Partygate Debate

[Lost Seasider]

When you sit back and look at it without any political goggles on it is clear it is just political mud slinging by all parties fuelled by the media.

The story is not really about what they did and did not do, it's about spending 4 months claiming to be squeaky clean, hammering away at the government on the issue day after day, and all the while Starmer, Rayner and Co. were guilty of what appears to be a significantly more egregious breach of the rules.

 

[hertfordseasider]

The story is not really about what they did and did not do, it's about spending 4 months claiming to be squeaky clean, hammering away at the government on the issue day after day, and all the while Starmer, Rayner and Co. were guilty of what appears to be a significantly more egregious breach of the rules.

As I said it is the fact they have all lied, which probably should be the definition of "Politician" in the Oxford English Dictionary

 

[Lost Seasider]

As I said it is the fact they have all lied, which probably should be the definition of "Politician" in the Oxford English Dictionary

Have they? Can you point to any direct lies told by the PM, and by lies I mean knowing untruths and not just something that was later shown to be wrong?

Even in the case of Sir Keir, I am hesitant to use the word "lied", he may well have thought it was a work event and entirely within the rules, the fact that he was wrong does not make him a liar.

In any event, to repeat, the story is not about what they did or did not do, the story is about spending 4 months demanding resignations on the issue only to have it demonstrated that he was up to the exact same thing himself (in fact worse).

 

[southshorepool]

The story is not really about what they did and did not do, it's about spending 4 months claiming to be squeaky clean, hammering away at the government on the issue day after day, and all the while Starmer, Rayner and Co. were guilty of what appears to be a significantly more egregious breach of the rules.

'Significantly more egregious'. I'm not sure what planet you're on. The PM is under investigation for a dozen potential breaches of a law he enacted. Starmer for a curry and a beer at a local Labour Party office during an election campaign. Talk about blue tinted specs.
And before you ask; if Starmer is found to have broken the law he should offer his resignation as leader.

 

[Wizaard]

'Significantly more egregious'. I'm not sure what planet you're on. The PM is under investigation for a dozen potential breaches of a law he enacted. Starmer for a curry and a beer at a local Labour party office during an election campaign. Talk about blue tinted specs.
And before you ask; if Starmer is found to have broken the law he should offer his resignation as leader.

Which he may well do, unlike the serial liar as PM.

 

[1966_and_all_that]

Correct on all counts. It's not what Starmer did, it's the fact that he lied about it as well as his sanctimonious claims that the PM and Chancellor should have resigned when put under investigation. Now, we know beergate was pre-planned and that people who were not working attended, it's clear this is a matter of principle. In accordance with Starmer's own rule book, he is required to resign.

Before you get too carried away with whataboutery headlines from the Heil, just bear this in mind....they are aimed at you to elicit your reaction.

None of this is proven.
None of this has been tested against the laws operating at the time.
The Heil ran this stuff too take attention away from the Tories getting stuffed at the locals.

 

[1966_and_all_that]

The story is not really about what they did and did not do, it's about spending 4 months claiming to be squeaky clean, hammering away at the government on the issue day after day, and all the while Starmer, Rayner and Co. were guilty of what appears to be a significantly more egregious breach of the rules.

You regularly claim to look at issues in an insightful way, dissecting arguments and statistics. On this occasion you appear to let your politics lead you by the nose.

 

[Wizaard]

The story is not really about what they did and did not do, it's about spending 4 months claiming to be squeaky clean, hammering away at the government on the issue day after day, and all the while Starmer, Rayner and Co. were guilty of what appears to be a significantly more egregious breach of the rules.

So you're OK with 4 months at least of daily revelations of misdemeanours from our leader?

 

[tommytwojags]

Before you get too carried away with whataboutery headlines from the Heil, just bear this in mind....they are aimed at you to elicit your reaction.

None of this is proven.
None of this has been tested against the laws operating at the time.
The Heil ran this stuff too take attention away from the Tories getting stuffed at the locals.

But Starmer said that Boris and Rishi should resign - fact. He said that Boris must go because he was under police investigation regardless of whether he was fined - fact. Keir's event was not an ad hoc working snack, but a pre-planned meal to which others who were not working were invited - fact. Keir created his rules and to be fair is big enough to honour them. It's all very straightforward. Your attempt to blame one of the many newspapers reporting on the matter is odd to say the least.

 

[1966_and_all_that]

But Starmer said that Boris and Rishi should resign - fact. He said that Boris must go because he was under police investigation regardless of whether he was fined - fact. Keir's event was not an ad hoc working snack, but a pre-planned meal to which others who were not working were invited - fact. Keir created his rules and to be fair is big enough to honour them. It's all very straightforward. Your attempt to blame one of the many newspapers reporting on the matter is odd to say the least.

Come on TTJ. I wrote that when it was clear that Starmer had been looked at by the Police and was cleared. If he is now fined he will do the honourable thing and resign.
My view? Starmer is an honourable man and deserves his position. Johnson isn't and doesn't