The Labour Party Thread

[Danny's Dyer Acting]

Interesting that the committee this appointed has to be rubber stamped by is chaired by Eric Pickles. That'll be the Tory peer who spent 38 years as a Tory councillor and MP. Personally I've got no issue with him being in that position, guess it's a perk of years of party loyalty, but it is a little odd that the same Tory MPs worried about impartiality aren't concerned about this.

[bubbles1966]

Interesting that the committee this appointed has to be rubber stamped by is chaired by Eric Pickles. That'll be the Tory peer who spent 38 years as a Tory councillor and MP. Personally I've got no issue with him being in that position, guess it's a perk of years of party loyalty, but it is a little odd that the same Tory MPs worried about impartiality aren't concerned about this.

The appointment of Gray gives a clear impression that she openly favours a certain sort of politics, which should be an absolute 'no' in a senior civil servant.

This apparent partiality tarnishes any investigation she has been involved in and makes her handling of any sensitive information suspect. In turn, she drops other civil servants in it as she has undermined the principle of civil service neutrality, and has actually provided the Tories with the ammo for the 'blob set out to block it' argument.

If Starmer drops her, he admits his mistake; if he keeps her he has given the Tories their 'it was rigged by the socialist blob' argument all the way from here until the election.

It's a story because this "impropriety by inference" stuff has been made the norm. People can't have it both ways. If some are going to make a fuss about someone talking to a Tory about something and allege it all means it's all crooked, then they need to accept the same will happen when it involves Labour. Personally, I think impropriety needs to be evidenced, not inferred, because the latter gives rise to mud-slinging.

[YorksHammer]

Personally, I think impropriety needs to be evidenced, not inferred, because the latter gives rise to mud-slinging.

For example. Johnson and other Tories attending gatherings in Downing Street that violated social distancing and rule of six laws in place at the time - evidenced. Saying Sue Gray let party politics interfere in her judgement of whether or not there were rules broken - inferred.

It's not like Gray was alone in preparing that report, either, right? And there's a lot of evidence in there which is very clearly laid out and details the findings. Gray wouldn't have even been the name on it had the Cabinet Secretary at the time not hosted one of the gatherings in their office.

I think Starmer has boobed massively here and given Sunak and Co and empty net to score in. At the moment they're about 50 yards out trying to work out whether to shoot directly or play someone else in for an easier chance

[Prob]

Alot of this is just pedalling Boris Johnson's "conspiracy theories". I guess it was ok for Boris to appoint a civil servant in Dan Rosenfield as chief of staff

Jonathan Powell when appointed by Blair was a civil servant. These posts are not political they are employed by the office.

It wasn't partygate that ended Boris it was Chris Pincher. The Tories are making themselves look like fools over this and it just highlights their failing even more. The PM and the cabinet are keeping far away from this

[ironsonthebrain]

The appointment of Gray gives a clear impression that she openly favours a certain sort of politics, which should be an absolute 'no' in a senior civil servant.

This apparent partiality tarnishes any investigation she has been involved in and makes her handling of any sensitive information suspect. In turn, she drops other civil servants in it as she has undermined the principle of civil service neutrality, and has actually provided the Tories with the ammo for the 'blob set out to block it' argument.

If Starmer drops her, he admits his mistake; if he keeps her he has given the Tories their 'it was rigged by the socialist blob' argument all the way from here until the election.

It's a story because this "impropriety by inference" stuff has been made the norm. People can't have it both ways. If some are going to make a fuss about someone talking to a Tory about something and allege it all means it's all crooked, then they need to accept the same will happen when it involves Labour. Personally, I think impropriety needs to be evidenced, not inferred, because the latter gives rise to mud-slinging.

Completely laughble for any Tory, especially that hypocrite Rees Mogg, to use the term 'socialist' in connection with Keir Starmer!

[Greatest Cockney Rip Off]

Is this really the kind of person we want leading the country? Can't even answer a simple question ...

[mumbles87]

Is this really the kind of person we want leading the country? Can't even answer a simple question ...

Really? So we going down the bacon sandwich ed miliband route?

Starma will be a step up from this corrupt shower of rubbish we have had the past 13 years

[EvilC]

Take your pick of the options on offer GCRO.

[SammyLeeWasOffside]

Really? So we going down the bacon sandwich ed miliband route?

Red sauce in public, avocado at home.

[delbert]

Completely laughble for any Tory, especially that hypocrite Rees Mogg, to use the term 'socialist' in connection with Keir Starmer!

Kier Starmer has far more in common with Clement Attlee (socialist) than any number of Tories who are regularly likened to fascists, so if the former is laughable, the latter must utterly ridiculous.......

[bubbles1966]

Is this really the kind of person we want leading the country? Can't even answer a simple question ...

The more he says 'there's nothing improper' without answering it, the more improper he makes it sound .

He has a long back catalogue that will be thrown at him when the time comes.

Blair was a smooth talking ****er and a slick liar. This fella ain't in the same league, no matter how much he'd love to be.

Starmer U-turns on nationalisation pledges

[DaveWHU1964]

I think it was bad politics by Starmer to appoint Sue Gray. Naive too. It was a mistake.

It’s given a whole heap of Tories who have used every excuse going to defend their own parties’ day-in day-out, year-in, year-out dodginess that waaaaaaaaaay exceeds Starmer’s folly here the chance to focus on Labour. Had Starmer been a Tory, we’d have had Tory MPs and supporters saying “what’s the fuss” or “there’s nothing to see”. Laughable.

[Greatest Cockney Rip Off]

Take your pick of the options on offer GCRO.

It's depressing mate. I think I'll pass.

There's no point in voting for me anyway, it's a Tory safe seat here where i live still, even after the shitshow of the last thirteen years.

I've come to the conclusion that anybody competent in business or leadership wouldn't touch politics with a bargepole as their reputation, integrity and anything they'd built up over the years would lay in ruins. The whole layer of bureaucracy, the inefficiency of the civil service and more importantly the level of bull**** they'd have to deal with day to day would put anybody efficient right off. It's probably why we have the current crop of morons, charlatans and crooks that we have now.

[Hummer_I_mean_Hammer]

Starma will be a step up from this corrupt shower of rubbish we have had the past 13 years

He's in it for sh*tes & giggles, nothing more nothing less.

If there was even a slight chance of him making no.10 you'd see him crap himself.

I honestly think that he simply thought that it would be a lovely job to have (leader of the opposition). Nothing much to do - just do an occasional interview (he obviously doesn't do any homework beforehand, does he?), shout at the current PM at the HoC, meet with others in the shadow cabinet every now and then and chew the fat, but mostly sit back and collect his salary and pensions. Why else is the opposition such a shambles?

And not just him, seems like the rest of the opposition think the same way.

[mumbles87]

He's in it for sh*tes & giggles, nothing more nothing less.

If there was even a slight chance of him making no.10 you'd see him crap himself.

I honestly think that he simply thought that it would be a lovely job to have (leader of the opposition). Nothing much to do - just do an occasional interview (he obviously doesn't do any homework beforehand, does he?), shout at the current PM at the HoC, meet with others in the shadow cabinet every now and then and chew the fat, but mostly sit back and collect his salary and pensions. Why else is the opposition such a shambles?

And not just him, seems like the rest of the opposition think the same way.

Nothing could be further from the truth

The bloke has already proven himself to the country with public service and been knighted for it

He will make a very boring but excellent leader

[-DL-]

Nothing could be further from the truth

The bloke has already proven himself to the country with public service and been knighted for it

He will make a very boring but excellent leader

Let's put some context to this. He was head of DPP - which much like the Met Police Commander, always comes with a Knighthood or Damehood as a perk of the job - with just one exception being Alison Saunders, whom was sacked due to her own failings of the job.

He's not really proven himself at all as a public servant - he's proven he is a good lawyer.

[Hummer_I_mean_Hammer]

Nothing could be further from the truth

The bloke has already proven himself to the country with public service and been knighted for it

He will make a very boring but excellent leader

So why is he doing it? What's in it for him?

At least with Corbyn you could see real conviction that he wanted to do something, change things around (not that I would have backed him). You could even say that about Boris (even though it was built on a lie).

But this guy ..? boring, insipid, vanilla. He is the invisible man - would be a great spy or assassin, but doesn’t seem like someone to inspire anything.

[Danny's Dyer Acting]

So why is he doing it? What's in it for him?

At least with Corbyn you could see real conviction that he wanted to do something, change things around (not that I would have backed him). You could even say that about Boris (even though it was built on a lie).

But this guy ..? boring, insipid, vanilla. He is the invisible man - would be a great spy or assassin, but doesn’t seem like someone to inspire anything.

Counter - We've had 26 years of people being told the Prime Minister needs to be a character, maybe what we need is a boring bean counter/decision maker?

[YorksHammer]

But this guy ..? boring, insipid, vanilla. He is the invisible man - would be a great spy or assassin, but doesn’t seem like someone to inspire anything.

I think this is part of his thing - he's not actually there to be a dramatic change or anything, in part because he doesn't need to be. For most of his time as leader of the opposition he's been able to sit back and let the current Government destroy itself. And realistically, they've hardly laid a glove on him in that period.

I think Sunak is thought to have exactly the same thing on the Government side now - viewed internally and (they hope) externally as a grown up in a room where there have previously only been children.

[Hummer_I_mean_Hammer]

Counter - We've had 26 years of people being told the Prime Minister needs to be a character, maybe what we need is a boring bean counter/decision maker?

.. to counter your counter, what about Theresa May? She was hardly a 'character'?