Can Sir Keir Starmer revive the Labour Party?
Discussion
paulrockliffe said:
Fermit said:
You were there personally to know it was a social rather than work event were you? I'm not saying if it was or wasn't, I know not. What I would presume is that if he's prepared to put his own head on the block I'd suspect he'll have some sort of proof (paperwork, emails) to demonstrate it was work.
He said after dinner he recorded some video pieces, so there'll be those to look at no doubt.AstonZagato said:
I seem to remember there was a very good twitter thread on this where someone took various statements from Kier and Labour and dismantled them one by one.
Things like:
I think it was this one:Things like:
- "My hotel didn't offer food" - with a social media post saying they had a steak special that night
- "It was unplanned" - when it was a scheduled event
- "Angela wasn't there" - when she was.
https://twitter.com/Greg_P_C/status/15215979491380...
The most amazing thing about 'beergate' and 'cakegate' is how spectacularly the point is being missed!
Everyone is getting exercised about who did what and whether it was illegal. The BIG point here is that these people locked down the entire country even though, as their very actions testify, they knew that there was no real danger!
Both Johnson and Starmer (one who set the lockdowns, the other who supported them and called for more) clearly felt that there was no threat to themselves or to their families from gathering with other people.
THIS is what everyone should be focussing on, not did they break the lockdown rules, but WHY did they set those lockdown rules?
Everyone is getting exercised about who did what and whether it was illegal. The BIG point here is that these people locked down the entire country even though, as their very actions testify, they knew that there was no real danger!
Both Johnson and Starmer (one who set the lockdowns, the other who supported them and called for more) clearly felt that there was no threat to themselves or to their families from gathering with other people.
THIS is what everyone should be focussing on, not did they break the lockdown rules, but WHY did they set those lockdown rules?
rscott said:
Welshbeef said:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/may/09/l...
Confused here.
Labour claiming beergate is ok as they apparently carried on working after the beer and curry.
So cakegate, Boris certainly carried on working after the 10minute cake and singing happy birthday and totally within his work and house bubble. Which taking labours view then it’s totally ok
Carrie Johnson attended the cake "party". She doesn't work with the others, which makes it difficult to claim it wasn't a social event.Confused here.
Labour claiming beergate is ok as they apparently carried on working after the beer and curry.
So cakegate, Boris certainly carried on working after the 10minute cake and singing happy birthday and totally within his work and house bubble. Which taking labours view then it’s totally ok
If Starmer can show that the only people present were those who had been working together that evening, then it could help the claim it was a meal break during a working evening.
Ari said:
The most amazing thing about 'beergate' and 'cakegate' is how spectacularly the point is being missed!
Everyone is getting exercised about who did what and whether it was illegal. The BIG point here is that these people locked down the entire country even though, as their very actions testify, they knew that there was no real danger!
Both Johnson and Starmer (one who set the lockdowns, the other who supported them and called for more) clearly felt that there was no threat to themselves or to their families from gathering with other people.
THIS is what everyone should be focussing on, not did they break the lockdown rules, but WHY did they set those lockdown rules?
Surely it’s a numbers game.Everyone is getting exercised about who did what and whether it was illegal. The BIG point here is that these people locked down the entire country even though, as their very actions testify, they knew that there was no real danger!
Both Johnson and Starmer (one who set the lockdowns, the other who supported them and called for more) clearly felt that there was no threat to themselves or to their families from gathering with other people.
THIS is what everyone should be focussing on, not did they break the lockdown rules, but WHY did they set those lockdown rules?
The rules likely slowed spread and reduced pressure on the NHS
Obviously they knew not everyone would follow them and if they (Starmer and Boris) didn’t, as they’re above it all, then it wouldn’t make much difference, assuming enough people didn’t know at the time and do the same.
From the start of the pandemic we knew only a tiny % of the population was at risk due to age or developing the worst symptoms but if there was no rules or nobody followed the rules then possibly the nhs wouldn’t have been able to cope.
Ari said:
The most amazing thing about 'beergate' and 'cakegate' is how spectacularly the point is being missed!
Everyone is getting exercised about who did what and whether it was illegal. The BIG point here is that these people locked down the entire country even though, as their very actions testify, they knew that there was no real danger!
Both Johnson and Starmer (one who set the lockdowns, the other who supported them and called for more) clearly felt that there was no threat to themselves or to their families from gathering with other people.
THIS is what everyone should be focussing on, not did they break the lockdown rules, but WHY did they set those lockdown rules?
Perhaps it was to protect people as even with lockdowns, the various ICUs were all but overrun. There were too few nurses and doctors to provide the required care. Far from being no real danger, there were 177,000 excess deaths due to Covid with lockdowns. Everyone is getting exercised about who did what and whether it was illegal. The BIG point here is that these people locked down the entire country even though, as their very actions testify, they knew that there was no real danger!
Both Johnson and Starmer (one who set the lockdowns, the other who supported them and called for more) clearly felt that there was no threat to themselves or to their families from gathering with other people.
THIS is what everyone should be focussing on, not did they break the lockdown rules, but WHY did they set those lockdown rules?
Running down the NHS for political dogma came back to bite not the tory party, but those they ruled.
I would not call 177,000 excess deaths a point, but even so it is missed by many, especially those looking for excuses for blatent law-breaking by those in charge.
rscott said:
At least 2 of the people present at the 'cake party' didn't work there and had no business reason to be there - Boris' wife and interior decorator. Seems somewhat different to me.
Carrie lives there it’s her home her principle primary residence. The designer is there to carry out work. Pretty sure I saw loads of builders and architects out and about doing work
Ari said:
The most amazing thing about 'beergate' and 'cakegate' is how spectacularly the point is being missed!
Everyone is getting exercised about who did what and whether it was illegal. The BIG point here is that these people locked down the entire country even though, as their very actions testify, they knew that there was no real danger!
Both Johnson and Starmer (one who set the lockdowns, the other who supported them and called for more) clearly felt that there was no threat to themselves or to their families from gathering with other people.
THIS is what everyone should be focussing on, not did they break the lockdown rules, but WHY did they set those lockdown rules?
This is exactly right and why neither party will ever get my vote again. Lockdown was unforgiveable and must be the greatest single act of national self harm in history.Everyone is getting exercised about who did what and whether it was illegal. The BIG point here is that these people locked down the entire country even though, as their very actions testify, they knew that there was no real danger!
Both Johnson and Starmer (one who set the lockdowns, the other who supported them and called for more) clearly felt that there was no threat to themselves or to their families from gathering with other people.
THIS is what everyone should be focussing on, not did they break the lockdown rules, but WHY did they set those lockdown rules?
That Starmer wanted to go even harder should not be forgotten.
Boris showed some initial balls to ignore the media and international common purpose pressure but quickly caved and was shown to be the spineless showman that he is.
chrispmartha said:
Bandit said:
Camoradi said:
At the end of the day if both Johnson and Starmer were sharing what was considered a work space with others and then stopped working / started eating / had a beer/wine/cheese, went back to work, it makes little difference to the intent of the rules which were to limit the spread of a virus. It's not like Covid-19 sits there waiting for them to shut down their laptops and reach for the bottle opener before launching itself across the room.
Boris stopped to say thanks for a birthday cake? I don't see a big issue
Starmer stops for some food and a beer? same again
Sturgeon has her face mask off for 30 seconds in the barber's shop? Big deal
I'm sure we all made small omissions in our compliance with the rules in place, but mostly we did the right thing.
The issue comes because first Boris tries to deny what has happened in Downing Street, then Starmer thinks it's his opportunity to deliver a killer blow by saying "I'm better than him", all the while knowing that he'd done similar but thinking he was safe, then Starmer tries to bluff his way through when he is caught out. Meanwhile Nicola Sturgeon and Mark Drakeford are saying "my rules are better than your rules" when they were basically the same but 7 days earlier/later
I'd like to think that our politicians have a better sense of priorities than this bunch of bickering school children. It's pathetic.
Exactly this. I couldnt have cared less about Kier having a curry or Boris having some cake (so what!)... but Labour and the media made such a massive deal over nothing that I hope Starmer gets everything he deserves. Morons, the lot of them.Boris stopped to say thanks for a birthday cake? I don't see a big issue
Starmer stops for some food and a beer? same again
Sturgeon has her face mask off for 30 seconds in the barber's shop? Big deal
I'm sure we all made small omissions in our compliance with the rules in place, but mostly we did the right thing.
The issue comes because first Boris tries to deny what has happened in Downing Street, then Starmer thinks it's his opportunity to deliver a killer blow by saying "I'm better than him", all the while knowing that he'd done similar but thinking he was safe, then Starmer tries to bluff his way through when he is caught out. Meanwhile Nicola Sturgeon and Mark Drakeford are saying "my rules are better than your rules" when they were basically the same but 7 days earlier/later
I'd like to think that our politicians have a better sense of priorities than this bunch of bickering school children. It's pathetic.
Edited by Camoradi on Tuesday 10th May 11:27
It wasn't just 'some cake' was it.
OnTheBreadline said:
Welshbeef said:
But Carrie Johnson’s home is Numbers 10/11 Downing Street so anyone inside is in effect in her bubble.
I made that point earlier but the Grr Boris bunch didn't like it 
We had birthday cake and singing in my house - where is my FPN & I carried on not working rather had a few beers… woooo naughty naughty
Lotobear said:
Ari said:
The most amazing thing about 'beergate' and 'cakegate' is how spectacularly the point is being missed!
Everyone is getting exercised about who did what and whether it was illegal. The BIG point here is that these people locked down the entire country even though, as their very actions testify, they knew that there was no real danger!
Both Johnson and Starmer (one who set the lockdowns, the other who supported them and called for more) clearly felt that there was no threat to themselves or to their families from gathering with other people.
THIS is what everyone should be focussing on, not did they break the lockdown rules, but WHY did they set those lockdown rules?
This is exactly right and why neither party will ever get my vote again. Lockdown was unforgiveable and must be the greatest single act of national self harm in history.Everyone is getting exercised about who did what and whether it was illegal. The BIG point here is that these people locked down the entire country even though, as their very actions testify, they knew that there was no real danger!
Both Johnson and Starmer (one who set the lockdowns, the other who supported them and called for more) clearly felt that there was no threat to themselves or to their families from gathering with other people.
THIS is what everyone should be focussing on, not did they break the lockdown rules, but WHY did they set those lockdown rules?
That Starmer wanted to go even harder should not be forgotten.
Boris showed some initial balls to ignore the media and international common purpose pressure but quickly caved and was shown to be the spineless showman that he is.
te 'debate' polluting this thread... Talksteer said:
768 said:
I’d agree, neither kormagate nor cakegate seem like issues to me on this basis. Pathetic distractions even given the economy, NHS backlogs, Ukraine, Afghanistan, Yemen, etc, etc. But given Starmer stated being investigated for such a thing as a reason for Boris to stand down but declined to do so himself, I have little sympathy for his current predicament.
1: We have changed leaders during many crises before. In fact if a crisis is important it is all the more important that we have a leader with authority and moral standing.2: The government can walk and chew gum at the same time. Most decisions don't need the PM and can be delegated. The PM is really about managing the heads of departments and setting strategic direction. Furthermore the PM remains in place until a replacement is selected anyway.
3: Boris has a history of lying across all his jobs, this is more the straw that broke the camels back.
But we're not changing the PM. We have fixed term parliaments and it's necessarily (albeit perhaps overly) difficult to unseat a PM during them. So our headlines are full of cake and korma for month after month instead of those issues. Brexit stalled our politics, then covid, now it's taking a microscope to what was the vaguely drawn, smudged here and there, line between work and social activity in offices during an exceptional period which has been and gone. All for transient political mileage rather than any tangible improvement. Fiddling.
Have a statistic. NHS data says 2020-21 saw a 39.2% fall in breast cancer detections over the previous year, unsurprising given a 44.1% fall in screenings. So some 7000 women in the UK have breast cancer that would have been given the lifeline of early detection in the previous year. Instead those mothers, daughters, sisters, are walking around - hopefully - with cancer spreading through their bodies when we have the technology to tell them now so they could begin life saving treatment. I'm no fan of Starmer, but after a quick chuckle at a mess of his own foolish doing, I'd rather the press hounded Johnson to do something for those women than worried about kormagate.
Besides, I can resist cake but I bloody love a curry and this is going to make it really difficult to maintain a sensible diet.
Ari said:
The most amazing thing about 'beergate' and 'cakegate' is how spectacularly the point is being missed!
Everyone is getting exercised about who did what and whether it was illegal. The BIG point here is that these people locked down the entire country even though, as their very actions testify, they knew that there was no real danger!
Both Johnson and Starmer (one who set the lockdowns, the other who supported them and called for more) clearly felt that there was no threat to themselves or to their families from gathering with other people.
THIS is what everyone should be focussing on, not did they break the lockdown rules, but WHY did they set those lockdown rules?
IndeedEveryone is getting exercised about who did what and whether it was illegal. The BIG point here is that these people locked down the entire country even though, as their very actions testify, they knew that there was no real danger!
Both Johnson and Starmer (one who set the lockdowns, the other who supported them and called for more) clearly felt that there was no threat to themselves or to their families from gathering with other people.
THIS is what everyone should be focussing on, not did they break the lockdown rules, but WHY did they set those lockdown rules?
A number of posters have made the point that they are not bothered about people working together also socialising together and I not only don't have an issue with that I think it is good leadership to have the occasional event where colleagues can unwind. The issue is that these people set rules that made this not permissible. It made no logical sense but there we are. Those were the rules in place. It highlights the quasi-puritanical nature of many of the restrictions and the fact they were being imposed more as "sacrifices to appease the gods who are angry" rather than anything that can be justified on any logical basis.
So goodbye Bojo the clown and goodbye Starmer the hypocrite and hopefully the next politicians will be less keen to impose draconian rules that even they themselves cannot keep to, all in some futile attempt to be seen to be doing "something".
loafer123 said:
https://news.sky.com/story/angela-rayner-was-with-...
Labour deputy leader Angela Rayner did attend an event where Sir Keir Starmer was caught on camera drinking beer with activists during lockdown, the party has confirmed.
Labour acknowledged it had previously told journalists Ms Rayner was not present at the gathering last April when coronavirus restrictions were in force.
This is quite understandable.Labour deputy leader Angela Rayner did attend an event where Sir Keir Starmer was caught on camera drinking beer with activists during lockdown, the party has confirmed.
Labour acknowledged it had previously told journalists Ms Rayner was not present at the gathering last April when coronavirus restrictions were in force.
Look we are all men of the world and it's bad but men get tempted.
Tempted by a woman tempted by her even if she jars you
Tempted to have this woman make her your own
A woman can be tempted.
Tempted by a man of power
A man of charisma
A man of breeding
If these 2 are indeed in a Lisa + John type tryst then obviously the Labour leadership will want it kept quiet
Lotobear said:
This is exactly right and why neither party will ever get my vote again. Lockdown was unforgiveable and must be the greatest single act of national self harm in history.
That Starmer wanted to go even harder should not be forgotten.
Boris showed some initial balls to ignore the media and international common purpose pressure but quickly caved and was shown to be the spineless showman that he is.
Boris is bluster.That Starmer wanted to go even harder should not be forgotten.
Boris showed some initial balls to ignore the media and international common purpose pressure but quickly caved and was shown to be the spineless showman that he is.
No PM has had bigger balls than Thatcher.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff