooper.
Burnham isn't an MP.
The next leader will be one of Reeves, Cooper, Nandy, Rayner, Philipson imho. Surely they can't shy away from a woman yet again when there are two or three suitable candidates?
It will almost certainly be Streeting or Reeves.
Streeting would likely win a majority - and a large one.
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...
No you won't, you're desperate for them to stay, unfined, so the focus remains on Boris, who you hate with a lifelong passion, because they enacted the Brexit you voted for
You're all over the fucking place.
A campaign event might just be plausible if some late evening work organically evolved into coffees and feet on desks and a review of the day, and someone said "shall I get a couple of beers" and Starmer said, yes, that will be fine, let's finish up now
This is not what happened. A MEMO was sent out to lots of people, detailing the timing and the people who would be present (including Rayner, despite the lying denials), and they ordered curry for THIRTY, and lied about the reason ("everywhere else was shut" - turns out that wasn't true either)
Did the memo say "it is possible the day's work might spontaneously evolve into a few lagers and some chicken Madras but we can't say for sure!"
No, it did not. This is ridiculous. It's all trivial and pathetic but Starmer pompously decided THIS IS A RESIGNING MATTER months ago. So be it. Starmer and Rayner broke the rules. Just like Boris and Co
No, I will. Some of the funniest things that have happened in politics have been when my own lot have spectacularly imploded. Have I not torn apart why Labour screwed up the red wall? And was doing so when I was a Labour member in the red wall.
Here's the simple reality. The police don't care what you think. Or what I think. Or what the Daily Wail think. They just look at the evidence and the law. Plenty of people throwing out quotes of the guidelines - "should not" - like the stuff you are foaming on about. Guidelines are not law.
The MEMO you mention is exactly how such campaign events are organised. You think senior politicians just turn up somewhere at random? I've seen such memos come off the fax machine (I know) detailing when Prescott or Benn were arriving. Reams of details when it was Milliband.
Having food at a campaign event is legal. Or it wasn't legally permitted to be a campaign event at all. The rest is just noise.
Happy to take "you're all over the place" from you - suspect that more that I am moving from our swaying perspective than me actually moving.
Day 8, chapter 594 of There is nothing to see here and I have no dog in the fight anyway.
SKS - There is some wiggle room for SKS as he was previously cleared by Durham police and should await the result of the new investigation. A Starmer FPN and he goes. Replace with Andy Burnham
BOZO - The man has no shame, honour or integrity. He should have been turfed out weeks ago. Odious man. Replace with Jeremy Hunt.
ED - A man so boring and devoid of charisma that he makes John Major interesting. Replace with Daisy Cooper.
Burnham isn't an MP.
The next leader will be one of Reeves, Cooper, Nandy, Rayner, Philipson imho. Surely they can't shy away from a woman yet again when there are two or three suitable candidates?
It will almost certainly be Streeting or Reeves.
Streeting would likely win a majority - and a large one.
. A Starmer FPN and he goes. Replace with Andy Burnham
Under NO circumstances:
He failed massively to win last time. Why? Because he is no bloody good.
He's not even an MP. Duh.
He will put off all the new Labour voters down sarf. And we still need them.
He has a penis.
So in the words of Maggie, 'No. No. No.'
What the fuck difference does it make that "he has a penis"? Are you high?
Says a man. And a tory man at that.
It makes 'the fuck difference' because Labour MUST choose a woman as next leader.
End of.
And I'm a Labour supporter. You're not. So piss off.
xx
Given that your party can't define what a woman is it's all a bit academic isn't it?
Non sequitur.
We need our next leader to be a woman. Whether that's someone who is a trans woman is another issue but I doubt the red wall thickos like Fucker Faroq would cope with it.
It has been fascinating to watch Paul Mason be ex-communicated from the Corbynite squad after refusing to support Corbyn's foreign policy views in Russia
SKS - There is some wiggle room for SKS as he was previously cleared by Durham police and should await the result of the new investigation. A Starmer FPN and he goes. Replace with Andy Burnham
BOZO - The man has no shame, honour or integrity. He should have been turfed out weeks ago. Odious man. Replace with Jeremy Hunt.
ED - A man so boring and devoid of charisma that he makes John Major interesting. Replace with Daisy Cooper.
Burnham isn't an MP.
The next leader will be one of Reeves, Cooper, Nandy, Rayner, Philipson imho. Surely they can't shy away from a woman yet again when there are two or three suitable candidates?
You can scratch out Rayner.
Yes. If Starmer goes over the beer & curry then so does Rayner. Besides, much as I rather like her there is no way she will win over southern Britain.
Phillips is on a level with Liz Truss. The tories would love it.
Cooper is brilliant but not without faults and probably yesterday's person.
So it's Reeves vs Nandy.
No contest: Reeeves.
Ah, yes I had forgotten that Rayner was socialising with Starmer in Durham.
SKS - There is some wiggle room for SKS as he was previously cleared by Durham police and should await the result of the new investigation. A Starmer FPN and he goes. Replace with Andy Burnham
BOZO - The man has no shame, honour or integrity. He should have been turfed out weeks ago. Odious man. Replace with Jeremy Hunt.
ED - A man so boring and devoid of charisma that he makes John Major interesting. Replace with Daisy Cooper.
Burnham isn't an MP.
The next leader will be one of Reeves, Cooper, Nandy, Rayner, Philipson imho. Surely they can't shy away from a woman yet again when there are two or three suitable candidates?
It will almost certainly be Streeting or Reeves.
Streeting would likely win a majority - and a large one.
SKS - There is some wiggle room for SKS as he was previously cleared by Durham police and should await the result of the new investigation. A Starmer FPN and he goes. Replace with Andy Burnham
BOZO - The man has no shame, honour or integrity. He should have been turfed out weeks ago. Odious man. Replace with Jeremy Hunt.
ED - A man so boring and devoid of charisma that he makes John Major interesting. Replace with Daisy Cooper.
Burnham isn't an MP.
The next leader will be one of Reeves, Cooper, Nandy, Rayner, Philipson imho. Surely they can't shy away from a woman yet again when there are two or three suitable candidates?
It will almost certainly be Streeting or Reeves.
Streeting would likely win a majority - and a large one.
. A Starmer FPN and he goes. Replace with Andy Burnham
Under NO circumstances:
He failed massively to win last time. Why? Because he is no bloody good.
He's not even an MP. Duh.
He will put off all the new Labour voters down sarf. And we still need them.
He has a penis.
So in the words of Maggie, 'No. No. No.'
What the fuck difference does it make that "he has a penis"? Are you high?
Says a man. And a tory man at that.
It makes 'the fuck difference' because Labour MUST choose a woman as next leader.
End of.
And I'm a Labour supporter. You're not. So piss off.
xx
Given that your party can't define what a woman is it's all a bit academic isn't it?
Non sequitur.
We need our next leader to be a woman. Whether that's someone who is a trans woman is another issue but I doubt the red wall thickos like Fucker Faroq would cope with it.
Next Labour leader must be a woman. End of.
But not Burnham because he has a penis?
So you're saying women can't have a penis?
Must be hard to keep track of your lines to take today, Vlad.
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?
You seem out of touch on the price of a Chinese meal delivered
Our takeaway charges £6.80 so £200 equates to 30 meals and of course they may well have been some present who did not eat
Not a big meal, though, is it? And who paid for the 20 or so bottles of lager. Was that in the £200? Agree, SKS has gone in hard, but largely about the fact that a) many of the Downing St events were purely social and b) the PM has consistently lied about them.
However, if Starmer were to resign, I reckon it would leave Labour in a much stronger place.
I know I'll be in a minority but I'd quite like to see Ed Miliband back. Or, even more unlikely, Emily Thornberry. Suspect she'd scare hell out of the PM.
. A Starmer FPN and he goes. Replace with Andy Burnham
Under NO circumstances:
He failed massively to win last time. Why? Because he is no bloody good.
He's not even an MP. Duh.
He will put off all the new Labour voters down sarf. And we still need them.
He has a penis.
So in the words of Maggie, 'No. No. No.'
What the fuck difference does it make that "he has a penis"? Are you high?
Says a man. And a tory man at that.
It makes 'the fuck difference' because Labour MUST choose a woman as next leader.
End of.
And I'm a Labour supporter. You're not. So piss off.
xx
Given that your party can't define what a woman is it's all a bit academic isn't it?
Non sequitur.
We need our next leader to be a woman. Whether that's someone who is a trans woman is another issue but I doubt the red wall thickos like Fucker Faroq would cope with it.
Next Labour leader must be a woman. End of.
Farooq is a liberal so he won't be fussed either way.
I was kinda joking but if LP future leader is a trans woman will they say that the party has now had a woman leader???
If Reeves is value at 100 for next PM then Nandy at 130 is even better I'd say.
Reeves doesn't seem to be even on the board on BF's market.
I know. Reeves is 100/1 with a couple of trad bookies and Nandy best price 130 with BF Exchange.
Yeah 100/1 on Betway and Betfred but they may limit your stake.
80/1 boosted on Ladbrokes.
It's worth a punt imho.
But either way, the next Labour leader will be female. So no to Wes I'm afraid.
Just noticed that I am massively quids in if Nandy becomes next PM. Bet from a while ago lying there dormant just waiting for someone to deliver a curry and beers to a hall in Durham one april evening...
. A Starmer FPN and he goes. Replace with Andy Burnham
Under NO circumstances:
He failed massively to win last time. Why? Because he is no bloody good.
He's not even an MP. Duh.
He will put off all the new Labour voters down sarf. And we still need them.
He has a penis.
So in the words of Maggie, 'No. No. No.'
What the fuck difference does it make that "he has a penis"? Are you high?
Says a man. And a tory man at that.
It makes 'the fuck difference' because Labour MUST choose a woman as next leader.
End of.
And I'm a Labour supporter. You're not. So piss off.
xx
Given that your party can't define what a woman is it's all a bit academic isn't it?
Non sequitur.
We need our next leader to be a woman. Whether that's someone who is a trans woman is another issue but I doubt the red wall thickos like Fucker Faroq would cope with it.
Next Labour leader must be a woman. End of.
Must be hard to keep track of your lines to take today, Vlad.
Yeah right Phillip Thompson.
See? Two can play the game.
The next Labour leader must and will be a woman. Sorry that this is causing such confusion for the right wing gammons.
Have a nice day folks.
Off out to walk around Hook Heath. I guess I could meet up with tlg86 some time and then that really will make you 'you're a troll' tories look even more stupid and dumbass than you already are (if that's poss.)
. A Starmer FPN and he goes. Replace with Andy Burnham
Under NO circumstances:
He failed massively to win last time. Why? Because he is no bloody good.
He's not even an MP. Duh.
He will put off all the new Labour voters down sarf. And we still need them.
He has a penis.
So in the words of Maggie, 'No. No. No.'
What the fuck difference does it make that "he has a penis"? Are you high?
Says a man. And a tory man at that.
It makes 'the fuck difference' because Labour MUST choose a woman as next leader.
End of.
And I'm a Labour supporter. You're not. So piss off.
xx
Given that your party can't define what a woman is it's all a bit academic isn't it?
Non sequitur.
We need our next leader to be a woman. Whether that's someone who is a trans woman is another issue but I doubt the red wall thickos like Fucker Faroq would cope with it.
Next Labour leader must be a woman. End of.
But not Burnham because he has a penis?
So you're saying women can't have a penis?
Must be hard to keep track of your lines to take today, Vlad.
That is a bit rich coming from PBs Trollmaster General.
SKS - There is some wiggle room for SKS as he was previously cleared by Durham police and should await the result of the new investigation. A Starmer FPN and he goes. Replace with Andy Burnham
BOZO - The man has no shame, honour or integrity. He should have been turfed out weeks ago. Odious man. Replace with Jeremy Hunt.
ED - A man so boring and devoid of charisma that he makes John Major interesting. Replace with Daisy Cooper.
Burnham isn't an MP.
The next leader will be one of Reeves, Cooper, Nandy, Rayner, Philipson imho. Surely they can't shy away from a woman yet again when there are two or three suitable candidates?
It will almost certainly be Streeting or Reeves.
Streeting would likely win a majority - and a large one.
I think I agree. I'd add Nandy in the mix.
Meh, I don't buy the love for Nandy. She strikes me as more a Brown, good ideas but needs a Blair to present them.
Wes Streeting interviews brilliantly and is likeable, possibly Labour's best media performer in many a year.
Yesterday there was a debate about whether Johnson is uncoalition-able. I posted that we can't be sure he wont find a way to bring the DUP on board somehow. John Rentoul has written similar this morning I see.
In the debates about whether Tories can form a new government without a majority I don't think we can assume the unionists wont be in play.
How can they be when N. Ireland is going to be some sort of Anglo-Irish condominium?
. A Starmer FPN and he goes. Replace with Andy Burnham
Under NO circumstances:
He failed massively to win last time. Why? Because he is no bloody good.
He's not even an MP. Duh.
He will put off all the new Labour voters down sarf. And we still need them.
He has a penis.
So in the words of Maggie, 'No. No. No.'
What the fuck difference does it make that "he has a penis"? Are you high?
Says a man. And a tory man at that.
It makes 'the fuck difference' because Labour MUST choose a woman as next leader.
End of.
And I'm a Labour supporter. You're not. So piss off.
xx
Given that your party can't define what a woman is it's all a bit academic isn't it?
Non sequitur.
We need our next leader to be a woman. Whether that's someone who is a trans woman is another issue but I doubt the red wall thickos like Fucker Faroq would cope with it.
Next Labour leader must be a woman. End of.
Two thing you've got wrong now. I'm not a Tory. You can call me an ex Tory if you like as I have voted for them in the past. Last week I voted yellow and orange, not blue.
Red Wall doesn't really extend as far north as where I am. I'm about 5 hours' drive north of anything that can reasonably be described as Red Wall.
But I'll let you have "thicko". Obvious to all I would have thought.
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?
You seem out of touch on the price of a Chinese meal delivered
Our takeaway charges £6.80 so £200 equates to 30 meals and of course they may well have been some present who did not eat
Pretty sure they didn't go to your local Chinese
The place they ordered from is fancy - £10.95 for a Chicken Tikka Masala, and £3.90 for pilau rice.
So, even if they just ordered mains, you're talking meals for 14 people.
They have already admitted 30 people were in attendance
If Reeves is value at 100 for next PM then Nandy at 130 is even better I'd say.
Reeves doesn't seem to be even on the board on BF's market.
I know. Reeves is 100/1 with a couple of trad bookies and Nandy best price 130 with BF Exchange.
Yeah 100/1 on Betway and Betfred but they may limit your stake.
80/1 boosted on Ladbrokes.
It's worth a punt imho.
But either way, the next Labour leader will be female. So no to Wes I'm afraid.
Why are you so confident of that? Many said the same thing before Starmer got selected.
Because this time there are two or three who are more than capable of doing the job. Last time there really weren't. We needed a reset out of the hideous Corbyn years and SKS was the right person for that.
Now we have a platform to power we will be led by a woman.
SKS - There is some wiggle room for SKS as he was previously cleared by Durham police and should await the result of the new investigation. A Starmer FPN and he goes. Replace with Andy Burnham
BOZO - The man has no shame, honour or integrity. He should have been turfed out weeks ago. Odious man. Replace with Jeremy Hunt.
ED - A man so boring and devoid of charisma that he makes John Major interesting. Replace with Daisy Cooper.
Davey made the biggest gains on Thursday (and of course Major did win in 1992).
The Tory membership won't vote for Hunt, see the 2019 leadership election.
Burnham would do better than Starmer in the redwall but Streeting might also be good and looks presentable, however I don't think any of the 3 will be going before the next general election.
. A Starmer FPN and he goes. Replace with Andy Burnham
Under NO circumstances:
He failed massively to win last time. Why? Because he is no bloody good.
He's not even an MP. Duh.
He will put off all the new Labour voters down sarf. And we still need them.
He has a penis.
So in the words of Maggie, 'No. No. No.'
What the fuck difference does it make that "he has a penis"? Are you high?
Says a man. And a tory man at that.
It makes 'the fuck difference' because Labour MUST choose a woman as next leader.
End of.
And I'm a Labour supporter. You're not. So piss off.
xx
Given that your party can't define what a woman is it's all a bit academic isn't it?
Non sequitur.
We need our next leader to be a woman. Whether that's someone who is a trans woman is another issue but I doubt the red wall thickos like Fucker Faroq would cope with it.
Next Labour leader must be a woman. End of.
Must be hard to keep track of your lines to take today, Vlad.
Yeah right Phillip Thompson.
See? Two can play the game.
The next Labour leader must and will be a woman. Sorry that this is causing such confusion for the right wing gammons.
Have a nice day folks.
Off out to walk around Hook Heath. I guess I could meet up with tlg86 some time and then that really will make you 'you're a troll' tories look even more stupid and dumbass than you already are (if that's poss.)
@PBModerator has said it's against the rules to doxx people.
SKS - There is some wiggle room for SKS as he was previously cleared by Durham police and should await the result of the new investigation. A Starmer FPN and he goes. Replace with Andy Burnham
BOZO - The man has no shame, honour or integrity. He should have been turfed out weeks ago. Odious man. Replace with Jeremy Hunt.
ED - A man so boring and devoid of charisma that he makes John Major interesting. Replace with Daisy Cooper.
Davey made the biggest gains on Thursday (and of course Major did win in 1992).
The Tory membership won't vote for Hunt, see the 2019 leadership election.
Burnham would do better than Starmer in the redwall but Streeting might also be good and looks presentable, however I don't think any of the 3 will be going before the next general election.
"The Tory membership won't vote for Hunt, see the 2019 leadership election."
You seem very confident of this but a lot has changed since then and Hunt did pretty well against expectations in 2019.
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").
Topping you are not usually miles off the truth. How can unlimited drunken debacles be better than dinner and a beer as part of a long working day.
. A Starmer FPN and he goes. Replace with Andy Burnham
Under NO circumstances:
He failed massively to win last time. Why? Because he is no bloody good.
He's not even an MP. Duh.
He will put off all the new Labour voters down sarf. And we still need them.
He has a penis.
So in the words of Maggie, 'No. No. No.'
What the fuck difference does it make that "he has a penis"? Are you high?
Says a man. And a tory man at that.
It makes 'the fuck difference' because Labour MUST choose a woman as next leader.
End of.
And I'm a Labour supporter. You're not. So piss off.
xx
Given that your party can't define what a woman is it's all a bit academic isn't it?
Non sequitur.
We need our next leader to be a woman. Whether that's someone who is a trans woman is another issue but I doubt the red wall thickos like Fucker Faroq would cope with it.
Next Labour leader must be a woman. End of.
Must be hard to keep track of your lines to take today, Vlad.
Yeah right Phillip Thompson.
See? Two can play the game.
The next Labour leader must and will be a woman. Sorry that this is causing such confusion for the right wing gammons.
Have a nice day folks.
Off out to walk around Hook Heath. I guess I could meet up with tlg86 some time and then that really will make you 'you're a troll' tories look even more stupid and dumbass than you already are (if that's poss.)
@PBModerator has said it's against the rules to doxx people.
It's not doxxing if he originally used that name and has admitted using it in the posts after he changed his name.
And what about the wine party the Met said was "necessary for work" despite Carrie and baby being there. The Met said no fine and no investigation, will they now re-open it?
Strange how the PB Tories are oddly quiet on this?
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?
You seem out of touch on the price of a Chinese meal delivered
Our takeaway charges £6.80 so £200 equates to 30 meals and of course they may well have been some present who did not eat
Pretty sure they didn't go to your local Chinese
The place they ordered from is fancy - £10.95 for a Chicken Tikka Masala, and £3.90 for pilau rice.
So, even if they just ordered mains, you're talking meals for 14 people.
Eating's cheating. They probably just ordered a bunch of starters and sent someone out on a booze run.
. A Starmer FPN and he goes. Replace with Andy Burnham
Under NO circumstances:
He failed massively to win last time. Why? Because he is no bloody good.
He's not even an MP. Duh.
He will put off all the new Labour voters down sarf. And we still need them.
He has a penis.
So in the words of Maggie, 'No. No. No.'
What the fuck difference does it make that "he has a penis"? Are you high?
Says a man. And a tory man at that.
It makes 'the fuck difference' because Labour MUST choose a woman as next leader.
End of.
And I'm a Labour supporter. You're not. So piss off.
xx
Given that your party can't define what a woman is it's all a bit academic isn't it?
Non sequitur.
We need our next leader to be a woman. Whether that's someone who is a trans woman is another issue but I doubt the red wall thickos like Fucker Faroq would cope with it.
Next Labour leader must be a woman. End of.
Two thing you've got wrong now. I'm not a Tory. You can call me an ex Tory if you like as I have voted for them in the past. Last week I voted yellow and orange, not blue.
Red Wall doesn't really extend as far north as where I am. I'm about 5 hours' drive north of anything that can reasonably be described as Red Wall.
But I'll let you have "thicko". Obvious to all I would have thought.
ROFL Farooq is one of the most sensible posters here, very astute poster. Never thought he was a Tory, he might have voted Tory when they were competent but he seems too intelligent to do that now.
. A Starmer FPN and he goes. Replace with Andy Burnham
Under NO circumstances:
He failed massively to win last time. Why? Because he is no bloody good.
He's not even an MP. Duh.
He will put off all the new Labour voters down sarf. And we still need them.
He has a penis.
So in the words of Maggie, 'No. No. No.'
What the fuck difference does it make that "he has a penis"? Are you high?
Says a man. And a tory man at that.
It makes 'the fuck difference' because Labour MUST choose a woman as next leader.
End of.
And I'm a Labour supporter. You're not. So piss off.
xx
Given that your party can't define what a woman is it's all a bit academic isn't it?
Non sequitur.
We need our next leader to be a woman. Whether that's someone who is a trans woman is another issue but I doubt the red wall thickos like Fucker Faroq would cope with it.
Next Labour leader must be a woman. End of.
Must be hard to keep track of your lines to take today, Vlad.
Yeah right Phillip Thompson.
See? Two can play the game.
The next Labour leader must and will be a woman. Sorry that this is causing such confusion for the right wing gammons.
Have a nice day folks.
Off out to walk around Hook Heath. I guess I could meet up with tlg86 some time and then that really will make you 'you're a troll' tories look even more stupid and dumbass than you already are (if that's poss.)
Unpleasant thread - I'm one of your fans, Heathener, but do stop doxxing Bart. You're obviously not Russian (if you were you'd still be interesting!) so just shrug off the minority who are still trolling you.
. A Starmer FPN and he goes. Replace with Andy Burnham
Under NO circumstances:
He failed massively to win last time. Why? Because he is no bloody good.
He's not even an MP. Duh.
He will put off all the new Labour voters down sarf. And we still need them.
He has a penis.
So in the words of Maggie, 'No. No. No.'
What the fuck difference does it make that "he has a penis"? Are you high?
Says a man. And a tory man at that.
It makes 'the fuck difference' because Labour MUST choose a woman as next leader.
End of.
And I'm a Labour supporter. You're not. So piss off.
xx
Given that your party can't define what a woman is it's all a bit academic isn't it?
Non sequitur.
We need our next leader to be a woman. Whether that's someone who is a trans woman is another issue but I doubt the red wall thickos like Fucker Faroq would cope with it.
Next Labour leader must be a woman. End of.
Must be hard to keep track of your lines to take today, Vlad.
Yeah right Phillip Thompson.
See? Two can play the game.
The next Labour leader must and will be a woman. Sorry that this is causing such confusion for the right wing gammons.
Have a nice day folks.
Off out to walk around Hook Heath. I guess I could meet up with tlg86 some time and then that really will make you 'you're a troll' tories look even more stupid and dumbass than you already are (if that's poss.)
@PBModerator has said it's against the rules to doxx people.
Hoist with your own petard situation I'd have thought if you want to call vlad
. A Starmer FPN and he goes. Replace with Andy Burnham
Under NO circumstances:
He failed massively to win last time. Why? Because he is no bloody good.
He's not even an MP. Duh.
He will put off all the new Labour voters down sarf. And we still need them.
He has a penis.
So in the words of Maggie, 'No. No. No.'
What the fuck difference does it make that "he has a penis"? Are you high?
Says a man. And a tory man at that.
It makes 'the fuck difference' because Labour MUST choose a woman as next leader.
End of.
And I'm a Labour supporter. You're not. So piss off.
xx
Given that your party can't define what a woman is it's all a bit academic isn't it?
Non sequitur.
We need our next leader to be a woman. Whether that's someone who is a trans woman is another issue but I doubt the red wall thickos like Fucker Faroq would cope with it.
Next Labour leader must be a woman. End of.
Must be hard to keep track of your lines to take today, Vlad.
Yeah right Phillip Thompson.
See? Two can play the game.
The next Labour leader must and will be a woman. Sorry that this is causing such confusion for the right wing gammons.
Have a nice day folks.
Off out to walk around Hook Heath. I guess I could meet up with tlg86 some time and then that really will make you 'you're a troll' tories look even more stupid and dumbass than you already are (if that's poss.)
@PBModerator has said it's against the rules to doxx people.
It's not doxxing if he originally used that name and has admitted using it in the posts after he changed his name.
Er, it is. Doesn't want it used, end of. Stop being a twat about it.
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.
Comments
They are both obnoxious hypocrites. They should both resign. And yet I predict there will be another similarity: neither will resign. Starmer won't resign even if he gets fined. He's waited his whole life to be Labour leader, and he can now see the Prime Ministership in the distance. He can see the door of Number 10, and little Kir Royale, son of a nurse and a toolmaker, walking through the door
No way he gives that up over a curry and a few beers and a bit of a piss-up with his workmates. He will find some way to brazen it out, just like Boris
You can get 100/1 on Rachel Reeves as Next UK Prime Minister
3 things need to occur for this bet to come to fruition:
1. Boris Johnson needs to survive as PM until the next General Election. I think this is LIKELY
2. Labour need to replace Keir Starmer with Rachel Reeves. I think this is POSSIBLE
3. The Conservatives need to lose their majority. I think this is POSSIBLE
Why do I think no. 2 might happen? If Starmer is felled by the beer & curry scandal then we go into a leadership contest. The standout Labour parliamentarian is Rachel Reeves. She won't be tainted by curry. She is highly intelligent with the right background and she's female.
I think at 100/1 this is astounding value. It doesn't mean it will happen. It means this is an exceptionally good flutter. I'm on.
I did not vote for either Drakeford or Starmer on Thursday, but my two votes were placed against Llafur candidates.
There is no warning involved here
The whole thing - from the laws enacted, the rushed way they were enacted with little or no scrutiny, the confusion between law and guidance, the police not understanding the law, the cock up over prosecutions, the inconsistencies in how the laws have been applied, the frankly amateurish and unprofessional way the investigations have been conducted, the length of time taken etc - has been a disgrace.
On top of which there has been the contemptuous attitude by politicians to the sacrifices made by the rest of us.
And I've said so repeatedly and consistently.
I'm just bored by it all now. That's all. So no reason for you to try and make some snippy political point - if that is what you were doing. (And if you weren't, my apologies in advance.)
Anyway, bye. Enjoy your day
The success of the newly elected independent Chislehurst councillors is showing the same - we must do anything to stop being ruled by Khan - mindset.
I do think the demand is there, if the price is right. If the Tories can get this right it could be transformative.
SKS - There is some wiggle room for SKS as he was previously cleared by Durham police and should await the result of the new investigation. A Starmer FPN and he goes. Replace with Andy Burnham
BOZO - The man has no shame, honour or integrity. He should have been turfed out weeks ago. Odious man. Replace with Jeremy Hunt.
ED - A man so boring and devoid of charisma that he makes John Major interesting. Replace with Daisy Cooper.
You're all over the fucking place.
A campaign event might just be plausible if some late evening work organically evolved into coffees and feet on desks and a review of the day, and someone said "shall I get a couple of beers" and Starmer said, yes, that will be fine, let's finish up now
This is not what happened. A MEMO was sent out to lots of people, detailing the timing and the people who would be present (including Rayner, despite the lying denials), and they ordered curry for THIRTY, and lied about the reason ("everywhere else was shut" - turns out that wasn't true either)
Did the memo say "it is possible the day's work might spontaneously evolve into a few lagers and some chicken Madras but we can't say for sure!"
No, it did not. This is ridiculous. It's all trivial and pathetic but Starmer pompously decided THIS IS A RESIGNING MATTER months ago. So be it. Starmer and Rayner broke the rules. Just like Boris and Co
Our takeaway charges £6.80 so £200 equates to 30 meals and of course they may well have been some present who did not eat
A return to loony-right versus loony-left would be a hugely depressing development. It felt for a while like we were right on the edge of having both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party back from the nutters. Now it feels like we're back on the precipice.
Anything which gives hope to the far right and the far left at the same time really fills me with dread.
The next leader will be one of Reeves, Cooper, Nandy, Rayner, Philipson imho. Surely they can't shy away from a woman yet again when there are two or three suitable candidates?
He failed massively to win last time. Why? Because he is no bloody good.
He's not even an MP. Duh.
He will put off all the new Labour voters down sarf. And we still need them.
He has a penis.
So in the words of Maggie, 'No. No. No.'
Tories have actually ended up with 2 more councillors than they had last time converting tory independents to Tories. But I think we've successfully put the shits up David Duguid and his merry men (and they are all men).
Plus if you place a bulk order you’d get a discount.
Phillips is on a level with Liz Truss. The tories would love it.
Cooper is brilliant but not without faults and probably yesterday's person.
So it's Reeves vs Nandy.
No contest: Reeeves.
In the debates about whether Tories can form a new government without a majority I don't think we can assume the unionists wont be in play.
It makes 'the fuck difference' because Labour MUST choose a woman as next leader.
End of.
And I'm a Labour supporter. You're not. So piss off.
xx
a) suggesting stupid alternatives to SKS
b) rattled
... tells me that they think they can beat Starmer. But they also know that this might become the John Smith to Tony Blair moment (minus the death).
Also, do you reckon that after months of me pouring vitriol on the Conservatives you think "tory" is a good descriptor for me? Take your lunchbreak, Svetlana, try again later in the afternoon.
The place they ordered from is fancy - £10.95 for a Chicken Tikka Masala, and £3.90 for pilau rice.
So, even if they just ordered mains, you're talking meals for 14 people.
Lot of ifs frankly.
The party would have to have decided it wanted a coronation collectively and that, erm... seems unlikely.
Here's the simple reality. The police don't care what you think. Or what I think. Or what the Daily Wail think. They just look at the evidence and the law. Plenty of people throwing out quotes of the guidelines - "should not" - like the stuff you are foaming on about. Guidelines are not law.
The MEMO you mention is exactly how such campaign events are organised. You think senior politicians just turn up somewhere at random? I've seen such memos come off the fax machine (I know) detailing when Prescott or Benn were arriving. Reams of details when it was Milliband.
Having food at a campaign event is legal. Or it wasn't legally permitted to be a campaign event at all. The rest is just noise.
Happy to take "you're all over the place" from you - suspect that more that I am moving from our swaying perspective than me actually moving.
Do you mean the event that the PM was not present for of people who'd been working together earlier that day having food and alcohol afterwards together the night before Prince Philip's funeral?
Because it so, that was the same month that the event Starmer was present for where people who'd been working together earlier that day had food and alcohol afterwards together with.
So no, the rules weren't different.
Fun fact: drug of concern ATM in the us is carfentanil a drug so potent it is only licensed for 1 thing, tranquilising elephants. Not even very large mammals, just elephants
The Covid restrictions should have been limited to shops, restaurants and pubs opening times. Everything else should have been guidance. And the likes of Boris, SKS and Sturgeon would not have been made to look even more ridiculous than normal.
Keir Starmer was working after the meal had finished.
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1388240092398071809
A Tweet posted at 10:13PM on the day the alleged rule breaking occurred, confirms work continued after the meal had finished.
She sounds like me (although I have never addressed anyone as "Bab") so nobody would ever dream of voting for her.
I'm beginning to think that some tories like yourself on here are not merely mendacious but incredibly incredibly thick pieces of gammon. The pertubation that use of a VPN generates is most amusing.
A VPN = trolling. Er, right ho. I don't know any youngster who streams who doesn't use a VPN and anyone with half a brain who is concerned about tracking should use one.
Geddit? No I didn't think so.
Streeting would likely win a majority - and a large one.
We need our next leader to be a woman. Whether that's someone who is a trans woman is another issue but I doubt the red wall thickos like Fucker Faroq would cope with it.
Next Labour leader must be a woman. End of.
So you're saying women can't have a penis?
Must be hard to keep track of your lines to take today, Vlad.
80/1 boosted on Ladbrokes.
It's worth a punt imho.
But either way, the next Labour leader will be female. So no to Wes I'm afraid.
It badly needs updating.
It's possible we see a coronation like Brown but unlikely.
Whatever happens, the Tories are in trouble. The new leader will only go further to the centre - and will have more charisma than Starmer does.
I always knew there would be people that would appear after Starmer went. The Tories though, kicked all of their good talent out.
Streeting would be my pick, I'd vote for him.
How's that view from the moral high-ground looking today?
Agree, SKS has gone in hard, but largely about the fact that a) many of the Downing St events were purely social and b) the PM has consistently lied about them.
However, if Starmer were to resign, I reckon it would leave Labour in a much stronger place.
I know I'll be in a minority but I'd quite like to see Ed Miliband back. Or, even more unlikely, Emily Thornberry. Suspect she'd scare hell out of the PM.
I was kinda joking but if LP future leader is a trans woman will they say that the party has now had a woman leader???
Is there a copy of this memo that has the full event *before* "Dinner in Miners Hall" rather than the torn bit the Mail has published?
Why did the Mail not publish the entire memo?
See? Two can play the game.
The next Labour leader must and will be a woman. Sorry that this is causing such confusion for the right wing gammons.
Have a nice day folks.
Off out to walk around Hook Heath. I guess I could meet up with tlg86 some time and then that really will make you 'you're a troll' tories look even more stupid and dumbass than you already are (if that's poss.)
Wes Streeting interviews brilliantly and is likeable, possibly Labour's best media performer in many a year.
Red Wall doesn't really extend as far north as where I am. I'm about 5 hours' drive north of anything that can reasonably be described as Red Wall.
But I'll let you have "thicko". Obvious to all I would have thought.
Now we have a platform to power we will be led by a woman.
The Tory membership won't vote for Hunt, see the 2019 leadership election.
Burnham would do better than Starmer in the redwall but Streeting might also be good and looks presentable, however I don't think any of the 3 will be going before the next general election.
You seem very confident of this but a lot has changed since then and Hunt did pretty well against expectations in 2019.
And what about the wine party the Met said was "necessary for work" despite Carrie and baby being there. The Met said no fine and no investigation, will they now re-open it?
Strange how the PB Tories are oddly quiet on this?