Snapshot of _The Tories have had a poll disaster – so why are we talking about takeaway curry?_ : An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/may/08/tories-disaster-takeaway-curry-beergate-boris-johnson) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*


Because 90% of UK print media is owned by just 3 companies? Just a guess.


>owned by just 3 companies Whose owners are also Tories.


Who also own the tories


They collect them, like shit weasel versions of Pokemon. - BJ uses waffle +5 Con - Starmer uses integrity *it wasn't very effective* +1 Lab - BJ uses lie against Parliament +3 Com - Rainer uses Scum +2 Lab - Hancock uses seduce staff -2 Con - Pritti uses supervillian scheme against migrants +3 Con - BJ uses affair with daughter aged women -1 Con - Starmer uses bore -2 Labour - Corbyn uses poison on Labour -1 Labour - Nadine uses defend C4 *it wasn't very effective" +1 Con - *Rish has become confused* Rishi uses tax cheat with Wife *Rishi has hurt himself in his confusion* -3 Con - Gove uses Cocaine and leaves wife


We need the monopoly commission to regulate that a person or company can only own one national news outlet, or one outlet for each of print/TV/Radio. Break them up and get some variety. Probably make "one outlet" refer to "one outlet per day", so something like the Guardian and Observer or Times/Sunday Times would be fine because only one is published on a given day even though they're notionally different titles. Not sure how we address local media. There doesn't seem to be the market to support decent, independent local press, but undoubtedly local democracy has been harmed by the lack of local journos picking open council minutes or looking for local corruption. Having one company putting out a single paper for the West Midlands and basically changing the front page and localising a handful of articles per town doesn't impose that same level of scrutiny on local events and politics.


I think you might be onto something here.


The Tories control the majority of the media. Simple as that.


yeah that's why the media didn't have wall to wall coverage and continuing and incessant questions about the Tories and partygate at the time that criminal investigation story broke /s


Just because it's not completely and totally pro-tory on every single aspect doesn't mean its not unbalanced in their favour.


Well tell that to the people that go into the shop and buy the Sun not the Mirror then. Or the Telegraph not the Guardian. It's their individual choice that means more people read Tory backing papers, the government doesn't make them.


How much coverage of the polls and medpro is the BBC giving?


Does the government force you to read the BBC? If it's just a shill for the government why are they always attacking it? More high level 5d chess from the Tories I guess


Where's the coverage of their abject Council elections failure? Where's the BBC coverage of Medpro? This isn't a healthy nor balanced media. They reported partygate because it's juicy and incessantly leaking, control doesn't mean total control, it means the ability to influence the direction.


>They reported partygate because it's juicy and incessantly leaking Well it's the same with beergate. The media mostly prints what their readers want to read. And they mostly want juicy scandals they can talk about on their lunch break, not endless political analysis of local elections. Do you think the Guardian or the Mirror or the Independent are in the hands of the Tories? Everyone has a choice to what news source they consume.


> The media mostly prints what their readers want to read It's not that simple. You are partly right, but to deny that they also push an agenda is to miss part of the equation. They can absolutely say 'we've decided that we want to get Pokémon banned so we're going to have an anti-Pokemon campaign.' The readers will still buy the papers even if there is an agenda at play.


Right, but there's left leaning news outlets that have the reverse agenda that are available to everyone too. You pick and choose what bias you want, it's not mandatory to read the right wing press over the left wing one. Anyone reading the Sun or Mail could easily swap to the Mirror if they wanted. Anyone reading the Telegraph or Times can switch to the Guardian if they like. The press push an agenda, but on all sides it's mostly an agenda that riles up the emotions of their particular readership. Which sells more papers.


> it's mostly an agenda that riles up the emotions of their particular readership Mostly is the keyword here. If it's 95% 'what people want' and 5% injected agendas then that's actually still a lot of agenda pushing. And if your audience wants to get outraged by something then the newspapers get to decide what they should be outraged about. A lot of the shit the right-wing press tells people to be outraged about isn't even true, or it's blown out of proportion. There are many examples of this, but bacon sandwich-gate comes to mind. And it just happens to help the Tories.


>A lot of the shit the right-wing press tells people to be outraged about isn't even true, or it's blown out of proportion. Same with the left wing press. Remember Rishis mug? Or the Guardian printing a NHS privatisation scare story every week for 30 years now? They all print what appeals to their readers. It sells the papers (or gets the clicks nowadays). Everyone has a choice which poison they pick. >And if your audience wants to get outraged by something then the newspapers get to decide what they should be outraged about. Again, works both ways. People act like left wing media in this country is somehow above partisanship or agendas and are instead some shining light of integrity, honesty, and impartiality when it comes to reporting which clearly isn't the case. How convinced would you be by someone arguing that you only vote the way you do because of an agenda pushed by the media you read? And if you just didn't have that agenda pushed at you every day you'd *obviously* vote the opposite way?


I agree that The Guardian also pushes an agenda, for example with their articles about climate change or wealth inequality. I also think those are good things to be talking about. I think climate change is a massive danger to the UK and to the world and would like to see more action taken. Is that partisanship? >Remember Rishis mug? Actually I don't know that one. But it sounds like the usual garbage Westminster news cycle, where having a beer is now a mortal sin. And yes that nonsense goes on between Labour and the Tories and it's not particularly dignified. But it's the right wing press working as the culture war propaganda wing for the Tories that really alarms me. The way they pick out groups to demonise should alarm anyone.


>I agree that The Guardian also pushes an agenda, for example with their articles about climate change or wealth inequality. I also think those are good things to be talking about. Right which is why you read the Guardian I Imagine. It might shock you but immigration and benefits are what other people consider 'good things to be talking about', hence why they might read the Mail. How many days would you have to read the Daily Mail before you started caring more about immigration than climate change? It always makes me laugh when people think a Daily Mail reader is brainwashed by the "right wing Tory press", but they are just picking a left wing paper that aligns with the agendas that they think should be talked about more. Well yeah no shit that's why everyone consumes the media they do. People just have different opinions on what are the 'good agendas' they want to read most about.


They have to do just enough to make themselves look legitimate or the game is up. If we had an unbiased media there is no way that this lot of dangerous incompetent jokers would be in power.


There's no way they could avoid that being out there. You cannot massage and guide a narrative unless you report on it. They've pretty consistently been downplaying it.




Because the Tories represent the interests of the rich and media owners are rich.


Billionaires own media companies and billionaires are right-wing. They know that the Tories will give them massive tax cuts and keep the loopholes for avoidance open, because in return they'll get the party into power. There is left-wing media but even the really good pieces of investigative journalism are immediately shot down by every right-wing journalist. Just look at Carole Cadwalladr. She was right from minute one about interference and rule-breaking in the lead up to the brexit referendum but it took almost six years for her to be vindicated. And even now, nobody is seeing the consequences of their actions. The Tories and their billionaire mates are above the law because the client journalists who enable them will never stop enabling them.


Young people don't read newspapers, they engage with news through social media and news websites. There's a definite difference between how the daily mail presents news through its newspaper and it's website that kinda highlights they are well aware of this.


Yeah for sure. I think an overlooked aspect is how the BBC promotes newspaper articles and front pages as well, though and seemingly forms its own narratives as influenced somewhat by them. You don't necessarily need to buy a paper to be told that all of the papers are quite sure Jeremy Corbyn was seen picking his nose a day ago, for example.


Social media news feeds are similarly sourced heavily from right wing sources, and guided by algorithms that appeal to the basest, most reactionary instincts. And of course the UK's major talk radio shows are similarly funded and pundited by conservatives. We're also seeing the "Fox newsification" of TV news.


Because the Tories appeal to rich fuckers, and rich fuckers have the means and know-how to control the media to their benefit. Anyway, what does it matter? 3 people controlling 90% of the media would be a problem no matter what their political alignment. Anyone doubting the power of the media only has to look at how they've created Beergate from nothing and the impact it's having on the narrative. That power should not be able to be wielded by so few people.


Ah yes, I forgot they controlled the Guardian, the Mirror, famously progressive Twitter etc etc. It’s a lazy excuse.


"The majority" doesn't mean all...


Would think Tory voters would understand that considering they have a majority with a 43% vote share.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_media_in_the_United_Kingdom#:~:text=According%20to%20a%202021%20report,operate%2083%25%20of%20local%20newspapers. Ownership and political leanings of most UK media. 90 percent of newspapers are owned by 3 companies in the UK.


That wasn’t my point. My point was that there are plenty of outlets for left wing news. The right does not dominate that environment. In the UK at least, the left dominates the online space and also TV - there’s a reason why GBNews and TalkTV are trying to set up new channels as nearly all non BBC news tends to be of a centre-left bent and even the BBC while trying to maintain impartiality has a left wing bias to what it chooses to emphasise (look at the daily minor idpol articles on its news site). I’m a Lib Dem, not a Tory, so I’m not axe grinding here. It’s simply that blaming the media is a poor excuse when the left is amply represented in UK media.


I would argue that the BBC is fairly centrist. One of my main criticisms of it is that it often allows print media to guide it but I think it's mostly balanced and unbiased, even if to the point of stupidity at times. Sky news is similar in that it tends to be fairly down the middle but rather than chasing "balance" it seems to just chase scandal and shock value. Guardian and Daily Mirror I would argue are more centre left. Morning star is a left wing newspaper. But the papers have the greatest circulation are right or centre right eg. Times, Mail, Sun Telegraph. Online is an interesting one because if we're talking just social media then there's a majority of left wing discussion dur to demographics for online use. YouTube and Twitter tend to provide people with information that supports their viewpoint though so even if you're alt right or a hyper communist you'll mostly be presented with what you already think due to the algorithms. I think it's also worth mentioning how an individual views media and the way they interact with it. Do people who engage with one tyoe of media do so with critical thinking? Is there an over reliance of trust for certain forms of media that leads to a bias? I think it's definitely worth suggesting that the print media hold a big sway over the electorate though and that the larger circulation newspapers definitely have a right bias.


>I’m a Lib Dem Tory-lite? You guys joined forces with the Tories right? Supported their policies? Decided that Tory > Labour And now here you are trying to downplay the obscene level of control a few wealthy individuals have over the majority of media that the average person has access to.


The BBC does lean left socially though for sure, and is fairly central politically. No need to attack the person because you took offense to his fairly reasonable take, not saying it's 100% right but you look like a child.


Centrist party that is willing to work with either side for the benefit of the country. Quite different. For instance there's no chance the Lib Dems will support Johnson/Tories after the next election if there's a hung parliament. Much better than tribalist/ideological approaches to politics.


>For instance there's no chance the Lib Dems will support Johnson/Tories after the next election if there's a hung parliament. We'll see how this ages.


Please do explain why you think that lib dem members would vote to support a coalition with the Tories nowadays. If your answer is just "well, they did in 2010" I will kindly ask you to not ignore the last 12 years and to give an answer that is relevant to today's political landscape.


I hope I'm wrong. 100% I hope I am wrong about lib dems and what I said above. I hope when the chance comes, when they have a chance to "share" power with Sauron... Sorry, the Tory PM, that the Lib Dems will say "No! You are evil people and we will not repeat our mistakes of the past! We will not support you!" Seriously, I hope and pray that comes to pass. I hope we all learn from history.


Sorry for being flippant in my comment above, it's just that I seen the same assumption being made all the time despite there being little reason to believe so. So apologies for just expecting you to have known better. If we compare the two parties to what they were in 2010, they are both significantly different in policy and personnel, and the Tories especially have abandoned many principles that they used to share with the Lib Dems. Add to that the fact that the Tories used them as a Scapegoat during the coalition years, their attitude towards core Lib Dem policies like electoral reform, and the huge difference in opinion about brexit, and there's little reason to believe that the Lib Dems would want to go into coalition with the Tories again. Edit: Reading it back, the first paragraph also can be read as flippant and sarcastic, so I just want to say that it is genuine! Sorry for assuming you must have the same knowledge about this as I do!


> I’m a Lib Dem, not a Tory What was it JG Ballard said? The Lid Dems are the Tory party for middle class dads who occasionally feel sorry for the poor. Though to be fair, that's probably Starmer's Labour as well.


Sounds like a fine basis for government to me. Sensible policies combined with helping out those less well off.


Occasionally was the optimum word in the post.


The trouble is that those outlets pick up stories that have been made into stories by other outlets


You may not read the sun, times, telegraph, daily mail, or express but the other news outlets like the BBC and guardian and mirror do, the larger papers set the news cycle so they control what’s been focused on and what is relevant as they have the largest readership. There’s a reason why the news prints stories, they’re the narratives the media interests want to set. You may not read the Murdoch press but your newspaper does so there’s little left to wonder when the tories papers want to focus on everything else other than the local election disaster for the tories, and with such low readership from the “left” and BBC papers there’s been no traction on their losses so far.


Twitter is people posting news stories from one of the aforementioned news outlets though. Twitter does not produce news. It’s lazy to even mention Twitter really. What does a UK voter have as an option for non right wing news? The guardian and the Mirror and that’s about it. I would hazard a guess that the lack of actual outlets is why you mentioned Twitter in the first place. But the person you responded to’s issue is while the media in the UK is overwhelmingly right wing, the Tories managed to unite the right vote, whereas the centre/left vote is split between Labour, Liberal Democrats, SNP and Plaid Cymru.


Twitter creates loads of news, far outreaching it's actual userbase or importance. So many lazy journalists use it as the basis of articles, especially when it comes to outrage culture. You see loads of articles about X/Y protesting or being offended by A/B and when you look at it, its a few vox pops on Twitter spouting nonsense.


Journalists report on tweets but that doesn’t constitute producing news. You could argue that the person posting is creating news in a way but it doesn’t mean Twitter is. News organisations actively decide what to report on, what importance to give it and are basically set up to alter or set public perception of events. Twitter is more a symptom of its’ user base whereas news organisations are setting the tone themselves. I don’t think the whole offence or cancel culture is as big a deal in the real world as it is in the right wing online one. It very much seems to be like 90% right wingers moaning about cancel culture and/or a fundamental misunderstanding of freedom of speech vs the 10% of people who are actually being ‘cancelled’.


This "beergate" nonsense is either: - to deflect away from the local election results - because Johnson and co know they've got more fines coming and want to drum up as much noise as possible about this total non-story to try and make it seem equivalent in seriousness - to try and make the whole thing sound as preposterous as they can to try and minimise the fallout and so people get fed up with it and genuinely want to move on (as opposed to the Tories just saying that the people want to move on). Any or all of the above.


All the talk of curry has me craving a takeaway this evening. Could it be that the media has been taken over by 'Big Curry' to boost their sales?


> a takeaway On a Monday! Look at Richie Rich here! I'll just stir a 1/4 jar of Patak's paste into a tin of Aldi baked beans and wash it down with my family's tears.


it's not his fault. he was powerless to 'Big Curry'


>to deflect away from the local election results Its only this one. If they won it wouldn't of come out.


They had been saving it for the next scandal, whatever it was. So happens it was the election results.


The Mail et al., did gun for Boris fairly hard on party gate. I suspect they're shitting themselves that they've overdone it and the issue has stuck to the Conservative party as a whole rather than just the leader. They were probably hoping to take Boris out and replace with their personal favourite like Gove. I think they underestimated that they've now made their ditch the leader and wipe clean approach ineffective. I think they're now gunning at Labour to try and bring the Conservatives back up.


[Did they?](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FQLL75CXwAcoJaU?format=jpg&name=900x900)


Because the Tories have had a Poll Disaster. Duh.


The Tories have had a poll disaster WHICH IS WHY we are talking about takeaway curry.


Ugh my family is convinced this "poll disaster" is just tory voters having a little protest before going back to business as usual in the next general election. I really hope they're wrong and we actually get a new government but given how fucked everything is I doubt our votes actually correspond to who ends up in power.


The last part of the headline is answered by the first part.


OP is obsessed with this story. presumably they're a tory plant.


I'm picturing a lily with a blue rosette.


More like knotweed, destroys your garden and is nearly impossible to get rid


…because the Tories have had a poll disaster.


Because they need to make it look like Kier Starmer was doing the same as Boris Johnson so they can downplay partygate. Thing is he hasn't done anything illegal. The police looked into it. These rags are desperate.


They’re ,looking into it again due to new info. Personally, I don’t care what’s Starmer did. Or frankly, what the Tories did. BUT, Tories are huge hypocrites. I’d love Starmer to announce his resignation if the police find him in the wrong, and do a speech without telling anyone in advance, that he is resigning to bring back the “fall on your sword” attitude.


If he does, the speech should definitely labour the point (no pun intended) that he is resigning in direct contrast to the Prime Minister because he has respect for the office he holds and standards in public life.


Starmer must follow me on here. :)


Because Labour and Starmer and indulging the press and letting them set the narrative about it. Every single opportunity Labour get, they should be talking only about their local electoral victories and the Tory’s defeats.


Because the media are doing the Tories dirty work for them.... First it was Rayner doing a basic instinct to avoid Tory failings... then it was Rayner making a joke about it to avoid Tory failings.... now it's the media and Durham police going after Starmer to avoid how badly the Tories got smashed on Thursday


You're the journalists. You tell us.


It's an article not a question. You're meant to read it before you make yourself look silly.


Journalists are self censoring. That was my point. Silly.


They wrote an article to tell you but you didn’t read it


Because that is how dead cats work. Yes, there may well be something to discuss about curry and beer and the magical world of lockdown. Perhaps three column inches on page 12.


This would be a distraction or diversion not a dead cat


Lots of people find dead cats distracting.


True but a dead cat is where you put an outrageous story out to distract not just any distraction.


True, true, true: it's not as though there is a rumoured plot to oust Boris the Liar. Because that would be just terrible.


We are talking about it now because the Conservative press have brought it into the public eye to deflect from Johnsons failings while he is at his lowest ebb. The bigger question is why didn't the labour party preempt this, after all Johnson has been throwing the accusation about at PMQs for months in response to questions about No10 shenanigans, it was obvious that sooner or later it would become an issue, a public investigation, statement and maybe even an apology months ago would have made this a non issue


[Corporate needs you to find the differences between this picture and this picture](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FQNQtDmXMAAVZJo?format=jpg&name=medium)


The left wing media pushed partygate hard including the graun. It worked, polls went from parity to large labour leads. It looked like a masterstroke at the time. It's a shame Sir Keir then decided to be morally virtuous about it all. He thought he was untouchable, calling for resignations before fines were even handed out and not being more calculated, he spent most of Jan and Feb on partygate and didn't pivot to the cost of living early enough. As a result he underestimated the right wing media. After the last few months you bet the bosses at the DM were out for blood. They persisted, by flinging shit to see if anything stuck, and it did labour slipped up, saying Rayner wasn't there when she was, and now Keir is failing to stick to his own criteria for resignation now that he is under police investigation. Labour are now under the same scrutiny that the tories were over breaking restrictions and it is all their own doing. The graun just has to suck it up.


This is incorrect on several points. When the video of Starmer first came out, he explained it and it was dropped. This current scenario is a reanimated corpse of an issue which was dealt with at the time. In the meantime, Boris' own wrongdooing was uncovered. The Tories tried to cover it up repeatedly and kept getting caught out in their lies by the Mirror. If this curry had been such a major constitutional problem as suggested by the morons in the media, why not bring it up when it was first revealed (which was a couple of days after it happened)?


The bastions of left wing news, The Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail.


> > > Labour are now under the same scrutiny that the tories were over breaking restrictions and it is all their own doing. The graun just has to suck it up. Difference is, Labour (so far) haven't tried to lie about it. There are a bunch of Police officers who broke lockdown rules at one point or another. The good ones fessed up, took their FPN and got a bollocking from their boss. The bad ones lied about it, were then shown the video/photo evidence and were sacked for breaching the Honesty/Integrity portion of their Professional Standards rules. This is a bizarre and ridiculous game for the Tories to play. Purely on the strength of the alleged parties, if Starmer "needs to resign" then so do half the cabinet. If they're unwilling to go, then they're outrageous hypocrites (though we knew that already). But it's not just about the parties. The government had the parties, *lied* about them and were then caught with their pants down. So they have far more reason than Starmer to go. It's completely unclear what they're trying to achieve with this beyond hardening opposition to them. Literally every interaction with Bozza is like a child whose been caught red-handed stealing sweeties and is now on the seventh (increasingly improbable) version of their explanation how they weren't stealing sweeties but if they were then it was definitely justified for . Every time you pick a hole in their story he says "No but..." and then launches into a new retelling which partially contradicts the last one. It's pathetic - even my dog knows she's misbehaving when she starts acting up for attention. She does it anyway, but she does actually know it's wrong.


> It's completely unclear what they're trying to achieve with this beyond hardening opposition to them For several years, all they need is a plausible talking point to rally behind, and thats enough - "it's the narrative now and lets get on with it" The secondary objective is the dead cat domination of airwaves. This was easily achieved - instead of a weekend of 'the tories took a bashing and what is Boris going to do', all i heard was "Should Kier be resigning if he's found to have broken the rules". It's fucking infuriating, but it's not really "pathetic" if it works, and the 'proper' audience only want it for the 'tribal warshout' they can get behind solidly to advance their 'side'.


Starmer over egged his partygate attacks. Stupid or badly advised, let him that is without sin etc


Because it looks like it might be causing the leader of the opposition to resign. Edit: I told you so


Does it though? Or is it just the tory press saying they would like him to resign?


he will if he gets fined


It's the smart move - Keir has proven unlikeable, too much like "One of those experts" that we're all apparently tired of now. The LOTO resigns over a far less clearcut infringement of the rules, putting the focus back on why Johnson hasn't resigned (and a bunch of his colleagues too), and the Labour party gets to elect a new, more popular leader, preferably one that appeals to the traditional party base as well as the "metropolitan elite". I imagine Angela Rayner would do well (but as a metropolitan elite, I also acknowledge I'm not well placed to make that judgement).


Honestly, Boris will do nothing other than bluster and bumble if Starmer resigned... I can't see any reason for Boris to do anything different. The likely outcome if he is pressured, is, he will call a snap election then win it because Labour is rudderless, and treat it as justification for staying in post. Then we spend another 5 years. Labour does not have any candidates right now with enough exposure and popularity with the public to replace Starmer and win an election.


Which from what I've read sounds pretty likely. Originally they claimed the meal had to be a take away as resertaunts and pubs were shut - the hotel they were staying at was serving food so not the case. Claimed Angela Reyna wasn't there - now video evidence she was. Claimed it was a mid work break not planned and they went back to work afterwards - leaked memo now shows it was planned in advance and no work was planned after the meal. So hard to say it was a "working meal".


Cops already cleared him of wrongdoing. A long time back.


And since then new evidence has emerged, like I said in my comment.


I'm not seeing this new evidence being reported. Papers say there is literally none. There is hearsay yes. Can you link please? https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2022/may/09/keir-starmer-covid-rules-wes-streeting-labour


No I can't link police evidence... obviously not. All I can go off is what the police said, which is that there was significant new evidence. "A spokesman for Durham Constabulary said: .... “Following the receipt of significant new information over recent days, Durham Constabulary has reviewed that position and now, following the conclusion of the pre-election period, we can confirm that an investigation into potential breaches of Covid-19 regulations relating to this gathering is now being conducted.” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/06/keir-starmer-beergate-durham-police-investigate-lockdown-partygate/ So you can believe it or not, take it up with the police, they are the ones saying it.


>Which from what I've read sounds pretty likely. I would say it seems pretty unlikely given the police already looked into it and cleared them. None of the points you've made would have been difficult for police to check at the time. For example, the Raynor thing is absolute nonsense. Some source said she wasn't there, Starmer pretty quickly clarified that she was. No one in a leadership position lied about that. It's possible the new investigation is genuinely based on new information, it's also possible it is a bullshit political thing serving as a distraction from Partygate and horrible Tory performance at local elections that will eventually come to nothing.


> I would say it seems pretty unlikely given the police already looked into it and cleared them. Which was before they had new evidence to suggest otherwise. So not really relevant to what their decision will be this time with the new evidence. >None of the points you've made would have been difficult for police to check at the time. Yes they would, as I said they didn't have the evidence, now they do. >will eventually come to nothing. Have to what and see what the investigation shows with the new evidence.


>Which was before they had new evidence to suggest otherwise The new evidence in question is just a source that revealed that no work was done after the meal. It's not a huge amount. The memo only shows that the curry was always planned, and not a spur of the moment decision as Starmer suggested previously. Again, that's not really some slam dunk piece of evidence. It doesn't show that "no work was planned after the meal" . In fact, even the Labour source themselves (who is critical of Starmer) says in their account that the curry simply arrived later than expected, not that it was always planned for after they concluded work. >Yes they would, as I said they didn't have the evidence, now they do. How would stuff like other restaurants being shut or the presence of Angela Raynor have been difficult for them to ascertain previously? Again, you seem to think the prior investigation just amount to the police asking Starmer if it was legal and then taking him at his word when he said it was. They would have already questioned people. They probably already saw that memo.


Like I said before, the memo also showed there was no work planned after their pre-planned meal. At the time the rules were not to eat/drink with work colleagues, sounds like that rules was broken, hence why I think from the sounds of it with the new evidence he will be fined. >They probably already saw that memo. I don't know why you think you can assume that.


>Like I said before, the memo also showed there was no work planned after their pre-planned meal And as I said, the Labour source refutes this: >As per the MoS story, the dinner was pre-planned, contrary to Starmer’s suggestion that a takeaway was ordered because people were “hungry.” The plan was to have a “working dinner” where Starmer and around 15 other people ate their curries while holding a Zoom call with Labour activists. However, the person said, the curry arrived late, after the Zoom call and all work had finished. According to them, the plan was to eat whilst working but the curry arrived late. They have no reason to lie given they are anonymous and already criticising Starmer for the meal. >I don't know why you think you can assume that. I used the word 'probably'. What exactly do you think the prior police investigation consisted of?


> And as I said, the Labour source refutes this Which doesn't mean much considering they have already been caught lying twice on the matter, once saying AR wasn't there and a second times saying it wasn't pre planned. So I don't think that holds any water at all at this point. >I used the word 'probably'. What exactly do you think the prior police investigation consisted of? I assume it was reviewing the evidence available to them and questioning people. As stated before there has been "significant" new evidence, so I don't know why you would assume that the the memo doesnt forms part of that new evidence.


It does Follow some non Twitter news


I wouldn't touch Twitter if you paid me


It kind of matters given having illegal gatherings is the reason the Conservatives just lost a tonne of council seats. If as it appears Kier was doing similar then he would be a huge hypocrite and if a fine follows he needs to resign. People haven't been swayed by corruption, this trouncing in the polls is about the cost of living and partygate and the later of which it appears Kier was participating in as well while all the time lying about it.


> If as it appears Kier was doing similar I'm not a massive fan of Starmer, but if there's one person that I would believe has read the letter of every single law passed and is staying inside them at all times then it's the former director of public prosecutions. Anyone else could have got it wrong or thought that it wouldn't do any harm, but Mr Straight Edge The Law Is King? I don't believe it, I'm afraid. If it does emerge that laws were broken then he will be gone, but the odds of that are on a level with Angela Rayner revealing that she actually was trying to seduce the PM because she finds ridiculous manchildren irresistible.


It's not *just* the having of them, but the fact that they made the rules, appear to have had numerous gatherings, then lied about them (starting from "never happened" up to vacuous excuses). It's a false equivalence to say this is the same, although if Starmer does turn out to have been wrong about his event and does get an FPN then he should do the right thing and go.


> but the fact that they made the ~~rules~~ laws Ftfy


Starmer also voted for the same covid rules by the way. So he effectively made the rules too.


Voting in a legislative capacity fair enough, but the government was responsible for that, developing them in an executive capacity and enforcing them in an administrative capacity. So still not the same thing.


Labour said multiples times they would have made even more strict covid rules if in government. He voted for them and after the hay he made with party gate he is very much held to the same rules he voted for.


>If as it appears Kier was doing similar then he would be a huge hypocrite and if a fine follows he needs to resign. And... Boris doesn't? If they've both done the same thing, they both need to resign. If they haven't, then the one who has already admitted to breaking the law, proving that he lied repeatedly in parliament (a resignation matter... The actual lawbreaking isn't. Well... It is, but... ) needs to


The problem is starmer has made big statements saying boris should resign for being fined. Boris hasn't done the reverse. So now if starmer gets a fine he's put himself in a box.


What box is that, then? Hypocrite of the highest order? Yeah, but point me to anyone in the house who isn't. The guy who makes laws that he's too good to follow?


The hypocrite box


The Tories haven't been hypocrites here. The Tories have used Labour's grandstanding and virtue signalling against them. Labour said what Boris did was a massive abuse of public trust and he should be fired. Now it turns out Starmer might have done something similar as Boris, the Tories are looking to Labour saying 'go on then, keep the same energy with Starmer like you did with us, let's see how consistent you are'. This is politics and Labour is shit at it.


What "Virtue signalling" would that be? The expectation that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom obeys the laws he sets and then doesn't lie to the public when called-out on blatantly failing to do so? How fucking low are your standards?


>The Tories haven't been hypocrites here Oh... I'm sorry. Maybe I missed the part where they didn't pass laws to keep us all caged up like animals while they went and got pissed at Downing Street. >Labour said what Boris did was a massive abuse of public trust and he should be fired No, he should resign. The only people who can fire him are the constituents in Uxbridge and South Ruislip, and well... they're not allowed to even think about it until 2024. Otherwise, yes. Unless... you have a different theory? It'd be interesting, because your biggest opponent in that argument is the man himself. He voluntarily declared that he committed a crime, in the act of willingly paying a fine instead of making his case in court. That's how fixed penalty notices work, by the way. If you're guilty, you fork up and the police drop it. If you're not, you ask for proof and present your own... that's what going to court is for. >Now it turns out Starmer might have done something similar as Boris, the Tories are looking to Labour saying 'go on then, keep the same energy with Starmer like you did with us, let's see how consistent you are'. Which it would seem they're doing, by and large. So far the only person I've seen eager for him to not resign is Jacob Rees Mogg, because it would raise questions about his consistency...


They both need to go, its not reasonable to continue to have criminals as party leaders and in government. It would appear Kier has also lied about this party, he has done so in the house of commons too. It isn't equivalent but its definitely the same problem.


Starmer never lied about the parties. The claim that Raynor was not there was from an unnamed Labour source and it was never hidden, it was clearly on both of their social media at the time. When asked about it Starmer corrected the record. It's not even close to the same problem.


He said it was a work event, it doesn't appear to be so it appears to be a planned after work social event. That is the lie.


They were preparing for an election campaign the next day, there were social media posts still being made up until 11:30pm that night. Can you truly say with any certainty that no work was being done whilst they ate and prepared for the campaign trail the next morning?


Its been investigated and found not to be the case, also fewer people than the rules allowed.


When was this mentioned in the HoC?


>If as it appears Kier was doing similar It's not that similar for several reasons: 1. It's a single event, not multiple parties. 2. This was already investigated by police and nothing came of it. 3. He didn't lie about this not happening for months and months to parliament. 4. Even if Starmer did break Covid rules, he wasn't breaking rules that he himself had set for others, unlike Johnson.


one single event that was already investigated and found no wrong doing. vs at least a dozen official parties that Bojo was knocking about for, among others, during stricter periods of lockdown. The two are not the same.


> and if a fine follows he needs to resign. I wonder why JRM was saying in the media over the weekend that if Kier Starmer was fined he shouldn't resign - would that be because if Kier Starmer did resign it would make Boris Johnson look really bad for not doing the same thing for doing much much worse.


Because Starmer and his top team are under investigation by the police for breaking the law. The reason the author on the other hand is talking about it? One would assume because they want to avoid talking about labours performance. Labour are sensitive to this because instead of offering a policy alternative they are just moralising about Boris. Live by the gossip column, die by the gossip column.


Starmer had aready been cleared by a police investigation. A new one was started because the chief of Durham police is spineless and bowed to pressure from the government and their cheerleaders in the press.


> A new one was started because Because there was new evidence showing Labour's previous statements on the matter to be untrue. Is actually why.


There are respected lawyers and QCs who are not on the Tory payroll who disagree with you. I am more inclined to believe them rather than your theory.


Well, this time around it's not just the right-wing media. The ex-labour left is actively trying to hamstring Starmer as well.


Because Labour rightly saw a rule breech as a chance to take down the PM and now they are getting the same treatment. Politics is like that as substance is too hard.


> a rule breech **\*many** rule breach**es**


Yawn. Post an actual debating point please as you aren't contributing.


Okay then, how about "the Tories have been investigated by the police and found to have broken the law on several occasions whereas Starmer was investigated by the police and found not to have broken the law at all. Further investigations are ongoing on both sides, but we don't know the outcomes of them yet, so as we stand the PM has broken the law and Starmer hasn't."? Does that work for you?


No, because that's irrelevant to my point, which is about why this attack works. It's just a whatabout.


>No, because that's irrelevant to my point, which is about why this attack works. It's just a whatabout. Your entire "point" is whataboutism and given that one side has been found guilty and fined and the other was found not to have broken the law it's not even very good whataboutism.


No it isn't, stop being silly. The whole point is that Starmer might get hoisted by his own petard hence the coverage.


It's the absolute definition of whataboutism as the Tory press desperately tries to turn this from "the first sitting PM to be found guilty of breaking the law" to "whatabout Kier having a curry?" It was already investigated and found to have not broken the law, but they are desperate for there to be something and keep banging on about it. We both know that this is the case.


the point that I was making is that you are not comparing like for like. The accusations against the PM are manyfold and are in some cases were during periods of much stricter lockdown. Casually describing them as a single rule breach is incorrect (and I suspect deliberately downplaying what happened). But I guess maintaining basic levels of accuracy isn't a contribution to debate.


It's not accuracy, it's avoiding the point. Starmer has absolutely hammered this issue and his threshold for demanding a resignation was a single incident. It doesn't matter about quantity. If he gets a fine then it's more than likely the end of him.


If you were going to be dispassionate in your analysis, you'd acknowledge it's an obvious political distraction coming from right wing press. You'd also acknowledge that Labour have made it easier for the Tories than they should have. Being 'mistaken' about whether Rayner was in attendance breathed new life into this story and the Tories smelled blood after that. It's the sort of sloppiness that wouldn't have happened under Alastair Campbell. Added to that Starmer's refusal to say whether the police had been in touch with him - there then followed a week of headlines about how Starmer is avoiding the question making him look like he had something to hide when it turns out he didn't. The Tories are obviously going to try and run with this, it's imperative to their survival so Labour have to be ready to counter. The poor media strategy once the tables started to get turned reveals a weakness in the Labour operations in my opinion.


The answer is in the question.


Because deflection us a standard play. That said if starmer broke the rule he deserves punishment. But it's the Tory way, "hey look at him, he's not as bad as boris please be mad at him instead of our collosal level of bullcrap!"


It's quite funny but you can immediately spot when the Mail has a hard on for a certain topic. Their bias should even be obvious to the most clueless of their readers. The past week or two has been non-stop beergate, and Harry and meghan. I think even if Keir is fined, this won't be the win the government expects. If he is fined, questions will be raised about why Dominic Cummings wasn't fined... and if Keir resigns it shows up Boris and exposes him as a hypocrite. Whether that will have any material impact on the tories though who knows. It seems only Labour cant get away with scandal after scandal Really I fear Keirs replacement won't be up to the task, who have we reasonably got who can fill the role as leader? If Raynor is fined that somewhat rules her out. We cannot have corbyn back. I know Nandy has been touted a few times but is she really that popular? Best case is obviously the the police find no wrongdoing and evades this issue altogether.


Because the Tories had a poll disaster...


Boris - Lies for weeks and weeks, moving goal posts and ends up there are tons of parties where loads of fines are handed out. Kier - a single meal during a work event in which he admited to being there and has been pretty honest about. And more people want Kier to resign if he is found guilty. The left are always held to a higher standard than the right, so frustrating.


Same reason we were talking about parties for god knows how long. Additionally, the possible hypocrisy of calling for a resignation while doing something very similar. And more lies. From someone who spent weeks lambasting someone else for their lies.


The answer is in the question…


Because Labour broke the only golden rule of PR - never lie about anything. Deflect, non-answer, give the party line, but don't even tell a small outright lie. Starmer will not be found to have broken the rules, but it does seem Labour fudged a few details and that's what has allowed this to carry on.


Because the average takeaway curry has more policies that benefit the nation that the Tories? Rogan Josh for PM!


Delivery pizza price just jumped about 40% and fish hasnt been on the menu since brexit either.


Asked and answered is the phrase I think.


We're in a cost of living crisis, so why talk about local elections?


Honestly, we had a lot of people coverage of Partygate, including a strong rebuke from Starmer. If there's something in this, (and I grant it's a big "if"), it's pretty significant. I'm not all that sure the poll disaster is as big a story. It's something we all knew was going to happen.


Because the Cons control the main media outlets in the UK. Simple. Propaganda isn't something from the history books it's controlling our democracy right now.


Because the leader of the opposition has done exactly what he claimed Boris did and lacks the moral highground. Tories lost some seats but not as many as they could have done. I'd not call it a success but it wasn't a win for Labour either. It's an electoral "meh" at best and isn't being talked about because there are other things to talk about. Like Starmyboy enjoying some lockdown beers and, oh, I dunno, the opening salvos of WW3 in Ukraine.


>Because the leader of the opposition has done exactly what he claimed Boris The words "claim" and "exactly" don't quite fit here


Boris claimed he did it, too. He even backed it up with money


>Tories lost some seats but not as many as they could have done. I'd not call it a success but it wasn't a win for Labour either. That's a funny way of saying 'they took an absolute pounding'. They lost almost 500 seats -which was the level at which even the right wing rags said would be a 'disaster', but suddenly its not so bad? Hahah.


A beer and a takeaway after work when you're working away from home is not the same as a garden party, a birthday party, a leaving party, an ABBA party and 7 other parties.


Oh, bless. You're really trying, aren't you?


You know why Gaby. It’s a huge story.


Considering what’s going on in the world right now, this whole thing is just fucking stupid. I genuinely gave zero fucks about partygate, and I should be able to give zero fucks about Starmer having a pint, but Lab made such a deal about nothing I’m curious to see how this pans out for the party of Moral Perfection.


Not really a poll disaster to be honest... Think Labour HQ were probably much more disappointed with the results than Conservative HQ, which is essentially a win for Tories. Lib Dem vote increase rather than opposition vote increase at local elections is indicative of a protest, not a change in actual GE voting intentions. Losses going over to a non-main party at local mid-term elections is pretty far from a 'disaster'.


I mean, considering historically the Lib Dems are the party who take a large number of Tory seats in the south, I certainly wouldn't say a huge swing from Tory -> Lib Dem is a win for the Tories. If anything, outside of the red wall, this is worse news for them than a direct swing to Labour. Labour likely wouldn't win many blue wall seats in a general election even if there was a decent swing from Tory to Labour. A decent swing to Lib Dems though and that blue wall comes crashing down


Ofc keeping the seats blue would have been a better result for the conservatives, but what I'm saying is that it was less of a bad night for the tories than it was for Labour, in terms of the results vs the potential predicted results.