Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: Colemans Left Hook on March 03, 2023, 03:08:08 am
-
Partygate probe chief Sue Gray offered top job by Labour leader Starmer ...
By Chas Geiger
BBC News
Senior civil servant Sue Gray, who investigated lockdown gatherings in Downing Street, has been offered a job as Sir Keir Starmer's chief of staff.
A Labour spokesman said Sir Keir was "delighted" that "she hopes to accept the role subject to the normal procedures".
But allies of Boris Johnson reacted with anger to the news.
Former minister Jacob Rees-Mogg said Ms Gray's Partygate conclusions now looked "like a left-wing stitch up".
"So much for an impartial Civil Service, the Gray report now looks like a left-wing stitch up against a Tory prime minister," the former business secretary and Brexit opportunities minister tweeted.
A friend of Mr Johnson said Ms Gray's job offer undermined the validity of her investigation into parties held in Downing Street when Covid-19 restrictions were in force.
"What was supposed to be an investigation by independent civil servants is now revealed to have been carried out by someone who ultimately would go on to work for Keir Starmer," they said.
WELL I DID WARN YOU ALL ABOUT THE CIVIL SERVANT SABATEURS
A WHILE AGO AS THE POST BELOW SHOWS
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
...Brexit Benefits list?
They've spotted one in the wild.
https://mobile.twitter.com/AlexTaylorNews/status/1620343142364106752
Well done lads.
Sorry i don't read twitter posts but perhaps it should be retitled "the one that got away" and the civil servants didn't sabotage
We used to have hunt saboteurs as we all know now we have the "Britex Civil Servant Saboteurs "
Beware the BCSS
-
Too right, there were no parties and all the scenes were photoshopped, the cleaners made it up that they were abused no booze in a suitcase and johnson is the most honest person in politics.
-
Too right, there were no parties and all the scenes were photoshopped, the cleaners made it up that they were abused no booze in a suitcase and johnson is the most honest person in politics.
Not defending Johnson, but you’d be outraged and screaming institutional Tory bias were the political parties reversed here.
-
What political bias?
-
''Necessary to ‘get heavy with police’ over Covid lockdown, Matt Hancock said
Leaked WhatsApp exchanges from then health secretary to top civil servant in 2020 reveal concerns over enforcement of rules''
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/mar/02/matt-hancock-whatsapp-messages-simon-case-police-covid-lockdown
The cop on the door of No 10 didn't get heavy aye?
-
Very poor decision to employ Gray, as it gives the Tories an easy out on the findings of her report.
Reputation as being secretive, and opposed to freedom of information.....not a welcome development.
The revolving door is still well oiled, isn't it?
-
Only if any want to listen to johnson, that argument says that all civil servants can't be employed because they may be biased, I have colleagues that have worked for liberal ministers that are activists.
-
Very poor decision to employ Gray, as it gives the Tories an easy out on the findings of her report.
Reputation as being secretive, and opposed to freedom of information.....not a welcome development.
The revolving door is still well oiled, isn't it?
Only if we ignore the facts that they had the parties while we were all locked in doors does it give them an out.
What Sue Gray does in her life after the investigation doesn't excuse what was happening in number 10.
-
Too right, there were no parties and all the scenes were photoshopped, the cleaners made it up that they were abused no booze in a suitcase and johnson is the most honest person in politics.
Not defending Johnson, but you’d be outraged and screaming institutional Tory bias were the political parties reversed here.
I would bet money that it would have been played as she was so disgusted with the antics of the government that she wanted to work with a more honest party.
I could imagine that headline in the Mail.
Her move does muddy the waters a bit though and leave an opportunity to throw doubt on her impartiality though.
-
DO,
You only have to see how the Tory press have swooped on this to see it is a major political error of judgment by Keith.
It muddies the waters, which suits the Johnson narrative that he has little to account for.
I disagree with that story, but others will use it to discredit the Gray Report and its findings....they are already doing so!
In the same way that politicians should not be allowed to work for industries that they once supervised, civil servants should not move from that neutral advisory role to explicitly political employment.
It is a basic safeguard against corruption, or the perception that interests may be conflicted.
Clear lines of responsibilities need to separate the duties of a public servant from the political domain.
-
Would it be the same or worse or not an issue to appoint those that have worked for a party into top civil service roles?
-
That would be appalling, Syd.
It would be the end of the civil service as an independent profession.
-
https://twitter.com/henryriley1/status/1631575027333177345?s=46&t=Uj9lS9cW2ksdznjWwHqrkQ
-
And yet the civil service survives .......
''The government was warned today against politicising the civil service "by the back door" as the number of named individuals who advised the Tories in opposition and have since been appointed to civil service positions rose to 10.
Last week a sequence of political appointees to the civil service surfaced, including Cameron's one time personal photographer, party videographer, internet guru, and image consultant.
Now it has emerged that two members of the implementation unit – an official team of civil servants in charge of the business plans announced by each department yesterday – also advised the Conservatives before the election''
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/nov/08/labour-government-tory-civil-service
-
Precisely the point, Syd.
A two way street between civil service appointments and political roles is deeply corrosive of the democratic system of governance.
No-one is saying that it did not occur in other forms, but it should be removed from the operation of government. What starts as a trend to interchange in lower ranking posts becomes the norm at the top end.
There is a big problem with high ranking officials jumping from poacher to gamekeeper, and back again.
That is true whether done by the Tories or by Labour.
-
I know you don't wish to accept it Albie (and others) but I think Starmer is totally different to the tories that have ruled for 13+ years.
-
I think we all know what the accusations would be if she went to work for the tories.
She's quite entitled to the job but I'm surprised Labour have gone down this route given it opens them up to criticism for the things they've been complaining about.
-
Sound's to me like very poor timing again from Starmer, giving Johnson's cohort an easy out again.
Im sure this appointment could of been communicated at a much later date, Starmer seems to have a gift of looking a gift horse in its mouth!
-
I know you don't wish to accept it Albie (and others) but I think Starmer is totally different to the tories that have ruled for 13+ years.
Predictable that you would say that Syd.
We shall see when they win the next GE.
-
There's a really, really simple response to all the people who are outraged at the bias of Sue Gray.
If you're certain that her political beliefs (which everyone has) caused her to produce a biassed report, you'll have no trouble pointing out precisely which statements of fact that she made in the report are untrue.
Off you go, Rees-Mogg et al.
-
I don't think the report is an issue actually, granted there may have been discussions prior to that but feels unlikely. It gives Johnson an open goal though which many may well agree with. Again, if she was appointed head of staff for Rishi Sunak in the conservatives what would the outcry be?
I think the bigger point is that she knows a lot of detail about things that may be confidential to the conservative party and policy plans not yet announced which she shouldn't then be allowed to share. Typically there should be an element of gardening leave or something like that like in most organisations? I can't remember many high profile civil servants taking on a high profile political job for the other party such as this.
-
She cannot take up the post for several months even though she has resigned her position
-
''Necessary to ‘get heavy with police’ over Covid lockdown, Matt Hancock said
Leaked WhatsApp exchanges from then health secretary to top civil servant in 2020 reveal concerns over enforcement of rules''
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/mar/02/matt-hancock-whatsapp-messages-simon-case-police-covid-lockdown
The cop on the door of No 10 didn't get heavy aye?
Horrible little man who shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near public office ever again.
-
Partygate probe chief Sue Gray offered top job by Labour leader Starmer ...
By Chas Geiger
BBC News
Senior civil servant Sue Gray, who investigated lockdown gatherings in Downing Street, has been offered a job as Sir Keir Starmer's chief of staff.
A Labour spokesman said Sir Keir was "delighted" that "she hopes to accept the role subject to the normal procedures".
But allies of Boris Johnson reacted with anger to the news.
Former minister Jacob Rees-Mogg said Ms Gray's Partygate conclusions now looked "like a left-wing stitch up".
"So much for an impartial Civil Service, the Gray report now looks like a left-wing stitch up against a Tory prime minister," the former business secretary and Brexit opportunities minister tweeted.
A friend of Mr Johnson said Ms Gray's job offer undermined the validity of her investigation into parties held in Downing Street when Covid-19 restrictions were in force.
"What was supposed to be an investigation by independent civil servants is now revealed to have been carried out by someone who ultimately would go on to work for Keir Starmer," they said.
WELL I DID WARN YOU ALL ABOUT THE CIVIL SERVANT SABATEURS
A WHILE AGO AS THE POST BELOW SHOWS
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
...Brexit Benefits list?
They've spotted one in the wild.
https://mobile.twitter.com/AlexTaylorNews/status/1620343142364106752
Well done lads.
Sorry i don't read twitter posts but perhaps it should be retitled "the one that got away" and the civil servants didn't sabotage
We used to have hunt saboteurs as we all know now we have the "Britex Civil Servant Saboteurs "
Beware the BCSS
"A friend of Mr Johnson..." (Well that narrows down the field) "...said 'What was supposed to be an investigation by living civil servants is now revealed to have been carried out by someone who ultimately will go on to die.' "
-
"I know Sue Gray will be thorough and professional about her work... She is professional and formidable... She is known to be independent" - Nadine Dorries, January 2022
Sue Gray move to Starmers office not surprising. Whilst writing report, she used QC who tweeted out pro Labour anti gov tweets whilst Alistair Campbell heaped praise upon her. Her comms assistant briefed against Johnson from day 1. The Gray report was a stitch up of PM and CSs - Nadine Dorries March 2023
How people flip when it doesn’t suit them eh?
-
I haven’t shared a political take with Owen Jones for a while
https://twitter.com/owenjones84/status/1631674218499719169?s=46&t=Uj9lS9cW2ksdznjWwHqrkQ
-
Sue Gray is independent and is known to be independent - Nadine Dorries to Sky News
https://twitter.com/Haggis_UK/status/1631690590176813057
Sue Gray is independent & has the highest integrity and greatest reputation - Jacob Rees-Mogg to ITV News
https://twitter.com/implausibleblog/status/1631602583155490817
I'm not sure it is a particuarly good move by Starmer btw but what exactly did she do wrong in the Partygate enquiry? Were there not eye witnesses admitting that suitcases of wine smuggled into Downing Street and photos published of gatherings of people with drinks? What is the actual 'political bias' here?
https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1631629041940791297
https://twitter.com/Haggis_UK/status/1631645505364140032
-
I haven’t shared a political take with Owen Jones for a while
https://twitter.com/owenjones84/status/1631674218499719169?s=46&t=Uj9lS9cW2ksdznjWwHqrkQ
I'd be a bit dubious to have to share anything with this fella, but in this instance he's right.
-
I haven’t shared a political take with Owen Jones for a while
https://twitter.com/owenjones84/status/1631674218499719169?s=46&t=Uj9lS9cW2ksdznjWwHqrkQ
Jones, as usual, in his rush to have a pop at Starmer is missing the bleeding obvious point.
If Gray had been appointed to run an investigation by Party X, had found that there was no case to answer against Party X or its members and then had been given a job by Party X, THAT would fail a "Would you think this bad if done by Party Y?" test.
But that's not the situation we have here. Gray was appointed by Johnson to investigate Johnson. No-one raised any issues whatsoever at the time that questioned whether she would be biassed against Johnson. No-one raised any issues about the factual conclusions that she came to. The biggest criticism was that she failed to investigate what looked on the surface to be the biggest breach of the lockdown rules (the party in his private flat) because The Met were looking into it, when in fact they didn't look into it. So it appears that Johnson got a free pass on that one.
In the absence of any evidence whatsoever that Gray was biassed against the Tories when conducting that investigation, the claims by Starmer's enemies (who, left or right, are starting to sound very much like each other) that there is something morally wrong about this, ring hollow. It's people who have made up their minds that they don't like Starmer deciding that this justifies them in not liking Starmer.
-
Happy for anyone of any political persuassion to answer my question above - What actual political bias did Sue Gray publish in her inquiry?
It wasn't her inquiry that saw Johnson & Sunak fined of course. That was a separate Met Police inquiry.
Although from Hancock's texts it appears that both were mislead and evidence withheld from them.
-
If it walks like a pig and stinks like a pig.
Perception is everything in politics these days.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
https://mobile.twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/1631696770177679360
If this is wrong, expect to see Labour dive in next week's polls...
-
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.
-
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!
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
Christ the Mail eh?
(https://www.thepoke.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/FqR1hUmWAAAyxMb-590x800.jpeg)
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.
-
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.
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?
-
So you agree with me then?
-
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? :)
-
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."
-
BB has the hair splitters if you need them Branton
-
Branton.
And how many of those Mail readers do you think were likely to be Labour supporters?
-
Anyway, as I say, if the Labour lead has halved in the next set of polls, you're right and I'm wrong.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Yes BB.
And those honest, unbiased people clearly choose to forget that the Durham Police held a detailed investigation into that and concluded that it was a perfectly acceptable example of eating and drinking whole working.
Strange that honest, unbiased people would choose to do that, but I guess it takes all sorts...
-
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.
They will also remember that the Police held investigations into Johnson, Sunak, Starmer and the gatherings they attended. And concluded on the evidence presented the ones Johnson and Sunak attended were illegal (against the rules they themselves had set) whilst Starmer had done nothing wrong according to the rules.
Presumably being honest and unbiased they will accept the police's decision?
As you appear to be in contact with them - what do these honest unbiased people think to the photos of Johnson at the parties published in the report this week?
-
Come the next election most won't care about any of that as so long will have passed. I'd expect most will care about their jobs, pounds in their bank and a quality NHS.
Given the issues with all of those so far Sunak has an almost impossible job to remain PM after the election. Can't be often a party in this country has had power for over 20 years.
-
Yes BB.
And those honest, unbiased people clearly choose to forget that the Durham Police held a detailed investigation into that and concluded that it was a perfectly acceptable example of eating and drinking whole working.
Strange that honest, unbiased people would choose to do that, but I guess it takes all sorts...
Honest, unbiased people wouldn't find it strange.
-
I think the the thousands and thousands of people that lost family members and friends will remember an incompetent government who's members partied, lied about it and tried to cover it up and bluff it's way through.
-
Yes BB.
And those honest, unbiased people clearly choose to forget that the Durham Police held a detailed investigation into that and concluded that it was a perfectly acceptable example of eating and drinking whole working.
Strange that honest, unbiased people would choose to do that, but I guess it takes all sorts...
Honest, unbiased people wouldn't find it strange.
Like you would know.
-
Yes BB.
And those honest, unbiased people clearly choose to forget that the Durham Police held a detailed investigation into that and concluded that it was a perfectly acceptable example of eating and drinking whole working.
Strange that honest, unbiased people would choose to do that, but I guess it takes all sorts...
Honest, unbiased people wouldn't find it strange.
Like you would know.
Correct. You won't find anything Dishonest or biased that I've said, unless, of course, you want to continue to claim that my attempts at levelling the balance of your dishonest bias as bias on my part!
......... And you will!
-
So Starmer won't answer the question on when she was first approached. It's looking a bit awkward for them at the minute, can't deny that.
-
So Starmer won't answer the question on when she was first approached. It's looking a bit awkward for them at the minute, can't deny that.
Here’s the video
https://twitter.com/lbc/status/1632672778808709120?s=46&t=Uj9lS9cW2ksdznjWwHqrkQ
-
Of course the alternative is that the Mail editorial staff know their readers are too pig thick to figure out for themselves what a f**king stupid headline this is.
Fixed that for you BST
-
That’s an embarrassing interview.
He’s terrible at evading the question, which I would have thought was first on the pass list at politician school.
Johnson was/is a convincing liar. Let’s hope if Starmer does become PM, he doesn’t tell any porkies, because if there’s one thing worse than a convincing liar, it’s an unconvincing one.
-
This is a clear indication of how far out of his depth Starmer will be when he's PM. He's been drowning in the relatively shallow end in his role as the opposition leader since his appointment.
-
I'll just leave this here
-
I'll just leave this here
That's right, Raven. But wouldn't it be better for people to be able to say "that's what the Tories do", rather than being persuaded by events to say "they're all the same".
All the Labour supporting journalists I've listened to on Sky News over the last few nights have said that Keith's move was "unwise".
-
Interesting comments on this.
Many of which are talking about the relationship between truth and politics. Which, let’s be honest, is complex.
There are 4 truths we perceive as humans.
Objective Truth is what exists and can be proved in this physicality. (The sun moves across the sky each day.)
Normative Truth is what we, as a group, agree is true. (English speakers agreed to use the word day to name that time when the sky is lit by the sun.)
Subjective Truth is how the individual sees or experiences the world. (Today is a good day for me.)
Complex Truth recognizes the validity of all those truths and allows you to focus on the one is most useful at any given time.
The media machine do reference objective truths, but they give very heavy weight to normative and subjective truth. There will be many people who read the sun, the Mail, the express et Al, and believe what they read. At the least it helps them form opinions. The objective truth becomes less relevant . I’ll let you all make up your mind which truth you follow, politically.
-
So Starmer won't answer the question on when she was first approached. It's looking a bit awkward for them at the minute, can't deny that.
Here’s the video
https://twitter.com/lbc/status/1632672778808709120?s=46&t=Uj9lS9cW2ksdznjWwHqrkQ
This is very damaging for Starmer and will be used by opposition to portray him as evasive and conniving.
I'd be quite sure that Labour will have anyalised the eruptions from this to the tenth degree and IF they could row back from it would have by now done so, the fact they haven't makes it look like this avenue is a road to go down against him.
Very unwise from him, demonstrating like others have said a lack of nimble thought and sounding so unconvincing makes us all doubt to what degree he would be a sound PM at the top of his game for the country as well as himself and his party.
-
Interesting that Starmer backed Joy Allen for the Police and Crime Commissioner post.
No wonder he didn’t need to worry about beergate.
#allthesame?
-
This is a clear indication of how far out of his depth Starmer will be when he's PM. He's been drowning in the relatively shallow end in his role as the opposition leader since his appointment.
More an indication of how desperate some are to try to bring him down aye, maybe there should be a parliamentary inquiry or a RC into his behaviour?
-
Now this is a meeting
''Opposition parties are calling for the prime minister to explain a meeting with Sue Gray over her report into the partygate saga.
It has emerged the civil servant and Boris Johnson met several weeks ago - but there are conflicting accounts of what was discussed.
A spokesperson for the Sue Gray investigation has disputed a government source's assertion the pair discussed including photographs in her report.
The BBC has now been told the discussion about photographs "did not happen", although photos are likely to be included in the final report.
Labour has suggested that the "secret meeting" could damage confidence in the process.
Ms Gray is set to publish her full report into lockdown gatherings in and around Downing Street in 2020 and 2021 next week.
According to the senior government source, the pair discussed including photos in the report, and that Ms Gray initiated the meeting.
But it is now understood that while Ms Gray sent the calendar invite for the meeting, the original idea for it came from Downing St.
In a conversation with a senior official in No 10, it was suggested to Ms Gray that she might offer an update on her work to the prime minister. She accepted that idea and sent the invite to ensure an appointment was put in both their diaries''
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-61531971
-
FOI into the meeting between johnson and Sue Gray whilst she was inquiring into partygate:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/meeting_with_sue_gray
''Dear Prime Minister's Office,
Thanks for your response to our request for internal review ref IR2022/14359. It fails to answer any of the points we raised. It fails to explain what you have done with these minutes since the date of the press briefing which confirmed their existence along with your desire to keep them from the public. It fails to explain your desire to bypass the Freedom of Information Act and disrespect the authority of both the Information Commissioner's Office by acting to conceal or destroy these minutes prior to allowing the ICO and the courts to rule on whether they should be released in full or part or not at all. It is simply not your decision to make. The matter will now be referred back to the ICO where we again will recommend a Section 77 investigation. You are reminded it is a criminal offence to conceal or destroy materials requested under the Freedom of Information Act and those responsible will be dealt with.
Furthermore we are not satisfied that the communication you made to the ICO in September to avert court action constitutes a 'substantive response'.
Yours faithfully,
Amanda Hart
for Stop UK lies and Corruption''
-
Moderately loud dance music has been reportedly heard coming from mark sedwell's gaff
-
Anyway, as I say, if the Labour lead has halved in the next set of polls, you're right and I'm wrong.
Two polls have been conducted since this non-issue blew up.
Labour's lead is down 1% in one and up 1% in the other.
Wipe the froth from your lips and stand down chaps.
-
Complete drivel, BST.
A generalised poll cannot isolate for a single factor, and depending upon how it was constructed would only give a broad indication of support within a range of uncertainty.
There is no predictive content of polling at this point in the political cycle, either for a distant GE or as a monitor of a particular measure or controversy.
Repeating this nonsense is simply an attempt to mislead people, there is no value whatsoever in these comments.
The Gray issue has little bearing on long term public sentiment.
-
Ok, so the foam keeps coming.
My point was, Albie, that despite some of our contributors here saying Starmer had shot himself in various extremities, there's been no effect whatsoever on poll figures. Unlike the very large moves following say, the first news about Partygate (sudden change from typical polls being level to Labour being 6-8% ahead) or the Kamikwasi Budget (typical Labour lead rising from 10% to 20-25%).
The initial polling suggests that the Sue Gray issue hasn't so much as made a ripple by comparison with those events. So, much as it will upset you, we're currently still looking at a very high Labour lead.
-
if/when labour get in power, will we get huge public sector pay rises?
-
if/when labour get in power, will we get huge public sector pay rises?
Not a chance, NR, nor will we see utilities taken back into public ownership.
In fact, very little will change.
-
same shit, different coating then?
but labour supporters will be happy, aye?
-
Well, apart from honesty and integrity at the top of course.
Just think, no scandals or wrong doing by MPs.
Off topic will become redundant.
-
Well, apart from honesty and integrity at the top of course.
Just think, no scandals or wrong doing by MPs.
Off topic will become redundant.
laughing emoji
-
if/when labour get in power, will we get huge public sector pay rises?
Yep, Starmer will make everyone rich and then everyone will go on strike in protest at all the wealth tax they're paying!
-
if/when labour get in power, will they open up more of the uk's seaside resorts for asylum seeker accommodation?
-
if/when labour get in power, will we get huge public sector pay rises?
Yep, Starmer will make everyone rich and then everyone will go on strike in protest at all the wealth tax they're paying!
Unlike the tories that are making all their mates rich aye? psst anyone want a PPE contract