Kicking Starmer out is a pleasure reserved for us, electorate tells Streeting

THE voting public has told Wes Streeting to halt his leadership manoeuvres because ousting Starmer is their job and will be their delight. 

Rumours of a Labour leadership plot have forced the electorate to step in and remind the plotters they elected Starmer so they get the satisfaction of giving him the f**king boot, thank you very much.

Martin Bishop of Saltash said: “We never got to watch Boris Johnson realise the country detested him, constituency by constituency. We’re owed this.

“How would Streeting like it if we took his job, whatever it is? Producing weird, sterile toothpaste adverts by the looks of him. Either way he’d be pissed off, so he’ll have to go through all 50 million of us if he wants a go.”

Helen Archer from Blyth said: “I know the next election seems ages away, but if anything the anticipation makes the eventual hammering all the more satisfying. I’ll vote for literally any other party with a smile on my face.

“Plus it’s a Labour government going. We haven’t had one of them since 2010, and the one before that was in 1979. This is a generational opportunity.”

Streeting said: “Relax, like everything else Labour tries to implement this will fail to succeed. All thanks to the shortcomings of the previous administration.”

Sign up now to get
The Daily Mash
free Headlines email – every weekday
privacy

Trump's BBC libel suit: how it wouldn't work

TRUMP believes he has ‘an obligation’ to sue the BBC for ‘defrauding’ viewers. Here’s how that libel action cannot possibly work: 

One: Panorama wasn’t on where he’s suing

Trump has threatened suit in Florida. It wasn’t shown in Florida. Legal experts claim that for a ‘TV programme’ to ‘influence viewers’ it has to ‘be shown’ on ‘their televisions’. Trump discounts that as tricky, evasive legalese.

Two: He said the things

It’s an unfair quirk of the courts that actually having committed the acts you’re accused of invalidates lawsuits, and one Trump has fallen foul of before. The two statements, even if separated by 50 minutes of waffle like ‘if you sign your name as Santa Claus, it would go through’ were actually made. Which apparently complicates the issue.

Three: He has a reputation for trying to overthrow an election

For the libel suit to work, Trump would need a reputation as a man who would never, even if he felt a terrible injustice had been done, incite his supporters to storm the Capitol and try to overthrow an election. It is believed that footage exists which may contradict this.

Four: He would be called as a witness

Any libel suit would require Trump himself to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, then to enter the witness box and speak logically and coherently without veering off into unrelated tangents and spouting obvious falsehoods. His speeches over the last decade suggests this could be an issue.

Five: The requested damages of one billion dollars are completely made-up

Proving the president has suffered one billion dollars in damages when he was re-elected shortly following the lightly edited broadcast of a little-watched programme in a different country would likewise seem fraught with difficulty.

Six: So the BBC should settle for multiple millions

As there is no route to Trump’s libel action being successful and very little chance of it even being followed up in any meaningful way, the BBC should admit culpability and pay Trump $20 million. It’s what he wants and our current policy is to give him that. What, does the BBC think it’s got more integrity than the government and King? For shame.