UK politics general discussion

[JAperson]

If he resigns (which I think he should've done already as he was calling for Boris to as soon as the cops were called in)

Put it's too different cases. Boris clearly broke the law from the start, attending lots of different events, most if not all of which were a clear breach of the rules. This case is not as clear, it seems he did not break the law but the media are so loyal to Boris they just had to find something on Starmer the man calling for him to resign.

I don't think Starmer will get a fine however. I think he's being briefed against from the inside and that's where the "new evidence" that Durham cops are investigating has come from.

Yes probably, because there is a part of the labour party who just won't get around him, it's like they don't actually want to win a general election, all the odds are stacked against them and they want to make it harder, stupid is what it is.

 

[Matt.GC]

Put it's too different cases. Boris clearly broke the law from the start, attending lots of different events, most if not all of which were a clear breach of the rules. This case is not as clear, it seems he did not break the law but the media are so loyal to Boris they just had to find something on Starmer the man calling for him to resign.

It wasn't different at the time. Boris didn't break the law until he was found guilty of doing so. Starmer asked for Boris to resign over the allegations. Forget what we know now, I know we all knew deep down Boris had been up to no good, but Starmer did call for him to resign before he'd been found guilty of anything.

 

[Alsty]

It was completely different circumstances.

I can recommend this interview with Human Rights Barrister Adam Wagner which goes through the legal position:


But in short, Keir Starmer was at a constituency office for work purposes. Stopping to have food and drink in the workplace was never an offence.

This compares to the gatherings that Boris Johnson attended which were organised specifically for social purposes. Bring your own booze, birthdays, leaving parties etc. These were not gatherings for work purposes.

You might also remember the Downing Street garden party. The Met did not investigate this one because it conceivably could've been work related (or more specifically, couldn't be proved otherwise). Simply having food and drink in the workplace didn't fall foul of the law.

It seems to me like the right wing press just got overexcited, especially the Mail who've run an article on this for 10 days (I believe). However I think they've actually shot themselves in the foot by trying to make a story out of this.

 

[Dave]

Well, that was a bit of a drubbing wasn't it? A few takeaways for me:

1. Although it was only around 1/3 of local councils up for grabs yesterday, if demographic trends that we saw were to relate to national polls, if there was a GE tomorrow Labour could only hope to be the biggest party in a hung parliament. This is with a Tory Prime Minister who is deeply unpopular, likewise his government; seen as corrupt and law breaking and at the helm of one of the biggest cost of living crisis in most of our lifetimes. A crises that could kill the poorest people this winter; people who Labour were founded to protect.

2. Whilst Labour are continuing to make progress amongst the urban middle classes, they've made very little headway in their old heartlands. They lost Hull for Christ's sake! Pathetic. If Labour can win over middle England liberals then great, but where's the old school middle class they're supposed to represent? Many of them voting for clown Boris, LD, Green or simply abstaining it seems.

3. Labour are still no where near landing a finger on the SNP. The SNP are more of a blocker to a Labour GE victory than the Tories are. Despite the SNP being in national government in Scotland for many years and a majority being polled as against Independence. Clearly many of the people of Scotland still really don't like Labour.

4. Starmer called for Boris to resign immediately after the cops were called in. Yet now they're investigating him, it's all a load of old pony about the local pubs being closed for food after working late. This is the man who wants to be Prime Minister by the way. Regardless of BJ being proved to be what we all knew as corrupt in the end (as if anyone didn't know), Starmer still wanted his head at this stage in the precedings against him. Use hindsight all you like, Starmer wanted BJ to resign the moment cops were called in and has not done so himself.

5. Many Tory MP's don't like Boris. Many Tory members don't like Boris. Many seasoned Tory voters don't like Boris. Yet the main opposition party still can't make much headway and looks almost certain to not win anywhere a majority in the next election.

Starmer should put away the party poppers left over from the Mcdonall and Corbyn election loosing celebrations and do the right thing and resign. Labour has lost touch with the people it was founded to represent and all their needs and desires and is therefore no longer a credible opposition. If they can't give a bloody nose to this government then they are not fit to hold office themselves.

Labour needs a reboot. And neither "Good Old Days" Corbyn or Inanimate Wood Block Starmer are the answer.

Just some observations:

1) With Scotland going SNP and our FPTP system Labour can’t easily get an outright majority, even if the national vote share swing even further in their favour it’s just not likely with parliamentary arithmetic, particularly after next years boundary changes. You also have to factor in that the seats contested last week where last contested in 2018 when Labour did really well, they had already taken the low hanging fruit, in fact Labour where defending more seats than any other party. That’s why the major scalps outside of London went to the Lib Dems and the centre right abandoned Johnson but they would never vote Labour. In fact the only way Labour could get a majority is if the Tory vote really collapses towards Lib Dems which is why Labour in a roundabout way are supporting them in Tory seats.

2) Hull has flipped between Lib Dems and Labour over the last 20 years, Hull also had a deeply unpopular labour council leader. My parents live in Hull and would vote Labour in a GE but voted LD in the locals purely because of him. That said some of the old heartlands are lost in the short term absolutely. Though they gained in Wakefield which is promising.

3) This is true, and it’s a real thorn in their side.

4) Johnson lied to parliament, that’s what the calls for resignation where about at the time. Plus the rule breaking was far more obvious and on multiple occasions.

I don’t think Kier is particularly inspiring and Labours communications team need replacing but I don’t think these locals where really the test due to seats being contested. Assuming we haven’t actually had a general election already next years locals are going to be more indicative as they are more concentrated in the areas Labour need to do well in and the Tory’s are more on the defensive.

 

[Matt N]

Sorry to bump, but notable developments have happened with Partygate since this thread was last updated.

Firstly, the Met Police investigation has ended. 126 fines were handed out in total, but the PM received no more fines following his fine for the May 2020 “bring your own booze” event.

As such, the full Sue Gray report is expected to come within days. Boris Johnson is one of a number of individuals who the report is apparently very critical of, according to sources.

Finally, pictures have now emerged of Boris Johnson appearing to raise a glass in some sort of toast at the event on 13th November 2020, which he was not fined for: https://www.itv.com/news/2022-05-23...nking-at-downing-street-party-during-lockdown

 

[Alsty]

I personally find it suspicious that Boris Johnson was not fined for the other parties he attended, despite others who were at those parties receiving fines. Smells of a Met cover up to me.

 

[pluk]

Smells of a Met cover up to me.

You think there's anyone in the police that'd be wanting to cover up for the current administration?

 

[Alsty]

The Met's Deputy Assistant Commissioner Bas Javid is a sibling of Sajid Javid. That alone makes me question their impartiality.

A legal expert found it odd as the regulations didn't provide for people to attend a gathering for different purposes. The gathering itself is what was unlawful. His interpretation is that everybody in attendance at a gathering must either be breaking the law or none of them were; no scope for some to be there legally and others not so.

 

[Craig]

I personally find it suspicious that Boris Johnson was not fined for the other parties he attended, despite others who were at those parties receiving fines. Smells of a Met cover up to me.

Yup the police have determined the gathering to be illegal on the basis that others have been fined, and there is photographic evidence proving that he was there, so for him not to be fined is beyond questionable. A reminder that the law regarding workplaces at the time was "It was illegal to participate in a gathering if that gathering was not reasonably necessary for work.". The 'it's his home' defence isn't valid either, as in private dwellings the law was that "no persons may participate in a gathering which takes place indoors (including indoors within a private dwelling). Whichever way you take it, workplace or home, Johnson was there and actively participated, and therefore should have been fined.

Stepping away from what the law was, he has repeatedly now misled parliament. A reminder of what he said in December 2021 following the video featuring Allegra Stratton in that mock press conference:

“Mr Speaker may I begin by saying I understand and share the anger up and down the country at seeing No 10 staff seeming to make light of lockdown measures,” he said.

“And I understand how infuriating it must be to think that the people who have been setting the rules have not been following the rules.

“Because I was also furious to see that clip. And Mr Speaker I apologise unreservedly for the offence that it has caused up and down the country, and I apologise for the impression that it gives.

“But I repeat Mr Speaker that I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no Covid rules were broken and that is what I have been repeatedly assured.”

He was "furious" to see that clip and stated that no Covid rules were broken, yet there he is pictured behind a desk littered with bottles of alcohol, toasting colleagues when everyone else was told to stay put at home.

There's plenty of other clips, many of which will no doubt be shown repeatedly on the news over the coming days. The sole aim of Johnson in the past few months has been to kick the can further down the road, knowing that the press would keep at it. They knew the evidence exists, they knew more things would come out as time went on. But, the longer it dragged on, the greater percentage of the public become fatigued with the whole situation. They were backed into a corner, buying as much time as possible in the hope of the story burning itself out.

Whether photos released today have more of an emotional impact on the public than stories from anonymous sources remains to be seen. I think the majority in the Tory party know Johnson is finished, it's been a case of when rather than if for a long time now. Whether what's come out today hurries that process along or not is another matter. In any case though, the fact that we have a Prime Minister who has actively lied to parliament again, and so far has received no real punishment for the fact shows that the Ministerial Code is now next to useless.

Yes, if you're a supporter of him you might look past the parties as "just a few drinks" or "they're just letting their hair down". But, no one should underestimate the significance of someone who is willing to lie in front of parliament and the public, both of whom are supposed to hold him to account. If he's willing to do it for this, what else in future? Tis a very slippery slope!

 

[pluk]

The Met's Deputy Assistant Commissioner Bas Javid is a sibling of Sajid Javid. That alone makes me question their impartiality.

It might make you question it, but but doesn't make your concerns a reality. That's not how decision making / prosecutions in the police work.

 

[Craig]

It might make you question it, but but doesn't make your concerns a reality. That's not how decision making / prosecutions in the police work.

But on the flip side, there's not really been that much of a precedent for decision making/prosecutions of the head of the UK government. I don't think such concerns should be dismissed as not being a possibility because bog standard prosecutions don't receive such attention.

 

[Funcone]

I think you’re being very cynical Craig. When has this government ever shown any signs of corruption? Aside from illegally proroguing parliament? Or illegally deporting British citizens to Jamaica? Or spending billions of pounds on sub-standard PPE from government friends? Or dodgy business interruption loans? Or Robert Jenrick’s planning deals? Or giving ferry contracts to people who don’t own any ferries? Or allowing money to be laundered through our property markets? Or allowing flammable cladding to be put on buildings, and then not prosecuting anyone for it? Or by giving levelling up money to hedgefunds in tax havens? But aside from that, when has this government ever been corrupt?

If you want to be picky, the government has halved the funding for the HSE and ACAS, closed down two thirds of our courts, slashed legal aid, made big cut backs to employment tribunals and allowed trade associations to take over running some of our ombudsmen. But aside from that, they are the party of law and order.

If the police say that Boris Johnson’s a good egg, then I’m sure he’s a good egg.

 

[pluk]

If the police say that Boris Johnson’s a good egg, then I’m sure he’s a good egg.

They have already issued a fine for breaking a law the government implemented themselves, quite the opposite of any endorsement I think anyone could agree? In fact pretty much the most damning indictment of any serving PM in living memory.

Police officers have very recently won a court case against the government as a result of being discriminated against in the decimation of their pensions. This in itself is pretty much unprecedented in terms of police / government relationship. It is somewhere between difficult and impossible to see a scenario where police would be willing to act dishonesty to protect the PM considering what this administration as done to police.

But on the flip side, there's not really been that much of a precedent for decision making/prosecutions of the head of the UK government.

There has really, in that a fine to the head of the UK government has already been issued. A precedent already set. What, realistically, is to be gained or lost in issuing or not issuing another one? Not a lot. So if there were clear grounds in law to issue more you can bet they would have done; there's nothing much new proven in doing so when others have been issued already, but a lot to lose in public confidence if one should be issued and it isn't.

The CPS truly is independent to the police, not on the same, or any, side.

Prosecuting in the public interest: independence without isolation - Max Hill QC, Director of Public Prosecutions | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

 

[Dave]

They have already issued a fine for breaking a law the government implemented themselves, quite the opposite of any endorsement I think anyone could agree? In fact pretty much the most damning indictment of any serving PM in living memory.

Police officers have very recently won a court case against the government as a result of being discriminated against in the decimation of their pensions. This in itself is pretty much unprecedented in terms of police / government relationship. It is somewhere between difficult and impossible to see a scenario where police would be willing to act dishonesty to protect the PM considering what this administration as done to police.


There has really, in that a fine to the head of the UK government has already been issued. A precedent already set. What, realistically, is to be gained or lost in issuing or not issuing another one? Not a lot. So if there were clear grounds in law to issue more you can bet they would have done; there's nothing much new proven in doing so when others have been issued already, but a lot to lose in public confidence if one should be issued and it isn't.

The CPS truly is independent to the police, not on the same, or any, side.

Prosecuting in the public interest: independence without isolation - Max Hill QC, Director of Public Prosecutions | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

The CPS wasn’t involved, these are fixed penalty notices, the CPS would only become relevant if the person receiving the fine challenged it as that then becomes a court matter.

There is one major reason the police would have avoided another fine. Kier Starmer set the bar when he said he would resign if he got one. That would make it incredibly awkward for Johnson if he got another fine after that standard was set.

Either way you cut it, it seems odd that people at that event got fined, thereby stating the event was illegal, but not everyone at the event got a fine, was different parts of the carpet in different legal zones? It’s either incredibly dodgy or incredibly sloppy investigating.

 

[Benzin]

Either the MET DID see the photos and decided not to issue additional fines (which isn't right) or they DIDN'T see the photos as it would further incriminate the incumbent PM.

Someone isn't doing their job correctly regardless.

Not that anything will happen of course. The mental gymnastics were already in full swing last night (WhAt AbOuT tHe CuRrY?), so odds are that once again he will avoid any serious scrutiny (probably by actually sorting out a Windfall Tax to give him some positive press).

 

[pluk]

The CPS wasn’t involved, these are fixed penalty notices, the CPS would only become relevant if the person receiving the fine challenged it as that then becomes a court matter.

Usually, yes, but in as higher profile case as this I would bet the CPS would have been consulted on an early evidence basis in case of dispute.

Either way you cut it, it seems odd that people at that event got fined, thereby stating the event was illegal, but not everyone at the event got a fine, was different parts of the carpet in different legal zones? It’s either incredibly dodgy or incredibly sloppy investigating.

The offences have the caveats of 'lawful excuse', as many UK laws that are not strict liability do, so it is absolutely possible for some people to have a lawful excuse for being in a place and others not to. Doesn't make it dodgy or sloppy.

 

[Dave]

Usually, yes, but in as higher profile case as this I would bet the CPS would have been consulted on an early evidence basis in case of dispute.




The offences have the caveats of 'lawful excuse', as many UK laws that are not strict liability do, so it is absolutely possible for some people to have a lawful excuse for being in a place and others not to. Doesn't make it dodgy or sloppy.

I’m not convinced the CPS would offer advice, the police do have recourse to legal advice outside the CPS however.

I’m absolutely sure the caveat of lawful excuse is what the police are using, but just because it’s used doesn’t make it right (or that the IPC/ judicial review won’t take a different view). What lawful excuse does the PM have to be in that room at that time consuming wine? I find it hard to see the leap of logic here.

The only thing that makes me think there might be something the police can cling onto here is that I am sure they knew these pictures would get out, and I am sure they are not dumb enough to know it’s not a good look for them when they do. It’s certainly going to make their jobs harder when the public already seriously distrusts the Met at the moment.

 

[Matt N]

The problem is, it’s hard to fully judge without any additional context.

Boris could have just briefly popped in for a quick chat. Boris could have been working in the room next door. Boris could have been working in that same room, for all we know (in which case, it could technically be considered a “work event” like he describes), and just taken a quick break. Without seeing the evidence that the Met Police can see, we simply don’t know.

I won’t deny that the picture doesn’t paint him in a very law-abiding light at first glance, but I think we should wait for the Gray report and hear what that has to say about this particular event before we get out our pitchforks and flaming torches, as it might well reveal some new information as to why the police did not fine him, and why Boris Johnson’s presence at the event was not considered illegal.

 

[Dave]

The problem is, it’s hard to fully judge without any additional context.

Boris could have just briefly popped in for a quick chat. Boris could have been working in the room next door. Boris could have been working in that same room, for all we know (in which case, it could technically be considered a “work event” like he describes), and just taken a quick break. Without seeing the evidence that the Met Police can see, we simply don’t know.

I won’t deny that the picture doesn’t paint him in a very law-abiding light at first glance, but I think we should wait for the Gray report and hear what that has to say about this particular event before we get out our pitchforks and flaming torches, as it might well reveal some new information as to why the police did not fine him, and why Boris Johnson’s presence at the event was not considered illegal.

I work in the NHS, we are still not allowed to meet face to face outside of the clinical area. A colleague of mine is retiring after 40 years in the service and she is getting a 20min MS Teams meeting on Thursday.

And people see this event in lockdown as ok?

Baffling!

 

[Craig]

Boris could have just briefly popped in for a quick chat. Boris could have been working in the room next door. Boris could have been working in that same room, for all we know (in which case, it could technically be considered a “work event” like he describes), and just taken a quick break.

It doesn’t matter how long he was there for, the length of time is completely irrelevant as there was nothing set for that in law.

The main issue, which I’ll repeat again is that others in that room have been fined for participating in a gathering, so therefore the Met have deemed it to be illegal. For that reason, everyone there should have been fined. That photo of him, raising a glass shows his participation in that gathering, so questions should be asked as to why he was not fined.

And again, questions should also be asked about why he was spouting so much nonsense about being shocked to hear about what the likes of Allegra Stratton was saying in that mock press conference.

This is not someone who just wasn’t aware of the rules, they were literally signing off on those rules, repeating them to the public on a daily basis and had overall responsibility in signing off the barrage of public health messaging that we had at the time. Why some people aren’t seeing an issue with that and still defending him is beyond me at this point.