Keir and Angela’s drinks party

I'm afraid most of us will see a good deal of similarity between sitting in a work place having a piece of cake and a glass of wine with workmates and standing in the kitchen with a beer and sandwich with (well not exactly work mates were they?).
Then was the misleading of the press really a "genuine mistake" or a lie? I suppose to the anti Boris, and anti Brexit, brigade it's only Tories who lie, never ever Labour, especially not the forensic Sir Bended knee and Angela crossed legs.

Mamie

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?

I believe after the post election canvassing gathering a list of those present was released, Ms.Rayner was not on that list.

Urmstongran

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. ?

Oh you poor soul. Cling on UG. It may be a pack of Tory lies but it obviously makes you feel better.

Perhaps you could tell me why Angela Rayner canvessing and supporting the candidate is so bad. It didn't break any rules.

GG13 can you remember exactly who was at every work meeting you attended over the course of a year? I certainly couldn't have done in my job.

GrannyGravy13

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^

They don’t. It was a press officer who mistakenly said she did not attend.

Simple as, but of course the Tories are desperate to say “look over there not here”

I read that Starmer and Rayner spent time electioneering, but also in making a video for something like international workers or something along those lines. It was a full on working day, with a stop for food etc.

daisyAnne you have surpassed yourself in that excellent post?

Tbh I would be a little circumspect in crowing too much if I was a Tory supporter.

We have at least 3 more parties to be fined, one in which Johnson acted as barman.

The report by Sue thingy is also yet to be published.

Thank you GG13 - so it was just that she was left off a list? Is there a sub-text here that I am missing? Why would it matter if she was there or not?

Whitewavemark2

Tbh I would be a little circumspect in crowing too much if I was a Tory supporter.

We have at least 3 more parties to be fined, one in which Johnson acted as barman.

The report by Sue thingy is also yet to be published.

I am in no way crowing Whitewavemark2 I actually feel let down.

I am not a huge fan of Mr.Starmer but I did actually believe he was truthful…

But if the list was produced by a press officer, how does that mean that Starmer was lying?

GrannyGravy13

Whitewavemark2

Tbh I would be a little circumspect in crowing too much if I was a Tory supporter.

We have at least 3 more parties to be fined, one in which Johnson acted as barman.

The report by Sue thingy is also yet to be published.

I am in no way crowing Whitewavemark2 I actually feel let down.

I am not a huge fan of Mr.Starmer but I did actually believe he was truthful…

Just stop and think for heavens sake before you allow the bloody Tory press to influence your thought processes.

Starmer hasn’t lied. No one has.

A press officer made a mistake, but quite frankly given that it was a full on working day what the hell does it matter one way or another, who was at work and who wasn’t!

Mamie

Thank you GG13 - so it was just that she was left off a list? Is there a sub-text here that I am missing? Why would it matter if she was there or not?

Mamie I think this has been investigated by the Durham Police Mr Starmer in his former job as head of the PPS should be aware that being truthful in regard to a police investigation is paramount.

For clarity I also feel that the Conservatives should be held up to these standards, and they have failed miserably.

Urmstongran

I'm afraid most of us will see a good deal of similarity between sitting in a work place having a piece of cake and a glass of wine with workmates and standing in the kitchen with a beer and sandwich with (well not exactly work mates were they?).
Then was the misleading of the press really a "genuine mistake" or a lie? I suppose to the anti Boris, and anti Brexit, brigade it's only Tories who lie, never ever Labour, especially not the forensic Sir Bended knee and Angela crossed legs.

Oh ... and another one.

It really doesn't matter - as you have now been pointed out on several occasions - what they ate or drank. The only time what they ate or drank at the No 10 parties was criticised, was in Sue Gray's report where she said:

The excessive consumption of alcohol is not appropriate in a professional workplace at any time. Steps must be taken to ensure that every government department has a clear and robust policy in place covering the consumption of alcohol in the workplace.

That was not about Covid rules, it was about conduct in the workplace. Something the Tories have shown this week they don't have a very good hold on.

A beer and a pizza after a long day of doorknocking in the constituency is a meal - but that doesn't matter either.

It's simple UG. The canvassing was legal. The social gatherings, in the numbers they had, were not. In no case was what they ate or drank anything to do with the law.

Nothing, no matter how much people lie, will change this.

Durham police are not reopening this. They see no reason to. I would suggest that if the Tories continue to pursue it they may find themselves in breach of some law.

Why are the Sun, the Mail and the Express and you ignoring Ukraine for a none-story? Someone somewhere must be very worried.

Mamie

Thank you GG13 - so it was just that she was left off a list? Is there a sub-text here that I am missing? Why would it matter if she was there or not?

Well, GG13 is claiming that Keir Starmer lied about Rayner's presence.

Question. Is she claiming this on the evidence of 'the list' or is it because he is on record as having personally denied that she was there?

What is amusing me is The Telegraph being cited, presumably as a reliable source. The Telegraph that is not averse to employing liars, is it? How many years did Johnson work for them? And doesn't he still give them a column or two?

I saw on twitter yesterday that the charming Paul Staines, aka Guido Fawkes, is trying to smear Sue Grey by claiming that she has a connection known to be an activist Labour supporter (sorry, no detail but I didn't follow up the tweet)

They could indeed DaisyAnne. Libel, slander, defamation and Starmer will, of course, know this. It's all such a transparent and desperate ploy ahead of next week's local elections to try to fool the electorate yet again. Many fell for it in 2016 and again in 2019 ... and here we are.

Those of you who are blaming a press officer do you not think that it is at least a dereliction of duty by Mr. Starmer to not be aware of the evidence of attendance given to the Durham Police?

Surely he would have seen it and has had many months to correct it?

It doesn’t really matter. Those anti -Tory will continue to support the idea that Starmer’s inaccuracies are different because they were made in good faith. Those pro Tory will point out Starmer’s inaccuracies are no better than theirs.
I’d just really like a government I could trust and that’s just a pipe dream, because however many hardworking MPs there are in any party, they’re all tarred with the reputation of those who make it into the news.

I am afraid that you are correct Mollygo

No, come on, really?

The press expect us to believe that Johnson is not to be held responsible for raucous parties in the house where he lives and works, but Starmer is to be responsible for a list sent by a press officer that nobody seems to have known existed until earlier this week?

Two things I'd like to say.

The Mail witter on about the whole Rayner thing but don't offer any evidence of anybody saying anything, ever. They also make a big deal about the fact the the beer was drunk at 10pm (or something) so how could it have been that they all went back to work later? Well lots of people who are dedicated to their jobs work later than 10pm. Why is that even a question?

Can people not see that this is all confected? Can people not see that the DM is trying to make a mountain out of a molehill? Actually not even a molehill. There's nothing there. Are people so blind to that? The DM is trying to subvert democracy in this country. I know that sounds dramatic, but it's what they are doing.

GrannyGravy13

Whitewavemark2

Tbh I would be a little circumspect in crowing too much if I was a Tory supporter.

We have at least 3 more parties to be fined, one in which Johnson acted as barman.

The report by Sue thingy is also yet to be published.

I am in no way crowing Whitewavemark2 I actually feel let down.

I am not a huge fan of Mr.Starmer but I did actually believe he was truthful…

Where is the evidence that he was being anything but truthful GrannyGravy? A mistake was made and, unlike the other lot they have put it right and apologised.

It's not as if he said:

“More people in work now than when the pandemic started”
Or
"If we had listened to the Opposition, we would have stayed in the European Medicines Agency and we would never have been able to deliver the vaccine roll-out at the speed that we did.”
Or
“The Secretary of State for Wales is called Simon Hart”
Or
“I’ve spoken to constituents and they’ve done nothing but express support for the Prime Minister…I haven’t spoke to a single constituent that is angry.”
Or
“It is an astonishing fact that we have 420,000 more people in work than before the pandemic began.”
Or
"We are recruiting 50,000 more nurses"
Or
“Unlike what Labour wanted to do, which was to lock down before Christmas”
Or
“I would particularly note that it is thanks to the fact that we are not in the European Union that we were able to move so quickly” with the vaccine rollout."
Or
"Labour “said that we needed a road map to lockdown” after the emergence of the Omicron variant."
Or
"If we were to do what Labour would do, go back into the EU and remain aligned with the EU single market. That is the objective of the Labour party.”
Or
“If we look at the statistics, we see that economic inequality is down in this country. Income inequality is down and poverty is down.”
Or
“[There are] 2.2 million people supported with the Warm Homes Discount, Mr Speaker, worth £140 per week.”
Or
“Never forget that [TfL] was left with a very considerable sum of money by the previous mayor, who left the coffers full.”

Okay, there are more but I'm sure you get the point. These are part of The lies, falsehoods, and misdirections that have come out of the Johnson government- deliberately and often.

Missing a name off a list, correcting it and apologising really cannot compare GrannyGravy and it is someone telling the truth. Perhaps it's just hard to recognise a truth if you are a fan of Johnson.

DaisyAnne ????

I would also add that it is beginning to look as if someone is stalking Angela Rayner.

Iam64

DaisyAnne ????

I add mine to that

I am not defending Mr. Johnson or his government’s record (or should I say non record)

I am just tired with politics.