Can Sir Keir Starmer revive the Labour Party?

[turbobloke]

S17Thumper said:

turbobloke said:

You say that what Starmer did was legal at the tine, has the police investigation concluded? Don't think so but point to the decision if so. Are you on the inside of the investigation? Don't think so.

Enjoy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TXmBwm5o_o

Angie does not look happy there

Totally. I was maintaining eye contact and ignoring legs.

[andy_s]

Mark Benson said:

I should have put 'guilty' in inverted commas; as I said, it's politics, not the courtroom. Which brings up the second thing.....
By putting the decision of his resignation in the hands of the police (by saying he'll go if he's given a FPN), he's put intolerable pressure on them - one side will be apoplectic if they issue a FPN, the other will be apoplectic if they don't. The police can't now appear impartial whatever they do - a former DPP would know that.

As I said before, if they think there is substance then a. they'll consult with CPS to off-set the 'bias' issue and then say 'minor breach, but we won't issue a FPN'.

That way they are impartial, authoritative and yet don't trigger the resignation of the LotO.

After that we can spend another two weeks on to-ing and fro-ing in the House of Commons while Rome burns.

[768]

andy_s said:

As I said before, if they think there is substance then a. they'll consult with CPS to off-set the 'bias' issue and then say 'minor breach, but we won't issue a FPN'.

Emily Thornberry said on Politics Live that it won’t happen that they’ll say it was against the law but not issue an FPN.

So I assume that’s exactly what she expects.

[anonymous-user]

Ari said:

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!

i find it somewhat surprising how few people actually properly understand Risk!

For example, do you put a seat belt on when you get into a car? I mean, you almost certainly are NOT going to crash when you get into a car, but i suspect that you do in fact put a belt on because of the risk of crashing is not actually zero. We are also legally obliged to belt up precisely because us humans are really bad at rationally estimating true risk........

[Randy Winkman]

Max_Torque said:

Ari said:

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!

i find it somewhat surprising how few people actually properly understand Risk!

For example, do you put a seat belt on when you get into a car? I mean, you almost certainly are NOT going to crash when you get into a car, but i suspect that you do in fact put a belt on because of the risk of crashing is not actually zero. We are also legally obliged to belt up precisely because us humans are really bad at rationally estimating true risk........

Plus - most of us would probably consider wearing a seatbelt as being of pretty much zero inconvenience.

[Vasco]

sugerbear said:

Mark Benson said:

Legacywr said:

Please take it over here… https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

No, it's relevant.

What both Johnson and Starmer should be under pressure to do is to explain why they were so keen for the rest of us to follow draconian rules about meeting one another, yet neither of them saw the need to follow those rules themselves.
They either didn't see the need to do so themselves because they didn't believe the threat was acute enough to warrant the restrictions, or they thought themselves above the rules they believe the rest of us should follow.

And perhaps the most damning part is that they were too naive to think about the feelings that this behaviour would stir in people who'd rigidly followed the official guidelines in the belief that they were doing some good.

Whatever you believe about the efficacy or otherwise of the measures, it's entirely pertinant to whether Starmer is fit to lead the opposition and to possibly end up as PM - no amount of lawyer's chicanery changes any of the above; most people aren't fooled by the actions he's taken so far.

What he should have done, if he'd wanted to really strike a blow to Johnson would have been to issue a mea culpa and step down immediately, but somehow I suspect his ego prevents him doing anything so clever.

What Starmer did Mr Tufton Street was legal at the time. What Johnson did was illegal at the time.

Is it really that hard?

I'm lost. How do you know Starmer's was legal ?

[CoolHands]

It wasn’t. That’s why he’s been lying.

[Electro1980]

turbobloke said:

You say that what Starmer did was legal at the tine, has the police investigation concluded? Don't think so but point to the decision if so. Are you on the inside of the investigation? Don't think so.

Enjoy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TXmBwm5o_o

You seem very adamant that we must wait for the police investigation before forming an opinion, yet I seem to remember you were very adamant that Boris had done nothing wrong and it was all above board and legal before any investigation was concluded there.

[andy43]

The Starmer and Crayons meeting probably wasn't legal - even the BBC have got that right - but I'm not a lawyer, oh, hang on, err Keith mate

BBC said:

The guidance on gathering at work at the time was that people should only meet in person at work if it was reasonably necessary to do so, and that they should maintain social distancing.
That meant staying two metres apart if possible, or one metre apart with other measures being taken to reduce risk.
It also recommended holding meetings outdoors when possible, and using ventilation such as air conditioning and open doors and windows, if meetings had to be indoors. The guidance did not mention alcohol.
The government issued extra guidance for campaigning ahead of the May 2021 elections.
It said that while it was "essential that campaigning be allowed in the run-up to the polls" on 6 May, "all campaigning activity will need to follow the relevant rules on gatherings and social distancing".
It also recommended: "You should not meet with other campaigners indoors."

Travelling most of the way across the country to meet people you don't normally work with, indoors, all pre-planned, with invitations and with internal labour party publicity sent out to attract more 'co-workers' could actually be more dangerous covid-wise than regularly getting pissed in the garden of number 10 with all the co-workers you do normally work with day in day out... but Keith's not lied to Parliament about it. Lied to everybody else, just not Parliament.

I do think the whole thing is a total waste of time and energy though - cost of living, Ukraine, energy crisis - there's far more important stuff we need fking up...

[Vanden Saab]

andy_s said:

Mark Benson said:

I should have put 'guilty' in inverted commas; as I said, it's politics, not the courtroom. Which brings up the second thing.....
By putting the decision of his resignation in the hands of the police (by saying he'll go if he's given a FPN), he's put intolerable pressure on them - one side will be apoplectic if they issue a FPN, the other will be apoplectic if they don't. The police can't now appear impartial whatever they do - a former DPP would know that.

As I said before, if they think there is substance then a. they'll consult with CPS to off-set the 'bias' issue and then say 'minor breach, but we won't issue a FPN'.

That way they are impartial, authoritative and yet don't trigger the resignation of the LotO.

After that we can spend another two weeks on to-ing and fro-ing in the House of Commons while Rome burns.

Not so sure this lady got a retrospective £10,000 fine for an outside gathering in Durham...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10811793/...

[anonymoususer]

In a way Keir should be the right guy for the job.
Based on that he has upset both left and right factions. Only today it looks like Tony Blair has offered advice to junk woke stuff

[Vanden Saab]

After making this statement on twitter while running for the leadership election

Kier said:

The selections for Labour candidates needs to be more democratic and we should end NEC impositions of candidates. Local Party members should select their candidates for every election.

https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1224662165...

It seems it was just more lies as the entire Labour executive in Wakefield have resigned over the imposition of a candidate from outside of the area and the wholesale ignoring of even the existing rules...

https://labourlist.org/2022/05/exclusive-wakefield...

I guess as happened with his time at the DPP he will claim that while he is actually in charge the decision was made by someone else, he was unaware of it and he will do everything he can to make up for this mistake too.

Seems I might have caught a mild dose of Bykeritus, must be time for a Doombar.

[dai1983]

Can't wait for the mid Kormagate polls to be published.

[bitchstewie]

Good reminder.

[turbobloke]

bhstewie said:

Good reminder.

Yes, on face value fair enough.

Have you checked where the Con vote would be within error bars, likewise Lab? Any overlap?

It depends on sample size in particular.

YouGov on or around 05 May was 35% Con 36% Lab.

[MG CHRIS]

turbobloke said:

bhstewie said:

Good reminder.

Yes, on face value fair enough.

Have you checked where the Con vote would be within error bars, likewise Lab? Any overlap?

It depends on sample size in particular.

YouGov on or around 05 May was 35% Con 36% Lab.

That's not exactly encouraging for labour let's be honest they should be 10 points clear how with all that's gone on with the Tories is labour failing to actually make a dent. I did have hopes for kier but my god think I rather have Corbyn as opposition kier doesn't appeal to anyone group or people. It's like watching paint dry every time he talks.

[bitchstewie]

turbobloke said:

Yes, on face value fair enough.

Have you checked where the Con vote would be within error bars, likewise Lab? Any overlap?

It depends on sample size in particular.

YouGov on or around 05 May was 35% Con 36% Lab.

It's just a snapshot of a moment in time

[biggbn]

MG CHRIS said:

turbobloke said:

bhstewie said:

Good reminder.

Yes, on face value fair enough.

Have you checked where the Con vote would be within error bars, likewise Lab? Any overlap?

It depends on sample size in particular.

YouGov on or around 05 May was 35% Con 36% Lab.

That's not exactly encouraging for labour let's be honest they should be 10 points clear how with all that's gone on with the Tories is labour failing to actually make a dent. I did have hopes for kier but my god think I rather have Corbyn as opposition kier doesn't appeal to anyone group or people. It's like watching paint dry every time he talks.

Agreed, watching them just now is like watching a penalty shoot out where one team is so arrogant it doesn't bother putting a keeper between the sticks, yet the other one keeps blasting it over the bar.

[dai1983]

biggbn said:

MG CHRIS said:

turbobloke said:

bhstewie said:

Good reminder.

Yes, on face value fair enough.

Have you checked where the Con vote would be within error bars, likewise Lab? Any overlap?

It depends on sample size in particular.

YouGov on or around 05 May was 35% Con 36% Lab.

That's not exactly encouraging for labour let's be honest they should be 10 points clear how with all that's gone on with the Tories is labour failing to actually make a dent. I did have hopes for kier but my god think I rather have Corbyn as opposition kier doesn't appeal to anyone group or people. It's like watching paint dry every time he talks.

Agreed, watching them just now is like watching a penalty shoot out where one team is so arrogant it doesn't bother putting a keeper between the sticks, yet the other one keeps blasting it over the bar.

This was peak Korma/beergate which seems to have quietened down the last few days. The prediction was labour would fall further in this poll.

Maybe they have and its down to margin of error.

[anonymous-user]

“Margin of error”

Loving TBs latest excuse.