I wonder if the call to reopen the investigation came from either Starmer or one of his close allies, knowing he had done noting wrong and as such nit only gets the likes of the mail off his back (and potentially allowing him to take the to court over the stories), but to also be able to go back to Boris and be able to take the moral high ground that he got reinvestigated an nothing wrong was found yet he (Boris) was investigated and found he broke the law.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Keir Starmer and the Labour Party
- Thread starter deltic
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
This smacks of wanting Starmer to be innocent and looking for any excuse to make out that he is innocent. Are you by any chance a Labour supporter?
brad465
Veteran Member
I think that would do more harm than good if true. If found innocent more people will remember that he was investigated and have an opinion that's negative of him than positive, even if all media outlets demanding the investigation we now have, had to issue a retraction. This is the third point in time the story had been reported (The Sun did it in May 2021, the Mail did so in February 2022, and now the Mail again this month and last month), Starmer would probably have wanted it done and dusted after the second such reporting.
Its not just about if things were legal or not. It's all the dishonesty that has happened leading up to the investigation.
Angela Raynor not being there
Hotel not serving food
Ordering food was spontaneous
With leaked memos and private messages, the reputational damage has already been done. The other problem is, of course. "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone" and Labour certainly threw a lot of stones ! They are just as dishonest and corrupt as each other.
Last edited:
If it was the only investigation then I'd be mine to agree. However with Boris facing 2 different routes of investigation (police and political) there's a fair chance that if Durham police find nothing wrong was done then that's an ever bigger stick to hit Boris with when there's further PCN's as not only was Starmer investigated and found to have done nothing wrong, but then found on a second time not to have done anything wrong.
I would however highlight that the above level of dishonesty is fairly minor compared to what some may suggest that No. 10 has tried to do.
For instance was it Durham Police who said that they don't investigate retrospective breaches of the Covid-19 regulations, no it was the Met who have now had to investigate and have already issued a PCN to Boris with it looking like that others could well be being issued to many within Downing Street and potentially to Boris.
With now the Met having referred itself to the Independent Office for Police Conduct for its initial handling of the case (something that Durham Police after likely to have to do).
Yes there's a lot who will think that they are both bad, and there's certainly a lot in Southern England who couldn't bring themselves to vote Labour, so may not vote against the Tories or even vote Labour in. However if Starmer resigns over receiving just one PCN and Boris is still in post having got (say) 2, then things could get together for the Tories.
Continually misleading the public and parliament really isn't minor. You have the likes of Angela Rayner calling out Boris as a liar when her own party is just as bad. I don't think we should continually accept that Politicians lie and one lie is better than another
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
That's of course getting very hypothetical. If Starmer does get fined (or equivalently, Durham Police conclude he did brake the rules, but they refuse to fine him because fining for retrospective breaches is against their policy), then if he does resign, that will put a huge amount of pressure on Boris Johnson to do likewise. In that scenario, I suspect enough Tory MPs would conclude Boris has to go or they'll look like complete idiots, and Boris would therefore quickly get no-confidenced by his own MPs. However, I suspect it's more likely that Starmer would refuse to resign - it wouldn't be hard to make up some pseudo-justification for not doing so ('it was a very minor thing/genuine misunderstanding blah blah') . And of course, with Boris still in place as PM it would be impossible for the Tories to call for Starmer to resign. And then we'd basically be in 'plague on all your houses' territory.
brad465
Veteran Member
If he refused to resign in that currently hypothetical scenario, I can see the justification being that right now they're going after Johnson on lying to Parliament, not his partying specifically. What I would like to see is Starmer coming out strongly stating he would resign if found to have breached, and then continuing to attack Johnson from a morally superior (or at worst similar) position, but for now he seems to be cowering on it. I heard that apparently we have to wait around 6 weeks for this new investigation to be concluded, which could make for sticky territory if the full Sue Gray report and/or remaining Met investigation outcomes are released in that time.
Interestingly I saw someone elsewhere talking about this, who was extremely opposed to covid restrictions, saying they wouldn't care if either Johnson or Starmer were involved in a 20 person orgy, only that the rules in place shouldn't have been there in the first place. While the example was extreme, I would agree that had Starmer and co. maybe taken a similar position on restrictions to say Andy Burnham, then this whole episode wouldn't be happening.
The entire charade is depressing and unedifying. At a time when the government was uncritically taking advice from lockdown-happy scientists, abetted by an opposition which didn’t oppose it, this behaviour stinks all round.
Everyone knows the very strictest lockdown rules were a load of old toss. That citizens got fined via PCN or worse, went to court, for this sort of low level behaviour is a depressing stain.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
Firstly, I think this is a confected story designed to try and deflect attention from Johnson and his calamites. I don't THINK Starmer has broken any rules and that seems to hang on whether, or not, the take away curry was part of the working day. Even if it was after the end of the "official" day I am sure a claim could be made that work went on over the meal as the days canvassing was discussed. After all, Johnson wasn't fined for one of his garden parties on similar grounds.
However, if he is found guilty and fined I think he should resign and I think he will resign. The situation is more concerning for Starmer as it may impact on his professional registration and standing. The question for me is what happens if no fine is issued. I am not sure then.
Nicholas Lewis
Established Member
Absolutely Lisa Nandy says he is Mr Rules so if so he's got nothing to fear but this morning he has pulled out of a Institute of Gov conference which is sending all the wrong messages and now means they will have to back off driving the stake into BoJo. Also lets not be naïve like the tories there are plenty of back room plotters in Labour hence the comments from some senior Labour figures hat he would need to consider his position. I'd also wager that it is Labour that has leaked this to DM in the first place as it would have come out months ago when partygate started. To be quite frank good though Starmer is he's not moving the dial enough with voters so moving him on for someone like Andy Burnham is necessary to get Labour back in play in the eyes of their normal voting base.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
That is one way to get Burnham out of Greater Manchester.....
DarloRich
Veteran Member
The media are suggesting there are 2 pro Corbyn fan boys behind these stories.
Phil56
Member
Trouble is that Andy Burnham isn't all that popular in Greater Manchester, so may not be the "winning" leader that Labour so desperately needs.
They really need a charismatic personality type of leader, someone who is capable of winning the "Mondeo Man" middle ground which is where GE's are won and lost.
Look at how well Nick Clegg did for the LibDems - massive increase in party popularity simply because he looked and talked well in the media. If Labour could find someone like that, they'd be home and dry in 2024. (As long as they kept the extremists and incompetents locked in a cupboard).
brad465
Veteran Member
This is the third time that the story has been publicised in the press, the first was not long after the photo was actually taken last year, the second was in February, during the height of partygate, and the third is now.
This highlights how messed up our politics is, that personalities rather than policies are needed to win elections, even if having a great personality comes with being politically inept. Starmer might be a boring person, but if he was competent and focused on the job in hand then that's of greater importance. Besides, after the political furore of the last 6-7 years, having a boring person in charge might help make for a welcome break.
It really isn't appalling. It's not brilliant, but it's OK. Do you really expect Labour to take areas of England which are both socially and economically conservative?
Do Worthing, Wandsworth, Westminster and Barnet count for nothing? At the other end of the country, does winning north-west Cumbria, an area which recently swung towards the Tories, count for nothing?
I would agree that IF he is found to have broken the law, he should resign. However regarding Corbyn, I would argue it was Corbyn who was the treacherous one. It was him that sucked up to the Tories to pass Article 50, meaning that neither main party was standing up against Brexit, and we had to rely on the Lib Dems, a few Labour rebels and Ken Clarke.
Last edited:
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Wasn't Corbyn just a front man for the Momentum movement?
Nicholas Lewis
Established Member
What else do you expect from a world that has brainwashed people into making the Kardashians what they are. The reality is the personality of the politician is now what cuts through for people although with the cost of living crisis now impacting people directly we may well see a shift back to actually looking at what the party might do for me coming back into play.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
It could well be the 3rd time, but if so, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make about it? I suspect you'll find that, each time the 'beergate' story has been publicised, the reason has been that new information about it has come to light. Compare with the number of times that Boris being presented with a birthday cake has been publicised in the press - I've lost count of how many times, but it's definitely well above 3. And by itself that's not a problem - from memory, I would say that each time that 'cakegate' story has been publicised, it's been because new information or new developments have come to light.
I'm not sure if that does show politics is messed up. Looking at it the other way, being Prime Minister is a job that requires many different skills, including managerial skills, understanding-policy skills, having some kind of vision, and being able to inspire people (very important because, amongst other things, being PM means holding a diverse group of people together and persuading a lot of people in your party to go along with things they possibly don't like). If you don't have the ability to inspire people with some kind of vision, then arguably you're lacking one of the skills to do the job.
.,
Look at the 'boring' PMs we've had in recent history: John Major, Gordon Brown, Theresa May. John Major and Theresa May both lead Governments that ultimately spectacularly failed in part because they weren't able to inspire/rally their own MPs to support what they were trying to do. Gordon Brown's Government failed for other reasons but reasons that weren't entirely unrelated to his lack of charisma.
If he's found guilty and issued an FPN then Starmer should resign, not because he called for lockdowns and supported restrictions but because I think getting an FPN is incompatible with being the leader of a political party let alone Prime Minister. Which is just the same as how Boris and his cronies should have resigned. Though there is a stronger undercurrent of "you made the rules, you have to stick them" for me but fundamentally I think being issued with FPNs is incompatible with being the leader of a political party, Prime Minister or a Cabinet Minister.
Does feel like a desperate attempt at smearing either from internal disgruntled elements of the Labour party or from the Tory leaning press barons though.
Does feel like a desperate attempt at smearing either from internal disgruntled elements of the Labour party or from the Tory leaning press barons though.
brad465
Veteran Member
Yes I think we are starting to head that way thankfully, the glory days of low inflation are over (I could go into a long discussion about why low inflation will never return, but that's irrelevant here).
I was trying to disprove the idea that Labour might have willingly leaked the story and that it did come out during partygate before, where the original reply seemed to imply that it didn't come out. In both the instances of beer and birthday cake, this is getting repeated mentions because the tabloids love sensationalising trivial details for the sake of clicks/profit. The same sort of behaviour contributed to the draconian covid response, petrol panic buying, among other things, which highlights how much the country is controlled/held to ransom by an unpatriotic media that dumbs down a critical mass of the population and more crucially forces a Government into caving into peer pressure, even if previous expert advice said no.
I would add I don't think the birthday cake story should be getting repeated reports either, because there are more serious things Johnson needs to be held to account for, both related and unrelated to partygate, and I think it's counterproductive to getting him to step down focusing on a birthday cake, and not on lying to/misleading Parliament about the parties and failing to fully correct the record, among other things he needs to be held to account for as leader.
Fair enough, apparently a number of former PMs have sought advice about PR for this before becoming PM come to think about it.
daodao
Established Member
Since I made my previous post, Labour have now lost Croydon, another council in London (it was the last to declare). I really don't consider that Labour's performance in the English local elections was OK, but I accept that it wasn't as bad as that of the Tories.
Corbyn was not treacherous in allowing article 50 to pass, given the verdict of the majority of the electorate on 23/6/2016. The problem in the 2017-9 parliament was people like Starmer trying to undermine both this decision and the Labour party's nuanced position on this matter.
Last edited:
(Apologies, didn't realise they'd lost others - I think I assumed Harrow was formerly NOC. Even still my point stands).
It wasn't the majority of the electorate, that is a very common misrepresentation of the result. Only 37% voted for Brexit, admittedly more than remain, but almost a third didn't vote. Essentially 13 for, 12 against, and many didn't care. Surely in that sort of situation, one of the parties - probably the opposition - should be supporting the 12?
Last edited:
daodao
Established Member
Labour won 3 and lost 3 councils in London: net result zero. A poor result for the main opposition party in one of its areas of greatest strength.
Ah ok, apologies, I must have missed the other two. Actually on looking again, I think they've only lost one other (Harrow) - I think I must have assumed that was formerly NOC.
Last edited:
daodao
Established Member
Labour lost Tower Hamlets too, to a Muslim party called "Aspire".
gg1
Established Member
It's more difficult to judge Labour's relative performance in this one as they've lost votes from the left, I'd hazard a guess that the bulk of the combined 110 seats gained by Aspire and the Greens are from former Labour voters.
What would be interesting is a summary of the seat changes between the two main parties ie how many seats went Labour to Conservative and vice versa, has anyone seen a site which gives that breakdown? It's not on wikipedia unfortunately.
I think it is quite apparent that those in the 'red wall' seats haven't failed to notice that it was the most prominent pusher for a second referendum, often pushing against a leadership that was trying to 'respect the referendum result', that is now leading the party. They've also noticed that in his last reshuffle he promoted many of those who were most vocal about staying in the EU from the backbenches to the shadow cabinet.
All the Tories have to do at the next general election is drop large hints that Labour (especially if propped up by the Lib Dems and/or SNP) would try to take us back into the EU, and they'll keep most of the 'red wall' seats. And looking at who Starmer has promoted and how he has behaved in the past, that claim would have at least some credibility.
(I'm not suggesting what's necessarily right and wrong here, but it seems pretty clear that this is the way things currently are)
SargeNpton
Established Member
- Joined
- 19 Nov 2018
- Messages
- 1,754
More about Aspire, and who leads it...
Lutfur Rahman: Former banned mayor re-elected in Tower Hamlets
Lutfur Rahman was removed from office in 2015 after being found guilty of electoral fraud.
www.bbc.co.uk
- Status