Support public health measures or defeat a Tory government what should ban opposition leader do?

I agree Kali2. Granset should not be a vehicle to promote proven falsehoods.

Back to the thread, surely we would all want any honourable politician regardless of political persuasion to put public health before political point scoring. The desperate left of the Labour Party trying to suggest that Starmer should have behaved other than honourably in the current crisis is just stirring the pot to see if they can get some reaction. It’s quite pathetic.

rosie1959

Depends which you think is the most important the health of the nation or trying to get a vote of no confidence.
Now if Starmer is the man people expect him to be he will back the regulations rather than scoring points against the opposition

I would be surprised and very disappointed if he didn’t vote FOR the health measures,

I don’t necessarily believe in the government’s position and given the chance, I’d vote against it.

Having said that I applaud the decision by Starmer to vote with the government for what he believes is the public good. It would be so easy to vote against the measures and the he could rightly be accused of playing politics. In that case Boris’ jibes would be correct.

If you read about cases involving Nazir Afzal, the solicitor, then you'll see the truth. I don't do false nor libel.

Grany

#KeirStarmer tells #Tories to oust #BorisJohnson – but is planning to support him on #PlanB. Contradiction?

I'm not sure how you think that defeating Johnson in a vote over this public health measure is going to oust Johnson?

It won't make any difference to Johnson's tenure of the office of PM. All it will do will lump Labour in with the looney rightwing, so called 'libertarian', fringe of the tory party and give Johnson a stick to beat Starmer with.

Johnson will only go if pushed by the tory party; i.e by a vote of no confidence in his leadership.. It really is time that this was recognised.

Thank you for putting the record right Casdon

www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-britain-savile-idUSL1N2RP200

This is an open forum, for all to see. It is important that GN do not put themselves in the legal firing line by publishing libellous falsehoods.

And at least I am open and honest about it.

Calistemon

Kali2

Reported as false and libel.

Actually, Starmer himself has admitted failures during his time at the CPS, including the Rochdale grooming gangs and Saville.

So there was no need for reporting EV

I did not report the person, but the post. False and libel.

EllanVannin

It was not a libel post. The barrister ( Nazir Afzal ) in the Rochdale case, who I respect enormously fought hard in the grooming case and got no support. Starmer didn't think the case was serious enough at the time.

You know what, EV, we went through all of this with you over a year ago when Starmer first became leader of the Labour Party.

You were completely wrong and out of order to be pushing this slander then and you don't seem to have learned from everything you were told about it.

If you persist in this I shall report you for continually posting slanderous falsehoods.

EllanVannin

I've also reported Kali2 for their misunderstanding of what is already on the internet for all to see.

Wouldn’t it be cleverer to just drop it?

Full facts EllanVannin.
www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-britain-savile-idUSL1N2RP200

I've also reported Kali2 for their misunderstanding of what is already on the internet for all to see.

If you look into Starmer's time as a QC, online, you'll see proof.

It was not a libel post. The barrister ( Nazir Afzal ) in the Rochdale case, who I respect enormously fought hard in the grooming case and got no support. Starmer didn't think the case was serious enough at the time.

I agree with most of these comments. KS should deal with one issue at a time, and the main one at the monent is to vote for the measures.
He needs to show the Labour party as ready for government, not one that plays party politics. Perhaps he needs to show a bit more fire in his belly at PMQ's but retain the forensic approach that he's adopted.

Devorgilla

Keir Starmer must vote for measures to protect the health of the nation but, as MaizieD suggests, should make clear what else could, and should, be done.
As for calling for Boris to resign, the Tories will do that themselves soon enough as soon as he has outlived his usefulness. The Tories, once they have decided their leader is not cutting it, are 'red in tooth and claw'.

I think that will be a step closer after next week Shropshire result, if the polls are(hopefully) to be believed.

Calistemon

Blossoming

Keir Starmer was in charge of the CPS when the decision was taken not to prosecute Savile in 2009, but I don’t think he was involved in the decision making.

Where does the buck stop?

I think he should and will vote for the regulations.

I wasn’t passing an opinion on Starmer’s culpability. He did hold an inquiry into the decision and agreed it was wrong.

I also think it was unnecessary to report EV.

Keir Starmer must vote for measures to protect the health of the nation but, as MaizieD suggests, should make clear what else could, and should, be done.
As for calling for Boris to resign, the Tories will do that themselves soon enough as soon as he has outlived his usefulness. The Tories, once they have decided their leader is not cutting it, are 'red in tooth and claw'.

Perhaps they'll let him enjoy his paternity leave first, Parsley3
?

I would put the public’s health first of course. Johnson’s vote of no confidence will come soon enough.

Kali2

Reported as false and libel.

Actually, Starmer himself has admitted failures during his time at the CPS, including the Rochdale grooming gangs and Saville.

So there was no need for reporting EV

Kali2

Reported as false and libel.

Blossoming

Keir Starmer was in charge of the CPS when the decision was taken not to prosecute Savile in 2009, but I don’t think he was involved in the decision making.

Where does the buck stop?

I think he should and will vote for the regulations.

I don’t know much about how legal procedures work but I believe it is the job of the CPS to decide if there is enough evidence to pursue a case against someone? And if the evidence isn’t there there’s no point in pursuing it.

Keir Starmer was in charge of the CPS when the decision was taken not to prosecute Savile in 2009, but I don’t think he was involved in the decision making.