Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

A UK recession in 2022? – politicalbetting.com

1246

Comments

  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 18,395

    any news of Croydon and its result?

    This is one of the best places for the latest news from Croydon.

    https://vote-2012.proboards.com/thread/15487/croydon?page=21&scrollTo=1238771
  • LeonLeon Posts: 24,250

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    If Russia did take out the UK with a first strike, I would expect us to respond with Trident, just because. Revenge. Fuck em

    How much damage could one Trident sub do? Presumably we could wipe out Moscow and St Pete’s, but beyond that? A few more cities? Killing maybe 40-50m?

    Russia would survive, albeit fucked, unlike Britain which would be a radioactive desert for centuries

    However, if Putin was mad enough to do this, then I expect America would launch missiles too, trying to take out the rest of Russia’s nuclear capability from the getgo, the Chinese might possibly join in, and the French - targeting Russia as a menace to the world

    So on the whole, taking everything into account, I put the chances of Russia destroying Britain in the next few weeks at no more than 40%, which is kind of reassuring

    48 nukes could be launched, Russia would be a wasteland.
    I’ve just been checking Google. One Trident sub full of warheads does not mean 48 entirely vaporised cities. It means


    “Our estimates, which are supported by other studies, predict that one Trident submarine with forty 100kT warheads could cause at least 10 million casualties and as many as 20 million in 10-20 large cities and hit a further 20 military targets such as bases and command bunkers. [9] Trident missiles have a range of 7,000 miles. This, combined with the submarine’s ability to sail into any ocean area, enables it to strike targets anywhere across the globe within around 30 minutes of launch. [10]”

    Which is frankly a bit feeble

    On the other hand


    “If used, the nuclear weapons carried by just one Trident submarine could cause such huge climatic disruption that global food supplies would be at risk and the survival of human civilisation itself would be threatened.”

    Which is much more encouraging. Hmm.

    Info here:


    https://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/uk-nuclear-weapons-catastrophe-making
    Forget the exaggerated garbage about a handful of nukes killing the world.

    https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

    The purpose of the U.K. nukes is to hold the Russian leadership at risk - kill them in their bunkers.

    Secondarily, they could be used to take out various choke points in the Russian economy. So no rail distribution of goods, no harbours for import, no oil and gas production.

    IIRC they was an estimate in the Cold War that 100 nukes could reduce the carrying capacity of Russia for population by 90%.
    The logical thing to do (if it ever came to that) would be to take out all Russian missile silos and their military C&C infrastructure, including their sub pens, not to wipe out their cities and population.

    What you'd want to do is wipe out their leadership and any ability they had to launch subsequent second strikes.

    If Putin ever did that he could measure his lifespan in minutes. And once their nuclear "shield" had gone they'd be at the mercy of the West since NATO's forces are hugely dispersed and markedly superior.
    It’s also the right thing to do morally, targeting military facilities rather than population centres.
    Fuck off. If they’ve killed 40m Brits, i want to see 40m Russians dead
    You won't be seeing it from Camden that's for sure.
    Why do you think I”m mysteriously in the Turkish Aegean??? For no apparent reason?
    That was rather a focal point of the Cuban missile crisis, no?
    The Turkish Aegean is on the Russia strike list, almost certainly. Make the Dardanelles wider, probably….
    i really doubt it, why would you waste warheads on a bunch of holiday resorts and pretty beaches?

    Unless there are US naval bases here

    (For the avoidance of doubt, I’m not actually here to escape nuclear fall-out, tho it might be one of the better places to be in “Europe” if the bomb does drop)
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 4,645
    Andy_JS said:

    It looks like Labour have lost control of Croydon council.

    That means they lose two in London with Harrow, while gaining three in Westminster, Wandsworth and Barnet. Not such a good night in London for Labour after all.

    Lost three with Tower Hamlets so no net gain
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 41,040
    IshmaelZ said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cyclefree said:

    20 degrees in my garden. In the Lakes. In May. Bliss.

    Has the entire British political establishment resigned yet over the Covid rules?

    No.

    Ah well, back to the garden.

    I think my plan for sending the entire House of Commons (and Lords) for the first manned landing on Pluto is looking increasingly sensible.

    I remember suggesting in 2018, at the height of the silly Parliamentary Brexit games, that the Queen should dissolve Parliament with the 650 incumbents all barred from standing again.

    A trip to Pluto is the wrong way though, a trip to Mercury or Venus would be better.
    The Department of Education is going on the mission to land on the Sun.

    Mercury or Venus are only a light minutes away. Too close.
    Mercury on average is over halfway there.
    Since it’s further away half the time, that can’t be right?
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 7,449
    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    If Russia did take out the UK with a first strike, I would expect us to respond with Trident, just because. Revenge. Fuck em

    How much damage could one Trident sub do? Presumably we could wipe out Moscow and St Pete’s, but beyond that? A few more cities? Killing maybe 40-50m?

    Russia would survive, albeit fucked, unlike Britain which would be a radioactive desert for centuries

    However, if Putin was mad enough to do this, then I expect America would launch missiles too, trying to take out the rest of Russia’s nuclear capability from the getgo, the Chinese might possibly join in, and the French - targeting Russia as a menace to the world

    So on the whole, taking everything into account, I put the chances of Russia destroying Britain in the next few weeks at no more than 40%, which is kind of reassuring

    48 nukes could be launched, Russia would be a wasteland.
    I’ve just been checking Google. One Trident sub full of warheads does not mean 48 entirely vaporised cities. It means


    “Our estimates, which are supported by other studies, predict that one Trident submarine with forty 100kT warheads could cause at least 10 million casualties and as many as 20 million in 10-20 large cities and hit a further 20 military targets such as bases and command bunkers. [9] Trident missiles have a range of 7,000 miles. This, combined with the submarine’s ability to sail into any ocean area, enables it to strike targets anywhere across the globe within around 30 minutes of launch. [10]”

    Which is frankly a bit feeble

    On the other hand


    “If used, the nuclear weapons carried by just one Trident submarine could cause such huge climatic disruption that global food supplies would be at risk and the survival of human civilisation itself would be threatened.”

    Which is much more encouraging. Hmm.

    Info here:


    https://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/uk-nuclear-weapons-catastrophe-making
    Forget the exaggerated garbage about a handful of nukes killing the world.

    https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

    The purpose of the U.K. nukes is to hold the Russian leadership at risk - kill them in their bunkers.

    Secondarily, they could be used to take out various choke points in the Russian economy. So no rail distribution of goods, no harbours for import, no oil and gas production.

    IIRC they was an estimate in the Cold War that 100 nukes could reduce the carrying capacity of Russia for population by 90%.
    The logical thing to do (if it ever came to that) would be to take out all Russian missile silos and their military C&C infrastructure, including their sub pens, not to wipe out their cities and population.

    What you'd want to do is wipe out their leadership and any ability they had to launch subsequent second strikes.

    If Putin ever did that he could measure his lifespan in minutes. And once their nuclear "shield" had gone they'd be at the mercy of the West since NATO's forces are hugely dispersed and markedly superior.
    It’s also the right thing to do morally, targeting military facilities rather than population centres.
    Fuck off. If they’ve killed 40m Brits, i want to see 40m Russians dead
    You won't be seeing it from Camden that's for sure.
    Why do you think I”m mysteriously in the Turkish Aegean??? For no apparent reason?
    That was rather a focal point of the Cuban missile crisis, no?
    The Turkish Aegean is on the Russia strike list, almost certainly. Make the Dardanelles wider, probably….
    i really doubt it, why would you waste warheads on a bunch of holiday resorts and pretty beaches?

    Unless there are US naval bases here

    (For the avoidance of doubt, I’m not actually here to escape nuclear fall-out, tho it might be one of the better places to be in “Europe” if the bomb does drop)
    Some might say being directly under the first missile would be a better place than trying to eke out a life for 3 months in the radioactive dust...
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 1,749
    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Isn't the problem with Doctor Who now that in the world where we expect (and get) movie level VFX for sci-fi and fantasy tv shows, Doctor Who looks hugely dated and rather amateur hour. That was also the criticism with that around the world reboot, it was filmed on the cheap in a street in Romania, trying to claim to be loads of different exotic countries.

    Doctor Who has never had the most up to date special effects at any point in its history. When its being popular (60's, 70s, late 2000's-early 2010's) it's been because it had good storylines and a likeable Doctor + companions.
    When RTD left it went to shit
    Nah, the Matt Smith/early Moffat era did perfectly well amongst general audiences and is liked by fans. The show only started going downhill around 2015 when it was clear Moffat couldn't be bothered anymore.
    There's a funny review of Sherlock online, saying why it's such a terrible show and firmly blaming Moffat.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkoGBOs5ecM

    And it was a *terrible* show.
    The pilot was not too bad but, yes, it was awful. All very smug and self congratulatory.

    Glad to see Una Stubbs keeping the coffee table clean though.
    ;)

    We bought the DVD of the Sherlock first series and the pilot episode was really good. But they totally slaughtered it for the released first episode - a point I'm glad the guy in the link above made.

    Elementary is a far superior modern recharacterisation of the Sherlock Holmes stories.
    Much of the writing in Sherlock makes absolutely no sense at all but they paper over the cracks of that by arguing it's "clever".
    The longer it's been, the worse that show looks. Literally the only good episode is the first
    Yes, it’s fucking terrible. One good episode then a ton of self-congratulatory shite

    “Quality” British tv drama at its worst
    I remember having a discussion with you about this when it first came out. Well, it wasn't Leon, but you know what I mean. ;)

    You said how good it was, and how I was utterly and totally wrong for saying it was bad, and pointed to the rave reviews it got from the Sherlock Holmes Appreciation Society or somesuch...
    I REALLY don’t think that is true. I never liked it, ever, apart from that one opening episode (which was excellent)

    Like many on here I was bemused by the rave reviews from episode 2 onwards. Indeed I noted that it got praised by all the usual Woke lefty suspects, people like Caitlin Moran, and anyone on the Guardian, who latched on to it as evidence of how brilliant tthe BBC is - and so Sherlock is superb and must not be criticised

    Laughable. Sherlock isn’t the only example of this syndrome, either
    I don't think I'm wrong, but it was a long time ago...

    I remember it because you usually know your stuff on storywriting, for some odd reason. ;)
    I’m happy to admit when I am wrong, which is often the case. I have a lot of opinions

    In this case, no

    As @Malmesbury says below, the whole point of Sherlock Holmes is his brilliant logical deductive reasoning. Without that it is over-ripe characterization, portentous acting and cheesy non sequiturs. Which describes “Sherlock”
    Come, come.
    Sherlock Holmes mainly uses inductive reasoning.
    Abductive?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 16,848
    Farooq said:

    MrEd said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    SKS cancels Inst for Govt speech and presser tomorrow, no reason given, says r2 news

    Bizarre that a week ago I would have said Sunak was likely to be the biggest political implosion of a lifetime

    This is an existential crisis for Labour. If Sir Keir goes (and I think it's more probable than not) then what really is the point anymore? Their leaders are getting worse and worse - the last one being a fringe far-left anti-Semitic lunatic - and now they're competing with the known crook and chancer Boris Johnson on the Covid-lockdown-criminality-hypocrisy stakes. Utterly risible.
    Starmer was never going to be the Messiah. John the Baptist possibly. His job was to clear out the Trots, take the flack and step aside, so that someone with a bit more pizzaz can take a united party forward.


    Except that there were many on here who were telling us last than a week back that SKS would indeed be the next PM, that he had many qualities etc etc and - more to the point from a betting perspective - there was a very good chance he would be PM post-the next GE. Now Labour can't seem to get rid of him fast enough
    He has to go because he is personally tainted and cannot criticise Johnson's future FPNs and the results of the Gray Report. If he falls on his sword someone else (not Rayner, who also needs to go) can still call Johnson's parties out. Perhaps not as unoquivocally as they could have this time last week, but they can point out that Starmer at least did the right thing. Incoming Tory poll lead nonetheless.
    Not if he's innocent. If nothing happens with the police then he's not tainted at all.
    I am sorry to say he is tainted and cannot criticise Johnson's indiscretions now. He has let Johnson off the hook. I am hoping that he is cancelling everything tomorrow to prepare his resignation.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 18,395

    Andy_JS said:

    It looks like Labour have lost control of Croydon council.

    That means they lose two in London with Harrow, while gaining three in Westminster, Wandsworth and Barnet. Not such a good night in London for Labour after all.

    Lost three with Tower Hamlets so no net gain
    I'd forgotten that one. But the media just want to talk about Wandsworth.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 1,742
    Leon said:

    Starmer’s cancellation of his media appearances feels ominous for him. Why would he do that unless it was serious?

    Best guess: he’s been told Durham police are going to charge him and he needs to cobble together some reason why he doesn’t have to resign

    Apparently they’re sending out a questionnaire like the Met did so he wouldn’t likely know for weeks if he was getting a FPN.

    I agree though cancelling media appearances doesn’t sound good . I think Starmer needs to do something creative and start fighting back , do something that nobody expects .
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 2,128
    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    If Russia did take out the UK with a first strike, I would expect us to respond with Trident, just because. Revenge. Fuck em

    How much damage could one Trident sub do? Presumably we could wipe out Moscow and St Pete’s, but beyond that? A few more cities? Killing maybe 40-50m?

    Russia would survive, albeit fucked, unlike Britain which would be a radioactive desert for centuries

    However, if Putin was mad enough to do this, then I expect America would launch missiles too, trying to take out the rest of Russia’s nuclear capability from the getgo, the Chinese might possibly join in, and the French - targeting Russia as a menace to the world

    So on the whole, taking everything into account, I put the chances of Russia destroying Britain in the next few weeks at no more than 40%, which is kind of reassuring

    48 nukes could be launched, Russia would be a wasteland.
    I’ve just been checking Google. One Trident sub full of warheads does not mean 48 entirely vaporised cities. It means


    “Our estimates, which are supported by other studies, predict that one Trident submarine with forty 100kT warheads could cause at least 10 million casualties and as many as 20 million in 10-20 large cities and hit a further 20 military targets such as bases and command bunkers. [9] Trident missiles have a range of 7,000 miles. This, combined with the submarine’s ability to sail into any ocean area, enables it to strike targets anywhere across the globe within around 30 minutes of launch. [10]”

    Which is frankly a bit feeble

    On the other hand


    “If used, the nuclear weapons carried by just one Trident submarine could cause such huge climatic disruption that global food supplies would be at risk and the survival of human civilisation itself would be threatened.”

    Which is much more encouraging. Hmm.

    Info here:


    https://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/uk-nuclear-weapons-catastrophe-making
    Forget the exaggerated garbage about a handful of nukes killing the world.

    https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

    The purpose of the U.K. nukes is to hold the Russian leadership at risk - kill them in their bunkers.

    Secondarily, they could be used to take out various choke points in the Russian economy. So no rail distribution of goods, no harbours for import, no oil and gas production.

    IIRC they was an estimate in the Cold War that 100 nukes could reduce the carrying capacity of Russia for population by 90%.
    The logical thing to do (if it ever came to that) would be to take out all Russian missile silos and their military C&C infrastructure, including their sub pens, not to wipe out their cities and population.

    What you'd want to do is wipe out their leadership and any ability they had to launch subsequent second strikes.

    If Putin ever did that he could measure his lifespan in minutes. And once their nuclear "shield" had gone they'd be at the mercy of the West since NATO's forces are hugely dispersed and markedly superior.
    It’s also the right thing to do morally, targeting military facilities rather than population centres.
    Fuck off. If they’ve killed 40m Brits, i want to see 40m Russians dead
    Surely a proportionate response would be 60% of their population, so about 87 million?

    Are you going soft in your old age?
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 7,449

    Farooq said:

    MrEd said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    SKS cancels Inst for Govt speech and presser tomorrow, no reason given, says r2 news

    Bizarre that a week ago I would have said Sunak was likely to be the biggest political implosion of a lifetime

    This is an existential crisis for Labour. If Sir Keir goes (and I think it's more probable than not) then what really is the point anymore? Their leaders are getting worse and worse - the last one being a fringe far-left anti-Semitic lunatic - and now they're competing with the known crook and chancer Boris Johnson on the Covid-lockdown-criminality-hypocrisy stakes. Utterly risible.
    Starmer was never going to be the Messiah. John the Baptist possibly. His job was to clear out the Trots, take the flack and step aside, so that someone with a bit more pizzaz can take a united party forward.


    Except that there were many on here who were telling us last than a week back that SKS would indeed be the next PM, that he had many qualities etc etc and - more to the point from a betting perspective - there was a very good chance he would be PM post-the next GE. Now Labour can't seem to get rid of him fast enough
    He has to go because he is personally tainted and cannot criticise Johnson's future FPNs and the results of the Gray Report. If he falls on his sword someone else (not Rayner, who also needs to go) can still call Johnson's parties out. Perhaps not as unoquivocally as they could have this time last week, but they can point out that Starmer at least did the right thing. Incoming Tory poll lead nonetheless.
    Not if he's innocent. If nothing happens with the police then he's not tainted at all.
    I am sorry to say he is tainted and cannot criticise Johnson's indiscretions now. He has let Johnson off the hook. I am hoping that he is cancelling everything tomorrow to prepare his resignation.
    Yes he can. If he's innocent he can criticise the guilty. Of course he can.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 14,440
    Cyclefree said:

    Well I never.

    Rishi Sunak has been forced to outsource key aspects of the Treasury’s post-Brexit legal work after admitting that his department does not have the resources necessary to unleash an overhaul of financial regulation.

    Hogan Lovells, a top City law firm, has been brought in to advise the Government on everything from regulatory equivalence and crypto assets, to trade deals and the powers and duties of the Bank of England and the City watchdog.

    The Treasury admitted that its in-house legal team was “unable to support the demand” the department has for legal services as it reshapes Britain’s financial services regulation post-Brexit, according to official documents.

    It said this was owing to “a period of continued change as the UK consolidates its position, both internationally and domestically, following its exit from the EU”.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/05/08/rishi-sunak-admits-outsourcing-key-aspects-post-brexit-legal/

    "A top City law firm"??? They're good but not that good. Why aren't the PRA and the FCA's and the BoE's legal counsel involved in this?
    It won't be saving any money...
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 6,598
    Some interesting straws in the wind here, as the Conservatives realise what happens if Starmer goes;

    JRM not freelancing here. This implicit call for a truce, I’m told, is the line the chief whip is desperate for Tory MPs to take on Beergate.

    They’ve been warned that Starmer’s resignation would cause serious problems for the Tories in the country.


    https://twitter.com/patrickkmaguire/status/1523350692345245696?

    Trouble is, even if the Conservatives decide a truce is in their interests, how do they call off their semi-housetrained rottweilers in the press, let alone opportunistic freelancers on the Labour left and libertarian right?
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 4,821
    edited May 8
    The politics of beergate are complex. It's clearly bad news for Starmer, but I suspect it's bad news for Boris as well.

    If the police clear Starmer, which is possible, then he will claim he's done nothing wrong, as he said from the start. He then goes back on the attack over Boris's 'criminality'.
    If the police fine Starmer, then he'll probably resign. So what does Boris do then - stay on?
    I don't see how either scenario is good for Boris - quite the opposite. Starmer being in trouble is good for the Tories, of course - but not for Boris.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,062
    edited May 8

    The politics of beergate are complex. It's clearly bad news for Starmer, but I suspect it's bad news for Boris as well.

    If the police clear Starmer, which is possible, then he will claim he's done nothing wrong, as he said from the start. He then goes back on the attack over Boris's 'criminality'.
    If the police fine Starmer, then he'll probably resign. So what does Boris do then - stay on?
    I don't see how either scenario is good for Boris - quite the opposite. Starmer being in trouble is good for the Tories, of course - but not for Boris.

    If the police don't pursue any action, I don't think Starmer then reruns things. I think he will stay quiet on the matter as risks just blowing up again. Anyway the damage is done to Boris anyway, no need to keep banging that drum. In politics, once you get a certain reputation, it is impossible to lose it. Boris public appeal has been torpedoed.

    Inflation, interest rate rises, cost of living, loads of things to go on the attack over.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 8,044

    Applicant said:

    Farooq said:

    MrEd said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    SKS cancels Inst for Govt speech and presser tomorrow, no reason given, says r2 news

    Bizarre that a week ago I would have said Sunak was likely to be the biggest political implosion of a lifetime

    This is an existential crisis for Labour. If Sir Keir goes (and I think it's more probable than not) then what really is the point anymore? Their leaders are getting worse and worse - the last one being a fringe far-left anti-Semitic lunatic - and now they're competing with the known crook and chancer Boris Johnson on the Covid-lockdown-criminality-hypocrisy stakes. Utterly risible.
    Starmer was never going to be the Messiah. John the Baptist possibly. His job was to clear out the Trots, take the flack and step aside, so that someone with a bit more pizzaz can take a united party forward.


    Except that there were many on here who were telling us last than a week back that SKS would indeed be the next PM, that he had many qualities etc etc and - more to the point from a betting perspective - there was a very good chance he would be PM post-the next GE. Now Labour can't seem to get rid of him fast enough
    He has to go because he is personally tainted and cannot criticise Johnson's future FPNs and the results of the Gray Report. If he falls on his sword someone else (not Rayner, who also needs to go) can still call Johnson's parties out. Perhaps not as unoquivocally as they could have this time last week, but they can point out that Starmer at least did the right thing. Incoming Tory poll lead nonetheless.
    Not if he's innocent. If nothing happens with the police then he's not tainted at all.
    By his own standards he should have resigned by now.
    For the past few months I've been wittering on about how the Conservative's woes are all down to unforced errors. Then Starmer says: "Hold my beer..."

    He's supposed to be the intelligent one of the two, and he just fell into a trap he set himself.

    Johnson really is lucky. Sadly.
    Yes, Sir Keir must realize that his leadership is now holed below the waterline. Even if Durham police find him innocent Boris, the Tories and their media allies are going to act like he was found guilty anyway, and that will be enough for the impression to seep through to a sufficient number of the electorate. Screwed.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 7,449
    edited May 8
    I wonder if a "leave of absence" is being considered by Starmer. Stand aside temporarily to clear his name, and if he's convicted he falls on his sword. Would neuter a lot of the attacks, and give a powerful narrative on coming back if cleared. "I recognised that even the appearance of impropriety is too much. What did you do, Prime Minister?"
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 22,694
    Foxy said:

    Applicant said:

    I truly don't understand why so many people are convinced the next Labour leader has to be a woman. I know past performance doesn't guarantee the same in the future, but unless the MPs come up with an all-woman shortlist, I'll bet accordingly: no woman has ever finished ahead of any man in any Labour leadership election ever.

    Its not just tokenism, though that is the monkey on their back, but all the best candidates are female, except possibly Streeting.
    He can just self-ID as one.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 1,742
    Starmer I think would know if he was likely to get a FPN , and would know where the burden of proof would lie re what happened in Durham .

    If he’s got evidence to prove he was working he should leak this to the press , and take back control of the narrative.

  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 16,848

    Applicant said:

    Farooq said:

    MrEd said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    SKS cancels Inst for Govt speech and presser tomorrow, no reason given, says r2 news

    Bizarre that a week ago I would have said Sunak was likely to be the biggest political implosion of a lifetime

    This is an existential crisis for Labour. If Sir Keir goes (and I think it's more probable than not) then what really is the point anymore? Their leaders are getting worse and worse - the last one being a fringe far-left anti-Semitic lunatic - and now they're competing with the known crook and chancer Boris Johnson on the Covid-lockdown-criminality-hypocrisy stakes. Utterly risible.
    Starmer was never going to be the Messiah. John the Baptist possibly. His job was to clear out the Trots, take the flack and step aside, so that someone with a bit more pizzaz can take a united party forward.


    Except that there were many on here who were telling us last than a week back that SKS would indeed be the next PM, that he had many qualities etc etc and - more to the point from a betting perspective - there was a very good chance he would be PM post-the next GE. Now Labour can't seem to get rid of him fast enough
    He has to go because he is personally tainted and cannot criticise Johnson's future FPNs and the results of the Gray Report. If he falls on his sword someone else (not Rayner, who also needs to go) can still call Johnson's parties out. Perhaps not as unoquivocally as they could have this time last week, but they can point out that Starmer at least did the right thing. Incoming Tory poll lead nonetheless.
    Not if he's innocent. If nothing happens with the police then he's not tainted at all.
    By his own standards he should have resigned by now.
    For the past few months I've been wittering on about how the Conservative's woes are all down to unforced errors. Then Starmer says: "Hold my beer..."

    He's supposed to be the intelligent one of the two, and he just fell into a trap he set himself.

    Johnson really is lucky. Sadly.
    Yes, Sir Keir must realize that his leadership is now holed below the waterline. Even if Durham police find him innocent Boris, the Tories and their media allies are going to act like he was found guilty anyway, and that will be enough for the impression to seep through to a sufficient number of the electorate. Screwed.
    I think so too .

    Johnson has the media on his side, Starmer does not.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 4,645
    Crucial Fairfield ward in full recount for Croydon council - Labour hanging on by a thread though - cannot afford to lose one more councillor now - looks like they will
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 46,146
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Isn't the problem with Doctor Who now that in the world where we expect (and get) movie level VFX for sci-fi and fantasy tv shows, Doctor Who looks hugely dated and rather amateur hour. That was also the criticism with that around the world reboot, it was filmed on the cheap in a street in Romania, trying to claim to be loads of different exotic countries.

    Doctor Who has never had the most up to date special effects at any point in its history. When its being popular (60's, 70s, late 2000's-early 2010's) it's been because it had good storylines and a likeable Doctor + companions.
    When RTD left it went to shit
    Nah, the Matt Smith/early Moffat era did perfectly well amongst general audiences and is liked by fans. The show only started going downhill around 2015 when it was clear Moffat couldn't be bothered anymore.
    There's a funny review of Sherlock online, saying why it's such a terrible show and firmly blaming Moffat.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkoGBOs5ecM

    And it was a *terrible* show.
    The pilot was not too bad but, yes, it was awful. All very smug and self congratulatory.

    Glad to see Una Stubbs keeping the coffee table clean though.
    ;)

    We bought the DVD of the Sherlock first series and the pilot episode was really good. But they totally slaughtered it for the released first episode - a point I'm glad the guy in the link above made.

    Elementary is a far superior modern recharacterisation of the Sherlock Holmes stories.
    Much of the writing in Sherlock makes absolutely no sense at all but they paper over the cracks of that by arguing it's "clever".
    The longer it's been, the worse that show looks. Literally the only good episode is the first
    Yes, it’s fucking terrible. One good episode then a ton of self-congratulatory shite

    “Quality” British tv drama at its worst
    I remember having a discussion with you about this when it first came out. Well, it wasn't Leon, but you know what I mean. ;)

    You said how good it was, and how I was utterly and totally wrong for saying it was bad, and pointed to the rave reviews it got from the Sherlock Holmes Appreciation Society or somesuch...
    I REALLY don’t think that is true. I never liked it, ever, apart from that one opening episode (which was excellent)

    Like many on here I was bemused by the rave reviews from episode 2 onwards. Indeed I noted that it got praised by all the usual Woke lefty suspects, people like Caitlin Moran, and anyone on the Guardian, who latched on to it as evidence of how brilliant tthe BBC is - and so Sherlock is superb and must not be criticised

    Laughable. Sherlock isn’t the only example of this syndrome, either
    Actually, I got reeled in by it too. I loved the first episode and convinced myself the next two were as well.

    Then, I was like.. eh? This plot and story makes no sense at all.

    Now, I look back, and realise I was an idiot being swept along by baseless hype.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 14,103
    edited May 8
    If Starmer resigns then Bozza has to resign too.

    Not sure the breathless fan boys on here have quite grasped this yet.

    And @Mexicanpete needs a cold shower.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,062
    edited May 8
    nico679 said:

    Starmer I think would know if he was likely to get a FPN , and would know where the burden of proof would lie re what happened in Durham .

    If he’s got evidence to prove he was working he should leak this to the press , and take back control of the narrative.

    My guess would be there was some bending of the rules, so he is in a bit of a sticky situation. It might not have even him personally, but other staffers. If that bending of the rules is enough for a FPN is another matter (and doesn't compare to Boris behaviour*), but he could make it worse by lying or trying to spin it further.

    * ironically I don't think the birthday party was particularly bad breach of the rules. There were clearly far worse incidents which came from the fact Boris fostered a culture of just ignoring any semblance of sticking to them.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 14,440
    edited May 8
    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    If Russia did take out the UK with a first strike, I would expect us to respond with Trident, just because. Revenge. Fuck em

    How much damage could one Trident sub do? Presumably we could wipe out Moscow and St Pete’s, but beyond that? A few more cities? Killing maybe 40-50m?

    Russia would survive, albeit fucked, unlike Britain which would be a radioactive desert for centuries

    However, if Putin was mad enough to do this, then I expect America would launch missiles too, trying to take out the rest of Russia’s nuclear capability from the getgo, the Chinese might possibly join in, and the French - targeting Russia as a menace to the world

    So on the whole, taking everything into account, I put the chances of Russia destroying Britain in the next few weeks at no more than 40%, which is kind of reassuring

    48 nukes could be launched, Russia would be a wasteland.
    I’ve just been checking Google. One Trident sub full of warheads does not mean 48 entirely vaporised cities. It means


    “Our estimates, which are supported by other studies, predict that one Trident submarine with forty 100kT warheads could cause at least 10 million casualties and as many as 20 million in 10-20 large cities and hit a further 20 military targets such as bases and command bunkers. [9] Trident missiles have a range of 7,000 miles. This, combined with the submarine’s ability to sail into any ocean area, enables it to strike targets anywhere across the globe within around 30 minutes of launch. [10]”

    Which is frankly a bit feeble

    On the other hand


    “If used, the nuclear weapons carried by just one Trident submarine could cause such huge climatic disruption that global food supplies would be at risk and the survival of human civilisation itself would be threatened.”

    Which is much more encouraging. Hmm.

    Info here:


    https://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/uk-nuclear-weapons-catastrophe-making
    Forget the exaggerated garbage about a handful of nukes killing the world.

    https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

    The purpose of the U.K. nukes is to hold the Russian leadership at risk - kill them in their bunkers.

    Secondarily, they could be used to take out various choke points in the Russian economy. So no rail distribution of goods, no harbours for import, no oil and gas production.

    IIRC they was an estimate in the Cold War that 100 nukes could reduce the carrying capacity of Russia for population by 90%.
    The logical thing to do (if it ever came to that) would be to take out all Russian missile silos and their military C&C infrastructure, including their sub pens, not to wipe out their cities and population.

    What you'd want to do is wipe out their leadership and any ability they had to launch subsequent second strikes.

    If Putin ever did that he could measure his lifespan in minutes. And once their nuclear "shield" had gone they'd be at the mercy of the West since NATO's forces are hugely dispersed and markedly superior.
    It’s also the right thing to do morally, targeting military facilities rather than population centres.
    Fuck off. If they’ve killed 40m Brits, i want to see 40m Russians dead
    You won't be seeing it from Camden that's for sure.
    Why do you think I”m mysteriously in the Turkish Aegean??? For no apparent reason?
    That was rather a focal point of the Cuban missile crisis, no?
    The Turkish Aegean is on the Russia strike list, almost certainly. Make the Dardanelles wider, probably….
    i really doubt it, why would you waste warheads on a bunch of holiday resorts and pretty beaches?

    Unless there are US naval bases here

    (For the avoidance of doubt, I’m not actually here to escape nuclear fall-out, tho it might be one of the better places to be in “Europe” if the bomb does drop)
    Didn't you fly in via Izmir? Wasn't it an hour in a taxi, you said?

    Is the 'Headquarters of the Allied Air Component Command for Southern Europe' still located there, or returning now that tensions are up in the region? :wink:

    You have a good nose for the most dangerous parts of the outback.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 46,146
    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Every day I wake up, here in Kusadasi, around 10am or so


    I do a few hours work, in the coffee bar; then I lie in the sun, have a swim, maybe a beer or a Raki. After that I come back to my room and without fail I fall asleep for about an hour. I can’t work out why. My jet lag has gone. I’m getting plenty of sleep at night. My swim isn’t THAT energetic, and I don’t drink more than two rakis or beers

    Yet off I go. Into a siesta. I wonder if it is the sound of the sea right outside. The soothing crumple of the waves, Or maybe because everything is super stress-free, so my whole metabolism has slowed down. It’s unexpected. Also rather nice, because I wake feeling deeply refreshed

    Perhaps the human body is meant to sleep for an hour in the afternoon, and the Spanish were right all along?

    Well people apparently used to wake in the night to read, do some chores and have sex, before going back to bed, so if we were not built to sleep a solid 8 hours at night, why not siesta?

    I'm certainly always more sluggish in the early afternoon and more active in the evening.
    I believe ‘the second sleep’ has recently been debunked

    It has occurred to me that my stress-free siesta habit is the first sign of old age, if so old age might not be so bad. You’re very chilled and you sleep a lot. Dunno why my mum moans so much. Who needs a spleen anyway?

    But it doesn’t feel like old age. It feels like: if you take away all the anxieties of daily life, the choices and business and social drama, then you go into a lovely unstressed zone where your body says OK, sleepy time, why not, mmm - like a cat. Cats are always sleeping and they’re cool
    I find I very rapidly switch to another country's culture if I holiday there. And many (Greece, Turkey, Bulgaria etc.) are far more relaxed than here where you are always 'on' and have to grind.

    That said, they are also quite poor and limiting. I love all their cuisines, but I get bored of the food after about 5-6 days and it gets repetitive with not much alternative choice. Italian, and that's about it.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 24,285

    If Starmer resigns then Bozza has to resign too.

    Not sure the breathless fan boys on here have quite grasped this yet.

    And @Mexicanpete needs a cold shower.

    Has = ought. But is it "will"? Mr Johnson is shameless enough to take it as a personal vindication.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 41,257

    If Starmer resigns then Bozza has to resign too.

    Not sure the breathless fan boys on here have quite grasped this yet.

    And @Mexicanpete needs a cold shower.

    It's Starmer's hypocrisy that would make his position untenable, not getting a FPN.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,402

    The politics of beergate are complex. It's clearly bad news for Starmer, but I suspect it's bad news for Boris as well.

    If the police clear Starmer, which is possible, then he will claim he's done nothing wrong, as he said from the start. He then goes back on the attack over Boris's 'criminality'.
    If the police fine Starmer, then he'll probably resign. So what does Boris do then - stay on?
    I don't see how either scenario is good for Boris - quite the opposite. Starmer being in trouble is good for the Tories, of course - but not for Boris.

    If the police don't pursue any action, I don't think Starmer then reruns things. I think he will stay quiet on the matter as risks just blowing up again. Anyway the damage is done to Boris anyway, no need to keep banging that drum. In politics, once you get a certain reputation, it is impossible to lose it. Boris public appeal has been torpedoed.

    Inflation, interest rate rises, cost of living, loads of things to go on the attack over.
    The decision tree for Tory MPs:

    Starmer is not fined ---> Get rid of Boris
    Starmer is fined ---> Get rid of Boris
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 46,146
    stodge said:

    Sean_F said:

    felix said:

    Sean_F said:

    any news of Croydon and its result?

    2 gains for the Conservatives in New Addington South, so far. Labour have, in effect, lost control of the Council already, as they have insufficient votes to block the Mayor. The Conservatives need to gain 3 more to take control,
    That's another odd one - what's the story there?
    I've heard the Council has been very poorly run, The Conservatives have gained 1 more in New Addington North, and the Lib Dems in Crystal Palace. Also, talk of 1 or 2 Green gains from Labour.
    The Council declared Section 106 bankruptcy mainly (as I recall) due to some issues with its property investment arm. It used to be a solidly Conservative Borough until the 1990s and was effectively polarised between a Labour voting north and a Conservative voting south.

    It's now, as elsewhere, becoming more nuanced and after a long period of duopoly domination it would be good to see some LD and Green representation.

    There's not much experience of a Mayor from one party and a Council controlled by another - Hartlepool? I don't know the extent of the powers of the two and how such co-habitation (to borrow the French expression) works.
    I'm generally relaxed about local election losses to Labour because they have a terrible reputation for running councils.

    Apart from London boroughs, which may prove hard to win back, I'd expect most Conservative losses to reverse once back in opposition.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 1,742
    If Starmer goes then Johnson is in deep trouble if he receives another FPN .

    You can imagine the questions. The leader of the opposition resigned over one FPN , you’ve had two . Why aren’t you resigning?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 17,550
    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Starmer’s cancellation of his media appearances feels ominous for him. Why would he do that unless it was serious?

    Best guess: he’s been told Durham police are going to charge him and he needs to cobble together some reason why he doesn’t have to resign

    Your jumping from 1 to 10 there. An easier explanation is that danger is he does the media tomorrow, sticks his foot in it or gets trapped with some new evidence and makes it worse. More likely he is taking the advice of most lawyers in sticky situations, don't voluntarily talk to the police or the media.
    Yes, both explanations fit the evidence.
    Personally I'd be surprised if the police were that quick judging on recent months' evidence.
    Won't the police investigation actually be a senior meeting including Heads of PR to decide on thr best outcome? It doesn't seem that there is much Columbo-ing left to do.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 8,044

    The politics of beergate are complex. It's clearly bad news for Starmer, but I suspect it's bad news for Boris as well.

    If the police clear Starmer, which is possible, then he will claim he's done nothing wrong, as he said from the start. He then goes back on the attack over Boris's 'criminality'.
    If the police fine Starmer, then he'll probably resign. So what does Boris do then - stay on?
    I don't see how either scenario is good for Boris - quite the opposite. Starmer being in trouble is good for the Tories, of course - but not for Boris.

    But if Sir Keir goes where will the pressure for Boris to follow suit come from? Not from Labour, who will have made themselves ridiculous at that point. The Tory MPs won't say anything. Boris's minders in the right-wing media certainly won't.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 16,848
    Farooq said:

    I wonder if a "leave of absence" is being considered by Starmer. Stand aside temporarily to clear his name, and if he's convicted he falls on his sword. Would neuter a lot of the attacks, and give a powerful narrative on coming back if cleared. "I recognised that even the appearance of impropriety is too much. What did you do, Prime Minister?"

    A full resignation would be better, but that would be preferable to dragging it out.

    It's not like Starmer is at war with Putin and must stay on to defeat Russia.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 24,285
    nico679 said:

    If Starmer goes then Johnson is in deep trouble if he receives another FPN .

    You can imagine the questions. The leader of the opposition resigned over one FPN , you’ve had two . Why aren’t you resigning?

    Because he's king of the world and above such pettiness.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 17,550
    Carnyx said:

    If Starmer resigns then Bozza has to resign too.

    Not sure the breathless fan boys on here have quite grasped this yet.

    And @Mexicanpete needs a cold shower.

    Has = ought. But is it "will"? Mr Johnson is shameless enough to take it as a personal vindication.
    Opposition leaders come and go, but the doughty defender of Kiev is a different kettle of fish...
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 24,285

    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Starmer’s cancellation of his media appearances feels ominous for him. Why would he do that unless it was serious?

    Best guess: he’s been told Durham police are going to charge him and he needs to cobble together some reason why he doesn’t have to resign

    Your jumping from 1 to 10 there. An easier explanation is that danger is he does the media tomorrow, sticks his foot in it or gets trapped with some new evidence and makes it worse. More likely he is taking the advice of most lawyers in sticky situations, don't voluntarily talk to the police or the media.
    Yes, both explanations fit the evidence.
    Personally I'd be surprised if the police were that quick judging on recent months' evidence.
    Won't the police investigation actually be a senior meeting including Heads of PR to decide on thr best outcome? It doesn't seem that there is much Columbo-ing left to do.
    Surely you mean Mr Penfold and DS Milburn-ing.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 46,146
    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Every day I wake up, here in Kusadasi, around 10am or so


    I do a few hours work, in the coffee bar; then I lie in the sun, have a swim, maybe a beer or a Raki. After that I come back to my room and without fail I fall asleep for about an hour. I can’t work out why. My jet lag has gone. I’m getting plenty of sleep at night. My swim isn’t THAT energetic, and I don’t drink more than two rakis or beers

    Yet off I go. Into a siesta. I wonder if it is the sound of the sea right outside. The soothing crumple of the waves, Or maybe because everything is super stress-free, so my whole metabolism has slowed down. It’s unexpected. Also rather nice, because I wake feeling deeply refreshed

    Perhaps the human body is meant to sleep for an hour in the afternoon, and the Spanish were right all along?

    Well people apparently used to wake in the night to read, do some chores and have sex, before going back to bed, so if we were not built to sleep a solid 8 hours at night, why not siesta?

    I'm certainly always more sluggish in the early afternoon and more active in the evening.
    I believe ‘the second sleep’ has recently been debunked

    It has occurred to me that my stress-free siesta habit is the first sign of old age, if so old age might not be so bad. You’re very chilled and you sleep a lot. Dunno why my mum moans so much. Who needs a spleen anyway?

    But it doesn’t feel like old age. It feels like: if you take away all the anxieties of daily life, the choices and business and social drama, then you go into a lovely unstressed zone where your body says OK, sleepy time, why not, mmm - like a cat. Cats are always sleeping and they’re cool
    Not seen that re second sleeps. Any links please?
    https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220107-the-lost-medieval-habit-of-biphasic-sleep
    Sounds persuasive yet I don’t believe it. Why? Light

    We forget how strange it is for humans to have bright light immediately available 24/7, flooding rooms, baths, even streets, so you can do almost anything by night as you would by day

    This has only been the case for a century or two - as we developed gas then electricity

    For all human evolution, before that, artificial light was extremely rare and precious - candles were for the rich. The poor had to make do with the moon and the stars. Not enough light to do anything of importance

    So waking up for 3 hours at 2am makes no economic or social sense at all

    Also you don’t want to be out and about at that time, as night time is when most predators prowl. So it doesn’t make evolutionary sense either

    I’m calling it as bollocks

    And it isn't a plot point anywhere in Chaucer or Boccaccio or Shakespeare or fairy tales or any story ever told. Which you'd think it would be.
    Yes it doesn’t hold up to a few minutes of scrutiny

    It occurs to me that “second sleep” might be siesta which IS extremely common across human societies. The post lunch nap. The full on Spanish Kip. Everyone experiences a metabolic dip in late afternoon, it is easy for that to become an actual snooze if you have the time (as they did in pre industrial societies)
    At some point this "protestant work ethic" stuff will start to melt away to be replaced by something more civilised - 4 days weeks (with 3 day weekends) and 6 hour days. Something like that.

    It's got better since I started work. It still has a long way to go. AI and automation will help

    It must be awful working in America, where it seems to be as terrible as ever.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 24,285

    Farooq said:

    I wonder if a "leave of absence" is being considered by Starmer. Stand aside temporarily to clear his name, and if he's convicted he falls on his sword. Would neuter a lot of the attacks, and give a powerful narrative on coming back if cleared. "I recognised that even the appearance of impropriety is too much. What did you do, Prime Minister?"

    A full resignation would be better, but that would be preferable to dragging it out.

    It's not like Starmer is at war with Putin and must stay on to defeat Russia.
    War has been declared? Huge if true.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 16,848

    If Starmer resigns then Bozza has to resign too.

    Not sure the breathless fan boys on here have quite grasped this yet.

    And @Mexicanpete needs a cold shower.

    If Starmer stays he cannot call Johnson out for more FPNs or the full Gray Report, he would be laughed out of the HoC.

    Do you not see that?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 24,285

    Carnyx said:

    If Starmer resigns then Bozza has to resign too.

    Not sure the breathless fan boys on here have quite grasped this yet.

    And @Mexicanpete needs a cold shower.

    Has = ought. But is it "will"? Mr Johnson is shameless enough to take it as a personal vindication.
    Opposition leaders come and go, but the doughty defender of Kiev is a different kettle of fish...
    Now that really would be fantasising. Especially given how his hero Mr Churchill got the job in the first place, by a change of PM at the worst point in WW2.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 77,368
    Farooq said:

    Applicant said:

    Farooq said:

    MrEd said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    SKS cancels Inst for Govt speech and presser tomorrow, no reason given, says r2 news

    Bizarre that a week ago I would have said Sunak was likely to be the biggest political implosion of a lifetime

    This is an existential crisis for Labour. If Sir Keir goes (and I think it's more probable than not) then what really is the point anymore? Their leaders are getting worse and worse - the last one being a fringe far-left anti-Semitic lunatic - and now they're competing with the known crook and chancer Boris Johnson on the Covid-lockdown-criminality-hypocrisy stakes. Utterly risible.
    Starmer was never going to be the Messiah. John the Baptist possibly. His job was to clear out the Trots, take the flack and step aside, so that someone with a bit more pizzaz can take a united party forward.


    Except that there were many on here who were telling us last than a week back that SKS would indeed be the next PM, that he had many qualities etc etc and - more to the point from a betting perspective - there was a very good chance he would be PM post-the next GE. Now Labour can't seem to get rid of him fast enough
    He has to go because he is personally tainted and cannot criticise Johnson's future FPNs and the results of the Gray Report. If he falls on his sword someone else (not Rayner, who also needs to go) can still call Johnson's parties out. Perhaps not as unoquivocally as they could have this time last week, but they can point out that Starmer at least did the right thing. Incoming Tory poll lead nonetheless.
    Not if he's innocent. If nothing happens with the police then he's not tainted at all.
    By his own standards he should have resigned by now.
    Gutting for the far left and far right that the PM has debased those standards, isn't it?
    Hmm. Just because the PM has no care for personal or professional standards doesn't mean others are obliged to follow suit. It doesn't make poor standards from others ok just because he is worse.

    Now, I don't agree with someone needing to resign because they are being investigated, so even if Keir said that it simply means he was overexcited and wrong on that point, but whilst the PM cannot wriggle out of his own poor conducteven if Keir made a silly statement, I don't think it unfair for people to bring it up either (I actually don't remember him calling for resignation purely on investigation, but if he did that was silly).
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 46,146
    Andy_JS said:

    Andy_JS said:

    It looks like Labour have lost control of Croydon council.

    That means they lose two in London with Harrow, while gaining three in Westminster, Wandsworth and Barnet. Not such a good night in London for Labour after all.

    Lost three with Tower Hamlets so no net gain
    I'd forgotten that one. But the media just want to talk about Wandsworth.
    They all live in Wandsworth.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 8,829

    If Starmer resigns then Bozza has to resign too.

    Not sure the breathless fan boys on here have quite grasped this yet.

    And @Mexicanpete needs a cold shower.

    I ‘think’ most sensible Tories would prefer Starmer to both get a fpn and not resign, as that rather shuts him up on partygate.

    And frankly neither should go for this.

    Lying to parliament however should be a resigning offence.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 24,285

    If Starmer resigns then Bozza has to resign too.

    Not sure the breathless fan boys on here have quite grasped this yet.

    And @Mexicanpete needs a cold shower.

    If Starmer stays he cannot call Johnson out for more FPNs or the full Gray Report, he would be laughed out of the HoC.

    Do you not see that?
    It doesn't have to be Mr Starmer. Plenty of other people to do it. In and out of the HoC.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 14,440
    edited May 8

    Some interesting straws in the wind here, as the Conservatives realise what happens if Starmer goes;

    JRM not freelancing here. This implicit call for a truce, I’m told, is the line the chief whip is desperate for Tory MPs to take on Beergate.

    They’ve been warned that Starmer’s resignation would cause serious problems for the Tories in the country.


    https://twitter.com/patrickkmaguire/status/1523350692345245696?

    Trouble is, even if the Conservatives decide a truce is in their interests, how do they call off their semi-housetrained rottweilers in the press, let alone opportunistic freelancers on the Labour left and libertarian right?

    If it gets rid of BoJo, I'll support the defenestration of Sir Starmer.

    Sir Keir, the human torpedo.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 17,550
    Carnyx said:

    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Starmer’s cancellation of his media appearances feels ominous for him. Why would he do that unless it was serious?

    Best guess: he’s been told Durham police are going to charge him and he needs to cobble together some reason why he doesn’t have to resign

    Your jumping from 1 to 10 there. An easier explanation is that danger is he does the media tomorrow, sticks his foot in it or gets trapped with some new evidence and makes it worse. More likely he is taking the advice of most lawyers in sticky situations, don't voluntarily talk to the police or the media.
    Yes, both explanations fit the evidence.
    Personally I'd be surprised if the police were that quick judging on recent months' evidence.
    Won't the police investigation actually be a senior meeting including Heads of PR to decide on thr best outcome? It doesn't seem that there is much Columbo-ing left to do.
    Surely you mean Mr Penfold and DS Milburn-ing.
    Or Dick-ing.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 14,103

    If Starmer resigns then Bozza has to resign too.

    Not sure the breathless fan boys on here have quite grasped this yet.

    And @Mexicanpete needs a cold shower.

    It's Starmer's hypocrisy that would make his position untenable, not getting a FPN.
    Nope. If Starmer resigns, then Bozza also must resign. At some point this is going to dawn on the PB Tories. Although possibly not quite yet.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 77,368

    If Starmer resigns then Bozza has to resign too.

    Not sure the breathless fan boys on here have quite grasped this yet.

    And @Mexicanpete needs a cold shower.

    I ‘think’ most sensible Tories would prefer Starmer to both get a fpn and not resign, as that rather shuts him up on partygate.

    And frankly neither should go for this.

    Lying to parliament however should be a resigning offence.
    Or indeed, even 'inadvertently misleading parliament', where it requires breathtaking levels of idiocy for it to be inavertent.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 18,395
    Rowenna Davis has been elected in Waddon / Croydon.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 8,044
    Carnyx said:

    If Starmer resigns then Bozza has to resign too.

    Not sure the breathless fan boys on here have quite grasped this yet.

    And @Mexicanpete needs a cold shower.

    Has = ought. But is it "will"? Mr Johnson is shameless enough to take it as a personal vindication.
    Absolutely. The idea that Boris will say, 'Ooo Sir Keir has been so noble by resigning and I'll now follow his lead and do likewise because I've been a naughty boy too!' really is too ridiculous to contemplate.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 14,103

    If Starmer resigns then Bozza has to resign too.

    Not sure the breathless fan boys on here have quite grasped this yet.

    And @Mexicanpete needs a cold shower.

    If Starmer stays he cannot call Johnson out for more FPNs or the full Gray Report, he would be laughed out of the HoC.

    Do you not see that?
    Sure. However…

    Bozza will also have to resign if Starmer does. It really is that simple.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 35,150

    The politics of beergate are complex. It's clearly bad news for Starmer, but I suspect it's bad news for Boris as well.

    If the police clear Starmer, which is possible, then he will claim he's done nothing wrong, as he said from the start. He then goes back on the attack over Boris's 'criminality'.
    If the police fine Starmer, then he'll probably resign. So what does Boris do then - stay on?
    I don't see how either scenario is good for Boris - quite the opposite. Starmer being in trouble is good for the Tories, of course - but not for Boris.

    No, if he gets a FPN my gut feeling is that he will brazen it out as "not as bad as the PM" and "didn't think what we did was wrong" and give some kind of apology.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 2,128

    Applicant said:

    Farooq said:

    MrEd said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    SKS cancels Inst for Govt speech and presser tomorrow, no reason given, says r2 news

    Bizarre that a week ago I would have said Sunak was likely to be the biggest political implosion of a lifetime

    This is an existential crisis for Labour. If Sir Keir goes (and I think it's more probable than not) then what really is the point anymore? Their leaders are getting worse and worse - the last one being a fringe far-left anti-Semitic lunatic - and now they're competing with the known crook and chancer Boris Johnson on the Covid-lockdown-criminality-hypocrisy stakes. Utterly risible.
    Starmer was never going to be the Messiah. John the Baptist possibly. His job was to clear out the Trots, take the flack and step aside, so that someone with a bit more pizzaz can take a united party forward.


    Except that there were many on here who were telling us last than a week back that SKS would indeed be the next PM, that he had many qualities etc etc and - more to the point from a betting perspective - there was a very good chance he would be PM post-the next GE. Now Labour can't seem to get rid of him fast enough
    He has to go because he is personally tainted and cannot criticise Johnson's future FPNs and the results of the Gray Report. If he falls on his sword someone else (not Rayner, who also needs to go) can still call Johnson's parties out. Perhaps not as unoquivocally as they could have this time last week, but they can point out that Starmer at least did the right thing. Incoming Tory poll lead nonetheless.
    Not if he's innocent. If nothing happens with the police then he's not tainted at all.
    By his own standards he should have resigned by now.
    For the past few months I've been wittering on about how the Conservative's woes are all down to unforced errors. Then Starmer says: "Hold my beer..."

    He's supposed to be the intelligent one of the two, and he just fell into a trap he set himself.

    Johnson really is lucky. Sadly.
    Yes, Sir Keir must realize that his leadership is now holed below the waterline. Even if Durham police find him innocent Boris, the Tories and their media allies are going to act like he was found guilty anyway, and that will be enough for the impression to seep through to a sufficient number of the electorate. Screwed.
    They might even highlight the involvement of the Durham police commissioner (labour hack)
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 17,550
    Carnyx said:

    Farooq said:

    I wonder if a "leave of absence" is being considered by Starmer. Stand aside temporarily to clear his name, and if he's convicted he falls on his sword. Would neuter a lot of the attacks, and give a powerful narrative on coming back if cleared. "I recognised that even the appearance of impropriety is too much. What did you do, Prime Minister?"

    A full resignation would be better, but that would be preferable to dragging it out.

    It's not like Starmer is at war with Putin and must stay on to defeat Russia.
    War has been declared? Huge if true.
    Boris is saving that for Sue Gray Day.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 16,848
    Carnyx said:

    If Starmer resigns then Bozza has to resign too.

    Not sure the breathless fan boys on here have quite grasped this yet.

    And @Mexicanpete needs a cold shower.

    If Starmer stays he cannot call Johnson out for more FPNs or the full Gray Report, he would be laughed out of the HoC.

    Do you not see that?
    It doesn't have to be Mr Starmer. Plenty of other people to do it. In and out of the HoC.
    Carnyx said:

    Farooq said:

    I wonder if a "leave of absence" is being considered by Starmer. Stand aside temporarily to clear his name, and if he's convicted he falls on his sword. Would neuter a lot of the attacks, and give a powerful narrative on coming back if cleared. "I recognised that even the appearance of impropriety is too much. What did you do, Prime Minister?"

    A full resignation would be better, but that would be preferable to dragging it out.

    It's not like Starmer is at war with Putin and must stay on to defeat Russia.
    War has been declared? Huge if true.
    Johnson is already going full Churchill. Many on here said this could be Johnson's Falklands Factor. I am not so sure, but I believe Johnson is convinced. This is another reason he will not walk- his legacy.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 14,725
    Carnyx said:

    If Starmer resigns then Bozza has to resign too.

    Not sure the breathless fan boys on here have quite grasped this yet.

    And @Mexicanpete needs a cold shower.

    Has = ought. But is it "will"? Mr Johnson is shameless enough to take it as a personal vindication.
    Zero chance Boris resigns over anything. Will need to be dragged out.

    I suspect he will very much enjoy the contrast of him carrying on vs Starmer resigning.

    Why do people still expect him to act "typically" despite a lifetime of evidence to the contrary?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 16,896
    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    SKS cancels Inst for Govt speech and presser tomorrow, no reason given, says r2 news

    Bizarre that a week ago I would have said Sunak was likely to be the biggest political implosion of a lifetime

    This is an existential crisis for Labour. If Sir Keir goes (and I think it's more probable than not) then what really is the point anymore? Their leaders are getting worse and worse - the last one being a fringe far-left anti-Semitic lunatic - and now they're competing with the known crook and chancer Boris Johnson on the Covid-lockdown-criminality-hypocrisy stakes. Utterly risible.
    Starmer was never going to be the Messiah. John the Baptist possibly. His job was to clear out the Trots, take the flack and step aside, so that someone with a bit more pizzaz can take a united party forward.


    I think you are misreading him. He's not the finished article but I think we've seen the potential and it's amazing how the right people can polish up his performance. He had no idea at all at first. Look at the Shadow Cabinet he put together. Fine for a think tank but not front of house. It was an Addams Family remake. Look at them now.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 7,449

    Farooq said:

    I wonder if a "leave of absence" is being considered by Starmer. Stand aside temporarily to clear his name, and if he's convicted he falls on his sword. Would neuter a lot of the attacks, and give a powerful narrative on coming back if cleared. "I recognised that even the appearance of impropriety is too much. What did you do, Prime Minister?"

    A full resignation would be better, but that would be preferable to dragging it out.

    It's not like Starmer is at war with Putin and must stay on to defeat Russia.
    Better in what sense?

    Better for Labour?
    Can Starmer turn this around in his own favour? Yes, absolutely. When people are calling for the head of an innocent man, you can hold a mirror up to that and let the people judge the subsequent media attacks for what they are. It could get a bit Trumpian, but if a paper is hounding someone after they've been found innocent not once but TWICE then perhaps a counterattack is justifiable.
    This could just play into Labour's hands.

    Better for the country?
    Possibly. Although if Starmer resigned and then no charges are brought forward, has the country benefited?

    Better for the Conservatives?
    Maybe. If Starmer resigns it makes any further discussion on the subject veeerrry tricky for the Tories. But a scalp is a scalp, and some of the public in their breezy indifference might just pick up the idea "Boris bad, Starmer worse" which is probably backwards. As the Whatsapp messages that have been floating around show, there are nerves in the Tory ranks that Starmer's resignation might not play well for them.

    The more I think about this, the more I think Starmer should just go on gardening leave for a month and wait for this to blow over, then come back with guns blazing with the message that sections of the media are trying to stitch up the innocent and protect the guilty. It'll be ugly but also combative in a good way.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 77,368
    Carnyx said:

    If Starmer resigns then Bozza has to resign too.

    Not sure the breathless fan boys on here have quite grasped this yet.

    And @Mexicanpete needs a cold shower.

    Has = ought. But is it "will"? Mr Johnson is shameless enough to take it as a personal vindication.
    Yes, I don't follow the logic here. The parliamentary party has already decided Boris being fined is not something that means he should resign, or even face a challenge over. They've gone all in on how it is time to move on and he has apologised, all that guff.

    Say Keir is fined and falls on his sword, how do those same MPs react? Possibly with some embarrassment, but his choosing to resign doesn't alter the defences they've already given Boris. Are they about to stand up and say 'I congratulate Sir Keir for his honourable stance, and so I am changing my mind about the PM'? Is Boris going to do that?
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,544

    If Starmer resigns then Bozza has to resign too.

    Not sure the breathless fan boys on here have quite grasped this yet.

    And @Mexicanpete needs a cold shower.

    I ‘think’ most sensible Tories would prefer Starmer to both get a fpn and not resign, as that rather shuts him up on partygate.

    And frankly neither should go for this.

    Lying to parliament however should be a resigning offence.
    Agreed re the best outcome for the Tories is a damaged SKS stays in post. Not only does it shut him up on Beergate but it will weaken his moral authority on a whole range of issues. Whenever he says anything in future, there will always be a doubt about whether he is being truthful or means what he says *

    * Just like BJ before someone beats me to it
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 24,285
    MattW said:

    Some interesting straws in the wind here, as the Conservatives realise what happens if Starmer goes;

    JRM not freelancing here. This implicit call for a truce, I’m told, is the line the chief whip is desperate for Tory MPs to take on Beergate.

    They’ve been warned that Starmer’s resignation would cause serious problems for the Tories in the country.


    https://twitter.com/patrickkmaguire/status/1523350692345245696?

    Trouble is, even if the Conservatives decide a truce is in their interests, how do they call off their semi-housetrained rottweilers in the press, let alone opportunistic freelancers on the Labour left and libertarian right?

    If it gets rid of BoJo, I'll support the defenestration of Sir Starmer.

    Sir Keir, the human torpedo.
    That's an interestding thread because of the collective brown trousers of some of the Tories.

    I also noticed this citing of a formal exception for political campaigning in an election:

    https://twitter.com/scouts_uk/status/1523353355241680898
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 19,803

    If Starmer resigns then Bozza has to resign too.

    Not sure the breathless fan boys on here have quite grasped this yet.

    And @Mexicanpete needs a cold shower.

    It's Starmer's hypocrisy that would make his position untenable, not getting a FPN.
    Great! So why does Johnson's hypocrisy not make HIS position also untenable? I have no problem with the rules requiring Starmer to quit, but the rules have to be applied equally to all players or they are not rules.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 7,449
    edited May 8
    kle4 said:

    Farooq said:

    Applicant said:

    Farooq said:

    MrEd said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    SKS cancels Inst for Govt speech and presser tomorrow, no reason given, says r2 news

    Bizarre that a week ago I would have said Sunak was likely to be the biggest political implosion of a lifetime

    This is an existential crisis for Labour. If Sir Keir goes (and I think it's more probable than not) then what really is the point anymore? Their leaders are getting worse and worse - the last one being a fringe far-left anti-Semitic lunatic - and now they're competing with the known crook and chancer Boris Johnson on the Covid-lockdown-criminality-hypocrisy stakes. Utterly risible.
    Starmer was never going to be the Messiah. John the Baptist possibly. His job was to clear out the Trots, take the flack and step aside, so that someone with a bit more pizzaz can take a united party forward.


    Except that there were many on here who were telling us last than a week back that SKS would indeed be the next PM, that he had many qualities etc etc and - more to the point from a betting perspective - there was a very good chance he would be PM post-the next GE. Now Labour can't seem to get rid of him fast enough
    He has to go because he is personally tainted and cannot criticise Johnson's future FPNs and the results of the Gray Report. If he falls on his sword someone else (not Rayner, who also needs to go) can still call Johnson's parties out. Perhaps not as unoquivocally as they could have this time last week, but they can point out that Starmer at least did the right thing. Incoming Tory poll lead nonetheless.
    Not if he's innocent. If nothing happens with the police then he's not tainted at all.
    By his own standards he should have resigned by now.
    Gutting for the far left and far right that the PM has debased those standards, isn't it?
    Hmm. Just because the PM has no care for personal or professional standards doesn't mean others are obliged to follow suit. It doesn't make poor standards from others ok just because he is worse.

    Now, I don't agree with someone needing to resign because they are being investigated, so even if Keir said that it simply means he was overexcited and wrong on that point, but whilst the PM cannot wriggle out of his own poor conducteven if Keir made a silly statement, I don't think it unfair for people to bring it up either (I actually don't remember him calling for resignation purely on investigation, but if he did that was silly).
    I think he did say that, but in the context of Boris having obviously lied to parliament about there being no parties at all.
    I've not bothered to mention this previously because it's too "explainy", but I think it's not as clear cut as the Boris boosters imply.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,544
    nico679 said:

    If Starmer goes then Johnson is in deep trouble if he receives another FPN .

    You can imagine the questions. The leader of the opposition resigned over one FPN , you’ve had two . Why aren’t you resigning?

    SKS' particular problems with this - if he gets a FPN - are (1) the words he used calling for BJ to resign and the fact he looks like a hypocrite (2) he has presented himself as a picture of moral probity and (3) he is a senior lawyer and the general principle (correct me if I am wrong @Cyclefree and @DavidL ) is that, when it comes to the law, lawyers should be held to a higher standard.

    None of the above three apply to BJ.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 35,150

    stodge said:

    Sean_F said:

    felix said:

    Sean_F said:

    any news of Croydon and its result?

    2 gains for the Conservatives in New Addington South, so far. Labour have, in effect, lost control of the Council already, as they have insufficient votes to block the Mayor. The Conservatives need to gain 3 more to take control,
    That's another odd one - what's the story there?
    I've heard the Council has been very poorly run, The Conservatives have gained 1 more in New Addington North, and the Lib Dems in Crystal Palace. Also, talk of 1 or 2 Green gains from Labour.
    The Council declared Section 106 bankruptcy mainly (as I recall) due to some issues with its property investment arm. It used to be a solidly Conservative Borough until the 1990s and was effectively polarised between a Labour voting north and a Conservative voting south.

    It's now, as elsewhere, becoming more nuanced and after a long period of duopoly domination it would be good to see some LD and Green representation.

    There's not much experience of a Mayor from one party and a Council controlled by another - Hartlepool? I don't know the extent of the powers of the two and how such co-habitation (to borrow the French expression) works.
    I'm generally relaxed about local election losses to Labour because they have a terrible reputation for running councils.

    Apart from London boroughs, which may prove hard to win back, I'd expect most Conservative losses to reverse once back in opposition.
    I wouldn't bet on the London boroughs sticking with Labour. We made the error of voting in a Labour administration in Barnet, it won't be long until we're crying out for the Tories again. I know there's a lot of anger with the government and I don't blame anyone for voting Labour or Lib Dem that previously voted Tory (I did it too). In Enfield the experience is that Labour will become completely remote and arrogant, ignore the people, attempt to silence any dissent within their own ranks, attempt to silence the opposition parties and continue to blunder on. In Enfield there was a net change in seats against Labour and now the Tories are 4 years away from retaking the council which I'm sure they will.

    Westminster and Barnet will probably switch back next time, Wandsworth will be a tougher ask.

    My experience of London Labour in Camden was good but experiences of Labour in other boroughs is generally quite poor. It's shocking to me that in remainer strong holds in Enfield the Tories made big net gains completely against the run of play and against the terrible national picture for the party. If Boris hadn't screwed up with all the partying and with the idiotic support for Owen Patterson (which triggered all this off) then Enfield would have fallen to the Tories for sure, Croydon as well and Barnet or Westminster wouldn't have fallen.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 19,803

    If Starmer resigns then Bozza has to resign too.

    Not sure the breathless fan boys on here have quite grasped this yet.

    And @Mexicanpete needs a cold shower.

    If Starmer stays he cannot call Johnson out for more FPNs or the full Gray Report, he would be laughed out of the HoC.

    Do you not see that?
    He can as and when Durham Police rule no case to answer. "Unlike you Prime Ministers my actions were legal."
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 41,257

    If Starmer resigns then Bozza has to resign too.

    Not sure the breathless fan boys on here have quite grasped this yet.

    And @Mexicanpete needs a cold shower.

    It's Starmer's hypocrisy that would make his position untenable, not getting a FPN.
    Great! So why does Johnson's hypocrisy not make HIS position also untenable? I have no problem with the rules requiring Starmer to quit, but the rules have to be applied equally to all players or they are not rules.
    Has Johnson called on anyone to resign over breaching covid rules?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 77,368
    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Every day I wake up, here in Kusadasi, around 10am or so


    I do a few hours work, in the coffee bar; then I lie in the sun, have a swim, maybe a beer or a Raki. After that I come back to my room and without fail I fall asleep for about an hour. I can’t work out why. My jet lag has gone. I’m getting plenty of sleep at night. My swim isn’t THAT energetic, and I don’t drink more than two rakis or beers

    Yet off I go. Into a siesta. I wonder if it is the sound of the sea right outside. The soothing crumple of the waves, Or maybe because everything is super stress-free, so my whole metabolism has slowed down. It’s unexpected. Also rather nice, because I wake feeling deeply refreshed

    Perhaps the human body is meant to sleep for an hour in the afternoon, and the Spanish were right all along?

    Well people apparently used to wake in the night to read, do some chores and have sex, before going back to bed, so if we were not built to sleep a solid 8 hours at night, why not siesta?

    I'm certainly always more sluggish in the early afternoon and more active in the evening.
    I believe ‘the second sleep’ has recently been debunked

    It has occurred to me that my stress-free siesta habit is the first sign of old age, if so old age might not be so bad. You’re very chilled and you sleep a lot. Dunno why my mum moans so much. Who needs a spleen anyway?

    But it doesn’t feel like old age. It feels like: if you take away all the anxieties of daily life, the choices and business and social drama, then you go into a lovely unstressed zone where your body says OK, sleepy time, why not, mmm - like a cat. Cats are always sleeping and they’re cool
    Not seen that re second sleeps. Any links please?
    https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220107-the-lost-medieval-habit-of-biphasic-sleep
    Sounds persuasive yet I don’t believe it. Why? Light

    We forget how strange it is for humans to have bright light immediately available 24/7, flooding rooms, baths, even streets, so you can do almost anything by night as you would by day

    This has only been the case for a century or two - as we developed gas then electricity

    For all human evolution, before that, artificial light was extremely rare and precious - candles were for the rich. The poor had to make do with the moon and the stars. Not enough light to do anything of importance

    So waking up for 3 hours at 2am makes no economic or social sense at all

    Also you don’t want to be out and about at that time, as night time is when most predators prowl. So it doesn’t make evolutionary sense either

    I’m calling it as bollocks

    And it isn't a plot point anywhere in Chaucer or Boccaccio or Shakespeare or fairy tales or any story ever told. Which you'd think it would be.
    Yes it doesn’t hold up to a few minutes of scrutiny

    It occurs to me that “second sleep” might be siesta which IS extremely common across human societies. The post lunch nap. The full on Spanish Kip. Everyone experiences a metabolic dip in late afternoon, it is easy for that to become an actual snooze if you have the time (as they did in pre industrial societies)
    I was actually in agreement with the argument about second sleep, I remember reading the BBC piece, but after your points and that rebuttal that was posted it does seem increasingly implausible. I shall change my mind, although maybe I should (singularly) sleep on it.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 7,449
    kle4 said:

    Carnyx said:

    If Starmer resigns then Bozza has to resign too.

    Not sure the breathless fan boys on here have quite grasped this yet.

    And @Mexicanpete needs a cold shower.

    Has = ought. But is it "will"? Mr Johnson is shameless enough to take it as a personal vindication.
    Yes, I don't follow the logic here. The parliamentary party has already decided Boris being fined is not something that means he should resign, or even face a challenge over. They've gone all in on how it is time to move on and he has apologised, all that guff.

    Say Keir is fined and falls on his sword, how do those same MPs react? Possibly with some embarrassment, but his choosing to resign doesn't alter the defences they've already given Boris. Are they about to stand up and say 'I congratulate Sir Keir for his honourable stance, and so I am changing my mind about the PM'? Is Boris going to do that?
    They ought to from an pragmatic point of view. But you're right in your implication that it won't happen.
    There is real danger here for the Conservatives too, and the smarter ones recognise that.

    Sadly, the only people I see who are not in a position to lose from this whole thing is the far left. I don't think they'll get back in either, but it's a scalp and emboldening. I do not want them back. We were half way back to some sensible politics. Let's not get dragged back to 2019.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 14,440
    Andy_JS said:

    Rowenna Davis has been elected in Waddon / Croydon.

    Potential candidate for next General Election, perhaps.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 2,128

    If Starmer resigns then Bozza has to resign too.

    Not sure the breathless fan boys on here have quite grasped this yet.

    And @Mexicanpete needs a cold shower.

    If Starmer stays he cannot call Johnson out for more FPNs or the full Gray Report, he would be laughed out of the HoC.

    Do you not see that?
    Sure. However…

    Bozza will also have to resign if Starmer does. It really is that simple.
    Why? I accept he should, but that’s the case already. Why wouldn’t he continue to brazen it out?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 35,150
    MattW said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Rowenna Davis has been elected in Waddon / Croydon.

    Potential candidate for next General Election, perhaps.
    PPE from Baliol. Surely she's in the wrong party.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 14,103
    MrEd said:

    nico679 said:

    If Starmer goes then Johnson is in deep trouble if he receives another FPN .

    You can imagine the questions. The leader of the opposition resigned over one FPN , you’ve had two . Why aren’t you resigning?

    SKS' particular problems with this - if he gets a FPN - are (1) the words he used calling for BJ to resign and the fact he looks like a hypocrite (2) he has presented himself as a picture of moral probity and (3) he is a senior lawyer and the general principle (correct me if I am wrong @Cyclefree and @DavidL ) is that, when it comes to the law, lawyers should be held to a higher standard.

    None of the above three apply to BJ.
    LOL
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 6,598

    Carnyx said:

    If Starmer resigns then Bozza has to resign too.

    Not sure the breathless fan boys on here have quite grasped this yet.

    And @Mexicanpete needs a cold shower.

    Has = ought. But is it "will"? Mr Johnson is shameless enough to take it as a personal vindication.
    Zero chance Boris resigns over anything. Will need to be dragged out.

    I suspect he will very much enjoy the contrast of him carrying on vs Starmer resigning.

    Why do people still expect him to act "typically" despite a lifetime of evidence to the contrary?
    He won't resign, and his MPs will be tempted to keep their heads down.

    But.

    They've just had a few weeks of being told off by voters on the doorstep. And a weekend of writing letters of condolence to defeated councillors.

    They may have been selected to be spinelessly, slavishly loyal, but there must be a point somewhere where defending Johnson's behaviour is more than they can stomach. Mustn't there?
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 1,742
    No one expects Johnson to resign but if Starmer goes then there will be huge pressure on Tory MPs to put the letters in.

    And if Johnson receives any more FPNs how on earth does he survive that if Starmer has resigned . Unless there’s been some underhand goings on at the Met then the other events Johnson is being investigated for seem far more serious than the first FPN. It would be remarkable if no more FPNs are issued for him .
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 19,803
    kle4 said:

    Carnyx said:

    If Starmer resigns then Bozza has to resign too.

    Not sure the breathless fan boys on here have quite grasped this yet.

    And @Mexicanpete needs a cold shower.

    Has = ought. But is it "will"? Mr Johnson is shameless enough to take it as a personal vindication.
    Yes, I don't follow the logic here. The parliamentary party has already decided Boris being fined is not something that means he should resign, or even face a challenge over. They've gone all in on how it is time to move on and he has apologised, all that guff.

    Say Keir is fined and falls on his sword, how do those same MPs react? Possibly with some embarrassment, but his choosing to resign doesn't alter the defences they've already given Boris. Are they about to stand up and say 'I congratulate Sir Keir for his honourable stance, and so I am changing my mind about the PM'? Is Boris going to do that?
    They do when they receive an avalanche of emails from their constituents. FPN-gate is turning out to be like expenses-gate. A few expenses questioned? Meh. A few more? OK people are angry but just brazen it out. A few more? Past the tipping point and MPs have to have the whip removed and say they are retiring.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 8,044
    kle4 said:

    Carnyx said:

    If Starmer resigns then Bozza has to resign too.

    Not sure the breathless fan boys on here have quite grasped this yet.

    And @Mexicanpete needs a cold shower.

    Has = ought. But is it "will"? Mr Johnson is shameless enough to take it as a personal vindication.
    Yes, I don't follow the logic here. The parliamentary party has already decided Boris being fined is not something that means he should resign, or even face a challenge over. They've gone all in on how it is time to move on and he has apologised, all that guff.

    Say Keir is fined and falls on his sword, how do those same MPs react? Possibly with some embarrassment, but his choosing to resign doesn't alter the defences they've already given Boris. Are they about to stand up and say 'I congratulate Sir Keir for his honourable stance, and so I am changing my mind about the PM'? Is Boris going to do that?
    The Tory MPs will just shrug and say, 'Boris is Boris. Yes he's a shameless git but what's new? If Labour want to look like lying hypocrites and give themselves a leadership crisis then that's up to them.'
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 19,803

    If Starmer resigns then Bozza has to resign too.

    Not sure the breathless fan boys on here have quite grasped this yet.

    And @Mexicanpete needs a cold shower.

    It's Starmer's hypocrisy that would make his position untenable, not getting a FPN.
    Great! So why does Johnson's hypocrisy not make HIS position also untenable? I have no problem with the rules requiring Starmer to quit, but the rules have to be applied equally to all players or they are not rules.
    Has Johnson called on anyone to resign over breaching covid rules?
    He's lied to parliament about it repeatedly. An offence serious enough to be formalised in the Ministerial Code that requires as a matter of professional standards the resignation of the PM.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 16,848

    If Starmer resigns then Bozza has to resign too.

    Not sure the breathless fan boys on here have quite grasped this yet.

    And @Mexicanpete needs a cold shower.

    If Starmer stays he cannot call Johnson out for more FPNs or the full Gray Report, he would be laughed out of the HoC.

    Do you not see that?
    Sure. However…

    Bozza will also have to resign if Starmer does. It really is that simple.
    Which is why Starmer must go.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 28,117
    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    Carnyx said:

    If Starmer resigns then Bozza has to resign too.

    Not sure the breathless fan boys on here have quite grasped this yet.

    And @Mexicanpete needs a cold shower.

    Has = ought. But is it "will"? Mr Johnson is shameless enough to take it as a personal vindication.
    Yes, I don't follow the logic here. The parliamentary party has already decided Boris being fined is not something that means he should resign, or even face a challenge over. They've gone all in on how it is time to move on and he has apologised, all that guff.

    Say Keir is fined and falls on his sword, how do those same MPs react? Possibly with some embarrassment, but his choosing to resign doesn't alter the defences they've already given Boris. Are they about to stand up and say 'I congratulate Sir Keir for his honourable stance, and so I am changing my mind about the PM'? Is Boris going to do that?
    They ought to from an pragmatic point of view. But you're right in your implication that it won't happen.
    There is real danger here for the Conservatives too, and the smarter ones recognise that.

    Sadly, the only people I see who are not in a position to lose from this whole thing is the far left. I don't think they'll get back in either, but it's a scalp and emboldening. I do not want them back. We were half way back to some sensible politics. Let's not get dragged back to 2019.
    I think that Starmer could, if he played his cards right and if he is stuffed by this, pull BJ down with him.

    Just resigning would set up a narrative that he was somehow *worse* than BJ - something that BJs allies would be selling very hard.

    Early days yet in this one, though.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 14,103

    If Starmer resigns then Bozza has to resign too.

    Not sure the breathless fan boys on here have quite grasped this yet.

    And @Mexicanpete needs a cold shower.

    If Starmer stays he cannot call Johnson out for more FPNs or the full Gray Report, he would be laughed out of the HoC.

    Do you not see that?
    Sure. However…

    Bozza will also have to resign if Starmer does. It really is that simple.
    Which is why Starmer must go.
    I agree that he will have to resign if he gets an FPN. And that will also mean Bozza has to resign.

  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 8,829
    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Every day I wake up, here in Kusadasi, around 10am or so


    I do a few hours work, in the coffee bar; then I lie in the sun, have a swim, maybe a beer or a Raki. After that I come back to my room and without fail I fall asleep for about an hour. I can’t work out why. My jet lag has gone. I’m getting plenty of sleep at night. My swim isn’t THAT energetic, and I don’t drink more than two rakis or beers

    Yet off I go. Into a siesta. I wonder if it is the sound of the sea right outside. The soothing crumple of the waves, Or maybe because everything is super stress-free, so my whole metabolism has slowed down. It’s unexpected. Also rather nice, because I wake feeling deeply refreshed

    Perhaps the human body is meant to sleep for an hour in the afternoon, and the Spanish were right all along?

    Well people apparently used to wake in the night to read, do some chores and have sex, before going back to bed, so if we were not built to sleep a solid 8 hours at night, why not siesta?

    I'm certainly always more sluggish in the early afternoon and more active in the evening.
    I believe ‘the second sleep’ has recently been debunked

    It has occurred to me that my stress-free siesta habit is the first sign of old age, if so old age might not be so bad. You’re very chilled and you sleep a lot. Dunno why my mum moans so much. Who needs a spleen anyway?

    But it doesn’t feel like old age. It feels like: if you take away all the anxieties of daily life, the choices and business and social drama, then you go into a lovely unstressed zone where your body says OK, sleepy time, why not, mmm - like a cat. Cats are always sleeping and they’re cool
    Not seen that re second sleeps. Any links please?
    https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220107-the-lost-medieval-habit-of-biphasic-sleep
    Sounds persuasive yet I don’t believe it. Why? Light

    We forget how strange it is for humans to have bright light immediately available 24/7, flooding rooms, baths, even streets, so you can do almost anything by night as you would by day

    This has only been the case for a century or two - as we developed gas then electricity

    For all human evolution, before that, artificial light was extremely rare and precious - candles were for the rich. The poor had to make do with the moon and the stars. Not enough light to do anything of importance

    So waking up for 3 hours at 2am makes no economic or social sense at all

    Also you don’t want to be out and about at that time, as night time is when most predators prowl. So it doesn’t make evolutionary sense either

    I’m calling it as bollocks

    And it isn't a plot point anywhere in Chaucer or Boccaccio or Shakespeare or fairy tales or any story ever told. Which you'd think it would be.
    Yes it doesn’t hold up to a few minutes of scrutiny

    It occurs to me that “second sleep” might be siesta which IS extremely common across human societies. The post lunch nap. The full on Spanish Kip. Everyone experiences a metabolic dip in late afternoon, it is easy for that to become an actual snooze if you have the time (as they did in pre industrial societies)
    I was actually in agreement with the argument about second sleep, I remember reading the BBC piece, but after your points and that rebuttal that was posted it does seem increasingly implausible. I shall change my mind, although maybe I should (singularly) sleep on it.
    It’s a intriguing theory, and one that we can never prove or disprove entirely. I am sad about that, and all the other countless things that we will never know about the past.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 101,102
    edited May 8
    MaxPB said:

    MattW said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Rowenna Davis has been elected in Waddon / Croydon.

    Potential candidate for next General Election, perhaps.
    PPE from Baliol. Surely she's in the wrong party.
    Roy Jenkins did PPE at Balliol as did Yvette Cooper, the only senior Tory to do so was Ted Heath
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 4,645
    kyf_100 said:

    Mostly just lurking at the moment, but I wanted to drop in to say...

    I could not give a toss how many kormas or beers Keir Starmer devoured, nor would I care how many wines and cheeses Boris Johnson devoured if he was a private citizen. I think the lockdown laws were petty, unjust and damaging to people's mental and physical health.

    I care about Boris breaking the law, because he made the stupid law in the first place, and he deserves to be hung by his own petard. I do not care about Starmer breaking the law, in the same way I do not care about the fact that I broke the law, my neighbours broke the law, my friends broke the law, etc - because most people recognised they were ridiculous.

    Boris is a special case - he was responsible for the laws, therefore he deserves to be hung by them.

    nearly agree but Starmer voted for them as well as seemingly wanted to prolong them so he should F off as well as a lesson to not impose stupid laws on people
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 14,725

    Carnyx said:

    If Starmer resigns then Bozza has to resign too.

    Not sure the breathless fan boys on here have quite grasped this yet.

    And @Mexicanpete needs a cold shower.

    Has = ought. But is it "will"? Mr Johnson is shameless enough to take it as a personal vindication.
    Zero chance Boris resigns over anything. Will need to be dragged out.

    I suspect he will very much enjoy the contrast of him carrying on vs Starmer resigning.

    Why do people still expect him to act "typically" despite a lifetime of evidence to the contrary?
    He won't resign, and his MPs will be tempted to keep their heads down.

    But.

    They've just had a few weeks of being told off by voters on the doorstep. And a weekend of writing letters of condolence to defeated councillors.

    They may have been selected to be spinelessly, slavishly loyal, but there must be a point somewhere where defending Johnson's behaviour is more than they can stomach. Mustn't there?
    Sure, but I think you are looking at that threshold being something like committing a crime that is both caught on camera and typically gets a custodial sentence. Not something that can be brushed off as equivalent to a parking ticket.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 77,368

    Carnyx said:

    If Starmer resigns then Bozza has to resign too.

    Not sure the breathless fan boys on here have quite grasped this yet.

    And @Mexicanpete needs a cold shower.

    Has = ought. But is it "will"? Mr Johnson is shameless enough to take it as a personal vindication.
    Zero chance Boris resigns over anything. Will need to be dragged out.

    I suspect he will very much enjoy the contrast of him carrying on vs Starmer resigning.

    Why do people still expect him to act "typically" despite a lifetime of evidence to the contrary?
    He won't resign, and his MPs will be tempted to keep their heads down.

    But.

    They've just had a few weeks of being told off by voters on the doorstep. And a weekend of writing letters of condolence to defeated councillors.

    They may have been selected to be spinelessly, slavishly loyal, but there must be a point somewhere where defending Johnson's behaviour is more than they can stomach. Mustn't there?
    Eventually everyone reaches that point I'm sure. But bear in mind some reached that point and then withdrew because of Ukraine.

    They may be unhappy, but are they still expecting him to make it easy for them? Or that despite it all he needs a chance to turn it around?
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 1,742
    MrEd said:

    nico679 said:

    If Starmer goes then Johnson is in deep trouble if he receives another FPN .

    You can imagine the questions. The leader of the opposition resigned over one FPN , you’ve had two . Why aren’t you resigning?

    SKS' particular problems with this - if he gets a FPN - are (1) the words he used calling for BJ to resign and the fact he looks like a hypocrite (2) he has presented himself as a picture of moral probity and (3) he is a senior lawyer and the general principle (correct me if I am wrong @Cyclefree and @DavidL ) is that, when it comes to the law, lawyers should be held to a higher standard.

    None of the above three apply to BJ.
    So because the public think Johnson is a liar and a clown means he only has to clear a low bar! And shouldn’t the PM be the model of moral probity given he represents the country .

    I do admire your spin but Starmer is being investigated for one event , no doubt if there were more the DM would have dug them up already . Johnson and no 10 is being investigated for 12 events .
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 4,185
    edited May 8
    Final result from Croydon
    Lab 34 (1 nominal gain from expelled member and 7 losses)
    Con 32 (4 gains)
    Green 2 (2 gains)
    Ld 1 (I gain)
    With one Ward to be refought as the new mayor won it, so likely Tory.
    Croydon is NOC and Labour have zero council gains net in London
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 19,803
    nico679 said:

    MrEd said:

    nico679 said:

    If Starmer goes then Johnson is in deep trouble if he receives another FPN .

    You can imagine the questions. The leader of the opposition resigned over one FPN , you’ve had two . Why aren’t you resigning?

    SKS' particular problems with this - if he gets a FPN - are (1) the words he used calling for BJ to resign and the fact he looks like a hypocrite (2) he has presented himself as a picture of moral probity and (3) he is a senior lawyer and the general principle (correct me if I am wrong @Cyclefree and @DavidL ) is that, when it comes to the law, lawyers should be held to a higher standard.

    None of the above three apply to BJ.
    So because the public think Johnson is a liar and a clown means he only has to clear a low bar! And shouldn’t the PM be the model of moral probity given he represents the country .

    I do admire your spin but Starmer is being investigated for one event , no doubt if there were more the DM would have dug them up already . Johnson and no 10 is being investigated for 12 events .
    Its bizarre. The rules which Tories claim requires the resignation of Starmer apparently reinforce the righteousness of Johnson not resigning.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 19,405
    MrEd said:

    nico679 said:

    If Starmer goes then Johnson is in deep trouble if he receives another FPN .

    You can imagine the questions. The leader of the opposition resigned over one FPN , you’ve had two . Why aren’t you resigning?

    SKS' particular problems with this - if he gets a FPN - are (1) the words he used calling for BJ to resign and the fact he looks like a hypocrite (2) he has presented himself as a picture of moral probity and (3) he is a senior lawyer and the general principle (correct me if I am wrong @Cyclefree and @DavidL ) is that, when it comes to the law, lawyers should be held to a higher standard.

    None of the above three apply to BJ.
    You don't feel that Prime Ministers should be held to a higher standard too, especially when they write the laws that they break?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 101,102

    Final result from Croydon
    Lab 34
    Con 32
    Green 2
    Ld 1
    With one Ward to be refought as the new mayor won it, so likely Tory.
    Croydon is NOC and Labour have zero council gains net in London

    They gained 3 from the Tories though and the Tories only gained 1 from them, Harrow
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,605

    nico679 said:

    MrEd said:

    nico679 said:

    If Starmer goes then Johnson is in deep trouble if he receives another FPN .

    You can imagine the questions. The leader of the opposition resigned over one FPN , you’ve had two . Why aren’t you resigning?

    SKS' particular problems with this - if he gets a FPN - are (1) the words he used calling for BJ to resign and the fact he looks like a hypocrite (2) he has presented himself as a picture of moral probity and (3) he is a senior lawyer and the general principle (correct me if I am wrong @Cyclefree and @DavidL ) is that, when it comes to the law, lawyers should be held to a higher standard.

    None of the above three apply to BJ.
    So because the public think Johnson is a liar and a clown means he only has to clear a low bar! And shouldn’t the PM be the model of moral probity given he represents the country .

    I do admire your spin but Starmer is being investigated for one event , no doubt if there were more the DM would have dug them up already . Johnson and no 10 is being investigated for 12 events .
    Its bizarre. The rules which Tories claim requires the resignation of Starmer apparently reinforce the righteousness of Johnson not resigning.
    I don't think Tories are claiming Starmer should, on principle, resign. Just that he'd now be a hypocrite if he doesn't.

    Johnson escapes all charges of hypocrisy, on the basis that he thinks breaking rules is totally fine as long as you can brazen out the consequences.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 19,803

    Final result from Croydon
    Lab 34
    Con 32
    Green 2
    Ld 1
    With one Ward to be refought as the new mayor won it, so likely Tory.
    Croydon is NOC and Labour have zero council gains net in London

    The interesting thing about NOC councils is where the control actually goes. There is always a group in control even if they come from several parties.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 24,250

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    If Russia did take out the UK with a first strike, I would expect us to respond with Trident, just because. Revenge. Fuck em

    How much damage could one Trident sub do? Presumably we could wipe out Moscow and St Pete’s, but beyond that? A few more cities? Killing maybe 40-50m?

    Russia would survive, albeit fucked, unlike Britain which would be a radioactive desert for centuries

    However, if Putin was mad enough to do this, then I expect America would launch missiles too, trying to take out the rest of Russia’s nuclear capability from the getgo, the Chinese might possibly join in, and the French - targeting Russia as a menace to the world

    So on the whole, taking everything into account, I put the chances of Russia destroying Britain in the next few weeks at no more than 40%, which is kind of reassuring

    48 nukes could be launched, Russia would be a wasteland.
    I’ve just been checking Google. One Trident sub full of warheads does not mean 48 entirely vaporised cities. It means


    “Our estimates, which are supported by other studies, predict that one Trident submarine with forty 100kT warheads could cause at least 10 million casualties and as many as 20 million in 10-20 large cities and hit a further 20 military targets such as bases and command bunkers. [9] Trident missiles have a range of 7,000 miles. This, combined with the submarine’s ability to sail into any ocean area, enables it to strike targets anywhere across the globe within around 30 minutes of launch. [10]”

    Which is frankly a bit feeble

    On the other hand


    “If used, the nuclear weapons carried by just one Trident submarine could cause such huge climatic disruption that global food supplies would be at risk and the survival of human civilisation itself would be threatened.”

    Which is much more encouraging. Hmm.

    Info here:


    https://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/uk-nuclear-weapons-catastrophe-making
    Forget the exaggerated garbage about a handful of nukes killing the world.

    https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

    The purpose of the U.K. nukes is to hold the Russian leadership at risk - kill them in their bunkers.

    Secondarily, they could be used to take out various choke points in the Russian economy. So no rail distribution of goods, no harbours for import, no oil and gas production.

    IIRC they was an estimate in the Cold War that 100 nukes could reduce the carrying capacity of Russia for population by 90%.
    The logical thing to do (if it ever came to that) would be to take out all Russian missile silos and their military C&C infrastructure, including their sub pens, not to wipe out their cities and population.

    What you'd want to do is wipe out their leadership and any ability they had to launch subsequent second strikes.

    If Putin ever did that he could measure his lifespan in minutes. And once their nuclear "shield" had gone they'd be at the mercy of the West since NATO's forces are hugely dispersed and markedly superior.
    It’s also the right thing to do morally, targeting military facilities rather than population centres.
    Fuck off. If they’ve killed 40m Brits, i want to see 40m Russians dead
    Surely a proportionate response would be 60% of their population, so about 87 million?

    Are you going soft in your old age?
    Hah

    But there is a serious point here. DETERRENCE

    If Russia did a first strike on Britain killing 40m people and destroying our entire culture then the same needs to happen to them, so no one is ever tempted to do such an evil thing again. Wipe out their culture. Moscow, St Petersburg, all their cultural joys, and kill tens of millions

    Just rapping their knuckles by hitting a few military bases is not enough. It would be our last offering to humanity as the entire British Isles is consumed by death
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 9,696
    Andy_JS said:

    any news of Croydon and its result?

    This is one of the best places for the latest news from Croydon.

    https://vote-2012.proboards.com/thread/15487/croydon?page=21&scrollTo=1238771
    I note they are calling themselves “Local Conservatives”. Seems odd that their stats are even added to the official Conservative and Unionist Party tally.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 52,691
    Endillion said:

    nico679 said:

    MrEd said:

    nico679 said:

    If Starmer goes then Johnson is in deep trouble if he receives another FPN .

    You can imagine the questions. The leader of the opposition resigned over one FPN , you’ve had two . Why aren’t you resigning?

    SKS' particular problems with this - if he gets a FPN - are (1) the words he used calling for BJ to resign and the fact he looks like a hypocrite (2) he has presented himself as a picture of moral probity and (3) he is a senior lawyer and the general principle (correct me if I am wrong @Cyclefree and @DavidL ) is that, when it comes to the law, lawyers should be held to a higher standard.

    None of the above three apply to BJ.
    So because the public think Johnson is a liar and a clown means he only has to clear a low bar! And shouldn’t the PM be the model of moral probity given he represents the country .

    I do admire your spin but Starmer is being investigated for one event , no doubt if there were more the DM would have dug them up already . Johnson and no 10 is being investigated for 12 events .
    Its bizarre. The rules which Tories claim requires the resignation of Starmer apparently reinforce the righteousness of Johnson not resigning.
    I don't think Tories are claiming Starmer should, on principle, resign. Just that he'd now be a hypocrite if he doesn't.

    Johnson escapes all charges of hypocrisy, on the basis that he thinks breaking rules is totally fine as long as you can brazen out the consequences.
    Sums it all up nicely.
  • TazTaz Posts: 5,426

    nico679 said:

    MrEd said:

    nico679 said:

    If Starmer goes then Johnson is in deep trouble if he receives another FPN .

    You can imagine the questions. The leader of the opposition resigned over one FPN , you’ve had two . Why aren’t you resigning?

    SKS' particular problems with this - if he gets a FPN - are (1) the words he used calling for BJ to resign and the fact he looks like a hypocrite (2) he has presented himself as a picture of moral probity and (3) he is a senior lawyer and the general principle (correct me if I am wrong @Cyclefree and @DavidL ) is that, when it comes to the law, lawyers should be held to a higher standard.

    None of the above three apply to BJ.
    So because the public think Johnson is a liar and a clown means he only has to clear a low bar! And shouldn’t the PM be the model of moral probity given he represents the country .

    I do admire your spin but Starmer is being investigated for one event , no doubt if there were more the DM would have dug them up already . Johnson and no 10 is being investigated for 12 events .
    Its bizarre. The rules which Tories claim requires the resignation of Starmer apparently reinforce the righteousness of Johnson not resigning.
    Of course Johnson should fall on his sword but Starmer said Johnson should stand down just for being investigated. Therefore Starmer should, by that logic, also stand down.
This discussion has been closed.