Over the weekend Keir Starmer spat in the eyes of Labour's most loyal heartland of Liverpool by writing an editorial for the S*n.
THREAD
THREAD
Starmer's outriders defended his divisive decision to write for the lying rag on the grounds that Starmer needs to appeal to S*n readers, to win an election.
2/
2/
There's a lot wrong with this argument, not least the fact that Starmer's article was infantile and unpersuasive drivel about "saving Christmas", which actually plays right into the "theatre of the absurd" that Johnson so clearly thrives in.
3/
3/
If the article had been any good, they could conceivably have had a point, but it was just softly-spoken weak sauce, when what the so-called LOTO needs to do is launch a furious full-scale attack on Tory corruption and incompetence (you know, like Blair did back in the 90s).
4/
4/
Then there's the fact that the circulation of the S*n has been in absolute freefall for years, and the obvious consideration that only a minority of S*n readers ever actually read the boring political bits anyway.
5/
5/
Is the number of S*n readers to have read the article actually larger than the number of Hillsborough survivors, Liverpool residents, believers in truth & justice, and genuine football fans, who all still detest the despicable rag for the outright lies they spread?
#JFT97
6/
#JFT97
6/
Then there's the fact that Starmer pledged not to pander to the S*n during the Labour leadership election last year.
liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool…
7/
liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool…
7/
So even if you think it is sensible and justified move for him to write for an absolute rag like the S*n, he's still, once again, outing himself as an unreliable and untrustworthy figure who says one thing to get elected, then goes back on it when he gets his hands on power.
8/
8/
Then there's the way the S*n have 'rewarded' Starmer for his act of grovelling servility to Rupert Murdoch at the weekend.
A look at the rest of the political coverage in the very same rag he genuflected for yesterday, tells a dispiriting story.
9/
A look at the rest of the political coverage in the very same rag he genuflected for yesterday, tells a dispiriting story.
9/
The S*n politics section is absolutely full of puff pieces for Johnson and his corrupt and incompetent rabble, while aside from a very creepy profile of Starmer's wife, almost all of their coverage of Labour is relentlessly negative.
10/
10/
Labour's pledge to reduce energy waste by insulating houses is greeted with derision, and presented as pandering to the "eco-mob" ...
11/
11/
Starmer's conference speech is panned under the headline "Bored to Keirs"; S*n columnists like Liddle + Kavanagh absolutely batter the party; the S*n's own editorial portrays Starmer as a clueless dupe who needs to move even further to the right than he already has ...
12/
12/
Another S*n editorial slams Labour for wanting to transition away from reliance on fossil fuels (Rupert Murdoch being one of the most powerful and influential climate change deniers for the last five decades, with extensive interests in fossil fuel industries).
13/
13/
Whatever Labour is doing badly and divisively, the S*n cries for more of, and in the rare cases that Starmer's Labour actually does anything more-or-less right, the S*n scorns and derides it!
14/
14/
It's anyone's guess how Starmer and his outriders think that a single editorial by him is going to counterbalance this constant barrage of hatred and derision on the minds of S*n readers.
15/
15/
Surely they don't believe that Starmer's such an icon of persuasion that his infantile + condescending 'save Christmas' piece, in a newspaper that actively hates the Labour Party, will be enough to counterbalance all of the damage it's done among natural Labour supporters?
16/
16/
The reality of course is that you can never take the Labour-right at their word.
They say Starmer's article is all about appealing to S*n readers, but in reality they know perfectly well it was actually all about grovelling for approval from Rupert Murdoch.
17/
They say Starmer's article is all about appealing to S*n readers, but in reality they know perfectly well it was actually all about grovelling for approval from Rupert Murdoch.
17/
It's a signal that under Starmer's leadership Labour will never pose a threat to the interests of £billionaire media moguls, exploitative corporate fat cats, tax-dodgers, property speculators, phone-hackers, city spivs, millionaire right-wing hacks, and the like.
18/
18/
Starmer's S*n article is a coded message that only the most obtuse of political observers could fail to crack.
19/19
19/19
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
