Keir Starmer has learned the art of how to win leadership elections then pivot to the country. Only one recent Labour leader has done the same
Indeed he's got the integrity and honesty of Boris Johnson and Tony Blair.
It may work to win an election.
You should vote for him then, you clearly don't value honesty or integrity in politicians
They're politicians. I expect it from them. 🤷♂️
I'm just amused at seeing people who acted all outraged at Boris showing a lack of integrity lapping up and loving Keir doing the same.
Keir Starmer didn't party his way through lockdown
Indeed. Instead he wanted us locked down for longer, calling lifting lockdown reckless etc, while he was prepared to engage in large gatherings of beer and korma. Legal for him but reckless and keep it illegal for the Plebs to do the same thing eh?
A bit like the performative nonsense of Labour not bothering to wear face masks at Party Conference but wearing them at PMQs to make a point.
He was involved in campaigning events like Johnson was, which were deemed perfectly legal. Boris Johnson was fined for having a party where a suitcase of booze was smuggled in.
This is not a good line of ground for you to be going down, you just look silly
He wanted it to be illegal for you and me to visit our family and friends, jeopardising our mental health, while he was legally "campaigning" with large gatherings of beer and korma. He was calling lifting lockdown reckless while engaging in large gatherings personally.
Fuck him. Fucking hypocrite. If gatherings were reckless, he shouldn't have been doing them. If they weren't reckless he should have been calling for lifting lockdown not chastising the government as reckless for lifting it.
You should go tell the police that they have got it wrong. Starmer was not partying with beer and korma. Saying he was is like watching a trial, the guy is cleared of all charges and there you are outside the court saying "well I say he is guilty because I don't like him"
Yeah. It is nonsense. Durham Police did the investigation and are in posession of the facts. SKS broke no law and we should accept the decision of the investigators. Durham Police Force are a good police force. They are not the met.
I know how gutted Philip was when the result came in. But now it is the Police that are the problem because he didn't like the result.
One man has received a FPN for smuggling in cake and booze. One man had a campaigning event and Durham Police cleared him not once but twice.
"The large number of unfilled NHS job vacancies is posing a serious risk to patient safety, a report by MPs says.
It found England is now short of 12,000 hospital doctors and more than 50,000 nurses and midwives, calling this the worst workforce crisis in NHS history."
I expect the biggest real terms pay cut in decades will sort that out.
The problem is that the NHS has to run to stand still, and that challenge gets worse every year - more people live for longer with more chronic conditions all of whom require more people treating them for longer with more new (and expensive) drugs coming on the market all the time that make more things treatable too. And so on.
Of course, all those staff want real-terms salary increases each year too (who doesn't?) and so the NHS needs to consume an ever greater proportion of national income each and every year - it probably needs a budget increase of 9-10% every year just to stop it getting worse - just to deliver its decidedly average service.
This isn't sustainable. I don't see any party with answers.
There are lots of answers, but they all involve ditching the Bevanite delusion of free health care for all all the time, so we won't implement them until we really have to.
I just hope we do before the NHS strangles the economy. Already, unkind but accurate foreigners describe us as a health service with a country attached.
The NHS is really, really excellent at some things.
On this one it's worth noting that out of 35+ Western countries, including all of Europe, UK are the 7th most cost effective, after Tk, Po, Hu, Oz, Slovakia, Slovenia.
One of Maggie Thatcher’s Destructions Of The NHS (I think it was the 18th or 19th complete destruction), was that, where possible, generics should be used instead of the more expensive branded drugs.
AFAIK there are no generic insulins.
These, if i read the paper right, are an average of Humalog, Humulin, Apidra, Novorapid, Novolin, Lantus, Levemir.
Having said that, if generics help get more from the budget, then I have no problem at all with that as long as there are no catastrophic downsides.
During Covid we have seen some real benefits from having a far more unified system. Remember what a difficult time Germany had with the fragmented ownership of patients' medical data and the extra stages that introduced into the process of getting an injection?
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
Maybe the mango chutney was secretly a member of the KKK? Or perhaps it was just that the masala had anger management issues?
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Keir Starmer has learned the art of how to win leadership elections then pivot to the country. Only one recent Labour leader has done the same
Indeed he's got the integrity and honesty of Boris Johnson and Tony Blair.
It may work to win an election.
You should vote for him then, you clearly don't value honesty or integrity in politicians
They're politicians. I expect it from them. 🤷♂️
I'm just amused at seeing people who acted all outraged at Boris showing a lack of integrity lapping up and loving Keir doing the same.
Keir Starmer didn't party his way through lockdown
Indeed. Instead he wanted us locked down for longer, calling lifting lockdown reckless etc, while he was prepared to engage in large gatherings of beer and korma. Legal for him but reckless and keep it illegal for the Plebs to do the same thing eh?
A bit like the performative nonsense of Labour not bothering to wear face masks at Party Conference but wearing them at PMQs to make a point.
He was involved in campaigning events like Johnson was, which were deemed perfectly legal. Boris Johnson was fined for having a party where a suitcase of booze was smuggled in.
This is not a good line of ground for you to be going down, you just look silly
He wanted it to be illegal for you and me to visit our family and friends, jeopardising our mental health, while he was legally "campaigning" with large gatherings of beer and korma. He was calling lifting lockdown reckless while engaging in large gatherings personally.
Fuck him. Fucking hypocrite. If gatherings were reckless, he shouldn't have been doing them. If they weren't reckless he should have been calling for lifting lockdown not chastising the government as reckless for lifting it.
You're getting worse than Leon. When do you start calling Starmer an Alien?
Getting?
I was vocally opposing lockdown at the time in April 2021, unable to legally gather inside with anyone for beer and korma.
Meanwhile at the same time Sir Keir was legally gathering with others for beer and korma while saying it would be reckless to let the rest of us have our lives back.
That may not have been law breaking but it was hate filled two faced hypocrisy.
I'm not sure what you're on this morning, but seems powerful stuff. You think Starmer was cleared because he was "special", which is a serious slur on the CPS. And you say his korma was hate-filled. What?
I've read every one of @BartholomewRoberts posts about Starmer on this thread and I can't see a single one which impugns the cops at all. He calls all of Starmer's actions legal.
You seem to be reacting to others' wild accusations instead of anything Bart has actually said
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
Sir Keir artfully informed us that all of the restaurants were closed
Meanwhile, I don't know about anybody else but I find the race to the bottom on migration policy from Truss and Sunak pretty unedifying. Tickling the metaphorical clitoris of Tory members by dog-whistling over who can be toughest on migrants/asylum seekers (in the context of a complete failure of policy in recent years) tells me all I need to know about both the candidates and what they think will seduce Tory members to vote for them. What a shower.
I genuinely believe Brexit can be a success in some sense.
But clearly only Labour can deliver that now, being the alternative option
Labour's Brexit policy is sensible: marginal but likely important mitigation of some of the worst damage. My issue is with Starmer's rhetoric. That's not "success" and it insults people's intelligence to pretend it is.
I would prefer him to say, "Yes we are out of the EU, but we can do things differently. My government will always aim for good relations with the EU and our neighbours where we can"
He won't win over the most committed Brexiteers but they aren't going to vote for him anyway. You don't want to triangulate everything.
Policy and implementation will be different things.
If he does a Blair and gives concessions to be 'nice' for no real benefit in return, then he will correctly get his nuts roasted.
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
Sir Keir artfully informed us that all of the restaurants were closed
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Keir Starmer has learned the art of how to win leadership elections then pivot to the country. Only one recent Labour leader has done the same
Indeed he's got the integrity and honesty of Boris Johnson and Tony Blair.
It may work to win an election.
You should vote for him then, you clearly don't value honesty or integrity in politicians
They're politicians. I expect it from them. 🤷♂️
I'm just amused at seeing people who acted all outraged at Boris showing a lack of integrity lapping up and loving Keir doing the same.
Keir Starmer didn't party his way through lockdown
Indeed. Instead he wanted us locked down for longer, calling lifting lockdown reckless etc, while he was prepared to engage in large gatherings of beer and korma. Legal for him but reckless and keep it illegal for the Plebs to do the same thing eh?
A bit like the performative nonsense of Labour not bothering to wear face masks at Party Conference but wearing them at PMQs to make a point.
He was involved in campaigning events like Johnson was, which were deemed perfectly legal. Boris Johnson was fined for having a party where a suitcase of booze was smuggled in.
This is not a good line of ground for you to be going down, you just look silly
He wanted it to be illegal for you and me to visit our family and friends, jeopardising our mental health, while he was legally "campaigning" with large gatherings of beer and korma. He was calling lifting lockdown reckless while engaging in large gatherings personally.
Fuck him. Fucking hypocrite. If gatherings were reckless, he shouldn't have been doing them. If they weren't reckless he should have been calling for lifting lockdown not chastising the government as reckless for lifting it.
You should go tell the police that they have got it wrong. Starmer was not partying with beer and korma. Saying he was is like watching a trial, the guy is cleared of all charges and there you are outside the court saying "well I say he is guilty because I don't like him"
Yeah. It is nonsense. Durham Police did the investigation and are in posession of the facts. SKS broke no law and we should accept the decision of the investigators. Durham Police Force are a good police force. They are not the met.
I know how gutted Philip was when the result came in. But now it is the Police that are the problem because he didn't like the result.
One man has received a FPN for smuggling in cake and booze. One man had a campaigning event and Durham Police cleared him not once but twice.
I flagged posts that dead-named me in a way that's uncivil and against the rules.
If you want to disagree with what I say, then disagree with it. Don't use my real life name to troll me.
Given that the link is there to be made unless the entire site is deleted, including from Web archives and way back machines, it would be prudent surely to work on being about 10% less psychotic in your current postings? Hate filled korma is a bridge too far, before elevenses on a Monday.
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
Sir Keir artfully informed us that all of the restaurants were closed
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
Sir Keir artfully informed us that all of the restaurants were closed
Meanwhile, I don't know about anybody else but I find the race to the bottom on migration policy from Truss and Sunak pretty unedifying. Tickling the metaphorical clitoris of Tory members by dog-whistling over who can be toughest on migrants/asylum seekers (in the context of a complete failure of policy in recent years) tells me all I need to know about both the candidates and what they think will seduce Tory members to vote for them. What a shower.
Given that any plan to handle migrants is doomed to complete failure it's easy to see why both people are going hard on the impossible dreams.
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
Sir Keir artfully informed us that all of the restaurants were closed
It's obvious to me that although Durham police found that Starmer had not broken the law and had no case to answer, he should nevertheless be locked up in Durham Prison and the key thrown away.
Keir Starmer has learned the art of how to win leadership elections then pivot to the country. Only one recent Labour leader has done the same
Indeed he's got the integrity and honesty of Boris Johnson and Tony Blair.
It may work to win an election.
You should vote for him then, you clearly don't value honesty or integrity in politicians
They're politicians. I expect it from them. 🤷♂️
I'm just amused at seeing people who acted all outraged at Boris showing a lack of integrity lapping up and loving Keir doing the same.
Keir Starmer didn't party his way through lockdown
Indeed. Instead he wanted us locked down for longer, calling lifting lockdown reckless etc, while he was prepared to engage in large gatherings of beer and korma. Legal for him but reckless and keep it illegal for the Plebs to do the same thing eh?
A bit like the performative nonsense of Labour not bothering to wear face masks at Party Conference but wearing them at PMQs to make a point.
He was involved in campaigning events like Johnson was, which were deemed perfectly legal. Boris Johnson was fined for having a party where a suitcase of booze was smuggled in.
This is not a good line of ground for you to be going down, you just look silly
He wanted it to be illegal for you and me to visit our family and friends, jeopardising our mental health, while he was legally "campaigning" with large gatherings of beer and korma. He was calling lifting lockdown reckless while engaging in large gatherings personally.
Fuck him. Fucking hypocrite. If gatherings were reckless, he shouldn't have been doing them. If they weren't reckless he should have been calling for lifting lockdown not chastising the government as reckless for lifting it.
It's barely 10 am and you are already - like yesterday - overheating and losing your grip on language. I do hope we don't see "frogs" or "krauts" before lunchtime.
He might be on holiday in Oz and past the lagershed?
And as for frogs we saw lots of baby ones locally a few days ago. Adorable.
PS The GRaun has a very nice looking recipe for a Maltese tomato and tuna sandwich to be served with kraut or other pickle. Yum. Is it lunchtime yet?
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
It's obvious to me that although Durham police found that Starmer had not broken the law and had no case to answer, he should nevertheless be locked up in Durham Prison and the key thrown away.
It's obvious to me that although Durham police found that Starmer had not broken the law and had no case to answer, he should nevertheless be locked up in Durham Prison and the key thrown away.
It's a Category A Women's prison.
Has a very good Coffee Shop though...
That could be a great segue into an argument on SKS’s views on the treatment of Trans prisoners. Fill your boots!
It's obvious to me that although Durham police found that Starmer had not broken the law and had no case to answer, he should nevertheless be locked up in Durham Prison and the key thrown away.
It's a Category A Women's prison.
Has a very good Coffee Shop though...
Didn't know that. Starmer would have to transition first, then.
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
It's obvious to me that although Durham police found that Starmer had not broken the law and had no case to answer, he should nevertheless be locked up in Durham Prison and the key thrown away.
It's a Category A Women's prison.
Has a very good Coffee Shop though...
Didn't know that. Starmer would have to transition first, then.
Keir Starmer has learned the art of how to win leadership elections then pivot to the country. Only one recent Labour leader has done the same
Indeed he's got the integrity and honesty of Boris Johnson and Tony Blair.
It may work to win an election.
You should vote for him then, you clearly don't value honesty or integrity in politicians
They're politicians. I expect it from them. 🤷♂️
I'm just amused at seeing people who acted all outraged at Boris showing a lack of integrity lapping up and loving Keir doing the same.
Keir Starmer didn't party his way through lockdown
Indeed. Instead he wanted us locked down for longer, calling lifting lockdown reckless etc, while he was prepared to engage in large gatherings of beer and korma. Legal for him but reckless and keep it illegal for the Plebs to do the same thing eh?
A bit like the performative nonsense of Labour not bothering to wear face masks at Party Conference but wearing them at PMQs to make a point.
He was involved in campaigning events like Johnson was, which were deemed perfectly legal. Boris Johnson was fined for having a party where a suitcase of booze was smuggled in.
This is not a good line of ground for you to be going down, you just look silly
He wanted it to be illegal for you and me to visit our family and friends, jeopardising our mental health, while he was legally "campaigning" with large gatherings of beer and korma. He was calling lifting lockdown reckless while engaging in large gatherings personally.
Fuck him. Fucking hypocrite. If gatherings were reckless, he shouldn't have been doing them. If they weren't reckless he should have been calling for lifting lockdown not chastising the government as reckless for lifting it.
You're getting worse than Leon. When do you start calling Starmer an Alien?
Getting?
I was vocally opposing lockdown at the time in April 2021, unable to legally gather inside with anyone for beer and korma.
Meanwhile at the same time Sir Keir was legally gathering with others for beer and korma while saying it would be reckless to let the rest of us have our lives back.
That may not have been law breaking but it was hate filled two faced hypocrisy.
I'm not sure what you're on this morning, but seems powerful stuff. You think Starmer was cleared because he was "special", which is a serious slur on the CPS. And you say his korma was hate-filled. What?
The police cleared Sir Keir because the politicans had made it legal for politicians to carry on campaigning fairly close to normal, including gathering in ways that they had made illegal for the rest of us. And Sir Keir, who never met a lockdown restriction he didn't think was too little and for too short a time, exploited every loophole available to him to do what he wanted.
Did he break the law? No. But that doesn't stop him being a raging hypocrite.
So are you saying he shouldn't have campaigned for the by-election? And when he'd lost it, you'd have been saying why didn't he do any campaigning
He didn't need to go out for a curry with his campaign team, they could have got take-aways to their hotel.
They didn't go out for a curry though, have you actually read what happened
They were gathered for a curry. Legally, but they were gathered for one.
You and I gathering for one at that time was illegal - and Keir wanted it to stay that way.
That is the problem. Legal for them, illegal for us.
If I had been campaigning in a political campaign I would have been able to have a meal socially distanced too.
It is not the same as Johnson, where it was illegal to do anything and he partied any way.
Well I wasn't campaigning for a political campaign so I was banned from having socially distanced meals. Keir was so he could. One law for him, one law for us - and he wanted to keep it that was as it would be "reckless" for you or I to have meals like that.
What is truly baffling is that you are suggesting by means of obsession that this was something made available only to Starmer. Johnson was at it too - campaign photos of him in the pub on the campaign trail as one example.
Dislike the law? Fine. But you're foaming on only about Starmer and that makes it an excuse for a vendetta.
Whitehall will not be picking winners and losers under my watch.
Presume that means there'll be no onshore wind ban unlike Sunak.
Does that mean we will have 2 years of zero decisions being made - because if Whitehall can't pick winners and losers it won't be able to make any decisions at all
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No, I'm saying those who argued for restrictions shouldn't have written exemptions for themselves into them.
Keir Starmer has learned the art of how to win leadership elections then pivot to the country. Only one recent Labour leader has done the same
Indeed he's got the integrity and honesty of Boris Johnson and Tony Blair.
It may work to win an election.
You should vote for him then, you clearly don't value honesty or integrity in politicians
They're politicians. I expect it from them. 🤷♂️
I'm just amused at seeing people who acted all outraged at Boris showing a lack of integrity lapping up and loving Keir doing the same.
Keir Starmer didn't party his way through lockdown
Indeed. Instead he wanted us locked down for longer, calling lifting lockdown reckless etc, while he was prepared to engage in large gatherings of beer and korma. Legal for him but reckless and keep it illegal for the Plebs to do the same thing eh?
A bit like the performative nonsense of Labour not bothering to wear face masks at Party Conference but wearing them at PMQs to make a point.
He was involved in campaigning events like Johnson was, which were deemed perfectly legal. Boris Johnson was fined for having a party where a suitcase of booze was smuggled in.
This is not a good line of ground for you to be going down, you just look silly
He wanted it to be illegal for you and me to visit our family and friends, jeopardising our mental health, while he was legally "campaigning" with large gatherings of beer and korma. He was calling lifting lockdown reckless while engaging in large gatherings personally.
Fuck him. Fucking hypocrite. If gatherings were reckless, he shouldn't have been doing them. If they weren't reckless he should have been calling for lifting lockdown not chastising the government as reckless for lifting it.
You're getting worse than Leon. When do you start calling Starmer an Alien?
Getting?
I was vocally opposing lockdown at the time in April 2021, unable to legally gather inside with anyone for beer and korma.
Meanwhile at the same time Sir Keir was legally gathering with others for beer and korma while saying it would be reckless to let the rest of us have our lives back.
That may not have been law breaking but it was hate filled two faced hypocrisy.
I'm not sure what you're on this morning, but seems powerful stuff. You think Starmer was cleared because he was "special", which is a serious slur on the CPS. And you say his korma was hate-filled. What?
The police cleared Sir Keir because the politicans had made it legal for politicians to carry on campaigning fairly close to normal, including gathering in ways that they had made illegal for the rest of us. And Sir Keir, who never met a lockdown restriction he didn't think was too little and for too short a time, exploited every loophole available to him to do what he wanted.
Did he break the law? No. But that doesn't stop him being a raging hypocrite.
So are you saying he shouldn't have campaigned for the by-election? And when he'd lost it, you'd have been saying why didn't he do any campaigning
He didn't need to go out for a curry with his campaign team, they could have got take-aways to their hotel.
They didn't go out for a curry though, have you actually read what happened
They were gathered for a curry. Legally, but they were gathered for one.
You and I gathering for one at that time was illegal - and Keir wanted it to stay that way.
That is the problem. Legal for them, illegal for us.
If I had been campaigning in a political campaign I would have been able to have a meal socially distanced too.
It is not the same as Johnson, where it was illegal to do anything and he partied any way.
Well I wasn't campaigning for a political campaign so I was banned from having socially distanced meals. Keir was so he could. One law for him, one law for us - and he wanted to keep it that was as it would be "reckless" for you or I to have meals like that.
What is truly baffling is that you are suggesting by means of obsession that this was something made available only to Starmer. Johnson was at it too - campaign photos of him in the pub on the campaign trail as one example.
Dislike the law? Fine. But you're foaming on only about Starmer and that makes it an excuse for a vendetta.
Boris removed the restrictions (albeit far too late) and Sir Keir objected to that.
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No, I'm saying those who argued for restrictions shouldn't have written exemptions for themselves into them.
This was an exemption specifically for Starmer? And now written by Starmer!
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No, I'm saying those who argued for restrictions shouldn't have written exemptions for themselves into them.
Whitehall will not be picking winners and losers under my watch.
Presume that means there'll be no onshore wind ban unlike Sunak.
Truss might also be binning the Boris-Cummings DARPA-lite (did it ever get off the ground?). It is hard to be sure from that tweet. It sounds like the sort of thing Mrs Thatcher would have said and perhaps that is really the point.
Keir Starmer has learned the art of how to win leadership elections then pivot to the country. Only one recent Labour leader has done the same
Indeed he's got the integrity and honesty of Boris Johnson and Tony Blair.
It may work to win an election.
You should vote for him then, you clearly don't value honesty or integrity in politicians
They're politicians. I expect it from them. 🤷♂️
I'm just amused at seeing people who acted all outraged at Boris showing a lack of integrity lapping up and loving Keir doing the same.
Keir Starmer didn't party his way through lockdown
Indeed. Instead he wanted us locked down for longer, calling lifting lockdown reckless etc, while he was prepared to engage in large gatherings of beer and korma. Legal for him but reckless and keep it illegal for the Plebs to do the same thing eh?
A bit like the performative nonsense of Labour not bothering to wear face masks at Party Conference but wearing them at PMQs to make a point.
He was involved in campaigning events like Johnson was, which were deemed perfectly legal. Boris Johnson was fined for having a party where a suitcase of booze was smuggled in.
This is not a good line of ground for you to be going down, you just look silly
He wanted it to be illegal for you and me to visit our family and friends, jeopardising our mental health, while he was legally "campaigning" with large gatherings of beer and korma. He was calling lifting lockdown reckless while engaging in large gatherings personally.
Fuck him. Fucking hypocrite. If gatherings were reckless, he shouldn't have been doing them. If they weren't reckless he should have been calling for lifting lockdown not chastising the government as reckless for lifting it.
It's barely 10 am and you are already - like yesterday - overheating and losing your grip on language. I do hope we don't see "frogs" or "krauts" before lunchtime.
He might be on holiday in Oz and past the lagershed?
And as for frogs we saw lots of baby ones locally a few days ago. Adorable.
PS The GRaun has a very nice looking recipe for a Maltese tomato and tuna sandwich to be served with kraut or other pickle. Yum. Is it lunchtime yet?
I like frogs on every level - in a pond or on a plate.
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No, I'm saying those who argued for restrictions shouldn't have written exemptions for themselves into them.
But it was the Tories that introduced it
With the full support of Labour and Sir Keir who demanded stricter restrictions for longer and complained when the restrictions were lifted (even though that was months too late).
If Sir Keir had done his job and opposed the government, we wouldn't have had so many disastrous lockdowns for so long.
Alternatively, he could have said "going for a curry is technically legal, but we won't do it because it would make me a raging hypocrite".
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No, I'm saying those who argued for restrictions shouldn't have written exemptions for themselves into them.
But it was the Tories that introduced it
With the full support of Labour and Sir Keir who demanded stricter restrictions for longer and complained when the restrictions were lifter (even though that was months too late).
If Sir Keir had done his job and opposed the government, we wouldn't have had so many disastrous lockdowns for so long.
But why are you having a go at Keir and not the Tories then, it seems weird. Boris Johnson put this policy into position voted for it and campaigned. Why is Keir the issue?
It's obvious to me that although Durham police found that Starmer had not broken the law and had no case to answer, he should nevertheless be locked up in Durham Prison and the key thrown away.
I would have thought him being put in stocks with BigG and Nadine Dorries invited to throw rotten fruit and veg at him sufficient punishment.
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No, I'm saying those who argued for restrictions shouldn't have written exemptions for themselves into them.
But it was the Tories that introduced it
With the full support of Labour and Sir Keir who demanded stricter restrictions for longer and complained when the restrictions were lifted (even though that was months too late).
If Sir Keir had done his job and opposed the government, we wouldn't have had so many disastrous lockdowns for so long.
Alternatively, he could have said "going for a curry is technically legal, but we won't do it because it would make me a raging hypocrite".
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No, I'm saying those who argued for restrictions shouldn't have written exemptions for themselves into them.
But it was the Tories that introduced it
With the full support of Labour and Sir Keir who demanded stricter restrictions for longer and complained when the restrictions were lifter (even though that was months too late).
If Sir Keir had done his job and opposed the government, we wouldn't have had so many disastrous lockdowns for so long.
But why are you having a go at Keir and not the Tories then, it seems weird. Boris Johnson put this policy into position voted for it and campaigned. Why is Keir the issue?
Because even though it was many months too late, Boris and the Tories did eventually remove the restrictions when Sir Keir was demanding they be kept in place.
I also haven't seen any evidence of Boris going for a meal with a group of more than six people he didn't live with after a day of campaigning.
"The large number of unfilled NHS job vacancies is posing a serious risk to patient safety, a report by MPs says.
It found England is now short of 12,000 hospital doctors and more than 50,000 nurses and midwives, calling this the worst workforce crisis in NHS history."
I expect the biggest real terms pay cut in decades will sort that out.
The problem is that the NHS has to run to stand still, and that challenge gets worse every year - more people live for longer with more chronic conditions all of whom require more people treating them for longer with more new (and expensive) drugs coming on the market all the time that make more things treatable too. And so on.
Of course, all those staff want real-terms salary increases each year too (who doesn't?) and so the NHS needs to consume an ever greater proportion of national income each and every year - it probably needs a budget increase of 9-10% every year just to stop it getting worse - just to deliver its decidedly average service.
This isn't sustainable. I don't see any party with answers.
There are lots of answers, but they all involve ditching the Bevanite delusion of free health care for all all the time, so we won't implement them until we really have to.
I just hope we do before the NHS strangles the economy. Already, unkind but accurate foreigners describe us as a health service with a country attached.
The NHS is really, really excellent at some things.
On this one it's worth noting that out of 35+ Western countries, including all of Europe, UK are the 7th most cost effective, after Tk, Po, Hu, Oz, Slovakia, Slovenia.
One of Maggie Thatcher’s Destructions Of The NHS (I think it was the 18th or 19th complete destruction), was that, where possible, generics should be used instead of the more expensive branded drugs.
AFAIK there are no generic insulins.
These, if i read the paper right, are an average of Humalog, Humulin, Apidra, Novorapid, Novolin, Lantus, Levemir.
Having said that, if generics help get more from the budget, then I have no problem at all with that as long as there are no catastrophic downsides.
During Covid we have seen some real benefits from having a far more unified system. Remember what a difficult time Germany had with the fragmented ownership of patients' medical data and the extra stages that introduced into the process of getting an injection?
Over the past few months I have been quite impressed with how easily the various health professionals I have had to deal with have been able to access my health records. Even the ambulance staff who picked me up when I had a fall could access my records on the iPad they carried. And I've had a printout of my health records which I got when I started having lots of appointments with different people and it is very comprehensive indeed. Couldn't find anything missing!
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No, I'm saying those who argued for restrictions shouldn't have written exemptions for themselves into them.
But it was the Tories that introduced it
With the full support of Labour and Sir Keir who demanded stricter restrictions for longer and complained when the restrictions were lifted (even though that was months too late).
If Sir Keir had done his job and opposed the government, we wouldn't have had so many disastrous lockdowns for so long.
Alternatively, he could have said "going for a curry is technically legal, but we won't do it because it would make me a raging hypocrite".
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No, I'm saying those who argued for restrictions shouldn't have written exemptions for themselves into them.
But it was the Tories that introduced it
With the full support of Labour and Sir Keir who demanded stricter restrictions for longer and complained when the restrictions were lifted (even though that was months too late).
If Sir Keir had done his job and opposed the government, we wouldn't have had so many disastrous lockdowns for so long.
Alternatively, he could have said "going for a curry is technically legal, but we won't do it because it would make me a raging hypocrite".
Anyway, tonight's hate fest on BBC1 should be worth a laugh. The riven Tories can't help hurling invective both at each other and their own government's record. Its as if nobody learned the lessons from the Miliband / Corbyn era of Labour.
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No, I'm saying those who argued for restrictions shouldn't have written exemptions for themselves into them.
But it was the Tories that introduced it
With the full support of Labour and Sir Keir who demanded stricter restrictions for longer and complained when the restrictions were lifter (even though that was months too late).
If Sir Keir had done his job and opposed the government, we wouldn't have had so many disastrous lockdowns for so long.
But why are you having a go at Keir and not the Tories then, it seems weird. Boris Johnson put this policy into position voted for it and campaigned. Why is Keir the issue?
Because even though it was many months too late, Boris and the Tories did eventually remove the restrictions when Sir Keir was demanding they be kept in place.
I also haven't seen any evidence of Boris going for a meal with a group of more than six people he didn't live with after a day of campaigning.
So hold on, even though Boris Johnson on the same day went to a pub and campaigned indoors, introduced the law in the first place, was given a FPN for an illegal gathering...
...it is really Keir Starmer to blame because he had a legal campaign event where he had to eat at the end of the day
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No, I'm saying those who argued for restrictions shouldn't have written exemptions for themselves into them.
But it was the Tories that introduced it
With the full support of Labour and Sir Keir who demanded stricter restrictions for longer and complained when the restrictions were lifter (even though that was months too late).
If Sir Keir had done his job and opposed the government, we wouldn't have had so many disastrous lockdowns for so long.
But why are you having a go at Keir and not the Tories then, it seems weird. Boris Johnson put this policy into position voted for it and campaigned. Why is Keir the issue?
Because even though it was many months too late, Boris and the Tories did eventually remove the restrictions when Sir Keir was demanding they be kept in place.
I also haven't seen any evidence of Boris going for a meal with a group of more than six people he didn't live with after a day of campaigning.
So hold on, even though Boris Johnson on the same day went to a pub and campaigned indoors, introduced the law in the first place, was given a FPN for an illegal gathering...
...it is really Keir Starmer to blame because he had a legal campaign event where he had to eat at the end of the day
Okay then
Bringing Boris's risible FPN into it rather distracts from the point, and shows that you just can't cope with your boy Sir Keir Starmer being a raging hypocrite. Whatever anyone else did or didn't do doesn't excuse that hypocrisy.
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No, I'm saying those who argued for restrictions shouldn't have written exemptions for themselves into them.
But it was the Tories that introduced it
With the full support of Labour and Sir Keir who demanded stricter restrictions for longer and complained when the restrictions were lifter (even though that was months too late).
If Sir Keir had done his job and opposed the government, we wouldn't have had so many disastrous lockdowns for so long.
But why are you having a go at Keir and not the Tories then, it seems weird. Boris Johnson put this policy into position voted for it and campaigned. Why is Keir the issue?
Because even though it was many months too late, Boris and the Tories did eventually remove the restrictions when Sir Keir was demanding they be kept in place.
I also haven't seen any evidence of Boris going for a meal with a group of more than six people he didn't live with after a day of campaigning.
The law exempted any volunteer out campaigning in that election. It’s not just politicians it’s any activist. Unless you’re suggesting that absolutely no-one should have been able to eat together indoors in those circumstances then I can’t understand what your point is. It seems to me that you’re real point was that you hated the idea of there being any pandemic related restrictions.
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No, I'm saying those who argued for restrictions shouldn't have written exemptions for themselves into them.
But it was the Tories that introduced it
With the full support of Labour and Sir Keir who demanded stricter restrictions for longer and complained when the restrictions were lifter (even though that was months too late).
If Sir Keir had done his job and opposed the government, we wouldn't have had so many disastrous lockdowns for so long.
But why are you having a go at Keir and not the Tories then, it seems weird. Boris Johnson put this policy into position voted for it and campaigned. Why is Keir the issue?
Because even though it was many months too late, Boris and the Tories did eventually remove the restrictions when Sir Keir was demanding they be kept in place.
I also haven't seen any evidence of Boris going for a meal with a group of more than six people he didn't live with after a day of campaigning.
So hold on, even though Boris Johnson on the same day went to a pub and campaigned indoors, introduced the law in the first place, was given a FPN for an illegal gathering...
...it is really Keir Starmer to blame because he had a legal campaign event where he had to eat at the end of the day
Okay then
Bringing Boris's risible FPN into it rather distracts from the point, and shows that you just can't cope with your boy Sir Keir Starmer being a raging hypocrite. Whatever anyone else did or didn't do doesn't excuse that hypocrisy.
But how is he a hypocrite, I don't understand.
There was a by-election that he faced, he faced it and campaigned.
Are you saying he was wrong to campaign? Was Johnson also therefore wrong to campaign?
The prospects of a Sunak win are deterioating sharply. I was surprised that there was not more effort at the weekend just past. It may be that the ODI and GP distracted me excessively but there seems to have been very little effort to reach the electorate in this contest. Maybe it was going on online in social media etc.
Tonight Rishi really has to persuade the electorate that Truss's economic plans are both irresponsible and unlikely to work. The risk is that if he loses he gives Labour its attack lines for the next 2 years. I suspect what he has to say will have far more traction with the electorate as a whole than with Conservative Party Members.
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No, I'm saying those who argued for restrictions shouldn't have written exemptions for themselves into them.
But it was the Tories that introduced it
With the full support of Labour and Sir Keir who demanded stricter restrictions for longer and complained when the restrictions were lifted (even though that was months too late).
If Sir Keir had done his job and opposed the government, we wouldn't have had so many disastrous lockdowns for so long.
Alternatively, he could have said "going for a curry is technically legal, but we won't do it because it would make me a raging hypocrite".
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No, I'm saying those who argued for restrictions shouldn't have written exemptions for themselves into them.
But it was the Tories that introduced it
With the full support of Labour and Sir Keir who demanded stricter restrictions for longer and complained when the restrictions were lifter (even though that was months too late).
If Sir Keir had done his job and opposed the government, we wouldn't have had so many disastrous lockdowns for so long.
But why are you having a go at Keir and not the Tories then, it seems weird. Boris Johnson put this policy into position voted for it and campaigned. Why is Keir the issue?
Because even though it was many months too late, Boris and the Tories did eventually remove the restrictions when Sir Keir was demanding they be kept in place.
I also haven't seen any evidence of Boris going for a meal with a group of more than six people he didn't live with after a day of campaigning.
So hold on, even though Boris Johnson on the same day went to a pub and campaigned indoors, introduced the law in the first place, was given a FPN for an illegal gathering...
...it is really Keir Starmer to blame because he had a legal campaign event where he had to eat at the end of the day
Okay then
Bringing Boris's risible FPN into it rather distracts from the point, and shows that you just can't cope with your boy Sir Keir Starmer being a raging hypocrite. Whatever anyone else did or didn't do doesn't excuse that hypocrisy.
But how is he a hypocrite, I don't understand.
There was a by-election that he faced, he faced it and campaigned.
Are you saying he was wrong to campaign? Was Johnson also therefore wrong to campaign?
He's saying that he hates Starmer because reasons.
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No, I'm saying those who argued for restrictions shouldn't have written exemptions for themselves into them.
But it was the Tories that introduced it
With the full support of Labour and Sir Keir who demanded stricter restrictions for longer and complained when the restrictions were lifter (even though that was months too late).
If Sir Keir had done his job and opposed the government, we wouldn't have had so many disastrous lockdowns for so long.
But why are you having a go at Keir and not the Tories then, it seems weird. Boris Johnson put this policy into position voted for it and campaigned. Why is Keir the issue?
Because even though it was many months too late, Boris and the Tories did eventually remove the restrictions when Sir Keir was demanding they be kept in place.
I also haven't seen any evidence of Boris going for a meal with a group of more than six people he didn't live with after a day of campaigning.
The law exempted any volunteer out campaigning in that election. It’s not just politicians it’s any activist. Unless you’re suggesting that absolutely no-one should have been able to eat together indoors in those circumstances then I can’t understand what your point is. It seems to me that you’re real point was that you hated the idea of there being any pandemic related restrictions.
(1) Activists are "them" in the "one rule for us, one rule for them"
(2) My point is that people who wanted restrictions - and who would go on to object to the removal of restrictions months later - shouldn't have been taking advantage of loopholes in the restrictions.
Don't forget boys and girls that we still have to have the full enquiry (public? statutory? parliamentary? I can't remember what had been agreed) into Covid - and lockdown will be a big chunk of it.
Lockdown was awful but it was needed. I hope that lessons can be learned about the experience from the "oh fuck" moment when the powers that be realised it was needed to the very end when the last mask mandates were lifted. Because we can't repeat the most egregiously stupid bits again next time.
The prospects of a Sunak win are deterioating sharply. I was surprised that there was not more effort at the weekend just past. It may be that the ODI and GP distracted me excessively but there seems to have been very little effort to reach the electorate in this contest. Maybe it was going on online in social media etc.
Tonight Rishi really has to persuade the electorate that Truss's economic plans are both irresponsible and unlikely to work. The risk is that if he loses he gives Labour its attack lines for the next 2 years. I suspect what he has to say will have far more traction with the electorate as a whole than with Conservative Party Members.
Prison hulks for asylum seekers not going to turn it round ?
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No, I'm saying those who argued for restrictions shouldn't have written exemptions for themselves into them.
But it was the Tories that introduced it
With the full support of Labour and Sir Keir who demanded stricter restrictions for longer and complained when the restrictions were lifter (even though that was months too late).
If Sir Keir had done his job and opposed the government, we wouldn't have had so many disastrous lockdowns for so long.
But why are you having a go at Keir and not the Tories then, it seems weird. Boris Johnson put this policy into position voted for it and campaigned. Why is Keir the issue?
Because even though it was many months too late, Boris and the Tories did eventually remove the restrictions when Sir Keir was demanding they be kept in place.
I also haven't seen any evidence of Boris going for a meal with a group of more than six people he didn't live with after a day of campaigning.
So hold on, even though Boris Johnson on the same day went to a pub and campaigned indoors, introduced the law in the first place, was given a FPN for an illegal gathering...
...it is really Keir Starmer to blame because he had a legal campaign event where he had to eat at the end of the day
Okay then
Bringing Boris's risible FPN into it rather distracts from the point, and shows that you just can't cope with your boy Sir Keir Starmer being a raging hypocrite. Whatever anyone else did or didn't do doesn't excuse that hypocrisy.
But how is he a hypocrite, I don't understand.
You don't think it's hypocrisy to demand restrictions on ordinary people and then to take advantage of a loophole in those restrictions to do what you want to do?
Remember, we aren't talking about campaigning. We're talking about going for a meal after campaigning.
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No, I'm saying those who argued for restrictions shouldn't have written exemptions for themselves into them.
But it was the Tories that introduced it
With the full support of Labour and Sir Keir who demanded stricter restrictions for longer and complained when the restrictions were lifted (even though that was months too late).
If Sir Keir had done his job and opposed the government, we wouldn't have had so many disastrous lockdowns for so long.
Alternatively, he could have said "going for a curry is technically legal, but we won't do it because it would make me a raging hypocrite".
I am not a Labour supporter but the simple fact is that Starmer didn't break the law, Johnson did. Everyone knew this, but it was an attempt by the Daily Mail et al to try and play to the "they are all the same so Johnson's behaviour is OK" narrative.
In days past, when PMs had honour, a PM would have resigned for less. Johnson apologists astonish me. When are they going to get it that we have never had a less appropriate person to be PM? He has trashed the Conservative Party's reputation on so many levels in the same way as Trump has done for the Republicans. As a person who is right of centre and one who was a Conservative Party activist for many years I see it as pretty tragic.
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No, I'm saying those who argued for restrictions shouldn't have written exemptions for themselves into them.
But it was the Tories that introduced it
With the full support of Labour and Sir Keir who demanded stricter restrictions for longer and complained when the restrictions were lifted (even though that was months too late).
If Sir Keir had done his job and opposed the government, we wouldn't have had so many disastrous lockdowns for so long.
Alternatively, he could have said "going for a curry is technically legal, but we won't do it because it would make me a raging hypocrite".
Labour government would prioritise growth - Starmer
Has to be said, nice one Keir. But "Labour not fussed about growth" is unthinkable so it fails my test for being an interesting announcement.
My test being - it must be possible to imagine the opposite being announced.
I listened to Keir on The Rest is Politics, which was a pretty good interview. He essentially said his focus would be on growing the economy, because he has rightly identified that being able to do so will help people in all kinds of different ways (bit light in the how, but I don't blame him this far from a campaign).
I think the danger is that, unless he can spin a convincing and simple story about how that economic growth is going to help the pound in our collective pockets, the Tories could say they're going to focus on people and jobs (the same thing, but sounds more relatable). David Cameron had a few good lines on this, but I'm not actually sure they cut through all that much.
If you want my honest opinion I think the notion of governments "growing the economy" is horseshit. It gets said by competing political parties purely because they know it's win/win motherhood and apple pie that everyone nods along to. The sustainable growth rate of our economy is largely outside their control. What's far more in their control is how the proceeds of growth (income and wealth) is spread across the population.
Hence Labour saying they're more interested in "size of pie" than how it's distributed is the opposite of what I want to hear. It's electioneering waffle imo. At the same time it's what I DO want to hear - because I really want a Labour government and I'm happy for SKS to pitch the messaging with this and only this in mind. My sense is he's smart on the politics of winning the next GE and is getting it right.
On your first point, I bow to no one in my ignorance of economics, but I fear you are right that politicians can't do much about the economic headwinds. I guess it comforts me to think that they can and of course there are always better or worse policies in response to the slings and arrows of the economy. If things are going bad, I think politicians can make decisions that will make them better (not that they always do, mind) and if they are going good they can make decisions that will make things worse (austerity is/was imo, an example). I suppose it all depends what SKS means by 'growing the economy' at the end of the day. At this stage it's pretty vague.
On your second point, I agree entirely. People think he's shit at politics. He's not. Indeed, I think the strategy is as follows. 1. Keep powder dry for the GE. 2. Announce sensible, credible policies (vanilla with a few chocolate chips), essentially asking the electorate to trust Labour with the shop. 3. Govern well enough to be worthy of that trust. 4. A broader reforming package for re-election.
The prospects of a Sunak win are deterioating sharply. I was surprised that there was not more effort at the weekend just past. It may be that the ODI and GP distracted me excessively but there seems to have been very little effort to reach the electorate in this contest. Maybe it was going on online in social media etc.
Tonight Rishi really has to persuade the electorate that Truss's economic plans are both irresponsible and unlikely to work. The risk is that if he loses he gives Labour its attack lines for the next 2 years. I suspect what he has to say will have far more traction with the electorate as a whole than with Conservative Party Members.
It's why having a membership vote for party leader is utterly insane - as you say the arguments used by candidate A against candidate B are sat waiting to be reused 2 years later....
So say I want restrictions against drunk driving, it is hypocritical of me to be taking advantage of the loophole in the restrictions which says I can drive when I am sober?
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No, I'm saying those who argued for restrictions shouldn't have written exemptions for themselves into them.
But it was the Tories that introduced it
With the full support of Labour and Sir Keir who demanded stricter restrictions for longer and complained when the restrictions were lifted (even though that was months too late).
If Sir Keir had done his job and opposed the government, we wouldn't have had so many disastrous lockdowns for so long.
Alternatively, he could have said "going for a curry is technically legal, but we won't do it because it would make me a raging hypocrite".
He didn't go for a curry.
Eh?
HE DID NOT GO FOR A CURRY
Can't see how to simplify this.
They gathered for beer and curry together. It was greasy. Angela wasn’t was there. The restaurants were closed open. There were 5 15 12 people present
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No, I'm saying those who argued for restrictions shouldn't have written exemptions for themselves into them.
But it was the Tories that introduced it
With the full support of Labour and Sir Keir who demanded stricter restrictions for longer and complained when the restrictions were lifted (even though that was months too late).
If Sir Keir had done his job and opposed the government, we wouldn't have had so many disastrous lockdowns for so long.
Alternatively, he could have said "going for a curry is technically legal, but we won't do it because it would make me a raging hypocrite".
Don't forget boys and girls that we still have to have the full enquiry (public? statutory? parliamentary? I can't remember what had been agreed) into Covid - and lockdown will be a big chunk of it.
Lockdown was awful but it was needed.
Nonsense. There was possibly justification for the initial three weeks - certainly under the media onslaught it would have taken a very special politician to stand up for the right thing. But even at the three week renewal, we knew that it hadn't been necessary, that infections had peaked before lockdown, and therefore that voluntary action had been enough.
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No, I'm saying those who argued for restrictions shouldn't have written exemptions for themselves into them.
But it was the Tories that introduced it
With the full support of Labour and Sir Keir who demanded stricter restrictions for longer and complained when the restrictions were lifted (even though that was months too late).
If Sir Keir had done his job and opposed the government, we wouldn't have had so many disastrous lockdowns for so long.
Alternatively, he could have said "going for a curry is technically legal, but we won't do it because it would make me a raging hypocrite".
I am not a Labour supporter but the simple fact is that Starmer didn't break the law, Johnson did. Everyone knew this, but it was an attempt by the Daily Mail et al to try and play to the "they are all the same so Johnson's behaviour is OK" narrative.
In days past, when PMs had honour, a PM would have resigned for less. Johnson apologists astonish me. When are they going to get it that we have never had a less appropriate person to be PM? He has trashed the Conservative Party's reputation on so many levels in the same way as Trump has done for the Republicans. As a person who is right of centre and one who was a Conservative Party activist for many years I see it as pretty tragic.
It is a testament to how poor the party has fallen that I agree with most of your posts - and I am a Labour member.
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No, I'm saying those who argued for restrictions shouldn't have written exemptions for themselves into them.
But it was the Tories that introduced it
With the full support of Labour and Sir Keir who demanded stricter restrictions for longer and complained when the restrictions were lifter (even though that was months too late).
If Sir Keir had done his job and opposed the government, we wouldn't have had so many disastrous lockdowns for so long.
But why are you having a go at Keir and not the Tories then, it seems weird. Boris Johnson put this policy into position voted for it and campaigned. Why is Keir the issue?
Because even though it was many months too late, Boris and the Tories did eventually remove the restrictions when Sir Keir was demanding they be kept in place.
I also haven't seen any evidence of Boris going for a meal with a group of more than six people he didn't live with after a day of campaigning.
The law exempted any volunteer out campaigning in that election. It’s not just politicians it’s any activist. Unless you’re suggesting that absolutely no-one should have been able to eat together indoors in those circumstances then I can’t understand what your point is. It seems to me that you’re real point was that you hated the idea of there being any pandemic related restrictions.
(1) Activists are "them" in the "one rule for us, one rule for them"
(2) My point is that people who wanted restrictions - and who would go on to object to the removal of restrictions months later - shouldn't have been taking advantage of loopholes in the restrictions.
Surely though the Conservative Party wanted restrictions because they brought in restrictions. Which had various exemptions. Which they exploited as much as the Labour team did.
So I struggle to follow your logic - is there any? You are attacking the people who wanted the restrictions and then exploited "loopholes" as being hypocrites. Yet only mention red rosette hypocrites and not the blue rosette hypocrites who actually introduced both the restrictions and the loopholes.
I assume you have a logical reason for this rather obvious screaming hypocrisy?
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No, I'm saying those who argued for restrictions shouldn't have written exemptions for themselves into them.
But it was the Tories that introduced it
With the full support of Labour and Sir Keir who demanded stricter restrictions for longer and complained when the restrictions were lifted (even though that was months too late).
If Sir Keir had done his job and opposed the government, we wouldn't have had so many disastrous lockdowns for so long.
Alternatively, he could have said "going for a curry is technically legal, but we won't do it because it would make me a raging hypocrite".
I am not a Labour supporter but the simple fact is that Starmer didn't break the law, Johnson did. .
What Boris did is entirely irrelevant to Sir Keir's hypocrisy.
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No, I'm saying those who argued for restrictions shouldn't have written exemptions for themselves into them.
But it was the Tories that introduced it
With the full support of Labour and Sir Keir who demanded stricter restrictions for longer and complained when the restrictions were lifter (even though that was months too late).
If Sir Keir had done his job and opposed the government, we wouldn't have had so many disastrous lockdowns for so long.
But why are you having a go at Keir and not the Tories then, it seems weird. Boris Johnson put this policy into position voted for it and campaigned. Why is Keir the issue?
Because even though it was many months too late, Boris and the Tories did eventually remove the restrictions when Sir Keir was demanding they be kept in place.
I also haven't seen any evidence of Boris going for a meal with a group of more than six people he didn't live with after a day of campaigning.
The law exempted any volunteer out campaigning in that election. It’s not just politicians it’s any activist. Unless you’re suggesting that absolutely no-one should have been able to eat together indoors in those circumstances then I can’t understand what your point is. It seems to me that you’re real point was that you hated the idea of there being any pandemic related restrictions.
(1) Activists are "them" in the "one rule for us, one rule for them"
(2) My point is that people who wanted restrictions - and who would go on to object to the removal of restrictions months later - shouldn't have been taking advantage of loopholes in the restrictions.
I’m sorry but I fundamentally object to your first point. Activists of every party are as vital to democracy as tellers and election officials. Dividing ordinary people who volunteer their time into us and them is really unhealthy.
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No, I'm saying those who argued for restrictions shouldn't have written exemptions for themselves into them.
But it was the Tories that introduced it
With the full support of Labour and Sir Keir who demanded stricter restrictions for longer and complained when the restrictions were lifted (even though that was months too late).
If Sir Keir had done his job and opposed the government, we wouldn't have had so many disastrous lockdowns for so long.
Alternatively, he could have said "going for a curry is technically legal, but we won't do it because it would make me a raging hypocrite".
I am not a Labour supporter but the simple fact is that Starmer didn't break the law, Johnson did. Everyone knew this, but it was an attempt by the Daily Mail et al to try and play to the "they are all the same so Johnson's behaviour is OK" narrative.
In days past, when PMs had honour, a PM would have resigned for less. Johnson apologists astonish me. When are they going to get it that we have never had a less appropriate person to be PM? He has trashed the Conservative Party's reputation on so many levels in the same way as Trump has done for the Republicans. As a person who is right of centre and one who was a Conservative Party activist for many years I see it as pretty tragic.
I read over the weekend that maybe 60K of the membership are newbies who have joined during the Johnson years because they love Boris and want to get Brexit done. These are the peeps signing this petition that is going around. They will be yearning for the King over the Water for years now. I guess a lot of them were actually former UKIPers who moved across when Johnson took over.
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No, I'm saying those who argued for restrictions shouldn't have written exemptions for themselves into them.
But it was the Tories that introduced it
With the full support of Labour and Sir Keir who demanded stricter restrictions for longer and complained when the restrictions were lifter (even though that was months too late).
If Sir Keir had done his job and opposed the government, we wouldn't have had so many disastrous lockdowns for so long.
But why are you having a go at Keir and not the Tories then, it seems weird. Boris Johnson put this policy into position voted for it and campaigned. Why is Keir the issue?
Because even though it was many months too late, Boris and the Tories did eventually remove the restrictions when Sir Keir was demanding they be kept in place.
I also haven't seen any evidence of Boris going for a meal with a group of more than six people he didn't live with after a day of campaigning.
So hold on, even though Boris Johnson on the same day went to a pub and campaigned indoors, introduced the law in the first place, was given a FPN for an illegal gathering...
...it is really Keir Starmer to blame because he had a legal campaign event where he had to eat at the end of the day
Okay then
Bringing Boris's risible FPN into it rather distracts from the point, and shows that you just can't cope with your boy Sir Keir Starmer being a raging hypocrite. Whatever anyone else did or didn't do doesn't excuse that hypocrisy.
But how is he a hypocrite, I don't understand.
You don't think it's hypocrisy to demand restrictions on ordinary people and then to take advantage of a loophole in those restrictions to do what you want to do?
Remember, we aren't talking about campaigning. We're talking about going for a meal after campaigning.
The prospects of a Sunak win are deterioating sharply. I was surprised that there was not more effort at the weekend just past. It may be that the ODI and GP distracted me excessively but there seems to have been very little effort to reach the electorate in this contest. Maybe it was going on online in social media etc.
Tonight Rishi really has to persuade the electorate that Truss's economic plans are both irresponsible and unlikely to work. The risk is that if he loses he gives Labour its attack lines for the next 2 years. I suspect what he has to say will have far more traction with the electorate as a whole than with Conservative Party Members.
Prison hulks for asylum seekers not going to turn it round ?
Neither of them have had the moral courage (although Rishi likes to talk about that) to call out the Rwanda nonsense for the obscenity that it is. The major difference between them is on economic policy and that is also Rishi's home ground. He will want to talk about that to the exclusion of all else if he can get away with it.
Keir Starmer has learned the art of how to win leadership elections then pivot to the country. Only one recent Labour leader has done the same
Indeed he's got the integrity and honesty of Boris Johnson and Tony Blair.
It may work to win an election.
You should vote for him then, you clearly don't value honesty or integrity in politicians
They're politicians. I expect it from them. 🤷♂️
I'm just amused at seeing people who acted all outraged at Boris showing a lack of integrity lapping up and loving Keir doing the same.
Keir Starmer didn't party his way through lockdown
Indeed. Instead he wanted us locked down for longer, calling lifting lockdown reckless etc, while he was prepared to engage in large gatherings of beer and korma. Legal for him but reckless and keep it illegal for the Plebs to do the same thing eh?
A bit like the performative nonsense of Labour not bothering to wear face masks at Party Conference but wearing them at PMQs to make a point.
He was involved in campaigning events like Johnson was, which were deemed perfectly legal. Boris Johnson was fined for having a party where a suitcase of booze was smuggled in.
This is not a good line of ground for you to be going down, you just look silly
He wanted it to be illegal for you and me to visit our family and friends, jeopardising our mental health, while he was legally "campaigning" with large gatherings of beer and korma. He was calling lifting lockdown reckless while engaging in large gatherings personally.
Fuck him. Fucking hypocrite. If gatherings were reckless, he shouldn't have been doing them. If they weren't reckless he should have been calling for lifting lockdown not chastising the government as reckless for lifting it.
You should go tell the police that they have got it wrong. Starmer was not partying with beer and korma. Saying he was is like watching a trial, the guy is cleared of all charges and there you are outside the court saying "well I say he is guilty because I don't like him"
Yeah. It is nonsense. Durham Police did the investigation and are in posession of the facts. SKS broke no law and we should accept the decision of the investigators. Durham Police Force are a good police force. They are not the met.
I know how gutted Philip was when the result came in. But now it is the Police that are the problem because he didn't like the result.
One man has received a FPN for smuggling in cake and booze. One man had a campaigning event and Durham Police cleared him not once but twice.
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No, I'm saying those who argued for restrictions shouldn't have written exemptions for themselves into them.
But it was the Tories that introduced it
With the full support of Labour and Sir Keir who demanded stricter restrictions for longer and complained when the restrictions were lifted (even though that was months too late).
If Sir Keir had done his job and opposed the government, we wouldn't have had so many disastrous lockdowns for so long.
Alternatively, he could have said "going for a curry is technically legal, but we won't do it because it would make me a raging hypocrite".
He didn't go for a curry.
Eh?
HE DID NOT GO FOR A CURRY
Can't see how to simplify this.
Eh? What did he do then, if not go for a curry?
He had a meal brought in. It is really quite simple. He didn't break the law and he didn't get a FPM. In this regard he is not remotely equivalent to Boris Johnson, who by all accounts was pretty lucky to only get one FPN. Johnson presided over a culture of rule breaking and did not ask anyone to intervene and stop it, and seemed by all accounts to have encouraged it.
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No, I'm saying those who argued for restrictions shouldn't have written exemptions for themselves into them.
But it was the Tories that introduced it
With the full support of Labour and Sir Keir who demanded stricter restrictions for longer and complained when the restrictions were lifted (even though that was months too late).
If Sir Keir had done his job and opposed the government, we wouldn't have had so many disastrous lockdowns for so long.
Alternatively, he could have said "going for a curry is technically legal, but we won't do it because it would make me a raging hypocrite".
Don't forget boys and girls that we still have to have the full enquiry (public? statutory? parliamentary? I can't remember what had been agreed) into Covid - and lockdown will be a big chunk of it.
Lockdown was awful but it was needed.
Nonsense. There was possibly justification for the initial three weeks - certainly under the media onslaught it would have taken a very special politician to stand up for the right thing. But even at the three week renewal, we knew that it hadn't been necessary, that infections had peaked before lockdown, and therefore that voluntary action had been enough.
Are you somebody else, if you don't mind my asking?
Whitehall will not be picking winners and losers under my watch.
Presume that means there'll be no onshore wind ban unlike Sunak.
Truss might also be binning the Boris-Cummings DARPA-lite (did it ever get off the ground?). It is hard to be sure from that tweet. It sounds like the sort of thing Mrs Thatcher would have said and perhaps that is really the point.
The classic “picking a winner” was the almost desperate investment in hydrogen fuel cell research for automotive use, long after it was clear that electric cars have won.
This was because hydrogen advocates promised the politicians and civil servants some political advantages from it.
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No, I'm saying those who argued for restrictions shouldn't have written exemptions for themselves into them.
But it was the Tories that introduced it
With the full support of Labour and Sir Keir who demanded stricter restrictions for longer and complained when the restrictions were lifter (even though that was months too late).
If Sir Keir had done his job and opposed the government, we wouldn't have had so many disastrous lockdowns for so long.
But why are you having a go at Keir and not the Tories then, it seems weird. Boris Johnson put this policy into position voted for it and campaigned. Why is Keir the issue?
Because even though it was many months too late, Boris and the Tories did eventually remove the restrictions when Sir Keir was demanding they be kept in place.
I also haven't seen any evidence of Boris going for a meal with a group of more than six people he didn't live with after a day of campaigning.
The law exempted any volunteer out campaigning in that election. It’s not just politicians it’s any activist. Unless you’re suggesting that absolutely no-one should have been able to eat together indoors in those circumstances then I can’t understand what your point is. It seems to me that you’re real point was that you hated the idea of there being any pandemic related restrictions.
(1) Activists are "them" in the "one rule for us, one rule for them"
(2) My point is that people who wanted restrictions - and who would go on to object to the removal of restrictions months later - shouldn't have been taking advantage of loopholes in the restrictions.
Surely though the Conservative Party wanted restrictions because they brought in restrictions. Which had various exemptions. Which they exploited as much as the Labour team did.
So I struggle to follow your logic - is there any? You are attacking the people who wanted the restrictions and then exploited "loopholes" as being hypocrites. Yet only mention red rosette hypocrites and not the blue rosette hypocrites who actually introduced both the restrictions and the loopholes.
I assume you have a logical reason for this rather obvious screaming hypocrisy?
Oh dear. Have you not been reading my comments? I've made it clear several times.
Boris and the Tories removed the restrictions. Many months too late, but they eventually did.
When they did, Sir Keir and Labour objected to the restrictions being removed.
Keir Starmer has learned the art of how to win leadership elections then pivot to the country. Only one recent Labour leader has done the same
Indeed he's got the integrity and honesty of Boris Johnson and Tony Blair.
It may work to win an election.
You should vote for him then, you clearly don't value honesty or integrity in politicians
They're politicians. I expect it from them. 🤷♂️
I'm just amused at seeing people who acted all outraged at Boris showing a lack of integrity lapping up and loving Keir doing the same.
Keir Starmer didn't party his way through lockdown
Indeed. Instead he wanted us locked down for longer, calling lifting lockdown reckless etc, while he was prepared to engage in large gatherings of beer and korma. Legal for him but reckless and keep it illegal for the Plebs to do the same thing eh?
A bit like the performative nonsense of Labour not bothering to wear face masks at Party Conference but wearing them at PMQs to make a point.
He was involved in campaigning events like Johnson was, which were deemed perfectly legal. Boris Johnson was fined for having a party where a suitcase of booze was smuggled in.
This is not a good line of ground for you to be going down, you just look silly
He wanted it to be illegal for you and me to visit our family and friends, jeopardising our mental health, while he was legally "campaigning" with large gatherings of beer and korma. He was calling lifting lockdown reckless while engaging in large gatherings personally.
Fuck him. Fucking hypocrite. If gatherings were reckless, he shouldn't have been doing them. If they weren't reckless he should have been calling for lifting lockdown not chastising the government as reckless for lifting it.
You should go tell the police that they have got it wrong. Starmer was not partying with beer and korma. Saying he was is like watching a trial, the guy is cleared of all charges and there you are outside the court saying "well I say he is guilty because I don't like him"
Yeah. It is nonsense. Durham Police did the investigation and are in posession of the facts. SKS broke no law and we should accept the decision of the investigators. Durham Police Force are a good police force. They are not the met.
I know how gutted Philip was when the result came in. But now it is the Police that are the problem because he didn't like the result.
One man has received a FPN for smuggling in cake and booze. One man had a campaigning event and Durham Police cleared him not once but twice.
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No, I'm saying those who argued for restrictions shouldn't have written exemptions for themselves into them.
But it was the Tories that introduced it
With the full support of Labour and Sir Keir who demanded stricter restrictions for longer and complained when the restrictions were lifter (even though that was months too late).
If Sir Keir had done his job and opposed the government, we wouldn't have had so many disastrous lockdowns for so long.
But why are you having a go at Keir and not the Tories then, it seems weird. Boris Johnson put this policy into position voted for it and campaigned. Why is Keir the issue?
Because even though it was many months too late, Boris and the Tories did eventually remove the restrictions when Sir Keir was demanding they be kept in place.
I also haven't seen any evidence of Boris going for a meal with a group of more than six people he didn't live with after a day of campaigning.
The law exempted any volunteer out campaigning in that election. It’s not just politicians it’s any activist. Unless you’re suggesting that absolutely no-one should have been able to eat together indoors in those circumstances then I can’t understand what your point is. It seems to me that you’re real point was that you hated the idea of there being any pandemic related restrictions.
People working together in an office, for example, were not allowed to eat together. The exemption was specifically for political activity. @Driver is correct that politicians carving out specific legislative exemptions for themselves, is a very bad look.
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No, I'm saying those who argued for restrictions shouldn't have written exemptions for themselves into them.
But it was the Tories that introduced it
With the full support of Labour and Sir Keir who demanded stricter restrictions for longer and complained when the restrictions were lifted (even though that was months too late).
If Sir Keir had done his job and opposed the government, we wouldn't have had so many disastrous lockdowns for so long.
Alternatively, he could have said "going for a curry is technically legal, but we won't do it because it would make me a raging hypocrite".
He didn't go for a curry.
Eh?
HE DID NOT GO FOR A CURRY
Can't see how to simplify this.
Eh? What did he do then, if not go for a curry?
Not like the facts are not accessible online
Then it should be trivial for you to explain.
As (a) others have explained it and (b) the facts are widely known and were on the front of the Mail for about a fortnight I have to assume that (c) you do know the facts but (d) are just being a prat.
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No, I'm saying those who argued for restrictions shouldn't have written exemptions for themselves into them.
But it was the Tories that introduced it
With the full support of Labour and Sir Keir who demanded stricter restrictions for longer and complained when the restrictions were lifted (even though that was months too late).
If Sir Keir had done his job and opposed the government, we wouldn't have had so many disastrous lockdowns for so long.
Alternatively, he could have said "going for a curry is technically legal, but we won't do it because it would make me a raging hypocrite".
He didn't go for a curry.
Eh?
HE DID NOT GO FOR A CURRY
Can't see how to simplify this.
Eh? What did he do then, if not go for a curry?
Not like the facts are not accessible online
Then it should be trivial for you to explain.
Fuck me, is English not one of your first three languages? Going for a curry is leaving premises which are not an Indian Restaurant, proceeding to premises which are, sitting down at a designated table and ordering, eating and paying for food and drink. And getting a bill with those little mints people say not to eat because of their unacceptably high urine content. This is not what happened.
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No, I'm saying those who argued for restrictions shouldn't have written exemptions for themselves into them.
But it was the Tories that introduced it
With the full support of Labour and Sir Keir who demanded stricter restrictions for longer and complained when the restrictions were lifted (even though that was months too late).
If Sir Keir had done his job and opposed the government, we wouldn't have had so many disastrous lockdowns for so long.
Alternatively, he could have said "going for a curry is technically legal, but we won't do it because it would make me a raging hypocrite".
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No, I'm saying those who argued for restrictions shouldn't have written exemptions for themselves into them.
But it was the Tories that introduced it
With the full support of Labour and Sir Keir who demanded stricter restrictions for longer and complained when the restrictions were lifter (even though that was months too late).
If Sir Keir had done his job and opposed the government, we wouldn't have had so many disastrous lockdowns for so long.
But why are you having a go at Keir and not the Tories then, it seems weird. Boris Johnson put this policy into position voted for it and campaigned. Why is Keir the issue?
Because even though it was many months too late, Boris and the Tories did eventually remove the restrictions when Sir Keir was demanding they be kept in place.
I also haven't seen any evidence of Boris going for a meal with a group of more than six people he didn't live with after a day of campaigning.
The law exempted any volunteer out campaigning in that election. It’s not just politicians it’s any activist. Unless you’re suggesting that absolutely no-one should have been able to eat together indoors in those circumstances then I can’t understand what your point is. It seems to me that you’re real point was that you hated the idea of there being any pandemic related restrictions.
(1) Activists are "them" in the "one rule for us, one rule for them"
(2) My point is that people who wanted restrictions - and who would go on to object to the removal of restrictions months later - shouldn't have been taking advantage of loopholes in the restrictions.
Surely though the Conservative Party wanted restrictions because they brought in restrictions. Which had various exemptions. Which they exploited as much as the Labour team did.
So I struggle to follow your logic - is there any? You are attacking the people who wanted the restrictions and then exploited "loopholes" as being hypocrites. Yet only mention red rosette hypocrites and not the blue rosette hypocrites who actually introduced both the restrictions and the loopholes.
I assume you have a logical reason for this rather obvious screaming hypocrisy?
Oh dear. Have you not been reading my comments? I've made it clear several times.
Boris and the Tories removed the restrictions. Many months too late, but they eventually did.
When they did, Sir Keir and Labour objected to the restrictions being removed.
And before they removed the restrictions, they *introduced* the restrictions.
Laws were written to stop you or I doing things but allowing political activists to do so.
Were those written by: (a) Boris Johnson, or (b) Kier Starmer?
I'll give you a clue. One of them was the Prime Minister, the other one wasn't. You are saying "well Starmer objected to the restrictions being removed. OK, but Johnson *wrote* the restrictions you are so upset about. Complete with the "loopholes" then exploited by one Boris Johnson amongst others.
I don't think its true that governments cannot help the economy to grow but the effects are more indirect than direct. So a government that provides adequate infrastructure will make the areas affected more attractive; a country with an education system that works for most of the population will definitely improve productivity and output. An economic policy that encourages investment and training can do likewise.
Where I do agree with @kinabalu is that we should be deeply wary of politicians who promise both cake and the eating of cake. We have just tried that and it has not been a success. Most of the examples I have given above would almost certainly not bear fruit until the politician in question has left office. It is certainly not a justification for spending more on policy X right now.
The prospects of a Sunak win are deterioating sharply. I was surprised that there was not more effort at the weekend just past. It may be that the ODI and GP distracted me excessively but there seems to have been very little effort to reach the electorate in this contest. Maybe it was going on online in social media etc.
Tonight Rishi really has to persuade the electorate that Truss's economic plans are both irresponsible and unlikely to work. The risk is that if he loses he gives Labour its attack lines for the next 2 years. I suspect what he has to say will have far more traction with the electorate as a whole than with Conservative Party Members.
We will get Truss, for the simple reason that the Conservative membership is like a stale old cup of tea, where the only part of what was once an exciting and refreshing brew is now reduced to a mouldy old concentrate of dregs.
The most stupid part of the activist base now holds sway along with ex-members of the Brexit Party and UKIP. They have been told by the ERG to vote for Truss, and some of them are so dim that they will have bought the 21st century Mrs T bollox.
Nonetheless, it is still a slight improvement on having a clown for PM, though it does mean that we are doomed to a Labour govt after the next election. Yet another "benefit of Brexit" I suppose.
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
The prospects of a Sunak win are deterioating sharply. I was surprised that there was not more effort at the weekend just past. It may be that the ODI and GP distracted me excessively but there seems to have been very little effort to reach the electorate in this contest. Maybe it was going on online in social media etc.
Tonight Rishi really has to persuade the electorate that Truss's economic plans are both irresponsible and unlikely to work. The risk is that if he loses he gives Labour its attack lines for the next 2 years. I suspect what he has to say will have far more traction with the electorate as a whole than with Conservative Party Members.
It's why having a membership vote for party leader is utterly insane - as you say the arguments used by candidate A against candidate B are sat waiting to be reused 2 years later....
In fairness it probably works in opposition but in government the Tories could really have done without this.
Comments
But anyway ...
These, if i read the paper right, are an average of Humalog, Humulin, Apidra, Novorapid, Novolin, Lantus, Levemir.
Having said that, if generics help get more from the budget, then I have no problem at all with that as long as there are no catastrophic downsides.
During Covid we have seen some real benefits from having a far more unified system. Remember what a difficult time Germany had with the fragmented ownership of patients' medical data and the extra stages that introduced into the process of getting an injection?
Bart really is clutching at straws
If he does a Blair and gives concessions to be 'nice' for no real benefit in return, then he will correctly get his nuts roasted.
The EuCo puts the value of 'nice' at zero.
I suspect it very much depends on the time they were eating - which could easily have been after last food orders
And as for frogs we saw lots of baby ones locally a few days ago. Adorable.
PS The GRaun has a very nice looking recipe for a Maltese tomato and tuna sandwich to be served with kraut or other pickle. Yum. Is it lunchtime yet?
Has a very good Coffee Shop though...
Dislike the law? Fine. But you're foaming on only about Starmer and that makes it an excuse for a vendetta.
Whitehall will not be picking winners and losers under my watch.
Presume that means there'll be no onshore wind ban unlike Sunak.
I think that is your fourth disclosed Balshore Investments poll in 2 weeks? Random sample indeed.
Blimey.
https://nationaltoday.com/national-wine-and-cheese-day/
https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/style/828602/Nadine-Dorries-fashion-secrets-Conservative-MP-author-style
If Sir Keir had done his job and opposed the government, we wouldn't have had so many disastrous lockdowns for so long.
Alternatively, he could have said "going for a curry is technically legal, but we won't do it because it would make me a raging hypocrite".
I also haven't seen any evidence of Boris going for a meal with a group of more than six people he didn't live with after a day of campaigning.
Andrew is not happy
I'm sure @bigjohnowls would love to visit and admire the "art"
...it is really Keir Starmer to blame because he had a legal campaign event where he had to eat at the end of the day
Okay then
There was a by-election that he faced, he faced it and campaigned.
Are you saying he was wrong to campaign? Was Johnson also therefore wrong to campaign?
Tonight Rishi really has to persuade the electorate that Truss's economic plans are both irresponsible and unlikely to work. The risk is that if he loses he gives Labour its attack lines for the next 2 years. I suspect what he has to say will have far more traction with the electorate as a whole than with Conservative Party Members.
Can't see how to simplify this.
(2) My point is that people who wanted restrictions - and who would go on to object to the removal of restrictions months later - shouldn't have been taking advantage of loopholes in the restrictions.
Lockdown was awful but it was needed. I hope that lessons can be learned about the experience from the "oh fuck" moment when the powers that be realised it was needed to the very end when the last mask mandates were lifted. Because we can't repeat the most egregiously stupid bits again next time.
Remember, we aren't talking about campaigning. We're talking about going for a meal after campaigning.
In days past, when PMs had honour, a PM would have resigned for less. Johnson apologists astonish me. When are they going to get it that we have never had a less appropriate person to be PM? He has trashed the Conservative Party's reputation on so many levels in the same way as Trump has done for the Republicans. As a person who is right of centre and one who was a Conservative Party activist for many years I see it as pretty tragic.
On your second point, I agree entirely. People think he's shit at politics. He's not. Indeed, I think the strategy is as follows. 1. Keep powder dry for the GE. 2. Announce sensible, credible policies (vanilla with a few chocolate chips), essentially asking the electorate to trust Labour with the shop. 3. Govern well enough to be worthy of that trust. 4. A broader reforming package for re-election.
wasn’twas there. The restaurants wereclosedopen. There were5 1512 people presentSo I struggle to follow your logic - is there any? You are attacking the people who wanted the restrictions and then exploited "loopholes" as being hypocrites. Yet only mention red rosette hypocrites and not the blue rosette hypocrites who actually introduced both the restrictions and the loopholes.
I assume you have a logical reason for this rather obvious screaming hypocrisy?
So, like GOP, Tory party has a serious problem.
This was because hydrogen advocates promised the politicians and civil servants some political advantages from it.
Boris and the Tories removed the restrictions. Many months too late, but they eventually did.
When they did, Sir Keir and Labour objected to the restrictions being removed.
And you expect that election will also allow a member's vote.
The Tory party is utterly insane if that's the case.
Read the list of competing claims:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/may/08/what-is-beergate-and-why-does-it-matter
And reflect on the fact that the police have since settled the matter.
That you and Barty are evidently disappointed doesn't factor into it.
Laws were written to stop you or I doing things but allowing political activists to do so.
Were those written by:
(a) Boris Johnson, or
(b) Kier Starmer?
I'll give you a clue. One of them was the Prime Minister, the other one wasn't. You are saying "well Starmer objected to the restrictions being removed. OK, but Johnson *wrote* the restrictions you are so upset about. Complete with the "loopholes" then exploited by one Boris Johnson amongst others.
Where I do agree with @kinabalu is that we should be deeply wary of politicians who promise both cake and the eating of cake. We have just tried that and it has not been a success. Most of the examples I have given above would almost certainly not bear fruit until the politician in question has left office. It is certainly not a justification for spending more on policy X right now.
This is not "going for a curry". These facts aren't in dispute
The most stupid part of the activist base now holds sway along with ex-members of the Brexit Party and UKIP. They have been told by the ERG to vote for Truss, and some of them are so dim that they will have bought the 21st century Mrs T bollox.
Nonetheless, it is still a slight improvement on having a clown for PM, though it does mean that we are doomed to a Labour govt after the next election. Yet another "benefit of Brexit" I suppose.