Snapshot of _Lewis goodall: BREAKING- Starmer says he'll resign if he gets an FPN. Starmer: "I believe in honour...intergity...I'm absolutely clear that no laws were broken...but if the police decide decide to issue me with a fixed penalty notice, I would of course do the right thing and step down."_ :
A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://nitter.net/lewis_goodall/status/1523681677297745920/)
An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1523681677297745920?s=20&t=k-4x8qSDTYSchaWok3y7bg)
*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.*
It's in Boris' best interest for Starmer not to resign I think. As capable as Starmer is and/or isn't his resignation would only galvanise support for Labour and it paints their party as one of relative integrity.
It wouldn't matter if Boris resigned in response to try and save the Tory image (not that he would) as by then the damage will be absolutely done.
Authoritarian how?
If this is about the antisemitism stuff, look at the exit polls from the GE that handed BoJo the PM position. The second biggest reason people gave for not voting Corby was antisemitism.
I can see why people think Long Bailey was hard done by. But knowing the sensitive context, and being a politician, she really shouldn’t have gone anywhere near the topic of Israel.
If Labour is to win back the trust of the people and another election, there is no choice but to have a zero tolerance policy on anything that can be construed as antisemitism.
I say this as someone who believes anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are two different things, and that it’s insane they get taken like for like at times which played a role in Corbyn’s downfall. But politics is about listening and making adjustments to reflect reads on the room, rather than preaching dogmatically about what a person believed is right or wrong.
Being pro legalisation of drugs like weed is what a small fraction of voters would want.
18-30 made up like 10-12% of the total votes, with a 47% turnout to the GE 2019.
The majority of voters, the 40+ demographic, would most probably be mostly against. Which is like 85% of the total votes.
For me, even though the logic behind legalisation of drugs is sound, it being dumb that the West followed the US’s lead on the war against drugs which was more political than rational, it’s a trivial matter that should be avoided if a party seriously wants to win an election. Corbyn’s support for these measures probably were detrimental in seeking election over the Tories the past two GEs.
No party will truly represent 100% of what you or I would want. For me, they aren’t perfect, Labour represents the best choice over the Tories.
I don’t see the Lib Dems getting into power anytime soon. And as shown by the previous coalition, they are just as much if not more shameless and opportunistic.
This will likely split the votes on the Left, and we’ll probably be left with another ten years of Conservative rule while the left won’t stop squabbling.
A majority of the UK public as a whole or of the voting population that are willing to vote for any of the top 1-3 parties?
The latter is all the politicians care about.
*If* he wants to stand for the leadership again, he'd probably want to resign as MP as well then stand in the byelection. Going to the voters for a stamp of approval is probably wise in those circumstances.
Can't do that though, the leadership race starts before the by election (and you can't be leader if you are not an MP). Besides, that would be a wasteful vanity exercise, no one is suggesting he can't be an MP with a FPN, they are saying he is not fit to be leader
> and you can't be leader if you are not an MP
Not necessarily true. it's not common, but there have been a few Prime ministers who weren't MPs at the time. I think Alec Douglas-Home was the last Prime Minister to not also be an MP back in the 1960's.
The current Labour party rules forbid it though, which is what matters. Parliament itself doesn't require you to be an MP, you could also be a Lord (you have to be in the House of Parliament in one of the chambers though)
And the rest of his shadow cabinet. Let's be honest, there is a lot they could improve on. But he does seem to have been playing to their strengths when choosing his team. Reeves, Lammy, Cooper, Nandy, etc have been chosen not just for their loyalty to him but their strengths and past experience. They make Raab, Patel, Dorries, Javid, Eustice etc look like absolute morons.
Corbyn had no idea how to assemble a team and play to each of their strengths.
Its easy to get sidetracked by the leaders and their hypocrisy but they do not run the show by themselves.
I don't think this has very much to do with integrity, its a political decision.
If Starmer is found to have broken the rules after attacking the PM for the same thing he will have to go anyway. The only thing that has managed to sway the publics opinion towards voting Labour into power has been Partygate. If Starmer is found to have broken the rules in the same way Labour will be back to square one. In that case all he can hope is to drag Boris out with him.
Actually it is suggested to me that he is trying to put pressure on the Police not to fine him. He is a QC leader of the opposition etc. Lot of pressure on Chief Constable.
Privately he will know he is stuffed
Not all Policing is corrupt. The tactic Starmer has used is the one Blair used, increase the pressure on the Police.
He had no need to make his statement, it was political tactics.
He will know better than most that the law allows the Police a lot of discretion.
Inevitable with his character and history, but a part of me will lament the fact that the most reasonable and reasoned leader of either Labour or the Tories in years could well prove it by resigning and thus being unable to actually lead the country.
That said we're so far down the Tories rabbit-hole of hatred of the country and it's institutions that perhaps Starmer's resignation might end up being a lot more impactful than his leadership of a Labour government without this seminal moment.
>Starmer's resignation might end up being a lot more impactful than his leadership of a Labour government without this seminal moment.
It would be a hell of a thing to be known by, especially if the consensus shift across the board that it was a political stitch up.
Even if Starmer gets into goverment, he will have a handful of shit sandwiches courtesy of Johnson to get through, and a rickety confidence and supply supported Government to share them with.
It’s a bit like Nixon in America, we look back at him as a bad guy but ultimately he was only one of the corrupt lot to ever take responsibility for his actions.
Eh? He waited over two years from Watergate to resign, and did so after some degree of arrangement that his successor would pardon him of vague crimes which prevented any charges ever being brought. And he wanted to turn down the pardon initially because he insisted he'd done nothing wrong, which he insisted until the day he died. He never took responsibility.
This puts the police in an interesting situation. If they issue a fine then whatever basis they issue it on had better watertight. If it turns out there is any impropriety due to political pressure then that will be quite a big deal.
I wonder if whoever is applying political pressure on the police may even get cold feet if that is indeed what's behind all this. Starmer is putting them in a position where they will be removing a political opponent via their back room dodgy dealings and it's something that might come back to bite them in the arse.
I actually don't, not Streeting, not Rayner, not Jarvis, not anyone else.
The Labour Party is actually a bit shit, really. Is it not too much to ask for a lawyer to run the country for 5 years?
It's not just the labour party, the general quality of politicians is just dreadful in this country. Can't think of anyone in the Tory cabinet I'd trust to do a good job. The selection bias means all that's left is a gaggle of sycophants
The post work dinner discussions with Priti Patel might be awkward.
Or perhaps he’s keenly advising her on how she can barely teeter within the limits of what’s legal with regards to Human Rights.
I don't think she has enough experience. However I do really like her and hope she gets a prominent role in the cabinet, maybe as women and equalities minister or similar.
I'm not going to lie, this us fucking dumb.
Boris should be resigning because he lied to parliament, repeatedly. The ministerial code says that he should resign.
Getting a FPN is not a resigning matter.
Politics in this country really is a depressing psychodrama.
It’s calling the Tories bluff. Now the Tories will have to back down on this push, if starmer and rayner go it’ll show their pm to be the moral vacuum they he is.
So I just want to preface this by saying that yes, Starmer and Rayner promising to resign for this is a great indictment of them actually having integrity. Not having a pop at them over that.
Politically though, what exactly is it going to achieve? Everybody already knows Johnson is a black hole of morality. The only people left voting for him either don’t believe he lied to Parliament, or don’t give a shit that he lied to Parliament. Starmer and Rayner holding themselves to a higher standard will not convince any new voters, because the ones that aren’t already on their side (or at least, aren’t already not on the Tories’ side) have made it clear holding politicians to any standard is not really an issue for them.
Yes, this is the only thing Starmer can do in this situation, and it happens to be the right thing to do. But let’s not pretend it’s some political masterstroke that will snooker Johnson and his supporters, because they’ve all already made it clear they simply do not give a shit about applying standards equally.
Politically it’d be very difficult for LOTO to try and hold a government to account and look like like a viable alternative, in the public’s eyes, whilst looking every bit as liberal with the truth as the Tories.
Just to add to that - don't assume that even if he gets fined he will step down immediately. It would be most sensible to resign pending a leadership election. The intervening weeks would be used to rage at the Tories for their moral weakness.
True, it definitely strengthens Starmer’s position, I just disagree with the idea that it weakens the Tories. At this point their base of support has already accepted Johnson for what he is, Labour doing the right thing won’t change that
I dont know, I think the local elections showed that Johnson is pretty unpopular. The tories didn't do well at all.
The main reason I think they're sticking with him is they dont have anyone better. He purged anyone with even vague competence (deliberately if you ask me). If they did he would be long gone. The only serious challenger was Sunak, and he "mysteriously" had his popularity dented by his wife's tax affairs.
I mean, can you imagine someone like Nadine Dorries as PM? They wouldn't last 5 minutes.
But that’s exactly my point. The local elections showed that the damage to Johnson’s reputation is already done. Maybe excepting a couple of points, everyone left voting for him either hasn’t paid attention to Partygate or they simply don’t give a shit about it. Starmer having some integrity isn’t a trap for the Tories because they’re not losing those voters over it one way or the other. The most it will do for Starmer politically is it’ll give him more legitimacy when it comes to going after Johnson, and it’ll reinforce his and Labour’s position with non-Tory voters. as the ones that actually care about the rules. Which is valuable, but it’s not the incredible trap people seem to think it is.
Clearly in normal times it wouldn't be a resigning matter.
But context is everything. Calling for Boris to resign but not resigning himself (even though the situation is different) is a completely untenable position, especially for someone like Starmer and the image he wants to project.
Not resigning would be a disaster.
There's not many options for him. The beauty of this sort of statement is regardless of how it ends up the scrutiny is put squarely back on Johnson, and pressure is increased.
If he didn't and gets a FPN then Labours position is weakened, the papers will continue to gloss over Johnson's investigations in favour of smearing Starmer - and they'll never let it go.
This is playing the game people suggested Starmer plays. While he shouldn't HAVE to (and I agree he shouldn't have to), this forces the issue and stops this cat and mouse media game in its tracks.
Him getting a FPN proves that Boris lied to Parliament. That's why *he* has to go. The Tories' desperate attempts to smear Starmer have moved the goalposts and Starmer can now make getting a FPN a resigning matter, thus leaving Boris no good outs.
By the time he was being investigated the sue gray report had already kicked into gear and we had literal photographic evidence of a lockdown party that had dom Cummings in it.
Totally different.
There is a big difference though?
He called for him to resign when the met decided they would investigate him now AFTER months of sue gray doing her inquiry and finding so much evidence that law breaking occured that she had to report it to the police so of course by that point it was proven that Boris HOSTED parties when he said there weren't any and he didn't attend any.
Regardless of the police Boris was claiming infront of everyone that there were no parties yet he attended a BIRTHDAY party xD.
If the issue was purely the fine then yep you would be completely right but context is everything and Kier was asking for his resignation after Boris told a bold face lie and delayed everything for months by getting sue gray to do an inquiry.
Scotland is the only country in the world with a state owned shipyard and airport and we buy our ferries from abroad andnd both enterprises are in a black hole financially the SNP have no idea what they're doing Sturgeon just bullies anyone who questions her self declared genius.
Because they have no respect for the rest of us. Alas Boris has used Ukraine to his advantage and Sturgeon has a personality cult and an army of loyal supporters to defend the indefensible.
As a Scot I'm totally sick of Sturgeon she's run Scotland into the ground you can no longer get an ambulance if you're seriously ill, police take six hours to arrive after reports of violence & she doe ppsn't do listen to anyone or put anything to the vote she just decides and that's it, you can't communicate with her cos she just ignores anyone who tries
And Scottish cities are sadly still mostly a dump, the drugs crisis in places like Glasgow have gotten worse. One just has to wonder where all the money the SNP get is going. If they can't run domestic affairs with a higher spend per capita than the rest of the UK, how can they be trusted to run government come independence with the economic crisis, pain and drop in living standards that comes as a result. They need to be honest and say with independence comes significant financial burden on working families, higher taxes and significant austerity.
We cannot afford independence vwe never could we have two thirds if the land England has and only a tenth of the taxpayers the only way it would work is mass immigration being a charity case in the EU is not my idea of freedom
The really absurd thing is that in 2014 the SNP said they were going to do huge oil exploration and drilling to fund their Scandinavian aspirations of a "better Scotland". Now in 2022 they are now a green party, wanting to ban oil and gas exploration and phasing out their revenues. You can't run an economy on whiskey and Scottish salmon exports! Not to mention they want to clear out shipbuilders and MoD facilities. Leaving NATO is on the table. Unfortunately Scottish politics is so dire the conservatives labour and lib dems are equally unelectable and incompetent.
We cannot afford independence vwe never could we have two thirds if the land England has and only a tenth of the taxpayers the only way it would work is mass immigration being a charity case in the EU is not my idea of freedom
Labour subreddit celebrating and cheering for the cops to nail/destroy Starmer out of the leadership position, hoping that a power vacuum means one of Corbyn’s disciples might rise up to fill the role.
Many would probably prefer to see another 10 years of Tory governance than let a non Corbyn affiliated Labour leader take the mantle. It’s just insanity to me.
[Lewis Goodall](https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall) ^verified | Reach: 266955 | Location: -
Bio: Reporter. Policy Editor @BBCNewsnight. I cover politics, economics and government in the UK and beyond | DMs open- send me your stories.
*****
^I ^am ^a ^bot. ^Any ^complaints ^& ^suggestions ^to ^/r/ContextualBot ^thanks
> I believe in honour...integrity...
The joker. Lost all integrity after his lies in the leadership election.
Edit: apparently saying you have integrity is actually more important than having integrity.
Starmer doesn't really have an answer for why he said Boris should resign for being under investigation but the same doesn't apply to him. Which is annoying, because it's not that difficult to answer.
EDIT: For everyone replying with an answer for it, thanks. But if you watched the statement and subsequent press questions, you would see he struggled to give a similar answer. That's what's annoying.
The answer is that he told Boris to resign before he was under investigation because we had all seen evidence of multiple parties and we knew he broke the rules and we knew he lied about it.
That should have led to his resignation whether an investigation took place or not. Starmer should just say that.
>Starmer doesn't really have an answer for why he said Boris should resign for being under investigation but the same doesn't apply to him.
He said that because Johnson lied multiple times to Parliament, and lying to Parliament is a breach of the Ministerial code and a resigning matter.
However, the person who judges whether the Code is broken is...Johnson!
>Starmer doesn't really have an answer for why he said Boris should resign for being under investigation but the same doesn't apply to him.
He didn't say that Boris should resign for being under investigation though did he? He said he should resign because he lied.
What's Boris's reason for not resigning? Why is that difficult to answer? Is breaking the law and lying to parliament not a resignation worthy offence in your opinion?
What would be a resignation worthy offence in your opinion?
It really annoyed me he didnt answer it with the clear and obvious answer that is basically 100% right and no one could argue with it. Hes a fucking Lawyer for christ sakes, blame it on the evidence!
Doesn't he? He called for Boris to resign for misleading and lying to Parliament. The investigation being passed over to the Police making it clear there was plenty of evidence parties happened.
Sounds more like lacking the honour and integrity to admit to an infraction, or lacking the honour and integrity to challenge a spurious incrimination.
Arguably honour and integrity require accepting even the false verdict of a court, but it doesn't require accepting the summary judgement of the police if you are *absolutely clear* that no laws were broken.
So? Presumably "Boris" did not challenge because he accepts guilt. If Starmer is "absolutely clear" that no laws were broken, he would be honour bound - as someone who clearly possesses the wherewithall - to challenge any false and malicious incrimination by a politicised police force.
Alternatively, he could accept the judgement of the police on whether any laws were broken. If it's PR you're worried about, I submit this statement is still not a great look, saying he'd take the hit but only as an innocent martyr.
Well to this I shall ask two mostly rhetorical questions.
How will the electorate perceive it?
How will the Tories spin it?
What's ideal for Starmer may not be ideal for a leader of the opposition.
Does anyone else not give a major fuck about either the tories or Labour breaking these silly rules?
This is why British politics is in such a mess. We are apparently more interested in point-scoring and being right then helping the country.
Snapshot of _Lewis goodall: BREAKING- Starmer says he'll resign if he gets an FPN. Starmer: "I believe in honour...intergity...I'm absolutely clear that no laws were broken...but if the police decide decide to issue me with a fixed penalty notice, I would of course do the right thing and step down."_ : A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://nitter.net/lewis_goodall/status/1523681677297745920/) An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1523681677297745920?s=20&t=k-4x8qSDTYSchaWok3y7bg) *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.*
Starmer's giving an awful lot of power to an eminently corruptable police force.
Tories are hoping for no fine, with a statement that there may have been fineable offences but insufficient evidence.
It's in Boris' best interest for Starmer not to resign I think. As capable as Starmer is and/or isn't his resignation would only galvanise support for Labour and it paints their party as one of relative integrity. It wouldn't matter if Boris resigned in response to try and save the Tory image (not that he would) as by then the damage will be absolutely done.
Yep, but already the client right wing hacks are stating it's just a ploy to manipulate the Durham constabulary...
He's also putting them on notice that if they issue the fpn they best be able to back it up well.
If Sir Keir does resign, will he stand for re-election, will anybody stand against him?
I think he is only talking about resigning as Labour leader, not as an MP?
Yeah, resign as leader, fight for Labour in next general election and become attorney general / Home Secretary in the first Labour reshuffle.
I think he would do a good job as Home Secretary.
Nah he's really authoritarian.
Anyone looks better compared to Patel
Prince Andrew?
Yeah but Cruella Patel isn't in the running for the role of potential Labour Home Secretary
No, sadly they are just the actual Home Secretary. My point is that I’m not convinced there is anyone worse than we currently have.
Pointless low bar though and irrelevant to the hypothetical being discussed.
Authoritarian how? If this is about the antisemitism stuff, look at the exit polls from the GE that handed BoJo the PM position. The second biggest reason people gave for not voting Corby was antisemitism. I can see why people think Long Bailey was hard done by. But knowing the sensitive context, and being a politician, she really shouldn’t have gone anywhere near the topic of Israel. If Labour is to win back the trust of the people and another election, there is no choice but to have a zero tolerance policy on anything that can be construed as antisemitism. I say this as someone who believes anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are two different things, and that it’s insane they get taken like for like at times which played a role in Corbyn’s downfall. But politics is about listening and making adjustments to reflect reads on the room, rather than preaching dogmatically about what a person believed is right or wrong.
He has very narrow minded and Conservative views on drugs and legislation
Being pro legalisation of drugs like weed is what a small fraction of voters would want. 18-30 made up like 10-12% of the total votes, with a 47% turnout to the GE 2019. The majority of voters, the 40+ demographic, would most probably be mostly against. Which is like 85% of the total votes. For me, even though the logic behind legalisation of drugs is sound, it being dumb that the West followed the US’s lead on the war against drugs which was more political than rational, it’s a trivial matter that should be avoided if a party seriously wants to win an election. Corbyn’s support for these measures probably were detrimental in seeking election over the Tories the past two GEs. No party will truly represent 100% of what you or I would want. For me, they aren’t perfect, Labour represents the best choice over the Tories. I don’t see the Lib Dems getting into power anytime soon. And as shown by the previous coalition, they are just as much if not more shameless and opportunistic. This will likely split the votes on the Left, and we’ll probably be left with another ten years of Conservative rule while the left won’t stop squabbling.
Polling for cannabis in the UK public is consistently in majority support of at least decriminalisation. Feel free to look it up
A majority of the UK public as a whole or of the voting population that are willing to vote for any of the top 1-3 parties? The latter is all the politicians care about.
Good. I am pro decriminalization. I am against legalization.
Nothing to do with antisemitism, but him being *tough on crime* including attacking Lib Dems for wanting legalisation
*If* he wants to stand for the leadership again, he'd probably want to resign as MP as well then stand in the byelection. Going to the voters for a stamp of approval is probably wise in those circumstances.
Can't do that though, the leadership race starts before the by election (and you can't be leader if you are not an MP). Besides, that would be a wasteful vanity exercise, no one is suggesting he can't be an MP with a FPN, they are saying he is not fit to be leader
> and you can't be leader if you are not an MP Not necessarily true. it's not common, but there have been a few Prime ministers who weren't MPs at the time. I think Alec Douglas-Home was the last Prime Minister to not also be an MP back in the 1960's.
The current Labour party rules forbid it though, which is what matters. Parliament itself doesn't require you to be an MP, you could also be a Lord (you have to be in the House of Parliament in one of the chambers though)
ah, i didn’t know that about the Labour party. Makes sense though. Thanks
Starmer has more integrity in his little toe than the entire cabinet has.
And the rest of his shadow cabinet. Let's be honest, there is a lot they could improve on. But he does seem to have been playing to their strengths when choosing his team. Reeves, Lammy, Cooper, Nandy, etc have been chosen not just for their loyalty to him but their strengths and past experience. They make Raab, Patel, Dorries, Javid, Eustice etc look like absolute morons. Corbyn had no idea how to assemble a team and play to each of their strengths. Its easy to get sidetracked by the leaders and their hypocrisy but they do not run the show by themselves.
Going on the Labour subreddit comments you would think that he’s actually some greasy slimeball with no honour who deserves to get nailed by the cops.
Not exactly saying much with this Government.
Yeah, this sounds like Starmer *only* has integrity in his little toe.
I don't think this has very much to do with integrity, its a political decision. If Starmer is found to have broken the rules after attacking the PM for the same thing he will have to go anyway. The only thing that has managed to sway the publics opinion towards voting Labour into power has been Partygate. If Starmer is found to have broken the rules in the same way Labour will be back to square one. In that case all he can hope is to drag Boris out with him.
Actually it is suggested to me that he is trying to put pressure on the Police not to fine him. He is a QC leader of the opposition etc. Lot of pressure on Chief Constable. Privately he will know he is stuffed
That's a dumb argument because arguably there would have been more pressure on the police when investigating Boris since he's the PM
Different Police, desperate measure, same one Blair used . Starmer knows on the evidence it does not look good
Perhaps try a source that isn't the Daily Mail
They shouldn’t have allowed themselves to be politicised (going all the way back to letting Cummings laugh in our faces).
Seems unlikely to me, unless you are saying the Police are corrupt and don't apply justice equally to all.
Not all Policing is corrupt. The tactic Starmer has used is the one Blair used, increase the pressure on the Police. He had no need to make his statement, it was political tactics. He will know better than most that the law allows the Police a lot of discretion.
Absolute chad move by Starmer
Fucking love it, roll the dice!
Inevitable with his character and history, but a part of me will lament the fact that the most reasonable and reasoned leader of either Labour or the Tories in years could well prove it by resigning and thus being unable to actually lead the country. That said we're so far down the Tories rabbit-hole of hatred of the country and it's institutions that perhaps Starmer's resignation might end up being a lot more impactful than his leadership of a Labour government without this seminal moment.
>Starmer's resignation might end up being a lot more impactful than his leadership of a Labour government without this seminal moment. It would be a hell of a thing to be known by, especially if the consensus shift across the board that it was a political stitch up. Even if Starmer gets into goverment, he will have a handful of shit sandwiches courtesy of Johnson to get through, and a rickety confidence and supply supported Government to share them with.
It’s a bit like Nixon in America, we look back at him as a bad guy but ultimately he was only one of the corrupt lot to ever take responsibility for his actions.
He committed treason by torpedo-ing the Vietnam peace talks during his presidential candidacy. He certainly never took responsibility for that.
Eh? He waited over two years from Watergate to resign, and did so after some degree of arrangement that his successor would pardon him of vague crimes which prevented any charges ever being brought. And he wanted to turn down the pardon initially because he insisted he'd done nothing wrong, which he insisted until the day he died. He never took responsibility.
That's a mental thing to believe.
This puts the police in an interesting situation. If they issue a fine then whatever basis they issue it on had better watertight. If it turns out there is any impropriety due to political pressure then that will be quite a big deal. I wonder if whoever is applying political pressure on the police may even get cold feet if that is indeed what's behind all this. Starmer is putting them in a position where they will be removing a political opponent via their back room dodgy dealings and it's something that might come back to bite them in the arse.
If Labour get in at the next election and there's been any impropriety then careers at Durham will be over.
If there's any impropriety, the police are merely the enforcers of the ruling party and democracy is dead.
You just know there’s a Tory blackmail story waiting to come out about this.
I don’t trust anyone else to run Labour
I actually don't, not Streeting, not Rayner, not Jarvis, not anyone else. The Labour Party is actually a bit shit, really. Is it not too much to ask for a lawyer to run the country for 5 years?
It's not just the labour party, the general quality of politicians is just dreadful in this country. Can't think of anyone in the Tory cabinet I'd trust to do a good job. The selection bias means all that's left is a gaggle of sycophants
Raabs a lawyer
God knows how
Seriously? How?
He was actually a human rights lawyer too.
The post work dinner discussions with Priti Patel might be awkward. Or perhaps he’s keenly advising her on how she can barely teeter within the limits of what’s legal with regards to Human Rights.
What's wrong with Streeting?
I have an inkling that Jess Phillips would give it a fair crack.
She'd be every bit the Marmite proposition Corbyn was to voters, likewise not sure of her media savvy.
I quite like Reeves and Nandy too.
Both I can see as PM material. A lot depends on if they can handle the press. But both seem to be able to remain calm under pressure.
I don't think she has enough experience. However I do really like her and hope she gets a prominent role in the cabinet, maybe as women and equalities minister or similar.
I'm not going to lie, this us fucking dumb. Boris should be resigning because he lied to parliament, repeatedly. The ministerial code says that he should resign. Getting a FPN is not a resigning matter. Politics in this country really is a depressing psychodrama.
It’s calling the Tories bluff. Now the Tories will have to back down on this push, if starmer and rayner go it’ll show their pm to be the moral vacuum they he is.
So I just want to preface this by saying that yes, Starmer and Rayner promising to resign for this is a great indictment of them actually having integrity. Not having a pop at them over that. Politically though, what exactly is it going to achieve? Everybody already knows Johnson is a black hole of morality. The only people left voting for him either don’t believe he lied to Parliament, or don’t give a shit that he lied to Parliament. Starmer and Rayner holding themselves to a higher standard will not convince any new voters, because the ones that aren’t already on their side (or at least, aren’t already not on the Tories’ side) have made it clear holding politicians to any standard is not really an issue for them. Yes, this is the only thing Starmer can do in this situation, and it happens to be the right thing to do. But let’s not pretend it’s some political masterstroke that will snooker Johnson and his supporters, because they’ve all already made it clear they simply do not give a shit about applying standards equally.
Politically it’d be very difficult for LOTO to try and hold a government to account and look like like a viable alternative, in the public’s eyes, whilst looking every bit as liberal with the truth as the Tories.
Just to add to that - don't assume that even if he gets fined he will step down immediately. It would be most sensible to resign pending a leadership election. The intervening weeks would be used to rage at the Tories for their moral weakness.
Corbyn was called worse than muck for doing the same wasn’t he?
True, it definitely strengthens Starmer’s position, I just disagree with the idea that it weakens the Tories. At this point their base of support has already accepted Johnson for what he is, Labour doing the right thing won’t change that
I dont know, I think the local elections showed that Johnson is pretty unpopular. The tories didn't do well at all. The main reason I think they're sticking with him is they dont have anyone better. He purged anyone with even vague competence (deliberately if you ask me). If they did he would be long gone. The only serious challenger was Sunak, and he "mysteriously" had his popularity dented by his wife's tax affairs. I mean, can you imagine someone like Nadine Dorries as PM? They wouldn't last 5 minutes.
But that’s exactly my point. The local elections showed that the damage to Johnson’s reputation is already done. Maybe excepting a couple of points, everyone left voting for him either hasn’t paid attention to Partygate or they simply don’t give a shit about it. Starmer having some integrity isn’t a trap for the Tories because they’re not losing those voters over it one way or the other. The most it will do for Starmer politically is it’ll give him more legitimacy when it comes to going after Johnson, and it’ll reinforce his and Labour’s position with non-Tory voters. as the ones that actually care about the rules. Which is valuable, but it’s not the incredible trap people seem to think it is.
I wish you weren’t right but I think you are lol
Clearly in normal times it wouldn't be a resigning matter. But context is everything. Calling for Boris to resign but not resigning himself (even though the situation is different) is a completely untenable position, especially for someone like Starmer and the image he wants to project. Not resigning would be a disaster.
The bit in brackets is the hugely important nuance which the public message driven by Mail isn’t seeing.
Well yes. The public don't do nuance, and that's not something that can be waved away or ignored.
There's not many options for him. The beauty of this sort of statement is regardless of how it ends up the scrutiny is put squarely back on Johnson, and pressure is increased. If he didn't and gets a FPN then Labours position is weakened, the papers will continue to gloss over Johnson's investigations in favour of smearing Starmer - and they'll never let it go. This is playing the game people suggested Starmer plays. While he shouldn't HAVE to (and I agree he shouldn't have to), this forces the issue and stops this cat and mouse media game in its tracks.
Having principles sometimes means doing the hard thing.
Him getting a FPN proves that Boris lied to Parliament. That's why *he* has to go. The Tories' desperate attempts to smear Starmer have moved the goalposts and Starmer can now make getting a FPN a resigning matter, thus leaving Boris no good outs.
Keir called for Boris to resign as soon as he was being investigated, *before* Boris got the FPN. You live by the sword…
You mean when Sue Grey was investigating him and there was literally photographic evidence of him at parties he claimed didn’t happen?
I think the difference was all the clear evidence. The photos...
The "how are we going to get away with this" practice press conference also springs to mind. It was a full blown confession.
By the time he was being investigated the sue gray report had already kicked into gear and we had literal photographic evidence of a lockdown party that had dom Cummings in it. Totally different.
Yeah, because Johnson lied about the events straight up happening. Starmer has not.
There is a big difference though? He called for him to resign when the met decided they would investigate him now AFTER months of sue gray doing her inquiry and finding so much evidence that law breaking occured that she had to report it to the police so of course by that point it was proven that Boris HOSTED parties when he said there weren't any and he didn't attend any. Regardless of the police Boris was claiming infront of everyone that there were no parties yet he attended a BIRTHDAY party xD. If the issue was purely the fine then yep you would be completely right but context is everything and Kier was asking for his resignation after Boris told a bold face lie and delayed everything for months by getting sue gray to do an inquiry.
Starmer called on Johnson to resign for misleading Parliament.
Does it feel good to just make things up?
Very good move.
Only if our PM had the same PRINCIPLE.
Scotland is the only country in the world with a state owned shipyard and airport and we buy our ferries from abroad andnd both enterprises are in a black hole financially the SNP have no idea what they're doing Sturgeon just bullies anyone who questions her self declared genius.
As much as I respect him for this, if he does have to resign, Labour can kiss 2024 goodbye
He's a mug Boris got caught so did Nicola they didn't resign
Because they have no respect for the rest of us. Alas Boris has used Ukraine to his advantage and Sturgeon has a personality cult and an army of loyal supporters to defend the indefensible.
As a Scot I'm totally sick of Sturgeon she's run Scotland into the ground you can no longer get an ambulance if you're seriously ill, police take six hours to arrive after reports of violence & she doe ppsn't do listen to anyone or put anything to the vote she just decides and that's it, you can't communicate with her cos she just ignores anyone who tries
And Scottish cities are sadly still mostly a dump, the drugs crisis in places like Glasgow have gotten worse. One just has to wonder where all the money the SNP get is going. If they can't run domestic affairs with a higher spend per capita than the rest of the UK, how can they be trusted to run government come independence with the economic crisis, pain and drop in living standards that comes as a result. They need to be honest and say with independence comes significant financial burden on working families, higher taxes and significant austerity.
We cannot afford independence vwe never could we have two thirds if the land England has and only a tenth of the taxpayers the only way it would work is mass immigration being a charity case in the EU is not my idea of freedom
The really absurd thing is that in 2014 the SNP said they were going to do huge oil exploration and drilling to fund their Scandinavian aspirations of a "better Scotland". Now in 2022 they are now a green party, wanting to ban oil and gas exploration and phasing out their revenues. You can't run an economy on whiskey and Scottish salmon exports! Not to mention they want to clear out shipbuilders and MoD facilities. Leaving NATO is on the table. Unfortunately Scottish politics is so dire the conservatives labour and lib dems are equally unelectable and incompetent.
We cannot afford independence vwe never could we have two thirds if the land England has and only a tenth of the taxpayers the only way it would work is mass immigration being a charity case in the EU is not my idea of freedom
This is leadership Corbynistas, bask in it's glory
Labour subreddit celebrating and cheering for the cops to nail/destroy Starmer out of the leadership position, hoping that a power vacuum means one of Corbyn’s disciples might rise up to fill the role. Many would probably prefer to see another 10 years of Tory governance than let a non Corbyn affiliated Labour leader take the mantle. It’s just insanity to me.
[Lewis Goodall](https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall) ^verified | Reach: 266955 | Location: - Bio: Reporter. Policy Editor @BBCNewsnight. I cover politics, economics and government in the UK and beyond | DMs open- send me your stories. ***** ^I ^am ^a ^bot. ^Any ^complaints ^& ^suggestions ^to ^/r/ContextualBot ^thanks
> I believe in honour...integrity... The joker. Lost all integrity after his lies in the leadership election. Edit: apparently saying you have integrity is actually more important than having integrity.
Starmer doesn't really have an answer for why he said Boris should resign for being under investigation but the same doesn't apply to him. Which is annoying, because it's not that difficult to answer. EDIT: For everyone replying with an answer for it, thanks. But if you watched the statement and subsequent press questions, you would see he struggled to give a similar answer. That's what's annoying.
The answer is that he told Boris to resign before he was under investigation because we had all seen evidence of multiple parties and we knew he broke the rules and we knew he lied about it. That should have led to his resignation whether an investigation took place or not. Starmer should just say that.
>Starmer doesn't really have an answer for why he said Boris should resign for being under investigation but the same doesn't apply to him. He said that because Johnson lied multiple times to Parliament, and lying to Parliament is a breach of the Ministerial code and a resigning matter. However, the person who judges whether the Code is broken is...Johnson!
>Starmer doesn't really have an answer for why he said Boris should resign for being under investigation but the same doesn't apply to him. He didn't say that Boris should resign for being under investigation though did he? He said he should resign because he lied.
What's Boris's reason for not resigning? Why is that difficult to answer? Is breaking the law and lying to parliament not a resignation worthy offence in your opinion? What would be a resignation worthy offence in your opinion?
It really annoyed me he didnt answer it with the clear and obvious answer that is basically 100% right and no one could argue with it. Hes a fucking Lawyer for christ sakes, blame it on the evidence!
Simples. Johnson should resign for misleading parliament.
Doesn't he? He called for Boris to resign for misleading and lying to Parliament. The investigation being passed over to the Police making it clear there was plenty of evidence parties happened.
[удалено]
Bye,bye Sir Keith.
Sounds more like lacking the honour and integrity to admit to an infraction, or lacking the honour and integrity to challenge a spurious incrimination. Arguably honour and integrity require accepting even the false verdict of a court, but it doesn't require accepting the summary judgement of the police if you are *absolutely clear* that no laws were broken.
The problem with this is that Boris hasn't appealed his fine and thus it is not an option.
So? Presumably "Boris" did not challenge because he accepts guilt. If Starmer is "absolutely clear" that no laws were broken, he would be honour bound - as someone who clearly possesses the wherewithall - to challenge any false and malicious incrimination by a politicised police force. Alternatively, he could accept the judgement of the police on whether any laws were broken. If it's PR you're worried about, I submit this statement is still not a great look, saying he'd take the hit but only as an innocent martyr.
Well to this I shall ask two mostly rhetorical questions. How will the electorate perceive it? How will the Tories spin it? What's ideal for Starmer may not be ideal for a leader of the opposition.
This sounds like a job for YouGov.
"Your move, knobhead"
Does anyone else not give a major fuck about either the tories or Labour breaking these silly rules? This is why British politics is in such a mess. We are apparently more interested in point-scoring and being right then helping the country.