. 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.)
Sorry but that is doxxing which we have all been warned about by the moderator
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?
Roger , they run a mile when you call them out on their obvious bollox. Lots of windbaggery but all a front.
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?
They have OKed the garden party? Did not realize that. Puts sks in the clear I would think
. 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
Only if he genuinely is Vlad though.
One is a joke, a turn of phrase, the other is doxxing with full name.
This'll be how the public see it and they'll end up deciding what happens.
Boris is a story of privilege and entitlement. He's seen quaffing champagne with his pals in the sunny gardens of No 10. His aid Aleggra is filmed with a bunch of hooray Henry's guffawing about breaking the lockdown rules and how best to present the rule breaking to the public.....
Starmer's is a case of hypocricy. He's filmed in Durham with a bottle of beer and a £6 curry after spending the day trying to win a seat in Hartlepool. He's filmed on a shaky phone through a window by a student who sold the story to the Mail on Sunday.....
. 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
Only if he genuinely is Vlad though.
One is a joke, a turn of phrase, the other is doxxing with full name.
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.
Reeves is a female Starmer with less warmth, charisma and less connection to the WWC
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.
Only to desperate Tories and the Dail Heil
Next Remembrance Day the Heil will be complaining that Starmer's shoes aren't shiny enough. Or something like that. While Johnson, still PM, looks the scruff-bag he normally does!
. 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.
Not when he has specifically asked for it not to be used
. 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.
If I called you a twat, would that be doxxing or just an honest opinion?
The alcohol is a red herring (and speaking of fish, so is the food). The simple issue is whether Covid rules were broken or not. In my Civil Service days, we regularly had meetings in hotels, after dinner, to review the day's work, over a pint or a glass of wine. They were work meetings, not parties, as any witnesses who had ever been to an actual party would testify.
Except that we have already established, that a birthday cake delivered to the boss at a work meeting, by the boss’s wife, is worthy of a penalty notice.
You're missing my point. Cake is also a red herring (sorry). I don't imagine that the Met issued an FPN simply because of cake, but you'd have to ask them. I don't think there was any mention of cake in Covid laws, so there must have been some other law broken for the Met to proceed with the FPN.
For what it's worth, I've been consistent on this - I don't think the Met should have investigated the historic events at No. 10, a waste of time. Boris's lying to parliament, however, is a different matter.
The Tory cult members are not missing anything , they are obfuscating in their blind support of the Dear leader. They have always thought they were above the plebs.
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 am very biased against Reeves. If it were not for some personal experiences I would think she looks very promising, BUT as some of you will know I campaign on various pension scandals and as part of those campaigns we contact all MPs. This is not political as we have support across all parties, however the worst MP (and in fairness it is probably her office, but then she is responsible for it) by a huge stretch for dealing with the contacts made was Rachel Reeves. And here is the kicker - during some of that time she was Shadow DWP Secretary so pensions issues should have been high on her action list.
. 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.
IMV it is in a way, and it's a bit of a sh*t thing to do in this context.
I've given this some thought since he changed his username, and I have no problem with people referring back to his views under his old username: i.e. things like "You once said that Jeremy Corby had a God-like ability to say the right thing (*)". He is the same person, and those comments still stand (the same with Leon as well).
But just using his old username to annoy him seems more than a little infantile. As a general rule, it's polite to call people what they want to be called.
. 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???
Since everyone is defining my opinions, I might chip in with my own thoughts. Yes, I am a liberal (but not a Liberal). That puts me in a position I'm quite happy with, in that I can float across different parties depending on circumstance. I've voted Lib Dem, Conservative, Green, and, fairly recently, SNP. I'm not averse to voting Labour but I haven't yet. It might happen depending on what's on offer. As for the Labour leadership and gender representation, I'm in favour of reasonable measures that increase the participation of women in industries where they have been underrepresented but I'm not sure I would go as far as to say that specific, individual jobs should be restricted by gender. So, for example, tax breaks for companies that help move the needle towards something fairer might be a good thing. But saying that no man may apply for the leadership of a particular party sounds wrong wrong wrong. As heavy-handed as I am when it comes to political arguments, I think party rules and legislation need to be more encouraging rather than draconian. We should collectively motivate women to stand and clear up the misogyny that negatively impacts their desire to do politics, not just rule out men. A race to the top instead of a race to the bottom.
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
Tories are really desperate on this , very insecure that their fairy tale is not going to happen by looks of it. You can smell the desperation of the cult members on here.
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."
I thought the Mail excelled itself yesterday on its non-coverage of the local elections. It's poor readership are being force fed a thin gruel of "aren't Labour terrible", "aren't Harry and Meghan terrible" and " we don't care about anyone who isn't a Leave-voting suburban or rural Conservative".
Apparently, the losses in Wandsworth, Barnet and Westminster weren't down to our blessed Prime Minister, oh no, but because these areas are full of "woke, metropolitan elite Remainers" so that's half the country written off it would seem.
Grudging acknowledgement of LD successes in the so-called "Blue Wall" was explained away by "they'll all come back to the Tories when it's a proper real election". Fine, try telling all those poor local Conservative Councillors who got swept away on Thursday they laid down their lives in vain to support the Prime Minister.
As someone who genuinely believes in freedom of speech and plural democracy it saddens me newspapers, tv channels and the like find the concept of having contrary opinions at the same time so difficult. I'm happy to credit the Government with, for example, excellent decision-making on vaccine procurement. We were in the vanguard (along with Israel) on getting vaccinations into the population and unquestionably many lives were saved.
I'll also credit the Government's robust approach on Ukraine - we have led the western diplomatic response to unacceptable Russian aggression.
Yet, both those being said, is it wrong to question the Government's policy on care home patients during the pandemic or test-and-trace or the bureaucratic response to Ukrainian refugee applications? I'd argue not - the inability of some to see beyond the black and white into the shades of grey which are in fact normality is the worst of all.
It's far too easy to abandon objectivity and retreat into echo chambers where the only voices re-enforce your own opinions, prejudices or misconceptions. It's also far too easy to adopt broad-brush responses and argue the Government has done everything right on the pandemic or the Ukraine or the economy or anything else. The truth is far more nuanced - the Government has done some things well and some things not so well. Part of scrutiny and accountability to which all Governments should be held is to recognise areas of failing and ask searching questions while of course acknowledging those areas which have been successful.
Yet to even do that basic democratic tenet is to invite vitriol and abuse from the loyalists - it's not wrong to ask questions, it's not wrong to point out failings, it's not wrong to hold any Government to account. That's the fundamental difference between democracy and dictatorship.
The alcohol is a red herring (and speaking of fish, so is the food). The simple issue is whether Covid rules were broken or not. In my Civil Service days, we regularly had meetings in hotels, after dinner, to review the day's work, over a pint or a glass of wine. They were work meetings, not parties, as any witnesses who had ever been to an actual party would testify.
Except that we have already established, that a birthday cake delivered to the boss at a work meeting, by the boss’s wife, is worthy of a penalty notice.
Bit economical wiht teh truth there as ever, only in the mind of a Tory cult member could someone think up that mince.
I thought the Mail excelled itself yesterday on its non-coverage of the local elections. It's poor readership are being force fed a thin gruel of "aren't Labour terrible", "aren't Harry and Meghan terrible" and " we don't care about anyone who isn't a Leave-voting suburban or rural Conservative".
Apparently, the losses in Wandsworth, Barnet and Westminster weren't down to our blessed Prime Minister, oh no, but because these areas are full of "woke, metropolitan elite Remainers" so that's half the country written off it would seem.
Grudging acknowledgement of LD successes in the so-called "Blue Wall" was explained away by "they'll all come back to the Tories when it's a proper real election". Fine, try telling all those poor local Conservative Councillors who got swept away on Thursday they laid down their lives in vain to support the Prime Minister.
As someone who genuinely believes in freedom of speech and plural democracy it saddens me newspapers, tv channels and the like find the concept of having contrary opinions at the same time so difficult. I'm happy to credit the Government with, for example, excellent decision-making on vaccine procurement. We were in the vanguard (along with Israel) on getting vaccinations into the population and unquestionably many lives were saved.
I'll also credit the Government's robust approach on Ukraine - we have led the western diplomatic response to unacceptable Russian aggression.
Yet, both those being said, is it wrong to question the Government's policy on care home patients during the pandemic or test-and-trace or the bureaucratic response to Ukrainian refugee applications? I'd argue not - the inability of some to see beyond the black and white into the shades of grey which are in fact normality is the worst of all.
It's far too easy to abandon objectivity and retreat into echo chambers where the only voices re-enforce your own opinions, prejudices or misconceptions. It's also far too easy to adopt broad-brush responses and argue the Government has done everything right on the pandemic or the Ukraine or the economy or anything else. The truth is far more nuanced - the Government has done some things well and some things not so well. Part of scrutiny and accountability to which all Governments should be held is to recognise areas of failing and ask searching questions while of course acknowledging those areas which have been successful.
Yet to even do that basic democratic tenet is to invite vitriol and abuse from the loyalists - it's not wrong to ask questions, it's not wrong to point out failings, it's not wrong to hold any Government to account. That's the fundamental difference between democracy and dictatorship.
. 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.
Geddit? No I didn't think so.
Appreciate that you might be on your walk but can I ask, from a position of genuine ignorance, why people should be concerned about tracking? I linked to an article yesterday about the explosion of downloads of VPNs in Russia yesterday and I can of course immediately see the necessity there but what risk or risks is Joe public taking not using a VPN? What can someone who can identify your location from your ISP actually do?
This no booze at lunchtime rule seems really puritanical to me, the sort of thing that started in the United States about 40 years ago and then slowly spread to everywhere else in the Anglosphere.
Seems perfectly reasonable to me. You dont need to get pissed during the working day, and if you werent intending to get pissed who cares if you have to have a coke not a beer?
Also, why does the Palace of Westminster have eight (or whatever) pubs? It doesn't seem essential to the sound governance of the country. Shut them down.
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.
My dog is that I enjoy the sport of politics. I also believe in clear rules being followed evenly (the way my brain is wired).
So just as I have told colleagues in the past that we have to admire the drive by shooting of us by the independent councillors ("respect the craft") I'm also going to how laughing if Starmer has to resign because of the corner he painted himself into.
I thought the Mail excelled itself yesterday on its non-coverage of the local elections. It's poor readership are being force fed a thin gruel of "aren't Labour terrible", "aren't Harry and Meghan terrible" and " we don't care about anyone who isn't a Leave-voting suburban or rural Conservative".
Apparently, the losses in Wandsworth, Barnet and Westminster weren't down to our blessed Prime Minister, oh no, but because these areas are full of "woke, metropolitan elite Remainers" so that's half the country written off it would seem.
Grudging acknowledgement of LD successes in the so-called "Blue Wall" was explained away by "they'll all come back to the Tories when it's a proper real election". Fine, try telling all those poor local Conservative Councillors who got swept away on Thursday they laid down their lives in vain to support the Prime Minister.
As someone who genuinely believes in freedom of speech and plural democracy it saddens me newspapers, tv channels and the like find the concept of having contrary opinions at the same time so difficult. I'm happy to credit the Government with, for example, excellent decision-making on vaccine procurement. We were in the vanguard (along with Israel) on getting vaccinations into the population and unquestionably many lives were saved.
I'll also credit the Government's robust approach on Ukraine - we have led the western diplomatic response to unacceptable Russian aggression.
Yet, both those being said, is it wrong to question the Government's policy on care home patients during the pandemic or test-and-trace or the bureaucratic response to Ukrainian refugee applications? I'd argue not - the inability of some to see beyond the black and white into the shades of grey which are in fact normality is the worst of all.
It's far too easy to abandon objectivity and retreat into echo chambers where the only voices re-enforce your own opinions, prejudices or misconceptions. It's also far too easy to adopt broad-brush responses and argue the Government has done everything right on the pandemic or the Ukraine or the economy or anything else. The truth is far more nuanced - the Government has done some things well and some things not so well. Part of scrutiny and accountability to which all Governments should be held is to recognise areas of failing and ask searching questions while of course acknowledging those areas which have been successful.
Yet to even do that basic democratic tenet is to invite vitriol and abuse from the loyalists - it's not wrong to ask questions, it's not wrong to point out failings, it's not wrong to hold any Government to account. That's the fundamental difference between democracy and dictatorship.
Really excellent post. Also nice quick summary of what the government did very well and very badly (well at least in my opinion so I would say that wouldn't I)
Labour performance, in terms of numbers of councillors:
Welsh Labour +14.3% Scottish Labour +7.6% English Labour +1.3%
I think it is fair to conclude that Drakeford is Labour’s best leader, and Starmer is a dud.
Up 1.3% against an horrifically poor Tory government, mid-term, is just eye-wateringly pathetic.
Statistically nonsense. It's easier to get larger percentage increases among smaller populations, and a lot more people voted in London than in Wales, let alone England as a whole.
Actually, the Scottish and Welsh elections were multimember constituencies which should give a better picture of reality than FPTP in England. And the overall numbers of candidates were reasonable.
Ed: which might also help explain the difference.
Wikipedia suggests that Welsh councils will get to choose individually if they want to move to STV, but the earliest that could happen would be 2027. But, yes, the different electoral system used in Scotland means that any comparison on councillors elected is complete nonsense.
None of this is to say that I think Starmer is a great leader, just that the "evidence" advanced for the claim is tosh.
THanks - quite right to correct me re Wales. (Was thinking of the Senedd, idiot that I am.) The difference could of course work to Llafur's advantage given the FPTP system, confounding matters further.
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.
Hunt lost because he was broadly the continuity candidate in a change election - he was deemed inappropriate for the occasion by the Tory selectorate; he wasn't rejected for being loathsome to them. He had some personal qualities May lacked (more collegiate, less of a bunker-dweller) but was essentially a slightly dull Remain supporter hoping (rather unrealistically) to get a Brexit deal through on the basis of a bit of a new-PM honeymoon.
Conservatives went for Johnson as he was a Brexit supporter promising to drive it through which, in fairness, he did (albeit with major flaws in the deal). He was (and is) also a charismatic figure who made many Tories feel good about themselves - although that's very much waned.
The next Conservative leadership election won't be Johnson v Hunt, and won't be primarily Brexit-based. As such - whilst Hunt has some important flaws - he has a case. He's stayed clear of government incompetence and sleaze since 2019, is capable and presentable... and he only needs to beat the opponent MPs select for him.
. 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.
Geddit? No I didn't think so.
Appreciate that you might be on your walk but can I ask, from a position of genuine ignorance, why people should be concerned about tracking? I linked to an article yesterday about the explosion of downloads of VPNs in Russia yesterday and I can of course immediately see the necessity there but what risk or risks is Joe public taking not using a VPN? What can someone who can identify your location from your ISP actually do?
It shows an ignorance of the technology, especially since he keeps referring to cookies.
Cookies are little files that track you, but it's up to you if you want them to be on your PC or not. Hence the annoying boxes popping up all the time post GDPR.
Even pre GDPR it was very easy to not have tracking cookies on your machine if you wanted to. Clearing your cookies, or disabling them, has been an option within browsers for an extremely long time. I messed with my browsers cookie settings while I was at university nearly two decades ago.
Oh and if you use your browsers Incognito Mode then it won't store any cookies either. Without the need of a compromised VPN with a blacklisted IP address.
Doxxing is not fine. So we should stop it. Calling someone "a twat" IS fine, clearly, otherwise 90% of my commentary is forbidden
As for @Heathener I agree with @NickPalmer. I used to think she was a troll, but I don't any more. If she is a Russian troll, she's not very good, she barely mentions anything-to-do-with Russia from one week to the next. She seems to be what she says she is, an opinionated Labour supporting woman with a fondness for Buddhism, she might be eccentric, but we are all eccentric - we're on here, for a start
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.
No hope of the Tories doing anything sensible, they are too busy pocketing cash from the foreign companies etc
. 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.
Geddit? No I didn't think so.
Appreciate that you might be on your walk but can I ask, from a position of genuine ignorance, why people should be concerned about tracking? I linked to an article yesterday about the explosion of downloads of VPNs in Russia yesterday and I can of course immediately see the necessity there but what risk or risks is Joe public taking not using a VPN? What can someone who can identify your location from your ISP actually do?
It shows an ignorance of the technology, especially since he keeps referring to cookies.
Cookies are little files that track you, but it's up to you if you want them to be on your PC or not. Hence the annoying boxes popping up all the time post GDPR.
Even pre GDPR it was very easy to not have tracking cookies on your machine if you wanted to. Clearing your cookies, or disabling them, has been an option within browsers for an extremely long time. I messed with my browsers cookie settings while I was at university nearly two decades ago.
Oh and if you use your browsers Incognito Mode then it won't store any cookies either. Without the need of a compromised VPN with a blacklisted IP address.
I'm afraid we've gone away from cookies to other forms of tracking now, like through your IP address, device type.
It's why Apple always send the wrong browser and version of macOS to web servers, in an effort to stop fingerprinting
. 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.
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.
My dog is that I enjoy the sport of politics. I also believe in clear rules being followed evenly (the way my brain is wired).
So just as I have told colleagues in the past that we have to admire the drive by shooting of us by the independent councillors ("respect the craft") I'm also going to how laughing if Starmer has to resign because of the corner he painted himself into.
Dont normally agree with Dan but SKS really has shot himself in the foot by setting the resignation bar so low.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h So just to be clear where we now are. Labour’s position is Boris Johnson should be held to the high standards Keir Starmer sets. But Keir Starmer shouldn’t be held to the high standards Keir Starmer sets.
. 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.
Agreed and it isn't fair. We know your name but you don't want use it. I just ran for election so people can look me up (LibDem candidate in Troup ward, Aberdeenshire) but don't want to use my name either.
Part of the fun on a board like this is having a different identity. We might all have a pop at each other's positions and perceived hypocrisy some times but it isn't personal.
So I support your objection to this. If people wanted to use their name they would do so. You once did, now don't, so we should accept that.
The Mail initially said it was 30 people because of a "source".
It's now 15 people, so they lied.
Starmer has admitted 30 people were there and an independent Durham councillor who lost his mother made the formal complaint to the Durham Police that has led to the police to reopen the case
Two students who were present and took a video want to speak to the police and there is an indication this is being instigated by disaffected left labourites who have not accepted Starmer's move to the centre
Indeed Dianne Abbott last night said that Starmer would have to review his position if he receives a FPN
This is very serious for Starmer, Rayner and the MP Mary Foy and the truth will come out in the next couple of months once the detectives have reviewed the questionnaires which are being sent to all the attendees
It is worth noting that the Metropolitan Police decided not to investigate one event at Downing Street at which alcohol was drunk.
One of the events mentioned in senior civil servant Sue Gray's initial report into Downing Street gatherings was on 15 May 2020, when the prime minister and members of staff were pictured with bottles of wine in the Downing Street garden. At the time, Mr Johnson said: "Those were meetings of people at work, talking about work."
I honestly missed that/them (delete as appropriate). I should have added the Mail's love of celebrity but in all fairness that's not a trait unique to that newspaper by any stretch (actually, I don't recall the Racing Post commenting on Rita Ora).
. 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.
Geddit? No I didn't think so.
Appreciate that you might be on your walk but can I ask, from a position of genuine ignorance, why people should be concerned about tracking? I linked to an article yesterday about the explosion of downloads of VPNs in Russia yesterday and I can of course immediately see the necessity there but what risk or risks is Joe public taking not using a VPN? What can someone who can identify your location from your ISP actually do?
It shows an ignorance of the technology, especially since he keeps referring to cookies.
Cookies are little files that track you, but it's up to you if you want them to be on your PC or not. Hence the annoying boxes popping up all the time post GDPR.
Even pre GDPR it was very easy to not have tracking cookies on your machine if you wanted to. Clearing your cookies, or disabling them, has been an option within browsers for an extremely long time. I messed with my browsers cookie settings while I was at university nearly two decades ago.
Oh and if you use your browsers Incognito Mode then it won't store any cookies either. Without the need of a compromised VPN with a blacklisted IP address.
The main worry I have about Cookies is that I constantly get asked, post GDPR, whether I will accept them or not. Otherwise they can be quite useful, taking you back to the same page on a large booking site for example. Again, if I have cookies showing that I use Booking.com quite a lot, who cares and why should I?
Unless you are doing something illegal or embarrassing (say going onto a dodgy site) I am really struggling to see the need and there are minor disadvantages. But maybe I am missing something. And why do you call @Heathener "he"? It seems unnecessary.
. 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.
Geddit? No I didn't think so.
A Minsk troll who knows Woking well enough to be able to come up,with an excellent tip on the Lib Dem chances of taking the council.
. 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.
Bart, If you are so deluded that you think a woman can have a penis you really are bonkers. "Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad" seems appropriate.
. 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???
Since everyone is defining my opinions, I might chip in with my own thoughts. Yes, I am a liberal (but not a Liberal). That puts me in a position I'm quite happy with, in that I can float across different parties depending on circumstance. I've voted Lib Dem, Conservative, Green, and, fairly recently, SNP. I'm not averse to voting Labour but I haven't yet. It might happen depending on what's on offer. As for the Labour leadership and gender representation, I'm in favour of reasonable measures that increase the participation of women in industries where they have been underrepresented but I'm not sure I would go as far as to say that specific, individual jobs should be restricted by gender. So, for example, tax breaks for companies that help move the needle towards something fairer might be a good thing. But saying that no man may apply for the leadership of a particular party sounds wrong wrong wrong. As heavy-handed as I am when it comes to political arguments, I think party rules and legislation need to be more encouraging rather than draconian. We should collectively motivate women to stand and clear up the misogyny that negatively impacts their desire to do politics, not just rule out men. A race to the top instead of a race to the bottom.
Talking about floating positions: I'm a LibDem these days and quite happy about it. That doesn't mean I have to agree with the party on every issue! And at the GE I will vote for the SNP to remove David Duguid. I thought that was incompatible with being a LD member but was assured it was ok by ACH so here I am...
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.
Hunt lost because he was broadly the continuity candidate in a change election - he was deemed inappropriate for the occasion by the Tory selectorate; he wasn't rejected for being loathsome to them. He had some personal qualities May lacked (more collegiate, less of a bunker-dweller) but was essentially a slightly dull Remain supporter hoping (rather unrealistically) to get a Brexit deal through on the basis of a bit of a new-PM honeymoon.
Conservatives went for Johnson as he was a Brexit supporter promising to drive it through which, in fairness, he did (albeit with major flaws in the deal). He was (and is) also a charismatic figure who made many Tories feel good about themselves - although that's very much waned.
The next Conservative leadership election won't be Johnson v Hunt, and won't be primarily Brexit-based. As such - whilst Hunt has some important flaws - he has a case. He's stayed clear of government incompetence and sleaze since 2019, is capable and presentable... and he only needs to beat the opponent MPs select for him.
Spot on. Being the "return to sanity" candidate is something that can happen and can work. Cameron after Howard, Starmer after Corbyn. People on the right of the Conservatives seem to dismiss him, but I think there will be a groundswell for normality again please. Very much depends whether his opponent, if he makes it to a runoff, can also claim that mantle. If he's up against another loon, he'll win this time.
. 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.
Geddit? No I didn't think so.
A Minsk troll who knows Woking well enough to be able to come up,with an excellent tip on the Lib Dem chances of taking the council.
Russia plays the long game, they know destabilisation starts with bin collections
The Mail initially said it was 30 people because of a "source".
It's now 15 people, so they lied.
Starmer has admitted 30 people were there and an independent Durham councillor who lost his mother made the formal complaint to the Durham Police that has led to the police to reopen the case
Two students who were present and took a video want to speak to the police and there is an indication this is being instigated by disaffected left labourites who have not accepted Starmer's move to the centre
Indeed Dianne Abbott last night said that Starmer would have to review his position if he receives a FPN
This is very serious for Starmer, Rayner and the MP Mary Foy and the truth will come out in the next couple of months once the detectives have reviewed the questionnaires which are being sent to all the attendees
I'm sure I recall, in January?, Starmer calling on Johnson to resign when the Met announced they were investigating.
Please just leave Bart alone, this is getting very tiring and is coming across like bullying.
Why would normality be suspended. Is he such a woose he cannot defend himself. If you post consistent bollox then expect people to disagree. Man up or take a hike I say.
The Mail initially said it was 30 people because of a "source".
It's now 15 people, so they lied.
Starmer has admitted 30 people were there and an independent Durham councillor who lost his mother made the formal complaint to the Durham Police that has led to the police to reopen the case
Two students who were present and took a video want to speak to the police and there is an indication this is being instigated by disaffected left labourites who have not accepted Starmer's move to the centre
Indeed Dianne Abbott last night said that Starmer would have to review his position if he receives a FPN
This is very serious for Starmer, Rayner and the MP Mary Foy and the truth will come out in the next couple of months once the detectives have reviewed the questionnaires which are being sent to all the attendees
I'm sure I recall, in January?, Starmer calling on Johnson to resign when the Met announced they were investigating.
I thought that was about lying to the HoC after Johnson said no parties took place and he wasn't at any of them. That was what I took from it.
. 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
Only if he genuinely is Vlad though.
One is a joke, a turn of phrase, the other is doxxing with full name.
It is worth noting that the Metropolitan Police decided not to investigate one event at Downing Street at which alcohol was drunk.
One of the events mentioned in senior civil servant Sue Gray's initial report into Downing Street gatherings was on 15 May 2020, when the prime minister and members of staff were pictured with bottles of wine in the Downing Street garden. At the time, Mr Johnson said: "Those were meetings of people at work, talking about work."
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.
So no, the rules weren't different.
Yes, the same rules applied on 16 April 2021 when their were two leaving parties at 10 Downing Street, that later merged into one event and went on until 1am, as on 30 April 2021, when "beergate" occurred. Characterising both these as similar, as both involving people having food and alcohol after having been working together, seems a bit dubious. The Downing Street events reportedly involved 7 hours of socialising, including mixing people who had not been working together (with 2 different leaving parties merging). One party involved loud music. Garden furniture was damanged. Beergate seems to have involved people working together later and then having food and alcohol together for a much shorter period. It appears plausible that the food and drink during beergate was still work activity.
But, sure, we await the conclusion of police investigations of both. Our understanding of what happened may have to be revised.
You are right that Johnson was not in Downing Street on 16 April. There are 12 Downing Street events under investigation by the police. Johnson was at some, but not others. We don't have a full list of which he was at because he's refused to say.
But what we do know is that Johnson went to Parliament and said all the rules were followed. If he knew about an event before then, he lied to Parliament (and is still doing so as he's never corrected the record on that point). That's not something that the police are investigating, but it is something that matters.
We also know that Johnson is the boss. This is his No. 10 team. If they are misbehaving on an epic scale, it speaks to his leadership and competency. So, what did he know when, and what did he do about it?
The Sue Gray report will speak to this. What she's said so far is pretty damning, and that was the heavily redacted version!
So, time will tell. At present, for the Tories, we have 12 Downing Street events under police investigation, further events not under police investigation but being looked at by Sue Gray, and further events where there have been apologies and/or disciplinary action. We have over 50 FPNs having been issued to people in Downing Street, including the PM. The police haven't finished and may issue more FPNs.
For Labour, we have 1 event under police investigation and no FPNs so far.
I await with interest where we are in 2 months' time!
. 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.
Geddit? No I didn't think so.
Appreciate that you might be on your walk but can I ask, from a position of genuine ignorance, why people should be concerned about tracking? I linked to an article yesterday about the explosion of downloads of VPNs in Russia yesterday and I can of course immediately see the necessity there but what risk or risks is Joe public taking not using a VPN? What can someone who can identify your location from your ISP actually do?
It shows an ignorance of the technology, especially since he keeps referring to cookies.
Cookies are little files that track you, but it's up to you if you want them to be on your PC or not. Hence the annoying boxes popping up all the time post GDPR.
Even pre GDPR it was very easy to not have tracking cookies on your machine if you wanted to. Clearing your cookies, or disabling them, has been an option within browsers for an extremely long time. I messed with my browsers cookie settings while I was at university nearly two decades ago.
Oh and if you use your browsers Incognito Mode then it won't store any cookies either. Without the need of a compromised VPN with a blacklisted IP address.
The main worry I have about Cookies is that I constantly get asked, post GDPR, whether I will accept them or not. Otherwise they can be quite useful, taking you back to the same page on a large booking site for example. Again, if I have cookies showing that I use Booking.com quite a lot, who cares and why should I?
Unless you are doing something illegal or embarrassing (say going onto a dodgy site) I am really struggling to see the need and there are minor disadvantages. But maybe I am missing something. And why do you call @Heathener "he"? It seems unnecessary.
Travel websites, especially the airlines, are actually the one place you really want to avoid cookies.
If you search for a flight, then come back later and search for the same flight again, the price will almost always be higher the second time.
That’s deliberate and based purely on your prior search, rather than anything to do with supply and demand for the flight.
They also make extensive use of geolocation, in order to offer different prices to people in different countries, for the same flight.
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.
Only to desperate Tories and the Dail Heil
Next Remembrance Day the Heil will be complaining that Starmer's shoes aren't shiny enough. Or something like that. While Johnson, still PM, looks the scruff-bag he normally does!
I am sure you remember how the Tory media went to town on Mr Foot's bum-freezer jacket one Remembrance Day.
Interestingly, the supposed donkey (do they have a thing about asinines and LoTOs?!) jacket
(a) was not a donkey jacket (b) was bought at Harrods (c) was complimented by HMQEtQM (d) is now in a museum as an example of lying Tory shills
. 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.
Geddit? No I didn't think so.
Appreciate that you might be on your walk but can I ask, from a position of genuine ignorance, why people should be concerned about tracking? I linked to an article yesterday about the explosion of downloads of VPNs in Russia yesterday and I can of course immediately see the necessity there but what risk or risks is Joe public taking not using a VPN? What can someone who can identify your location from your ISP actually do?
It shows an ignorance of the technology, especially since he keeps referring to cookies.
Cookies are little files that track you, but it's up to you if you want them to be on your PC or not. Hence the annoying boxes popping up all the time post GDPR.
Even pre GDPR it was very easy to not have tracking cookies on your machine if you wanted to. Clearing your cookies, or disabling them, has been an option within browsers for an extremely long time. I messed with my browsers cookie settings while I was at university nearly two decades ago.
Oh and if you use your browsers Incognito Mode then it won't store any cookies either. Without the need of a compromised VPN with a blacklisted IP address.
The main worry I have about Cookies is that I constantly get asked, post GDPR, whether I will accept them or not. Otherwise they can be quite useful, taking you back to the same page on a large booking site for example. Again, if I have cookies showing that I use Booking.com quite a lot, who cares and why should I?
Unless you are doing something illegal or embarrassing (say going onto a dodgy site) I am really struggling to see the need and there are minor disadvantages. But maybe I am missing something. And why do you call @Heathener "he"? It seems unnecessary.
"He" was a typo/mistake and not intentional. Apologies.
Doxxing is not fine. So we should stop it. Calling someone "a twat" IS fine, clearly, otherwise 90% of my commentary is forbidden
As for @Heathener I agree with @NickPalmer. I used to think she was a troll, but I don't any more. If she is a Russian troll, she's not very good, she barely mentions anything-to-do-with Russia from one week to the next. She seems to be what she says she is, an opinionated Labour supporting woman with a fondness for Buddhism, she might be eccentric, but we are all eccentric - we're on here, for a start
Peace!
Surely it's the 10% of your comments that are the problem. You have had to *ahem* regenerate almost as much as Doctor Who after repeatedly getting banned.
. 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???
Since everyone is defining my opinions, I might chip in with my own thoughts. Yes, I am a liberal (but not a Liberal). That puts me in a position I'm quite happy with, in that I can float across different parties depending on circumstance. I've voted Lib Dem, Conservative, Green, and, fairly recently, SNP. I'm not averse to voting Labour but I haven't yet. It might happen depending on what's on offer. As for the Labour leadership and gender representation, I'm in favour of reasonable measures that increase the participation of women in industries where they have been underrepresented but I'm not sure I would go as far as to say that specific, individual jobs should be restricted by gender. So, for example, tax breaks for companies that help move the needle towards something fairer might be a good thing. But saying that no man may apply for the leadership of a particular party sounds wrong wrong wrong. As heavy-handed as I am when it comes to political arguments, I think party rules and legislation need to be more encouraging rather than draconian. We should collectively motivate women to stand and clear up the misogyny that negatively impacts their desire to do politics, not just rule out men. A race to the top instead of a race to the bottom.
Talking about floating positions: I'm a LibDem these days and quite happy about it. That doesn't mean I have to agree with the party on every issue! And at the GE I will vote for the SNP to remove David Duguid. I thought that was incompatible with being a LD member but was assured it was ok by ACH so here I am...
What's ACH? And yeah, I'm in the same place (for now) about next GE vote. But if the Tories ditch Boris, I will reassess. I can't see myself going back Conservative yet, these past six months have really put me off probably for a long time. But I don't know quite how much I would feel an urgent need to get rid of Duguid. He's a fool to be sure, but with a sensible Tory leader in place, would I really need to vote SNP to get rid of him? I don't know. We can do better than Duguid, but it's not like the SNP are free from idiots.
. 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.
Geddit? No I didn't think so.
Appreciate that you might be on your walk but can I ask, from a position of genuine ignorance, why people should be concerned about tracking? I linked to an article yesterday about the explosion of downloads of VPNs in Russia yesterday and I can of course immediately see the necessity there but what risk or risks is Joe public taking not using a VPN? What can someone who can identify your location from your ISP actually do?
David, I suppose they could chap your door and give you a Glasgow kiss.
. 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.
Geddit? No I didn't think so.
Appreciate that you might be on your walk but can I ask, from a position of genuine ignorance, why people should be concerned about tracking? I linked to an article yesterday about the explosion of downloads of VPNs in Russia yesterday and I can of course immediately see the necessity there but what risk or risks is Joe public taking not using a VPN? What can someone who can identify your location from your ISP actually do?
It shows an ignorance of the technology, especially since he keeps referring to cookies.
Cookies are little files that track you, but it's up to you if you want them to be on your PC or not. Hence the annoying boxes popping up all the time post GDPR.
Even pre GDPR it was very easy to not have tracking cookies on your machine if you wanted to. Clearing your cookies, or disabling them, has been an option within browsers for an extremely long time. I messed with my browsers cookie settings while I was at university nearly two decades ago.
Oh and if you use your browsers Incognito Mode then it won't store any cookies either. Without the need of a compromised VPN with a blacklisted IP address.
The main worry I have about Cookies is that I constantly get asked, post GDPR, whether I will accept them or not. Otherwise they can be quite useful, taking you back to the same page on a large booking site for example. Again, if I have cookies showing that I use Booking.com quite a lot, who cares and why should I?
Unless you are doing something illegal or embarrassing (say going onto a dodgy site) I am really struggling to see the need and there are minor disadvantages. But maybe I am missing something. And why do you call @Heathener "he"? It seems unnecessary.
"He" was a typo/mistake and not intentional. Apologies.
Yes was going to say, Bart is always very aware of these kinds of things. I expected no intentional malice on his part
Sounds like a few more losses for SKS incoming from Croydon
He is going to end LE2022 with net gains of circa 20 seats in the whole of England.
No alarm bells for SKS fans though
I'm chasing down the removal of this government, so focused more on how many Tories lost rather than to which party.
Labour are not the challengers in southern England. The challengers - my lot - picked up a stack of seats and some councils in areas needed for the Tories to lose which would put our former party into office.
So why would Starmer fans be upset at a result which shows they will form the next government? Won't be a majority of 704, but I don't think any majority is possible after Scotland went Nat.
. 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.
IMV it is in a way, and it's a bit of a sh*t thing to do in this context.
I've given this some thought since he changed his username, and I have no problem with people referring back to his views under his old username: i.e. things like "You once said that Jeremy Corby had a God-like ability to say the right thing (*)". He is the same person, and those comments still stand (the same with Leon as well).
But just using his old username to annoy him seems more than a little infantile. As a general rule, it's polite to call people what they want to be called.
(*) Not that he ever said that.
Sean gets doxxed on a regular basis, I do not hear him whining.
. 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???
Since everyone is defining my opinions, I might chip in with my own thoughts. Yes, I am a liberal (but not a Liberal). That puts me in a position I'm quite happy with, in that I can float across different parties depending on circumstance. I've voted Lib Dem, Conservative, Green, and, fairly recently, SNP. I'm not averse to voting Labour but I haven't yet. It might happen depending on what's on offer. As for the Labour leadership and gender representation, I'm in favour of reasonable measures that increase the participation of women in industries where they have been underrepresented but I'm not sure I would go as far as to say that specific, individual jobs should be restricted by gender. So, for example, tax breaks for companies that help move the needle towards something fairer might be a good thing. But saying that no man may apply for the leadership of a particular party sounds wrong wrong wrong. As heavy-handed as I am when it comes to political arguments, I think party rules and legislation need to be more encouraging rather than draconian. We should collectively motivate women to stand and clear up the misogyny that negatively impacts their desire to do politics, not just rule out men. A race to the top instead of a race to the bottom.
Talking about floating positions: I'm a LibDem these days and quite happy about it. That doesn't mean I have to agree with the party on every issue! And at the GE I will vote for the SNP to remove David Duguid. I thought that was incompatible with being a LD member but was assured it was ok by ACH so here I am...
What's ACH? And yeah, I'm in the same place (for now) about next GE vote. But if the Tories ditch Boris, I will reassess. I can't see myself going back Conservative yet, these past six months have really put me off probably for a long time. But I don't know quite how much I would feel an urgent need to get rid of Duguid. He's a fool to be sure, but with a sensible Tory leader in place, would I really need to vote SNP to get rid of him? I don't know. We can do better than Duguid, but it's not like the SNP are free from idiots.
ACH = leader of Pàrtaidh Libearal Deamocratach na h-Alba, Alex Cole-Hamilton. Interesting that you don't recognise the initials and that I had to check the spelling of the name ...
. 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???
Since everyone is defining my opinions, I might chip in with my own thoughts. Yes, I am a liberal (but not a Liberal). That puts me in a position I'm quite happy with, in that I can float across different parties depending on circumstance. I've voted Lib Dem, Conservative, Green, and, fairly recently, SNP. I'm not averse to voting Labour but I haven't yet. It might happen depending on what's on offer. As for the Labour leadership and gender representation, I'm in favour of reasonable measures that increase the participation of women in industries where they have been underrepresented but I'm not sure I would go as far as to say that specific, individual jobs should be restricted by gender. So, for example, tax breaks for companies that help move the needle towards something fairer might be a good thing. But saying that no man may apply for the leadership of a particular party sounds wrong wrong wrong. As heavy-handed as I am when it comes to political arguments, I think party rules and legislation need to be more encouraging rather than draconian. We should collectively motivate women to stand and clear up the misogyny that negatively impacts their desire to do politics, not just rule out men. A race to the top instead of a race to the bottom.
Talking about floating positions: I'm a LibDem these days and quite happy about it. That doesn't mean I have to agree with the party on every issue! And at the GE I will vote for the SNP to remove David Duguid. I thought that was incompatible with being a LD member but was assured it was ok by ACH so here I am...
What's ACH? And yeah, I'm in the same place (for now) about next GE vote. But if the Tories ditch Boris, I will reassess. I can't see myself going back Conservative yet, these past six months have really put me off probably for a long time. But I don't know quite how much I would feel an urgent need to get rid of Duguid. He's a fool to be sure, but with a sensible Tory leader in place, would I really need to vote SNP to get rid of him? I don't know. We can do better than Duguid, but it's not like the SNP are free from idiots.
Starmer's fate appears to be in the hands of the Durham Police. He can ride it out if they don't issue an FPN and will probably choose not to if they do. Starmer can claim to be vindicated if the Police say no case and someone who was issued with at least one FPN and refused to resign won't land accusations of hypocrisy against Starmer who wasn't and doesn't need to. Starmer will find it difficult if he does get an FPN and like Johnson refuses to resign, but I suspect that won't happen
So the question is whether Labour is significantly weakened by Starmer going in the FPN case. I assume Johnson won't resign in any circumstance.
. 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
Only if he genuinely is Vlad though.
One is a joke, a turn of phrase, the other is doxxing with full name.
Oh how we laughed and why should they be a "he"
Malcolm, do you think Alba still have a future after these elections? Not a single councillor in the whole of Scotland and some truly embarrassing figures in individual constituencies. It seems as if the SNP have drilled loyalty into their membership too well for a break off to thrive.
Doxxing is not fine. So we should stop it. Calling someone "a twat" IS fine, clearly, otherwise 90% of my commentary is forbidden
As for @Heathener I agree with @NickPalmer. I used to think she was a troll, but I don't any more. If she is a Russian troll, she's not very good, she barely mentions anything-to-do-with Russia from one week to the next. She seems to be what she says she is, an opinionated Labour supporting woman with a fondness for Buddhism, she might be eccentric, but we are all eccentric - we're on here, for a start
Peace!
There is no way that Heathener is not a native English speaker so the accusations of being Russian are just puerile.
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.
Starmer's fate appears to be in the hands of the Durham Police. He can ride it out if they don't issue an FPN and will probably choose not to if they do. Starmer can claim to be vindicated if the Police say no case and someone who was issued with at least one FPN and refused to resign won't land accusations of hypocrisy against Starmer who wasn't and doesn't need to. Starmer will find it difficult if he does get an FPN and like Johnson refuses to resign, but I suspect that won't happen
So the question is whether Labour is significantly weakened by Starmer going in the FPN case. I assume Johnson won't resign in any circumstance.
I actually think Labour is significantly stronger if Starmer goes post-fine.
Doxxing is not fine. So we should stop it. Calling someone "a twat" IS fine, clearly, otherwise 90% of my commentary is forbidden
As for @Heathener I agree with @NickPalmer. I used to think she was a troll, but I don't any more. If she is a Russian troll, she's not very good, she barely mentions anything-to-do-with Russia from one week to the next. She seems to be what she says she is, an opinionated Labour supporting woman with a fondness for Buddhism, she might be eccentric, but we are all eccentric - we're on here, for a start
Peace!
There is no way that Heathener is not a native English speaker so the accusations of being Russian are just puerile.
If Starmer hadn't been such a sanctimonious prick about this, or, if he had been a bit more nuanced about his opposition during covid rather than calling for more lockdown under every circumstance, he could easily have ridden this out. It seems a stupid thing to fall on, but so does cakegate. I still maintain that despite being a terrible human being Boris has been an ok PM. On covid and Ukraine he has been better than most of his continental counterparts (though less good on covid than the Scandinavians). And Starmer has been the best loto since at least Cameron, possibly Blair. These would be daft matters for either to fall on - but given their respective positions during covid, they should both go.
. 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???
Since everyone is defining my opinions, I might chip in with my own thoughts. Yes, I am a liberal (but not a Liberal). That puts me in a position I'm quite happy with, in that I can float across different parties depending on circumstance. I've voted Lib Dem, Conservative, Green, and, fairly recently, SNP. I'm not averse to voting Labour but I haven't yet. It might happen depending on what's on offer. As for the Labour leadership and gender representation, I'm in favour of reasonable measures that increase the participation of women in industries where they have been underrepresented but I'm not sure I would go as far as to say that specific, individual jobs should be restricted by gender. So, for example, tax breaks for companies that help move the needle towards something fairer might be a good thing. But saying that no man may apply for the leadership of a particular party sounds wrong wrong wrong. As heavy-handed as I am when it comes to political arguments, I think party rules and legislation need to be more encouraging rather than draconian. We should collectively motivate women to stand and clear up the misogyny that negatively impacts their desire to do politics, not just rule out men. A race to the top instead of a race to the bottom.
Talking about floating positions: I'm a LibDem these days and quite happy about it. That doesn't mean I have to agree with the party on every issue! And at the GE I will vote for the SNP to remove David Duguid. I thought that was incompatible with being a LD member but was assured it was ok by ACH so here I am...
What's ACH? And yeah, I'm in the same place (for now) about next GE vote. But if the Tories ditch Boris, I will reassess. I can't see myself going back Conservative yet, these past six months have really put me off probably for a long time. But I don't know quite how much I would feel an urgent need to get rid of Duguid. He's a fool to be sure, but with a sensible Tory leader in place, would I really need to vote SNP to get rid of him? I don't know. We can do better than Duguid, but it's not like the SNP are free from idiots.
Why remove Duguid? Because he's an arse. His constituency has 3 things going for it - farming, fishing and energy. His position on the first two is harming the industry. And on the third he stood up at PMQs and praised the PM for awarding CCS contracts to England and not to Peterhead.
He has no brain, no concept of how things work and is a lickspittle toady. That is why he has to go. We need an MP who stands up for our area. Good MPs exist in every party as do bad. Hey Duggee is bad.
As always, I blame the journalists. They love a good emote. Bring on everyone who has a story to tell and you don't have to work for a living. Tear-soaked relatives, and cruel, heartless politicians (Boris) who prove to be hypocrites (Keir and Boris).
It always reminds me of the old story about the journalist arriving in the Congo "Is there anyone here who can speak English and been raped?"
All deaths are tragic, but some are less tragic. That's not being heartless, it's being honest. I'm 72, and if I pop my clogs tomorrow, some will mourn (I hope), but there's no comparison to dying at 25.
Some lock-down was necessary, if only to ease the numbers using the NHS. At least until the vaccines arrived. Sending patients back into nursing homes from hospital was risky. At the time, I likened it to starting a fire in a forest of Eucalyptus trees, but bed-blockers are never good news for the NHS.
We'll have a bloody good investigation into what went wrong during Covid and the press will have their stories written for a while. And it will lead with, and concentrate on emotions. The numbers will suggest we did better than some and worse than others, but when you're dealing with varying definitions of a Covid death, and different circumstances, emotion will win.
My view, for what it's worth, is that we didn't do too badly overall. I dislike Bojo, but I don't hate him. I quite like Starmer, but he's definitely boring. However, we don't have a numerate government or press so I'm fearing the worst.
On journalist - I am a life long member of the “How do you feel?” haters.
That is, if after some some disaster a journalist sticks a microphone under my nose and demands “How do you feel?”, I will try and make my actions conform to the following
1) Pause, consider. 2) Punch them in the face. 3) Quietly, in a measured tone say “Something like that, I think.”
Doxxing is not fine. So we should stop it. Calling someone "a twat" IS fine, clearly, otherwise 90% of my commentary is forbidden
As for @Heathener I agree with @NickPalmer. I used to think she was a troll, but I don't any more. If she is a Russian troll, she's not very good, she barely mentions anything-to-do-with Russia from one week to the next. She seems to be what she says she is, an opinionated Labour supporting woman with a fondness for Buddhism, she might be eccentric, but we are all eccentric - we're on here, for a start
Peace!
There is no way that Heathener is not a native English speaker so the accusations of being Russian are just puerile.
Yes one of the dumbest things here.
And brought up by the same people, it does come across like bullying.
Heathener is always incredibly polite, I still don’t know what she has done to deserve this. She uses a VPN, get over it
. 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.
Geddit? No I didn't think so.
A Minsk troll who knows Woking well enough to be able to come up,with an excellent tip on the Lib Dem chances of taking the council.
This is one of those cases where if you think the account is an op, you should pretend not to notice to encourage the team behind it to do more work like this. Another one is Naomi Wu.
. 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
Only if he genuinely is Vlad though.
One is a joke, a turn of phrase, the other is doxxing with full name.
Oh how we laughed and why should they be a "he"
Malcolm, do you think Alba still have a future after these elections? Not a single councillor in the whole of Scotland and some truly embarrassing figures in individual constituencies. It seems as if the SNP have drilled loyalty into their membership too well for a break off to thrive.
Voters, David, voters. You're an advocate, you're precise.
The Mail initially said it was 30 people because of a "source".
It's now 15 people, so they lied.
Starmer has admitted 30 people were there and an independent Durham councillor who lost his mother made the formal complaint to the Durham Police that has led to the police to reopen the case
Two students who were present and took a video want to speak to the police and there is an indication this is being instigated by disaffected left labourites who have not accepted Starmer's move to the centre
Indeed Dianne Abbott last night said that Starmer would have to review his position if he receives a FPN
This is very serious for Starmer, Rayner and the MP Mary Foy and the truth will come out in the next couple of months once the detectives have reviewed the questionnaires which are being sent to all the attendees
I'm sure I recall, in January?, Starmer calling on Johnson to resign when the Met announced they were investigating.
Yes and that was highlighted on this mornings media programmes and at present is causing him a lot of hassle
Demanding Boris goes because he was under investigation and before the FPN was incredibly naïve and not least from someone who was head of the CPS
Furthermore, Rayner did the same so if they followed their own demands they would both resign tomorrow
The whole thing is absurd but this is not a conservative conspiracy but sheer stupidity from Starmer and Rayner
. 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
Only if he genuinely is Vlad though.
One is a joke, a turn of phrase, the other is doxxing with full name.
Oh how we laughed and why should they be a "he"
Malcolm, do you think Alba still have a future after these elections? Not a single councillor in the whole of Scotland and some truly embarrassing figures in individual constituencies. It seems as if the SNP have drilled loyalty into their membership too well for a break off to thrive.
I think they're doomed. And the election results are not much to do with the membership, but more the voters. Most voters aren't members, and the voters took one look at Alba and went "nah mate". It's over for Salmond. Not with a bang but with a whimper.
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 sheet hypocrisy too.
Could Starmer have changed the law? No Could Boris have changed the law? Yes.
The leader of the opposition does not carry same responsibility as the prime minister.
PS Looking at the way Starmer operates, like many ceos personally I suspect he continued working until late through the night. Others may have gone to bed., but he probably carried on in some way.
“Party I support - no problem, party I don’t support - problem”
You seem to be talking about the editorial of the Daily Mail.
😂😂😂😂
During the run up to the expenses scandal, the chap selling the leaked stuff had some interesting experiences with the press.
The Guardian was quite clear that they would only publish material against politicians they disliked. As did other papers. In the end, the Telegraph promised to print everything.
He also argued that the event was analagous to the Downing Street gathering where Johnson and his staff were photographed drinking wine and eating cheese in the No 10 garden where they were said to be discussing work matters. That event was not investigated by the Metropolitan police, Wagner pointed out.
This will be political if the Met now doesn’t reopen Johnson’s one
Given Lisa Nandy warned Starmer to move off Partygate she must be spitting blood at getting sent out to defend the indefensible this morning.
I do feel the Cost of Living Crisis is going to be the only game in Town going forward. Whichever Party can mitigate that best in the voters views will do very well.
Getting pissed on £200 which also paid for food, £13 per person.
Starmer must be a major, major lightweight.
Do you really think he drank? Or wandered around with an open bottle of beer, man of the people style, having awkward and strained "social chit chat" with people showing how much he cared?
. 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???
Since everyone is defining my opinions, I might chip in with my own thoughts. Yes, I am a liberal (but not a Liberal). That puts me in a position I'm quite happy with, in that I can float across different parties depending on circumstance. I've voted Lib Dem, Conservative, Green, and, fairly recently, SNP. I'm not averse to voting Labour but I haven't yet. It might happen depending on what's on offer. As for the Labour leadership and gender representation, I'm in favour of reasonable measures that increase the participation of women in industries where they have been underrepresented but I'm not sure I would go as far as to say that specific, individual jobs should be restricted by gender. So, for example, tax breaks for companies that help move the needle towards something fairer might be a good thing. But saying that no man may apply for the leadership of a particular party sounds wrong wrong wrong. As heavy-handed as I am when it comes to political arguments, I think party rules and legislation need to be more encouraging rather than draconian. We should collectively motivate women to stand and clear up the misogyny that negatively impacts their desire to do politics, not just rule out men. A race to the top instead of a race to the bottom.
Talking about floating positions: I'm a LibDem these days and quite happy about it. That doesn't mean I have to agree with the party on every issue! And at the GE I will vote for the SNP to remove David Duguid. I thought that was incompatible with being a LD member but was assured it was ok by ACH so here I am...
What's ACH? And yeah, I'm in the same place (for now) about next GE vote. But if the Tories ditch Boris, I will reassess. I can't see myself going back Conservative yet, these past six months have really put me off probably for a long time. But I don't know quite how much I would feel an urgent need to get rid of Duguid. He's a fool to be sure, but with a sensible Tory leader in place, would I really need to vote SNP to get rid of him? I don't know. We can do better than Duguid, but it's not like the SNP are free from idiots.
Why remove Duguid? Because he's an arse. His constituency has 3 things going for it - farming, fishing and energy. His position on the first two is harming the industry. And on the third he stood up at PMQs and praised the PM for awarding CCS contracts to England and not to Peterhead.
He has no brain, no concept of how things work and is a lickspittle toady. That is why he has to go. We need an MP who stands up for our area. Good MPs exist in every party as do bad. Hey Duggee is bad.
Ok, you're right. But I'll still need to look carefully at the SNP candidate when the time comes.
Right, I'm now covered on Rachel Reeves (100/1), Lisa Nandy (100/1) and Yvette Cooper (250/1). Small stakes, huge wins. But all of the 3 previous factors I mentioned need to come into play.
One thing I am certain of: the next Labour leader will be a woman and I think those are the three in the frame.
Getting pissed on £200 which also paid for food, £13 per person.
Starmer must be a major, major lightweight.
Do you really think he drank? Or wandered around with an open bottle of beer, man of the people style, having awkward and strained "social chit chat" with people showing how much he cared?
I think he had a beer with his curry, ate his curry and then produced a Tweet on his Twitter account at 10:13 like I showed earlier.
I just can’t imagine Starmer being a party guy. He strikes me as the kind of guy that reminds the teacher to give homework out
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.
Hunt lost because he was broadly the continuity candidate in a change election - he was deemed inappropriate for the occasion by the Tory selectorate; he wasn't rejected for being loathsome to them. He had some personal qualities May lacked (more collegiate, less of a bunker-dweller) but was essentially a slightly dull Remain supporter hoping (rather unrealistically) to get a Brexit deal through on the basis of a bit of a new-PM honeymoon.
Conservatives went for Johnson as he was a Brexit supporter promising to drive it through which, in fairness, he did (albeit with major flaws in the deal). He was (and is) also a charismatic figure who made many Tories feel good about themselves - although that's very much waned.
The next Conservative leadership election won't be Johnson v Hunt, and won't be primarily Brexit-based. As such - whilst Hunt has some important flaws - he has a case. He's stayed clear of government incompetence and sleaze since 2019, is capable and presentable... and he only needs to beat the opponent MPs select for him.
Wallace and Truss and Zahawi, the likeliest replacements for Boris would all beat Hunt, probably even Raab and Rees Mogg would beat him with Tory members too.
The only opponents he might beat are Sunak post fine and budget and Patel
Comments
One is a joke, a turn of phrase, the other is doxxing with full name.
Boris is a story of privilege and entitlement. He's seen quaffing champagne with his pals in the sunny gardens of No 10. His aid Aleggra is filmed with a bunch of hooray Henry's guffawing about breaking the lockdown rules and how best to present the rule breaking to the public.....
Starmer's is a case of hypocricy. He's filmed in Durham with a bottle of beer and a £6 curry after spending the day trying to win a seat in Hartlepool. He's filmed on a shaky phone through a window by a student who sold the story to the Mail on Sunday.....
The Mail initially said it was 30 people because of a "source".
It's now 15 people, so they lied.
Starmer must be a major, major lightweight.
It seems doxxing to me
I've given this some thought since he changed his username, and I have no problem with people referring back to his views under his old username: i.e. things like "You once said that Jeremy Corby had a God-like ability to say the right thing (*)". He is the same person, and those comments still stand (the same with Leon as well).
But just using his old username to annoy him seems more than a little infantile. As a general rule, it's polite to call people what they want to be called.
(*) Not that he ever said that.
Yes, I am a liberal (but not a Liberal). That puts me in a position I'm quite happy with, in that I can float across different parties depending on circumstance. I've voted Lib Dem, Conservative, Green, and, fairly recently, SNP. I'm not averse to voting Labour but I haven't yet. It might happen depending on what's on offer.
As for the Labour leadership and gender representation, I'm in favour of reasonable measures that increase the participation of women in industries where they have been underrepresented but I'm not sure I would go as far as to say that specific, individual jobs should be restricted by gender.
So, for example, tax breaks for companies that help move the needle towards something fairer might be a good thing. But saying that no man may apply for the leadership of a particular party sounds wrong wrong wrong. As heavy-handed as I am when it comes to political arguments, I think party rules and legislation need to be more encouraging rather than draconian. We should collectively motivate women to stand and clear up the misogyny that negatively impacts their desire to do politics, not just rule out men. A race to the top instead of a race to the bottom.
I thought the Mail excelled itself yesterday on its non-coverage of the local elections. It's poor readership are being force fed a thin gruel of "aren't Labour terrible", "aren't Harry and Meghan terrible" and " we don't care about anyone who isn't a Leave-voting suburban or rural Conservative".
Apparently, the losses in Wandsworth, Barnet and Westminster weren't down to our blessed Prime Minister, oh no, but because these areas are full of "woke, metropolitan elite Remainers" so that's half the country written off it would seem.
Grudging acknowledgement of LD successes in the so-called "Blue Wall" was explained away by "they'll all come back to the Tories when it's a proper real election". Fine, try telling all those poor local Conservative Councillors who got swept away on Thursday they laid down their lives in vain to support the Prime Minister.
As someone who genuinely believes in freedom of speech and plural democracy it saddens me newspapers, tv channels and the like find the concept of having contrary opinions at the same time so difficult. I'm happy to credit the Government with, for example, excellent decision-making on vaccine procurement. We were in the vanguard (along with Israel) on getting vaccinations into the population and unquestionably many lives were saved.
I'll also credit the Government's robust approach on Ukraine - we have led the western diplomatic response to unacceptable Russian aggression.
Yet, both those being said, is it wrong to question the Government's policy on care home patients during the pandemic or test-and-trace or the bureaucratic response to Ukrainian refugee applications? I'd argue not - the inability of some to see beyond the black and white into the shades of grey which are in fact normality is the worst of all.
It's far too easy to abandon objectivity and retreat into echo chambers where the only voices re-enforce your own opinions, prejudices or misconceptions. It's also far too easy to adopt broad-brush responses and argue the Government has done everything right on the pandemic or the Ukraine or the economy or anything else. The truth is far more nuanced - the Government has done some things well and some things not so well. Part of scrutiny and accountability to which all Governments should be held is to recognise areas of failing and ask searching questions while of course acknowledging those areas which have been successful.
Yet to even do that basic democratic tenet is to invite vitriol and abuse from the loyalists - it's not wrong to ask questions, it's not wrong to point out failings, it's not wrong to hold any Government to account. That's the fundamental difference between democracy and dictatorship.
Not sure why it'd be different next time.
...look at Rita Ora's "ample assets"
So just as I have told colleagues in the past that we have to admire the drive by shooting of us by the independent councillors ("respect the craft") I'm also going to how laughing if Starmer has to resign because of the corner he painted himself into.
Politics can be painfully funny sometimes.
Conservatives went for Johnson as he was a Brexit supporter promising to drive it through which, in fairness, he did (albeit with major flaws in the deal). He was (and is) also a charismatic figure who made many Tories feel good about themselves - although that's very much waned.
The next Conservative leadership election won't be Johnson v Hunt, and won't be primarily Brexit-based. As such - whilst Hunt has some important flaws - he has a case. He's stayed clear of government incompetence and sleaze since 2019, is capable and presentable... and he only needs to beat the opponent MPs select for him.
Durham Police, over to you
Cookies are little files that track you, but it's up to you if you want them to be on your PC or not. Hence the annoying boxes popping up all the time post GDPR.
Even pre GDPR it was very easy to not have tracking cookies on your machine if you wanted to. Clearing your cookies, or disabling them, has been an option within browsers for an extremely long time. I messed with my browsers cookie settings while I was at university nearly two decades ago.
Oh and if you use your browsers Incognito Mode then it won't store any cookies either. Without the need of a compromised VPN with a blacklisted IP address.
As for @Heathener I agree with @NickPalmer. I used to think she was a troll, but I don't any more. If she is a Russian troll, she's not very good, she barely mentions anything-to-do-with Russia from one week to the next. She seems to be what she says she is, an opinionated Labour supporting woman with a fondness for Buddhism, she might be eccentric, but we are all eccentric - we're on here, for a start
Peace!
It's why Apple always send the wrong browser and version of macOS to web servers, in an effort to stop fingerprinting
(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
1h
So just to be clear where we now are. Labour’s position is Boris Johnson should be held to the high standards Keir Starmer sets. But Keir Starmer shouldn’t be held to the high standards Keir Starmer sets.
Part of the fun on a board like this is having a different identity. We might all have a pop at each other's positions and perceived hypocrisy some times but it isn't personal.
So I support your objection to this. If people wanted to use their name they would do so. You once did, now don't, so we should accept that.
Two students who were present and took a video want to speak to the police and there is an indication this is being instigated by disaffected left labourites who have not accepted Starmer's move to the centre
Indeed Dianne Abbott last night said that Starmer would have to review his position if he receives a FPN
This is very serious for Starmer, Rayner and the MP Mary Foy and the truth will come out in the next couple of months once the detectives have reviewed the questionnaires which are being sent to all the attendees
He is going to end LE2022 with net gains of circa 20 seats in the whole of England.
No alarm bells for SKS fans though
One of the events mentioned in senior civil servant Sue Gray's initial report into Downing Street gatherings was on 15 May 2020, when the prime minister and members of staff were pictured with bottles of wine in the Downing Street garden. At the time, Mr Johnson said: "Those were meetings of people at work, talking about work."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/61334893
PB Tories want to comment? Oddly quiet about this one
Unless you are doing something illegal or embarrassing (say going onto a dodgy site) I am really struggling to see the need and there are minor disadvantages. But maybe I am missing something. And why do you call @Heathener "he"? It seems unnecessary.
But, sure, we await the conclusion of police investigations of both. Our understanding of what happened may have to be revised.
You are right that Johnson was not in Downing Street on 16 April. There are 12 Downing Street events under investigation by the police. Johnson was at some, but not others. We don't have a full list of which he was at because he's refused to say.
But what we do know is that Johnson went to Parliament and said all the rules were followed. If he knew about an event before then, he lied to Parliament (and is still doing so as he's never corrected the record on that point). That's not something that the police are investigating, but it is something that matters.
We also know that Johnson is the boss. This is his No. 10 team. If they are misbehaving on an epic scale, it speaks to his leadership and competency. So, what did he know when, and what did he do about it?
The Sue Gray report will speak to this. What she's said so far is pretty damning, and that was the heavily redacted version!
So, time will tell. At present, for the Tories, we have 12 Downing Street events under police investigation, further events not under police investigation but being looked at by Sue Gray, and further events where there have been apologies and/or disciplinary action. We have over 50 FPNs having been issued to people in Downing Street, including the PM. The police haven't finished and may issue more FPNs.
For Labour, we have 1 event under police investigation and no FPNs so far.
I await with interest where we are in 2 months' time!
If you search for a flight, then come back later and search for the same flight again, the price will almost always be higher the second time.
That’s deliberate and based purely on your prior search, rather than anything to do with supply and demand for the flight.
They also make extensive use of geolocation, in order to offer different prices to people in different countries, for the same flight.
Interestingly, the supposed donkey (do they have a thing about asinines and LoTOs?!) jacket
(a) was not a donkey jacket
(b) was bought at Harrods
(c) was complimented by HMQEtQM
(d) is now in a museum as an example of lying Tory shills
https://twitter.com/phmmcr/status/1325770811085615105?lang=en-GB
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/truth-foots-donkey-jacket-2233856
And yeah, I'm in the same place (for now) about next GE vote. But if the Tories ditch Boris, I will reassess. I can't see myself going back Conservative yet, these past six months have really put me off probably for a long time. But I don't know quite how much I would feel an urgent need to get rid of Duguid. He's a fool to be sure, but with a sensible Tory leader in place, would I really need to vote SNP to get rid of him? I don't know. We can do better than Duguid, but it's not like the SNP are free from idiots.
Almost like doing so would admit their hypocrisy over Starmer.
If Starmer does get a fine, the Met will have to investigate that and Durham will have to fine Cummings.
Labour are not the challengers in southern England. The challengers - my lot - picked up a stack of seats and some councils in areas needed for the Tories to lose which would put our former party into office.
So why would Starmer fans be upset at a result which shows they will form the next government? Won't be a majority of 704, but I don't think any majority is possible after Scotland went Nat.
So the question is whether Labour is significantly weakened by Starmer going in the FPN case. I assume Johnson won't resign in any circumstance.
Or this paper from a subgroup discussed the matter at length: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1049125/SPI-B_PS_Security_and_Policing_Challenges_-_Horizon_Scanning_21_September_2020.pdf
I still maintain that despite being a terrible human being Boris has been an ok PM. On covid and Ukraine he has been better than most of his continental counterparts (though less good on covid than the Scandinavians). And Starmer has been the best loto since at least Cameron, possibly Blair. These would be daft matters for either to fall on - but given their respective positions during covid, they should both go.
He has no brain, no concept of how things work and is a lickspittle toady. That is why he has to go. We need an MP who stands up for our area. Good MPs exist in every party as do bad. Hey Duggee is bad.
That is, if after some some disaster a journalist sticks a microphone under my nose and demands “How do you feel?”, I will try and make my actions conform to the following
1) Pause, consider.
2) Punch them in the face.
3) Quietly, in a measured tone say “Something like that, I think.”
And brought up by the same people, it does come across like bullying.
Heathener is always incredibly polite, I still don’t know what she has done to deserve this. She uses a VPN, get over it
Demanding Boris goes because he was under investigation and before the FPN was incredibly naïve and not least from someone who was head of the CPS
Furthermore, Rayner did the same so if they followed their own demands they would both resign tomorrow
The whole thing is absurd but this is not a conservative conspiracy but sheer stupidity from Starmer and Rayner
And the election results are not much to do with the membership, but more the voters. Most voters aren't members, and the voters took one look at Alba and went "nah mate". It's over for Salmond. Not with a bang but with a whimper.
The Guardian was quite clear that they would only publish material against politicians they disliked. As did other papers. In the end, the Telegraph promised to print everything.
This will be political if the Met now doesn’t reopen Johnson’s one
I do feel the Cost of Living Crisis is going to be the only game in Town going forward. Whichever Party can mitigate that best in the voters views will do very well.
They are so rare here they provoke attention. They are rarer than they are in London
They are also noisy. Calm down ladies, I'm working
One thing I am certain of: the next Labour leader will be a woman and I think those are the three in the frame.
I just can’t imagine Starmer being a party guy. He strikes me as the kind of guy that reminds the teacher to give homework out
The only opponents he might beat are Sunak post fine and budget and Patel