Should Starmer Resign?

[drfchound]

So much defence being offered by Billy and his gang for Starmer.
Yet when the Partygate situation arose they had the scaffold built and the noose ready after an hour.

[River Don]

Except BST has made the point, if Starmer is found to have broken the rules, then he should resign.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Something's been nagging me about Johnson's explanation (sic) for why he wasn't lying to the House about parties. The explanation (sic) frequently repeated by BB in here.

The line is that when he repeatedly stood up in the House and insisted that there were no parties, and no rules broken, it's because he genuinely didn't think that his wife turning up at his office with a birthday cake, accompanied by the designer of their gold wallpaper didn't count as a party.

OK. Let's accept that for now.

Problem is, he sacked his own Press Secretary for being videoed joking about what soon they would use if news of parties ever got out.

He sacked her for that. But it honestly never dawned on him to ask her, "Hang on! I thought these were all work events. Are you telling me that we've actually been having parties all along?"

So that defence requires him:
a) To be so divorced from reality that he doesn't understand that he's at a party.
And
b) To sack someone for laughing about parties, and not even think to ask her about the parties that he was insisting never happened. 

I wonder who he gets to cut his food for him?

[danumdon]

I'm getting really fed up of this issue being given so much coverage and legroom in the MSM.

Whilst the country crashes and burns, these pathetic individuals are paraded everywhere and the different instances are analysed and commented on ad infinitum.

Can this poor example of government and opposition get back to what we pay them for and that's to make the best decisions for everyone in the country.

I'm really hoping this additional "information" that Durham Constabulary have received (hopefully more than the plan of action doc that's appeared in the press) about Starmer's late night gig is damming enough to see this born looser made to resign with the implications that it creates enough of a stink that it causes the Tory's to jettison Johnson at the same time.

Can we then start again and have some leadership demonstrated  from both side and attempt to get to the bottom of this current economic crisis.

We pay these people to do a job of work for us, i'd like to see them getting on with it.

[Branton Red]

You can tell Starmer is in trouble from the Labour Party's spokesman response to the memo revealed today: -

"During a fast-moving campaign, the op note doesn’t always keep up with events so it would be wrong to assume that activities occurred at the times originally planned. For ex-ample, it’s been documented that the takeaway was late."

Hilarious!

Or in other words: -

Yes we planned to break the law but events prevented the timetable from being kept to. We actually had the curry and alcohol get-together later than planned so we did therefore have time to work afterwards - oh no wait!!!

[ravenrover]

Something's been nagging me about Johnson's explanation (sic) for why he wasn't lying to the House about parties. The explanation (sic) frequently repeated by BB in here.

The line is that when he repeatedly stood up in the House and insisted that there were no parties, and no rules broken, it's because he genuinely didn't think that his wife turning up at his office with a birthday cake, accompanied by the designer of their gold wallpaper didn't count as a party.

OK. Let's accept that for now.

Problem is, he sacked his own Press Secretary for being videoed joking about what soon they would use if news of parties ever got out.

He sacked her for that. But it honestly never dawned on him to ask her, "Hang on! I thought these were all work events. Are you telling me that we've actually been having parties all along?"

So that defence requires him:
a) To be so divorced from reality that he doesn't understand that he's at a party.
And
b) To sack someone for laughing about parties, and not even think to ask her about the parties that he was insisting never happened. 

I wonder who he gets to cut his food for him?

Sacked her?? My understanding was she resigned

[ravenrover]

BST

Johnson lied to the house IN YOUR OPINION. Why should he resign just because a politically twisted and biased person like you says he should?

Starmer shouldn't even wait for a verdict, after all, he argued that being under investigation alone is grounds for Boris Johnson's resignation, so why hasn't he resigned?

BB Johnson was asked directly were there any parties his answer was no.
This was later changed to he was not aware of any parties but that all rules had been followed at all times
The Met have decided differently and issued him with a FPN so does that not mean that he did in fact mislead/lie to the house?

No

So Johnson was fined for attending an actual party as deemed illegal by The Met interpreting his own Govt rules, yet having said there were no parties in the House he didn't mislead/lie to the House? Fraid you've lost me on that one even with your interpretation of the English language

BB?

C'mon BB you know what you always say to BST

[Bentley Bullet]

I thought you might have picked up on my answer to that in post 381. Ah well!

He didn't mislead/lie to the house because you can be unaware of events or misinterpret them.

I went to Chesterfield a couple of years ago and if anyone asked me if I have broken the law while there I would have said no. Next thing I received a speeding ticket for doing 34/35 MPH in a 30 MPH zone. On further recollection of it, I remembered the area where the incident took place and thought it was a 40 MPH zone.

I subsequently received a £100 fine and didn't fight the case despite not intentionally or knowingly breaking the law.

I'd made an honest mistake.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

There's tonnes of criticisms to the point BST made though. In the company I worked for through a fair whack of covid we paid extra for self catering accommodation to avoid any issues such as that.

Why did they eat together? Granted he was late in getting up there did they have to eat together?

Why deny someone was there when it was on the memo and clear she was?  Why say it was a quick bit of food between work when it appears it wasn't?  Why did he need to be in person for an online social event (something they criticised Boris Johnson for).

Given labours stance on all things covid you'd have thought they'd be more careful.  Legal or not election guidance was not to meet up indoors whilst campaigning.

None of this excuses Boris Johnson or those fined, they should still resign particularly the pm, yet he dodges it again.  Quite rightly as BST and others have said you can't call out one and not the other.

[BillyStubbsTears]

BB.

So you are doubling down on the idea that Johnson didn't understand that his own law forbade having a birthday party with his wife and interior designer coming to his office. And on the idea that it never dawned on him to ask the spokesperson he sacked why they were joking about parties at No10.

Do you want to buy a used car?

[phil old leake]

Forgive me if I’ve missed this and it’s been raised before

If Starmer is found to have breached lockdown rules and receives a fixed penalty does that mean that Angela Raynor will also get one because she was there with him I believe.

[BillyStubbsTears]

BFYP

Why did they eat together?
How about because they had campaigning to plan for the next day? In which case you combine eating with working. Have you never done that? I've had late evening working meals loads of times where we discuss what the next day if work is going to pan out like, because there's been no time to do it previously.

Why deny someone was there when it was on the memo and clear she was?
Because a young staffer fielded an enquiry about this from The Mail months ago and got his wires crossed.

Why did he need to be in person for an online social event?
He was there FOR the social event. He was there because he was campaigning there the following morning. The social event took place while he was there.

[BillyStubbsTears]

If there's one thing that Starmer and his office do need a proper kicking for, it's the horrifically amateurish way they e dealt with this story. It's a dead easy one to bat back. As Lisa Nandy did consummately today.

https://mobile.twitter.com/lisanandy/status/1523287283297783809

[Bentley Bullet]

There's tonnes of criticisms to the point BST made though. In the company I worked for through a fair whack of covid we paid extra for self catering accommodation to avoid any issues such as that.

Why did they eat together? Granted he was late in getting up there did they have to eat together?

Why deny someone was there when it was on the memo and clear she was?  Why say it was a quick bit of food between work when it appears it wasn't?  Why did he need to be in person for an online social event (something they criticised Boris Johnson for).

Given labours stance on all things covid you'd have thought they'd be more careful.  Legal or not election guidance was not to meet up indoors whilst campaigning.

None of this excuses Boris Johnson or those fined, they should still resign particularly the pm, yet he dodges it again.  Quite rightly as BST and others have said you can't call out one and not the other.

Johnson was found guilty of breaking restriction rules and was subsequently fined. If Starmer is found guilty he should also be fined. In my opinion, neither should resign for what in truth thousands of people all over the country were doing.

However, whether Starmer should resign because of him proving to be a hypocrite is another matter. Starmer shouldn't even wait for a verdict, because, after all, he argued that being under investigation alone is grounds for Boris Johnson's resignation.

Why hasn't Starmer already resigned?

[drfchound]

Except BST has made the point, if Starmer is found to have broken the rules, then he should resign.

Yes RD, I know he has done that.
It doesn’t change my point though that bst and his pals had Johnson hung within an hour of Partygate coming to light, before it was proven that there had been any wrong doing.

[BillyStubbsTears]

BB.
No. He didn't.

[danumdon]

If there's one thing that Starmer and his office do need a proper kicking for, it's the horrifically amateurish way they e dealt with this story. It's a dead easy one to bat back. As Lisa Nandy did consummately today.

https://mobile.twitter.com/lisanandy/status/1523287283297783809

Would this be the same Lisa Nandy that had difficulty in defining the differences between a man and a woman?

When Starmer is toast do you think she would make a good Labour leader?

[bpoolrover]

If there's one thing that Starmer and his office do need a proper kicking for, it's the horrifically amateurish way they e dealt with this story. It's a dead easy one to bat back. As Lisa Nandy did consummately today.

https://mobile.twitter.com/lisanandy/status/1523287283297783809

depends if she has been honest thou, if the reports are right and it is a if, work finished then they ate and drank then it is not a work event

[BillyStubbsTears]

If there's one thing that Starmer and his office do need a proper kicking for, it's the horrifically amateurish way they e dealt with this story. It's a dead easy one to bat back. As Lisa Nandy did consummately today.

https://mobile.twitter.com/lisanandy/status/1523287283297783809

Would this be the same Lisa Nandy that had difficulty in defining the differences between a man and a woman?

When Starmer is toast do you think she would make a good Labour leader?

And that has precisely WHAT to do with what we are discussing?

[Branton Red]

Starmer shouldn't be judged against Johnson's appalling behaviour (I've repeated many times on here that Johnson should go) but against the rules of the time.

This wasn't a brief meal between bouts of working or a small work-related discussion over dinner. It would appear that no work was carried out afterwards (given both no evidence has been provided suggesting such and the memo says this was the plan) and circa 30 people were there.

Curry and beer - a social event quite clearly - to which many people were invited at the end of their working day.

Starmer's guilt is clear and evident for all to see from what's in the public demain. There is clear hypocricy on here from those who (quite correctly) called for Johnson's head when his guilt was clear before he was served his penalty notice.

[bpoolrover]

BB.
No. He didn't.

he said it on january the 25th

[BillyStubbsTears]

Bpool.

No. He didn't. He never once said Johnson should resign BECAUSE there was an investigation going on.

BR.
You're parroting this line from the Mail and Sun that 30 people shared £200 of beer and curry? You want to have a think about that?

[drfchound]

BB.
No. He didn't.

he said it on january the 25th

 

[danumdon]

If there's one thing that Starmer and his office do need a proper kicking for, it's the horrifically amateurish way they e dealt with this story. It's a dead easy one to bat back. As Lisa Nandy did consummately today.

https://mobile.twitter.com/lisanandy/status/1523287283297783809

Would this be the same Lisa Nandy that had difficulty in defining the differences between a man and a woman?

When Starmer is toast do you think she would make a good Labour leader?

And that has precisely WHAT to do with what we are discussing?

It's got everything to do with this issue, When Starmer is jettisoned by this awful opposition because he's been hung by his own hypocrisy they will need a new "leader"  would you not be considering Ms Nandy, after her last feeble attempt ?

[Branton Red]

Bpool.

No. He didn't. He never once said Johnson should resign BECAUSE there was an investigation going on.

BR.
You're parroting this line from the Mail and Sun that 30 people shared £200 of beer and curry? You want to have a think about that?

I never mentioned £200. You're defending the indefensible here.

[ravenrover]

I thought you might have picked up on my answer to that in post 381. Ah well!

He didn't mislead/lie to the house because you can be unaware of events or misinterpret them.

I went to Chesterfield a couple of years ago and if anyone asked me if I have broken the law while there I would have said no. Next thing I received a speeding ticket for doing 34/35 MPH in a 30 MPH zone. On further recollection of it, I remembered the area where the incident took place and thought it was a 40 MPH zone.

I subsequently received a £100 fine and didn't fight the case despite not intentionally or knowingly breaking the law.

I'd made an honest mistake.

Ah so he attended parties but didn't believe they were parties so didn't lie when he said there were no parties but if they were no rules were broken
Even by your standards that is prime whataboutery.
The man cannot stop he is a compulsive liar on this and many other instances within the House and knows he can get away with it with this Speaker, you should be ashamed trying to defend this , just like Raab Gove etc etc

[Bentley Bullet]

25 January 2022
On 25 January, the Metropolitan Police announced it would be investigating Covid rule-breaking at Downing Street parties.

Then-Met Police Commissioner Cressida Dick said it would "not normally be a proportionate use of time" for the force to investigate rule breaches as far back as two years, but police would look at allegations that "appeared to be the most serious and flagrant breach" of regulations.

Labour's deputy leader Angela Rayner said: "With Boris Johnson's Downing Street now under police investigation, how on earth can he think he can stay on as prime minister?

"Boris Johnson is a national distraction. Conservative MPs should stop propping him up and he should finally do the decent thing and resign."

31 January 2022
Echoing his deputy's comments a few days later, Sir Keir tweeted: "Honesty and decency matter. After months of denials the prime minister is now under criminal investigations for breaking his own lockdown laws.

"He needs to do the decent thing and resign."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61369912

[River Don]

Boris Johnson has always been a liar.

His old school masters noted it.

He's been sacked for it.

Max Hastings specifically warned this would happen.

It's indefensible but still they defend it.

[Bentley Bullet]

I thought you might have picked up on my answer to that in post 381. Ah well!

He didn't mislead/lie to the house because you can be unaware of events or misinterpret them.

I went to Chesterfield a couple of years ago and if anyone asked me if I have broken the law while there I would have said no. Next thing I received a speeding ticket for doing 34/35 MPH in a 30 MPH zone. On further recollection of it, I remembered the area where the incident took place and thought it was a 40 MPH zone.

I subsequently received a £100 fine and didn't fight the case despite not intentionally or knowingly breaking the law.

I'd made an honest mistake.

Ah so he attended parties but didn't believe they were parties so didn't lie when he said there were no parties but if they were no rules were broken
Even by your standards that is prime whataboutery.
The man cannot stop he is a compulsive liar on this and many other instances within the House and knows he can get away with it with this Speaker, you should be ashamed trying to defend this , just like Raab Gove etc etc

ME defendig a liar? Oh the hypocrisy!

[drfchound]

Boris Johnson has always been a liar.

His old school masters noted it.

He's been sacked for it.

Max Hastings specifically warned this would happen.

It's indefensible but still they defend it.

To be fair RD I can’t recall anyone on here saying Johnson hasn’t lied.
I have seen posters telling us that Starmer hasn’t lied though.
Johnson has been fined.
We have yet to see if Starmer will be fined.