Keir Starmer and the Labour Party

[brad465]

Reports coming in that Starmer will make a statement at 4pm that includes saying if fined he'll offer his resignation, while remaining adamant that he hasn't broken the law.

 

[DarloRich]

Reports coming in that Starmer will make a statement at 4pm that includes saying if fined he'll offer his resignation, while remaining adamant that he hasn't broken the law.

he can not do otherwise having hammered Johnson but it is also the right thing to do from him both personally and professionally. Should it come to pass it will ratchet up the pressure on Johnson.

I don't think, from what I have read, that Starmer has broken the law. We know Johnson has.

PS if Starmer does go over this Cummings needs looking at and nailing to the wall.

 

[skyhigh]

I don't think, from what I have read, that Starmer has broken the law.

I honestly don't believe Starmer, with his legal background, would be as clear as he has been that he hasn't broken the law if he didn't think that to be true. Regardless he has absolutely done the correct thing in offering to resign if he is given a penalty notice.

 

[dgl]

Part of the statement from Starmer

Keir Starmer: I'll quit if given Covid lockdown fine by police

The Labour leader is under pressure as police investigate if rules were broken in April 2021.

www.bbc.co.uk

I believe in honour, integrity and the principle that those who make the laws should follow them,"
"If the police decide to issue me with a fixed-penalty notice, I would of course do the right thing and step down."

Whatever happens, if I was Boris I would be worried.

 

[alex397]

Part of the statement from Starmer

Keir Starmer: I'll quit if given Covid lockdown fine by police

The Labour leader is under pressure as police investigate if rules were broken in April 2021.

www.bbc.co.uk

Whatever happens, if I was Boris I would be worried.

This was a good move from Starmer.

Although I’m not completely sure Boris will be worried. Firstly, because of his ego, but also because he seems to be invincible for some bizarre reason.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Perhaps Starmer has seen the light that he is not the one to take the Labour Party forward, so he appears to be covering his options.

 

[TheBigD]

This was a good move from Starmer.

Although I’m not completely sure Boris will be worried. Firstly, because of his ego, but also because he seems to be invincible for some bizarre reason.

People know that Boris is a liar, philander etc etc. It's already "priced" in. He has, whether you or I like it or not, a personality that people a lot of people like.

Despite his perceived skills or abilty or resumé, Starmer comes across as dull and doesn't enthuse people.

 

[alex397]

People know that Boris is a liar, philander etc etc. It's already "priced" in. He has, whether you or I like it or not, a personality that people a lot of people like.

Despite his perceived skills or abilty or resumé, Starmer comes across as dull and doesn't enthuse people.

And this is one of the flaws of democracy. People go for personality over substance - all the time. I guess that’s just human nature though.

 

[MikeWM]

And this is one of the flaws of democracy. People go for personality over substance - all the time. I guess that’s just human nature though.

*Modern* democracy, yes. But it wasn't ever thus - in the 1970s, I can't imagine many people voted for Heath or Wilson based on their charisma. From what I've seen of political debate at the time, people actually discussed policy and ideas and real issues, rather than personalities.

And that's the problem with Starmer as far as I'm concerned. I don't know what he believes in, and I don't know what policies he is likely to bring forward. When he stood for leader he promised the Labour members that he would stick to the majority of Corbyn's manifesto (I still have the leaflet he sent out - I was still a Labour party member at the time). But to the surprise of no-one, once elected he jettisoned pretty much all of those policies, despite his promise. Worse, he's put next to nothing in their place.

 

[birchesgreen]

*Modern* democracy, yes. But it wasn't ever thus - in the 1970s, I can't imagine many people voted for Heath or Wilson based on their charisma. From what I've seen of political debate at the time, people actually discussed policy and ideas and real issues, rather than personalities.

Occasionally the Parliament channel show political debate programmes from the 70s, what is so notable is that politicians usually answered the questions asked of them instead of just some soundbites or prepared answers to questions they wanted to answer, not what was actually asked of them.

 

[Kite159]

Smart move from Starmer to push the pressure on Durham police not to give him a FPN for breaking the law regarding meeting up indoors to have a curry & beer (the same rules he wanted to be a lot stricter).

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Smart move from Starmer to push the pressure on Durham police not to give him a FPN for breaking the law regarding meeting up indoors to have a curry & beer (the same rules he wanted to be a lot stricter).

I hope that the "one rule for everyone" applies in this situation.

 

[dgl]

Labour confident it has evidence to back up Starmer.

Labour: We can prove Starmer broke no Covid lockdown rules

The party says it has evidence the leader's team was working when food was ordered during a Covid lockdown.

www.bbc.co.uk

Labour says it has evidence that staff continued working after eating a takeaway at an event being investigated as a potential lockdown breach.
A party source says "documentary evidence" shows Sir Keir Starmer's team were working until 01:00 BST.
Durham Police are investigating reports of a gathering where the Labour leader ate a curry and drank a beer at an MP's office during an election visit.
Sir Keir has pledged to resign if he is fined over the allegations.
The Labour Party is confident it can prove that the gathering in April last year was permitted under rules that allowed work events, saying that those attending were working late on the campaign for the Hartlepool by-election.
The Guardian said the party has compiled time-stamped logs from WhatsApp chats, documents and video edits which show work continued after the takeaway food was delivered.
A party source said: "We have been totally clear that no rules were broken. We will provide documentary evidence that people were working before and after stopping to have food."

 

[daodao]

Smart move from Starmer to push the pressure on Durham police not to give him a FPN for breaking the law regarding meeting up indoors to have a curry & beer (the same rules he wanted to be a lot stricter).

All being well, the Durham police will resist bullying by the LOTO (leader of the opposition) and won't pull their punches.

 

[AlterEgo]

The whole charade shows how pathetic most of these rules were.

 

[AM9]

Labour confident it has evidence to back up Starmer.

Labour: We can prove Starmer broke no Covid lockdown rules

The party says it has evidence the leader's team was working when food was ordered during a Covid lockdown.

www.bbc.co.uk

Meanwhile on another planet, the DM is criticising him for 'putting pressure on Durham Police', which really means 'denying the DM the excuse to divert attention away from Johnson's increasingly dire position'. Such is the free press, - it's no surprise that a large part of the electorate votes on personality.

 

[The Ham]

All being well, the Durham police will resist bullying by the LOTO (leader of the opposition) and won't pull their punches.

Genuine quotation, why would the police take any notice of the threat to resign by the LOTO?

If they did and there was even the suggestion that there was, then clearly there's a police complaints procedure which will be used by the Tories to continue the pressure.

However with the Met police having already submitted themselves over inaction on Partygate, if anyone in government was found to have applied pressure overtly on the Met then that too isn't going to look great.

As such any pushing by the Tories for an investigation into Durham Police could be a high risk strategy if it turns out that Labour didn't do anything other than their leader and deputy leader promised to resign and anyone in government or the Tory Party is proved to have applied any more pressure than that on the Met Police.

Yes people have baked in the behaviour of the MP, however if the above happens it's not just the actions of the MP, as other ministers have been overt in suggesting wrong doing when there was (in the above possible outcome) none.

Of course there are other possible outcomes, including the issuing of PCN's to the LOTO and his following resignation. Which will also look bad on the Tory Party.

There's few outcomes which end badly for Labour, the most obvious is if Durham Police find rules were broken but don't issue FPN and this ment that Starmer didn't resign. However, there would be pressure on both the police (as to why no FPN was issued) and Starmer (for not doing the right thing given rules were broken), so wouldn't be an ideal outcome for either party to want to happen.

If I were Starmer if I wasn't issued with a FPN I would double down and issue the challenge to the Tory Party to take me to court if they feel that they have evidence that I broke lockdown rules. Yes it could be high risk, but again by then there's a good chance that there would be other fines issued to the PM and the fallout for the Tories if they lost such a case would be huge.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 May 2022 ==

The DM are claiming that:

It has also emerged that the group, which may have comprised up to 30 people, shared £200 of curry when buffet-style meals were banned.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...pressure-police-vows-quit-fined-beergate.html

£200 between 30 people is less than £7 each, that's not very much food (now I don't know about the prices there but locally to me that's not enough for 1 dish per person, let alone allowing for rice), as such I'm mined to be more trusting of the Labour figure of 15 people (£13.33 each).

Of course it's possible the figure of £200 isn't right, bit I'm only going on what's be cited.

 

[dosxuk]

Genuine quotation, why would the police take any notice of the threat to resign by the LOTO?

Because it's pretty much the only line the Tory party can think of to save Boris. It's step one towards "the only reason the police didn't fine him is because they knew he would leave and they couldn't interfere in politics", and using that to defend Boris' fines and lack of subsequent action.

It follows on from the Tory party yesterday briefing that they didn't want any sort of announcement that Starmer would quit if fined, even to the point of rebuking the junior minister they sent on the press rounds who almost said he should.

 

[The Ham]

Because it's pretty much the only line the Tory party can think of to save Boris. It's step one towards "the only reason the police didn't fine him is because they knew he would leave and they couldn't interfere in politics", and using that to defend Boris' fines and lack of subsequent action.

It follows on from the Tory party yesterday briefing that they didn't want any sort of announcement that Starmer would quit if fined, even to the point of rebuking the junior minister they sent on the press rounds who almost said he should.

Taking that logic a step further if a MP was accused of (say) abuse of a 15 year old the police shouldn't investigate them as that could result in a by-election, which by its very nature is political and they shouldn't do anything to interfere in politics.

 

[DarloRich]

All being well, the Durham police will resist bullying by the LOTO (leader of the opposition) and won't pull their punches.

Corbyn isn't coming back.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The Telegraph are reporting that, according to Labour sources, Keir Starmer will only resign if he is actually fined, not if Durham Constabulary conclude he broke the rules but choose not to fine him because of their policy on not pursuing retrospective Covid breaches. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...l-not-resign-beergate-broke-rules-isnt-fined/

It seems pretty unlikely he would be fined, since Durham Constabulary already have the precedent of not retrospectively fining Dominic Cummings (because that would have amounted to treating him differently from ordinary members of the public). So it looks to me more likely that Keir will be staying on, whatever happens with the investigation.

 

[Kite159]

Has it been confirmed that the Durham Police & Crime Commissioner wasn't in attendance at the meal?

 

[Busaholic]

The Telegraph are reporting that, according to Labour sources, Keir Starmer will only resign if he is actually fined, not if Durham Constabulary conclude he broke the rules but choose not to fine him because of their policy on not pursuing retrospective Covid breaches. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...l-not-resign-beergate-broke-rules-isnt-fined/

It seems pretty unlikely he would be fined, since Durham Constabulary already have the precedent of not retrospectively fining Dominic Cummings (because that would have amounted to treating him differently from ordinary members of the public). So it looks to me more likely that Keir will be staying on, whatever happens with the investigation.

Oh, to go back to the days when separation of powers meant that fines could only be issued by magistrates or judges, and most decidedly not the police. As Dame Stella Rimington, former head of MI5 said a few years ago 'Britain is walking into becoming a police state.'

 

[brad465]

Has it been confirmed that the Durham Police & Crime Commissioner wasn't in attendance at the meal?

I've tried searching online but there are no clear articles stating whether or not they were in attendance, and only a handful that mention the Durham PCC. While it's hard to say for definite whether or not they were there, if they were in attendance I'm surprised this detail hasn't been shown on the front pages to the same extent the wider gathering has been.

 

[Bantamzen]

The DM are claiming that:


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...pressure-police-vows-quit-fined-beergate.html

£200 between 30 people is less than £7 each, that's not very much food (now I don't know about the prices there but locally to me that's not enough for 1 dish per person, let alone allowing for rice), as such I'm mined to be more trusting of the Labour figure of 15 people (£13.33 each).

Of course it's possible the figure of £200 isn't right, bit I'm only going on what's be cited.

Actually £200 quid could get you a lot of food. There are plenty of take outs, restaurants, even Asian supermarkets, specialist retailers and individual families that supply food at very cheap prices when ordered in bulk. Its very common for example for Asian families to use them during religious celebrations when they have large gatherings of family and friends around.

Corbyn isn't coming back.

Yet some Labour supporters still seem to be obsessed with him, despite having got rid of him....

And that's the problem with Starmer as far as I'm concerned. I don't know what he believes in, and I don't know what policies he is likely to bring forward. When he stood for leader he promised the Labour members that he would stick to the majority of Corbyn's manifesto (I still have the leaflet he sent out - I was still a Labour party member at the time). But to the surprise of no-one, once elected he jettisoned pretty much all of those policies, despite his promise. Worse, he's put next to nothing in their place.

Indeed, Starmer and his crew just haven't provided enough of a viable opposition to really light the fires under the feet of the Tories. Durham Police could do us a huge favour here, although what's the betting he'd just deny saying he would resign if he did get fined?

 

[The Ham]

Actually £200 quid could get you a lot of food. There are plenty of take outs, restaurants, even Asian supermarkets, specialist retailers and individual families that supply food at very cheap prices when ordered in bulk. Its very common for example for Asian families to use them during religious celebrations when they have large gatherings of family and friends around.

OK, fair enough.

 

[MikeWM]

Oh, to go back to the days when separation of powers meant that fines could only be issued by magistrates or judges, and most decidedly not the police.

Which is a very good point, and a very good example of why you don't get started on a slippery slope. One minute you've got fines of £30 being handed out for bad parking - who could object to that, sounds reasonable - and before you know it you've got £10,000 fines being handed out for having a few people around to your house.

 

[Howardh]

Which is a very good point, and a very good example of why you don't get started on a slippery slope. One minute you've got fines of £30 being handed out for bad parking - who could object to that, sounds reasonable - and before you know it you've got £10,000 fines being handed out for having a few people around to your house.

I agree, but if you are fined by the police and you think it's unjust, I assume one has the right to take it to court; even if you lose you face a stiffer fine/record? But it's Hobson's Choice, one is more likely to accept a simple fine than risk a criminal record, as in the Johnson case, there's something wrong there. On the other hand, you can contest parking tickets, seat belt fines etc without that threat?

So yes, I am a bit confused over things, but all fines over a certain amount should be processed by courts with a right of appeal without prejudice.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which is a very good point, and a very good example of why you don't get started on a slippery slope. One minute you've got fines of £30 being handed out for bad parking - who could object to that, sounds reasonable - and before you know it you've got £10,000 fines being handed out for having a few people around to your house.

The reason for the FPNs was more because there were likely to be a lot of them (as there are of e.g. speeding offences and the likes). The Court system would have been overwhelmed and people would have been waiting years for hearings.

 

[MikeWM]

The reason for the FPNs was more because there were likely to be a lot of them (as there are of e.g. speeding offences and the likes). The Court system would have been overwhelmed and people would have been waiting years for hearings.

But, while I agree, that's a practical point. It doesn't affect whether it is right to have such things in the first place.

Perhaps we have rather too many laws to begin with, if the system can't cope with the number of people breaking them?