[Tubby Isaacs]

Isn't Stats for Lefties a sitcom about a clueless estate agent?

I've never seen that.

A sitcom about a bloke who posts how many votes Jeremy Corbyn got in 2017 about ten times a day, I'd watch that.

[The Weeping Angel]

The what? Why would you purchase "capacity that went unused" when you're trying to get waiting lists down? How would that work? Would you forget to send people over? Or not notice when they came back without having had their operations?

Oh yeah I saw people losing their shit over that plus when he tried to be reasonable and nuanced about JK Rowling.

Here's an ex-MP's reasonable nuanced take.

[mattomac]

Well it’s not privatisation.

In fact if you look at the very start of the NHS it’s pretty much Nye’s approach, he isn’t saying let’s privatise the NHS, he is saying let’s use some private provision to reduce waiting lists brought on by chronic underfunding, bloated unnesscary reform and Conservative inability to run a service with the added 2 years of Covid and the inability to control that.

You are buying additional provision which the NHS is doing all the time anyhow.

[The Weeping Angel]

Corbynites going nuts over this

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Q: How can you tell which jelly babies are illegitimate?

A: You shake the bag and the little bastards fall out.


Same thing.

[Nigredo]

[Nigredo]

Today's Mail front page desperately trying to make a false equivalence between Starmer and Johnson's lockdown drinking in April 2020.

At the very least, can any investigation be set up by Starmer, with his choice of investigator, remit and conclusions? No? Then fuck off, Dacre.

[RedSparrows]

The moral void behind the behaviour is definitively not the same, and that's what the Mail is ultimately interested in defending.

Crush the saboteurs, destroy the enemy, let capital and prejudice reign so me and my mates can still get erections from our bank balances and vicarious cruelty, if not our partners.

[Crabcakes]

The Mail’s strategy is a very dangerous/short sighted one (which makes it all the more likely it’s Dacre-powered, because he’s grasping for a moral high ground that simply isn’t there). In trying to imply having food in a room with a handful of people in a brief break from work is wrong - and most folk will see through this because this is exactly how normal people did behave within the rules during lockdown if they had to go out to work - they’re just underlining how considerably worse it is that Johnson oversaw frequent non-work piss-ups with triple digit numbers of invitees from multiple offices, with an added bonus of emphasising Starmer stayed within the rules. It’s like trying to get someone off of a murder charge by saying another person called the victim a silly sausage once and they didn’t go to trial.

[davidjay]

The big problem is how it gets into the mindset of the whatabout tendency. In the past few weeks we've seen the narrative go from Starmer ignored grooming gangs to Starmer refused to prosecute and now I've seen Starmer defended them. Similarly, give it a few days and he'll have been dancing round Hartlepool.

[Youngian]

The Tories haven’t landed a punch on Starmer. The Mail can do its worse but if their narrative on Keir doesn’t chime with the public then its Tony Blair demon eyes. Its easy to slag off Corbyn as a lefty beardy weirdie who hangs around with terrorists because its true.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Jez having been photographed breaking the rule of six might have hampered Labour's attack somewhat, I feel.

[Crabcakes]

13 points clear. 7 more and as I understand it Corbyn is obliged to go on tv and eat one of his berets live.

[Boiler]

Remind me; who's the 'enemy' again?

[Tubby Isaacs]

Ha ha ha ha ha.

[mattomac]

Is that still going?

And I don’t mean “Line of Duty”

[Tubby Isaacs]

Oi, Starmer. Apologize for that beer on a work break, even though it was perfectly lawful.

[mattomac]

I thought Rentoul was better than that but he is not.

Terrible analysis and the suggestive “this is correct” bullshit which is the polite way of ending with “fact”

[Crabcakes]

He absolutely shouldn't apologise - not least of which because he was ACTUALLY doing what the rules allowed, but because any sort of apology would be an open door for "well, they all did it" and "Boris just did what Starmer did".

If anything, he should make more of it - that he *could* interpret the rules safely and correctly, that he *can* recognise what a work event (if it even qualifies as that!) is vs a party, and that he *did* stick to the rules just as so many other people did.

[RedSparrows]

And the fucking goblins who seek equivalence and FUD are just that, fucking goblins.