[Politics] Labour Leader would step down.

[Neville's Breakfast]

In terms of replacement leaders I expect Wes Streeting to be right up there in contention. He has that popular touch that seems to elude Starmer that people seem to require from a leader nowadays.

It would be a great shame and a ridiculous reason to resign but Labour and it’s cheerleaders have only themselves to blame for going so large on Partygate. I like KS and would vote Labour with him in charge. I certainly would not do so with Angela Raynor in post. Don’t know anything about Wes Streeting but there is plenty of time before the next election for him to establish himself.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

I don't think in my life I've witnessed a more boring and pointless news cycle than minor lockdown infractions of eating birthday cakes and having a bottle of beer. But the political establishment love it - court drama that stops you talking about all the real things that are actually wrong in society

Yes they do but so do many of their supporters. It’s been all some people on NSC have been able to talk about for months although it seems they are not quite so interested anymore. This is and always has been about attempting to end careers of people with whom certain people disagree.

 

[beorhthelm]

Surely no one actually believes the hogwash that all politicians are the same as the integrity-bankrupt Johnson ?

Lol.

its true they dont all plumb the depths of Johnson, however they are all guilty of lowering the standard of politics where spin, mistruths, and lies become normal. they'll quite happily create and perpetuate distorted or false infomation to suit their political objectives.

 

[WATFORD zero]

It would be a great shame and a ridiculous reason to resign but Labour and it’s cheerleaders have only themselves to blame for going so large on Partygate. I like KS and would vote Labour with him in charge. I certainly would not do so with Angela Raynor in post. Don’t know anything about Wes Streeting but there is plenty of time before the next election for him to establish himself.

It would be a great shame and a ridiculous reason to resign but it's good to see a politician who stands by their principles. I like KS and would vote Labour with him in charge.

Agree with the point of your post, if not the wording

 

[vegster]

I thought that [MENTION=6886]Bozza[/MENTION]'s point was that since they are not dominating, this is somehow labour's fault, but on second reading I wonder if he means it is the fault of the media. Sorry, but I simply can't tell. I personally can't blame the media when all of it, left right and centre, is focused on the same 'naughtygate' stuff.

The fact that the media was obsessed with partygate, and is fow focused on the Rank Hypocrisy of Starmer Must Resign was, I thought, the result of effective maniplulation of the media by the shitehouser Johnson supporters in the tory party.

But what do I know? Apparently nothing, because I am not following the NSC narrative here.

The narrative seems to be anti Starmer at every turn. Bozza is suffering like many others because of Starmers honesty... the argument should turn to " We expect our politicians to resign if they break the law, so, nothing to see here " but, then suddenly everyone then thinks about Johnson... so, let's move on to slagging his policies, his MP'S, Jeremy Corbyn or the war in Iraq .....anything just anything but congratulating him on his integrity and realising we have a PM guilty of breaking the law.

 

[lawros left foot]

Yes they do but so do many of their supporters. It’s been all some people on NSC have been able to talk about for months although it seems they are not quite so interested anymore. This is and always has been about attempting to end careers of people with whom certain people disagree.

For me, personally, as I have said several times on here, it’s more about lying to Parliament, and Johnson does it frequently. It’s not obfuscation it’s blatant, out and out lying. He’s done it all his career and is allowed to get away with it.
The man couldn’t lie straight in bed.

 

[Blue3]

People are mugs.

Major was OK. His colleagues, however, were animals. ****wit brexitters like Deadwood, and chancers like Shapps. Major's demise was due to his party behaving like sixth formers at a drunken school disco, not his lack of charisma.

Brown was a great wing man but a nervous leader. His failure was nothing to do with charisma, but down to his poor judgement, stubbornness and insecurity.

Blair was a great leader, but he had empathy rather than charisma. His leadership when Diana died was exceptional. You could see he felt it. Johnson couldn't have done that; he'd have been spotted five minutes after any emoting, backstage joking with his mates about how he only wanted to shag her after she got a bit anorexic.

I agree with all you have said with the exception of Gordon Brown being nervous, the World was frozen with inaction when the world financial crash occurred it was Gordon Browns led Government that made the monumental decision and led the world to buy out the banks and poor state money into the economy, in my opinion Gordon was quite unwell during the election a victim of years of being chancellor not helped by a lack of support from Tony Blair and his supporters within the Labour Party, the total u turn of all media from broadly supporting of labour to heavily hostile and some real blunders by him personally and his election team. I am of a view Gordon Brown had the potential to have been a great PM had Tony Blair stood down earlier.

 

[WATFORD zero]

I don't know why but since 4pm yesterday I can't seem to get this out of my head

 

[Bozza]

I thought that [MENTION=6886]Bozza[/MENTION]'s point was that since they are not dominating, this is somehow labour's fault, but on second reading I wonder if he means it is the fault of the media. Sorry, but I simply can't tell. I personally can't blame the media when all of it, left right and centre, is focused on the same 'naughtygate' stuff.

The fact that the media was obsessed with partygate, and is fow focused on the Rank Hypocrisy of Starmer Must Resign was, I thought, the result of effective maniplulation of the media by the shitehouser Johnson supporters in the tory party.

But what do I know? Apparently nothing, because I am not following the NSC narrative here.

My point was only, from what I can tell with a very light consumption of the news, that Starmer/Labour were repeatedly banging the lockdown-breaking drum for some months. Entirely understandably, obviously, given what went on.

So, it doesn't strike me as particularly surprising to see the Tory-cheerleading press doing the same thing, when the opportunity has presented itself.

I'm not calling for Starmer to resign, but it is a fact he called for Johnson to resign simply because he was being investigated by the police. (What happened since, whilst highly relevant to further revealing the character of our Prime Minister, is neither here nor there when it comes to this point.)

 

[WATFORD zero]

My point was only, from what I can tell with a very light consumption of the news, that Starmer/Labour were repeatedly banging the lockdown-breaking drum for some months. Entirely understandably, obviously, given what went on.

So, it doesn't strike me as particularly surprising to see the Tory-cheerleading press doing the same thing, when the opportunity has presented itself.

I'm not calling for Starmer to resign, but it is a fact he called for Johnson to resign simply because he was being investigated by the police. (What happened since, whilst highly relevant to further revealing the character of our Prime Minister, is neither here nor there when it comes to this point.)

And that is where we disagree.

I believe the call to resign was made after Johnson had already lied and announced in the house that there were no parties, there were parties and he was very angry about it and that it appeared that he was at the parties but hadn't realised. But as you say, before he was found guilty and fined.

We all know that lying in the house should result in resignation. I can't really be arsed to find the dates of your Starmer quotes and Johnson's statements in the house and even then, I can't really see us coming to agreement on this so I'll leave it there

 

[A1X]

I'm not calling for Starmer to resign, but it is a fact he called for Johnson to resign simply because he was being investigated by the police. (What happened since, whilst highly relevant to further revealing the character of our Prime Minister, is neither here nor there when it comes to this point.)

Except it's not though, is it? Starmer called for Johnson to resign because he had lied that an event took place then evidence came out which triggered the investigation. As far as I am aware, and despite asking for the evidence several times and received nothing back to refute my assertion, at no point has Starmer ever claimed the event in question never took place, but that it took place under the rules which existed at the time. Something which was backed up in the first Durham police investigation which the press & Government have since attempted to bully them into reopening in the (seemingly increasingly futile) hope of a different outcome.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

My point was only, from what I can tell with a very light consumption of the news, that Starmer/Labour were repeatedly banging the lockdown-breaking drum for some months. Entirely understandably, obviously, given what went on.

So, it doesn't strike me as particularly surprising to see the Tory-cheerleading press doing the same thing, when the opportunity has presented itself.

I'm not calling for Starmer to resign, but it is a fact he called for Johnson to resign simply because he was being investigated by the police. (What happened since, whilst highly relevant to further revealing the character of our Prime Minister, is neither here nor there when it comes to this point.)

It is a 'fact', but not the fact you paint it to be, unless you remove all context. Starmer called for Johnson to resign when the police launched their investigation, into gatherings that Johnson had declared in Parliament, had never occurred, or that he did not attend. He rightly called out Johnson for breaking the Ministerial Code by lying to parliament (obviously as well as taking the entire nation for absolute mugs).

The calls for the police to consider Starmer's own gathering (at a later date under less stringent lockdown rules) relate to an event that Starmer has never, ever denied took place, or that he attended.

the ongoing false-equivalence by rational, intelligent people, is very dissapointing.

 

[Bozza]

The narrative seems to be anti Starmer at every turn. Bozza is suffering like many others because of Starmers honesty... the argument should turn to " We expect our politicians to resign if they break the law, so, nothing to see here " but, then suddenly everyone then thinks about Johnson... so, let's move on to slagging his policies, his MP'S, Jeremy Corbyn or the war in Iraq .....anything just anything but congratulating him on his integrity and realising we have a PM guilty of breaking the law.

Suffering? Eh?

As someone who is now left-of-centre (and drifting further left with my advancing years) who has not voted Conservative for many, many years, who despaired that we were left with a choice of Corbyn v Johnson (so voted Lib Dem) that resulted in the worst Primie Minister we have probably ever had, I really have no idea what you are saying.

I'm "suffering" in the same way as anyone else living under this government, whilst recognising that I'm fortunate enough to not have been massively impacted personally to date. But that doesn't seem to be what you are suggesting. Rather, you seem to be mis-judging things somewhat.

I'm not like what feels like 90% on here who will only cheer Labour/attack Tory or cheer Tory/attack Labour. I'm happy to have a go at either side where I feel it is merited.

Generally I don't open politcal threads on here from one month to the next because frankly, I find the level of discourse from those who are completely blinkered to "their side" is ridiculously tiresome.

 

[Bozza]

Except it's not though, is it? Starmer called for Johnson to resign because he had lied that an event took place then evidence came out which triggered the investigation.

Doesn't read like that to me.

[tweet]1488176626642923521[/tweet]

I'll leave the cheerleaders to it once again as this is all very dull.

 

[London Irish]

How have we got into a position of someone having to pledge to resign over a korma and San Miguel? We live in an Age of Stupid. One which Starmer himself helped to create

 

[WATFORD zero]

Doesn't read like that to me.

[tweet]1488176626642923521[/tweet]

I'll leave the cheerleaders to it once again as this is all very dull.

OK, I looked up the dates of Johnson's denials which were made during the first two weeks of December. Starmer's quote is January 31st, 6 weeks later. I think you'd better leave this to the 'cheerleaders' who can actually be bothered to spend 30 seconds looking up the facts rather than those the 'cheerleaders' that can't and continue to push factually incorrect

Even your quote has the key words 'After months of denials'

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/11/seven-occasions-when-boris-johnson-denied-no-10-broke-covid-rules

 

[Thunder Bolt]

My point was only, from what I can tell with a very light consumption of the news, that Starmer/Labour were repeatedly banging the lockdown-breaking drum for some months. Entirely understandably, obviously, given what went on.

So, it doesn't strike me as particularly surprising to see the Tory-cheerleading press doing the same thing, when the opportunity has presented itself.

I'm not calling for Starmer to resign, but it is a fact he called for Johnson to resign simply because he was being investigated by the police. (What happened since, whilst highly relevant to further revealing the character of our Prime Minister, is neither here nor there when it comes to this point.)

There was evidence of the photographs before Starmer asked him to resign on 31st January. This is what Johnson said 5 days earlier. He had already lied to the House of Commons, which in itself is a resigning matter.

https://news.sky.com/story/boris-jo...nded-downing-street-lockdown-parties-12514211

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Love Susie Dent

[tweet]1523929945365483520[/tweet]

 

[Iggle Piggle]

It is a 'fact', but not the fact you paint it to be, unless you remove all context. Starmer called for Johnson to resign when the police launched their investigation, into gatherings that Johnson had declared in Parliament, had never occurred, or that he did not attend. He rightly called out Johnson for breaking the Ministerial Code by lying to parliament (obviously as well as taking the entire nation for absolute mugs).

The calls for the police to consider Starmer's own gathering (at a later date under less stringent lockdown rules) relate to an event that Starmer has never, ever denied took place, or that he attended.

the ongoing false-equivalence by rational, intelligent people, is very dissapointing.

I agree with your point that the Tory lockdown breakages were worse even more so considering they made the rules. I think where Labour made the error was conflating the more innocent end of the spectrum such as the birthday cake with suitcases full of booze, Karaoke parties and flagrant rule breakages into one attack. On that basis, they backed themselves into a corner.

Besides which those that have made their mind up about all this won't have it changed whatever happens. My mother in law is pro Boris and nothing that happens will change her mind. Boris could have her house, raid her pension and cancel her holiday and it would somehow be Labours fault. All the Facebook and twitterati politics seems to be is to reinforce whatever viewpoint you had in the 1st place.

 

[Is it PotG?]

Love Susie Dent

Indeed.

I used to 'step out' with a delightful young lady, very similar looks.