Wow! Starmer owns a field. Clearly not fit to be leader

The last laugh

Phil Harrison
@MrPMHarrison
·
6h
The
@Keir_Starmer
donkey story is a spectacular self-own from the Mail innit? Doesn't actually do anything other than confirm Starmer as a nice guy who likes donkeys and is kind to his mum and and confirm The Mail as a fetid right-wing cesspool where journalism goes to die.

Piranhas! Callistemon? Harmless grans with whom it would be delightful to share a cuppa with in RL, if not floating in the anonymity of cyberspace

Some children who go to private schools turn out to be socialists.

Double down news is truly independent with no agenda
JC opens up about his relationship with the media.

www.instagram.com/tv/CAN8hS7oySo/?igshid=kj9fdxc68vne

You are right WWM2, apologies again.

It has been said many times on GN that we never know what’s going on in posters lives and therefore we should be aware of how our comments could be completely inappropriate as mine was,

So Starmer's wealthy. It's probably in his personal interest to be a Tory but he's not. He's chosen to work for Labour. Good on him.

fun

Like playing in a tank full of piranhas
There must be someone, somewhere in the world who thinks that would be fun

Most of these political threads are just for fun and a bit of a distraction, it strikes me, similar to mediaeval jousting but without physical injury...

It doesn't seem to be working though, does it!!

I think it's a good thing to be aware of and read a range of political opinions in the media Callistemon otherwise we are just seeking views to agree and reinforce our own prejudices.

We probably do that do a large degree anyway I suppose.

a level playing field would that be with or without a donkey Terribull?

How could one possibly have an 'insightful discussion' around a completely ludicrous non-story about the Labour leader's field?

out standing in his field
No, that's just the donkey, gillybob!

I'm just amazed at how many posters scrabble around reading the Daily Mail.

Why is it shocking . ?

Yes also agree Glorybee, socialism implies a belief in a level playing field, so into that field your own darlings need to go.
Either or, pay fees if you must, but don't call yourself a socialist because you're anything but.

Paddyanne - I don’t know any either personally but I was thinking about some Labour MPs in particular who are guilty of this and other people in public life who profess to be socialists. The hypocrisy is stunning.

The last stats I saw Urmstongran put the online readership of the Guardian higher than the Daily Mail.

Print papers are in decline, and it is generally the older demographic who read them. Dare I say, similar to the Tory supporter demographic.

Yep that annoys me too Glorybee luckily I dont know any socialists who send their children to private schools though I do know a lot who can well affrd to.When my children were school age we always had folk ask why we didn't wend them to the nearby private school theres was no way I would consider it,ALL children should be educated to a good standard regardless of how much cash their parents have .Its the sign of a decent society that childrens education is a priority.

Very witty Dinahmo

1,134,184 is the circulation daily for DM
February 2020

The Guardian can only dream of such a figure:
126,879
February 2020

?

At least he has sent his (primary school age) children to the local state school. Far more galling to me than accepting a title are ‘socialists’ who send their kids to private school. I don’t know how on earth they can make that fit with their ideals. Must have skins like rhinos.

Pantglas the title bothers me too,titles and socialism are worlds apart I cant understand how anyone who believes in socialism can allow themselves to be known as SIR or any other worthless title .Its not an "HONOUR" its a way of saying I'm better than the rest of you...which clearly isn't the case with most who have them

I have no problem with anyone earning a lot either or what they spend their cash on, but this has to be across the board...
Not castigating somebody wealthy because of their politics.
It’s alright for Starmer to buy 7 acres and it’s alright for Johnson to buy 7 acres, and that’s all there is to it.

I don’t know a lot about Sir Keir Starmer other than he’s come from a working class, grammar school background and was a top QC - his skills in parliament have been self evident this week with forensic grasp of detail.

I have no problem with earning or owning a lot or a little (same goes for anyone actually).

I do question accepting the title. If you don’t agree with them and don’t want to be addressed by it, why on earth did you accept it? It’s not compulsory so I’d have thought more of him and indeed any Labour supporter for doing so.

I'm very glad that we're no longer at the mercy of the paper media. Back in the day when it was the papers, the BBC or the radio, we had far less ability to get a balanced view. Of course, the media hadn't descended wholly and totally into the complete propaganda tool that is now.

What I like about the internet is that you can read one article (in the DM since that is being discussed) and then go to Al Jazeera for example, to get a wholly different perspective. It means we're not at Murdoch's mercy anymore. Of course, some buy in whole heartedly, but then I guess those are the people that buy into that system in perpetuity anyway.