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”.
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'
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.
Correct. This one is sorting out the wheat from the chaff on here and no mistake.
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."
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’?
He said he would resign if given a FPN that’s it. I wouldn’t expect him to resign if he doesn’t get that as clearly he wouldn’t have broken any rules .
The police might say that the guidance wasn’t followed but didn’t breach any legal restrictions. End of the day if he doesn’t get a FPN he’s not going anywhere.
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.
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.
Only if “reasonably necessary” for work.
Thanking the troops doesn’t make the grade, ImHO
That’s a matter of opinion though. I disagree, quite strongly.
And no law is there to say you are right and I’m wrong.
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.
The police would need to decide if it was a 'work' event (hint: if people were getting pi**ed, I'd argue it was not). To do that, they may well need to talk to people who were there to work out what happened.
So yes, the names of the people who were there *is* important.
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.
Definitely a contender for stupidest post of the day though not a runaway winner by any means
Comments
If Starmer resigns and Johnson does not, then the Great British public will assume that Starmer's offence was the more serious.
The police might say that the guidance wasn’t followed but didn’t breach any legal restrictions. End of the day if he doesn’t get a FPN he’s not going anywhere.
Thanking the troops doesn’t make the grade, ImHO
That tank actually does pop its turret; it's shown in a different video.
I disagree, quite strongly.
And no law is there to say you are right and I’m wrong.
New Thread
So yes, the names of the people who were there *is* important.
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1523747474434895873?s=20&t=9aKF6axzAvzXvkmoNR1ctw