Keir and Angela’s drinks party

After all the relentless droning on day after day, about Boris having a drink, the very same month we now find that Keir and Angela did the same

The same month? It wasn't even the same year.

And there were exceptions for canvassing.

Tory press getting desparate.

This is from the BBC News page

And..?

Well put DaisyAnne.

volver

And..?

Indeed, volver. So what....?

Exceent post, DaisyAnne ?

Or even 'Excellent'...

I am guessing Richard Holden is regretting his attempts to get back into Johnsons good books, (he is very much out of favour and this is what this is about) he was having a curry at work in the same week of Starmers drinks. Its a bit farcical really.

Galaxy, I looked at the DM on line this morning. Farcical is a great description of the long, tedious nonsense printed in this issue

Well, thank you Daily Mail for confirming my thinking.

What I can't understand is just how unknowledgeable you have to be to believe this "everyone is doing it" message.

If my neighbour killed a member of my family and was charged and found guilty they have been properly dealt with. If part of the way they try to keep whatever integrity they think they previously had, was to accuse me of killing spider, they would be laughed out of court.

But this is exactly what the Mail and the Tories are doing. Johnson broke the law. Not only that it was a law he and his party had brought in, at a time others were grieving but obeying the laws and rules.

Starmer has not broken any law and these articles are pathetic. Sadly we will have the idiots, who want a point to argue but can't find a real one, now attempting to destroy our belief in our democracy and everyone taking part in it - as if they haven't already done enough damage.

DaisyAnne, great post again.

I went to look for the DM's take on this but had to wade through reports about the Loch Ness Monster, a model with ginger hair and a rather cute picture of Wilf with his head in a bucket. Is this what passes for journalism in the UK today?

The one thing I do not understand is why have Mr.Starmer, Ms,Rayner and the Labour Party machine consistently denied that Ms.Rayner was there? I am not referring as to whether or not it was a party or a work meeting, that is a different matter.

Why didn’t they just say release who was there at the beginning?

The electorate are being repeatedly told that the Labour Party stands for truth and clarity this hoo-ha could have been avoided by The Labour Party being truthful and clear

Strange, that.

Why did Boris lie repeatedly about there being parties in No 10?

Why did Boris lie repeatedly about all the rules being followed?

Why did Johnson lie repeatedly about whether he was there?

Why did Johnson break the rules during lockdown?

One of the mysteries of the ages, I suppose..

volver

Why did Boris lie repeatedly about there being parties in No 10?

Why did Boris lie repeatedly about all the rules being followed?

Why did Johnson lie repeatedly about whether he was there?

Why did Johnson break the rules during lockdown?

One of the mysteries of the ages, I suppose..

We now know that our PM has lied/mislead the electorate volver it’s old news.

Mr,Starmer has repeatedly pointed out the PMs lies and repeatedly stated that he (Mr,Starmer) with his background in law is truthful as is the Labour Party, see the problem?

it’s old news.

Yes. Like the fact Keir had a beer at work a year ago. Doesn't stop the Conservatives having a go when they realise that the hussy with the hair extensions might have been involved.

Deputy leader was at event that didn't break any rules isn't exactly an earth-shattering headline though, is it?

The Telegraph this morning:

“Angela Rayner under pressure over Labour ‘lie’ about attendance at lockdown beer event.
Labour initially denied deputy leader attended Durham gathering but backtracked when presented with evidence, admitting ‘honest mistake’”

Chickens coming home to roost springs to mind. ?

The Telegraph.

OK.

volver

^it’s old news.^

Yes. Like the fact Keir had a beer at work a year ago. Doesn't stop the Conservatives having a go when they realise that the hussy with the hair extensions might have been involved.

Deputy leader was at event that didn't break any rules isn't exactly an earth-shattering headline though, is it?

Volver I do not give a flying pink pig whether or not Ms.Rayner was there or not, that is not the issue.

The issue is that the leader of the opposition who has been banging on about truth and clarity since he became leader has knowingly lied.

Doesn’t do much for one’s faith in politics really.

I didn't even know that anybody has asked about Rayner being there, let alone received an answer about it.

I am a bit aghast that people are trying to equate this episode with Johnson and the crew lying and obfuscating about everything for the last 2 1/2 years, and trying to say they are all as bad as each other.

Politically motivated I guess.

And I'm not even a Labour voter.

MaizieD

growstuff

Casdon

You shouldn’t laugh, but it broke here - look at the headline!
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10764839/Keir-Starmer-flouted-Covid-lockdown-guidance-birthday-bash-TWO-cakes.html

I'm a bit confused here. What date are we talking about? Starmer's birthday is on 2 September, when England wasn't in lockdown.

I'm glad I wasn't the only confused person. ?

It's tempting to think the objective might have been confusion.

Hmm. The question now is what exactly did Labour tell Durham police at the time and has that version of events now changed given that the version of events they are telling the press and the public has changed?

Michael Fabricant, a Conservative MP, said on Friday: "The thing about 'beergate' is, like Watergate, it is not the event that kills you, it's the cover up and the lying."

Labour has acknowledged it previously told journalists that Ms Rayner was not at the event last year, but said it was "a mistake made in good faith".

Can somebody explain where and when the question was asked if Angela Rayner had been canvassing in Durham and where it was denied?
She had every right to be there, of course, and to have something to eat in the office while they were working.
Just wondered why the question was originally asked and by whom?

There is another thread here started by Baggs a few days ago with a link to a video - historian David Starkey on Partygate. In it he explains in great detail what was going on in Downing Street and Whitehall over the days of the 18 and 19 June 2020.

On the 18 June there was a "raucous" party in the office of (the then) Cabinet Secretary Mark Sedwill. (The then) Head of Propierty and Ethics Helen MacNamara (Sue Gray’s successor in the role) was the person who took in the karaoke machine.

The party went on until three in the morning and involved drunken brawling. Sedwill’s office shares a garden with 10 Downing Street. Starkey suggests that Johnson may have been woken by the noise. Both Sedwill and MacNamara have been fined. Both have now left those posts and gone on to prestigious jobs elsewhere.

Starkey’s stance is to claim that Johnson was not to blame for anything that went on as it was MacNamara’s job as Head of Propierty and Ethics to tell Johnson what he could and could not do. I argue that the Prime Minister’s responsibilities include overseeing the civil service.

Nobody on 18 or 19 June 2020 could have been unaware of what the law was with regard to gatherings. A deliberately arranged karaoke party that goes on until three in the morning and involves drunken brawling is not an office meeting nor is a deliberately arranged birthday party.

DaisyAnne has explained very clearly upthread why Starmer has not broken the law. The Whitehall Downing Street parties clearly did.

volver

I didn't even know that anybody has asked about Rayner being there, let alone received an answer about it.

I am a bit aghast that people are trying to equate this episode with Johnson and the crew lying and obfuscating about everything for the last 2 1/2 years, and trying to say they are all as bad as each other.

Politically motivated I guess.

And I'm not even a Labour voter.

I am in no way equating this with Johnson (your words)

I just do not know why Mr. Starmer lied, and I really would like to know what was the reasoning behind it.

You cannot as an opposition leader, who stands for truth and clarity then be excused for lying. I am sorry you cannot understand this.

So Ug, why would it had mattered if she was there? It was all perfectly legal at the time. I really don't understand your point?