lol … I think you missed something though … ‘Got Brexit Done !’
Obviously so. Certainly justifiable at the very minimum.
Really? These were the rules at the time.
Do you think you’d be justifying the whole Durham thing if it was Johnson?
That’s rhetorical. I know the answer.
No I don’t. Because…
-
the Beergate incident is absolutely trivial compared to the scale of the rule breaking and disregard for the public going on at Number Ten. It isn’t just the 18 November. It’s a multitude of offences across many occurrences. Many of which involved Johnson, and the rest occurred within a culture at number ten that he is responsible for. I’m not pillorying Johnson for going to a leaving do and egging his staff on to drink - I’m pullioring him for the whole lot and suggesting that this isn’t countered by a single Labour event when they don’t appear to have done much, if anything, wrong.
-
the Partygate scandal is a glimpse into a much greater issue of unaccountability, lawlessness, and corruption centred around Johnson. It’s the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the stench around him, and that can’t be said for Starmer.
-
Many of the allegations about the Labour event aren’t true. You made the comment that no work happened after the curry. Labour have already said this isn’t true, and that people carried on working and they can prove as much. The Tory MP at the centre of this pressure on Labour alerted the police over a Labour Politician saying to activists in a Facebook message ‘Have a ‘greasy time tonight’, suggesting this means boozy. It was an autocorrect typo that was immediately corrected the ‘have a great time’.
Simply put, the Tories and their friends in the press, have exaggerated this into a wholly manufactured case of whataboutery. There is so much mud being flung, a lot of it in extremely bad faith.
That’s why it doesn’t wash. The Tories response to their own problem wasn’t to own their shit and take responsibility. It was to find something, anything, that they could pin on the opposition. So they dredged up a old story about Labour that had already been investigated and dismissed by the police, and throw as much shit as it as they could to try and force a new investigation.
To be honest it isn’t the fact that Johnson so egregiously broke his own rules that bothers me. Everyone makes mistakes and can get thing wrong from time to time. If he didn’t already have such a monumental track record for deceit, dishonesty and his own sense of exceptionalism, a swift apology, acknowledging that he got it wrong and misunderstood the situation would have probably been ok.
But what was his first impulse when he was rumbled? He lied. He lied and lied and lied and lied. He said there wasn’t a party, then he said he wasn’t there, then he didn’t know it was a party. And so on and so on. And then when his routine lying didn’t work out, it became let’s try and drag everyone else into the gutter with us.
1 Like
No I wouldn’t be justifying Beergate if it were Johnson, because you and I both know there wouldn’t be a Beergate to justify. It would never been escalated to the point it is now by the Labour Party or the Press.
There is also a context of pathological dishonesty, ignorance and casual disregard for any kind of rule that surrounds Johnson, and makes the benefit of the doubt less available. That isn’t true of Starmer.
The difference is that ‘Beergate’ was a work event, that was (according to the police first time around) within the rules, and within the guidelines you just posted. And Labour are reportedly very confident that they did their diligence around the event and it was totally within the rules.
Johnson’s Partygate scandal was very different. It was a more casual ignorant disregard for the rules. It was indicative of a culture of exceptionalism. The police have already handed out hundreds of fines and Sue Grey’s report is apparently going to sting.
There is no equivalence.
2 Likes
You won’t find any argument from me about the cultural problems at downing street and whitehall. And I agree that he’s accountable for that. I really think that focusing on the specifics is pointless because and certainly doesn’t help your (/Labour’s) cause. It makes you look hypocritical when you defend Starmer for the Durham trip but lambast Johnson for giving a toast at a leaving do. By focusing on events, you’re opening up the Durham episode to scrutiny in return. I’d argue that’s not in your interests; not only politically but also in terms of the wider public. I sense that most people are just bored of this shit being picked over and see it as a distraction to the real issues of the day. Yes, it’s important in terms of Johnson’s moral credibility (which wasn’t really there anyway), but people would much rather the focus was on cost of living, ukraine, northern ireland protocol, inflation, making work pay, social care, NHS etc, etc. Labour are being seen to have made a bit of a song and dance over lockdown events and then wanting to shift the focus away as soon as Durham came back into the spotlight. Frankly, that smacks of hypocrisy and was always likely to bite them in the arse a bit. Genuinely - it’s not in Labour’s interests to keep gnawing at this bone so far off from a general election, it will come across as petty if it hasn’t already.
The difference is that Boris repeatedly and definitively denied all knowledge of any parties going on. That was his initial defence. Yet it turnsout he was at and knew about many of them. He lied plain and simple.
Labour have never denied anything about Beergate. The only question around it is the severity of rule breaking (if any).
2 Likes
Starmer should not have been “socialising indoors except with his household or support bubble”
Starmer should “work from home if he can”
Starmer should “minimise travel as much as possible”
Pretty sure it doesn’t fall within any of the campaign exemptions either
Exception 20: campaigning
(29) Exception 20 is that—
(a)the gathering consists of no more than two people, at least one of whom is a campaigner (“C”),
(b)where the gathering takes place at the private dwelling of a person (“P”), C remains, for the duration of the gathering—
(i)outside P’s private dwelling,
(ii)in an outdoor part of P’s private dwelling, or
(iii)in a common part of the building of which P’s private dwelling forms a part, and
(c)the gathering is reasonably necessary for the purposes of campaigning in an election or a referendum held in accordance with provision made by or under an Act.
But it was ok for him to travel hundreds of miles, with Angela Rayner, to help campaign in a by-election; then enjoy a drink and a curry indoors with those local activists at the end of the working day?
Right…
I’m a hypocrite for defending Starmer for a legitimate work event already waived away by the police once but criticising Johnson for an example of the culture of casual disregard for the rules that has characterised his entire career.
Yes. As already concluded and dismissed by Durham police.
I’ve heard that they’re having another look at it.
But not for any of the things you’ve just mentioned.
Makes for pretty shameful reading
1 Like
But this is all totally the same as ordering in a takeaway for your staff when there was no other option to cater for them.
2 Likes
Nobody’s said it is 
So while you all have the party you choose to support, as an outsider, from what I am reading, can I conclude that both parties are/have idiots?
Politicians- by default they’re likely to be dicks.
By referring to me as a hypocrite for defending one and not the other, you’re not far off.
The thing you’re choosing to ignore is that I’m not defending what was clearly the culture pervading Whitehall and Downing Street.
I’m taking issue with focusing on specific events (the 13 November leaving do), your assertion of wrongdoing, whilst simultaneously justifying Starmer’s Durham episode.
fukin 'ell … I can’t wait to hear him try and bat away these accounts. The lying bastard doesn’t have a leg to stand on !
1 Like