Should Starmer Resign?

[wilts rover]

Statement from the Covid Families for Justice Group:

This is the right decision by Keir Starmer and in contrast to Boris Johnson, shows integrity, decency and respect to the bereaved.

At the end of the day the country can’t be led by someone who's been fined for breaking lockdown rules.

https://twitter.com/CovidJusticeUK/status/1523686342818902021

Massive problem for Tory MP's now when Johnson gets his next fine (up to 4 expected) if their constituents feel the same way.

[tyke1962]

Si thi Keith , mind your head on the way out .

[belton rover]

Starmer knows whether or not he’s done wrong.If he is fined, he’ll resign. If he isn’t fined, he won’t.

I’m really struggling to see where the integrity is in all this.

[albie]

Belton,

Durham Police do not fine, otherwise they would have to revisit earlier cases, including Dominic Cummings.

The issue of a fine is nothing to do with whether it is a breach, you can be found to have broken the rules even if no fine is made.

[River Don]

If he's found to have broken the rules but not issued with a fine, it looks like he will hang on as technically he's broken no law.

This is the worst possible outcome for him. He loses the halo of integrity and the narrative that they are all as bad as each other is confirmed.

For the sake of the party he really ought to stand down if there is any suggestion he broke the rules.

[River Don]

Interestingly the student who filmed the event was James Delinpoles son.

Perhaps no surprise he is prepared to make a statement saying the event he witnessed was a party.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Albie.

Ah, the Left line of criticism is now that he doesn't have a time machine to run back 12 months and do things differently.

I swear he could find the cure for cancer and bring peace to Palestine and the Corbynistas would still criticise him for not personally fixing global warming.

[albie]

BST,

What are you on about now?

The rules in place at the time of Beergate meant that this event was risky in terms of the guidance.
It seems to me that if you can avoid a risk, then you do so.

Perfectly simple to have arranged the evening in such a way to preclude this line of criticism.
Not doing so speaks of a lack of political nous, not just by Keith but others at the event.

I am not clear who organised this shindig.
They carry more of a responsibility than Starmer....but then again they probably did not demand the resignation of Sunak for wandering in to a birthday cake do!

[BillyStubbsTears]

You and Raab, Albie. Nice couple.

[phil old leake]

I really couldn’t see Raynor in conference with world leaders

As bad as Corbyn in a different way for me. 

If she was the leader it would set the Labour Party back to before these last elections.

[danumdon]

What's needed is a leader of knowledge, thought, true depth and good old common sence,

Step forward Abacus Abbott.

[Branton Red]

BR.

You are quoting a journalist's summary of Starmer's words.

Starmer's ACTUAL words in the very link you posted are:
"at various points people went through to the kitchen, got a plate, had something to eat, and got on with their work."

Don't you think you have confirmation bias going on here?

The irony of being accused of confirmation bias by somebody choosing a quote open to interpretation: -

- went to kitchen, [then] got a plate, [then] had something to eat, and [then] got on with their work".

Whilst blissfully ignoring another direct quote from Starmer further down the same news article page www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61362474: -

- "I was working in the office. We stopped for something to eat."

Which is clear and umambiguous and ties in with the BBC reporting I quoted on what Starmer had said previously.

They stopped working to eat.

Still want to maintain it was a working dinner?!

No answer came the reply!

[ravenrover]

BB surely you have a comment on this latest development?

[BillyStubbsTears]

BR.
You've got what you wished for. If the police decide there was an offence, Starmer will be gone. We can all pipe down now and see what the police come up with.

I think the balance of probability is that the police will find this to be a working meal. You don't. One of us will be wrong and the matter will be put to rest.

[BillyStubbsTears]

I'm guessing BB is trying to figure out a position that allows him to decide that Starmer is wrong to do this.

Like this Tory peer, who, to be fair, has a long and distinguished track record of talking absolute cack.
https://mobile.twitter.com/djmgaffneyw4/status/1523700280990179329

[drfchound]

My understanding is that Durham Police do not issue fines, so that is an unlikely outcome.
Starmer can still be in breach of the regulations, so if that is the case will he stand down?

All this kerfuffle is about diverting the media from Johnson and Partygate, and it has worked.

Keith has shown great political naivety in allowing this line of scrutiny to open up.
It was perfectly obvious that the rules would be tested by the media seeking a story, so why give them an opening to exploit?

Ah, so if Starmer knows that Durham police don’t issue fines so maybe that is why he is bold enough to say he will resign if he gets a fine.
Crafty sod.

[drfchound]

If Starmer were to resign, then Rayner would have to go with him surely? She was at the same do.
There is no way she could replace him.

But dont you see, this is the Labour narrative, they make great issue of how the Johnson is a cheat and a liar, (true) but they did the same in deciding not to make clear when they should of that Raynor was also present, if that was not being duplicitous and snide then i don't know what planet they believe the inhabit.

No better than the tories and in this case worse as they try to make out they are the honest ones in parliament.

Other than the Mail journalist who asked the question of a junior staffer back in January, literally no-one knew that anyone in the Labour party had said Rayner wasn't at that meeting until about ten days ago. Then when it suddenly blew up, Labour admitted there'd been a mistake.

That's been spun into "Starmer consistently denied Rayner was present". There was a Tory MP on R4 last night saying exactly that. When, as far as I can see, Starmer was never involved in the discussion.

There are low level questions and answers between journalist and junior press office staff of every party 50 times a day. Inevitably, some of those exchanges will be less than perfect. Calling that "duplicitous" is a ridiculous over-reaction. It is an abuse of language that means there's no space for properly criticising concerted, consistent, deliberate lying. Which, of course, is the whole point. Insist they are all the same then you don't have to do the hard stuff of identifying the really dangerous liars.

BST, you say “ as far as I can see Starmer was never involved in the discussion”.
Is that the official Labour line or is it just another of your opinions that we are expected to accept as a fact.
Do you have enough insider friends in Parliament to make you so sure that you are right.

[BillyStubbsTears]

My understanding is that Durham Police do not issue fines, so that is an unlikely outcome.
Starmer can still be in breach of the regulations, so if that is the case will he stand down?

All this kerfuffle is about diverting the media from Johnson and Partygate, and it has worked.

Keith has shown great political naivety in allowing this line of scrutiny to open up.
It was perfectly obvious that the rules would be tested by the media seeking a story, so why give them an opening to exploit?

Your understanding is wrong by the way.

Page 22 here.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://cdn.prgloo.com/media/fefef3f0ea8241018b9bda2d33fa95be.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjJsPbaidP3AhVHgFwKHUTFA2IQFnoECAgQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0mjpQbaJ3cbmEazHqd4-4p

[Bentley Bullet]

Starmer has brought this on himself, after making Partygate his top priority at the expense of other, far more important and pressing issues. I believe there are a couple of scenarios that might have prompted him to declare his intention to resign if he is fined, or is found guilty but not fined.

1) He has been told he will be exonerated, so he is free to play his get out of jail free card and come over as all honourable and impeccable by declaring he'll resign if he's fined or found guilty, knowing already that he won't be.

2) He has put the police under enormous pressure by saying he'll resign, in which case they will be put under tremendous pressure to find him not guilty, otherwise, they will be responsible for changing the face of politics by finding him guilty.

[River Don]

The Labour team seem to have evidence they were working into the early hours that night.

They were editing videos and those are time stamped, they also have What's App discussions about the edits.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/may/09/labour-says-can-prove-starmer-team-worked-past-1am-beergate-night

[BillyStubbsTears]

Starmer has brought this on himself, after making Partygate his top priority at the expense of other, far more important and pressing issues. I believe there are a couple of scenarios that might have prompted him to declare his intention to resign if he is fined, or is found guilty but not fined.

1) He has been told he will be exonerated, so he is free to play his get out of jail free card and come over as all honourable and impeccable by declaring he'll resign if he's fined or found guilty, knowing already that he won't be.

2) He has put the police under enormous pressure by saying he'll resign, in which case they will be put under tremendous pressure to find him not guilty, otherwise, they will be responsible for changing the face of politics by finding him guilty.

Like I was saying...

[Branton Red]

The Labour team seem to have evidence they were working into the early hours that night.

They were editing videos and those are time stamped, they also have What's App discussions about the edits.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/may/09/labour-says-can-prove-starmer-team-worked-past-1am-beergate-night

The lack of such evidence being made available previously is what led me to assume the meal was at working day's end and hence the rules had been broken.

Living in a digital world there had to be evidence if work was carried out after the meal. Assuming this is true it clearly exonerates Starmer.

I'm baffled as to why Labour didn't investigate the digital record much sooner in order to find such evidence to kill this story.

[ravenrover]

Starmer has brought this on himself, after making Partygate his top priority at the expense of other, far more important and pressing issues. I believe there are a couple of scenarios that might have prompted him to declare his intention to resign if he is fined, or is found guilty but not fined.

1) He has been told he will be exonerated, so he is free to play his get out of jail free card and come over as all honourable and impeccable by declaring he'll resign if he's fined or found guilty, knowing already that he won't be.

2) He has put the police under enormous pressure by saying he'll resign, in which case they will be put under tremendous pressure to find him not guilty, otherwise, they will be responsible for changing the face of politics by finding him guilty.

So the right wing press put no pressure on Durham police to re-open this case?
As my old Maths teacher said "tries hard but has difficulties" 2/10 see me!
Very poor BB, but nothing less than expected

[ravenrover]

The Labour team seem to have evidence they were working into the early hours that night.

They were editing videos and those are time stamped, they also have What's App discussions about the edits.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/may/09/labour-says-can-prove-starmer-team-worked-past-1am-beergate-night

The lack of such evidence being made available much earlier is what led be to assume the meal was at working day's end and hence the rules had been broken.

Living in a digital world there had to be evidence if work was carried out after the meal. Assuming this is true it clearly exonerates Starmer.

I'm baffled as to why Labour didn't investigate the digital record much sooner in order to find such evidence to kill this story.

Was there ever a story, except in the Mail, to kill? Lets wait to see what Durham police have to say

[Branton Red]

The Labour team seem to have evidence they were working into the early hours that night.

They were editing videos and those are time stamped, they also have What's App discussions about the edits.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/may/09/labour-says-can-prove-starmer-team-worked-past-1am-beergate-night

The lack of such evidence being made available much earlier is what led be to assume the meal was at working day's end and hence the rules had been broken.

Living in a digital world there had to be evidence if work was carried out after the meal. Assuming this is true it clearly exonerates Starmer.

I'm baffled as to why Labour didn't investigate the digital record much sooner in order to find such evidence to kill this story.

Was there ever a story, except in the Mail, to kill? Lets wait to see what Durham police have to say

What?! Of course there was. Starmer had to give a statement today promising to quit if found guilty due to the press interest in the story. We're on to page 20 on this thread.

[BillyStubbsTears]

The Labour team seem to have evidence they were working into the early hours that night.

They were editing videos and those are time stamped, they also have What's App discussions about the edits.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/may/09/labour-says-can-prove-starmer-team-worked-past-1am-beergate-night

The lack of such evidence being made available previously is what led me to assume the meal was at working day's end and hence the rules had been broken.

Living in a digital world there had to be evidence if work was carried out after the meal. Assuming this is true it clearly exonerates Starmer.

I'm baffled as to why Labour didn't investigate the digital record much sooner in order to find such evidence to kill this story.

Well, up until 1 working day ago, there was a national election going on which might have been keeping folk busy?

Why not simply accept that the evidence you wanted does exist and not try to use that for yet another criticism?

[River Don]

I think he didn't take the story seriously for several days. He just seemed to be caught getting rather irritated about having his version of events questioned.

Then they probably had to go and find the lap tops and dig out all the old files they needed. It probably took some time.

They could have handled this better.

[Bentley Bullet]

Starmer has brought this on himself, after making Partygate his top priority at the expense of other, far more important and pressing issues. I believe there are a couple of scenarios that might have prompted him to declare his intention to resign if he is fined, or is found guilty but not fined.

1) He has been told he will be exonerated, so he is free to play his get out of jail free card and come over as all honourable and impeccable by declaring he'll resign if he's fined or found guilty, knowing already that he won't be.

2) He has put the police under enormous pressure by saying he'll resign, in which case they will be put under tremendous pressure to find him not guilty, otherwise, they will be responsible for changing the face of politics by finding him guilty.

So the right wing press put no pressure on Durham police to re-open this case?
As my old Maths teacher said "tries hard but has difficulties" 2/10 see me!
Very poor BB, but nothing less than expected

He was right then and is still right now, eh!

[ravenrover]

Certainly is, were you one of his failing pupils as well I wonder?

[Branton Red]

Billy I don't get the reason for your aggressiveness. Do you work high up in the Labour party and I've offended you?

RD I think you're correct Labour didn't take this seriously enough and I'm sure checking through computer records would have taken some time.

However (1) the 'beer' video came to light in January and (2) they should have realised this could well come back to bite them given Starmer's necessary and quite correct attacks on Johnson and his behaviour.

Failing to handle this well has caused not just Starmer's reputation to be tarnished but also the Labour party's and politician's in general. It's also led to Johnson's reputation being scraped from off the floor in some people's eyes i.e. "well they're all as bad as each other."

So this does matter quite a lot and shouldn't be ignored.

Again all assuming the Guardian story is accurate.