Breaking: Starmer’s leadership? – politicalbetting.com
Comments
-
This was the Tweet that Beth Rigby mentioned...
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1488176626642923521
Keir Starmer
@Keir_Starmer
Honesty and decency matter.
After months of denials the Prime Minister is now under criminal investigations for breaking his own lockdown laws.
He needs to do the decent thing and resign.0 -
I would say quite the reverse. He has lobbed the perfect grenade into Johnson's court with impeccable timing. Johnson and his disciples are looking even more sleazy than usual. No one believes Starmer was partying because it's clear to anyone with sight that he wasn't.Mexicanpete said:
Yes he should go now having demanded Johnson go on news of the FPN investigation. The fact that Johnson still hasn't gone despite an FPN sort of neutralises that argument. Johnson could have made the same assurance as Starmer has today.RobD said:
This is the bit from HansardCorrectHorseBattery said:
LinkRobD said:
He made a similar statement before the Gray report even came out.CorrectHorseBattery said:
Yea that’s resign for lying, which he did in the HoCRobD said:
https://twitter.com/keir_starmer/status/1488176626642923521?lang=enCorrectHorseBattery said:
No he did not. Cite the claimPensfold said:Starmer said that Boris should resign just for being investigated. Now Starmer is being investigated he should resign.
“Honesty and decency matter. After months of denials the Prime Minister is now under criminal investigations for breaking his own lockdown laws. He needs to do the decent thing and resign.”
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2022-01-26b.994.5
Calling for him to resign even when the investigation is underway.
Labour media management has been shocking. Four days to get to this point really is poor.
Starmer knows he isn't going to get an FPN so he is doing what anyone would do. He is going to toy with Johnson like a hooked whale.1 -
What questions would actually provide anything useful here - given how crap most Journalists are at asking questions.Big_G_NorthWales said:Starmer couldn't get off the stage quickly enough
2 -
Thats easy to bat away. There were no concerns. Here are the laws covering campaign events, here is what we did to risk assess, here is what we did. Now lets talk about your campaign events, such as Michael Gove in the pub with activists late April 21. What did you do?williamglenn said:All of the "forensic" questions that Starmer put to the PM can be thrown back at him. For example: "When did he first become aware that any of his staff had concerns about the party?"
Remember, ALL the parties had campaign events just like this one at that time. Because they were legally permitted to do so. None of Labour's other campaign events are under scrutiny, or Tory ones, or LibDem ones. Just this single one. Why?
Because the accusers know its bullshit. If it was clear they were illegal they would pile on with all of the other examples. And they haven't. Because they were all legal as well.0 -
He might not want to.....Unpopular said:
It's a trickier point, I think, and I can understand why he doesn't want to get into the weeds of all the permutations of what he might or might not do.CarlottaVance said:Once a lawyer.....
Starmer not clear on what he will do if Durham Police don't fine him retrospectively but conclude that he did infringe the rules, as they did with Dominic Cummings.
https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1523682874871799811
Taken about ten seconds for this to unravel. @BethRigby nailed him. For all the talk of integrity, won’t commit to resigning if found he breached the rules (as in Cummings case) but doesn’t get FPN.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1523683738596433920?s=20&t=X320pO16mKsT0IzCGakgpQ0 -
And I have been accused of being a liar for exactly that tweet and the fact it is thrown back at Starmer dailykjh said:
Yep tricky one that. Only defence is I'm definitely not guilty, but we all know you are. Personally I would struggle to make that argument convincingly. His tweet was far too definite.Leon said:'Honesty and decency matter. After months of denials the Prime Minister is now under criminal investigations for breaking his own lockdown laws. He needs to do the decent thing and resign.'
Starmer’s tweet on January 31. Investigation alone is grounds for resignation. Hoist, say hello to Petard, Own.0 -
Starmer not clear on what he will do if Durham Police don't fine him retrospectively but conclude that he did infringe the rules, as they did with Dominic Cummings.
IMO if he infringed the rules he has to go
As I said earlier Durham Police said during the DC affair we have not issued any retrospective action against anyone else so we will not with DC even though his actions were nit in line with the rules at the time0 -
Yes.Applicant said:
No, CHB and Gardenwalker say you're lying and gaslighting.Leon said:'Honesty and decency matter. After months of denials the Prime Minister is now under criminal investigations for breaking his own lockdown laws. He needs to do the decent thing and resign.'
Starmer’s tweet on January 31. Investigation alone is grounds for resignation. Hoist, say hello to Petard, Own.
The evidence that has been presented on here is that Keir was calling for Boris’s resignation once it became clear he was lying to parliament and in breach of the ministerial code.
That is the context for the Jan 31 tweet as helpfully provided (maybe inadvertently?) by RobD.1 -
You might want to go back in time and not make that post.NerysHughes said:When is Angela Rayner making a statement?
0 -
That’s because it does appear to be a lie.Big_G_NorthWales said:
And I have been accused of being a liar for exactly that tweet and the fact it is thrown back at Starmer dailykjh said:
Yep tricky one that. Only defence is I'm definitely not guilty, but we all know you are. Personally I would struggle to make that argument convincingly. His tweet was far too definite.Leon said:'Honesty and decency matter. After months of denials the Prime Minister is now under criminal investigations for breaking his own lockdown laws. He needs to do the decent thing and resign.'
Starmer’s tweet on January 31. Investigation alone is grounds for resignation. Hoist, say hello to Petard, Own.0 -
You called on the PM to resign because he was under investigation - as you are now. Why should he have resigned purely for being investigated, when you won’t now resign yourself?eek said:
What questions would actually provide anything useful here - given how crap most Journalists are at asking questions.Big_G_NorthWales said:Starmer couldn't get off the stage quickly enough
0 -
Breaking - Rayner says she will quit too. "We have a Prime Minister who has been found to have broken the rules, lied about it and then been fined. If I were issued with a fine, I would do the decent thing and step down."
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/15236840891357962260 -
Depends on the hotel and the curry. I'd probably chance it with the hotel room service were I a prominent politician that had voted through onerous laws about not socialising. This is what I don't understand, they just had to play it safe with this for a few months and then do what they wanted. Yet they couldn't help themselves. I didn't, but then again, I also didn't vote for or support lockdowns.rcs1000 said:
I was referring to - for example - the contention that he knew that the hotel would be serving food.Applicant said:
Simply applying the same standard that Labour have to Boris.rcs1000 said:
There's an awful lot of things in there that you characterise as lying, which might well be simple ignorance.bigjohnowls said:Wonder if SKS will take questions?
Some easy ones surely
1. You tweeted Boris needed to go just because it was going to be investigated by the Met. irrespective of their findings Why are you waiting?
2 Why did you lie about Rayner
3. Why did you eat indoors with others rather than back at the hotel
4, What work fid you do after drinking beer. Someone present says no work was done or even planned after the Curry and Beer are they liars or you
5. You stated nowhere was available to eat that was incorrect there were multiple places including your hotel Why did you lie about that
6. Do you think you retain the trust of the Public a poll today showed twice as many thought you should quit compared to those who thought you should stay Is your position untenable
Loads of other ones like were there any other instances where you broke local rules?
I suspect he will have one robotic answer and will not be able to think on his feet so will repeat over and over again.
I think he should say there is a Poster on PB who says I am a Labour Legend the same as John Smith so I am not going to resign
If you had the choice between (a) a definite curry or (b) possible hotel food, which would you choose?0 -
Yes, you would, wouldn't you?Roger said:
I would say quite the reverse.Mexicanpete said:
Yes he should go now having demanded Johnson go on news of the FPN investigation. The fact that Johnson still hasn't gone despite an FPN sort of neutralises that argument. Johnson could have made the same assurance as Starmer has today.RobD said:
This is the bit from HansardCorrectHorseBattery said:
LinkRobD said:
He made a similar statement before the Gray report even came out.CorrectHorseBattery said:
Yea that’s resign for lying, which he did in the HoCRobD said:
https://twitter.com/keir_starmer/status/1488176626642923521?lang=enCorrectHorseBattery said:
No he did not. Cite the claimPensfold said:Starmer said that Boris should resign just for being investigated. Now Starmer is being investigated he should resign.
“Honesty and decency matter. After months of denials the Prime Minister is now under criminal investigations for breaking his own lockdown laws. He needs to do the decent thing and resign.”
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2022-01-26b.994.5
Calling for him to resign even when the investigation is underway.
Labour media management has been shocking. Four days to get to this point really is poor.1 -
Dan Hodges has shredded his credibility on this; you might as well post Vlad Putin on the success of his war aims.CarlottaVance said:
He might not want to.....Unpopular said:
It's a trickier point, I think, and I can understand why he doesn't want to get into the weeds of all the permutations of what he might or might not do.CarlottaVance said:Once a lawyer.....
Starmer not clear on what he will do if Durham Police don't fine him retrospectively but conclude that he did infringe the rules, as they did with Dominic Cummings.
https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1523682874871799811
Taken about ten seconds for this to unravel. @BethRigby nailed him. For all the talk of integrity, won’t commit to resigning if found he breached the rules (as in Cummings case) but doesn’t get FPN.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1523683738596433920?s=20&t=X320pO16mKsT0IzCGakgpQ0 -
Looks as if I am owed an apology by a couple of posterstlg86 said:This was the Tweet that Beth Rigby mentioned...
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1488176626642923521
Keir Starmer
@Keir_Starmer
Honesty and decency matter.
After months of denials the Prime Minister is now under criminal investigations for breaking his own lockdown laws.
He needs to do the decent thing and resign.5 -
"Context"? Yeah, right.Gardenwalker said:
Yes.Applicant said:
No, CHB and Gardenwalker say you're lying and gaslighting.Leon said:'Honesty and decency matter. After months of denials the Prime Minister is now under criminal investigations for breaking his own lockdown laws. He needs to do the decent thing and resign.'
Starmer’s tweet on January 31. Investigation alone is grounds for resignation. Hoist, say hello to Petard, Own.
The evidence that has been presented on here is that Keir was calling for Boris’s resignation once it became clear he was lying to parliament and in breach of the ministerial code.
That is the context for the Jan 31 tweet as helpfully provided (maybe inadvertently?) by RobD.
That tweet clearly says that investigation should mean resignation.
If SKS meant it to say something different, it would have said something different.1 -
No, it doesn't.Gardenwalker said:
That’s because it does appear to be a lie.Big_G_NorthWales said:
And I have been accused of being a liar for exactly that tweet and the fact it is thrown back at Starmer dailykjh said:
Yep tricky one that. Only defence is I'm definitely not guilty, but we all know you are. Personally I would struggle to make that argument convincingly. His tweet was far too definite.Leon said:'Honesty and decency matter. After months of denials the Prime Minister is now under criminal investigations for breaking his own lockdown laws. He needs to do the decent thing and resign.'
Starmer’s tweet on January 31. Investigation alone is grounds for resignation. Hoist, say hello to Petard, Own.0 -
The vibe we are all getting from Labour right now is that they are fully in charge of this situation.0
-
He’s doing perfectly well without one. Look what happened last time we had a leader with a strong profile.Gardenwalker said:
One of serious proposals for Ed Davey is that he does all TV appearances wearing a hiking jacket.MoonRabbit said:
Libdems hiking here!Stuartinromford said:Meanwhile:
Lovely bit of polling from Savanta: 41% of Brits have heard about Beergate, 74% Partygate - and 20% claim they know about Hikegate 'a fictional Covid-related scandal relating to Ed Davey'
https://twitter.com/JamesTapsfield/status/1523680046673809408
Up to the walls, and right bloody through them.
He needs a bloody profile - anything!0 -
The Rayner angle was very applicable when people on here were claiming that the police had investigated and cleared the event. And it was relevant because it was clear the police had made that determination on partial information.RochdalePioneers said:
By rules you mean laws. And the key word is "laws". Not guidelines. Not guesswork. Not that there was a memo. Not that they "lied" about Rayner's presence at what they considered to be a legal event. Just the law.bigjohnowls said:Best few minutes I have seen from SKS
If Durham Police agree no rules were broken he probably survives
The problem with the Mail/Tory HQ case is that it doesn't quote the laws. It thrashed around for a week trying to find an angle. So now he's done "put up or shut up" and frankly I think he can now slam Johnson hard.
"If I get a FPN I will quit because I have honour and principles. Why has the Prime Minister not displayed any honour and principles and done what I will do?"
Tories haven't thought this one through. Pressure back onto Johnson.
The memo would almost certainly be part of the evidence that the police use in the decision, as would witness information, pictures and videos.
I do not know what the police will decide.
You do not know what the police will decide.
*Starmer* does not know what the police will decide. And he is a hot-shot top lawyer.
And this is because the law is very poorly defined. When is a party not a party but a work event? Can people 'work' when pi**ed ? etc, etc.
The whole thing is a minefield. No-one should have been prosecuted under these laws for these sorts of edge cases.2 -
Watching PB Righties being triggered by this is hilarious.3
-
@RochdalePioneers, the chief Tory accuser - Richard Holden - also enjoyed a curry with supporters while campaigning that week.RochdalePioneers said:
Thats easy to bat away. There were no concerns. Here are the laws covering campaign events, here is what we did to risk assess, here is what we did. Now lets talk about your campaign events, such as Michael Gove in the pub with activists late April 21. What did you do?williamglenn said:All of the "forensic" questions that Starmer put to the PM can be thrown back at him. For example: "When did he first become aware that any of his staff had concerns about the party?"
Remember, ALL the parties had campaign events just like this one at that time. Because they were legally permitted to do so. None of Labour's other campaign events are under scrutiny, or Tory ones, or LibDem ones. Just this single one. Why?
Because the accusers know its bullshit. If it was clear they were illegal they would pile on with all of the other examples. And they haven't. Because they were all legal as well.
Perfectly legally, of course.
This is an astonishing act of gaslighting by the Tories and the fact it has gained so much momentum reflects very poorly on Labour media management, but frankly also the UK’s media generally.2 -
I'm sorry mate, after a few weeks of saying nothing was necessary it's your credibility which is in shreds. Like you I think this is all trivial bullshit, I am enjoying the hypocrisy of Labour supporters and MPs going in so hard on Boris now having to carefully choose what they say though. It's almost as if there's a lawyer in charge.Gardenwalker said:
Dan Hodges has shredded his credibility on this; you might as well post Vlad Putin on the success of his war aims.CarlottaVance said:
He might not want to.....Unpopular said:
It's a trickier point, I think, and I can understand why he doesn't want to get into the weeds of all the permutations of what he might or might not do.CarlottaVance said:Once a lawyer.....
Starmer not clear on what he will do if Durham Police don't fine him retrospectively but conclude that he did infringe the rules, as they did with Dominic Cummings.
https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1523682874871799811
Taken about ten seconds for this to unravel. @BethRigby nailed him. For all the talk of integrity, won’t commit to resigning if found he breached the rules (as in Cummings case) but doesn’t get FPN.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1523683738596433920?s=20&t=X320pO16mKsT0IzCGakgpQ
The best outcome here is Starmer having to resign and taking Boris down with him. The worst outcome is some lawyerly way of not resigning but being damaged by it and Boris being let off the hook as the voters decide "plague on both your houses".1 -
The Tories don't want him to resign.
A point to keep firmly in mind.1 -
Charles Kennedy?TimS said:
He’s doing perfectly well without one. Look what happened last time we had a leader with a strong profile.Gardenwalker said:
One of serious proposals for Ed Davey is that he does all TV appearances wearing a hiking jacket.MoonRabbit said:
Libdems hiking here!Stuartinromford said:Meanwhile:
Lovely bit of polling from Savanta: 41% of Brits have heard about Beergate, 74% Partygate - and 20% claim they know about Hikegate 'a fictional Covid-related scandal relating to Ed Davey'
https://twitter.com/JamesTapsfield/status/1523680046673809408
Up to the walls, and right bloody through them.
He needs a bloody profile - anything!
Quite successfully from memory.0 -
It absolutely is notGardenwalker said:
That’s because it does appear to be a lie.Big_G_NorthWales said:
And I have been accused of being a liar for exactly that tweet and the fact it is thrown back at Starmer dailykjh said:
Yep tricky one that. Only defence is I'm definitely not guilty, but we all know you are. Personally I would struggle to make that argument convincingly. His tweet was far too definite.Leon said:'Honesty and decency matter. After months of denials the Prime Minister is now under criminal investigations for breaking his own lockdown laws. He needs to do the decent thing and resign.'
Starmer’s tweet on January 31. Investigation alone is grounds for resignation. Hoist, say hello to Petard, Own.0 -
You're still carrying on about "gaslighting" when you've been caught bang to rights doing just that?Gardenwalker said:
@RochdalePioneers, the chief Tory accuser - Richard Holden - also enjoyed a curry with supporters while campaigning that week.RochdalePioneers said:
Thats easy to bat away. There were no concerns. Here are the laws covering campaign events, here is what we did to risk assess, here is what we did. Now lets talk about your campaign events, such as Michael Gove in the pub with activists late April 21. What did you do?williamglenn said:All of the "forensic" questions that Starmer put to the PM can be thrown back at him. For example: "When did he first become aware that any of his staff had concerns about the party?"
Remember, ALL the parties had campaign events just like this one at that time. Because they were legally permitted to do so. None of Labour's other campaign events are under scrutiny, or Tory ones, or LibDem ones. Just this single one. Why?
Because the accusers know its bullshit. If it was clear they were illegal they would pile on with all of the other examples. And they haven't. Because they were all legal as well.
Perfectly legally, of course.
This is an astonishing act of gaslighting by the Tories and the fact it has gained so much momentum reflects very poorly on Labour media management, but frankly also the UK’s media generally.0 -
Tory press now say this puts "unfair pressure" on Durham police...
Something they'd never dream of doing, of course.
Pitiful stuff.
0 -
Nope, because you have perhaps deliberately ignored the actual context of the tweet.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Looks as if I am owed an apology by a couple of posterstlg86 said:This was the Tweet that Beth Rigby mentioned...
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1488176626642923521
Keir Starmer
@Keir_Starmer
Honesty and decency matter.
After months of denials the Prime Minister is now under criminal investigations for breaking his own lockdown laws.
He needs to do the decent thing and resign.
See Hansard, posted upthread.0 -
Is this the Dan Hodges of the Daily Mail you have been insisting for weeks now that there is "nothing to see" and its all a confected nonsense?Gardenwalker said:
Dan Hodges has shredded his credibility on this; you might as well post Vlad Putin on the success of his war aims.CarlottaVance said:
He might not want to.....Unpopular said:
It's a trickier point, I think, and I can understand why he doesn't want to get into the weeds of all the permutations of what he might or might not do.CarlottaVance said:Once a lawyer.....
Starmer not clear on what he will do if Durham Police don't fine him retrospectively but conclude that he did infringe the rules, as they did with Dominic Cummings.
https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1523682874871799811
Taken about ten seconds for this to unravel. @BethRigby nailed him. For all the talk of integrity, won’t commit to resigning if found he breached the rules (as in Cummings case) but doesn’t get FPN.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1523683738596433920?s=20&t=X320pO16mKsT0IzCGakgpQ
Which the Leader of the Opposition has now declared he will resign over if it isn't?
Are you sure it's Dan Hodges who's shredded his credibility, and not someone closer to home?0 -
Whether or not the leader of the opposition is to change is now wholly in the hands of Durham police.
That's troubling isn't it?4 -
Interesting people think partygate is much worse than beergate according to the pollster on LBC.
I think Starmer should have said that he called for Johnson to resign as a culmination of all the party investigations regarding the hypocrite accusations .
However I think Starmer has done the right thing in offering to step down if found guilty of breaching the rules and the Tories are now in a bad position .0 -
This is the key point to remember, the Tories want Starmer to get some kind of fine/not fine but guilty and then not resign. If he resigns it makes Boris' position untenable and the MPs might actually have to act to dump him. I'd be happy to see them both go, but this is, atm, lining up to be the first scenario where the Durham police say "it broke the rules but we're not issuing retrospective fines" and he takes the hit but escapes resigning.dixiedean said:The Tories don't want him to resign.
A point to keep firmly in mind.0 -
Watching from afar, this is all hillarious, but it does paint a very poor picture of the state of politics and media.Gardenwalker said:
@RochdalePioneers, the chief Tory accuser - Richard Holden - also enjoyed a curry with supporters while campaigning that week.RochdalePioneers said:
Thats easy to bat away. There were no concerns. Here are the laws covering campaign events, here is what we did to risk assess, here is what we did. Now lets talk about your campaign events, such as Michael Gove in the pub with activists late April 21. What did you do?williamglenn said:All of the "forensic" questions that Starmer put to the PM can be thrown back at him. For example: "When did he first become aware that any of his staff had concerns about the party?"
Remember, ALL the parties had campaign events just like this one at that time. Because they were legally permitted to do so. None of Labour's other campaign events are under scrutiny, or Tory ones, or LibDem ones. Just this single one. Why?
Because the accusers know its bullshit. If it was clear they were illegal they would pile on with all of the other examples. And they haven't. Because they were all legal as well.
Perfectly legally, of course.
This is an astonishing act of gaslighting by the Tories and the fact it has gained so much momentum reflects very poorly on Labour media management, but frankly also the UK’s media generally.
There’s still a war in Ukraine, China is closed for business, petrol is still £1.75 a litre and general inflation is 8%, everyone just got a mortgage hike with the promise of more to come - yet apparently the most important stories in the world right now are about parking tickets from two years ago.5 -
So on one hand we have your interpretation of the "context" of the tweet.Gardenwalker said:
Nope, because you have perhaps deliberately ignored the actual context of the tweet.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Looks as if I am owed an apology by a couple of posterstlg86 said:This was the Tweet that Beth Rigby mentioned...
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1488176626642923521
Keir Starmer
@Keir_Starmer
Honesty and decency matter.
After months of denials the Prime Minister is now under criminal investigations for breaking his own lockdown laws.
He needs to do the decent thing and resign.
See Hansard, posted upthread.
And on the other hand we have what the tweet, you know, actually says.
Give it up...0 -
Well they'd hardly *say* they'd felt pressurized and given into it.MaxPB said:
No, the police have already said the investigation was reopened due to new and significant evidence being handed to them, not because of media/political pressure. If that irate Corbyn supporter hadn't come along with the video and eyewitness account it's still a dead end.kinabalu said:
And Labour say the police were intimidated into investigating and it leaves them no choice but to NOT fine him.Eabhal said:
Just need one Tory to say "blatant attempt to intimidate the police" and it leaves them with no choice but to fine him.MaxPB said:
On the latter, yes. He's trying to be clever/lawyerly about it but the Durham police may decide to fuck him over now rather than cave. It has very high potential to backfire on him because the Met have set a precedent of handing out a FPN for the cake and the police in Durham can fall back on that if they choose to hand out a fine.Eabhal said:Why not just resign when the fine is issued? Why announce in advance?
Is this an attempt to face down Durham police?
Good game good game.
Look on the bright side, Starmer resigning may finally precipitate the downfall of Boris!
I'm pretty sure he's in the clear but, yes, like you say, if I'm wrong and he goes and it takes Johnson down too, this would be no shabby outcome.0 -
You are wrong 100%Gardenwalker said:
Nope, because you have perhaps deliberately ignored the actual context of the tweet.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Looks as if I am owed an apology by a couple of posterstlg86 said:This was the Tweet that Beth Rigby mentioned...
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1488176626642923521
Keir Starmer
@Keir_Starmer
Honesty and decency matter.
After months of denials the Prime Minister is now under criminal investigations for breaking his own lockdown laws.
He needs to do the decent thing and resign.
See Hansard, posted upthread.0 -
Here's a question:
Say the police determine that Starmer does not get an FPN because he went back to 'work' afterwards. But several others at the meal do get FPNs. As head of party, and the main guy there, does he not have some moral responsibility for what went on? especially as people were probably encouraged to be there to help with the canvassing and PR.
There are oodles of interesting edge cases in this whole mess.1 -
The problem with that is that I think a lot of politicians know that the quid pro quo for supporters spending a full day knocking on doors is a couple of minutes with the important people who are doing the same and so SKS has to spend a few minutes thanking everyone for their hardwork.MaxPB said:
Depends on the hotel and the curry. I'd probably chance it with the hotel room service were I a prominent politician that had voted through onerous laws about not socialising. This is what I don't understand, they just had to play it safe with this for a few months and then do what they wanted. Yet they couldn't help themselves. I didn't, but then again, I also didn't vote for or support lockdowns.rcs1000 said:
I was referring to - for example - the contention that he knew that the hotel would be serving food.Applicant said:
Simply applying the same standard that Labour have to Boris.rcs1000 said:
There's an awful lot of things in there that you characterise as lying, which might well be simple ignorance.bigjohnowls said:Wonder if SKS will take questions?
Some easy ones surely
1. You tweeted Boris needed to go just because it was going to be investigated by the Met. irrespective of their findings Why are you waiting?
2 Why did you lie about Rayner
3. Why did you eat indoors with others rather than back at the hotel
4, What work fid you do after drinking beer. Someone present says no work was done or even planned after the Curry and Beer are they liars or you
5. You stated nowhere was available to eat that was incorrect there were multiple places including your hotel Why did you lie about that
6. Do you think you retain the trust of the Public a poll today showed twice as many thought you should quit compared to those who thought you should stay Is your position untenable
Loads of other ones like were there any other instances where you broke local rules?
I suspect he will have one robotic answer and will not be able to think on his feet so will repeat over and over again.
I think he should say there is a Poster on PB who says I am a Labour Legend the same as John Smith so I am not going to resign
If you had the choice between (a) a definite curry or (b) possible hotel food, which would you choose?
Which is far easier done via a crap curry with weak beer than thanking them individually.0 -
Did you read Dan Hodges’s original report?CarlottaVance said:
Is this the Dan Hodges of the Daily Mail you have been insisting for weeks now that there is "nothing to see" and its all a confected nonsense?Gardenwalker said:
Dan Hodges has shredded his credibility on this; you might as well post Vlad Putin on the success of his war aims.CarlottaVance said:
He might not want to.....Unpopular said:
It's a trickier point, I think, and I can understand why he doesn't want to get into the weeds of all the permutations of what he might or might not do.CarlottaVance said:Once a lawyer.....
Starmer not clear on what he will do if Durham Police don't fine him retrospectively but conclude that he did infringe the rules, as they did with Dominic Cummings.
https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1523682874871799811
Taken about ten seconds for this to unravel. @BethRigby nailed him. For all the talk of integrity, won’t commit to resigning if found he breached the rules (as in Cummings case) but doesn’t get FPN.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1523683738596433920?s=20&t=X320pO16mKsT0IzCGakgpQ
Which the Leader of the Opposition has now declared he will resign over if it isn't?
Are you sure it's Dan Hodges who's shredded his credibility, and not someone closer to home?
It read like someone with a gun to his head.
There’s nothing to see here because, Carlotta, there is nothing to see.
That is distinct from a media witch-hunt about a Zinoviev Curry which has certainly been a spectacle.0 -
Super interesting discussion on here right now. Not for the "right" reasons though.
SKS' tweet absolutely makes it clear that Johnson should resign simply for being under a criminal investigation. If he meant something else then he is a s**t tweet writer to the point of being unfit for high office. But as former CPS he wouldn't be so casual.
@Gardenwalker and @CHB think it meant something else, related to lying to parliament. But nowehre in the tweet does he mention lying to parliament. Or breaking a law. It refers, explicitly, to being "under criminal investigations".
If he meant lying to parliament why didn't he mention lying to parliament.5 -
Let's consider the counterfactual. Had the Met finished their investigation and actually found no evidence of rule-breaking, would he still be guilty of lying to the house?Gardenwalker said:
Nope, because you have perhaps deliberately ignored the actual context of the tweet.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Looks as if I am owed an apology by a couple of posterstlg86 said:This was the Tweet that Beth Rigby mentioned...
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1488176626642923521
Keir Starmer
@Keir_Starmer
Honesty and decency matter.
After months of denials the Prime Minister is now under criminal investigations for breaking his own lockdown laws.
He needs to do the decent thing and resign.
See Hansard, posted upthread.
The fact is Starmer jumped the gun, and was calling for a resignation almost immediately after the investigation was announced. Quite a strange decision given his background.0 -
Unfortunately that’s the LOTO’s call.Stocky said:Whether or not the leader of the opposition is to change is now wholly in the hands of Durham police.
That's troubling isn't it?
I’m not convinced this is an event of tactical genius, rather one of necessity (which might end up paying off handsomely).
Not sure SKS could have played it any differently.
I do not feel quite so blaze as some on here that there is definitely no risk of a rule breach being handed down. We don’t know all the facts of the case and I wouldn’t like to pre-judge it.1 -
There is a video of him with a beer in his hand indoors talking to people not from his household when you were not allowed to do that. I imagine most people think that is a pretty clear breach of the rules.nico679 said:Interesting people think partygate is much worse than beergate according to the pollster on LBC.
I think Starmer should have said that he called for Johnson to resign as a culmination of all the party investigations regarding the hypocrite accusations .
However I think Starmer has done the right thing in offering to step down if found guilty of breaching the rules and the Tories are now in a bad position .0 -
I was against the promise, because it gives a hostage to the fortune of whichever policeman has to make the rules. However, now he's made it, I think he should absolutely leave it at that, and not get into endless hypotheticals. Any reply to those just extends the story, and "I've made my statement. Let's see what the police conclude" is a suitably boring reply which the Tory media can't print forever.Unpopular said:
It's a trickier point, I think, and I can understand why he doesn't want to get into the weeds of all the permutations of what he might or might not do.CarlottaVance said:Once a lawyer.....
Starmer not clear on what he will do if Durham Police don't fine him retrospectively but conclude that he did infringe the rules, as they did with Dominic Cummings.
https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/15236828748717998113 -
Not really.JosiasJessop said:There are oodles of interesting edge cases in this whole mess.
SKS get's a fine - resigns.
BoZo got a fine - didn't resign.
That is the raw politics, and why the journalists that have been pushing this for a week are really, really upset now3 -
That’s because I understand that the tweet was not a one-off but happened as part of a bigger story, and SUBSEQUENT to the earlier call to resign for misleading the House.TOPPING said:Super interesting discussion on here right now. Not for the "right" reasons though.
SKS' tweet absolutely makes it clear that Johnson should resign simply for being under a criminal investigation. If he meant something else then he is a s**t tweet writer to the point of being unfit for high office. But as former CPS he wouldn't be so casual.
@Gardenwalker and @CHB think it meant something else, related to lying to parliament. But nowehre in the tweet does he mention lying to parliament. Or breaking a law. It refers, explicitly, to being "under criminal investigations".
If he meant lying to parliament why didn't he mention lying to parliament.
Someone upthread states that the tweet should have been explicit, but I think that’s an absurd burden to place on political speech: “please refer to the full back story every time you tweet”.1 -
And Labour don't want Johnson - now massively unpopular - to resign.dixiedean said:The Tories don't want him to resign.
A point to keep firmly in mind.
It is one for the Game Theorists!!!
0 -
You have just described work!eek said:
The problem with that is that I think a lot of politicians know that the quid pro quo for supporters spending a full day knocking on doors is a couple of minutes with the important people who are doing the same and so SKS has to spend a few minutes thanking everyone for their hardwork.MaxPB said:
Depends on the hotel and the curry. I'd probably chance it with the hotel room service were I a prominent politician that had voted through onerous laws about not socialising. This is what I don't understand, they just had to play it safe with this for a few months and then do what they wanted. Yet they couldn't help themselves. I didn't, but then again, I also didn't vote for or support lockdowns.rcs1000 said:
I was referring to - for example - the contention that he knew that the hotel would be serving food.Applicant said:
Simply applying the same standard that Labour have to Boris.rcs1000 said:
There's an awful lot of things in there that you characterise as lying, which might well be simple ignorance.bigjohnowls said:Wonder if SKS will take questions?
Some easy ones surely
1. You tweeted Boris needed to go just because it was going to be investigated by the Met. irrespective of their findings Why are you waiting?
2 Why did you lie about Rayner
3. Why did you eat indoors with others rather than back at the hotel
4, What work fid you do after drinking beer. Someone present says no work was done or even planned after the Curry and Beer are they liars or you
5. You stated nowhere was available to eat that was incorrect there were multiple places including your hotel Why did you lie about that
6. Do you think you retain the trust of the Public a poll today showed twice as many thought you should quit compared to those who thought you should stay Is your position untenable
Loads of other ones like were there any other instances where you broke local rules?
I suspect he will have one robotic answer and will not be able to think on his feet so will repeat over and over again.
I think he should say there is a Poster on PB who says I am a Labour Legend the same as John Smith so I am not going to resign
If you had the choice between (a) a definite curry or (b) possible hotel food, which would you choose?
Which is far easier done via a crap curry with weak beer than thanking them individually.
0 -
Please read the Hansard, Big G.Big_G_NorthWales said:
You are wrong 100%Gardenwalker said:
Nope, because you have perhaps deliberately ignored the actual context of the tweet.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Looks as if I am owed an apology by a couple of posterstlg86 said:This was the Tweet that Beth Rigby mentioned...
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1488176626642923521
Keir Starmer
@Keir_Starmer
Honesty and decency matter.
After months of denials the Prime Minister is now under criminal investigations for breaking his own lockdown laws.
He needs to do the decent thing and resign.
See Hansard, posted upthread.
Read it and understand it.1 -
Yep I think that is the bigger message. Balls out confidence that they are not going to get fined. Otherwise rank stupidity.BannedinnParis said:The vibe we are all getting from Labour right now is that they are fully in charge of this situation.
But let's say they aren't fined. There he is drinking beers with many people for dinner. It at least shows that he wasn't overly fussed about Covid, laws to contain which he has so enthusiastically supported.
Plus they must, because he is a former CPS, have gone through the laws vs guidance vs rules with a fine-toothed comb before the statement. Which shows what a bollocks set of laws they were.0 -
Except you WERE allowed to do that.NerysHughes said:
There is a video of him with a beer in his hand indoors talking to people not from his household when you were not allowed to do that. I imagine most people think that is a pretty clear breach of the rules.nico679 said:Interesting people think partygate is much worse than beergate according to the pollster on LBC.
I think Starmer should have said that he called for Johnson to resign as a culmination of all the party investigations regarding the hypocrite accusations .
However I think Starmer has done the right thing in offering to step down if found guilty of breaching the rules and the Tories are now in a bad position .
0/10.1 -
Sods law says that SKS and co will get a FPN and resign. Boris then calls an early election because it ain't going to get any better between now and 2024 (in fact it's likely to get worse month on month, especially after the next set of energy price hikes).numbertwelve said:
Unfortunately that’s the LOTO’s call.Stocky said:Whether or not the leader of the opposition is to change is now wholly in the hands of Durham police.
That's troubling isn't it?
I’m not convinced this is an event of tactical genius, rather one of necessity (which might end up paying off handsomely).
Not sure SKS could have played it any differently.
I do not feel quite so blaze as some on here that there is definitely no risk of a rule breach being handed down. We don’t know all the facts of the case and I wouldn’t like to pre-judge it.0 -
I don't envy them - not just Starmer but Rayner too has said she would go.Stocky said:Whether or not the leader of the opposition is to change is now wholly in the hands of Durham police.
That's troubling isn't it?
I blame the Met - and Starmer - Durham probably not unreasonably decided to "turn a blind eye" to something which was borderline, but then Jolyon & co piled pressure on the Met to investigate Downing St (some of which, but probably not all, was also borderline eg Sunak), then Durham had to reopen the whole thing.
Perhaps Starmer would have been better advised to heed Johnson's advice to "move on" rather than constructing this mountain of an issue out of a molehill of a breech.1 -
Yes, all the journos saying "this is a massive gamble" are wrong. The gamble was going big on partygate. It left Starmer with no other option today but to do this.numbertwelve said:
Unfortunately that’s the LOTO’s call.Stocky said:Whether or not the leader of the opposition is to change is now wholly in the hands of Durham police.
That's troubling isn't it?
I’m not convinced this is an event of tactical genius, rather one of necessity (which might end up paying off handsomely).
Not sure SKS could have played it any differently.
I do not feel quite so blaze as some on here that there is definitely no risk of a rule breach being handed down. We don’t know all the facts of the case and I wouldn’t like to pre-judge it.2 -
This is what the Corbyn loons who colluded with the Mail and the Murdoch press did not factor in. They thought they'd get Rayner instead of Starmer, and that she might be more friendly to them and their hero. That will not happen now and the next Labour leader - if it comes to that - will be just as unaccommodating, if not more so.CarlottaVance said:Breaking - Rayner says she will quit too. "We have a Prime Minister who has been found to have broken the rules, lied about it and then been fined. If I were issued with a fine, I would do the decent thing and step down."
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1523684089135796226
2 -
That would be inconsistent with the birthday "party", when it was deemed that an FPN for any meant an FPN for all.JosiasJessop said:Here's a question:
Say the police determine that Starmer does not get an FPN because he went back to 'work' afterwards. But several others at the meal do get FPNs. As head of party, and the main guy there, does he not have some moral responsibility for what went on? especially as people were probably encouraged to be there to help with the canvassing and PR.
There are oodles of interesting edge cases in this whole mess.2 -
Starmer escapes and Rayner gets one. Lol.JosiasJessop said:Here's a question:
Say the police determine that Starmer does not get an FPN because he went back to 'work' afterwards. But several others at the meal do get FPNs. As head of party, and the main guy there, does he not have some moral responsibility for what went on? especially as people were probably encouraged to be there to help with the canvassing and PR.
There are oodles of interesting edge cases in this whole mess.1 -
Allies of Keir Starmer confident he won't be fined, but say he has no choice but to offer his resignation if he is. One says: "As a former DPP, the principles of this really matter to him." They add "it puts some pressure on Durham Police who are being leant on in one direction."
https://twitter.com/DanielHewittITV/status/1523668150792818688?s=20&t=NJjh8ajwBQopLg0Fn8ATiw0 -
But by resigning SKS could basically take Boris down with him, or at least make him even more unpopular. Then it’s very much advantage Labour for the moment provided they elect someone vaguely competent*Scott_xP said:
Not really.JosiasJessop said:There are oodles of interesting edge cases in this whole mess.
SKS get's a fine - resigns.
BoZo got a fine - didn't resign.
That is the raw politics, and why the journalists that have been pushing this for a week are really, really upset now
*subject of course to a potential new Tory leader before the election also.
I sometimes wish politics would just have a few years of being dull again.0 -
Yes, it isStocky said:Whether or not the leader of the opposition is to change is now wholly in the hands of Durham police.
That's troubling isn't it?
But then, maybe they should both have thought twice about imposing insane laws on the rest of us, which they themselves had no intention of obeying. Boris created the laws, Starmer wanted them to be even longer and harder
They should both go, and let that be a lesson to lockdown-happy politicos
As it happens, I think both will survive and limp on, damaged and discredited. Pff3 -
And this is why I am not a liar as both posters have accused me ofTOPPING said:Super interesting discussion on here right now. Not for the "right" reasons though.
SKS' tweet absolutely makes it clear that Johnson should resign simply for being under a criminal investigation. If he meant something else then he is a s**t tweet writer to the point of being unfit for high office. But as former CPS he wouldn't be so casual.
@Gardenwalker and @CHB think it meant something else, related to lying to parliament. But nowehre in the tweet does he mention lying to parliament. Or breaking a law. It refers, explicitly, to being "under criminal investigations".
If he meant lying to parliament why didn't he mention lying to parliament.
I can take flak and indeed dish it out but I do apologise when I am wrong0 -
Poor Sunak, he's the one that was ambushed by the cake, not Johnson.Applicant said:
That would be inconsistent with the birthday "party", when it was deemed that an FPN for any meant an FPN for all.JosiasJessop said:Here's a question:
Say the police determine that Starmer does not get an FPN because he went back to 'work' afterwards. But several others at the meal do get FPNs. As head of party, and the main guy there, does he not have some moral responsibility for what went on? especially as people were probably encouraged to be there to help with the canvassing and PR.
There are oodles of interesting edge cases in this whole mess.
1 -
Then we must anticipate your immediate apology.Big_G_NorthWales said:
And this is why I am not a liar as both posters have accused me ofTOPPING said:Super interesting discussion on here right now. Not for the "right" reasons though.
SKS' tweet absolutely makes it clear that Johnson should resign simply for being under a criminal investigation. If he meant something else then he is a s**t tweet writer to the point of being unfit for high office. But as former CPS he wouldn't be so casual.
@Gardenwalker and @CHB think it meant something else, related to lying to parliament. But nowehre in the tweet does he mention lying to parliament. Or breaking a law. It refers, explicitly, to being "under criminal investigations".
If he meant lying to parliament why didn't he mention lying to parliament.
I can take flak and indeed dish it out but I do apologise when I am wrong0 -
Please read the tweet, Gardenwalker.Gardenwalker said:
Please read the Hansard, Big G.Big_G_NorthWales said:
You are wrong 100%Gardenwalker said:
Nope, because you have perhaps deliberately ignored the actual context of the tweet.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Looks as if I am owed an apology by a couple of posterstlg86 said:This was the Tweet that Beth Rigby mentioned...
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1488176626642923521
Keir Starmer
@Keir_Starmer
Honesty and decency matter.
After months of denials the Prime Minister is now under criminal investigations for breaking his own lockdown laws.
He needs to do the decent thing and resign.
See Hansard, posted upthread.
Read it and understand it.
Read it and understand it.
That's what it actually says, not what you imagine it says.0 -
Explicitly saying the purpose of this announcement is to influence the decision of the police? InterestingFrancisUrquhart said:Allies of Keir Starmer confident he won't be fined, but say he has no choice but to offer his resignation if he is. One says: "As a former DPP, the principles of this really matter to him." They add "it puts some pressure on Durham Police who are being leant on in one direction."
https://twitter.com/DanielHewittITV/status/1523668150792818688?s=20&t=NJjh8ajwBQopLg0Fn8ATiw
0 -
Sorry I don't buy that. He's surely not that stupid. Did it say "1/n"? And even if it did (it didn't) it is a discrete and unambiguous statement describing SKS' views. He might have wanted Boris to resign for misleading the house, being under criminal investigations, and being a complete cockwomble. Don't we all. But that is beside the point; that particular tweet is clear and unambiguous.Gardenwalker said:
That’s because I understand that the tweet was not a one-off but happened as part of a bigger story, and SUBSEQUENT to the earlier call to resign for misleading the House.TOPPING said:Super interesting discussion on here right now. Not for the "right" reasons though.
SKS' tweet absolutely makes it clear that Johnson should resign simply for being under a criminal investigation. If he meant something else then he is a s**t tweet writer to the point of being unfit for high office. But as former CPS he wouldn't be so casual.
@Gardenwalker and @CHB think it meant something else, related to lying to parliament. But nowehre in the tweet does he mention lying to parliament. Or breaking a law. It refers, explicitly, to being "under criminal investigations".
If he meant lying to parliament why didn't he mention lying to parliament.
Someone upthread states that the tweet should have been explicit, but I think that’s an absurd burden to place on political speech: “please refer to the full back story every time you tweet”.0 -
Do you mean the Tweet that post dated Hansard?Applicant said:
Please read the tweet, Gardenwalker.Gardenwalker said:
Please read the Hansard, Big G.Big_G_NorthWales said:
You are wrong 100%Gardenwalker said:
Nope, because you have perhaps deliberately ignored the actual context of the tweet.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Looks as if I am owed an apology by a couple of posterstlg86 said:This was the Tweet that Beth Rigby mentioned...
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1488176626642923521
Keir Starmer
@Keir_Starmer
Honesty and decency matter.
After months of denials the Prime Minister is now under criminal investigations for breaking his own lockdown laws.
He needs to do the decent thing and resign.
See Hansard, posted upthread.
Read it and understand it.
Read it and understand it.
That's what it actually says, not what you imagine it says.
Or have you got another one stuffed in your bag of tricks?0 -
So Starmer has cancelled a major speaking engagement and issued a live statement over "nothing to see"?Gardenwalker said:
There’s nothing to see here because, Carlotta, there is nothing to see.CarlottaVance said:
Is this the Dan Hodges of the Daily Mail you have been insisting for weeks now that there is "nothing to see" and its all a confected nonsense?Gardenwalker said:
Dan Hodges has shredded his credibility on this; you might as well post Vlad Putin on the success of his war aims.CarlottaVance said:
He might not want to.....Unpopular said:
It's a trickier point, I think, and I can understand why he doesn't want to get into the weeds of all the permutations of what he might or might not do.CarlottaVance said:Once a lawyer.....
Starmer not clear on what he will do if Durham Police don't fine him retrospectively but conclude that he did infringe the rules, as they did with Dominic Cummings.
https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1523682874871799811
Taken about ten seconds for this to unravel. @BethRigby nailed him. For all the talk of integrity, won’t commit to resigning if found he breached the rules (as in Cummings case) but doesn’t get FPN.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1523683738596433920?s=20&t=X320pO16mKsT0IzCGakgpQ
Which the Leader of the Opposition has now declared he will resign over if it isn't?
Are you sure it's Dan Hodges who's shredded his credibility, and not someone closer to home?
0 -
This was after the whole Cummings fiasco. They would all have known what the political consequences would be for breaking or bending the rules. Clueless.MaxPB said:
Depends on the hotel and the curry. I'd probably chance it with the hotel room service were I a prominent politician that had voted through onerous laws about not socialising. This is what I don't understand, they just had to play it safe with this for a few months and then do what they wanted. Yet they couldn't help themselves. I didn't, but then again, I also didn't vote for or support lockdowns.rcs1000 said:
I was referring to - for example - the contention that he knew that the hotel would be serving food.Applicant said:
Simply applying the same standard that Labour have to Boris.rcs1000 said:
There's an awful lot of things in there that you characterise as lying, which might well be simple ignorance.bigjohnowls said:Wonder if SKS will take questions?
Some easy ones surely
1. You tweeted Boris needed to go just because it was going to be investigated by the Met. irrespective of their findings Why are you waiting?
2 Why did you lie about Rayner
3. Why did you eat indoors with others rather than back at the hotel
4, What work fid you do after drinking beer. Someone present says no work was done or even planned after the Curry and Beer are they liars or you
5. You stated nowhere was available to eat that was incorrect there were multiple places including your hotel Why did you lie about that
6. Do you think you retain the trust of the Public a poll today showed twice as many thought you should quit compared to those who thought you should stay Is your position untenable
Loads of other ones like were there any other instances where you broke local rules?
I suspect he will have one robotic answer and will not be able to think on his feet so will repeat over and over again.
I think he should say there is a Poster on PB who says I am a Labour Legend the same as John Smith so I am not going to resign
If you had the choice between (a) a definite curry or (b) possible hotel food, which would you choose?0 -
Starmer allowed himself to be photographed inside a lateral flow test centre in March 2021 without wearing a mask when it was a legal requirement:
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/13678590384705003530 -
I've not had the pleasure of reading (what I imagine to be) several days' enthusiastic and insightful comment on this point, but the context seems really obvious from the trajectory of the scandal at the time which went roughly: accusations of parties in No. 10 > denials of parties made in Parliament by PM > Allegra Stratton video and resignation > outraged statement and denials of events happening made in Parliament by PM > Met decision to investigate because it became clear that events had actually happened. The significance of the investigation wasn't simply that it was a criminal investigation (though that's important) but that it provided clear evidence that the PM had misled the house. That's the context made clear by "after months of denials" - that the denials had been shown to be false, regardless of the outcome of the criminal investigation.RobD said:
Let's consider the counterfactual. Had the Met finished their investigation and actually found no evidence of rule-breaking, would he still be guilty of lying to the house?Gardenwalker said:
Nope, because you have perhaps deliberately ignored the actual context of the tweet.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Looks as if I am owed an apology by a couple of posterstlg86 said:This was the Tweet that Beth Rigby mentioned...
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1488176626642923521
Keir Starmer
@Keir_Starmer
Honesty and decency matter.
After months of denials the Prime Minister is now under criminal investigations for breaking his own lockdown laws.
He needs to do the decent thing and resign.
See Hansard, posted upthread.
The fact is Starmer jumped the gun, and was calling for a resignation almost immediately after the investigation was announced. Quite a strange decision given his background.1 -
Not on this and you are wrongGardenwalker said:
Then we must anticipate your immediate apology.Big_G_NorthWales said:
And this is why I am not a liar as both posters have accused me ofTOPPING said:Super interesting discussion on here right now. Not for the "right" reasons though.
SKS' tweet absolutely makes it clear that Johnson should resign simply for being under a criminal investigation. If he meant something else then he is a s**t tweet writer to the point of being unfit for high office. But as former CPS he wouldn't be so casual.
@Gardenwalker and @CHB think it meant something else, related to lying to parliament. But nowehre in the tweet does he mention lying to parliament. Or breaking a law. It refers, explicitly, to being "under criminal investigations".
If he meant lying to parliament why didn't he mention lying to parliament.
I can take flak and indeed dish it out but I do apologise when I am wrong0 -
Allies of SKS admit to putting political pressure on the police???FrancisUrquhart said:Allies of Keir Starmer confident he won't be fined, but say he has no choice but to offer his resignation if he is. One says: "As a former DPP, the principles of this really matter to him." They add "it puts some pressure on Durham Police who are being leant on in one direction."
https://twitter.com/DanielHewittITV/status/1523668150792818688?s=20&t=NJjh8ajwBQopLg0Fn8ATiw0 -
Starmo, he of the Big Cojones.0
-
But what if the Tories also elect somebody untarnished by Boris time in power and who is much more able? e.g. Jeremy Hunt.numbertwelve said:
But by resigning SKS could basically take Boris down with him, or at least make him even more unpopular. Then it’s very much advantage Labour for the moment provided they elect someone vaguely competent*Scott_xP said:
Not really.JosiasJessop said:There are oodles of interesting edge cases in this whole mess.
SKS get's a fine - resigns.
BoZo got a fine - didn't resign.
That is the raw politics, and why the journalists that have been pushing this for a week are really, really upset now
*subject of course to a potential new Tory leader before the election also.
I sometimes wish politics would just have a few years of being dull again.
I don't think it is clear at all who wins or loses under the various scenarios.0 -
Not at all.CarlottaVance said:
So Starmer has cancelled a major speaking engagement and issued a live statement over "nothing to see"?Gardenwalker said:
There’s nothing to see here because, Carlotta, there is nothing to see.CarlottaVance said:
Is this the Dan Hodges of the Daily Mail you have been insisting for weeks now that there is "nothing to see" and its all a confected nonsense?Gardenwalker said:
Dan Hodges has shredded his credibility on this; you might as well post Vlad Putin on the success of his war aims.CarlottaVance said:
He might not want to.....Unpopular said:
It's a trickier point, I think, and I can understand why he doesn't want to get into the weeds of all the permutations of what he might or might not do.CarlottaVance said:Once a lawyer.....
Starmer not clear on what he will do if Durham Police don't fine him retrospectively but conclude that he did infringe the rules, as they did with Dominic Cummings.
https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1523682874871799811
Taken about ten seconds for this to unravel. @BethRigby nailed him. For all the talk of integrity, won’t commit to resigning if found he breached the rules (as in Cummings case) but doesn’t get FPN.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1523683738596433920?s=20&t=X320pO16mKsT0IzCGakgpQ
Which the Leader of the Opposition has now declared he will resign over if it isn't?
Are you sure it's Dan Hodges who's shredded his credibility, and not someone closer to home?
He’s on the ropes due to a media witch-hunt, cooked up by Tory HQ and breathlessly promoted by partisan nutters with pitch-forks.1 -
We shall see!Big_G_NorthWales said:
Not on this and you are wrongGardenwalker said:
Then we must anticipate your immediate apology.Big_G_NorthWales said:
And this is why I am not a liar as both posters have accused me ofTOPPING said:Super interesting discussion on here right now. Not for the "right" reasons though.
SKS' tweet absolutely makes it clear that Johnson should resign simply for being under a criminal investigation. If he meant something else then he is a s**t tweet writer to the point of being unfit for high office. But as former CPS he wouldn't be so casual.
@Gardenwalker and @CHB think it meant something else, related to lying to parliament. But nowehre in the tweet does he mention lying to parliament. Or breaking a law. It refers, explicitly, to being "under criminal investigations".
If he meant lying to parliament why didn't he mention lying to parliament.
I can take flak and indeed dish it out but I do apologise when I am wrong0 -
It does appear that Durham police now have little choice but to take exactly the same approach and set the bar where the Met have done.Applicant said:
That would be inconsistent with the birthday "party", when it was deemed that an FPN for any meant an FPN for all.JosiasJessop said:Here's a question:
Say the police determine that Starmer does not get an FPN because he went back to 'work' afterwards. But several others at the meal do get FPNs. As head of party, and the main guy there, does he not have some moral responsibility for what went on? especially as people were probably encouraged to be there to help with the canvassing and PR.
There are oodles of interesting edge cases in this whole mess.
Most of the people for the birthday cake incident were there for a meeting, when the PMs wife (and possibly a couple of junior SpAds) entered the room - unannounced and uninvited - with the cake. For this incident, it appears that everyone in the room at the time was issued an FPN. It would be interesting to see the full list, in case of a leadership contest this summer…1 -
You really think that?Gardenwalker said:
Except you WERE allowed to do that.NerysHughes said:
There is a video of him with a beer in his hand indoors talking to people not from his household when you were not allowed to do that. I imagine most people think that is a pretty clear breach of the rules.nico679 said:Interesting people think partygate is much worse than beergate according to the pollster on LBC.
I think Starmer should have said that he called for Johnson to resign as a culmination of all the party investigations regarding the hypocrite accusations .
However I think Starmer has done the right thing in offering to step down if found guilty of breaching the rules and the Tories are now in a bad position .
0/10.
When pubs did open in May 2021 it was still table service and you were not allowed to mingle.
The whole idea that if it was a "work event" you could do what you liked is proposterous.
SKS was with people he did not work with on a daily basis and was acting like there were no rules at all.0 -
I mean the tweet quoted at the top of this mini-thread which, despite your protestations, clearly links resignation merely to being under investigation.Gardenwalker said:
Do you mean the Tweet that post dated Hansard?Applicant said:
Please read the tweet, Gardenwalker.Gardenwalker said:
Please read the Hansard, Big G.Big_G_NorthWales said:
You are wrong 100%Gardenwalker said:
Nope, because you have perhaps deliberately ignored the actual context of the tweet.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Looks as if I am owed an apology by a couple of posterstlg86 said:This was the Tweet that Beth Rigby mentioned...
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1488176626642923521
Keir Starmer
@Keir_Starmer
Honesty and decency matter.
After months of denials the Prime Minister is now under criminal investigations for breaking his own lockdown laws.
He needs to do the decent thing and resign.
See Hansard, posted upthread.
Read it and understand it.
Read it and understand it.
That's what it actually says, not what you imagine it says.
Or have you got another one stuffed in your bag of tricks?0 -
Not doing very well today. Who said you couldn't do that?NerysHughes said:
There is a video of him with a beer in his hand indoors talking to people not from his household when you were not allowed to do that. I imagine most people think that is a pretty clear breach of the rules.nico679 said:Interesting people think partygate is much worse than beergate according to the pollster on LBC.
I think Starmer should have said that he called for Johnson to resign as a culmination of all the party investigations regarding the hypocrite accusations .
However I think Starmer has done the right thing in offering to step down if found guilty of breaching the rules and the Tories are now in a bad position .0 -
This stuff is going to keep coming now. If you claim whiter than white and under the ever changing COVID restrictions / rules / guidance, it was practically impossible to have never fallen foul of them, even if it was for a moment.williamglenn said:Starmer allowed himself to be photographed inside a lateral flow test centre in March 2021 without wearing a mask when it was a legal requirement:
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/13678590384705003531 -
Thank-you.Polruan said:
I've not had the pleasure of reading (what I imagine to be) several days' enthusiastic and insightful comment on this point, but the context seems really obvious from the trajectory of the scandal at the time which went roughly: accusations of parties in No. 10 > denials of parties made in Parliament by PM > Allegra Stratton video and resignation > outraged statement and denials of events happening made in Parliament by PM > Met decision to investigate because it became clear that events had actually happened. The significance of the investigation wasn't simply that it was a criminal investigation (though that's important) but that it provided clear evidence that the PM had misled the house. That's the context made clear by "after months of denials" - that the denials had been shown to be false, regardless of the outcome of the criminal investigation.RobD said:
Let's consider the counterfactual. Had the Met finished their investigation and actually found no evidence of rule-breaking, would he still be guilty of lying to the house?Gardenwalker said:
Nope, because you have perhaps deliberately ignored the actual context of the tweet.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Looks as if I am owed an apology by a couple of posterstlg86 said:This was the Tweet that Beth Rigby mentioned...
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1488176626642923521
Keir Starmer
@Keir_Starmer
Honesty and decency matter.
After months of denials the Prime Minister is now under criminal investigations for breaking his own lockdown laws.
He needs to do the decent thing and resign.
See Hansard, posted upthread.
The fact is Starmer jumped the gun, and was calling for a resignation almost immediately after the investigation was announced. Quite a strange decision given his background.
Some sense here.
Big G et al, you are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.0 -
You're misrepresenting what SKS said and you're accusing others of being partisan nutters? Donnez-moi un break.Gardenwalker said:
Not at all.CarlottaVance said:
So Starmer has cancelled a major speaking engagement and issued a live statement over "nothing to see"?Gardenwalker said:
There’s nothing to see here because, Carlotta, there is nothing to see.CarlottaVance said:
Is this the Dan Hodges of the Daily Mail you have been insisting for weeks now that there is "nothing to see" and its all a confected nonsense?Gardenwalker said:
Dan Hodges has shredded his credibility on this; you might as well post Vlad Putin on the success of his war aims.CarlottaVance said:
He might not want to.....Unpopular said:
It's a trickier point, I think, and I can understand why he doesn't want to get into the weeds of all the permutations of what he might or might not do.CarlottaVance said:Once a lawyer.....
Starmer not clear on what he will do if Durham Police don't fine him retrospectively but conclude that he did infringe the rules, as they did with Dominic Cummings.
https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1523682874871799811
Taken about ten seconds for this to unravel. @BethRigby nailed him. For all the talk of integrity, won’t commit to resigning if found he breached the rules (as in Cummings case) but doesn’t get FPN.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1523683738596433920?s=20&t=X320pO16mKsT0IzCGakgpQ
Which the Leader of the Opposition has now declared he will resign over if it isn't?
Are you sure it's Dan Hodges who's shredded his credibility, and not someone closer to home?
He’s on the ropes due to a media witch-hunt, cooked up by Tory HQ and breathlessly promoted by partisan nutters with pitch-forks.0 -
Mr Hunt, surely not. The Brexiters will have lost.FrancisUrquhart said:
But what if the Tories also elect somebody untarnished by Boris time in power and who is much more able? e.g. Jeremy Hunt.numbertwelve said:
But by resigning SKS could basically take Boris down with him, or at least make him even more unpopular. Then it’s very much advantage Labour for the moment provided they elect someone vaguely competent*Scott_xP said:
Not really.JosiasJessop said:There are oodles of interesting edge cases in this whole mess.
SKS get's a fine - resigns.
BoZo got a fine - didn't resign.
That is the raw politics, and why the journalists that have been pushing this for a week are really, really upset now
*subject of course to a potential new Tory leader before the election also.
I sometimes wish politics would just have a few years of being dull again.
I don't think it is clear at all who wins or loses under the various scenarios.0 -
And Boris ended up on the ropes because of a Dom Cummings/media witch hunt. And? I am struggling to see the difference, except that Starmer is - arguably - even more of a hypocrite. Certainly he is the more pompousGardenwalker said:
Not at all.CarlottaVance said:
So Starmer has cancelled a major speaking engagement and issued a live statement over "nothing to see"?Gardenwalker said:
There’s nothing to see here because, Carlotta, there is nothing to see.CarlottaVance said:
Is this the Dan Hodges of the Daily Mail you have been insisting for weeks now that there is "nothing to see" and its all a confected nonsense?Gardenwalker said:
Dan Hodges has shredded his credibility on this; you might as well post Vlad Putin on the success of his war aims.CarlottaVance said:
He might not want to.....Unpopular said:
It's a trickier point, I think, and I can understand why he doesn't want to get into the weeds of all the permutations of what he might or might not do.CarlottaVance said:Once a lawyer.....
Starmer not clear on what he will do if Durham Police don't fine him retrospectively but conclude that he did infringe the rules, as they did with Dominic Cummings.
https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1523682874871799811
Taken about ten seconds for this to unravel. @BethRigby nailed him. For all the talk of integrity, won’t commit to resigning if found he breached the rules (as in Cummings case) but doesn’t get FPN.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1523683738596433920?s=20&t=X320pO16mKsT0IzCGakgpQ
Which the Leader of the Opposition has now declared he will resign over if it isn't?
Are you sure it's Dan Hodges who's shredded his credibility, and not someone closer to home?
He’s on the ropes due to a media witch-hunt, cooked up by Tory HQ and breathlessly promoted by partisan nutters with pitch-forks.4 -
It was a legal requirement to wear a mask while doing a test?williamglenn said:Starmer allowed himself to be photographed inside a lateral flow test centre in March 2021 without wearing a mask when it was a legal requirement:
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1367859038470500353
He’s literally handing a swab over to the lady on the other side of the glass.1 -
3 endings
Cleared of any wrongdoing - Labour win
Fined and resigned - own goal but lances the boil for Labour and pressure on Boz and co but probably neutralizes the overall impact of rule breaking
Cummings solution - Con gain1 -
From what I've read the story was supplied to the Mail by two student photographers. It's not uncommon for photographic students to ask if they can attach themselves to an event and be allowed to photograph it. A political campaign would be ideal. My guess is that they were granted access and then for whatever reason decided they might with a little imagination have a 'story'.SouthamObserver said:
There is no doubt that disaffected Corbynites are colluding with the Mail and others, but the investigation was announced on Friday. The alleged eyewitness turned up in the Sunday Times yesterday and said they’d cooperate with the police if contacted. The video’s been around for over a year.MaxPB said:
And yet it was all coming to nothing with the Mail giving up until an irate Corbyn supporter handed over a video and an eyewitness account to the police. That's what has triggered the investigation.SouthamObserver said:
Cabinet ministers and Tory MPs were demanding an investigation. The Mail ran a front page lead on it last week. Look at various Tory tweets. They were all working together.MaxPB said:
But that's various toadies and surrogates, not the PM. The issue here is Starmer doing it directly, it looks like (and is) intimidation tactics to avoid the FPN.SouthamObserver said:
Hmmm - Journalists and politicians who have put Durham police under huge pressure to investigate Keir Starmer complaining about Durham police being put under huge pressure by Keir Starmer may not be taken that seriously in the court of public opinion.MaxPB said:
It's such an easy way out as well for the Tories. "Starmer is using lawyerly intimidation tactics against the police". There's no easy comeback from that and if he gets away without a fine the stage is set that it's not because he wasn't guilty, but because he got special treatment as the LOTO.Eabhal said:
Just need one Tory to say "blatant attempt to intimidate the police" and it leaves them with no choice but to fine him.MaxPB said:
On the latter, yes. He's trying to be clever/lawyerly about it but the Durham police may decide to fuck him over now rather than cave. It has very high potential to backfire on him because the Met have set a precedent of handing out a FPN for the cake and the police in Durham can fall back on that if they choose to hand out a fine.Eabhal said:Why not just resign when the fine is issued? Why announce in advance?
Is this an attempt to face down Durham police?
I doubt they had a political axe to grind just a future career to think about and what a lot of fun0 -
Do you think the Daily Mail have twigged that they have shot Boris Johnson?0
-
And so it startswilliamglenn said:Starmer allowed himself to be photographed inside a lateral flow test centre in March 2021 without wearing a mask when it was a legal requirement:
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/13678590384705003530 -
So you’ve never heard of a working lunch or a working dinner.NerysHughes said:
You really think that?Gardenwalker said:
Except you WERE allowed to do that.NerysHughes said:
There is a video of him with a beer in his hand indoors talking to people not from his household when you were not allowed to do that. I imagine most people think that is a pretty clear breach of the rules.nico679 said:Interesting people think partygate is much worse than beergate according to the pollster on LBC.
I think Starmer should have said that he called for Johnson to resign as a culmination of all the party investigations regarding the hypocrite accusations .
However I think Starmer has done the right thing in offering to step down if found guilty of breaching the rules and the Tories are now in a bad position .
0/10.
When pubs did open in May 2021 it was still table service and you were not allowed to mingle.
The whole idea that if it was a "work event" you could do what you liked is proposterous.
SKS was with people he did not work with on a daily basis and was acting like there were no rules at all.
Perhaps you’ve never worked?
It would explain much.0 -
Mate surely you don't believe that. There is a picture of him boozing with a bunch of people at some indeterminate time when around that time if not exactly on that night people were being arrested for walking outside (legal) with a friend (legal) with coffees in hand (illegal, apparently).Gardenwalker said:
Not at all.CarlottaVance said:
So Starmer has cancelled a major speaking engagement and issued a live statement over "nothing to see"?Gardenwalker said:
There’s nothing to see here because, Carlotta, there is nothing to see.CarlottaVance said:
Is this the Dan Hodges of the Daily Mail you have been insisting for weeks now that there is "nothing to see" and its all a confected nonsense?Gardenwalker said:
Dan Hodges has shredded his credibility on this; you might as well post Vlad Putin on the success of his war aims.CarlottaVance said:
He might not want to.....Unpopular said:
It's a trickier point, I think, and I can understand why he doesn't want to get into the weeds of all the permutations of what he might or might not do.CarlottaVance said:Once a lawyer.....
Starmer not clear on what he will do if Durham Police don't fine him retrospectively but conclude that he did infringe the rules, as they did with Dominic Cummings.
https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1523682874871799811
Taken about ten seconds for this to unravel. @BethRigby nailed him. For all the talk of integrity, won’t commit to resigning if found he breached the rules (as in Cummings case) but doesn’t get FPN.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1523683738596433920?s=20&t=X320pO16mKsT0IzCGakgpQ
Which the Leader of the Opposition has now declared he will resign over if it isn't?
Are you sure it's Dan Hodges who's shredded his credibility, and not someone closer to home?
He’s on the ropes due to a media witch-hunt, cooked up by Tory HQ and breathlessly promoted by partisan nutters with pitch-forks.
If he didn't realise the impression this would give, to say nothing of his cavalier attitude to the effects of Covid and spreading event, then he is unfit for the office that he is unlikely ever to occupy.0 -
You are absolutely not a liar, MrG. Like a lot of us, you are a partisan and you see things through those eyes. But that is entirely different and totally understandable. This is a politics site. Your integrity should never be in doubt. It certainly isn't as far as I am concerned. The ones who I am suspicious of are the ones who claim not to have biases!Big_G_NorthWales said:
And this is why I am not a liar as both posters have accused me ofTOPPING said:Super interesting discussion on here right now. Not for the "right" reasons though.
SKS' tweet absolutely makes it clear that Johnson should resign simply for being under a criminal investigation. If he meant something else then he is a s**t tweet writer to the point of being unfit for high office. But as former CPS he wouldn't be so casual.
@Gardenwalker and @CHB think it meant something else, related to lying to parliament. But nowehre in the tweet does he mention lying to parliament. Or breaking a law. It refers, explicitly, to being "under criminal investigations".
If he meant lying to parliament why didn't he mention lying to parliament.
I can take flak and indeed dish it out but I do apologise when I am wrong
3 -
Very, very easy. The biggest medical exemption of all.williamglenn said:Starmer allowed himself to be photographed inside a lateral flow test centre in March 2021 without wearing a mask when it was a legal requirement:
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1367859038470500353
Ever tried testing yourself when wearing a mask?
1. Mask off and in pocket (or invisible in left hand, here)
2. swab
3. Hand swab to nice lady
4. Mask back on.
This is clearly stage 3 (eyes watering as well).2 -
More likely cooked up by Corbynites than Tories.Gardenwalker said:
Not at all.CarlottaVance said:
So Starmer has cancelled a major speaking engagement and issued a live statement over "nothing to see"?Gardenwalker said:
There’s nothing to see here because, Carlotta, there is nothing to see.CarlottaVance said:
Is this the Dan Hodges of the Daily Mail you have been insisting for weeks now that there is "nothing to see" and its all a confected nonsense?Gardenwalker said:
Dan Hodges has shredded his credibility on this; you might as well post Vlad Putin on the success of his war aims.CarlottaVance said:
He might not want to.....Unpopular said:
It's a trickier point, I think, and I can understand why he doesn't want to get into the weeds of all the permutations of what he might or might not do.CarlottaVance said:Once a lawyer.....
Starmer not clear on what he will do if Durham Police don't fine him retrospectively but conclude that he did infringe the rules, as they did with Dominic Cummings.
https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1523682874871799811
Taken about ten seconds for this to unravel. @BethRigby nailed him. For all the talk of integrity, won’t commit to resigning if found he breached the rules (as in Cummings case) but doesn’t get FPN.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1523683738596433920?s=20&t=X320pO16mKsT0IzCGakgpQ
Which the Leader of the Opposition has now declared he will resign over if it isn't?
Are you sure it's Dan Hodges who's shredded his credibility, and not someone closer to home?
He’s on the ropes due to a media witch-hunt, cooked up by Tory HQ and breathlessly promoted by partisan nutters with pitch-forks.
Tories see him as an opponent, Corbynites as the evil enemy.0 -
Ah, another Remainer non-Tory who thinks the next Tory leadership election will be just like the last.Carnyx said:
Mr Hunt, surely not. The Brexiters will have lost.FrancisUrquhart said:
But what if the Tories also elect somebody untarnished by Boris time in power and who is much more able? e.g. Jeremy Hunt.numbertwelve said:
But by resigning SKS could basically take Boris down with him, or at least make him even more unpopular. Then it’s very much advantage Labour for the moment provided they elect someone vaguely competent*Scott_xP said:
Not really.JosiasJessop said:There are oodles of interesting edge cases in this whole mess.
SKS get's a fine - resigns.
BoZo got a fine - didn't resign.
That is the raw politics, and why the journalists that have been pushing this for a week are really, really upset now
*subject of course to a potential new Tory leader before the election also.
I sometimes wish politics would just have a few years of being dull again.
I don't think it is clear at all who wins or loses under the various scenarios.0 -
If heaven forbid you were on trial for something serious, one would hope the jury would consider all the evidence as opposed to a single tweet.Applicant said:
I mean the tweet quoted at the top of this mini-thread which, despite your protestations, clearly links resignation merely to being under investigation.Gardenwalker said:
Do you mean the Tweet that post dated Hansard?Applicant said:
Please read the tweet, Gardenwalker.Gardenwalker said:
Please read the Hansard, Big G.Big_G_NorthWales said:
You are wrong 100%Gardenwalker said:
Nope, because you have perhaps deliberately ignored the actual context of the tweet.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Looks as if I am owed an apology by a couple of posterstlg86 said:This was the Tweet that Beth Rigby mentioned...
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1488176626642923521
Keir Starmer
@Keir_Starmer
Honesty and decency matter.
After months of denials the Prime Minister is now under criminal investigations for breaking his own lockdown laws.
He needs to do the decent thing and resign.
See Hansard, posted upthread.
Read it and understand it.
Read it and understand it.
That's what it actually says, not what you imagine it says.
Or have you got another one stuffed in your bag of tricks?1
