[Malcolm Armsteen]

How would he find out?

Case.

[Bones McCoy]

Tory MPs trying to score points over Sue Gray hiring only net own goals
John Crace

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -own-goals

[Tubby Isaacs]

How would he find out?

Case.

How would case find out?

[Tubby Isaacs]

Is that the best they've got?

Tom Hunt (Con) claims Keir Starmer once said there was a “racist undercurrent” under UK asylum law.

Braverman says Labour policy on immigration involves “total disregard for what the British people want”.

[Crabcakes]

How would he find out?

Case.

How would case find out?

Sue Grey has almost certainly done this by the book in terms of what she has to submit to say she had been approached and when. As cabinet secretary Simon Case doubtless has oversight of a lot of admin-type documents such as would have been needed here, and doubtless has friends in many departments.

He also has motive - he’s Boris-friendly, and anything that might redeem Boris may also redeem him, given his own party time fun. Plus he’d be well up for something to take attention away from his WhatsApp chats with Hancock.

The final bit of the puzzle is obviously it would take a complete piece of work to leak this to discredit a colleague who - through no fault of their own - ended up being given a very public job to do they probably didn’t want, under intense pressure from a highly partisan management team, when they were unable to do it themselves because they had to admit to being compromised. And as seen from Case’s messages blocking Grey from being promoted at Badenoch’s request because she’s not the right person (read: not part of the old boy club and not corrupt), he’s more than enough of a sack of shit to do it.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I don’t think there is a “book” for applying for new jobs. That’s one of the big cons here, like people resign before they get another job, or have to say they’re looking. Doesn’t apply in any field, it’s absolute bollocks. The book starts when you want to take up the job.

So I reckon Case didn’t know. No reason for her to tell him.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Also, Bozo can’t do anything for Case anymore.

[Watchman]

As Sir Kier hasn't confirmed any dates of who said what to to who and when; its put it back on the Tories to provide evidence, and therefore showing a bit more of who's leaking

[Tubby Isaacs]

Labour saying they’ll drop Simon Case. To the civil service equivalent of traffic duty, one hopes.

But seems odd to say this now. I wish I was more confident it was all under control. Unless Case did…

[The Weeping Angel]

I'm not really sure what this article is saying other than Starmer Bad

https://thecritic.co.uk/The-contradictions-of-Keir/

There is also the issue of antisemitism. The EHRC found the party guilty of antisemitism under Corbyn’s leadership (the second party investigated after it took action against the BNP). Starmer removed the whip from Corbyn for appearing to downplay the report’s findings — and last month welcomed the EHRC’s conclusion that progress had been made in tackling Jew-hate in Labour. He said that he was sorry for what went on under the previous leadership and ruled out the possibility of Corbyn standing as a Labour candidate at the next general election.

This is sweet manna for the Labour Party’s once-beleaguered centrist wing. Five years in the political desert, the moderates feel they are reaching the Promised Land — or at least something resembling a time before the Wrong Brother won. Luciana Berger and Mike Gapes, two MPs who courageously left the Labour Party over Corbyn’s leadership and antisemitism, have since returned. Those who remained during the Corbyn years believe it vindicates their decision to stay and fight for the party they love. Tory misrule is drawing to a close, the cranks have been vanquished and Scottish nationalism is on the ropes — the centrist Labour restoration is in sight. Yet I wonder whether they are wise to feel this way.

[Abernathy]

It appears to be completely factual until the final sentence, which is slightly bewildering conjecture. How is that "Starmer bad "?

[mattomac]

The last line is a narrative so many seem so desperate to own.

I guess we will see in time how out of step it was or not.

[The Weeping Angel]

It appears to be completely factual until the final sentence, which is slightly bewildering conjecture. How is that "Starmer bad "?

He's accusing Starmer of being deceptive and slippery.

[Abernathy]

It appears to be completely factual until the final sentence, which is slightly bewildering conjecture. How is that "Starmer bad "?

He's accusing Starmer of being deceptive and slippery.

Yet I wonder whether they are wise to feel this way.

How?

[Tubby Isaacs]

This seems poor. I wouldn't frame it like this necessarily, and I'm by no means somebody who thinks that every recommendation in every report needs to be implemented, but there's no reason not to have engaged with Martin Forde or his report.

[The Weeping Angel]

Starmer did a bad thing he quoted Maggie

[Youngian]

Starmer did a bad thing he quoted Maggie

Appealing to Tories who believe governments aren’t above the law, is a bad thing? When May and Johnson were subverting the rule of law, Jeremy Corbyn had no problem agreeing Thatcher on this subject. And Jeremy was right.

[davidjay]

Some years ago I read that more even than the economy, people will vote for anyone who makes them feel safe to walk the streets. I don't know if that's true or not, but positioning yourself as the party of law and order will never do any harm outside the Twittering cultists.

[Tubby Isaacs]

If I were a politician, I’d quote opponents as often as I could. Makes you look non-partisan.

I’m remembering Jez in 2017. There seemed to be a lot about extra cops in the campaign, and not all that much about natural Jez topics. And he was quite right.

[mattomac]

Yeah, bobbies on the beat doesn’t actually work and isn’t that effective but it sure helps as an electoral statement.

I’m glad Starmer sort of alluded to it but avoided it, most of this was very good to be fair, though I do disagree that we need to be aligned with public opinion, I think Gender stuff has been weaponised and homosexuality was made legal and hanging was abolished against public opinion.

Saying that Starmer will know this fully well, you can push some stuff through on a wet day when you’re running the country.

I don’t think Labour ran on those policies in 1966, but fundamentally its policy in the home office is what that government is remembered for, Jenkins actually pushed forward the legalisation of homosexuality without personally being in favour of it.

Your big ticket here is the increase in sentencing on offences against women and girls, it’s what your manifesto will say not the quotation from Thatcher or indeed the shutting down of the Telegraph reporter.