The Wish They Were All Dead Tory Cunt Thread

[Ollie the Optimist]

Were there months of denials from Starmer?

This story has been doing the rounds since January i think. It’s been bubbling but labour kept denying any wrongdoing and dimissed allegations taht Rayner was there etc.

Therein lies the problem, they lied and journalists eventually discovered the truth and thats why they are in this mess.

As I’ve also said, he’s left himself no room based on his own statements and demands on johnson/sunak. Take rishi sunak, he called for him to resign when fined yet all sunak appears to have done is turn up five minutes early to a meeting when cake was there and was fined. It seems harsh but sunak went to work after the cake by having the meeting. Starmer claims teh same, he had the curry and went back to work. Neither events were parties in theory as stopping to have slice of cake or a curry before working appear the same (although allegations are made by a few witnesses that several labour people were very drunk at hte curry). So again, starmer has left himself very little room. If he expects sunak to resign, what’s the difference between his actions?

[IBK]

Again i disagree here by using Starmer’s own words. He said the prime minister should resign when the police started investigating (he also said Cummings hsould be sacked and he wasnt fined as Durham dont issue retrospective fines) so why does this standard he expected of johnson not apply to himself? He was asked that in his conference yesterday as to why his own words which he tweeted dont apply and his answer was “I’m a man of honour/principle/integrity” which is hardly great when justifying why you wont resign for something you said hte prime minister should have.

But he also said he would only go if fined. As i said above Durham dont appear to issue retrospective fines (as was case with Cummings) so if they say he broke the rules but no fine, would he go? If not, not exactly great principles.

I do also agree that tories are wrong to say he is placing pressure on teh police. Johnson did hte same (the MET should think very carefully before issuing fines). He had to make a statement as you say but thats purely because labour got themselves into this mess with a piss poor communication strategy where htey appeared shifty, found to have lied over Rayner being there and basically created this mess themselves.

I don't think you are being fair here, Ollie. The issue here is whether a Prime Minister (or a leader of the opposition) should resign if found to have broken the law. Johnson has been found to have done so and refused to walk. Starmer is saying that he will resign if the police find that he is in the wrong. That is principled. Frankly we will never know whether his stance was merely political or personal (albeit that I have read reports that Starmer's first instinct was to do what hie has done) but it is a point of principle nonetheless.

Delving into what Starmer said about Johnson or Cummings serves little purpose here. The issue is not whether or not - in doing his job as leader of the opposition - Starmer may have said something that could be regarded as hypocritical. But even if you want to go down this route, Starmer's stance is consistent with what he has said - namely 'I believe in honour, integrity and the principle that those who make the laws should follow them'. I fail to see how not resigning pending a police investigation that Starmer is adamant will clear him contradicts that statement.

And that is even before we get into the many examples of lies that Johnson has told over the years, and the fact that (in contrast to Starmer) his MO is to deny everything and apologise only if caught.

[IBK]

This story has been doing the rounds since January i think. It’s been bubbling but labour kept denying any wrongdoing and dimissed allegations taht Rayner was there etc.

Therein lies the problem, they lied and journalists eventually discovered the truth and thats why they are in this mess.

As I’ve also said, he’s left himself no room based on his own statements and demands on johnson/sunak. Take rishi sunak, he called for him to resign when fined yet all sunak appears to have done is turn up five minutes early to a meeting when cake was there and was fined. It seems harsh but sunak went to work after the cake by having the meeting. Starmer claims teh same, he had the curry and went back to work. Neither events were parties in theory as stopping to have slice of cake or a curry before working appear the same (although allegations are made by a few witnesses that several labour people were very drunk at hte curry). So again, starmer has left himself very little room. If he expects sunak to resign, what’s the difference between his actions?

I feel sorry for Sunak if his story is true (and funnily want to believe him) but he was fined, so the police found wrong doing. On what basis should Starmer need to go beyond this (either in Sunak's case or his own)?

[IBK]

This story has been doing the rounds since January i think. It’s been bubbling but labour kept denying any wrongdoing and dimissed allegations taht Rayner was there etc.

Therein lies the problem, they lied and journalists eventually discovered the truth and thats why they are in this mess.

As I’ve also said, he’s left himself no room based on his own statements and demands on johnson/sunak. Take rishi sunak, he called for him to resign when fined yet all sunak appears to have done is turn up five minutes early to a meeting when cake was there and was fined. It seems harsh but sunak went to work after the cake by having the meeting. Starmer claims teh same, he had the curry and went back to work. Neither events were parties in theory as stopping to have slice of cake or a curry before working appear the same (although allegations are made by a few witnesses that several labour people were very drunk at hte curry). So again, starmer has left himself very little room. If he expects sunak to resign, what’s the difference between his actions?

...the difference is that unfairly or not Sunak has been found to have breached the regulations and fined, and Starmer as yet has not.

[Ollie the Optimist]

I don't think you are being fair here, Ollie. The issue here is whether a Prime Minister (or a leader of the opposition) should resign if found to have broken the law. Johnson has been found to have done so and refused to walk. Starmer is saying that he will resign if the police find that he is in the wrong. That is principled. Frankly we will never know whether his stance was merely political or personal (albeit that I have read reports that Starmer's first instinct was to do what hie has done) but it is a point of principle nonetheless.

Delving into what Starmer said about Johnson or Cummings serves little purpose here. The issue is not whether or not - in doing his job as leader of the opposition - Starmer may have said something that could be regarded as hypocritical. But even if you want to go down this route, Starmer's stance is consistent with what he has said - namely 'I believe in honour, integrity and the principle that those who make the laws should follow them'. I fail to see how not resigning pending a police investigation that Starmer is adamant will clear him contradicts that statement.

And that is even before we get into the many examples of lies that Johnson has told over the years, and the fact that (in contrast to Starmer) his MO is to deny everything and apologise only if caught.

Because thats what he demanded johnson do when johnson was also sure he wasnt going to be fined.

Comparing the two characters is not possible, johnson is clearly unsuitable for the role and shouldnt be prime minsiter. He should have resigned already and the party should have forced him out.

Starmer expected sunak to resign over what appears to have just been turning up to a meeting early and there being cake (which i dont think is in the same league as rest of Johnson’s parties in teh flat etc) and correct me if wrong, but i dont think sunak has been accused at being any other of the Downing Street parties? Starmer in my opinion went for the easy headlines in demanding sunak resign and this is coming back to bite him. He demanded johnson resign when being investigated (which starmer now is) before any conclusions were made by the police.

He can paint himself as principled all he likes, but he left himself very little room to manoeuvre on this given the high standards he expects of johnson/sunak. People are entitled to ask why he isnt following those himself

[Ollie the Optimist]

I feel sorry for Sunak if his story is true (and funnily want to believe him) but he was fined, so the police found wrong doing. On what basis should Starmer need to go beyond this (either in Sunak's case or his own)?

I think if starmer hadn’t called for sunak to resign for just turning up early to a meeting (sure police say he broke the law so fined him), it would allowed him to say we made a mistake with the curry and probably carry on.

There is a difference with sunak & johnson who has supposedly had loads of parties etc. but by demanding sunak goes, he left himself with no choice either. By going for hte cheap headlines on sunak, if police say starmer breached the law, he has to go

[Niall_Quinn]

Voting makes almost no difference.
Not voting makes even less difference.

And nobody voting makes all the difference in the world.

Voting makes absolutely no difference to anything that is important. Voting elevates criminals to positions of authority and endorses their criminal behaviour. You are just as guilty as the politician if you vote.

[Niall_Quinn]

I think voting should be compulsory.

You dont have to vote for any party/candidate as you can spoil your ballot but i think everyone should vote in every election. Sure spoilt ballots dont count but if of the votes cast, a large majority are spoilt, it does send a message that the parties need to change/listen to engage people.

That's because you are authoritarian by nature.

[Niall_Quinn]

I'm not sure about it being compulsory, I know it is in Australia and there is an argument to be made. I think one could argue that part of the right to vote is the right not to though.
I think there should be a test before you can vote. I used to joke about that but now I'm increasingly serious. Not an intelligence test, but people should demonstrate that have some idea of who they're voting for and what they stand for. We also need electoral reform, the FPTP system yields wildly unrepresentative results. We end up with a government who the vast majority of people didn't vote for.

Oh! That hurt it was so good. An intelligence test to vote. Do you know how wet the dreams would be if the establishment could ever pull that stunt? You'd have all the "intelligent" people in masks and jabbed up to the eyeballs, waving their Ukrainian flags disenfranchising the "thickos" who got lost on the way to Two Minutes Hate.

They should be MADE to get the jab.

They should be put in a camp.

They shouldn't be allowed outside their home.

They shouldn't be allowed in shops.

They aren't Nazis, even though my own BBC previously said they were.

bin Laden did it.

Saddam has nukes.

Go and sit on Jimmy's knee.

Yes, let's put the "intelligent" people in charge.

How about Ollie? Put him in charge. See what happens.

[IBK]

Because thats what he demanded johnson do when johnson was also sure he wasnt going to be fined.

Comparing the two characters is not possible, johnson is clearly unsuitable for the role and shouldnt be prime minsiter. He should have resigned already and the party should have forced him out.

Starmer expected sunak to resign over what appears to have just been turning up to a meeting early and there being cake (which i dont think is in the same league as rest of Johnson’s parties in teh flat etc) and correct me if wrong, but i dont think sunak has been accused at being any other of the Downing Street parties? Starmer in my opinion went for the easy headlines in demanding sunak resign and this is coming back to bite him. He demanded johnson resign when being investigated (which starmer now is) before any conclusions were made by the police.

He can paint himself as principled all he likes, but he left himself very little room to manoeuvre on this given the high standards he expects of johnson/sunak. People are entitled to ask why he isnt following those himself

My point is that Starmer is portraying himself as principled in relation to breaking the law. And (unlike both Johnson and Sunak) it has not been established that he has done. Starmer hasn't extended that principle to resigning simply because he has been accused of something. Calling for ministerial resignations is as old as the hills and part and parcel of our adversarial model of politics. Had Johnson resigned because he was being investigated then there would be an argument to say that Starmer should do the same, but he stayed put even having been found liable. Sure, Starmer has left himself with nowhere to go but in a sense this merely underlines the principle that he has chosen to uphold. In our era of Trumpian politics where even proven facts are dismissed as fake news and never admitted, I find this quite refreshing.