“Honesty and decency matter. After months of denials the Prime Minister is now under criminal investigations for breaking his own lockdown laws. He needs to do the decent thing and resign.”
Yea that’s resign for lying, which he did in the HoC
He made a similar statement before the Gray report even came out.
Calling for him to resign even when the investigation is underway.
Yes he should go now having demanded Johnson go on news of the FPN investigation. The fact that Johnson still hasn't gone despite an FPN sort of neutralises that argument. Johnson could have made the same assurance as Starmer has today.
Labour media management has been shocking. Four days to get to this point really is poor.
I would say quite the reverse. He has lobbed the perfect grenade into Johnson's court with impeccable timing. Johnson and his disciples are looking even more sleazy than usual. No one believes Starmer was partying because it's clear to anyone with sight that he wasn't.
Starmer knows he isn't going to get an FPN so he is doing what anyone would do. He is going to toy with Johnson like a hooked whale.
All of the "forensic" questions that Starmer put to the PM can be thrown back at him. For example: "When did he first become aware that any of his staff had concerns about the party?"
Thats easy to bat away. There were no concerns. Here are the laws covering campaign events, here is what we did to risk assess, here is what we did. Now lets talk about your campaign events, such as Michael Gove in the pub with activists late April 21. What did you do?
Remember, ALL the parties had campaign events just like this one at that time. Because they were legally permitted to do so. None of Labour's other campaign events are under scrutiny, or Tory ones, or LibDem ones. Just this single one. Why?
Because the accusers know its bullshit. If it was clear they were illegal they would pile on with all of the other examples. And they haven't. Because they were all legal as well.
Starmer not clear on what he will do if Durham Police don't fine him retrospectively but conclude that he did infringe the rules, as they did with Dominic Cummings.
It's a trickier point, I think, and I can understand why he doesn't want to get into the weeds of all the permutations of what he might or might not do.
He might not want to.....
Taken about ten seconds for this to unravel. @BethRigby nailed him. For all the talk of integrity, won’t commit to resigning if found he breached the rules (as in Cummings case) but doesn’t get FPN.
'Honesty and decency matter. After months of denials the Prime Minister is now under criminal investigations for breaking his own lockdown laws. He needs to do the decent thing and resign.'
Starmer’s tweet on January 31. Investigation alone is grounds for resignation. Hoist, say hello to Petard, Own.
Yep tricky one that. Only defence is I'm definitely not guilty, but we all know you are. Personally I would struggle to make that argument convincingly. His tweet was far too definite.
And I have been accused of being a liar for exactly that tweet and the fact it is thrown back at Starmer daily
Starmer not clear on what he will do if Durham Police don't fine him retrospectively but conclude that he did infringe the rules, as they did with Dominic Cummings.
IMO if he infringed the rules he has to go
As I said earlier Durham Police said during the DC affair we have not issued any retrospective action against anyone else so we will not with DC even though his actions were nit in line with the rules at the time
'Honesty and decency matter. After months of denials the Prime Minister is now under criminal investigations for breaking his own lockdown laws. He needs to do the decent thing and resign.'
Starmer’s tweet on January 31. Investigation alone is grounds for resignation. Hoist, say hello to Petard, Own.
No, CHB and Gardenwalker say you're lying and gaslighting.
Yes.
The evidence that has been presented on here is that Keir was calling for Boris’s resignation once it became clear he was lying to parliament and in breach of the ministerial code.
That is the context for the Jan 31 tweet as helpfully provided (maybe inadvertently?) by RobD.
'Honesty and decency matter. After months of denials the Prime Minister is now under criminal investigations for breaking his own lockdown laws. He needs to do the decent thing and resign.'
Starmer’s tweet on January 31. Investigation alone is grounds for resignation. Hoist, say hello to Petard, Own.
Yep tricky one that. Only defence is I'm definitely not guilty, but we all know you are. Personally I would struggle to make that argument convincingly. His tweet was far too definite.
And I have been accused of being a liar for exactly that tweet and the fact it is thrown back at Starmer daily
What questions would actually provide anything useful here - given how crap most Journalists are at asking questions.
You called on the PM to resign because he was under investigation - as you are now. Why should he have resigned purely for being investigated, when you won’t now resign yourself?
Breaking - Rayner says she will quit too. "We have a Prime Minister who has been found to have broken the rules, lied about it and then been fined. If I were issued with a fine, I would do the decent thing and step down."
1. You tweeted Boris needed to go just because it was going to be investigated by the Met. irrespective of their findings Why are you waiting?
2 Why did you lie about Rayner
3. Why did you eat indoors with others rather than back at the hotel
4, What work fid you do after drinking beer. Someone present says no work was done or even planned after the Curry and Beer are they liars or you
5. You stated nowhere was available to eat that was incorrect there were multiple places including your hotel Why did you lie about that
6. Do you think you retain the trust of the Public a poll today showed twice as many thought you should quit compared to those who thought you should stay Is your position untenable
Loads of other ones like were there any other instances where you broke local rules?
I suspect he will have one robotic answer and will not be able to think on his feet so will repeat over and over again.
I think he should say there is a Poster on PB who says I am a Labour Legend the same as John Smith so I am not going to resign
There's an awful lot of things in there that you characterise as lying, which might well be simple ignorance.
Simply applying the same standard that Labour have to Boris.
I was referring to - for example - the contention that he knew that the hotel would be serving food.
If you had the choice between (a) a definite curry or (b) possible hotel food, which would you choose?
Depends on the hotel and the curry. I'd probably chance it with the hotel room service were I a prominent politician that had voted through onerous laws about not socialising. This is what I don't understand, they just had to play it safe with this for a few months and then do what they wanted. Yet they couldn't help themselves. I didn't, but then again, I also didn't vote for or support lockdowns.
“Honesty and decency matter. After months of denials the Prime Minister is now under criminal investigations for breaking his own lockdown laws. He needs to do the decent thing and resign.”
Yea that’s resign for lying, which he did in the HoC
He made a similar statement before the Gray report even came out.
Calling for him to resign even when the investigation is underway.
Yes he should go now having demanded Johnson go on news of the FPN investigation. The fact that Johnson still hasn't gone despite an FPN sort of neutralises that argument. Johnson could have made the same assurance as Starmer has today.
Labour media management has been shocking. Four days to get to this point really is poor.
Starmer not clear on what he will do if Durham Police don't fine him retrospectively but conclude that he did infringe the rules, as they did with Dominic Cummings.
It's a trickier point, I think, and I can understand why he doesn't want to get into the weeds of all the permutations of what he might or might not do.
He might not want to.....
Taken about ten seconds for this to unravel. @BethRigby nailed him. For all the talk of integrity, won’t commit to resigning if found he breached the rules (as in Cummings case) but doesn’t get FPN.
'Honesty and decency matter. After months of denials the Prime Minister is now under criminal investigations for breaking his own lockdown laws. He needs to do the decent thing and resign.'
Starmer’s tweet on January 31. Investigation alone is grounds for resignation. Hoist, say hello to Petard, Own.
No, CHB and Gardenwalker say you're lying and gaslighting.
Yes.
The evidence that has been presented on here is that Keir was calling for Boris’s resignation once it became clear he was lying to parliament and in breach of the ministerial code.
That is the context for the Jan 31 tweet as helpfully provided (maybe inadvertently?) by RobD.
"Context"? Yeah, right.
That tweet clearly says that investigation should mean resignation.
If SKS meant it to say something different, it would have said something different.
'Honesty and decency matter. After months of denials the Prime Minister is now under criminal investigations for breaking his own lockdown laws. He needs to do the decent thing and resign.'
Starmer’s tweet on January 31. Investigation alone is grounds for resignation. Hoist, say hello to Petard, Own.
Yep tricky one that. Only defence is I'm definitely not guilty, but we all know you are. Personally I would struggle to make that argument convincingly. His tweet was far too definite.
And I have been accused of being a liar for exactly that tweet and the fact it is thrown back at Starmer daily
Lovely bit of polling from Savanta: 41% of Brits have heard about Beergate, 74% Partygate - and 20% claim they know about Hikegate 'a fictional Covid-related scandal relating to Ed Davey'
If Durham Police agree no rules were broken he probably survives
By rules you mean laws. And the key word is "laws". Not guidelines. Not guesswork. Not that there was a memo. Not that they "lied" about Rayner's presence at what they considered to be a legal event. Just the law.
The problem with the Mail/Tory HQ case is that it doesn't quote the laws. It thrashed around for a week trying to find an angle. So now he's done "put up or shut up" and frankly I think he can now slam Johnson hard.
"If I get a FPN I will quit because I have honour and principles. Why has the Prime Minister not displayed any honour and principles and done what I will do?"
Tories haven't thought this one through. Pressure back onto Johnson.
The Rayner angle was very applicable when people on here were claiming that the police had investigated and cleared the event. And it was relevant because it was clear the police had made that determination on partial information.
The memo would almost certainly be part of the evidence that the police use in the decision, as would witness information, pictures and videos.
I do not know what the police will decide. You do not know what the police will decide. *Starmer* does not know what the police will decide. And he is a hot-shot top lawyer.
And this is because the law is very poorly defined. When is a party not a party but a work event? Can people 'work' when pi**ed ? etc, etc.
The whole thing is a minefield. No-one should have been prosecuted under these laws for these sorts of edge cases.
All of the "forensic" questions that Starmer put to the PM can be thrown back at him. For example: "When did he first become aware that any of his staff had concerns about the party?"
Thats easy to bat away. There were no concerns. Here are the laws covering campaign events, here is what we did to risk assess, here is what we did. Now lets talk about your campaign events, such as Michael Gove in the pub with activists late April 21. What did you do?
Remember, ALL the parties had campaign events just like this one at that time. Because they were legally permitted to do so. None of Labour's other campaign events are under scrutiny, or Tory ones, or LibDem ones. Just this single one. Why?
Because the accusers know its bullshit. If it was clear they were illegal they would pile on with all of the other examples. And they haven't. Because they were all legal as well.
@RochdalePioneers, the chief Tory accuser - Richard Holden - also enjoyed a curry with supporters while campaigning that week.
Perfectly legally, of course.
This is an astonishing act of gaslighting by the Tories and the fact it has gained so much momentum reflects very poorly on Labour media management, but frankly also the UK’s media generally.
Starmer not clear on what he will do if Durham Police don't fine him retrospectively but conclude that he did infringe the rules, as they did with Dominic Cummings.
It's a trickier point, I think, and I can understand why he doesn't want to get into the weeds of all the permutations of what he might or might not do.
He might not want to.....
Taken about ten seconds for this to unravel. @BethRigby nailed him. For all the talk of integrity, won’t commit to resigning if found he breached the rules (as in Cummings case) but doesn’t get FPN.
Dan Hodges has shredded his credibility on this; you might as well post Vlad Putin on the success of his war aims.
I'm sorry mate, after a few weeks of saying nothing was necessary it's your credibility which is in shreds. Like you I think this is all trivial bullshit, I am enjoying the hypocrisy of Labour supporters and MPs going in so hard on Boris now having to carefully choose what they say though. It's almost as if there's a lawyer in charge.
The best outcome here is Starmer having to resign and taking Boris down with him. The worst outcome is some lawyerly way of not resigning but being damaged by it and Boris being let off the hook as the voters decide "plague on both your houses".
Lovely bit of polling from Savanta: 41% of Brits have heard about Beergate, 74% Partygate - and 20% claim they know about Hikegate 'a fictional Covid-related scandal relating to Ed Davey'
'Honesty and decency matter. After months of denials the Prime Minister is now under criminal investigations for breaking his own lockdown laws. He needs to do the decent thing and resign.'
Starmer’s tweet on January 31. Investigation alone is grounds for resignation. Hoist, say hello to Petard, Own.
Yep tricky one that. Only defence is I'm definitely not guilty, but we all know you are. Personally I would struggle to make that argument convincingly. His tweet was far too definite.
And I have been accused of being a liar for exactly that tweet and the fact it is thrown back at Starmer daily
All of the "forensic" questions that Starmer put to the PM can be thrown back at him. For example: "When did he first become aware that any of his staff had concerns about the party?"
Thats easy to bat away. There were no concerns. Here are the laws covering campaign events, here is what we did to risk assess, here is what we did. Now lets talk about your campaign events, such as Michael Gove in the pub with activists late April 21. What did you do?
Remember, ALL the parties had campaign events just like this one at that time. Because they were legally permitted to do so. None of Labour's other campaign events are under scrutiny, or Tory ones, or LibDem ones. Just this single one. Why?
Because the accusers know its bullshit. If it was clear they were illegal they would pile on with all of the other examples. And they haven't. Because they were all legal as well.
@RochdalePioneers, the chief Tory accuser - Richard Holden - also enjoyed a curry with supporters while campaigning that week.
Perfectly legally, of course.
This is an astonishing act of gaslighting by the Tories and the fact it has gained so much momentum reflects very poorly on Labour media management, but frankly also the UK’s media generally.
You're still carrying on about "gaslighting" when you've been caught bang to rights doing just that?
Starmer not clear on what he will do if Durham Police don't fine him retrospectively but conclude that he did infringe the rules, as they did with Dominic Cummings.
It's a trickier point, I think, and I can understand why he doesn't want to get into the weeds of all the permutations of what he might or might not do.
He might not want to.....
Taken about ten seconds for this to unravel. @BethRigby nailed him. For all the talk of integrity, won’t commit to resigning if found he breached the rules (as in Cummings case) but doesn’t get FPN.
Interesting people think partygate is much worse than beergate according to the pollster on LBC.
I think Starmer should have said that he called for Johnson to resign as a culmination of all the party investigations regarding the hypocrite accusations .
However I think Starmer has done the right thing in offering to step down if found guilty of breaching the rules and the Tories are now in a bad position .
The Tories don't want him to resign. A point to keep firmly in mind.
This is the key point to remember, the Tories want Starmer to get some kind of fine/not fine but guilty and then not resign. If he resigns it makes Boris' position untenable and the MPs might actually have to act to dump him. I'd be happy to see them both go, but this is, atm, lining up to be the first scenario where the Durham police say "it broke the rules but we're not issuing retrospective fines" and he takes the hit but escapes resigning.
All of the "forensic" questions that Starmer put to the PM can be thrown back at him. For example: "When did he first become aware that any of his staff had concerns about the party?"
Thats easy to bat away. There were no concerns. Here are the laws covering campaign events, here is what we did to risk assess, here is what we did. Now lets talk about your campaign events, such as Michael Gove in the pub with activists late April 21. What did you do?
Remember, ALL the parties had campaign events just like this one at that time. Because they were legally permitted to do so. None of Labour's other campaign events are under scrutiny, or Tory ones, or LibDem ones. Just this single one. Why?
Because the accusers know its bullshit. If it was clear they were illegal they would pile on with all of the other examples. And they haven't. Because they were all legal as well.
@RochdalePioneers, the chief Tory accuser - Richard Holden - also enjoyed a curry with supporters while campaigning that week.
Perfectly legally, of course.
This is an astonishing act of gaslighting by the Tories and the fact it has gained so much momentum reflects very poorly on Labour media management, but frankly also the UK’s media generally.
Watching from afar, this is all hillarious, but it does paint a very poor picture of the state of politics and media.
There’s still a war in Ukraine, China is closed for business, petrol is still £1.75 a litre and general inflation is 8%, everyone just got a mortgage hike with the promise of more to come - yet apparently the most important stories in the world right now are about parking tickets from two years ago.
Why not just resign when the fine is issued? Why announce in advance?
Is this an attempt to face down Durham police?
On the latter, yes. He's trying to be clever/lawyerly about it but the Durham police may decide to fuck him over now rather than cave. It has very high potential to backfire on him because the Met have set a precedent of handing out a FPN for the cake and the police in Durham can fall back on that if they choose to hand out a fine.
Just need one Tory to say "blatant attempt to intimidate the police" and it leaves them with no choice but to fine him.
And Labour say the police were intimidated into investigating and it leaves them no choice but to NOT fine him.
Good game good game.
No, the police have already said the investigation was reopened due to new and significant evidence being handed to them, not because of media/political pressure. If that irate Corbyn supporter hadn't come along with the video and eyewitness account it's still a dead end.
Look on the bright side, Starmer resigning may finally precipitate the downfall of Boris!
Well they'd hardly *say* they'd felt pressurized and given into it.
I'm pretty sure he's in the clear but, yes, like you say, if I'm wrong and he goes and it takes Johnson down too, this would be no shabby outcome.
Say the police determine that Starmer does not get an FPN because he went back to 'work' afterwards. But several others at the meal do get FPNs. As head of party, and the main guy there, does he not have some moral responsibility for what went on? especially as people were probably encouraged to be there to help with the canvassing and PR.
There are oodles of interesting edge cases in this whole mess.
1. You tweeted Boris needed to go just because it was going to be investigated by the Met. irrespective of their findings Why are you waiting?
2 Why did you lie about Rayner
3. Why did you eat indoors with others rather than back at the hotel
4, What work fid you do after drinking beer. Someone present says no work was done or even planned after the Curry and Beer are they liars or you
5. You stated nowhere was available to eat that was incorrect there were multiple places including your hotel Why did you lie about that
6. Do you think you retain the trust of the Public a poll today showed twice as many thought you should quit compared to those who thought you should stay Is your position untenable
Loads of other ones like were there any other instances where you broke local rules?
I suspect he will have one robotic answer and will not be able to think on his feet so will repeat over and over again.
I think he should say there is a Poster on PB who says I am a Labour Legend the same as John Smith so I am not going to resign
There's an awful lot of things in there that you characterise as lying, which might well be simple ignorance.
Simply applying the same standard that Labour have to Boris.
I was referring to - for example - the contention that he knew that the hotel would be serving food.
If you had the choice between (a) a definite curry or (b) possible hotel food, which would you choose?
Depends on the hotel and the curry. I'd probably chance it with the hotel room service were I a prominent politician that had voted through onerous laws about not socialising. This is what I don't understand, they just had to play it safe with this for a few months and then do what they wanted. Yet they couldn't help themselves. I didn't, but then again, I also didn't vote for or support lockdowns.
The problem with that is that I think a lot of politicians know that the quid pro quo for supporters spending a full day knocking on doors is a couple of minutes with the important people who are doing the same and so SKS has to spend a few minutes thanking everyone for their hardwork.
Which is far easier done via a crap curry with weak beer than thanking them individually.
Starmer not clear on what he will do if Durham Police don't fine him retrospectively but conclude that he did infringe the rules, as they did with Dominic Cummings.
It's a trickier point, I think, and I can understand why he doesn't want to get into the weeds of all the permutations of what he might or might not do.
He might not want to.....
Taken about ten seconds for this to unravel. @BethRigby nailed him. For all the talk of integrity, won’t commit to resigning if found he breached the rules (as in Cummings case) but doesn’t get FPN.
Super interesting discussion on here right now. Not for the "right" reasons though.
SKS' tweet absolutely makes it clear that Johnson should resign simply for being under a criminal investigation. If he meant something else then he is a s**t tweet writer to the point of being unfit for high office. But as former CPS he wouldn't be so casual.
@Gardenwalker and @CHB think it meant something else, related to lying to parliament. But nowehre in the tweet does he mention lying to parliament. Or breaking a law. It refers, explicitly, to being "under criminal investigations".
If he meant lying to parliament why didn't he mention lying to parliament.
Keir Starmer @Keir_Starmer Honesty and decency matter.
After months of denials the Prime Minister is now under criminal investigations for breaking his own lockdown laws.
He needs to do the decent thing and resign.
Looks as if I am owed an apology by a couple of posters
Nope, because you have perhaps deliberately ignored the actual context of the tweet.
See Hansard, posted upthread.
Let's consider the counterfactual. Had the Met finished their investigation and actually found no evidence of rule-breaking, would he still be guilty of lying to the house?
The fact is Starmer jumped the gun, and was calling for a resignation almost immediately after the investigation was announced. Quite a strange decision given his background.
Whether or not the leader of the opposition is to change is now wholly in the hands of Durham police.
That's troubling isn't it?
Unfortunately that’s the LOTO’s call.
I’m not convinced this is an event of tactical genius, rather one of necessity (which might end up paying off handsomely).
Not sure SKS could have played it any differently.
I do not feel quite so blaze as some on here that there is definitely no risk of a rule breach being handed down. We don’t know all the facts of the case and I wouldn’t like to pre-judge it.
Interesting people think partygate is much worse than beergate according to the pollster on LBC.
I think Starmer should have said that he called for Johnson to resign as a culmination of all the party investigations regarding the hypocrite accusations .
However I think Starmer has done the right thing in offering to step down if found guilty of breaching the rules and the Tories are now in a bad position .
There is a video of him with a beer in his hand indoors talking to people not from his household when you were not allowed to do that. I imagine most people think that is a pretty clear breach of the rules.
Starmer not clear on what he will do if Durham Police don't fine him retrospectively but conclude that he did infringe the rules, as they did with Dominic Cummings.
It's a trickier point, I think, and I can understand why he doesn't want to get into the weeds of all the permutations of what he might or might not do.
I was against the promise, because it gives a hostage to the fortune of whichever policeman has to make the rules. However, now he's made it, I think he should absolutely leave it at that, and not get into endless hypotheticals. Any reply to those just extends the story, and "I've made my statement. Let's see what the police conclude" is a suitably boring reply which the Tory media can't print forever.
Super interesting discussion on here right now. Not for the "right" reasons though.
SKS' tweet absolutely makes it clear that Johnson should resign simply for being under a criminal investigation. If he meant something else then he is a s**t tweet writer to the point of being unfit for high office. But as former CPS he wouldn't be so casual.
@Gardenwalker and @CHB think it meant something else, related to lying to parliament. But nowehre in the tweet does he mention lying to parliament. Or breaking a law. It refers, explicitly, to being "under criminal investigations".
If he meant lying to parliament why didn't he mention lying to parliament.
That’s because I understand that the tweet was not a one-off but happened as part of a bigger story, and SUBSEQUENT to the earlier call to resign for misleading the House.
Someone upthread states that the tweet should have been explicit, but I think that’s an absurd burden to place on political speech: “please refer to the full back story every time you tweet”.
1. You tweeted Boris needed to go just because it was going to be investigated by the Met. irrespective of their findings Why are you waiting?
2 Why did you lie about Rayner
3. Why did you eat indoors with others rather than back at the hotel
4, What work fid you do after drinking beer. Someone present says no work was done or even planned after the Curry and Beer are they liars or you
5. You stated nowhere was available to eat that was incorrect there were multiple places including your hotel Why did you lie about that
6. Do you think you retain the trust of the Public a poll today showed twice as many thought you should quit compared to those who thought you should stay Is your position untenable
Loads of other ones like were there any other instances where you broke local rules?
I suspect he will have one robotic answer and will not be able to think on his feet so will repeat over and over again.
I think he should say there is a Poster on PB who says I am a Labour Legend the same as John Smith so I am not going to resign
There's an awful lot of things in there that you characterise as lying, which might well be simple ignorance.
Simply applying the same standard that Labour have to Boris.
I was referring to - for example - the contention that he knew that the hotel would be serving food.
If you had the choice between (a) a definite curry or (b) possible hotel food, which would you choose?
Depends on the hotel and the curry. I'd probably chance it with the hotel room service were I a prominent politician that had voted through onerous laws about not socialising. This is what I don't understand, they just had to play it safe with this for a few months and then do what they wanted. Yet they couldn't help themselves. I didn't, but then again, I also didn't vote for or support lockdowns.
The problem with that is that I think a lot of politicians know that the quid pro quo for supporters spending a full day knocking on doors is a couple of minutes with the important people who are doing the same and so SKS has to spend a few minutes thanking everyone for their hardwork.
Which is far easier done via a crap curry with weak beer than thanking them individually.
The vibe we are all getting from Labour right now is that they are fully in charge of this situation.
Yep I think that is the bigger message. Balls out confidence that they are not going to get fined. Otherwise rank stupidity.
But let's say they aren't fined. There he is drinking beers with many people for dinner. It at least shows that he wasn't overly fussed about Covid, laws to contain which he has so enthusiastically supported.
Plus they must, because he is a former CPS, have gone through the laws vs guidance vs rules with a fine-toothed comb before the statement. Which shows what a bollocks set of laws they were.
Interesting people think partygate is much worse than beergate according to the pollster on LBC.
I think Starmer should have said that he called for Johnson to resign as a culmination of all the party investigations regarding the hypocrite accusations .
However I think Starmer has done the right thing in offering to step down if found guilty of breaching the rules and the Tories are now in a bad position .
There is a video of him with a beer in his hand indoors talking to people not from his household when you were not allowed to do that. I imagine most people think that is a pretty clear breach of the rules.
Whether or not the leader of the opposition is to change is now wholly in the hands of Durham police.
That's troubling isn't it?
Unfortunately that’s the LOTO’s call.
I’m not convinced this is an event of tactical genius, rather one of necessity (which might end up paying off handsomely).
Not sure SKS could have played it any differently.
I do not feel quite so blaze as some on here that there is definitely no risk of a rule breach being handed down. We don’t know all the facts of the case and I wouldn’t like to pre-judge it.
Sods law says that SKS and co will get a FPN and resign. Boris then calls an early election because it ain't going to get any better between now and 2024 (in fact it's likely to get worse month on month, especially after the next set of energy price hikes).
Whether or not the leader of the opposition is to change is now wholly in the hands of Durham police.
That's troubling isn't it?
I don't envy them - not just Starmer but Rayner too has said she would go.
I blame the Met - and Starmer - Durham probably not unreasonably decided to "turn a blind eye" to something which was borderline, but then Jolyon & co piled pressure on the Met to investigate Downing St (some of which, but probably not all, was also borderline eg Sunak), then Durham had to reopen the whole thing.
Perhaps Starmer would have been better advised to heed Johnson's advice to "move on" rather than constructing this mountain of an issue out of a molehill of a breech.
Whether or not the leader of the opposition is to change is now wholly in the hands of Durham police.
That's troubling isn't it?
Unfortunately that’s the LOTO’s call.
I’m not convinced this is an event of tactical genius, rather one of necessity (which might end up paying off handsomely).
Not sure SKS could have played it any differently.
I do not feel quite so blaze as some on here that there is definitely no risk of a rule breach being handed down. We don’t know all the facts of the case and I wouldn’t like to pre-judge it.
Yes, all the journos saying "this is a massive gamble" are wrong. The gamble was going big on partygate. It left Starmer with no other option today but to do this.
Breaking - Rayner says she will quit too. "We have a Prime Minister who has been found to have broken the rules, lied about it and then been fined. If I were issued with a fine, I would do the decent thing and step down."
This is what the Corbyn loons who colluded with the Mail and the Murdoch press did not factor in. They thought they'd get Rayner instead of Starmer, and that she might be more friendly to them and their hero. That will not happen now and the next Labour leader - if it comes to that - will be just as unaccommodating, if not more so.
Say the police determine that Starmer does not get an FPN because he went back to 'work' afterwards. But several others at the meal do get FPNs. As head of party, and the main guy there, does he not have some moral responsibility for what went on? especially as people were probably encouraged to be there to help with the canvassing and PR.
There are oodles of interesting edge cases in this whole mess.
That would be inconsistent with the birthday "party", when it was deemed that an FPN for any meant an FPN for all.
Say the police determine that Starmer does not get an FPN because he went back to 'work' afterwards. But several others at the meal do get FPNs. As head of party, and the main guy there, does he not have some moral responsibility for what went on? especially as people were probably encouraged to be there to help with the canvassing and PR.
There are oodles of interesting edge cases in this whole mess.
Allies of Keir Starmer confident he won't be fined, but say he has no choice but to offer his resignation if he is. One says: "As a former DPP, the principles of this really matter to him." They add "it puts some pressure on Durham Police who are being leant on in one direction."
There are oodles of interesting edge cases in this whole mess.
Not really.
SKS get's a fine - resigns.
BoZo got a fine - didn't resign.
That is the raw politics, and why the journalists that have been pushing this for a week are really, really upset now
But by resigning SKS could basically take Boris down with him, or at least make him even more unpopular. Then it’s very much advantage Labour for the moment provided they elect someone vaguely competent*
*subject of course to a potential new Tory leader before the election also.
I sometimes wish politics would just have a few years of being dull again.
Whether or not the leader of the opposition is to change is now wholly in the hands of Durham police.
That's troubling isn't it?
Yes, it is
But then, maybe they should both have thought twice about imposing insane laws on the rest of us, which they themselves had no intention of obeying. Boris created the laws, Starmer wanted them to be even longer and harder
They should both go, and let that be a lesson to lockdown-happy politicos
As it happens, I think both will survive and limp on, damaged and discredited. Pff
Super interesting discussion on here right now. Not for the "right" reasons though.
SKS' tweet absolutely makes it clear that Johnson should resign simply for being under a criminal investigation. If he meant something else then he is a s**t tweet writer to the point of being unfit for high office. But as former CPS he wouldn't be so casual.
@Gardenwalker and @CHB think it meant something else, related to lying to parliament. But nowehre in the tweet does he mention lying to parliament. Or breaking a law. It refers, explicitly, to being "under criminal investigations".
If he meant lying to parliament why didn't he mention lying to parliament.
And this is why I am not a liar as both posters have accused me of
I can take flak and indeed dish it out but I do apologise when I am wrong
Say the police determine that Starmer does not get an FPN because he went back to 'work' afterwards. But several others at the meal do get FPNs. As head of party, and the main guy there, does he not have some moral responsibility for what went on? especially as people were probably encouraged to be there to help with the canvassing and PR.
There are oodles of interesting edge cases in this whole mess.
That would be inconsistent with the birthday "party", when it was deemed that an FPN for any meant an FPN for all.
Poor Sunak, he's the one that was ambushed by the cake, not Johnson.
Super interesting discussion on here right now. Not for the "right" reasons though.
SKS' tweet absolutely makes it clear that Johnson should resign simply for being under a criminal investigation. If he meant something else then he is a s**t tweet writer to the point of being unfit for high office. But as former CPS he wouldn't be so casual.
@Gardenwalker and @CHB think it meant something else, related to lying to parliament. But nowehre in the tweet does he mention lying to parliament. Or breaking a law. It refers, explicitly, to being "under criminal investigations".
If he meant lying to parliament why didn't he mention lying to parliament.
And this is why I am not a liar as both posters have accused me of
I can take flak and indeed dish it out but I do apologise when I am wrong
Allies of Keir Starmer confident he won't be fined, but say he has no choice but to offer his resignation if he is. One says: "As a former DPP, the principles of this really matter to him." They add "it puts some pressure on Durham Police who are being leant on in one direction."
Super interesting discussion on here right now. Not for the "right" reasons though.
SKS' tweet absolutely makes it clear that Johnson should resign simply for being under a criminal investigation. If he meant something else then he is a s**t tweet writer to the point of being unfit for high office. But as former CPS he wouldn't be so casual.
@Gardenwalker and @CHB think it meant something else, related to lying to parliament. But nowehre in the tweet does he mention lying to parliament. Or breaking a law. It refers, explicitly, to being "under criminal investigations".
If he meant lying to parliament why didn't he mention lying to parliament.
That’s because I understand that the tweet was not a one-off but happened as part of a bigger story, and SUBSEQUENT to the earlier call to resign for misleading the House.
Someone upthread states that the tweet should have been explicit, but I think that’s an absurd burden to place on political speech: “please refer to the full back story every time you tweet”.
Sorry I don't buy that. He's surely not that stupid. Did it say "1/n"? And even if it did (it didn't) it is a discrete and unambiguous statement describing SKS' views. He might have wanted Boris to resign for misleading the house, being under criminal investigations, and being a complete cockwomble. Don't we all. But that is beside the point; that particular tweet is clear and unambiguous.
Starmer not clear on what he will do if Durham Police don't fine him retrospectively but conclude that he did infringe the rules, as they did with Dominic Cummings.
It's a trickier point, I think, and I can understand why he doesn't want to get into the weeds of all the permutations of what he might or might not do.
He might not want to.....
Taken about ten seconds for this to unravel. @BethRigby nailed him. For all the talk of integrity, won’t commit to resigning if found he breached the rules (as in Cummings case) but doesn’t get FPN.
1. You tweeted Boris needed to go just because it was going to be investigated by the Met. irrespective of their findings Why are you waiting?
2 Why did you lie about Rayner
3. Why did you eat indoors with others rather than back at the hotel
4, What work fid you do after drinking beer. Someone present says no work was done or even planned after the Curry and Beer are they liars or you
5. You stated nowhere was available to eat that was incorrect there were multiple places including your hotel Why did you lie about that
6. Do you think you retain the trust of the Public a poll today showed twice as many thought you should quit compared to those who thought you should stay Is your position untenable
Loads of other ones like were there any other instances where you broke local rules?
I suspect he will have one robotic answer and will not be able to think on his feet so will repeat over and over again.
I think he should say there is a Poster on PB who says I am a Labour Legend the same as John Smith so I am not going to resign
There's an awful lot of things in there that you characterise as lying, which might well be simple ignorance.
Simply applying the same standard that Labour have to Boris.
I was referring to - for example - the contention that he knew that the hotel would be serving food.
If you had the choice between (a) a definite curry or (b) possible hotel food, which would you choose?
Depends on the hotel and the curry. I'd probably chance it with the hotel room service were I a prominent politician that had voted through onerous laws about not socialising. This is what I don't understand, they just had to play it safe with this for a few months and then do what they wanted. Yet they couldn't help themselves. I didn't, but then again, I also didn't vote for or support lockdowns.
This was after the whole Cummings fiasco. They would all have known what the political consequences would be for breaking or bending the rules. Clueless.
Keir Starmer @Keir_Starmer Honesty and decency matter.
After months of denials the Prime Minister is now under criminal investigations for breaking his own lockdown laws.
He needs to do the decent thing and resign.
Looks as if I am owed an apology by a couple of posters
Nope, because you have perhaps deliberately ignored the actual context of the tweet.
See Hansard, posted upthread.
Let's consider the counterfactual. Had the Met finished their investigation and actually found no evidence of rule-breaking, would he still be guilty of lying to the house?
The fact is Starmer jumped the gun, and was calling for a resignation almost immediately after the investigation was announced. Quite a strange decision given his background.
I've not had the pleasure of reading (what I imagine to be) several days' enthusiastic and insightful comment on this point, but the context seems really obvious from the trajectory of the scandal at the time which went roughly: accusations of parties in No. 10 > denials of parties made in Parliament by PM > Allegra Stratton video and resignation > outraged statement and denials of events happening made in Parliament by PM > Met decision to investigate because it became clear that events had actually happened. The significance of the investigation wasn't simply that it was a criminal investigation (though that's important) but that it provided clear evidence that the PM had misled the house. That's the context made clear by "after months of denials" - that the denials had been shown to be false, regardless of the outcome of the criminal investigation.
Super interesting discussion on here right now. Not for the "right" reasons though.
SKS' tweet absolutely makes it clear that Johnson should resign simply for being under a criminal investigation. If he meant something else then he is a s**t tweet writer to the point of being unfit for high office. But as former CPS he wouldn't be so casual.
@Gardenwalker and @CHB think it meant something else, related to lying to parliament. But nowehre in the tweet does he mention lying to parliament. Or breaking a law. It refers, explicitly, to being "under criminal investigations".
If he meant lying to parliament why didn't he mention lying to parliament.
And this is why I am not a liar as both posters have accused me of
I can take flak and indeed dish it out but I do apologise when I am wrong
Allies of Keir Starmer confident he won't be fined, but say he has no choice but to offer his resignation if he is. One says: "As a former DPP, the principles of this really matter to him." They add "it puts some pressure on Durham Police who are being leant on in one direction."
There are oodles of interesting edge cases in this whole mess.
Not really.
SKS get's a fine - resigns.
BoZo got a fine - didn't resign.
That is the raw politics, and why the journalists that have been pushing this for a week are really, really upset now
But by resigning SKS could basically take Boris down with him, or at least make him even more unpopular. Then it’s very much advantage Labour for the moment provided they elect someone vaguely competent*
*subject of course to a potential new Tory leader before the election also.
I sometimes wish politics would just have a few years of being dull again.
But what if the Tories also elect somebody untarnished by Boris time in power and who is much more able? e.g. Jeremy Hunt.
I don't think it is clear at all who wins or loses under the various scenarios.
Starmer not clear on what he will do if Durham Police don't fine him retrospectively but conclude that he did infringe the rules, as they did with Dominic Cummings.
It's a trickier point, I think, and I can understand why he doesn't want to get into the weeds of all the permutations of what he might or might not do.
He might not want to.....
Taken about ten seconds for this to unravel. @BethRigby nailed him. For all the talk of integrity, won’t commit to resigning if found he breached the rules (as in Cummings case) but doesn’t get FPN.
Super interesting discussion on here right now. Not for the "right" reasons though.
SKS' tweet absolutely makes it clear that Johnson should resign simply for being under a criminal investigation. If he meant something else then he is a s**t tweet writer to the point of being unfit for high office. But as former CPS he wouldn't be so casual.
@Gardenwalker and @CHB think it meant something else, related to lying to parliament. But nowehre in the tweet does he mention lying to parliament. Or breaking a law. It refers, explicitly, to being "under criminal investigations".
If he meant lying to parliament why didn't he mention lying to parliament.
And this is why I am not a liar as both posters have accused me of
I can take flak and indeed dish it out but I do apologise when I am wrong
Say the police determine that Starmer does not get an FPN because he went back to 'work' afterwards. But several others at the meal do get FPNs. As head of party, and the main guy there, does he not have some moral responsibility for what went on? especially as people were probably encouraged to be there to help with the canvassing and PR.
There are oodles of interesting edge cases in this whole mess.
That would be inconsistent with the birthday "party", when it was deemed that an FPN for any meant an FPN for all.
It does appear that Durham police now have little choice but to take exactly the same approach and set the bar where the Met have done.
Most of the people for the birthday cake incident were there for a meeting, when the PMs wife (and possibly a couple of junior SpAds) entered the room - unannounced and uninvited - with the cake. For this incident, it appears that everyone in the room at the time was issued an FPN. It would be interesting to see the full list, in case of a leadership contest this summer…
Interesting people think partygate is much worse than beergate according to the pollster on LBC.
I think Starmer should have said that he called for Johnson to resign as a culmination of all the party investigations regarding the hypocrite accusations .
However I think Starmer has done the right thing in offering to step down if found guilty of breaching the rules and the Tories are now in a bad position .
There is a video of him with a beer in his hand indoors talking to people not from his household when you were not allowed to do that. I imagine most people think that is a pretty clear breach of the rules.
Except you WERE allowed to do that.
0/10.
You really think that?
When pubs did open in May 2021 it was still table service and you were not allowed to mingle.
The whole idea that if it was a "work event" you could do what you liked is proposterous.
SKS was with people he did not work with on a daily basis and was acting like there were no rules at all.
Keir Starmer @Keir_Starmer Honesty and decency matter.
After months of denials the Prime Minister is now under criminal investigations for breaking his own lockdown laws.
He needs to do the decent thing and resign.
Looks as if I am owed an apology by a couple of posters
Nope, because you have perhaps deliberately ignored the actual context of the tweet.
See Hansard, posted upthread.
You are wrong 100%
Please read the Hansard, Big G. Read it and understand it.
Please read the tweet, Gardenwalker. Read it and understand it.
That's what it actually says, not what you imagine it says.
Do you mean the Tweet that post dated Hansard?
Or have you got another one stuffed in your bag of tricks?
I mean the tweet quoted at the top of this mini-thread which, despite your protestations, clearly links resignation merely to being under investigation.
Interesting people think partygate is much worse than beergate according to the pollster on LBC.
I think Starmer should have said that he called for Johnson to resign as a culmination of all the party investigations regarding the hypocrite accusations .
However I think Starmer has done the right thing in offering to step down if found guilty of breaching the rules and the Tories are now in a bad position .
There is a video of him with a beer in his hand indoors talking to people not from his household when you were not allowed to do that. I imagine most people think that is a pretty clear breach of the rules.
Not doing very well today. Who said you couldn't do that?
This stuff is going to keep coming now. If you claim whiter than white and under the ever changing COVID restrictions / rules / guidance, it was practically impossible to have never fallen foul of them, even if it was for a moment.
Keir Starmer @Keir_Starmer Honesty and decency matter.
After months of denials the Prime Minister is now under criminal investigations for breaking his own lockdown laws.
He needs to do the decent thing and resign.
Looks as if I am owed an apology by a couple of posters
Nope, because you have perhaps deliberately ignored the actual context of the tweet.
See Hansard, posted upthread.
Let's consider the counterfactual. Had the Met finished their investigation and actually found no evidence of rule-breaking, would he still be guilty of lying to the house?
The fact is Starmer jumped the gun, and was calling for a resignation almost immediately after the investigation was announced. Quite a strange decision given his background.
I've not had the pleasure of reading (what I imagine to be) several days' enthusiastic and insightful comment on this point, but the context seems really obvious from the trajectory of the scandal at the time which went roughly: accusations of parties in No. 10 > denials of parties made in Parliament by PM > Allegra Stratton video and resignation > outraged statement and denials of events happening made in Parliament by PM > Met decision to investigate because it became clear that events had actually happened. The significance of the investigation wasn't simply that it was a criminal investigation (though that's important) but that it provided clear evidence that the PM had misled the house. That's the context made clear by "after months of denials" - that the denials had been shown to be false, regardless of the outcome of the criminal investigation.
Thank-you. Some sense here.
Big G et al, you are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.
Starmer not clear on what he will do if Durham Police don't fine him retrospectively but conclude that he did infringe the rules, as they did with Dominic Cummings.
It's a trickier point, I think, and I can understand why he doesn't want to get into the weeds of all the permutations of what he might or might not do.
He might not want to.....
Taken about ten seconds for this to unravel. @BethRigby nailed him. For all the talk of integrity, won’t commit to resigning if found he breached the rules (as in Cummings case) but doesn’t get FPN.
There are oodles of interesting edge cases in this whole mess.
Not really.
SKS get's a fine - resigns.
BoZo got a fine - didn't resign.
That is the raw politics, and why the journalists that have been pushing this for a week are really, really upset now
But by resigning SKS could basically take Boris down with him, or at least make him even more unpopular. Then it’s very much advantage Labour for the moment provided they elect someone vaguely competent*
*subject of course to a potential new Tory leader before the election also.
I sometimes wish politics would just have a few years of being dull again.
But what if the Tories also elect somebody untarnished by Boris time in power and who is much more able? e.g. Jeremy Hunt.
I don't think it is clear at all who wins or loses under the various scenarios.
Mr Hunt, surely not. The Brexiters will have lost.
Starmer not clear on what he will do if Durham Police don't fine him retrospectively but conclude that he did infringe the rules, as they did with Dominic Cummings.
It's a trickier point, I think, and I can understand why he doesn't want to get into the weeds of all the permutations of what he might or might not do.
He might not want to.....
Taken about ten seconds for this to unravel. @BethRigby nailed him. For all the talk of integrity, won’t commit to resigning if found he breached the rules (as in Cummings case) but doesn’t get FPN.
Dan Hodges has shredded his credibility on this; you might as well post Vlad Putin on the success of his war aims.
Is this the Dan Hodges of the Daily Mail you have been insisting for weeks now that there is "nothing to see" and its all a confected nonsense?
Which the Leader of the Opposition has now declared he will resign over if it isn't?
Are you sure it's Dan Hodges who's shredded his credibility, and not someone closer to home?
There’s nothing to see here because, Carlotta, there is nothing to see.
So Starmer has cancelled a major speaking engagement and issued a live statement over "nothing to see"?
Not at all. He’s on the ropes due to a media witch-hunt, cooked up by Tory HQ and breathlessly promoted by partisan nutters with pitch-forks.
And Boris ended up on the ropes because of a Dom Cummings/media witch hunt. And? I am struggling to see the difference, except that Starmer is - arguably - even more of a hypocrite. Certainly he is the more pompous
3 endings Cleared of any wrongdoing - Labour win Fined and resigned - own goal but lances the boil for Labour and pressure on Boz and co but probably neutralizes the overall impact of rule breaking Cummings solution - Con gain
Why not just resign when the fine is issued? Why announce in advance?
Is this an attempt to face down Durham police?
On the latter, yes. He's trying to be clever/lawyerly about it but the Durham police may decide to fuck him over now rather than cave. It has very high potential to backfire on him because the Met have set a precedent of handing out a FPN for the cake and the police in Durham can fall back on that if they choose to hand out a fine.
Just need one Tory to say "blatant attempt to intimidate the police" and it leaves them with no choice but to fine him.
It's such an easy way out as well for the Tories. "Starmer is using lawyerly intimidation tactics against the police". There's no easy comeback from that and if he gets away without a fine the stage is set that it's not because he wasn't guilty, but because he got special treatment as the LOTO.
Hmmm - Journalists and politicians who have put Durham police under huge pressure to investigate Keir Starmer complaining about Durham police being put under huge pressure by Keir Starmer may not be taken that seriously in the court of public opinion.
But that's various toadies and surrogates, not the PM. The issue here is Starmer doing it directly, it looks like (and is) intimidation tactics to avoid the FPN.
Cabinet ministers and Tory MPs were demanding an investigation. The Mail ran a front page lead on it last week. Look at various Tory tweets. They were all working together.
And yet it was all coming to nothing with the Mail giving up until an irate Corbyn supporter handed over a video and an eyewitness account to the police. That's what has triggered the investigation.
There is no doubt that disaffected Corbynites are colluding with the Mail and others, but the investigation was announced on Friday. The alleged eyewitness turned up in the Sunday Times yesterday and said they’d cooperate with the police if contacted. The video’s been around for over a year.
From what I've read the story was supplied to the Mail by two student photographers. It's not uncommon for photographic students to ask if they can attach themselves to an event and be allowed to photograph it. A political campaign would be ideal. My guess is that they were granted access and then for whatever reason decided they might with a little imagination have a 'story'.
I doubt they had a political axe to grind just a future career to think about and what a lot of fun
Interesting people think partygate is much worse than beergate according to the pollster on LBC.
I think Starmer should have said that he called for Johnson to resign as a culmination of all the party investigations regarding the hypocrite accusations .
However I think Starmer has done the right thing in offering to step down if found guilty of breaching the rules and the Tories are now in a bad position .
There is a video of him with a beer in his hand indoors talking to people not from his household when you were not allowed to do that. I imagine most people think that is a pretty clear breach of the rules.
Except you WERE allowed to do that.
0/10.
You really think that?
When pubs did open in May 2021 it was still table service and you were not allowed to mingle.
The whole idea that if it was a "work event" you could do what you liked is proposterous.
SKS was with people he did not work with on a daily basis and was acting like there were no rules at all.
So you’ve never heard of a working lunch or a working dinner.
Perhaps you’ve never worked? It would explain much.
Starmer not clear on what he will do if Durham Police don't fine him retrospectively but conclude that he did infringe the rules, as they did with Dominic Cummings.
It's a trickier point, I think, and I can understand why he doesn't want to get into the weeds of all the permutations of what he might or might not do.
He might not want to.....
Taken about ten seconds for this to unravel. @BethRigby nailed him. For all the talk of integrity, won’t commit to resigning if found he breached the rules (as in Cummings case) but doesn’t get FPN.
Dan Hodges has shredded his credibility on this; you might as well post Vlad Putin on the success of his war aims.
Is this the Dan Hodges of the Daily Mail you have been insisting for weeks now that there is "nothing to see" and its all a confected nonsense?
Which the Leader of the Opposition has now declared he will resign over if it isn't?
Are you sure it's Dan Hodges who's shredded his credibility, and not someone closer to home?
There’s nothing to see here because, Carlotta, there is nothing to see.
So Starmer has cancelled a major speaking engagement and issued a live statement over "nothing to see"?
Not at all. He’s on the ropes due to a media witch-hunt, cooked up by Tory HQ and breathlessly promoted by partisan nutters with pitch-forks.
Mate surely you don't believe that. There is a picture of him boozing with a bunch of people at some indeterminate time when around that time if not exactly on that night people were being arrested for walking outside (legal) with a friend (legal) with coffees in hand (illegal, apparently).
If he didn't realise the impression this would give, to say nothing of his cavalier attitude to the effects of Covid and spreading event, then he is unfit for the office that he is unlikely ever to occupy.
Super interesting discussion on here right now. Not for the "right" reasons though.
SKS' tweet absolutely makes it clear that Johnson should resign simply for being under a criminal investigation. If he meant something else then he is a s**t tweet writer to the point of being unfit for high office. But as former CPS he wouldn't be so casual.
@Gardenwalker and @CHB think it meant something else, related to lying to parliament. But nowehre in the tweet does he mention lying to parliament. Or breaking a law. It refers, explicitly, to being "under criminal investigations".
If he meant lying to parliament why didn't he mention lying to parliament.
And this is why I am not a liar as both posters have accused me of
I can take flak and indeed dish it out but I do apologise when I am wrong
You are absolutely not a liar, MrG. Like a lot of us, you are a partisan and you see things through those eyes. But that is entirely different and totally understandable. This is a politics site. Your integrity should never be in doubt. It certainly isn't as far as I am concerned. The ones who I am suspicious of are the ones who claim not to have biases!
Starmer not clear on what he will do if Durham Police don't fine him retrospectively but conclude that he did infringe the rules, as they did with Dominic Cummings.
It's a trickier point, I think, and I can understand why he doesn't want to get into the weeds of all the permutations of what he might or might not do.
He might not want to.....
Taken about ten seconds for this to unravel. @BethRigby nailed him. For all the talk of integrity, won’t commit to resigning if found he breached the rules (as in Cummings case) but doesn’t get FPN.
There are oodles of interesting edge cases in this whole mess.
Not really.
SKS get's a fine - resigns.
BoZo got a fine - didn't resign.
That is the raw politics, and why the journalists that have been pushing this for a week are really, really upset now
But by resigning SKS could basically take Boris down with him, or at least make him even more unpopular. Then it’s very much advantage Labour for the moment provided they elect someone vaguely competent*
*subject of course to a potential new Tory leader before the election also.
I sometimes wish politics would just have a few years of being dull again.
But what if the Tories also elect somebody untarnished by Boris time in power and who is much more able? e.g. Jeremy Hunt.
I don't think it is clear at all who wins or loses under the various scenarios.
Mr Hunt, surely not. The Brexiters will have lost.
Ah, another Remainer non-Tory who thinks the next Tory leadership election will be just like the last.
Keir Starmer @Keir_Starmer Honesty and decency matter.
After months of denials the Prime Minister is now under criminal investigations for breaking his own lockdown laws.
He needs to do the decent thing and resign.
Looks as if I am owed an apology by a couple of posters
Nope, because you have perhaps deliberately ignored the actual context of the tweet.
See Hansard, posted upthread.
You are wrong 100%
Please read the Hansard, Big G. Read it and understand it.
Please read the tweet, Gardenwalker. Read it and understand it.
That's what it actually says, not what you imagine it says.
Do you mean the Tweet that post dated Hansard?
Or have you got another one stuffed in your bag of tricks?
I mean the tweet quoted at the top of this mini-thread which, despite your protestations, clearly links resignation merely to being under investigation.
If heaven forbid you were on trial for something serious, one would hope the jury would consider all the evidence as opposed to a single tweet.
Comments
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1488176626642923521
Keir Starmer
@Keir_Starmer
Honesty and decency matter.
After months of denials the Prime Minister is now under criminal investigations for breaking his own lockdown laws.
He needs to do the decent thing and resign.
Starmer knows he isn't going to get an FPN so he is doing what anyone would do. He is going to toy with Johnson like a hooked whale.
Remember, ALL the parties had campaign events just like this one at that time. Because they were legally permitted to do so. None of Labour's other campaign events are under scrutiny, or Tory ones, or LibDem ones. Just this single one. Why?
Because the accusers know its bullshit. If it was clear they were illegal they would pile on with all of the other examples. And they haven't. Because they were all legal as well.
Taken about ten seconds for this to unravel. @BethRigby nailed him. For all the talk of integrity, won’t commit to resigning if found he breached the rules (as in Cummings case) but doesn’t get FPN.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1523683738596433920?s=20&t=X320pO16mKsT0IzCGakgpQ
IMO if he infringed the rules he has to go
As I said earlier Durham Police said during the DC affair we have not issued any retrospective action against anyone else so we will not with DC even though his actions were nit in line with the rules at the time
The evidence that has been presented on here is that Keir was calling for Boris’s resignation once it became clear he was lying to parliament and in breach of the ministerial code.
That is the context for the Jan 31 tweet as helpfully provided (maybe inadvertently?) by RobD.
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1523684089135796226
That tweet clearly says that investigation should mean resignation.
If SKS meant it to say something different, it would have said something different.
The memo would almost certainly be part of the evidence that the police use in the decision, as would witness information, pictures and videos.
I do not know what the police will decide.
You do not know what the police will decide.
*Starmer* does not know what the police will decide. And he is a hot-shot top lawyer.
And this is because the law is very poorly defined. When is a party not a party but a work event? Can people 'work' when pi**ed ? etc, etc.
The whole thing is a minefield. No-one should have been prosecuted under these laws for these sorts of edge cases.
Perfectly legally, of course.
This is an astonishing act of gaslighting by the Tories and the fact it has gained so much momentum reflects very poorly on Labour media management, but frankly also the UK’s media generally.
The best outcome here is Starmer having to resign and taking Boris down with him. The worst outcome is some lawyerly way of not resigning but being damaged by it and Boris being let off the hook as the voters decide "plague on both your houses".
A point to keep firmly in mind.
Quite successfully from memory.
Something they'd never dream of doing, of course.
Pitiful stuff.
See Hansard, posted upthread.
Which the Leader of the Opposition has now declared he will resign over if it isn't?
Are you sure it's Dan Hodges who's shredded his credibility, and not someone closer to home?
That's troubling isn't it?
I think Starmer should have said that he called for Johnson to resign as a culmination of all the party investigations regarding the hypocrite accusations .
However I think Starmer has done the right thing in offering to step down if found guilty of breaching the rules and the Tories are now in a bad position .
There’s still a war in Ukraine, China is closed for business, petrol is still £1.75 a litre and general inflation is 8%, everyone just got a mortgage hike with the promise of more to come - yet apparently the most important stories in the world right now are about parking tickets from two years ago.
And on the other hand we have what the tweet, you know, actually says.
Give it up...
I'm pretty sure he's in the clear but, yes, like you say, if I'm wrong and he goes and it takes Johnson down too, this would be no shabby outcome.
Say the police determine that Starmer does not get an FPN because he went back to 'work' afterwards. But several others at the meal do get FPNs. As head of party, and the main guy there, does he not have some moral responsibility for what went on? especially as people were probably encouraged to be there to help with the canvassing and PR.
There are oodles of interesting edge cases in this whole mess.
Which is far easier done via a crap curry with weak beer than thanking them individually.
It read like someone with a gun to his head.
There’s nothing to see here because, Carlotta, there is nothing to see.
That is distinct from a media witch-hunt about a Zinoviev Curry which has certainly been a spectacle.
SKS' tweet absolutely makes it clear that Johnson should resign simply for being under a criminal investigation. If he meant something else then he is a s**t tweet writer to the point of being unfit for high office. But as former CPS he wouldn't be so casual.
@Gardenwalker and @CHB think it meant something else, related to lying to parliament. But nowehre in the tweet does he mention lying to parliament. Or breaking a law. It refers, explicitly, to being "under criminal investigations".
If he meant lying to parliament why didn't he mention lying to parliament.
The fact is Starmer jumped the gun, and was calling for a resignation almost immediately after the investigation was announced. Quite a strange decision given his background.
I’m not convinced this is an event of tactical genius, rather one of necessity (which might end up paying off handsomely).
Not sure SKS could have played it any differently.
I do not feel quite so blaze as some on here that there is definitely no risk of a rule breach being handed down. We don’t know all the facts of the case and I wouldn’t like to pre-judge it.
SKS get's a fine - resigns.
BoZo got a fine - didn't resign.
That is the raw politics, and why the journalists that have been pushing this for a week are really, really upset now
Someone upthread states that the tweet should have been explicit, but I think that’s an absurd burden to place on political speech: “please refer to the full back story every time you tweet”.
It is one for the Game Theorists!!!
Read it and understand it.
But let's say they aren't fined. There he is drinking beers with many people for dinner. It at least shows that he wasn't overly fussed about Covid, laws to contain which he has so enthusiastically supported.
Plus they must, because he is a former CPS, have gone through the laws vs guidance vs rules with a fine-toothed comb before the statement. Which shows what a bollocks set of laws they were.
0/10.
I blame the Met - and Starmer - Durham probably not unreasonably decided to "turn a blind eye" to something which was borderline, but then Jolyon & co piled pressure on the Met to investigate Downing St (some of which, but probably not all, was also borderline eg Sunak), then Durham had to reopen the whole thing.
Perhaps Starmer would have been better advised to heed Johnson's advice to "move on" rather than constructing this mountain of an issue out of a molehill of a breech.
https://twitter.com/DanielHewittITV/status/1523668150792818688?s=20&t=NJjh8ajwBQopLg0Fn8ATiw
*subject of course to a potential new Tory leader before the election also.
I sometimes wish politics would just have a few years of being dull again.
But then, maybe they should both have thought twice about imposing insane laws on the rest of us, which they themselves had no intention of obeying. Boris created the laws, Starmer wanted them to be even longer and harder
They should both go, and let that be a lesson to lockdown-happy politicos
As it happens, I think both will survive and limp on, damaged and discredited. Pff
I can take flak and indeed dish it out but I do apologise when I am wrong
Read it and understand it.
That's what it actually says, not what you imagine it says.
Or have you got another one stuffed in your bag of tricks?
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1367859038470500353
I don't think it is clear at all who wins or loses under the various scenarios.
He’s on the ropes due to a media witch-hunt, cooked up by Tory HQ and breathlessly promoted by partisan nutters with pitch-forks.
Most of the people for the birthday cake incident were there for a meeting, when the PMs wife (and possibly a couple of junior SpAds) entered the room - unannounced and uninvited - with the cake. For this incident, it appears that everyone in the room at the time was issued an FPN. It would be interesting to see the full list, in case of a leadership contest this summer…
When pubs did open in May 2021 it was still table service and you were not allowed to mingle.
The whole idea that if it was a "work event" you could do what you liked is proposterous.
SKS was with people he did not work with on a daily basis and was acting like there were no rules at all.
Some sense here.
Big G et al, you are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.
He’s literally handing a swab over to the lady on the other side of the glass.
Cleared of any wrongdoing - Labour win
Fined and resigned - own goal but lances the boil for Labour and pressure on Boz and co but probably neutralizes the overall impact of rule breaking
Cummings solution - Con gain
I doubt they had a political axe to grind just a future career to think about and what a lot of fun
Perhaps you’ve never worked?
It would explain much.
If he didn't realise the impression this would give, to say nothing of his cavalier attitude to the effects of Covid and spreading event, then he is unfit for the office that he is unlikely ever to occupy.
Ever tried testing yourself when wearing a mask?
1. Mask off and in pocket (or invisible in left hand, here)
2. swab
3. Hand swab to nice lady
4. Mask back on.
This is clearly stage 3 (eyes watering as well).
Tories see him as an opponent, Corbynites as the evil enemy.