Yes it is, but there is just enough in there for the right wing press to pile-in on the basis that Starmer's former job allowed him to make such assessments.Christ, that is quite the conflation you are making there.
I'm just struggling to follow your logic on this now, I'm afraid. Or are you just saying that the actual facts of any of it don't matter, because of the power of right wing media?Yes it is, but there is just enough in there for the right wing press to pile-in on the basis that Starmer's former job allowed him to make such assessments.
This is especially true since the Police apparently were not going to take it further, their reason being because it was retrospective, and like with Cummings they felt it was not appropriate to take it further... Oh wait a minute will they use this as an excuse to re-open the Cummings case??
Bet Boris and his misses are bouncing up and down in No.10 thinking "its Christmas already" Two for the price of one, barrel one... Starmer goes down, barrel two.... Cummings gets his comeuppance!
I'm genuinely can't understand what you are on about.I think it probably is...if Starmer and his legal buddies are all rock solidly certain he has no case to answer, why make the stepping down, promise statement... to gain political advantage perhaps?
Would the use of this legal 'insider knowledge' be seen as the equivalent of profiting from 'insider trading' on the stock market, i.e. gambling on something you already know the outcome??
The right wing press will have a field day with that outcome!
The press maxim " never let the facts get in the way of a good story".I'm just struggling to follow your logic on this now, I'm afraid. Or are you just saying that the actual facts of any of it don't matter, because of the power of right wing media?
You mean he's guilty of using his expertise to calculate a risk? Only in a country run by bullshitters, amateurs and chancers would this be viewed as a cause for concern.Yes it is, but there is just enough in there for the right wing press to pile-in on the basis that Starmer's former job allowed him to make such assessments.
Is his stock as a "Knight in Shining Armour" not enhanced by saying he would fall on his sword should he be found to have broken the rules, only to then be informed he broke no rules?The press maxim " never let the facts get in the way of a good story".
STOP PRESS
Right wing press gazumps Labour once again
Starmer overplaying his hand has let them in, they smell blood in the water.
All he had to do was sit back wait for the Police outcome of its review ....and then... let the truth set him free
Then he could go after Boris as a 'Knight in shining Armour'!
The right wing press have been smearing Starmer as a hypocrite. Truth is, the Mail has overplayed its hand and given Starmer the chance to make the PM look really bad. Which is his job.The press maxim " never let the facts get in the way of a good story".
STOP PRESS
Right wing press gazumps Labour once again
Starmer overplaying his hand has let them in, they smell blood in the water.
All he had to do was sit back wait for the Police outcome of its review ....and then... let the truth set him free
Then he could go after Boris as a 'Knight in shining Armour'!
Imagine using your personal, first hand knowledge of an event you attended, to assert whether something you did there was right or wrong. The fecking audacity of it.Is his stock as a "Knight in Shining Armour" not enhanced by saying he would fall on his sword should he be found to have broken the rules, only to then be informed he broke no rules?
That is surely his calculation.
No, I can understand that... I am simply speculating about the how the right wing press might well react, especially if no further action is to be takenI'm genuinely can't understand what you are on about.
What else could Starmer do?
There is nothing that Starmer can do, that will stop the Mail from going for him. Doing nothing was not tenable. He will get roasted anyway. He might as well get roasted but get something useful from it.No, I can understand that... I am simply speculating about the how the right wing press might well react, especially if no further action is to be taken
Starmer didn't have 'to do' anything, that is the whole point! Just sit back wait for (metaphorically) for the 'chains to be cut from his wrists'.
Starmer's threatening to resign on an outcome he knew was certain (because of his previous experiences) to fall in his favour, was in fact and attempt at getting into Boris's 'chancers' play pen!
However Starmer is not a 'chancer' that's the whole point, its what makes him standout against Boris, it was 'his edge.'
You can only 'fall on your sword' when there is a sword to fall on, he knew there was no sword because his past experiences told him that, so it was a 'false call'/bluff, threatening to do something he knew all along he would not have to do, why....because Sir Keir knows the law!Is his stock as a "Knight in Shining Armour" not enhanced by saying he would fall on his sword should he be found to have broken the rules, only to then be informed he broke no rules?
That is surely his calculation.
Surely this is the exact opposite of the Boris playbook.You can only 'fall on your sword' when there is a sword to fall on, he knew there was no sword because his past experiences told him that, so it was a 'false call'/bluff, threatening to do something he knew all along he would not have to do, why....because Sir Keir knows the law!
Threatening to do something when you know (beforehand) that you won't have to do it is hardly bravado, just a cheap shot...right out of Boris's own playbook!
Sir Keir was supposed to be so different to Boris, he was a serious person, would never mislead, etc., etc.
Strange use of the word 'threatening' there. To who?Threatening to do something when you know (beforehand) that you won't have to do it is hardly bravado, just a cheap shot...right out of Boris's own playbook!
Sir Keir was supposed to be so different to Boris, he was a serious person, would never mislead, etc., etc.
Yes there is...do nothing, especially when you are in the right, and you know it will emerge, the truth defends itself...reacting is what they want, then they can react to your reaction, etc, etc.There is nothing that Starmer can do, that will stop the Mail from going for him.
If anything politics has taught us over the last 7 years it is that that truth that does not defend itself. That comes off as incredibly naive.Yes there is...do nothing, especially when you are in the right, and you know it will emerge, the truth defends itself...reacting is what they want, then they can react to your reaction, etc, etc.
Labour politicians for years have been falling for this claptrap from the media, and every time they seem to hand the press an even bigger stick to beat them with.
Its beyond parody now.
It's odd that the right wing press attack Starmer for qualities they would normally advocate as being admirable. I think there is genuine fear there. Corbyn's lunacy spoke for itself, they didn't have to hype him up to their readers. But Starmer, the former DPP? They are desperately manufacturing whatever they can come up with, but it's pretty thin stuff. He's a bit wooden for sure and you can't do much with that by itself.Surely this is the exact opposite of the Boris playbook.
Boris did the exact opposite in his situation. He knew attended actual parties/events and claimed that all rules were followed, tried to make number 10 staff the scapegoats instead of him, kicked the can down the road with a civil service report (which was then kicked further by the met wading in) and then just hoped the whole thing would go away when a war abroad started.
What Starmer has done is out of a completely different playbook from what I am seeing. He has addressed at it at the behest of right wing media and has let everyone know what will happen should he have broken the rules.
There was no risk because he knew from past experience what the outcome would be... he may still be saying his prayers though!!You mean he's guilty of using his expertise to calculate a risk?
Starmer's integrity was under question. You can't just sit around and do nothing or you look weak. You have to try to get on the front foot.Yes there is...do nothing, especially when you are in the right, and you know it will emerge, the truth defends itself...reacting is what they want, then they can react to your reaction, etc, etc.
If anything over my last 70+ years life (including politics) has taught me that the truth will out... providing its the version of the truth, you recognise and accept..... now that is naivety!If anything politics has taught us over the last 7 years it is that that truth that does not defend itself. That comes off as incredibly naive.
This is nuts. Don't you think someone from the Mail (or worse, the BBC if the story went wide) was going to ask him the obvious 'will you resign' question if he hadn't said it himself first? Then what? He either "admits" "he'll need to quit" under "pressure" and gets murdered for it. Or he tries to deflect it (headlines the next full of words like 'refuses, running scared, "what is he trying to hide", "just give us a straight answer: etc).There was no risk because he knew from past experience what the outcome would be... he may still be saying his prayers though!!
By who?.... oh yes that will be the right wing press, that bastion of integrityStarmer's integrity was under question.
Yes of course, Labour (by now) should have media specialists who can teach their politicians how to answer the 'have you stopped beating your wife' type of question, but alas it seems they haven't !Don't you think someone was going to ask him the obvious 'will you resign' question
How you manage the emergence of a fact, can often be as important as the fact itself.If anything over my last 70+ years life (including politics) has taught me that the truth will out... providing its the version of the truth, you recognise and accept..... now that is naivety!
You forgot italics too.And the award for the tenth year running for most over use of quotation marks goes to….
Yes, the people who talk to a large audience, some of whom Starmer needs on his side.By who?.... oh yes that will be the right wing press, that bastion of integrity
The end justifies the means???How you manage the emergence of a fact, can often be as important as the fact itself.
Thank you... thank you...!!And the award for the tenth year running for most over use of quotation marks goes to….
Sorry try to do better (next time)You forgot italics too.
Dead cat.I am struggling to work out if you are just playing as fantasy Daily Mail editor, or if you genuinely believe that Starmer is in trouble?
Alright tetchy, I suppose it could be from the Spectator also.calm down lad dont strain yourself trying something new
and are guido and the DM saying hes played it well and probably has high confidence he's done nothing wrong?
I know the canary seemed to be implying he should be sacked though
https://www.thecanary.co/uk/news/20...drinking-at-work-doesnt-show-breach-of-rules/
Very good.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
What a plonkerTweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Looks like he’s had another hit of primo Colombian snow!Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date