The Afterword

Musings on the byways of popular culture

Menu

Navigation

You are here: Home / Forum / Keir Starmer.

Keir Starmer.

by 97 Comments

Sir Keir Starmer has said he will resign if Durham police give him a fixed penalty fine.

Is he putting the Durham police under pressure or has he played a blinder & wrong footed the government/prime minister?

Generally interested in what take the massive have on this. I sort of see it as a straight choice between the two options I have said, but I am very interested to hear any variations on my view.

FWIIW, I think he has played a blinder.

Over to you.

0

Comments

  1. The ‘putting police under pressure line’ is a bit rich as it comes from the same right wing rags that have been baying for the police to investigate for weeks. The same commentators have spent the last dozen hours or so looking for loopholes. It shouldn’t be a high risk strategy if he is correct, and I think he almost certainly is, but I’m less sure that staking his career on integrity will play as well as he might think with an electorate who don’t seem to care.

    • The last bit is the real issue. The Tories successfully flooded the zone with shit and now nobody cares about an issue we should all care about: leaders thinking they’re above the laws which they enforced on the rest of us.

  3. Putting the police under pressure? Pure CCHQ talking point that doesn’t even deserve discussion. They’re just mad because it makes their man look even worse.

    • The Boris-supporters in his party and in the press are desperate and there is no depth to which they will not sink to rescue Boris from the ignomy that’s coming. Any straw is worth clutching, to them. But to quote a well-used Smash Hits trope, “Boris is down the dumper.”
      They’re trying to drag Starmer down with him.
      I’m sure the Mail, Express etc. are concocting strategems even as I type, for either outcome of the police investigation. Boris will not willingly quit, whatever happens, so they’ll be looking for justifications for him to remain, where in fact there are none.

      • Not a criticism, but there’s a microcosm of general public attitudes right there in your references to “Boris” (GEEZER! ONE OF US!) and “Starmer” (BORING!).

  4. I wouldn’t so much say that he has played a blinder, because there wasn’t much else he could do at this point, but the Tories certainly didn’t think it through when they bullied the police into investigating him. “Hypocrisy” shouted the pathetic Dominic Raab. Yep, hypocritical of the government demanding Starmer is investigated by the same police who didn’t investigate Dominic Cummings, because they don’t investigate “historical” rule breaking.

    Or is Raab playing a blinder? Starmer goes, then the pressure will really be on Johnson and Sunak to also go, leaving a path to number 10 wide open. Nah, Raab isn’t that bright.

    But the ‘smoking gun’ of the agenda, which proves Starmer’s dinner was the last event of the day, so he can’t possibly have been still working is the rubbishest ‘key evidence’ ever. Durham Constabulary are very welcome to check my ‘to do’ list from every day for the past month, because most of the things have been on there all month and the lists bear absolutely no resemblance to what I actually did, which was mainly finding things to do to waste my time to avoid having to do any of the jobs on my to do list.

      • Say you like about Al Capone, but he was

        a) Good to his old Mum

        b) Only killed other gangsters

        and

        c) Chicago was so safe when he was around that people weren’t worried about leaving their doors unlocked

      • I think Johnson is a gangster. Since overcoming social ostracism at Eton (leaving him hating Britain and the hypocritical elitist establishment), he has no values to uphold, just a determination for revenge. At heart, a sneering bully with low cunning, who has used and thrown away people his whole career, like Capone, he will have all bases covered except for little legal niceties and rules which he normally stomps over with a convenient lie and a conniving wink.

        That’s why enforcing the rules is more than ‘unimportant stuff’ – he will cheat and flatter his way out of any other way of deposing him.

          • Thanks, BH – sometimes I fear I go a bit too Deram on Johnson and/or a bit too conjectural, but his only strength seems to be his appeal to people’s baser instincts, which is never a good model to base decisions/choices on, and creates a rotten/rotting culture.

              • You’re the dodger, sonny.

                Impossible to go “too Deram” on that fat old etonian bastard.
                In fact, I’m going to go more Deram on that fat old etonian bastard.

                I’d rip him limb from limb, piece by piece, if I had the chance.

            • “Since overcoming social ostracism at Eton (leaving him hating Britain and the hypocritical elitist establishment)”

              It does seem quite conjectural.

              I don’t really get the culture of psychoanalysis around Johnson. He’s an unpleasant individual who shouldn’t be Prime Minister for a number of reasons (albeit often not the ones people seem to land on). The reasons he’s unpleasant aren’t particularly knowable, or relevant.

              I sometimes think the drive to source the root of his character flaws (see: all the endless “World King” articles) is really just emotional comfort food for his opponents, and probably makes it harder for them to see him clearly.

              • Guilty as charged – it’s complete conjectural comfort food – yum yum yum.

                I would ask what are the number of real reasons, but suspect I wouldn’t get an answer (see scout/soldier conversations passim).

                But there’s no denying he’s a unique individual, so it’s not that surprising that people try to understand him and what makes him tick.

                • Oh, I’m very happy to explain why I don’t think he should be Prime Minister.

                  I won’t list all the reasons, as I’m not convinced I could produce an exhaustive list, but I will certainly flag a few that would stop me from ever voting for him (beyond the fact I’ve never voted Tory).

                  He’s previously said things about a number of groups, including Muslims, black people, LGBT people, and the inhabitants of Liverpool that I, personally, think should discount him from becoming Prime Minister. This one on its own would be enough in my book.

                  I don’t particularly look to politicans for moral leadership, but even by that low standard I think he has consistently demonstrated a worrying lack of scruples.

                  As a leader, I’m not convinced he’s capable of running a tight ship, and he tends to ping from crisis to crisis, fixing as he goes. He has an ability to survive disaster, but I’d prefer a leader who doesn’t seem so happy to draw down on that ability with alarming regularity.

                  I think his lack of fixed political values is a double edged sword. Sometimes it’s helpful, sometimes it’s disastrous. I also think he can be a bit lightweight in certain areas.

                  There’s also a generic bucket of stuff that is probably true of most Conservative politicans, which is why I don’ t tend to vote for them.

                  I don’t believe he was tested at the polls the way he should have been, because he ran against the most disastrous opposition leader in at least a generation. Johnson is a candidate who really really needed a proper interrogation, not to be handed a walloping great majority essentially by default.

                  Things I don’t care about: Eton, his manner, his family arrangements, his role in Brexit, the various lockdown parties, etc. I don’t hate him – I just don’t generally agree with him.

                  I can do his strengths too if you like.

                  • Thanks for that, Bingo. Good to read, and thoughtful, as I’d expect. Yes I would like to read what you think his strengths are. If I had to say, it would be those of a street fighter – knowing someone’s weaknesses and using it to advantage; flexibility to change approach and confound the opponent; quickness of thought – to adapt to new and changing situations.

                    Some of those you allude to in your list of why you wouldn’t vote for him – they are indeed double edged swords. Weathercocks are useful in changing weather, but signposts give more sense of direction and permanence, even if they can be more easily knocked down by resisting the winds of change.

                    Gong to Eton isn’t a character flaw – how you react to your experience there says a lot about who you are as a person – how we are in our youth has a strong impact on how we develop in later life. Yes, we can change, but our essence is set in those formative years. His manner and his family arrangements are indicative of how he treats people – what I said about using and discarding, and what you refer to in his writing about whole sets of people – dismissive, and performative for an audience who lap up cruelty and cheap stereotypes.

                    I think the key reason why he shouldn’t ever have been PM is addressed in your comments about running a tight ship – he’s too lazy, and believes he can coast on sheer ability and bravado. But this too was pointed out in his time at Eton – school reports, and scripts taped to the columns for a school play. If the narrative fits, then it provides a helpful shorthand to capture the essence of the man.

                    • Strengths off the top of my head:

                      * I think he’s as good as any politician active in this country today at reading and reflecting the public mood. I also think he’s capable of channeling and changing it, to some extent. He’s an extremely able politician, from that perspective. It’s easy to write him off as appealing to base instincts, but I think that undersells what he does and, frankly, if it was that easy, more people would do it.

                      * The flip side of his comparative lack of values is that he’s relatively non-ideological. I don’t find the fact he wrote the two essays on Brexit to be an example of his lack of virtue; I actually find it vaguely admirable that he seemed to work through his thoughts before landing on a position. This can be a weakness in a leader, but it can also be a strength.

                      * He’s consistently underestimated by his opponents, who assume that his sloppiness in some areas denotes a sloppiness in all, and who have made him such a hate figure over Brexit that they convince themselves of all sorts of terrible things about him, even absent any real supporting evidence. This is a massive strength, in my view; I think he’s aware of it, and he uses it.

                      * He’s clearly a very accomplished public speaker, and someone who is able to use language to communicate on multiple levels, often tweaking his style according to his audience. He’s one of the better political campaigners the UK has seen in my lifetime. He was also canny enough to largely keep his head down during the last election campaign, which shows a degree of discipline in certain areas.

                      * He has a clear vision of what he thinks the UK is and should be, and he’s proud of it. The latter point isn’t enormously important to me, but it is to voters, particularly given some of the alternatives they’ve been offered.

                      * He doesn’t appear to be a micro manager. When he does manage to appoint the right person to a role, he seems to empower them and then get out of their way to allow them to do their thing without too much interference. Again, a double edged sword as he doesn’t detect the incompetents half as quickly as he should.

                      * He’s undeniably inherently likeable by the standard of most politicians.

                      * It’s not really a personal strength, but I think the culture wars play so enormously in his favour that he must at least consider himself extremely lucky. Ditto his political opponents at the last election. I guess the flip side to that is he’s had to deal with largely non stop calamity since he took office.

                      I’m probably forgetting others – this is off the top of my head. I don’t really care about what happened at Eton; I think a lot of the reportage is likely to be projection and fabrication, and that people are allowed to grow and change. I would hate to be judged on things I said and did at 15, and I think we generally afford to the people we like an understanding that they should be free from such judgement, so I’m inclined to offer the same to those I dislike (where possible).

                      Do I think he’ll win another election? Maybe. If he’s up against Starmer he’ll have a good chance, but a huge amount will depend on the economy. Ironically, the cost of living crisis is not entirely a mess of Johnson’s own making, but he’s likely to be defined by how well he deals with it – and rightly so, it’s people’s actual lives. I don’t expect Partygate to be a material factor at the next election; it’s ultimately a storm in a teacup.

                    • In response to Bingo’s excellent post about Johnson’s strengths, I broadly agree, but they are strengths as a vote winner, not as a politician, or certainly a prime minister. He is demonstrably brilliant at gaining power, but demonstrably poor at actually using that power for the genuine benefit of the country. Ultimately that’s how he’ll be judged.

                    • “demonstrably poor at actually using that power for the genuine benefit of the country”
                      Is he at all interested in doing so? My impression is that politics is just one big jolly fun game he really enjoys playing.

                    • Thanks again, Bingo – a coherently-expressed and articulate presentation of the mirror image of the more-commented on dark side of Johnson – a charismatic, opportunistic salesman. TLDR – Blue Boy and Gary say what I’m going to say more succinctly and clearly.

                      Of his strengths, for sure he understands how to use his sloppy, gaffe-prone image. (But I also think people are wise to this duplicity, which means that, more and more, nothing he says is trusted. The Boris who cries wolf). Also – being able to argue two opposing positions (Brexit), and not micro managing, both though are problematic without substance or vision.

                      An accomplished public speaker? In some ways. Years of practice and complete self-confidence means he can ramble on about Peppa Pig, and say forgive me’ multiple times, can quote the Muppets in the UN General Assembly without feeling any shame (see his gaffe-prone public image). I’d much rather hear someone give colourful stories and quote fanciful characters than read a pre-prepared speech without connecting with an audience. But far better than both is someone who can straddle both stools – preparedness and connection. I don’t think it’s too much to expect from a Prime Minister.

                      Regarding your two lists, arguably such strengths outweigh his weaknesses, in terms of winning elections and convincing people to vote Conservative. A consummate politician, but without substance, so no statesman.

                      You say he is proud of his clear vision of Britain – but what is it? A neo-liberal, small government, libertarian (to quote the article below) approach which favours the rich and assumes the market will pick up the pieces for the rest. And that is a vial of poison which his three word slogans and bonhomie, accompanied by client journalism, disguises and misleads in a very effective way to satisfy his core support.

                      In essence, strengths to propel him forwards, while preserving the baked-in inequalities.

                    • As I say above, I would encourage you to consider how much of this is emotional comfort food vs clear eyed assessment (particularly the public speaking bit).

                      I don’t intend to vote for him, but I can recognise he’s the most influential UK politician of his generation. He’s been elected Mayor of London, swung the country out of the EU and won the largest parliamentary majority two decades.

                      It’s worth asking yourself how he’s managed all that, without recourse to the lazy dei ex machinis of “press bias” or “lies” (as if all/any other politicans are honest).

                    • It is true that I focused on his more gaffe-prone speeches, when there are more polished performances (for the right audience – e.g. Munich Security Conference). He does have access to a wide and deep vocabulary which he uses well. But both are accurate in indicating who he is.

                      While clearly the most charismatic and articulate politician in the UK, if not wider, that is chained to deep personality flaws that reveal themselves plainly when he is caught off guard. Press bias and lies are just weapons of a bully in his continual culture war.

                      There’s no emotional comfort to be drawn from assessing him thus.

                    • A clear-eyed assessment at Johnson would also show that he has had poor personal poll ratings since he became an MP. I think when Theresa May resigned, her ratings were still better than his. The most recent survey, carried out on 8 May showed him trailing Starmer as best choice for next Prime Minister – Johnson 34%, Starmer 39%.

                      We don’t have a presidential system. I have no doubt that there are voters who vote conservative because of Johnson, some do so despite him. He’s been lucky in standing against such divisive figures as Livingstone and Corbyn. To me he is the cliché: the man who sees a parade and runs to the front of it and deludes himself and others he’s leading. Brexit had already been voted for when he came to power. Any government would have followed the Sage advice on Covid. I’m not sure what personal initiatives he has taken to improve the country over the past three years.

                      And power always adds a certain glamour to someone’s status. Even Ed Miliband had his fans. Imagine Johnson was a local councillor and spoke in this rambling, supposedly humorous style, which quickly slips into petulance and bullying. Nobody would take him seriously.

                    • As far as Brexit having been voted on prior to Johnson coming to power; of course, but he did have something of a hand in the outcome of that vote. Hence much of the anger towards him.

                  • Adding to this sprawling sub thread. I don’t find Johnson likeable, I find him manipulative and self centred. When he was elected Mayor of London, there were a number of voters who cheerfully declared that he got their vote because “he’s a laugh, innee”. What they got was Boris stuck on a zip wire, trussed up like the turkey he is, waving a Union Jack flag that looked as though he’d stolen it from a child’s sand castle.

                    • I saw BJ speak at a CBI Conference. He was eminently likeable and witty. He read the room well and had some banter with Lord Coe, who was also speaking. It was, undeniably, classic schtick. But he is very good at it and it works extremely well when he doesn’t fluff his lines.

        • @salwarpe – about the time of Johnson’s election to Tory leader, I read Sonia Purcell’s “Just Boris”. By her account, Johnson was popular at Eton. It was Cameron that didn’t fit in (if you can believe anything from Oakshott’s book, which I’ll also confess to reading). I think there’s evidence of him aspiring to become one of the real elite – and he’s not done too badly. Purcell’s book stops once Johnson is London Mayor – I’d love to read an update. Either way, it’s worth a read, unlike Oakshott’s hackery.

          • Thanks for the tip, forthright – I’ll investigate further. I thought he was Alexander till he went to Eton and they found out his other name, laughed at him and his unorthodox (ie not landed gentry) background and that was the fire that forged him. Admirable in a way, unless that is, the fire twists the soul to make you like your torturers – a bully. An anecdote from his time at Oxford, and his constant playing to the gallery at PMQs suggests it did.

            • That’s what the Tom Bowyer biography says. He was given Boris as one of his names in gratitude for a family friend who helped financially when he was born (he doesn’t really come from money; Stanley was a serial scrounger and relied on the generosity of others). The other pupils found his passport when he got to Eton and ‘Alexander’ became ‘Boris’. Such high jinks.

              • About 10 years ago a good friend of mine climbed Kilimanjaro with Stanley (and a group of about 15 or so). Still describes him as the most obnoxious person he’s ever met. Says he made the trip hell for everyone.

  6. Ballsy move from KS.

    Would be great if this marked a turning point for the shitshow that UK
    politics have become since Cameron called that stupid fucking referendum
    and unleashed a level of divisiveness even Thatcher would have envied.

    • Cameron only called it as he though he’d win. He wouldn’t have otherwise. Entitled prick, not that this is any change to typical politicos. The amazing thing is that Labour continue to seize defeat from the jaws of victory. It might help if they knew what a woman was, as that kind of posturing completely loses the majority of their potential voters who decide they lack common sense.

      • He called it because he promised before the election there would be a referendum to get the right of the party behind him. And then the Great British public decided

        • Only because he was too arrogant in his belief that people would never fall for Brexit.

          If he spent 10 minutes thinking through the mechanics needed to justify such a far-reaching constitutional change, the UK would be a very different place today.

  7. The Mail’s endgame here is not to get rid of Starmer – he’s dividing his own party down the middle, so the last thing they want is for him to be replaced.

    The point of all this noise is to convince us that “they’re all as bad as each other.” There’s no comparison between the Durham curry and the many parties at Downing Street, but, stir enough of that nonsense into the stew and it’s hard to keep up with all the allegations and denials, so eventually we give up and stop trying to tell the truth from the lie. It’s exhausting. “They’re all as bad as each other” gives us an easy way out of identifying right from wrong, and it gives Johnson the green light to carry on as he always has.

    • It comes from both sides.

      Before the investigation into Johnson was concluded, and before it was demonstrated he’d lied to parliament, there were plenty of people queuing up to describe his actions as an absolute moral affront and to demand his resignation, Starmer included. The point of all that noise was to get him out, regardless of whether the critics would be willing to demand the resignation of one of their own for the same fact pattern, because people hate him and want him gone.

      Starmer was foolish to go along with it to the extent he did. It was already evident the press had the germ of the Beergate story, and it was inevitable that there would be plenty of people in his party who’d fall foul of the red line he was drawing. If he really needed to get involved he should have majored on the lying to parliament aspect, and left the rest alone.

      Now we are where we are. I don’t think it makes a blind bit of difference how many parties there were; if you demand resignations as soon as there’s an investigation, as Starmer has done with both Johnson and Cummings, you’ve made a rod for your own back – you’ve set the bar super high and you’d better be able to clear it yourself. It’s an open goal for The Mail, et al, and they’re now simply mirroring back much of the same “analysis” that had people cheering when it was being directed at Johnson a few weeks ago.

      The whole thing is a load of bobbins, but it’s a great example of how politics works nowadays: people are willing to make arguments against their opponents, the logic of which they simply will not accept when the shoe is on the other foot. Regardless of whether Starmer is guilty of a lockdown breach, he’s clearly guilty of that particular streak of hypocrisy, and the public (who are already not enamoured of him) will have seen that. And he did it to himself. What he came out with yesterday wasn’t brave or principled or shrewd judgement. It was his only remaining move having painted himself into a corner.

      Lisa Nandy warned Starmer weeks ago to back off Partygate because the country is moving on to other concerns. She was absolutely right; the debates going on around this issue have stretched on far too long, are increasingly tedious and nonsensical and will appear to voters like a bunch of kids squabbling over who started the fight on the back seat of the car. And that isn’t all the doing of the Tory press – the Labour Party walked right into this one.

      • Excellent post – I agree that Starmer’s decision to go all out calling for Johnson and Sunak’s resignation on the grounds that they were being investigated by the police was foolish and unneccesary, and left him (and Angela Rayner) with no choice now. That said, even if he hadn’t, I am not sure it would have made much difference. The Mail et al would still be baying for his blood for the reasons Chiz outlines above.

        But taken overall I do think this is a sensible move by Starmer. The Tory commentators are contorting themselves all over the place over it but the final outcome will be a clear point of comparison when the focus switches back – as it will – to the events at Downing Street. Either Starmer will have been exonorated, or he will have resigned becasue of one offence and the comparison with Johnson – who won’t go unless he’s carried out in a casket – will be stark.

      • Demanding the resignation of someone who is never going to resign under any circumstances ever was always a bit of a waste of breath. Besides, on recent evidence, Boris is by far the best thing Labour have got.

          • Well that tends to assume that rock bottom has been hit and with Partygate over, Johnson will somehow acquire the ability to govern or at least behave like a human adult. Given what he’s been allowed to get away with, that’s very unlikely. Partygate may well have faded by the time of the next GE: Johnson will have many, many more opportunities to do what he does and be what he is before then. There will be no fridge big enough for him to hide in next time.

          • Given that they don’t seem to have any cogent ideas or policies, the depressing thing is Boris really IS the best thing Labour have got at the moment.

            Sadly, if that’s the case then the party is in bigger trouble than many people think.

            As is borne out by projections saying that Thursday’s local election result would translate into a hung parliament if repeated at the next GE.

            • Mid-term local elections have never been repeated in subsequent general elections. Vast swathes of the country didn’t vote at all last Thursday – not to mention the usual rubbish turnout for those that had the opportunity. When they included the European Parliament elections you could argue that these midterms gave us a picture of where we’re at. These elections really didn’t. Do you now think Hull is going to elect three Lib Dem MPs? It simply isn’t.

              • Broadly agree.

                The best one can hope for from local elections this far into a government’s 5 year term is an indication as to people’s level of satisfaction/dissatisfaction/anger.

                Before the election many Labour supporters were bigging up the locals as the first sign of the party’s resurgence as a political force.

                That plainly didn’t happen.

                While Starmer’s core policy of not being Boris Johsnson might see him in 10 Downing Street come 2024, it will be as head of an alliance/coalition.

                Even were by some miracle Labour to win outright not being Boris Johnson isn’t much of a long-term strategy (see Boris Johnson’s strategy of not being Magic Jezza

            • Personally I think they’re in deep, deep sh*t, & given that ‘Boris’ should be a gift to any opposition, makes me rate Starmer as very poor indeed.
              He had a very gentle ride from those who deemed Corbyn a hybrid of Pol Pot, Stalin & Savile but has made virtually no political headway at all.
              I don’t like him, but more to the point, I don’t rate him.
              For a QC, he appears to have no instinct for political cut & thrust & how to get his opponents on the ropes. I don’t count scoring points across the despatch box, I mean identifying real strengths & weaknesses & tactical acumen. Of course this may be because he’s essentially a decent upright cove who struggles to pin down a pathological dissembler who doesn’t adhere to any notion of (whisper it) honour – but if that’s the case, he’s definitely not the man for the job as those streets are mean.
              His ‘beergate’ gambit may or may not pay off, but I suspect it’s another instance of him bringing a knife to a gun fight & his opponent won’t care.

  8. I agree with a lot of the above posters in that the Conservatives and their tame friends in the media will do whatever it takes. A few weeks ago ago, it was ‘why are we still talking about about this party gate nonsense when there’s a war on?’ (not one we’re physically involved in, mind). This morning’s Mail headline is topped with the banner ‘Beergate: Day 13’.

    FWIW I think Johnson’s complete lack of honour IS a big deal. Look at what was a resigning issue in the days of Thatcher and Major and see what the current worthless sack of testicles thinks we should overlook..

    • I agree re: honour & feel it is indicative of us being in a ‘post truth’ environment, just as much as the US was during the Trump time.
      I genuinely don’t think the current lot are actually Conservatives at all, but a cabal of venal cranks who’ve essentially pulled off a coup.
      When one sees the observations and comments from Conservatives such as John Major & Kenneth Clarke I believe they see it the same way.

    • The Mail going large on “Beergate” is the same rag that a couple of weeks ago was saying, “Don’t they know there’s a war on?” and trying to trivialise Johnson and Sunak’s fines.

  11. Starmer resigning is one of the few chances Boris has of losing the next election. Labour get in a decent leader like a Burnham and it’s game on.

    Neither of them should resign though for eating birthday cakes and curries. The preposterous rules at that time are now exposed completely for what they are.

    If I’d a loved one died in a care home I couldn’t have visited I’d have a different view I expect.

    • But that’s the problem. People are losing sight of the real issue. It’s not that he had a birthday cake (and how convenient of the Met to start with the most trivial ‘party’, eh?), it’s that we have a proven liar leading the country. I mean, we knew this already, because he has lost several jobs for lying and then based his Brexit campaign on several whoppers, but lying to Parliament is a big deal, or it used to be, and should be, and he lied to Parliament, repeatedly.

      • Dear God @Thegp
        “Eating birthday cake and curries” whilst I couldn’t attend the funeral of my best friend’s daughter who committed suicide because of ongoing mental health problems heightened by lockdown restrictions, my 98 year-old mum going into hospital for a hip operation, catching COVID and being shipped back into her Care Home and most likely being responsible for at least three deaths there? With 100% hindsight, who the fuck knows if indeed some of the Rules were “preposterous” but Boris & Co made the Rules and then thought “that’s for ordinary people, not us”. Awa and bile yer heid.

        • Sorry about your mother, like I said in my last sentence, personal experiences here of partygate hypocrisy make the anger towards Boris perfectly understandable. Seems Starmer is guilty too.

          As both are implicated, it will make jack shit difference next election.

          I’d much rather people were making Boris resign because of callously discharging people into care homes with Covid than eating a slice of birthday cake though.

          • Mum, 98, had COVID twice, still with us (in body, mind gone ten years ago).
            My feeling is that the Government in court could possibly get away with the Care Home Scandal using the “Nobody knew what was happening, everybody made mistakes” defence. (The Prosecution could counter with “They are lying, duplicitous, self-centred hopeless wretches with no soul”) but having a piss-up after work given what the rest of us were doing is just plain Wrong.

      • They’ll get someone in a safe Labour seat to stand down and parachute AB in.

        While voters in the constituency usually toe the party line, it has been known for them to not play ball. Happened to aWilson
        Cabinet minister called Patrick Gordon Walker in the mid-60s.

        Anyone interested in seeing how much “nicer” the Tories have become these last 60 years should look up the campaign fort the Smethwick seat that PGW lost

  12. The Tories, Johnson and Labour all know the next election will be won or lost in the couple of months run up to it. It’s where Johnson excels and appeals with his soundbites (lies), policies (lies) and manifesto (more lies) but especially in that knack he has for a three word summary that takes it all down to the lowest common denominator and appeals to those who only have 10 seconds to look up from their phones. Captain Hindsight, (©️ Boris Johnson) has done what he believes to be right and fair play to him but Johnson won’t care. We’re stuck with Deram’s dream boy until 2030ish I can’t be bothered to check. Don’t like it, wish it wasn’t so but here we are.

    • I’ve never thought Johnson would lead the Tories into the next general election and still don’t. He used to appeal to a lot of voters simply on the impression that he’s likeable and a bit of a maverick, but his innate dishonesty and refusal to follow anyone rules, even his own, has now nullified that. People who don’t really take an interest in politics but still vote just don’t like him any more.

      But it’s still hard to predict over who will take over and when. There might not be an obvious candidate at the moment, but the Tories will want to have some time to clean out the stink that Johnson has left before the next election.

  13. I don’t think there’s any playing involved – Starmer is a decent man who has followed his instincts.

    I have to say that he has surpassed my expectations as Labour leader. I wasn’t sure he had the stomach for the necessary ice-picking needed to deal wit the influx of the hobbyist left ushered in by Corbyn. However, as now ex-Labour MP Corbyn can testify, he certainly does.

  14. Not sure if this lives here ot on another thread, but does for me, a decent job of picking apart where we are and the paucity of the Government’s approach

    Particularly liked this bit

    Johnson is reduced to these inanities because the most powerful faction among his MPs will not, as a point of ideological principle, countenance anything that seriously interferes with the accrual of wealth and privilege to those who already have them. Levelling up has hit the same obstacle that derailed David Cameron’s “big society” agenda. That too was conceived as a way to rehabilitate unhappy parts of the country without recourse to any of the explicit financial redistribution that Thatcherite Tories despise as socialism.

    • Levelling up going well I see……

      “ In May 2022, BBC Panorama sent freedom-of-information requests to councils in the 100 most deprived areas in England.
      It found that 28 councils had their bids rejected. This included 18 areas that were on the government’s top priority list, including Knowsley and Blackpool.
      Meanwhile, 38 councils won all, or some, of the money they requested, and 34 councils did not submit a bid in this round. Applications open for the second round at the end of May.”

    • Nail on head, particularly the bit about the accrual of wealth and privilege. What baffles me about the Tories is how they always seem to attract popular support, even though it’s surely obvious to all that they’re only really there for the wealthy and privileged. The Conservatives ‘ interest is in accruing and maintaining wealth, especially amongst those who already have it and are prepared to donate some of it to the party. Yet they still attract the support and votes of many people, including loads of Mail & Sun readers, who aren’t especially wealthy and aren’t very privileged either. It’s a very clever con trick.

      • We’ve become like the Americans, who somebody said always regard themselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires. If you expect to be rich and privileged at some point in the future, why would you vote for someone who looks after the losers you’re going to leave behind?

      • A key reason why the Tories are so good at attracting popular support is that deep down most people want to be or wish they were rich and Conservative is seen as being the party of aspiration.

        The reason why Labour has done so badly in recent years is that it is seen as being the party of resentment.

        This is especially galling when so much of their voter base now consists of shampain socialist metropolitan luvvies like Steve Coogan who famously dismissed former comrades thinking of voting for the Tories stupid in 2019.

  15. Starmer appears to have integrity. Based on that he is merely stating the obvious but he also maximises the difference between him and Boris (I suppose he could have his in a fridge for a few weeks).. He also seems to have a fairly sharp legal mind and so if I had to bet the farm, I’d bet on him.

    Lastly, the Tories calling this putting pressure on the police is laughable. Whatever he did would be criticised by them because they are still in damage limitation mode.

  16. If the police find no grounds for prosecuting Starmer and he therefore stays on as Labour leader, the Tory press and front bench will harp on “no smoke without fire”, declare the investigation to have been fixed and Johnson will remain as leader.
    Starmer and the alleged “fix” will be brought up every time his own prosecution is mentioned.
    Not sure how Labour can successfully deal with that.

    There is, I suppose, a remote possibility that, in reaction to the Tories and their press lackeys pressuring the Durham police into re-examining Starmer’s beer and curry, the Met could decide to re-examine those other Downing Street get-togethers they considered not worth prosecuting.
    A remote possibility.

Leave a Reply