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.
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.
Yep. Josiah still going on about Rayner - the police ruling based on "partial information". But what would it matter if she was there or not? Does her presence make an otherwise legal event suddenly illegal?
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.
Not what I think - but what the Tory membership and backbenchers think. Some of us have enough nous to separate the two. And I can't see them voting Hunt with Brexit under threat and still incomplete (viz. Dover, NI etc.)
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.
Yep. Josiah still going on about Rayner - the police ruling based on "partial information". But what would it matter if she was there or not? Does her presence make an otherwise legal event suddenly illegal?
What’s worse is when you note stuff like that on here, you’re met with “ah but maybe it does because the rules were so crazy and indeed isn’t it no surprise that Boris got confused too?”
I think Starmer made a mistake with his categorical and definite claim I NEVER BROKE THE RULES AT ANY POINT during the pandemic....he should have said like the vast majority of the public I always set out to obey them as I understood them at the time.
The Tories don't want him to resign. A point to keep firmly in mind.
And Labour don't want Johnson - now massively unpopular - to resign.
It is one for the Game Theorists!!!
Calculation is a bit different there, though.
The post-Johnson PM is likely to be a worse politician than Johnson. Maybe better at governing, but none of them have the fingertip sense of how much you can get away with that the Master has. (Same is true of the Mail, I reckon; Dacre's genius was knowing exactly how far to push the outrage and exactly where to stop.) A small dignified Conservative defeat in 2024 becomes more likely.
For Labour, if Starmer goes now, they can replace him with a sassier politician. Most of the successors could do with a bit longer to mature, but getting AN Other Lefty in now could help them. Starmer has done the first necessary job (Corbyn detox) but isn't ideal casting for next PM.
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.
Whilst I take your point the reason why it matters is trust. You can't fix those things or even try to if there is no trust between the public and the government. If they endlessly lie. If the rules don't apply.
Lets assume we had all decided to accept the PM was very sorry and had moved on. He then tells people suffering from fuel poverty that he understands them and they can trust him when he says they need to suffer longer to protect Shell and BP. They won't listen to him because they think he is lying. Etc etc etc.
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.
Yep. Josiah still going on about Rayner - the police ruling based on "partial information". But what would it matter if she was there or not? Does her presence make an otherwise legal event suddenly illegal?
Not commenting on the legality or otherwise, what is interesting about Rayner is that Labour strenuously denied she was at the currygate korma-and-cocaine lockdown orgy, but - in fact - she is literally named at the start of the Memo which announced it, beforehand
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.
Yep. Josiah still going on about Rayner - the police ruling based on "partial information". But what would it matter if she was there or not? Does her presence make an otherwise legal event suddenly illegal?
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.
So clearly he must resign and all of the photos of Boris not wearing a mask in hospital having been asked repeatedly to wear one by the management shows he is right not to resign.
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.
Of course. But the single tweet should also be examined. If I libeled you in one tweet and then tweeted 10 times saying not really how should a jury react.
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.
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.
Yep. Josiah still going on about Rayner - the police ruling based on "partial information". But what would it matter if she was there or not? Does her presence make an otherwise legal event suddenly illegal?
Only if she was spreadeagled naked on the out of shot table while he was swigging his beer.....sorry wrong party. That was Handcock's
So even if Starmer goes, Johnson won't voluntarily.
Get your Next PM money on that Labour pool ... odds are shortening and you may find it difficult to find the 250/1 I got on Yvette Cooper, 130/1 Lisa Nandy and 100/1 on Rachel Reeves.
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.
What would it explain??
Working lunch or dinners especially with people you did not work with did not happen in April 2021. Pure and simple.
If fact LAs that i deal with are still insisting on Teams meetings now.
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.
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.
Yep. Josiah still going on about Rayner - the police ruling based on "partial information". But what would it matter if she was there or not? Does her presence make an otherwise legal event suddenly illegal?
Not commenting on the legality or otherwise, what is interesting about Rayner is that Labour strenuously denied she was at the currygate korma-and-cocaine lockdown orgy, but - in fact - she is literally named at the start of the Memo which announced it, beforehand
An odd error. And also: a series of lies
Why? Cui bono?
A simple fuck up in my opinion about a story wrongly deemed to be fluff.
Hopefully we find out more about the precise details in due course.
Very, very easy. The biggest medical exemption of all.
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).
Indeed. Pretty hard to swab with mask on Technically possible to get mask on one-handed while holding sample in other hand (increased risk of contamination while faffing about). But certainly I never did that (we had a testing centre at uni quite early on, required for any office access).
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
And that's what the blue spinners missed.
Cummings went for the Cummings solution. Johnson is going for the Cummings solution. To both of them, the Cummings solution makes sense.
Rule that solution out, and what are you left with?
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.
Yep. Josiah still going on about Rayner - the police ruling based on "partial information". But what would it matter if she was there or not? Does her presence make an otherwise legal event suddenly illegal?
LOL. You could at least spell my name correctly!
It probably doesn't matter if *she* (as a specific individual) was there. It might well matter that someone was there that the police were not told about.
Let's say the police wanted to question everyone who was there. How can they do that if they don't know who was there? That's the point. It's not about Rayner explicitly; it's about the police not being given information they might need.
And I'd argue the names of the people who attended is pretty important.
Very, very easy. The biggest medical exemption of all.
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).
Indeed. Pretty hard to swab with mask on Technically possible to get mask on one-handed while holding sample in other hand (increased risk of contamination while faffing about). But certainly I never did that (we had a testing centre at uni quite early on, required for any office access).
Simple, lower the mask below the nose/mouth, take the test, put it back. All with one hand!
Q: When it was announced u were being investigated, it was pretty clear to everyone that if you were found in breach of lockdown rules, given what you've said abt PM you'd have to resign, so why did it take so long to arrive at that decision. Cos of the huge gamble you're taking?
"I am different"
Labour Leader Sir Keir Starmer tells @BethRigby not all politicians "are the same" as he reiterates his pledge to resign if he is fined for breaking #COVID rules
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.
I remember there was an odd period with pubs where you’ve get to the door and they ask “is this a work event (nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more)”?
We’ve all forgotten (and tried hard to forget) what rules were in place at what time and one of the reasons I’ve not commented much on the rights and wrongs here is that I can’t for the life of me remember what rules were in place when, and lack the interest to look them up.
Main conclusion of the whole this? We must never pass laws like this again.
Guto Harri seems to be earning whatever they are paying him though.
Very, very easy. The biggest medical exemption of all.
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).
Indeed. Pretty hard to swab with mask on Technically possible to get mask on one-handed while holding sample in other hand (increased risk of contamination while faffing about). But certainly I never did that (we had a testing centre at uni quite early on, required for any office access).
Simple, lower the mask below the nose/mouth, take the test, put it back. All with one hand!
Doesn't work for the kind of disposable mask with loops over the ears. The sort you'd get in a hospital, too.
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.
Yep. Josiah still going on about Rayner - the police ruling based on "partial information". But what would it matter if she was there or not? Does her presence make an otherwise legal event suddenly illegal?
Not commenting on the legality or otherwise, what is interesting about Rayner is that Labour strenuously denied she was at the currygate korma-and-cocaine lockdown orgy, but - in fact - she is literally named at the start of the Memo which announced it, beforehand
An odd error. And also: a series of lies
Why? Cui bono?
A good question. So we go back to what reason there was to lie about it. One is that the event was illegal so lets protect her. But they believe - based on both the rules as interpreted by both the police and ex DPP Starmer - this was not the case. So then we're into the second scenario. Nobody bothered to check if she was there or not because what difference does it make?
The "cover-up" is because it doesn't matter if she was there or not. Its like me "lying" about which week I bought a Burger King when my memory confused trip a or trip b, or you getting confused as to which drink you are on over lunch. What does it matter when you are allowed to do so?
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.
I remember there was an odd period with pubs where you’ve get to the door and they ask “is this a work event (nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more)”?
We’ve all forgotten (and tried hard to forget) what rules were in place at what time and one of the reasons I’ve not commented much on the rights and wrongs here is that I can’t for the life of me remember what rules were in place when, and lack there interest to look them up.
Main conclusion of the whole this? We must never pass laws like this again.
Guto Harri seems to be earning whatever they are paying him though.
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."
Very, very easy. The biggest medical exemption of all.
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).
Indeed. Pretty hard to swab with mask on Technically possible to get mask on one-handed while holding sample in other hand (increased risk of contamination while faffing about). But certainly I never did that (we had a testing centre at uni quite early on, required for any office access).
Simple, lower the mask below the nose/mouth, take the test, put it back. All with one hand!
Doesn't work for the kind of disposable mask with loops over the ears.
Huh? Yes it does, in fact it's probably even easier with the disposable ones because the loops are stretchy. You can just pull it down below your chin.
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.
Yep. Josiah still going on about Rayner - the police ruling based on "partial information". But what would it matter if she was there or not? Does her presence make an otherwise legal event suddenly illegal?
Carrie's presence at the birthday "party" did.
Sure - because its not a work event if you have non work-people there. How does the presence of the Deputy Leader make the Durham thing a non-work event?
Very, very easy. The biggest medical exemption of all.
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).
Indeed. Pretty hard to swab with mask on Technically possible to get mask on one-handed while holding sample in other hand (increased risk of contamination while faffing about). But certainly I never did that (we had a testing centre at uni quite early on, required for any office access).
Simple, lower the mask below the nose/mouth, take the test, put it back. All with one hand!
Doesn't work for the kind of disposable mask with loops over the ears.
Huh? Yes it does, in fact it's probably even easier with the disposable ones because the loops are stretchy. You can just pull it down below your chin.
Not in the ones I get from a specialist chemist firm and see in doctors etc.
I think Starmer made a mistake with his categorical and definite claim I NEVER BROKE THE RULES AT ANY POINT during the pandemic....he should have said like the vast majority of the public I always set out to obey them as I understood them at the time.
Maybe. Not sure that would have helped much. Millions will have inadvertently breached rules, and virtually none would be fined (and many who were would successfully chalange), but having gone in strong on the subject a slight caveat would not have changed the message all that much.
Of course the public was all in favour of being ridiculously draconian at the time, and politicians obliged, so I have minor sympathy for those caught up in it, but since it was their choice to support such they have to accept the consequences of that (or should have in Boris's case, what with him lying to/misleading the House about it as well).
Very, very easy. The biggest medical exemption of all.
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).
Indeed. Pretty hard to swab with mask on Technically possible to get mask on one-handed while holding sample in other hand (increased risk of contamination while faffing about). But certainly I never did that (we had a testing centre at uni quite early on, required for any office access).
Simple, lower the mask below the nose/mouth, take the test, put it back. All with one hand!
Doesn't work for the kind of disposable mask with loops over the ears.
Huh? Yes it does, in fact it's probably even easier with the disposable ones because the loops are stretchy. You can just pull it down below your chin.
Not in the ones I get from a specialist chemist firm and see in doctors etc.
Different kind of disposable mask, no doubt. I don't agree with you that it is impossible to do one-handed though.
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.
Yep. Josiah still going on about Rayner - the police ruling based on "partial information". But what would it matter if she was there or not? Does her presence make an otherwise legal event suddenly illegal?
Carrie's presence at the birthday "party" did.
Sure - because its not a work event if you have non work-people there. How does the presence of the Deputy Leader make the Durham thing a non-work event?
Very, very easy. The biggest medical exemption of all.
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).
Indeed. Pretty hard to swab with mask on Technically possible to get mask on one-handed while holding sample in other hand (increased risk of contamination while faffing about). But certainly I never did that (we had a testing centre at uni quite early on, required for any office access).
Simple, lower the mask below the nose/mouth, take the test, put it back. All with one hand!
Doesn't work for the kind of disposable mask with loops over the ears.
Huh? Yes it does, in fact it's probably even easier with the disposable ones because the loops are stretchy. You can just pull it down below your chin.
Not in the ones I get from a specialist chemist firm and see in doctors etc.
Different kind of disposable mask, no doubt. I don't agree with you that it is impossible to do one-handed though.
I can assure you that that is the case. UNless you have a spare tentacle or three, or a prehensile tail to help. And can do it without banging the swab into the wall or table.
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.
What would it explain??
Working lunch or dinners especially with people you did not work with did not happen in April 2021. Pure and simple.
If fact LAs that i deal with are still insisting on Teams meetings now.
But working lunch / dinner at campaign events *did* happen in April 2021. For all parties.
Are you and the other rampers of this story claiming this was the singular event that Starmer went to on the campaign? Or that the advertised "meet Gove in the pub at lunchtime" events didn't happen? Or that Johnson having a beer with Mortimer didn't happen?
There were a lot of these events. Many done by Starmer. So if they were illegal as you and others claim why haven't the press piled in with all the other examples...? As with partygate the number of illegal actions is a huge part of the story. Or would be if these were illegal. Which is why nobody is raising them.
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.
Yep. Josiah still going on about Rayner - the police ruling based on "partial information". But what would it matter if she was there or not? Does her presence make an otherwise legal event suddenly illegal?
Carrie's presence at the birthday "party" did.
Sure - because its not a work event if you have non work-people there. How does the presence of the Deputy Leader make the Durham thing a non-work event?
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.
Yep. Josiah still going on about Rayner - the police ruling based on "partial information". But what would it matter if she was there or not? Does her presence make an otherwise legal event suddenly illegal?
LOL. You could at least spell my name correctly!
It probably doesn't matter if *she* (as a specific individual) was there. It might well matter that someone was there that the police were not told about.
Let's say the police wanted to question everyone who was there. How can they do that if they don't know who was there? That's the point. It's not about Rayner explicitly; it's about the police not being given information they might need.
And I'd argue the names of the people who attended is pretty important.
Is it? If its a campaign event then it doesn't really matter if she is there or not. Again, her presence or non-presence doesn't make a change in legality. It isn't a deciding factor.
Anyway I am about to go and watch a joint exercise with Llandudno All weather lifeboat, the inshore lifeboat and the helicopter in Llandudno Bay and my son is crewing on the all-weather boat
Very, very easy. The biggest medical exemption of all.
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).
Indeed. Pretty hard to swab with mask on Technically possible to get mask on one-handed while holding sample in other hand (increased risk of contamination while faffing about). But certainly I never did that (we had a testing centre at uni quite early on, required for any office access).
Simple, lower the mask below the nose/mouth, take the test, put it back. All with one hand!
Doesn't work for the kind of disposable mask with loops over the ears.
Huh? Yes it does, in fact it's probably even easier with the disposable ones because the loops are stretchy. You can just pull it down below your chin.
Not in the ones I get from a specialist chemist firm and see in doctors etc.
Different kind of disposable mask, no doubt. I don't agree with you that it is impossible to do one-handed though.
Jus\t realised you must be thinking of the kind with actual strings. This is the kind I use - non stretchy loops.
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.
I remember there was an odd period with pubs where you’ve get to the door and they ask “is this a work event (nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more)”?
We’ve all forgotten (and tried hard to forget) what rules were in place at what time and one of the reasons I’ve not commented much on the rights and wrongs here is that I can’t for the life of me remember what rules were in place when, and lack there interest to look them up.
Main conclusion of the whole this? We must never pass laws like this again.
Guto Harri seems to be earning whatever they are paying him though.
What's he saying?
Nothing, I just assume the whole thing is a Tory comms dirty tricks campaign, perfectly judged if you like that sort of thing.
Very, very easy. The biggest medical exemption of all.
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).
Indeed. Pretty hard to swab with mask on Technically possible to get mask on one-handed while holding sample in other hand (increased risk of contamination while faffing about). But certainly I never did that (we had a testing centre at uni quite early on, required for any office access).
Very, very easy. The biggest medical exemption of all.
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).
Indeed. Pretty hard to swab with mask on Technically possible to get mask on one-handed while holding sample in other hand (increased risk of contamination while faffing about). But certainly I never did that (we had a testing centre at uni quite early on, required for any office access).
Simple, lower the mask below the nose/mouth, take the test, put it back. All with one hand!
Doesn't work for the kind of disposable mask with loops over the ears.
Huh? Yes it does, in fact it's probably even easier with the disposable ones because the loops are stretchy. You can just pull it down below your chin.
Not in the ones I get from a specialist chemist firm and see in doctors etc.
Different kind of disposable mask, no doubt. I don't agree with you that it is impossible to do one-handed though.
Jus\t realised you must be thinking of the kind with actual strings. This is the kind I use - non stretchy loops.
Very, very easy. The biggest medical exemption of all.
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).
Indeed. Pretty hard to swab with mask on Technically possible to get mask on one-handed while holding sample in other hand (increased risk of contamination while faffing about). But certainly I never did that (we had a testing centre at uni quite early on, required for any office access).
Simple, lower the mask below the nose/mouth, take the test, put it back. All with one hand!
Doesn't work for the kind of disposable mask with loops over the ears.
Huh? Yes it does, in fact it's probably even easier with the disposable ones because the loops are stretchy. You can just pull it down below your chin.
Not in the ones I get from a specialist chemist firm and see in doctors etc.
Different kind of disposable mask, no doubt. I don't agree with you that it is impossible to do one-handed though.
I can assure you that that is the case. UNless you have a spare tentacle or three, or a prehensile tail to help. And can do it without banging the swab into the wall or table.
On one of the tests my wife did on me, on breaking the stick in the tube, it went flying through the air and landed on my desk. I'm surprised I didn't test positive for woodworm.
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.
Yep. Josiah still going on about Rayner - the police ruling based on "partial information". But what would it matter if she was there or not? Does her presence make an otherwise legal event suddenly illegal?
Carrie's presence at the birthday "party" did.
Sure - because its not a work event if you have non work-people there. How does the presence of the Deputy Leader make the Durham thing a non-work event?
It wasn’t her presence, it was the lying inadvertent misleading about it.
'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.
C'mon, we're better than this on here. Our spirit is broadsheet. We don't get befuddled by partisan tabloid clutter, we stay focused on the point and we analyse issues objectively and thoughtfully.
The Starmer tweet does *not* equate to saying that being under investigation for breaking lockdown laws is in and of itself grounds to resign. Not in a million years does it say that. It's in the (key) context of the "months of denials" (to parliament) that anything questionable had taken place.
It's about Lying to Parliament. That's the primary political charge. That's the "must go" matter. It always was and it still is. Johnson faces a Commons Inquiry on this, remember? An Inquiry to assess whether he lied to parliament. And that'll be after full technicolour Gray. I'm looking forward to it.
Do you think the Daily Mail have twigged that they have shot Boris Johnson?
I would prefer The Daily Mail to get their commupance than Johnson.
Just heard Keir Starmer's statement. It's a masterstroke. An ex head of the DPP is more likely than anyone to know that what he did was legal and who can blame him for milking it.
The variant naming was a low moment. He's generally been a lot more sensible than that, and it was made worse when it was, in fact, proven to be the correct decision because the feared loss of control did not occur.
Starmer takes no personal ratings hit in that RandW, but one Stat that should concern him is he leads on 'tells the truth' but only 33 to 15 with 51% not sure which of them tells the truth. That's an appalling stat against serial liar Johnson
Very, very easy. The biggest medical exemption of all.
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).
Indeed. Pretty hard to swab with mask on Technically possible to get mask on one-handed while holding sample in other hand (increased risk of contamination while faffing about). But certainly I never did that (we had a testing centre at uni quite early on, required for any office access).
Simple, lower the mask below the nose/mouth, take the test, put it back. All with one hand!
Doesn't work for the kind of disposable mask with loops over the ears.
Huh? Yes it does, in fact it's probably even easier with the disposable ones because the loops are stretchy. You can just pull it down below your chin.
Not in the ones I get from a specialist chemist firm and see in doctors etc.
Different kind of disposable mask, no doubt. I don't agree with you that it is impossible to do one-handed though.
I can assure you that that is the case. UNless you have a spare tentacle or three, or a prehensile tail to help. And can do it without banging the swab into the wall or table.
What?! I've done plenty of COVID tests with the chin strap mask position using the crappy blue masks from Amazon. It's easy. Lower mask over chin, take nasal swab, raise mask back above nostrils, give swab to test person through car window. It's really not difficult at all.
Once again, the reason this is an issue is because of all the stupid rules Starmer voted through, not because he slipped up. We all did from time to time. He presents this holier than thou image of being some kind of lockdown and rule abiding person but really he's as fallible as the rest of us. This wouldn't be a problem if he wasn't in favour of lockdowns, masks and social distancing. Honestly, if it were up to him I wouldn't be surprised to see some COVID measures come back.
I never mastered the art of putting on a mask, either with one or two hands. Nor did I ever master the art of taking a covid test. It was small wonder I didn't end up covering my face with the test and sticking the mask up my nose.
'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.
C'mon, we're better than this on here. Our spirit is broadsheet. We don't get befuddled by partisan tabloid clutter, we stay focused on the point and we analyse issues objectively and thoughtfully.
Totally agree.
I hope Leon et. al. pay attention to your comment.
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.
I remember there was an odd period with pubs where you’ve get to the door and they ask “is this a work event (nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more)”?
We’ve all forgotten (and tried hard to forget) what rules were in place at what time and one of the reasons I’ve not commented much on the rights and wrongs here is that I can’t for the life of me remember what rules were in place when, and lack there interest to look them up.
Main conclusion of the whole this? We must never pass laws like this again.
Guto Harri seems to be earning whatever they are paying him though.
What's he saying?
Nothing, I just assume the whole thing is a Tory comms dirty tricks campaign, perfectly judged if you like that sort of thing.
Ah. And yet here we are on PB talking about it. Harri hasn't made us do that - the story is fascinating and hence there is a legitimate claim that it is in the public interest.
As someone who wants Britain to do well I hope Starmer is fined, he rsigns and he finds a job more suited to his talents. But who would take his place. Many senior shadow cabinet members are obviously complete duds, some of Labour's best people like Ed Balls or Caroline Flint are no longer in parliament so it will be quite difficult. I would have suggested Liam Byrne but he's a bully. What about Stephen Kinnock? Seems a lot better than his father.
I never mastered the art of putting on a mask, either with one or two hands. Nor did I ever master the art of taking a covid test. It was small wonder I didn't end up covering my face with the test and sticking the mask up my nose.
Thank god we don't have to do that shit anymore.
The other point of course is that if SKS had been a prehensile-tailed octopus, as the PBTories claim to be personall, or to wear crap masks that shouldn'e be used anyway, then they'd do an EdMBacon job on him.
'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.
C'mon, we're better than this on here. Our spirit is broadsheet. We don't get befuddled by partisan tabloid clutter, we stay focused on the point and we analyse issues objectively and thoughtfully.
The Starmer tweet does *not* equate to saying that being under investigation for breaking lockdown laws is in and of itself grounds to resign. Not in a million years does it say that. It's in the (key) context of the "months of denials" (to parliament) that anything questionable had taken place.
It's about Lying to Parliament. That's the primary political charge. That's the "must go" matter. It always was and it still is. Johnson faces a Commons Inquiry on this, remember? An Inquiry to assess whether he lied to parliament. And that'll be after full technicolour Gray. I'm looking forward to it.
I mean, it's literally what it says, but you can gaslight about "context" if you want.
'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.
C'mon, we're better than this on here. Our spirit is broadsheet. We don't get befuddled by partisan tabloid clutter, we stay focused on the point and we analyse issues objectively and thoughtfully.
The Starmer tweet does *not* equate to saying that being under investigation for breaking lockdown laws is in and of itself grounds to resign. Not in a million years does it say that. It's in the (key) context of the "months of denials" (to parliament) that anything questionable had taken place.
It's about Lying to Parliament. That's the primary political charge. That's the "must go" matter. It always was and it still is. Johnson faces a Commons Inquiry on this, remember? An Inquiry to assess whether he lied to parliament. And that'll be after full technicolour Gray. I'm looking forward to it.
If it was about all those things why didn't he say so.
Q: When it was announced u were being investigated, it was pretty clear to everyone that if you were found in breach of lockdown rules, given what you've said abt PM you'd have to resign, so why did it take so long to arrive at that decision. Cos of the huge gamble you're taking?
"I am different"
Labour Leader Sir Keir Starmer tells @BethRigby not all politicians "are the same" as he reiterates his pledge to resign if he is fined for breaking #COVID rules
It’s unlikely, based on past form, Durham Constabulary would issue a fine even if he breached the regs. So he’s getting pretty much a free hit here. As is Rayner.
Do you think a time will come some sunny day soon whereby we don't have to pore over government covid data every bloody 24 hours? They appear to serve no purpose beyond compromising the mental health recovery of the nation.
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.
Yep. Josiah still going on about Rayner - the police ruling based on "partial information". But what would it matter if she was there or not? Does her presence make an otherwise legal event suddenly illegal?
Carrie's presence at the birthday "party" did.
Sure - because its not a work event if you have non work-people there. How does the presence of the Deputy Leader make the Durham thing a non-work event?
It wasn’t her presence, it was the lying inadvertent misleading about it.
OK. So Labour inadvertently mislead you about her legal presence at a legal event. For what gain? Its only a lie, a cover-up, a conspiracy if there was anything wrong with her being there. "But the police would have wanted to interview her" someone said - how does that change the context? Its either a campaign event and legal or its not and its illegal. The legality isn't changed by her being there or by her being interviewed about it. Are detectives going to say "yeah we mistakenly judged it to be within the law but then we found out she was the 31st person there and that makes it illegal"?
And again again, nobody is attacking Starmer's other campaign events. Why not? Surely they were all illegal on the entire campaign?
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
Fined and resigned is the best possible outcome for Labour. Streets ahead of Cleared.
The Cummings solution is an absolute nightmare scenario for Labour.
Very, very easy. The biggest medical exemption of all.
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).
Indeed. Pretty hard to swab with mask on Technically possible to get mask on one-handed while holding sample in other hand (increased risk of contamination while faffing about). But certainly I never did that (we had a testing centre at uni quite early on, required for any office access).
Simple, lower the mask below the nose/mouth, take the test, put it back. All with one hand!
Doesn't work for the kind of disposable mask with loops over the ears.
Huh? Yes it does, in fact it's probably even easier with the disposable ones because the loops are stretchy. You can just pull it down below your chin.
Not in the ones I get from a specialist chemist firm and see in doctors etc.
Different kind of disposable mask, no doubt. I don't agree with you that it is impossible to do one-handed though.
I can assure you that that is the case. UNless you have a spare tentacle or three, or a prehensile tail to help. And can do it without banging the swab into the wall or table.
What?! I've done plenty of COVID tests with the chin strap mask position using the crappy blue masks from Amazon. It's easy. Lower mask over chin, take nasal swab, raise mask back above nostrils, give swab to test person through car window. It's really not difficult at all.
Once again, the reason this is an issue is because of all the stupid rules Starmer voted through, not because he slipped up. We all did from time to time. He presents this holier than thou image of being some kind of lockdown and rule abiding person but really he's as fallible as the rest of us. This wouldn't be a problem if he wasn't in favour of lockdowns, masks and social distancing. Honestly, if it were up to him I wouldn't be surprised to see some COVID measures come back.
Keir was consistently wrong on Covid. I don’t see why that justifies a witch-hunt against him.
The actual reason this story exists at all is that Boris was desperate to find something which would provoke voters into thinking “they’re all the same”.
Maybe it’s worked, I don’t know. But it’s a disgraceful spectacle.
Hmmm, this is just flat out dishonest from you, as is obvious to anyone who actually clicks on the link. Unless you are trying to make some kind of point about how easy it is to spread disinformation?
Do you think the Daily Mail have twigged that they have shot Boris Johnson?
I would prefer The Daily Mail to get their commupance than Johnson.
Just heard Keir Starmer's statement. It's a masterstroke. An ex head of the DPP is more likely than anyone to know that what he did was legal and who can blame him for milking it.
There is now real pressure on Johnson.
Starmers problem if he wants an exhoneration is that he will have to provide evidence or the police will need to be convinced the beer and curry was necessary for work purposes. Having someone prepared to say it was a booze up for some of them complicates it. I think the police will decline to fine but say rules were likely or definitely breached but they cannot or will not issue a retrospective fine and set a precedent
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.
What would it explain??
Working lunch or dinners especially with people you did not work with did not happen in April 2021. Pure and simple.
If fact LAs that i deal with are still insisting on Teams meetings now.
But working lunch / dinner at campaign events *did* happen in April 2021. For all parties.
Are you and the other rampers of this story claiming this was the singular event that Starmer went to on the campaign? Or that the advertised "meet Gove in the pub at lunchtime" events didn't happen? Or that Johnson having a beer with Mortimer didn't happen?
There were a lot of these events. Many done by Starmer. So if they were illegal as you and others claim why haven't the press piled in with all the other examples...? As with partygate the number of illegal actions is a huge part of the story. Or would be if these were illegal. Which is why nobody is raising them.
So Covid rules at that time did not apply to politicians who were campaigning and they could do what they liked, including having indoor events with no restrictions?
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
Hmmm, this is just flat out dishonest from you, as is obvious to anyone who actually clicks on the link. Unless you are trying to make some kind of point about how easy it is to spread disinformation?
The level of dishonesty on here has actually shocked me.
I thought PB was reasonably above board. More fool me!
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.
What would it explain??
Working lunch or dinners especially with people you did not work with did not happen in April 2021. Pure and simple.
If fact LAs that i deal with are still insisting on Teams meetings now.
But working lunch / dinner at campaign events *did* happen in April 2021. For all parties.
Are you and the other rampers of this story claiming this was the singular event that Starmer went to on the campaign? Or that the advertised "meet Gove in the pub at lunchtime" events didn't happen? Or that Johnson having a beer with Mortimer didn't happen?
There were a lot of these events. Many done by Starmer. So if they were illegal as you and others claim why haven't the press piled in with all the other examples...? As with partygate the number of illegal actions is a huge part of the story. Or would be if these were illegal. Which is why nobody is raising them.
So Covid rules at that time did not apply to politicians who were campaigning and they could do what they liked, including having indoor events with no restrictions?
So long as they were working events, yes. I don’t think it was just politicians either.
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.
What would it explain??
Working lunch or dinners especially with people you did not work with did not happen in April 2021. Pure and simple.
If fact LAs that i deal with are still insisting on Teams meetings now.
But working lunch / dinner at campaign events *did* happen in April 2021. For all parties.
Are you and the other rampers of this story claiming this was the singular event that Starmer went to on the campaign? Or that the advertised "meet Gove in the pub at lunchtime" events didn't happen? Or that Johnson having a beer with Mortimer didn't happen?
There were a lot of these events. Many done by Starmer. So if they were illegal as you and others claim why haven't the press piled in with all the other examples...? As with partygate the number of illegal actions is a huge part of the story. Or would be if these were illegal. Which is why nobody is raising them.
So Covid rules at that time did not apply to politicians who were campaigning and they could do what they liked, including having indoor events with no restrictions?
Labour are certainly rising to the occasion. Emily Thornberry excellent on Radio 4. Did anyone know about 'The Tory Attack unit' currently camped out in Durham?
'Sleazy' doesn't begin to describe them since Johnson took over
Starmer takes no personal ratings hit in that RandW, but one Stat that should concern him is he leads on 'tells the truth' but only 33 to 15 with 51% not sure which of them tells the truth. That's an appalling stat against serial liar Johnson
People have now seen the video, he can claim that it was within the rules as he was campaigning, but the look is awful. This was in the same month as the Queen sat by herself at her husband's funeral. If only she said it was a work event.
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?
Not sure that argument stands up. Is there no Deliveroo in Durham that would have delivered to you outside the hotel if not food available?
My point was rather muddled. BJO said that Starmer lied about whether the hotel was serving food. My point is that Starmer may simply not have known or thought that they did not. In other words, it was perfectly possible for him to be mistaken rather than mendacious.
So - and I’m getting this from Sky - Starmer will resign only if he is fined but he won’t resign if he’s deemed to have committed an offence but doesn’t get fined.
Would some of his backers like to say how that proves his ‘integrity’?
Labour 39% (-2) Conservative 33% (–) Liberal Democrat 12% (–) Green 7% (+2) Scottish National Party 5% (+1) Reform UK 2% (-1) Other 1% (-2)
Changes +/- 1 May
Too early for either Beergate or local elections impact. I would expect both combined will leave the conservatives similar, and see a bit of churn from Labour to Lib Dem and Green (e.g. LD on 14%, Labour on 36-37%).
This is actually a very high combined LLG score: 58%. Right at the top of the recent range.
Comments
The post-Johnson PM is likely to be a worse politician than Johnson. Maybe better at governing, but none of them have the fingertip sense of how much you can get away with that the Master has. (Same is true of the Mail, I reckon; Dacre's genius was knowing exactly how far to push the outrage and exactly where to stop.) A small dignified Conservative defeat in 2024 becomes more likely.
For Labour, if Starmer goes now, they can replace him with a sassier politician. Most of the successors could do with a bit longer to mature, but getting AN Other Lefty in now could help them. Starmer has done the first necessary job (Corbyn detox) but isn't ideal casting for next PM.
Lets assume we had all decided to accept the PM was very sorry and had moved on. He then tells people suffering from fuel poverty that he understands them and they can trust him when he says they need to suffer longer to protect Shell and BP. They won't listen to him because they think he is lying. Etc etc etc.
Not commenting on the legality or otherwise, what is interesting about Rayner is that Labour strenuously denied she was at the currygate korma-and-cocaine lockdown orgy, but - in fact - she is literally named at the start of the Memo which announced it, beforehand
An odd error. And also: a series of lies
Why? Cui bono?
The story started in the Mail and with reporters like Harry Cole.
Again, do not rewrite history.
Get your Next PM money on that Labour pool ... odds are shortening and you may find it difficult to find the 250/1 I got on Yvette Cooper, 130/1 Lisa Nandy and 100/1 on Rachel Reeves.
Still value.
Working lunch or dinners especially with people you did not work with did not happen in April 2021. Pure and simple.
If fact LAs that i deal with are still insisting on Teams meetings now.
He has no one to blame but himself.
Caesar's wife, he ain't.
Hopefully we find out more about the precise details in due course.
Cummings went for the Cummings solution. Johnson is going for the Cummings solution. To both of them, the Cummings solution makes sense.
Rule that solution out, and what are you left with?
It probably doesn't matter if *she* (as a specific individual) was there. It might well matter that someone was there that the police were not told about.
Let's say the police wanted to question everyone who was there. How can they do that if they don't know who was there? That's the point. It's not about Rayner explicitly; it's about the police not being given information they might need.
And I'd argue the names of the people who attended is pretty important.
"I am different"
Labour Leader Sir Keir Starmer tells @BethRigby not all politicians "are the same" as he reiterates his pledge to resign if he is fined for breaking #COVID rules
Read more: https://trib.al/qodnVZe
https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1523691988335226880
https://twitter.com/ItsBorys/status/1523664324950036480
We’ve all forgotten (and tried hard to forget) what rules were in place at what time and one of the reasons I’ve not commented much on the rights and wrongs here is that I can’t for the life of me remember what rules were in place when, and lack the interest to look them up.
Main conclusion of the whole this? We must never pass laws like this again.
Guto Harri seems to be earning whatever they are paying him though.
The "cover-up" is because it doesn't matter if she was there or not. Its like me "lying" about which week I bought a Burger King when my memory confused trip a or trip b, or you getting confused as to which drink you are on over lunch. What does it matter when you are allowed to do so?
Of course the public was all in favour of being ridiculously draconian at the time, and politicians obliged, so I have minor sympathy for those caught up in it, but since it was their choice to support such they have to accept the consequences of that (or should have in Boris's case, what with him lying to/misleading the House about it as well).
Redfield & Wilton Strategies
Westminster Voting Intention (8 May):
Labour 39% (-2)
Conservative 33% (–)
Liberal Democrat 12% (–)
Green 7% (+2)
Scottish National Party 5% (+1)
Reform UK 2% (-1)
Other 1% (-2)
Changes +/- 1 May
Are you and the other rampers of this story claiming this was the singular event that Starmer went to on the campaign? Or that the advertised "meet Gove in the pub at lunchtime" events didn't happen? Or that Johnson having a beer with Mortimer didn't happen?
There were a lot of these events. Many done by Starmer. So if they were illegal as you and others claim why haven't the press piled in with all the other examples...? As with partygate the number of illegal actions is a huge part of the story. Or would be if these were illegal. Which is why nobody is raising them.
Let's call the Delta variant what it is: the Johnson variant.
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1412765688490565632
Lifting all restrictions at once is reckless - and doing so when the Johnson Variant is already out of control risks a summer of chaos.
Labour does not support the Government’s plan.
Boris Johnson’s incompetence will have deadly consequences for the British public.
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1417103159047118849
Boris Johnson's recklessness means we're going to have an NHS summer crisis.
The Johnson Variant is already out of control - and we're heading to 100,000 cases a day.
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1417185971284496384
And I am a rocket scientist! I'm my rich inner world anyway.
https://www.boots.com/winner-type-2-medical-face-masks-50-pack-10283372
Do keep up!
The Starmer tweet does *not* equate to saying that being under investigation for breaking lockdown laws is in and of itself grounds to resign. Not in a million years does it say that. It's in the (key) context of the "months of denials" (to parliament) that anything questionable had taken place.
It's about Lying to Parliament. That's the primary political charge. That's the "must go" matter. It always was and it still is. Johnson faces a Commons Inquiry on this, remember? An Inquiry to assess whether he lied to parliament. And that'll be after full technicolour Gray. I'm looking forward to it.
Just heard Keir Starmer's statement. It's a masterstroke. An ex head of the DPP is more likely than anyone to know that what he did was legal and who can blame him for milking it.
There is now real pressure on Johnson.
That's an appalling stat against serial liar Johnson
Once again, the reason this is an issue is because of all the stupid rules Starmer voted through, not because he slipped up. We all did from time to time. He presents this holier than thou image of being some kind of lockdown and rule abiding person but really he's as fallible as the rest of us. This wouldn't be a problem if he wasn't in favour of lockdowns, masks and social distancing. Honestly, if it were up to him I wouldn't be surprised to see some COVID measures come back.
Thank god we don't have to do that shit anymore.
I hope Leon et. al. pay attention to your comment.
That is not the same thing as breaking the rules.
Durham Plod could conclude that he may have broken the rules but it is not grave enough for a fine.
NEW THREAD
- In hospital - Down
- MV beds - Down
- Admissions - Down. R well below 1
- Deaths - Down
However, we are seeing a bit of an uptick in cases - among the younger groups at the moment.
though overall R is below 1
And again again, nobody is attacking Starmer's other campaign events. Why not? Surely they were all illegal on the entire campaign?
The Cummings solution is an absolute nightmare scenario for Labour.
I don’t see why that justifies a witch-hunt against him.
The actual reason this story exists at all is that Boris was desperate to find something which would provoke voters into thinking “they’re all the same”.
Maybe it’s worked, I don’t know.
But it’s a disgraceful spectacle.
So Covid rules at that time did not apply to politicians who were campaigning and they could do what they liked, including having indoor events with no restrictions?
Surely not?
I thought PB was reasonably above board. More fool me!
'Sleazy' doesn't begin to describe them since Johnson took over
Would some of his backers like to say how that proves his ‘integrity’?
This is actually a very high combined LLG score: 58%. Right at the top of the recent range.