Partygate probe chief Sue Gray offered top job by Labour leader Starmer

[danumdon]

If it walks like a pig and stinks like a pig.

Perception is everything in politics these days.

[BillyStubbsTears]

If it walks like a pig and stinks like a pig.

Perception is everything in politics these days.

Are you implying that people are too thick or too blinkered to work through the logic themselves?

[danumdon]

If it walks like a pig and stinks like a pig.

Perception is everything in politics these days.

Are you implying that people are too thick or too blinkered to work through the logic themselves?

Yes, i'm implying exactly that.

When you read through comments sections about what people have said about this, that is exactly the impression you get.

[scawsby steve]

BST and Wilts. You are both completely missing the point here. No-one is suggesting that Sue Gray's report was in any way biased, or that the Tory lockdown parties weren't an absolute disgrace.

The issue here is Starmer offering an empty net to those seeking to prove that the Labour Party is just as corrupt as the Tory Party. They're probably not, but why give people the chance to say so?

The way Starmer's blundering along, he's reminding me of Fergie, when he threw our title chances away in a one horse race a few years ago.

[BillyStubbsTears]

SS.

Here's what I'm struggling with.

On one hand, Starmer is criticised for being so ruthlessly focussed on winning the next election that he is Stalinist in purging dissent.

In the other hand, he's so blitheringly stupid that he blunders into chucking the election away.

Is it possible that people who have decided they don't like Starmer will just conclude they don't like Starmer whatever he does?

On the current issue, the only people I can see criticising him have criticised everything he's done for years.

My take? If you're being criticised over something by Dorries, Rees-Mogg and Jones, keep doing it. You're almost certainly on the right track.

[ncRover]

I don’t think it’s a story that will stick around, just interesting to see people’s initial reactions.

Hancock has been found out even more now with these WhatsApp leaks. Hopefully that puts a stop to his fledgling celebrity career too. Listen to him here. About as genuine as his GMB tears from laughter. B***end.

https://twitter.com/hltco/status/1630484856101584897?s=46&t=Uj9lS9cW2ksdznjWwHqrkQ

[drfchound]

SS.

Here's what I'm struggling with.

On one hand, Starmer is criticised for being so ruthlessly focussed on winning the next election that he is Stalinist in purging dissent.

Is it possible that people who have decided they don't like Starmer will just conclude they don't like Starmer whatever he does?

On the current issue, the only people I can see criticising him have criticised everything he's done for years.

Oh come on, of course he is focussed on winning the next election.
No one would expect anything else.
As for people not liking him, whatever he does, isn’t that what you and plenty of others do when it comes to the Tories.

[scawsby steve]

SS.

Here's what I'm struggling with.

On one hand, Starmer is criticised for being so ruthlessly focussed on winning the next election that he is Stalinist in purging dissent.

In the other hand, he's so blitheringly stupid that he blunders into chucking the election away.

Is it possible that people who have decided they don't like Starmer will just conclude they don't like Starmer whatever he does?

On the current issue, the only people I can see criticising him have criticised everything he's done for years.

My take? If you're being criticised over something by Dorries, Rees-Mogg and Jones, keep doing it. You're almost certainly on the right track.

OK, but you've said yourself many times on here, and I totally agree with you, that opposition parties don't win elections, governments lose them.

All Starmer has to do to p*ss the next GE, is keep his head down, and don't say or do anything that might be deemed as controversial.

Just let the Tories hang themselves, as they will.

[wilts rover]

BST and Wilts. You are both completely missing the point here. No-one is suggesting that Sue Gray's report was in any way biased, or that the Tory lockdown parties weren't an absolute disgrace.

The issue here is Starmer offering an empty net to those seeking to prove that the Labour Party is just as corrupt as the Tory Party. They're probably not, but why give people the chance to say so?

The way Starmer's blundering along, he's reminding me of Fergie, when he threw our title chances away in a one horse race a few years ago.

Corrupt? What's corrupt about it?

As far as I can see people are saying that because Sue Gray is going to work for the Labour Party then there is a problem with the Partygate report. All I am asking is what the problem(s) are in it?

So no - I am not missing the point - you are avoiding it.

Btw I said earlier that I didn't think it was a good look for the Labour Party.

[BillyStubbsTears]

https://mobile.twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/1631696770177679360

If this is wrong, expect to see Labour dive in next week's polls...

[Branton Red]

Starmer is appointing Sue Gray to a very senior position in the Labour party? How can that be acceptable in anyway?

We shouldn't forget how hugely influential Sue Gray's report was in leading to the downfall of Johnson.

Within days of it's release he was facing a confidence vote. Though he won that the margin of victory was so slight that his imminent demise was then inevitable.

Tory MPs (exasperatingly IMO given Johnson's guilt seemed obvious to me from the evidence) throughout the Partygate scandal had previously voiced a refusal to act or condemn Johnson stating they would wait for Sue Gray's report. They continually cited her abilities but also her independence and integrity.

Gray's report concluded "I found failures of leadership and judgment in No 10 and the Cabinet Office. The events that I
investigated were attended by leaders in government. Many of these events should not have been allowed to happen. The senior leadership at the centre, both political and official, must bear responsibility for this culture."

To be fair the Tory backbenchers then acted.

Given, from their public pronouncements, they were reliant on Gray's reported independence and integrity, would they have acted if they had known with foresight that she would be taking a senior role in the Labour Party soon thereafter??

This is a clear error of judgement on Starmer's behalf. It gives Johnson a (much needed and undeserved) defence. It casts Starmer, Labour, Gray and the civil service Starmer hopes to lead, in a very bad light.

[albie]

Why would a clearly idiotic tweet from Paul Mason cause Labour to fall in the polls, 18 months at least before a GE?
It will make no difference, proving nothing.

The greater impact of the Gray move is that it gives a green light to similar career changes within the civil service.
I cannot think of anything more undermining of the democratic process than to give privileged access to politicians the detail of civil service activities and insight.

It also suggests that the interests of Labour moving forward are about further control of information within the party.
Gray is known as an opponent of freedom of information, and presumably this is what she will bring as Chief of Staff.

Deplorable, the whole episode!

[BillyStubbsTears]

Branton.

Then you'll be able to easily answer the question: what matters did she get wrong in that report because of bias against the Tories?

You might also want to reflect on the fact that, because he was so impressed with Gray's thoroughness and professionalism in that investigation, Gove wanted to promote her to be the Cabinet Office PPS. But that was blocked by a Johnson appointee. So that effectively ended her career advancement opportunities in the civil service and she left the service.

Gray clearly has huge amounts to offer Government, whichever party is in power. We should be grateful that she'll still be able to make a contribution.

Or, of course, you could throw your hands up in the air in annoya ce without really knowing what you're annoyed about?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Albie.

The very thought that civil servants and politicians might...talk! I'm getting the vapours just imagining it.

Keep chucking mud mate. Some might hit the target eventually.

And excellent critique of that Mason tweet. "I don't agree with it so it's clearly idiotic." My point wasn't that the tweet would cause a drop in the polls (if only I did emojis, that would be a classic facepalm moment). It was that if he's wrong in saying, tongue in cheek, that this whole affair damages the Tories far more that it does Labour, then Labour will drop in the polls.

[albie]

BST,

The issue is privileged information, as you well know.
Who has access to that information, and can info given for a particular reason be repurposed to a political objective?

If you won't recognise that, then you are blind to the implications.

Mason adds nothing useful in his tweet, which is nonsensical.
Your comment that it will impact polling next week shows a deep ignorance of how polling works, and the relevance of polls to the matter in hand.

Another silly distraction argument, to deflect from the discussion......everyone can see it, clear as day!

[Branton Red]

Branton.

Then you'll be able to easily answer the question: what matters did she get wrong in that report because of bias against the Tories?

As usual your blinkered ideology prevents you from having the wit or intelligence to see things from other people's perspectives.

From the evidence I've seen in the public domain I don't think she got anything wrong in that report.

But I had personally already condemned Johnson as guilty in my own mind (and on here) from said evidence.

Many Tory MPs publicly stated they were awaiting on Gray's report before coming to a conclusion on Johnson and would rely on her much vaunted independence and integrity when considering it's conclusions.

Taking on a senior position in the Labour party clearly eradicates any notion of her personal political independence or integrity given she through her report was a major influence in bringing down a Tory PM.

It therefore calls into question the veracity of her report in the eyes of such Tories and also more importantly with the wider electorate (no not in my or your eyes but we're just 2 out of several million). It gives Johnson and the Tories a defence. It gives the Tory press an attack line on Labour.

That's what annoys me.

It also calls into question the judgement of Keir Starmer. Almost certainly our next Prime Minister. And that worries me.

[ravenrover]

Branton.

Then you'll be able to easily answer the question: what matters did she get wrong in that report because of bias against the Tories?

You might also want to reflect on the fact that, because he was so impressed with Gray's thoroughness and professionalism in that investigation, Gove wanted to promote her to be the Cabinet Office PPS. But that was blocked by a Johnson appointee. So that effectively ended her career advancement opportunities in the civil service and she left the service.

Gray clearly has huge amounts to offer Government, whichever party is in power. We should be grateful that she'll still be able to make a contribution.

Or, of course, you could throw your hands up in the air in annoya ce without really knowing what you're annoyed about?

Badenoch also wanted her in a senior position but that was blocked.
As for Grays report leading to Johnsons ousting, wasn't it because he tried to appoint a sex pest to senior position again lying through his teeth saying he was aware any allegations?

[SydneyRover]

Branton.

Then you'll be able to easily answer the question: what matters did she get wrong in that report because of bias against the Tories?

You might also want to reflect on the fact that, because he was so impressed with Gray's thoroughness and professionalism in that investigation, Gove wanted to promote her to be the Cabinet Office PPS. But that was blocked by a Johnson appointee. So that effectively ended her career advancement opportunities in the civil service and she left the service.

Gray clearly has huge amounts to offer Government, whichever party is in power. We should be grateful that she'll still be able to make a contribution.

Or, of course, you could throw your hands up in the air in annoya ce without really knowing what you're annoyed about?

Badenoch also wanted her in a senior position but that was blocked.
As for Grays report leading to Johnsons ousting, wasn't it because he tried to appoint a sex pest to senior position again lying through his teeth saying he was aware any allegations?

Yep, he got the boot because of the pincher scandal and johnson being the liar that he is denied prior knowledge and then had to backtrack as it was reported he had been briefed about earlier transgressions.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Christ the Mail eh?



If that was a plot by Labour, it means they were able to control Johnson's mind to make him choose their deep cover agent, Sue Gray to investigate him.

If Labour have managed to perfect the ability to mind control their opponents, then who wouldn't want them running the country? They'd win every confrontation hands down.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Of course the alternative is that the Mail editorial staff think their readers are too pig thick to figure out for themselves what a f**king stupid headline this is.

[Branton Red]

Branton.

Then you'll be able to easily answer the question: what matters did she get wrong in that report because of bias against the Tories?

You might also want to reflect on the fact that, because he was so impressed with Gray's thoroughness and professionalism in that investigation, Gove wanted to promote her to be the Cabinet Office PPS. But that was blocked by a Johnson appointee. So that effectively ended her career advancement opportunities in the civil service and she left the service.

Gray clearly has huge amounts to offer Government, whichever party is in power. We should be grateful that she'll still be able to make a contribution.

Or, of course, you could throw your hands up in the air in annoya ce without really knowing what you're annoyed about?

Badenoch also wanted her in a senior position but that was blocked.
As for Grays report leading to Johnsons ousting, wasn't it because he tried to appoint a sex pest to senior position again lying through his teeth saying he was aware any allegations?

Yep, he got the boot because of the pincher scandal and johnson being the liar that he is denied prior knowledge and then had to backtrack as it was reported he had been briefed about earlier transgressions.

Have you ever heard the phrase "the straw that broke the camel's back" I wonder?

[SydneyRover]

So you agree with me then?

[Branton Red]

So you agree with me then?

Why yes!

You however appear to have been questioning my opinion that: -

"We shouldn't forget how hugely influential Sue Gray's report was in leading to the downfall of Johnson.

Within days of it's release he was facing a confidence vote. Though he won that the margin of victory was so slight that his imminent demise was then inevitable."

The Pincher affair may well have been survivable if it wasn't for what had gone on before i.e. Partygate, Gray's report and the resultant confidence vote in which the majority of Johnson's backbenchers voted against him.

Hence my view that the Pincher case was the straw that broke the camel's back.

We're both right don't you agree? 

[Branton Red]

Of course the alternative is that the Mail editorial staff think their readers are too pig thick to figure out for themselves what a f**king stupid headline this is.

Er now do you understand what I meant by: -

"Taking on a senior position in the Labour party calls into question the veracity of her report in the eyes of certain Tories and also more importantly with the wider electorate (no not in my or your eyes but we're just 2 out of several million). It gives Johnson and the Tories a defence. It gives the Tory press an attack line on Labour."

[SydneyRover]

BB has the hair splitters if you need them Branton

[BillyStubbsTears]

Branton.

And how many of those Mail readers do you think were likely to be Labour supporters?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Anyway, as I say, if the Labour lead has halved in the next set of polls, you're right and I'm wrong.

[Branton Red]

Branton.

And how many of those Mail readers do you think were likely to be Labour supporters?

Irrelevant. Labour has to overturn a 80 seat majority plus Tory gerrymandering and dirty tricks (e.g. voter ID) to get into power.

The question is how many potential swing voters (i.e. who voted Tory in 2019 but potentially may vote Labour) see this headline or this story. And what is their response?

Not everybody follows politics as closely as you or I. Not everybody will know all the ins and outs of Partygate. Not everybody shares your strong political bias either.

It is wrong and wholly naive to believe that only the "pig thick" wavering swing voter would react negatively towards Labour on seeing this story.

[wilts rover]

Branton.

And how many of those Mail readers do you think were likely to be Labour supporters?

Irrelevant. Labour has to overturn a 80 seat majority plus Tory gerrymandering and dirty tricks (e.g. voter ID) to get into power.

The question is how many potential swing voters (i.e. who voted Tory in 2019 but potentially may vote Labour) see this headline or this story. And what is their response?

Not everybody follows politics as closely as you or I. Not everybody will know all the ins and outs of Partygate. Not everybody shares your strong political bias either.

It is wrong and wholly naive to believe that only the "pig thick" wavering swing voter would react negatively towards Labour on seeing this story.

I would guess if they don't follow politics that closely they wont give a monkeys who Labour's chief of staff is. But they will remember the photos of Johnson at the parties and the Queen on her own at her husbands funeral.

And there ain't many swing voters read the Daily Heil. In fact there ain't that many people reading it all now, they are making people redundant due to falling sales.

[Bentley Bullet]

Branton.

And how many of those Mail readers do you think were likely to be Labour supporters?

Irrelevant. Labour has to overturn a 80 seat majority plus Tory gerrymandering and dirty tricks (e.g. voter ID) to get into power.

The question is how many potential swing voters (i.e. who voted Tory in 2019 but potentially may vote Labour) see this headline or this story. And what is their response?

Not everybody follows politics as closely as you or I. Not everybody will know all the ins and outs of Partygate. Not everybody shares your strong political bias either.

It is wrong and wholly naive to believe that only the "pig thick" wavering swing voter would react negatively towards Labour on seeing this story.

I would guess if they don't follow politics that closely they wont give a monkeys who Labour's chief of staff is. But they will remember the photos of Johnson at the parties and the Queen on her own at her husbands funeral.

And there ain't many swing voters read the Daily Heil. In fact there ain't that many people reading it all now, they are making people redundant due to falling sales.

There are many unbiased, honest people who will also remember the hypocrisy of seeing photos of Starmer brazenly supping beer at Beergate.