Should Starmer Resign?

[ravenrover]

Didn'tt Raab say the other day in an interview that a drink with a working lunch was OK?

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Didn'tt Raab say the other day in an interview that a drink with a working lunch was OK?

He probably did because it is. It was fine for a few drinks in the garden whilst working at no 10 and it was fine for Keir Starmer in my view.

Organised drinks not right and shouldn't be accepted.

I do think the hypocrisy of some knows no bounds. You can't criticise the drinks whilst working for one but not the other yet many seem to.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Of course a drink with a working meal was OK. The whole concept was about limiting UNNECESSARY contacts, not wearing sackcloth and ashes.

If you were having a meeting that simply wasn't possible to hold virtually, and that meeting ran on into the evening, there is nothing at all wrong with having a takeaway and a small drink.

It is qualitatively different to put out an invite to 100 people to congregate together specifically to have a drink and socialise. It's bizarre that anyone wouldn't be able to differentiate between the two.

But in any case, that misses the core question.

If Johnson's only crime was to have attended an ill-judged party, he'd probably survive. The REAL resigning issue is that it is plain as day now that he has repeatedly lied to the Commons about this issue. No PM can ever survive that.

[Bentley Bullet]

But if the issue wasn't an issue why was it raised in the commons?

[BillyStubbsTears]

It was an issue. It raises questions about his judgement and morals. But it would have blown over if he hadn't lied about it. It wouldn't have become a resigning issue.

[Bentley Bullet]

And what about Starmer's questionable judgement and morals, when he decided and still insists that it was fine for him to drink beer with workmates at at a time when it was not allowed?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Where in the rules did it say you weren't allowed to have something to eat and drink while you were meeting people for work?

[Bentley Bullet]

Like I've already explained to your buddy Wilts, the picture was taken when indoor mixing between different households was not allowed except for work. Now, if you class eating takeaway and drinking beer as 'work', then I suggest, for the sake of unbiasedness, your liberal attitude towards that should extend to all parties.

[ravenrover]

And what about Starmer's questionable judgement and morals, when he decided and still insists that it was fine for him to drink beer with workmates at at a time when it was not allowed?

Even Raab says it's OK

[Bentley Bullet]

But Raab's not being hypocritical like Starmer is.

[ravenrover]

What's he saying that's hypocritical?

[Bentley Bullet]

Starmer is saying that it's wrong to gather in the workplace and drink alcohol with your workmates unless you're the Labour leader.

[ravenrover]

Aaah workplace and drinking in workplace, nothing to do with actually working when in said workplace, I see it now BB

[aidanstu]

But Raab's not being hypocritical like Starmer is.

Is this the same Raab that was getting off with his colleague during the social distancing measures?

[drfchound]

But Raab's not being hypocritical like Starmer is.

Is this the same Raab that was getting off with his colleague during the social distancing measures?

Mmmm, who was drinking what though   

[Metalmicky]

Of course a drink with a working meal was OK. The whole concept was about limiting UNNECESSARY contacts, not wearing sackcloth and ashes.

If you were having a meeting that simply wasn't possible to hold virtually, and that meeting ran on into the evening, there is nothing at all wrong with having a takeaway and a small drink.

It is qualitatively different to put out an invite to 100 people to congregate together specifically to have a drink and socialise. It's bizarre that anyone wouldn't be able to differentiate between the two.

But in any case, that misses the core question.

If Johnson's only crime was to have attended an ill-judged party, he'd probably survive. The REAL resigning issue is that it is plain as day now that he has repeatedly lied to the Commons about this issue. No PM can ever survive that.

I'm glad I'm not the accused in your court Billy....

What's the problem with waiting...... it's not like Starmer and co are waiting to take over...

[aidanstu]

Of course a drink with a working meal was OK. The whole concept was about limiting UNNECESSARY contacts, not wearing sackcloth and ashes.

If you were having a meeting that simply wasn't possible to hold virtually, and that meeting ran on into the evening, there is nothing at all wrong with having a takeaway and a small drink.

It is qualitatively different to put out an invite to 100 people to congregate together specifically to have a drink and socialise. It's bizarre that anyone wouldn't be able to differentiate between the two.

But in any case, that misses the core question.

If Johnson's only crime was to have attended an ill-judged party, he'd probably survive. The REAL resigning issue is that it is plain as day now that he has repeatedly lied to the Commons about this issue. No PM can ever survive that.

I'm glad I'm not the accused in your court Billy....

What's the problem with waiting...... it's not like Starmer and co are waiting to take over...

He has already admitted he has done wrong; he has even apologised. Why would you advocate spending money on a public enquiry? Had he been honest from the start it wouldn’t have been required and he wouldn’t have taken his party and colleagues down with him.

He is a spineless, narcissistic, egotistical prat who should be allowed to play with his train set unsupervised never mind lead the country.

[Metalmicky]

Of course a drink with a working meal was OK. The whole concept was about limiting UNNECESSARY contacts, not wearing sackcloth and ashes.

If you were having a meeting that simply wasn't possible to hold virtually, and that meeting ran on into the evening, there is nothing at all wrong with having a takeaway and a small drink.

It is qualitatively different to put out an invite to 100 people to congregate together specifically to have a drink and socialise. It's bizarre that anyone wouldn't be able to differentiate between the two.

But in any case, that misses the core question.

If Johnson's only crime was to have attended an ill-judged party, he'd probably survive. The REAL resigning issue is that it is plain as day now that he has repeatedly lied to the Commons about this issue. No PM can ever survive that.

I'm glad I'm not the accused in your court Billy....

What's the problem with waiting...... it's not like Starmer and co are waiting to take over...

He is a spineless, narcissistic, egotistical prat who should be allowed to play with his train set unsupervised never mind lead the country.

Not a fan....?

[aidanstu]

Of course a drink with a working meal was OK. The whole concept was about limiting UNNECESSARY contacts, not wearing sackcloth and ashes.

If you were having a meeting that simply wasn't possible to hold virtually, and that meeting ran on into the evening, there is nothing at all wrong with having a takeaway and a small drink.

It is qualitatively different to put out an invite to 100 people to congregate together specifically to have a drink and socialise. It's bizarre that anyone wouldn't be able to differentiate between the two.

But in any case, that misses the core question.

If Johnson's only crime was to have attended an ill-judged party, he'd probably survive. The REAL resigning issue is that it is plain as day now that he has repeatedly lied to the Commons about this issue. No PM can ever survive that.

I'm glad I'm not the accused in your court Billy....

What's the problem with waiting...... it's not like Starmer and co are waiting to take over...

He is a spineless, narcissistic, egotistical prat who should not be allowed to play with his train set unsupervised never mind lead the country.

Not a fan....?

You could say that.

[Metalmicky]

Of course a drink with a working meal was OK. The whole concept was about limiting UNNECESSARY contacts, not wearing sackcloth and ashes.

If you were having a meeting that simply wasn't possible to hold virtually, and that meeting ran on into the evening, there is nothing at all wrong with having a takeaway and a small drink.

It is qualitatively different to put out an invite to 100 people to congregate together specifically to have a drink and socialise. It's bizarre that anyone wouldn't be able to differentiate between the two.

But in any case, that misses the core question.

If Johnson's only crime was to have attended an ill-judged party, he'd probably survive. The REAL resigning issue is that it is plain as day now that he has repeatedly lied to the Commons about this issue. No PM can ever survive that.

I'm glad I'm not the accused in your court Billy....

What's the problem with waiting...... it's not like Starmer and co are waiting to take over...

He is a spineless, narcissistic, egotistical prat who should be allowed to play with his train set unsupervised never mind lead the country.

Not a fan....?

You could say that.

 

[Branton Red]

This is the 21st Century consumption of alcohol at a workplace esp whilst working is no longer acceptable behaviour - the days of liquid lunches and well-stocked boardroom drinks cabinets are long gone. Drinking alcohol with others is a sociable activity not a work-related one.

If a photo of my team was put before me of them sitting together in a room in the office drinking coffee - obviously no issue.

Same photo drinking alcohol - I'd be asking questions and considering disciplinary procedures.

Same photo drinking alcohol timed during lockdown - the chance of disciplinary procedures would be much higher. I'm sure this would be the case at most companies/organizations. Why should this be any different for Starmer?

The chance of disciplinary procedure/dismissal would grow even higher if: -

- the company I worked for was high profile/vulnerable to bad PR
- the workers were high profile and seen as representatives of the company
- the workers had publicly on behalf of the company advocated lockdown rules

All the above can be applied to Starmer and the Labour Party. Furthermore he's aspiring to be PM and here is evidence of him, if not flouting the rules, then certainly acting questionably in regards to them.

Previously in this thread I've said Starmer's behaviour bears no comparison to Johnson's (though that doesn't mean Starmer's behaviour is acceptable). But perhaps one comparison is apt: Johnson considers himself above his laws which are for us plebs: similarly defenders of Starmer's behaviour seem to believe he should be considered entirely innocent for behaviour which would see most of us disciplined if not sacked outright by our employers.

[BillyStubbsTears]

This is the 21st Century consumption of alcohol at a workplace esp whilst working is no longer acceptable behaviour - the days of liquid lunches and well-stocked boardroom drinks cabinets are long gone. Drinking alcohol with others is a sociable activity not a work-related one.

If a photo of my team was put before me of them sitting together in a room in the office drinking coffee - obviously no issue.

Same photo drinking alcohol - I'd be asking questions and considering disciplinary procedures.

Same photo drinking alcohol timed during lockdown - the chance of disciplinary procedures would be much higher. I'm sure this would be the case at most companies/organizations. Why should this be any different for Starmer?

The chance of disciplinary procedure/dismissal would grow even higher if: -

- the company I worked for was high profile/vulnerable to bad PR
- the workers were high profile and seen as representatives of the company
- the workers had publicly on behalf of the company advocated lockdown rules

All the above can be applied to Starmer and the Labour Party. Furthermore he's aspiring to be PM and here is evidence of him, if not flouting the rules, then certainly acting questionably in regards to them.

Previously in this thread I've said Starmer's behaviour bears no comparison to Johnson's (though that doesn't mean Starmer's behaviour is acceptable). But perhaps one comparison is apt: Johnson considers himself above his laws which are for us plebs: similarly defenders of Starmer's behaviour seem to believe he should be considered entirely innocent for behaviour which would see most of us disciplined if not sacked outright by our employers.

You seem to have a very puritanical take on this Branton.

Have you never had a meeting that's gone on all day, and ended up with all involved going to dinner, having a glass or two and continuing the discussions?

Some of the most fruitful ideas come from those moments in my experience.

[Branton Red]

God no Billy! I'd rather not be socialising with some of the people I work with esp after spending all day in a meeting with them!

But going to a reastaurant/pub after work is socialising regardless of what is discussed and such activities were barred during lockdown. If you're suggesting that Starmer and Co decided after the end of the working day to get food/drinks in given the restaurants/pubs were shut then he would be on very shaky ground.

How would your boss (or you if you're in charge of a team) react to photos taken during lockdown showing employees sat round at your workplace drinking alcohol?

[drfchound]

This is the 21st Century consumption of alcohol at a workplace esp whilst working is no longer acceptable behaviour - the days of liquid lunches and well-stocked boardroom drinks cabinets are long gone. Drinking alcohol with others is a sociable activity not a work-related one.

If a photo of my team was put before me of them sitting together in a room in the office drinking coffee - obviously no issue.

Same photo drinking alcohol - I'd be asking questions and considering disciplinary procedures.

Same photo drinking alcohol timed during lockdown - the chance of disciplinary procedures would be much higher. I'm sure this would be the case at most companies/organizations. Why should this be any different for Starmer?

The chance of disciplinary procedure/dismissal would grow even higher if: -

- the company I worked for was high profile/vulnerable to bad PR
- the workers were high profile and seen as representatives of the company
- the workers had publicly on behalf of the company advocated lockdown rules

All the above can be applied to Starmer and the Labour Party. Furthermore he's aspiring to be PM and here is evidence of him, if not flouting the rules, then certainly acting questionably in regards to them.

Previously in this thread I've said Starmer's behaviour bears no comparison to Johnson's (though that doesn't mean Starmer's behaviour is acceptable). But perhaps one comparison is apt: Johnson considers himself above his laws which are for us plebs: similarly defenders of Starmer's behaviour seem to believe he should be considered entirely innocent for behaviour which would see most of us disciplined if not sacked outright by our employers.

You have a very good argument there Branton …. But it is going to become just that, Starmers defenders won’t let this go.

[NickDRFC]

This is the 21st Century consumption of alcohol at a workplace esp whilst working is no longer acceptable behaviour - the days of liquid lunches and well-stocked boardroom drinks cabinets are long gone. Drinking alcohol with others is a sociable activity not a work-related one.

If a photo of my team was put before me of them sitting together in a room in the office drinking coffee - obviously no issue.

Same photo drinking alcohol - I'd be asking questions and considering disciplinary procedures.

Same photo drinking alcohol timed during lockdown - the chance of disciplinary procedures would be much higher. I'm sure this would be the case at most companies/organizations. Why should this be any different for Starmer?

The chance of disciplinary procedure/dismissal would grow even higher if: -

- the company I worked for was high profile/vulnerable to bad PR
- the workers were high profile and seen as representatives of the company
- the workers had publicly on behalf of the company advocated lockdown rules

All the above can be applied to Starmer and the Labour Party. Furthermore he's aspiring to be PM and here is evidence of him, if not flouting the rules, then certainly acting questionably in regards to them.

Previously in this thread I've said Starmer's behaviour bears no comparison to Johnson's (though that doesn't mean Starmer's behaviour is acceptable). But perhaps one comparison is apt: Johnson considers himself above his laws which are for us plebs: similarly defenders of Starmer's behaviour seem to believe he should be considered entirely innocent for behaviour which would see most of us disciplined if not sacked outright by our employers.

I disagree with that first paragraph. Sure, the days of pouring a whiskey for a 10am meeting have long gone (if they ever existed; I’m going on films I’ve seen!) but lots of companies now will have all hands meetings at the end of the day with a beer or a glass of wine - it’s a means to reward hard work and to make things slightly less formal than an old-fashioned, rigid, corporate environment. Likewise when my team has had to stay late we’ve broken things up for half an hour with a takeaway and a beer from the fridge - no-one’s operating heavy machinery so one beer isn’t going to hurt, and it’s a chance to switch off briefly before getting refocused and stuck back in.

It might be the industry I work in (I work for a tech company), but I used to work for a media company and there was a similar philosophy there.

[BillyStubbsTears]

God no Billy! I'd rather not be socialising with some of the people I work with esp after spending all day in a meeting with them!

But going to a reastaurant/pub after work is socialising regardless of what is discussed and such activities were barred during lockdown. If you're suggesting that Starmer and Co decided after the end of the working day to get food/drinks in given the restaurants/pubs were shut then he would be on very shaky ground.

How would your boss (or you if you're in charge of a team) react to photos taken during lockdown showing employees sat round at your workplace drinking alcohol?

My workplace has specific H&S issues which mean that alcohol is banned.

I have no problem whatsoever with anyone not under those restrictions finishing  a 12 or 14 hour working day with a drink as the work winds down. It seems to me to be looking for a reason to be shocked to think otherwise.

I'll say again. The spirit AND the letter of the law on social distancing were about minimising unnecessary contacts. If half a dozen people have spent hours in the same room working, finishing off the day with half a pint wasn't going to make any difference to their infection situation. Drawing any similarity between this and a planned social event for 100 people who clearly did not spend all day in contact with each other is fatuous bothsidesism. Faux balance. 

(I'm not accusing you of equating them by the way. But plenty are doing.)

[Branton Red]

Ok Billy clearly we disagree on this no point extending the discussion and going round in circles.

Just on your last point "Drawing any similarity between this and a planned social event for 100 people who clearly did not spend all day in contact with each other is fatuous bothsidesism. Faux balance." I have repeatedly said on this thread that Starmer's behaviour bears absolutely no relation to Johnson's so that's a bit unfair. (Sorry just seen your latest edit)

I've also said that Starmer's behaviour (and that applies to anyone else whose behaviour in lockdown is called into question) should be viewed in the light of what conditions/behaviours were expected of all of us not against how Johnson has behaved.

If Johnson's behaviour in this area is set as the barometer by which other politicians are judged now and into the future that would be a terrible consequence for the future of our democracy and the ethical standards set for our political leaders.

[wilts rover]

Starmer was in Labour Party office in Durham organising campaigning for the Hatlepool by-election. The hotel he was staying in was not serving food at that time - only take-aways were open.

Lot of myths going around here.

Can someone point me to where Bentley has critised Johnson for his eating and drinking at 'work related events' I appear to have missed it? Again.

[River Don]

If for instance, you're operating heavy machinery you should not be drinking at work.

But in my career, I have often worked many hours unpaid at work. If I give my own time to work late and freely, then I don't think anyone will complain if I have a drink during that time, so long as there are no safety issues.

Now I'm not sure but weren't Starmer and his colleagues working late after work when they ordered their takeaway? Time outside paid working hours and yet still working?

Now the same is true of Johnson and the Tories. The question is, were they still working?

Because it seems Johnson was rewarding them and allowing them to "let off steam". Quite a lot of steam since it sometimes involved suitcases full of booze and a DJ.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Branton
I fully agree that Johnson should not be the standard again which we compare all politicians. But equally, we shouldn't expect some sort of beatific puritanical behaviour. There's a big wide spectrum. Different folk will draw their lines at different places on it and I fully get that.