Freedland really is hopeless at this. "He was twice elected mayor in Labour-dominated London thanks in part to a range of red accessories". No, he won narrowly because he had massive media backing & made liberal (not "red") gestures.
theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
Not only did the below tactic fail to work for the Tories, it directly contradicts the preceding para: "If anything, lots of voters seem to like Johnson’s lack of doctrinal purity: again, it’s part of his persona, suggesting a loose pragmatism that many find appealing". 
The reason the Torygraph can berate Johnson is because they know there is no alternative on the right & Labour have pretty much given up hope of winning the next election, hence the latter's unpreparedness & surprise ...
Despite this admission of incompetence, Freedland thinks that Starmer's competence is the winning ticket. The man's ability to repeatedly contradict himself from paragraph to paragraph is genuinely impressive.
You need to end such a masterpiece of mixed metaphors & incoherence with a flourish, so how about: "Johnson wants to steal Labour’s clothes. It’s Labour’s job to say he’s wearing them all wrong." To be fair, that would be echt Starmerism.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
