UKC

Now before I begin, I need to make it clear that, I will be voting Labour on Thursday and historically, I have always voted Labour.

In this day and age of politics where personalities and personas are just as, if not more important then actually polices, I can't help but feel Diane Abbott is doing herself and the Labour party no favours in persuading the undecided voter to vote Labour.

I caught her interview on Sky news with Dermot Murnaghan. In case you missed it; she was being interviewed about the Harris report, which to summarise is a report about improving the security in London. Something you would expect the potential next home secretary to know all about especially considering recent events, right?
Well, the interview made for painful viewing. When pressed about certain points contained within the report, she clearly knew nothing about the report and was taking long uncomfortable pauses before giving very vague answers between the questioning.
Chuck in the disastrous LBC interview and I cant help but feel either she doesn't prepare for these interviews or she is incredibly incompetent and really should not be in such an important position.

I was always taught; FAIL TO PREPARE, PREPARE TO FAIL.

Bet the torries cant believe she was allowed to be interviewed live on air again.

In reply to handofgod:

Are the Tories paying her?

youtube.com/watch?v=bwbd9sDQkhA&

In reply to handofgod: Well it looks like she's 'sick'. I have a feeling she's talked herself out of any future jobs

In reply to Big Ger:

She's actually a staunch torie who has infiltrated the Labour party with one goal; to help May win the majority she so dreams of.

In reply to handofgod:

An Alistair Campbell would've kept her miles away from the TV for the duration of the campaign. The Tories are happy to drop Hunt, Fox and even May from TV when it suits them, and they are ministers of state, so keeping her out of the way shouldn't have been too difficult.

In reply to wbo:


Yes, Emily Thornberry drafted in at short notice for Woman's Hour this morning.

Jeremy knows how well that can go...

In reply to handofgod:

She really is bloody hopeless.

In reply to handofgod:

Proper prior preparation prevents piss poor performance, as they say.

In reply to Siward:

Frequently fatuous, foolishly facile frump feeds falsehoods feebly - flounders - fecking FAILS!!!*

*nicked from another site discussing everyones favourite shadow home secretary

In reply to handofgod:

Has she changed her hairdo recently?

In reply to Big Ger:

Its the lippy which gets me.

In reply to handofgod:
It looks like she didnt expect Dermot to go into the detail, so when asked about the report came out (which she either hadnt read or had read and forgotten the detail - the report did come out in 2016) with the generic "that report needs to be revisited", then when he started getting more specific she was stuck.

A bit like being in a bar and bragging that you speak french (despite barely scraping a D at GCSE) and then someone in the group piping up in fluent french and you not understanding a word and looking a total tit.

In reply to handofgod:

Sadly, its the talent pool that labour are left with - and there always seems to be one gaffe prone one that keeps in the cabinet - whoever the party in government is.

It seems to me that MPs of all colours have been found wanting in this election. Flapping about and talking themselves into trouble at even the most basic of forensic interviewing. Is it the quality of the current crop of MPs?.... is it because they are all so groomed these days to stay on message and say as little as possible most of the time that they can't hold it together?

The absence of many of the top MPs in the mix of things has been telling.

Despite JC having a wobble on occasion - he has faired better than I expected - and TM considerably worse.

I've noticed that David Davis looks ill too. They'll be all off with stress soon.

In reply to Bellie:

You are right on the talent pool. They have either left or been sacked or moved onto new areas like Andy Burnham

In reply to handofgod:

She serves a useful role. Any time you think that Corbyn is developing a good enough sense of judgement to function as PM, think of Abbot.

The same can be said about much of the current cabinet and May...

In reply to Bellie:

JC has come across extremely well and for me, he is showing leadership qualities some where so quick denounce when he was elected leader of the party.

In reply to handofgod:

In her defence, and as an attempt at empathy, I would say that there are enough signs that she is suffering from the stresses of public scrutiny. She is making too many mistakes, and the Woman's Hour interview is the second crucial public appearance she has missed due to illness. And I don't think the illnesses are necessarily of the physical kind.

I'm not defending her fitness to be Home Secretary should Labour get in, but I think there's more going on behind the scenes with Diane Abbot than would meet the eye. Maybe she needs a bit of a break from the mud-slinging?

In reply to AllanMac:


Perhaps, but on the other hand, if you can't stand the heat...

I think she's just out of her depth and has now been found wanting.

In reply to Fraser:

Or perhaps she's ill?

In reply to handofgod:

Have a quick scout around for her thoughts on Chairman Mao...

In reply to handofgod:

To be fair, Amber Rudd and Theresa May also look utterly incompetent when faced with the problem of muslim terrorism.

None of them should be in charge of safety.

The problem for both parties is that they just don't have a depth of quality in their squads, they don't have much choice.

Cameron was the problem for the Tories and Corbyn is the problem for Labour.

My MP resigned from the shadow front bench as soon as Corbyn won the leadership, others took a little longer. But this is what you get with Corbyn, he hadn't done anything in 34 years to build people around him, he did the opposite and perversely voted against everyone. Then when he wins a shock leadership bid he has no-one to build a cabinet with.

Whatever the result on Thursday, even a Labour win, he needs to come clean, admit it just isn't a role he wanted (or can do) and resign.

In reply to Hat Dude:

maybe she is - but given that the UK has suffered two multi-casualty attacks in the space of two weeks, and that as Home Secretary she would be responsible for both prevention and response, do you think she should take a few days off, or maybe try a job-share, or perhaps work from home for a bit.

'sorry, i can't chair COBRA, i've got a doctors note'?

she can't do the job, the reason why is irrelevent, so she gets the boot - simple as that.

In reply to ballsac:


She has to be re elected by her constituents first.

Do people actually vote for her??

In reply to handofgod:

Twitter has this:

Diane Abbott: me in every A-level tutorial when I was 17. "Milton is saying paradise is lost, because it has been lost, and that's sad." https://t.co/HzAM2Rm9he

In reply to Trangia:


She has a 24,000 majority.

In reply to Chris Harris:

She has a 24,000 majority.

Thought it was 24?
No, 240000!
Um, 2400?

In reply to Chris Harris:


Bloody hell! The opposition MUST be unbelievably inept

In reply to winhill:

I disagree.

Since when has being a sheep and following the status que got anyone, anywhere.
At least JC has balls to stand up for what he believes in and whether you agree or disagree with his polices, you have to give him kudos for that.

In reply to Shani:
That interview is a fine example of what's wrong with TV political journalism right now, but it does show up how incapable some of our elected representatives are at thinking on their feet. Nobody should be expected to recall the specific details of a report that came out the best part of a year ago. The interviewer was blatantly concealing a weapon, rather than being fair and reading her the bullet points he wanted her response to. It got the desired result, which seemed to be to show DA to be an idiot. How easy would it have been for her to have asked him which points specifically he was referring to, instead of pretending (as we've seen with so many politicians lately) she remembers everything about everything. Terrible interviewer, terrible interviewee.

In reply to john arran:

She was well an truly baited.

In reply to ballsac:


would that be OK for you too?

In reply to krikoman:

if i wanted to be Home Secretary, yes.

In reply to handofgod:

She is my MP, and until she became part of the shadow cabinet, I think she was pretty well respected as a local MP. I don't think she makes a very convincing shadow home secretary, but "Labour, and Diane can stay as our MP, but please don't put here in the Cabinet" is not an option. I'd guess she will remain safe. Hopefully Corbyn will be able to shuffle her to another job, though those two go waaaaay back, so not guaranteed! Interestingly if the boundary changes that were proposed in 2016 were in force for this election, Diane and Jeremy would have to work something out regarding who actually had a constituency (or of course they could displace someone elsewhere I guess).

In reply to handofgod:

Anyone considering voting Labour should run the phrase, "Home Secretary, Diane Abbot" through their head, then have a little think.

In reply to Thrudge:

Anyone considering voting Conservative should run the phrase, "Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson" through their head, then have a little think.

FTFY

In reply to Trangia:


At the last election the Conservatives and Greens were pretty closely matched in the constituency, but way behind Ms Abbott.

She's my MP - never had to call on her services, so I can't say what she's like for helping constituents, but of course for those inclined to vote for Labour she's what you get.

In reply to Hat Dude:

I'd just written that exact reply too

In reply to john arran:


It was only 6 months and it was Sadiq Khan's review!

It should have been digested by everyone who was involved in the manifesto and especially a Shadow Home Sec.

As mayor of London Khan sets the priorities for the Met, if he commissioned a review and the review included recommendations that would have prevented Saturday's attack (the barriers) then Khan hasn't followed through. If he is then blaming May for London's policing (which he has) it's a very good question, well researched.

Abbott was so bad that the interview didn't proceed to that point.

In reply to winhill:


At least they have enough common sense not to call a few isolated nut jobs on a spree "muslim terrorism". That would look stupid and incompetent in the extreme.

In reply to handofgod:

Not sure what is worse, the performance of a senior member of the shadow cabinet, or the fact people will still vote for her.

In reply to handofgod:


He hasn't stood for anything. He's a politician of the perverse. The whole reason he hasn't got friends in the PLP is because he hasn't stood for a faction or a cult, he's stood for nothing and he's good for nothing.

It's a myth that he has principles that he has stood by, he's just attacked other people.

In reply to john arran:
Can't agree John.

She is Shadow Home Secretary; the report is a major one - perhaps the most significant for London (on policing) in the past several years. She should know the key reccomendations.

Even I knew about the physical defences recco.

In reply to john arran:

I'd agree. I said on another thread that i don't really care about our politicians ability to recall stuff or how they come across on TV. I care about policy. The policy is what matters.

Can we really expect a historian like George Osborne to grasp the vagaries of economics? When a minister gets a new brief, can the really become experts overnight in preparation to face parliamentary questions the next day? Of course not. They have to feign expertise.

Some people DO have the ability to blag, bullshit and bluster their way through (hello Boris), and so our media filters incompetent people in to power.

All that said, that Milton quote is genius and does capture DA's panic!

In reply to Shani:


No, they summarise to key points, significant detail. Knowing they have a tv interview 2 days before an election, they prepare sound bites that tie the report to key features of their manifesto etc..

In reply to GrahamD:


I think we've turned a corner on this now, even Abbott was claiming that her 10,000 'Community Police' would re-engage with communities to prevent terrorism.

The obvious question, with Corbyn's manifesto saying that Prevent has been too focused on muslim communities, is Which Communities Diane?

As 2 of the attackers were known to the authorities, it's clear that Prevent hasn't been focused enough on muslim communities.

Did you see Nazir Afzal's response, quoted in the Times the morning before that latest attack:

“Sadly, there’s an industry which is trying to undermine Prevent. Some of them don’t like anything that’s state-sponsored and some of them are Islamists...The engagement on it with communities has not been very good, so it’s constantly undermined by myths put forward by this [anti-Prevent] industry that take hold because we aren’t quick enough to respond with the truth."

and since:

"I believe Muslims in Britain must accept it is their responsibility to join the fight against extremism.

Worryingly, though, there are those in the Muslim community’s leadership who are undermining Prevent, the Government’s anti-radicalisation programme, which seeks to counter extremists.

Indeed, I was staggered there was nothing on the agenda for last year’s Muslim Council of Britain annual general meeting about radicalisation or the threat of people going to Syria."

The MCB will launch it's own 'Prevent Lite' scheme this year, because it has finally (12 years after 7/7) decided to find a way to tackle the issue, even if it does so whilst deny terrorism and still turning people away from Prevent.

In reply to handofgod:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/06/diane-abbott-bullying...

Worth a read, though I guess most poster will disagree with it

In reply to Trangia:


She's MP for Hackney. The words "Labour" & "Safe" come to mind....

In reply to Chris the Tall:


It's got bugger all to do with bullying and everything to to do with the gulf between her lofty and patronising manner and the complete vacuity of her utterances.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


The reality is even in her shadow post her appointment has exceeded her ability. In 3 days she could be one of the most senior and powerful politicians in the UK. Scary thought!!

In reply to Hat Dude:


Yes. Boris didn't exactly excel on Radio 4's Today programme this morning: it's just that his way of obfuscating is seemingly carried out with a little more charm.

I dislike Abbott to the point where I worry that I'm somehow being unconsciously racist or misogynist but then I realise that I abhor both the ineptitude and persona of David Davis even more (so I think that makes it alright).

In the unlikely - but now seemingly possible - event of there being a Labour-led minority government, I suspect that Ms Abbott will not be in the cabinet for very long. I am prepared to take that risk as the alternative scenario is that we give May, Rudd, Boris, Davis, Hunt, and possibly Gove, another five years to make it up as they go along and take our country back to the dark ages.

In reply to Tony Jones:

People have started mentioning racism, but I think that's a bit rich given that she's so incompetent. There's a lot of that about though, on both sides of the house.

In reply to handofgod:

She's now "not well" and "taking the rest of the campaign off". I wish her all the best but I hope she stands down from her post. Seems totally out of her depth.

In reply to handofgod:

Slightly coming off topic back to the leaders. JC has been attending rallies with plenty of crowds. TM has been attending small gatherings of supporters being employed as advertising boards.

I somehow can't imagine her playing to the crowds. At least Cameron had a second gear, and got all fiery when he rolled his sleeves up and got shouty but even then it was for small groups of supporters.

Back to Diane Abbott... she could probably be replaced with someone with a bit more to them. Back in the day she seemed comfortable with the media. Now not so much.

In reply to summo:

You know in a job interview, you want to find out more about a person and how they tick. Political interviews? Well there is a premium on trickery, awkwardness and difficult silences.

Did you see Boris's response today on the cuts to police? He refuted this by saying police numbers were "still high". He brayed his way out of a straight answer.

In some ways it's better to have the transparent 'media shortcomings' of DA than the arrogant Dunning-Krugerisms of Johnson, or Amber Rudd, or Gove, or IDS, or David Davis, who seem more accomplished performers when it comes to sophistry.

In reply to handofgod:

http://southendnewsnetwork.com/news/diane-abbott-to-replace-rachel-riley-on...

In reply to Shani:

But this is her audition, she isn't looking to be some low or zero paid intern or a rep of student union. She has been a mp for a while and is an aspiring Home Secretary of the 6th richest nation in the world, with a growing terrorism problem. There is simply no excuse for any relatively senior mp to perform like that.

In reply to handofgod: i dont think she'll get the Hone Secretary job if Labour win. Apparently she arranged the disastrous interviews without coordinating with others, and refused to cancelled initially, ergo she is now 'sick'. Given they have lost faith in her - terrible performance, won't do what shes told, she won't get a major role (theoretically, i.m.o.)

In reply to summo:


I agree. Exactly the same could be said for David Davis, Boris Johnson, Phillip Hammond and, worse of all, Theresa May.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Theresa May was a no show for several interviews...

In reply to Big Ger:


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-2XLy0XkAIj6Mj.jpg

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


They might occasionally trip over a word or phrase, be caught out on a single figure etc.. abbot has spent every interview off track and displayed zero knowledge of what should be her specialist subject. She should be like a walking encylodpedia of policing and UK security data, instead she knows nothing, clearly can't plan, organise or prepare anything in advance and is incapable of learning from her previous interview failures. I expect any of us could read an A4 side of pre prepared bullet points and then get at least half those across to an interviewer 30mins later.

In reply to summo:

The defence of DA on this thread by seemingly intelligent posters is quite eye opening given the evidence against her. It makes me realise that for all the posturing by the same at arguing the policies of the manifestos etc, the reality is that it's all superfluous waffle and that they are totally tribal with blind support of "anyone but the tories"

There is nothing wrong with this per se, but it has removed some of the veneer of objectivity from their posts on politics.

In reply to summo: from bloomberg

"Breaking_ Corbyn replacing Diane Abbott with Lyn Brown, currently shadow police, and candidate for West Ham during her period of ill health"

In reply to handofgod:

It seems that Dianne Abbott is ill

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/election-2017-40184379/diane-abbott-taking-bre...

Others have suggested that further back in the thread. There is no doubt that she has come in for some disgraceful bullying by the press over her slip ups. None of us is perfect, we are all human.

In reply to winhill:



You know it's exactly the opposite. When he's had an open goal to attack personally, he hasn't, precisely because it's about policies not personalities.

In reply to handofgod:


Or she has been appointed from within to take up the mantle of Labour's worst liability from Corbyn to make him more credible?

In reply to ballsac:


So Home Secretaries aren't human beings? They're not allowed to be sick? They're immune from any virus, disease, and ailments that would sleigh mere mortals. Is it the job which gives this protection, or is it the person with these qualities that gets the job.

For all we know she might have a brain tumour, and yet you think she should be still giving interviews?

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


And.. Ill health? With what? Factitus? Or a coherencephobia....

In reply to krikoman:


She must have been ill for years then.

Can't be much fun having an illness that prevents you doing even basic maths or writing down a few notes on a piece of paper.

In reply to Trangia:

Abbott is far from perfect, she has long been accused of being a racist, and reviewing her comments over the years, I find I have little sympathy for her.

In reply to summo:
All things considered; a wise move by JC to swiftly replace her.
She was clearly well out of her comfort zone and quite possibly actually ill.
Stress in some cases can be debilitating even if the person has no physical symptoms.
I wish her well for the future.
Some absolute disgraceful things being batted around online about her.
No one, no matter how inept they are should be victim to that type of abuse.

In reply to Jim C:
I can't stand her views, or her politics, but all I am saying is attack her views by all means, but there comes a point where to go on bullying an individual who is clearly showing signs of stress is not a nice trait in a human being.

In reply to summo:

>aspiring Home Secretary of the 6th richest nation in the world, with a growing terrorism problem.

Not sure on what measure you are basing 6th Richest ansd I strongly dispute that we have a growing terrorist problem. That sort of Rhetoric is what is going to stuff any semblance of human rights in this country and hand the Conservatives the 'Strong and Stable' initiative. Its bollocks and you know it is.

In reply to Trangia:


I generally agree , but in the case of DA I find have managed to make an exception.

In reply to handofgod:


Indeed so but I'm afraid there are plenty of people out there, including quite a few on here who are more than happy enough to bat around that type of abuse to anyone wearing a blue rosette on the most flimsy of excuses.
When those who presume to hold the moral high ground so readily resort to those tactics its not a surprise that the gesture is reciprocated when the opportunity arises.

In reply to summo:


Careful your Tory, thoughtful and caring side, is starting to slip.

In reply to summo:


If we look back a few years Diane Abbot was well capable of holding her own in interviews and demonstrated a high level of "mental agility" whilst doing so.

Something has changed and it seems highly probable that there is an underlying health problem.

In reply to pec:


So, "Well they started it" is OK now? FFS!

If it's wrong it's wrong!

In reply to krikoman:


I'll remind you of that next time you jump on the 'all Tories are c*nts' bandwagon.

In reply to timjones:


I suspect it's just an inability to cope with pressure or a high work load, coasting along on the back benches, no problem etc..

Let's not pretend that if those interviews hadn't gone slightly better, she wouldn't be off sick.

In reply to krikoman:


Nothing uncaring about it. She is simply not cut out for that role.

In reply to handofgod:

Would agree, there is a difference between being ill and taking a job that has demands beyond your skill set, to the point that you can't cope with even thinking. That is story of the Labour cabinet should the worst happen by Friday.

In reply to handofgod:

Meanwhile https://www.thecanary.co/2017/06/07/boris-johnson-left-floundering-journali...

Or actual Foreign Secretary.

In reply to summo:

No you're right it's very caring.

And you know why she's ill do you? You KNOW it's job related and so YOU can decide it's because she's not up to the job.

In reply to pec:


Ha ha, please do, and I'll try not to get uppity about "Loony Leftie" or "Champaign Socialist" or "typical caring Corbynite"

I was trying to draw parallels with accusations of ALL (fill in any group you feel) and the real world where there are a range of views and stances about particular issues.

In reply to handofgod:

I'm rather appalled by the lack of empathy shown by some people posting here. You're publicly discussing an actual human being, with all the inevitable faults and frailties that go along with that.

In reply to summo:

Speaking of people not cut out for a role, whatever has happened to Philip Hammond? You know, holder of the second most powerful role in the government. Anyone seen him recently? I don't recall much bile thrown his way for missing the election campaign... And given this was supposed to be a "Brexit election" David Davies has been rather low key too hasn't he.

In reply to andyjohnson0:

We only found out she was ill about half an hour ago. This thread and others have been running since beginning of the week when she was not known to be ill and just known for being completely out of her depth

Of course, if she is unwell then I really hope she gets better very soon. I don't think anyone has been taking the piss out of someones illness, so "a lack of empathy" for the shadow home secretary not knowing a thing about her parties police figures etc is rubbish. She was fair game up until her removal for being ill which has only just happened.

In reply to winhill:


It might have displaced it. If all we do is react to each new evolution in terror tactics with more fences, barriers, bollards and men with guns we're going to have a very ugly dysfunctional world in which attacks will keep happening anyway and the precautions themselves feed an ever more severely distort public understanding of risk making a rational approach to building a better safer world harder and harder.

More than 100 people die today as a result of air pollution, another 5 in collisions and tomorrow and the day after but our public conversation is all about keeping a few stabby bellends in vans off pavements, not the far more severe cost of having traffic and people in close proximity. Yeah, that needs some attention but it does not deserve our focus.
jk

In reply to stevieb:

Flipping heck, even at the last minute, they make Diane Abbott front and centre of the election news!
Have Labour forgotten every single thing about news management.
This seems totally inept.

In reply to summo:


Most of us tend to go into work if we are able, some of us get it wrong and get sent home

In reply to krikoman:


No, you were taking your usual hypocritcal stance, saying all abuse of politicians is wrong (beacuse the abuse is aimed at one of your lefty chums) whilst being the sort of person who happily insults your opponents.
Most of the evidence is 'down the pub' so gets deleted but I give you your quote from May 30th
"I don't see how anyone could vote Tory, considering you have Gove, May and Boris all f*cking liars, all back stabbing bastards"
From this thread https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=664790&v=1#x8570068

What was it you posted only an hour ago?
"If it's wrong it's wrong!"
So all Tories are "f*cking liars, all back stabbing bastards"
Well is it wrong or is it wrong to post that bile?
You tell me, f*cking hypocrite.

In reply to r0b:


Yes, I was going to post something similar, everyone seems to have gone to ground. John McDonnell, Rebecca Long Bailey have disappeared (of course McDonnell being forced to apologise for his praise of the IRA 3 weeks ago didn't help) but the Tories are just as bad.

Instead they're claiming they're being bullied and using the Pub Quiz defence to claim questions relevant to their brief are unreasonable (Karen Bradley, the Tory Diane Abbott making Piers Morgan look intelligent).

It's gone very similar to the US, the journalists are just much more competent and experienced than the candidates, Paxman being the obvious exception, wrongly criticised for his method, correctly criticised for failing to land a blow on a fish in a barrel.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


"She was fair game." Another example of what I was referring to.

In reply to andyjohnson0:

What?

Of course she was fair game. She was trying to convince us to vote for her party by being on TV and constantly ballsing it up. That's why she had been ridiculed to oblivion.

Are you so delicate that you cannot bear to see anyone criticise a politician for not knowing their stuff?

In reply to jkarran:


If that was the case then Abbott could have made it but she was being interviewed the day after barriers went up on Waterloo, Lambeth and Westminster bridges.

Perhaps she could have criticised Khan for his displacement tactics?

In reply to andyjohnson0:


Empathy is hugely over valued, it only has any use when it's used as a small part of a wider picture, if we over value it , it just distorts our perspective out of all meaning.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
Gaby Hinsliff in the Guardian today:

"Yet all that said, something about all this makes me uneasy. Politics is a rough old game for good reason, but there is a fine line between the exercise of democratic scrutiny and playground bullying, and in Abbott’s case things are getting just a little bit too Lord of the Flies. It’s hard to articulate quite when the line is crossed, but you know when it happens: a certain queasy feeling in the pit of the stomach, and a strong desire to look away."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/06/diane-abbott-bullying...

What do you think? Has a line been crossed?

In reply to winhill:

Empathy is hugely overvalued? Really? There isn't enough of it about!

"Society needs to undergo an empathic revolution if we are to survive as a species, says Anita Nowak of McGill University"

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/the-empathy-revolution-anita-nowak

In reply to winhill:


I don't suppose pointing that out or doing nothing would be very popular with the public or would have prevented criticism of her (pretty poor) interview performance. Doesn't mean it's effective, the public are after all not very good at risk and understandably upset.

Anyway, she's apparently now been sidelined. I hope some time out of the limelight is good for her and Labour's last push before the election.
jk

In reply to Bob Kemp: "What do you think? Has a line been crossed?"

Not on UKC

I agree with Gaby when she says this

"Monday’s toe-curling Sky interview – in which she gave every impression of having either not read or completely forgotten a reasonably significant recent report on counter-terrorism strategy in London – was only the latest in a string of excruciating media appearances that could arguably have been avoided by doing more prep. Crying racism or misogyny in the face of legitimate scrutiny merely cheapens the issue."

I haven't read any criticism that hasn't been fair. *But* I am not on social media like facebook and twitter so my criticism is based on what I have seen on TV and heard on the radio. What I saw and heard was completely laughable and that's what i have posted about. I am critical of her ability, nothing else. And as I said to Andy Johnson...until we found out she was ill, she was fair game for that criticism due to the gaffs pointed out by the guardian hack above.

In reply to Bob Kemp:


Even the first sentence doesn't make sense:

"There is a spectrum of empathy, says Nowak, with pity at one end, empathy at the other and compassion and sympathy somewhere in between."

Empathy is at one end of it's own spectrum?!?

Neuroscience has added nothing to the debate, ethicists have known this for millenia, you could try this but it's just saying what philosophers already dismiss as reportage:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Against-Empathy-Case-Rational-Compassion-x/dp/0062...

The author produced a short video about it:

https://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/474588/why-empathy-is-a-bad-thing/

Of course this is only the case for why empathy is bad for making ethical decisions (but we knew that already), it does have other uses, like if you want to try to predict someone's future actions.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

The more important aspect is that Andy burnham who was clearly a very capable shadow Home Secretary resigned and stepped back from involvement in front line labour . This led to the appointment of DA in the first place.

In reply to pec:


You seem to be having trouble interpreting my posts (it might be my accent, I do apologise) ".....Gove, May and Boris all f*cking backstabbing bastards. ".

Means, I think, Gove, May and Boris are backstabbing bastards, not the whole world, not the whole Tory party, but these three people. You opprobrium of my line might say more about yourself than anything else.

Do you REALLY think people can't be ill enough for work because they're MPs?

Or that such an illness could be nothing to do with work?

I haven't a clue whether she's ill or not, but neither does anyone else. Just because you don't like someone doesn't mean that what you say is true.

I plucked an illness out of the air earlier, but what if she HAS got a brain tumour, i sincerely hope she hasn't but there's always that chance.

What should she do in those circumstances?

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


This thread was started yesterday because of the news that DA had pulled out of Women's Hour due to illness

In reply to winhill:


You are of course aware that sociopaths and psychopaths (antisocial personality disorder) have a complete lack of empathy.

In reply to neilh:


It has been said that Andy Burnham is very ambitious, and his resignation was more for his benefit, than against JC

In reply to winhill:

"Empathy is at one end of it's own spectrum?!?"
Not uncommon for continua like this to be named after one of the extremes - eg. autistic spectrum. I suspect you're just trying to undermine the source.

As for Bloom, yes, he's interestingly provocative, but to me he seems to confuse empathy with sympathy. Empathy isn't simply an emotional response, it's a cognitive one as well, so you'd expect it to involve a degree of rationality anyway.

In reply to krikoman:


Yes, but there's also a suggestion that they are in some respects very empathic - one of Bloom's arguments is that psychopaths make good torturers because they empathise with the victim's capacity to feel pain.

In reply to Bob Kemp:


Not just Bloom

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-g-mattiuzzi/do-psychopaths-genuinely-_b_...

In reply to krikoman:

Classic comment.

In reply to Bob Kemp:


Then you'd call it an empathic spectrum and explain what the 'empathy' in the middle consists of.

In reply to Bob Kemp:


I'm not sure it's a very good argument though knowing what can physically hurt someone and what can psychologically hurt someone aren't the same thing.

If you have the inability to relate to someone else's feelings, doesn't preclude you from knowing if I stab someone it's going to hurt them, in fact it can make it easier.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Agreed that UKC commenters have been mostly pretty reasonable so far, addressing the performance rather than the person.

There has been some pretty hideous racist and sexist stuff in the usual places. Not very pleasant.

In reply to neilh:

DA was probably always guaranteed a top post at the outset due to her closeness to JC. What's more interesting than the exodus of "Nu Labour" politicians under JC to me is the change in key advisors to the Labour leadership

Andrew Murray - the communist and Seanus Milne - the almost communist for a start . I wonder how many labour supporters consider how that might work out if Labour win? TBH, I suspect 95% of them don't care or even know who these guys are or are bothered about their background. It would be interesting to see how much influence and control they (with the unions) would take if they win. Or would the more central part of the party stifle their ambitions (with the opposition) and they would just dissolve into infighting?

One thing is almost certain, even if the Tories win, it looks like they will not get the majority they thought they would get and that means Corbyn is sure to stay on as leader IMO

In reply to krikoman:

This reflects the idea that empathy has a cognitive element - some psychologists like Paul Ekman see empathy as having three aspects: cognitive, emotional and compassionate - this blog post has a good summary:

http://www.danielgoleman.info/three-kinds-of-empathy-cognitive-emotional-co...

"But there can be a dark side to this sort of empathy – in fact, those who fall within the “Dark Triad” – narcissists, Machiavellians, and sociopaths (see Chapter 8 in Social Intelligence) – can be talented in this regard, while having no sympathy whatever for their victims. As Paul told me, a torturer needs this ability, if only to better calibrate his cruelty – and talented political operatives no doubt have this ability in abundance.

In reply to neilh:

True.
Elections create stress and exhaustion - but so does being a Minister. Problem for DA is that she has no background in facing this sort of situation - neither does Corbyn, but amazingly he does see to have learnt and grown into the job. In some respects May has followed the same trajectory (invisible pre Brexit) and underperformed. Its about being promoted beyond your capabilities. If DA is ill, I hope she recovers soon.
More widely, we are faced with a dispiritingly poor level of capability across the political spectrum - lots of those mentioned earlier in this string are just so inadequate. Really frightening considering what faces us over the next few years.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Nicely put.

A labour friend of mine is still convinced that JC is only preaching to the converted to keep hold of his leadership . Whereas the Tories have been deliberately and quietly targeting marginal seats.

In reply to Jim Nevill:

Yes it is frightening the loss of political talent across all parties

In reply to Hat Dude:

Agreed, but at that point, a picture of her standing on the phone in Oxford Circus Station on her way to the BBC studio appeared to show that she was not ill (in the sense of bed ridden, hospitalised, dying) and far more likely had been pulled out of it to stop the carnage she was inflicting on the Labour campaign....which would be 100% understandable, believable and plausible as she was the hottest news in the election story and the weekends papers had been full of the labour front bench being furious at Diane Abbott for "going rogue" on TV.

In reply to Bob Kemp:
Cheers, looks interesting.

I guess as with most things in life there are different shades and flavours of everything.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
I am no fan of DA. I have every sympathy with her if she is ill. Given pictures of her on the web it would appear her illness may be Due to stress and pressure. If this is the case I wish her a speedy recovery.

The prospect of it being a ruse to keep her out of the limelight at a critical time is unthinkable. (I hope)

In reply to summo:

Have a dislike. (Unless you're on the waiting list for an empathy transplant).

I'm no fan of hers BTW

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

"The defence of DA on this thread by seemingly intelligent posters is quite eye opening given the evidence against her. It makes me realise that for all the posturing by the same at arguing the policies of the manifestos etc, the reality is that it's all superfluous waffle and that they are totally tribal with blind support of "anyone but the tories" There is nothing wrong with this per se, but it has removed some of the veneer of objectivity from their posts on politics."

Well done; that neatly sums up much of modern British politics (especially that of the government): prioritise mud slinging, with the issues as a sideshow. I'm no fan of Corbyn's labour and have been amused many time over the decades at Diane's capacity for verbal gaffes (This Week is a guilty pleasure of mine with that expert political bully Andrew Neil) and an odd inability for an intelligent woman to deal well with numbers (something she should have trained harder on since she is now an important politician given her part in Corbyn's trusted circle) but anyone who knows anything about bullying must see this is part of what is going on here and how it is deliberate and generates hot air that avoids dealing with real problems. As others have pointed out the Foreign Secretary, who is even more proud of his intellect, has over the years gone out of his way to make (a much bigger) fool of himself (this can't be unknowing). In the end its all part of a circus that allows politics to avoid challenge on difficult ideas and complex facts. This arguably suits both main UK parties but at least one of those parties is trying with some ideas and costings. I think we are about to elect a government based on a campaign of almost 100% rhetoric...almost no real substance or costings in view with a legacy of a crumbling state caused by ideology and political panic U-turns and a main campaign focus on a dishonestly crafted hero and her oppenents even more dishonestly crafted political villains. Unless Corbyn pulls this off, against all the odds, dependant on the fickle voting of the young, this will be a new low in modern British politics. Orwell must be turning in his grave, especially at the oportunism of tearing up rights to win a 'war', trusting a state where black is constantly being redefined as white.

In reply to handofgod:

I am in no position to say whether or not Diane Abbott is or is not ill. That is not to say, however, that I am highly sceptical.

What I will say, which many of the UKC Labour luvvies don't seem to grasp when they have leapt to her defence, is that this woman has aspirations to hold high office in government. All politicians particularly so at the time of an election must assume that they will be subject to the closest scrutiny by the public and the media. This will inevitably give rise to questions being raised about policies and other relevant points. Surely to goodness, mindful of the sort of questions that are likely to be asked, any intelligent person would ensure that they are adequately briefed on such matters. It seems to me that Abbott has not taken this basic precaution. Having attended job interviews in the past I have made it my business to brief myself on the topics likely to be raised.

A friend of mine is a solicitor. I cannot imagine him going into court with a client and the judge saying:
"How much does your client earn Mr. Bloggs?"
"Err, about £50,000, I mean £5000 or it might be £500000"

In reply to Andy Hardy:


Let's hope no images appear of her partying hard after winning her seat in 24hrs time.

Of course if she is Ill and was not moved due to incompetence, then I'd fully expect her to keep her senior post in the shadow / cabinet after the election. Time will tell.

In reply to FesteringSore:

Grow up ffs. Firstly Abbott is highly unlikely to retain her shadow post in any government. If nothing else it will be a coalilition where the 'left wingness' of the Labour leadership will be heavily curtailed (like the right under the last coalition). Secondly ministers bad arithmetic sits in front of government and a civil service. I'd rather have someone with a good heart and slighly shaky maths (who is helped on that) than a souless calculator (speaking as someone who really does not like Diane's politics).

We need more of this sort of hope:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2017/jun/07/only-you-can-ri...

In reply to summo:


Why? If her illness is that of a work/stress related issue, wouldn't it be prudent to give her a break?

In reply to FesteringSore:

Of course we need to put your 'bullshit numbers' example ("Err, about £50,000, I mean £5000 or it might be £500000"), in to some kind of perspective;

"£350m a week for the NHS"

In reply to galpinos:


Would agree. Time for a change of career.

In reply to summo:


Well, if she has been a good constituency MP then there is no need to give that up.

In reply to GrahamD:
I hate to defend Summo, and definitely won't on any of his other contributions to this thread, but by most measures we are the fifth or sixth largest economy in the world. In terms of wealth per capita, we are a little lower, but many of the countries above us are small or very small countries.

In reply to galpinos:

She hasn't got the job yet! If the interview process makes you ill it's not the job for you.

In reply to handofgod:

I think she's ill, either an addiction or some other serious illness.

In reply to galpinos:

We discussed her political career on here a while ago. The general conclusion was that she was a backbench lifer with bit-part on late night political shows on TV that had achieved absolutely nothing during her time in the Commons. And, like JC, has long preferred the company of right wing Tories to those on her own side.

It she a good constituency MP? Write to her and you'll get a reply from her office; she's no better than anyone else, certainly. Is that all you require from a life-serving politician? I don't think so or, rather, I hope not.

In reply to galpinos:


Perhaps drop the paid tv work if she needs to lower the pressure.

In reply to Offwidth:

"an odd inability for an intelligent woman to deal well with numbers" just to say there is a condition called dyscalculia, which affects a persons ability to deal with numbers. My daughter has it, and maths has been the bane of her school life, which is hard for her in a science based family (both my wife and I are scientists and my son is studying science in university).

Not saying DA has this. Just to say that although the thought of her as HS is scary I find the alternative prospect even worse (TM, Boris and Co). Its like a rock and a hard place.

In reply to Mike Highbury:

I'm not in her constituency so had no idea, hence the question. I have never been impressed with what i've seen of her but that doesn't mean that she might not have been good in the constituency.


That's quite a depressing statement.

In reply to thomasadixon:


You still haven't answer my question from earlier.

Are MPs not allowed to be ill?

Supposing she's got a simple case of norovirus and doesn't want to spew up while talking to Andrew Marr, or is she immune from this too.

In reply to galpinos:
Rather than flapping about these numbers, what everyone should be worried about is the previous Tory Home Secretary's (and now PM), attack on Human Rights legislation.

And remember she repeated some crap about the ECHR stopping the deportation of an illegal immigrant because of his pet cat!

youtube.com/watch?v=qXM7DzeMLe4&

But yeah, Diane Abbot.

In reply to summo:


Well quite, and it would have the added benefit of actually helping her party.

In reply to summo:


One again, you're assuming you know why she's ill, and yet are protesting earlier that she isn't ill.

Maybe we don't need the NHS at all, you could just tell everyone what wrong with them. via UKC.

You can start with me if you like, I've got a pain in my right bollock, what's the solution.

Do you need to know my occupation to give me a diagnosis, I'm NOT an MP so it might be something real people get.

In reply to krikoman:

I thought that undercover coppers got loads of sex.

In reply to Shani: > Rather than flapping about these numbers, what everyone should be worried about is the previous Tory Home Secretary's (and now PM), attack on Human Rights legislation.

Trouble is, being able to restrict the freedom of those posing a threat and deporting foreign suspects is a nailed on vote winner across most of the country (not just UKIP voters) apart from a minority of liberals. This is ignoring how effective it would or wouldn't be or even if she could implement much (unlikely other than a few odd derogations).

In reply to krikoman:


You tell me. If it's stress then perhaps the job isn't for her. If it's over work then perhaps the job and her additional paid work isn't for her either. If she is ill then health before the job.. Time for a career change to something less demanding etc?

I've seen or heard nothing to suggest that she is home Secretary material even before she was 'ill'.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

It is I suspect what crosses most people minds.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


Yeah - but it is one of a raft of stupid interventions she plans. You can write an end to end encryption app in something as simple as Python for yourself. You can spin up VPNs. She seems to misundstand that most of the Internet is 'out there' beyond UK control and there can never be sufficient resource to trace masked, spoofed and obfuscated communications. But in this ignorance she is willing to allow vulnerabilities such as insecure comms and backdoors that compromise your banking, financial transactions and personal data.

In reply to summo:

What's my diagnosis / prognosis? I'm wondering if I need to stay off work?

I can send you a photo of the offending part if you like, though you didn't seem to need this to diagnose Diane.

In reply to krikoman:
"I can send you a photo of the offending part if you like, though you didn't seem to need this to diagnose Diane."

Dianes' right testicle is in pain? Now there's a scoop to get this election going!!

In reply to krikoman:

Perhaps it's employment shock(her not you)... All those years hiding on the back benches then all of sudden your old flame lands the leadership and you feel too guilty to abandon the shadow cabinet. Then just when you are enjoying life on a few committees and some pin money from babbling on tv work, there is an election. Bugger me, I need to do something now and sound credible.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


I think rent boys were potentially more Hague's style though if rumours are to be believed.

In reply to summo:


That's potentially libelous. You might want to delete it.

In reply to Shani:


There will be a lot of people in court then. https://www.google.se/search?client=ms-android-samsung&source=android-h...

In reply to summo:


Are you talking from personal experience?

Just read this, now I feel very poor for not having a higher opinion of her, (it was not that low anyway). Probably already posted, if so sorry.

https://cookingonabootstrap.com/2017/06/07/we-need-to-talk-about-diane-abbo...

Cheers

Toby

In reply to summo:


It depends who he decides to go after. I've forwarded this thread to him for his consideration, so your idea of 'a lot of people' might be as few as 'one person'.

In reply to Lusk:


I wouldn't charge. But, you'll have to wait for my memoires.

Ps. You missed a classic chance to get a pun in about being shafted by Tories there.

In reply to Toby_W:

That is excellent. Compare and contrast to the likes of Hunt and Johnson.

In reply to krikoman:


I have no trouble interpreting your posts now I've realised that you don't actually read the posts you're replying to. You just blurt out some blindly partisan zealotry you want to get off your chest. This is the third time in around a week where you've replied to my posts in a way which totally misses (or deliberately avoids?) the point I was making.
The rest of your response exemplifies this perfectly.


You and I know perfectly well that you'll leap at every opportunity to put the name of any Tory that crops up in the same sentence as "c*nt". This just happens to be the three in the first post I found. Like I said, most of it is 'down the pub' and gets deleted but you've got plenty of form for it.


What makes you imagine I think that? Where have I said anything which even remotely suggests that I do?


Neither have I and nor have I suggested anything different.


So May, Boris and Gove aren't "f*cking backstabbing bastards" after all then just because you don't like them.
BTW, what make you think I don't like Abbott? I haven't even mentioned her on this thread.


I hope she hasn't too but if she has I imagine she would step down from front line politics while she's treated, what else would she do?

In reply to handofgod:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/diane-abbott-suffering-from-s...

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

cookingonabootstrap.com/2017/06/07/we-need-to-talk-about-diane-abbott-now-explicit-content/

In reply to Thrudge:

Should also have a read on John Mcdonnell, wanted to close MI5 and have no armed police

In reply to jockster:

Sorry, being successful and black in the 1970s, doesn't make someone a suitable Home Secretary today. Form whatever reason, she is clearly way out her depth.

In reply to pec:

Did you really claim that Gove isn't a back stabbing bastard. I'm sure 99.9% of the Conservative Party believe him to be such, nevermind anyone else.

In reply to The New NickB:

Well he's a bastard and he stabbed Johnson in the back, who is also a bastard, so he's a bastard's back stabbing bastard.

In reply to The New NickB:


Indeed he did stab Boris in the back, that I don't disagree with (see I can be non partisan ).
What I said however, was that just because Krikoman doesn't like him doesn't mean he is one.
You'd need to follow our exchange of posts to put it in context which probably isn't that interesting to anyone else.

In reply to The New NickB:


Indeed.

Rachel Johnson said Gove had stabbed her brother in the “back, front and threw him under a bus” when he decided to turn on Boris Johnson and run for the Tory leadership himself. She went on to label
Gove a "political psychopath" and a "Westminster suicide bomber".

In reply to handofgod:

Jack Munroe has quite a lot to say about her - well worth reading https://cookingonabootstrap.com/2017/06/07/we-need-to-talk-about-diane-abbo...

In reply to Mark Kemball:

Thanks for posting.

In reply to r0b:
She was rather shit at the job wasn't she?

In reply to MG:

Empathy, caring for others, focused on social good ...

In reply to pec:


Unfortunately, this isn't true, you accused me of saying ALL Tories are cnuts, or some such, based on my post above. When it's pretty obvious that is was taking about the three people mentioned in the post.


They sort of do that for themselves to be honest, ask Boris about Gove and he'll say the same, unless of course he's changed his mind since the leadership battle.


I refer you to Boris's own review of Gove.


I was replying to the OP as this thread was about DA before you suggested, the reason some people were nasty was because some people had been nasty to them in the past.

You could have always chosen to take the higher ground by not trying to excuse this nastiness, but you didn't.

In reply to summo:

>> You can start with me if you like, I've got a pain in my right bollock, what's the solution.


I noticed you didn't answer my healthy question, typical Tory

Anyhow, I'm glad to announce, my knacker is OK now, I've been rubbing some cream into it for most of the evening and the pain has subsided.
I have however discovered a side effect which I'm not too sure about, it's now very shiny, I can see my face in it. Would you like a picture?

Would it be OK for me to contact you should I suffer from any other ailment, it's a bit of a bugger to get a doctors appointment around here, and it would be much quicker via UKC?

Thanks K

In reply to pec:

I do believe you're comparing apples with oranges mate.

The abuse Diane Abbott recieves is bullying. Saying Gove, Johnson or whoever is a cnut because of something they've done or actions over a long time really isn't bulying. Neither is saying all Tories are cnuts.

In reply to edwardgrundy:


That's a good point

In reply to edwardgrundy:

The abuse Diane Abbott recieves is bullying. Saying Gove, Johnson or whoever is a cnut because of something they've done or actions over a long time really isn't bulying. Neither is saying all Tories are cnuts.

Let's get some perspective.
If Amber Rudd had made similar errors in interviews, then she would have been ripped to shreds by all and sundry and UKC would have exploded with threads about how incompetent she is.
Some might think the way Abbott has been treated is harsh.
Really? She's potentially one of the most important, influential and powerful people in the UK and with that comes the role of making intense decisions under pressure. Sorry, but in relatively low pressure situations (media interviews), she's panicked and just said random stuff in the hope that it's right.
Home Secretary? Even if Labour win the election, I would sincerely hope not...

In reply to edwardgrundy:



May I respectively suggest you need to go back up to my first post on this thread at 9:55 on Wed and then follow the exchange of posts between myself and krikoman to find out how we got on to this. At no point have I directly compared them and nor have I said the 'all Tories are c*nts' mantra is bullying.
I agreed with another contibuter that some of the comments made about Dianne Abbott were disgraceful but suggested why some people might take the opportunity to stick the boot in and it went from there.
FWIW, whilst robust criticism a bit of micky taking are all part of the rough and tumble of political debate I don't think verbal abuse of individuals or groups should have any place in it.

In reply to Hat Dude:

Well, you've certainly modified - and conceivably extended - my comment, but I don't think you've fixed it. FWIW, I agree with your point about Boris the nitwit, and I've given your post a 'Like'

I'm not being ironic, I think you are correct about Boris. But Boris being dim and incapable does not make the dim, incapable, dishonest and hypocritical Ms Abbott the lesser of two evils, let alone the preferred candidate.

In reply to edwardgrundy:


So, when people criticise Abbott for what she's said and done, it's "bullying" but when people criticise Gove, Johnson or whoever, and call them the worse names we have to use, because of something they've done or said, then that really isn't bullying.

Hmmmm....

In reply to Big Ger:


Welcome to far left politics. Corbyn the calm gentleman who believes he brings manners to politics, supported by a bunch of people who will heckle or shout whilst others are talking, or believe smashing up streets in anti capitalism protests are acceptable.

I suspect it could be a hung parliament, hope you've got some dollars poised for transfer tomorrow.

In reply to FactorXXX:
Do we need to discuss Anber Rudd's dodgy corporate past, failed companes and offshore tax situation?

If we do all that, I bet no one calls her the equivalent of 'wog' & 'spade' etc... that DA has been subject to on social media of late?

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=diane+abbott+racist+abuse+twitter&prmd=nvi...

In reply to summo:


More than a few.

In reply to Big Ger:


Markets are predicting upto a 10% drop if May doesn't get a majority.

In reply to summo:


Oooh, I've a little nest egg I may lob over if it does, thanks for the tip.

I'll keep my eye on XE

http://www.xe.com/

In reply to Shani:

I suspect that DA has received racist abuse for years unfortunately. But we were discussing her abilities here. Not skin colour. Are you trying to divert or shut down the conversation by shoehorning racism into it on the back of an Amber Rudd dig? If not , what was the point of your post ?

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

I was responding to the FactorXXX/EdwardGrundy post at 23:21 where they say "abuse Diane Abbott recieves [sic] is bullying."

I am not trying to divert or shut down the conversation - I am supporting the idea that DA is on the receiving end of bullying.

In reply to summo:


According to the Brexit-good-news thread, something similar last year has been the source of all our wonderful current economic prospects and prosperity. So, more of the same - what's not to like?

Ms Abbott seems to have some very unsound views on terrorism. Is this who we want as Home Secretary?

youtube.com/watch?v=JgDUAv7HZ7c&

In reply to Toby_W:
You were the first.... however it doesn't matter what she did in her life when the public's attention span is so low: you make such gaffes in public (and alledgedly pretend to be ill to cover it up) and your entire past history is written off by morons. This is British people responding on the internet to our politics (and this is on UKC where we share a common bond in climbing and where we have to behave a lot better than in most places).. its a storm of bile and ignorance burying anything thoughtful and well informed .... Krikoman and his ilk are no better when talking about tory ministers as backstabbing cnuts.

I mean, Jack looked at Hansard ffs....to see how she actually typically functioned in her job.. that must take days of research.... you would be really angry about something else by then!

The link I posted above illustrates there is hope for normal people with empathy who simply want things in politics to be fairer and based more on facts. A future political centre ground is possible (one is arriving in France as if from nowhere) and coalitions and fairer voting systems haven't caused the end of the world elsewhere. When thinking on choices at least choose parties who dare to put something forward not those who hide policies and manufacture fear. The conservatives deserve to lose if nothing else because as a self proclaimed party of business and enterprise they can't put the reasons to vote for them in concrete costed terms . This is business incompetance; a new low for them in my view.

Even on political trust... this is a party who took an unlosable lead against a very left wing Labour leader and are close to blowing it and reliant on the gut feelings of old conservative minded folk, fed hate propaganda in the Scum, Excess and Fail. They said no election and lo we have one, they promise a safe NHS and the HSJ blows the truth in planning, and with all these strong and stable U turns they have more flip flops than an olympic gymnast.

In reply to Big Ger:


I really don't like the nastiness of modern politics - from all sides. It strikes me that you get the politicians that suit the environment they go into: the caricatured, 24 news cycle dominated, facile politics we have now suits a certain kind of politician.

I'm also no fan of DA. I don't particularly agree with aspects of her politics. She has rightly been a figure of fun in satire for about a decade now.

That being said, the volume and quality of the abuse she receives is significantly worse than Gove / Johnson. Furthermore, the latter have done more to open themselves up to having their personal qualities questioned: the former saying he wouldn't stand for leader then doing so, undermining Johnson, the latter for being sacked as a journalist for lying and being recorded promising to help beat up a journalist.

I'm not criticising anyone in this thread; I'm speaking generally about how they're received and regardless of the target, personal abuse is not justified; Johnson / conservatives should no more be called c*nts than Diane Abbot. I'm not saying attacking the person in politics is beyond the pale; it's obvious that the capacity of the person to do the job is as important as their ideas. But you only have to look at the way she's treated in the media, on Twitter or at the history of 'green ink' letters she's received to see that there's an order of magnitude difference.

But, fundamentally, I'd love to see a politics free from name calling on all sides. At least then we might be able to attract a better quality of politician.

In reply to Big Ger:


I'm not sure you're comparing apples and apples. If she was just being criticised for her media cock ups, which have been pretty bad recently, then that would be fine. If she was being critised for some ridiculous policies, that would also be fine. Satirising these is also fine. However, she does seem to be on the receiving end of a lot of pretty vile and racist abuse, personal abuse, both on line and in person.

It's not a distinct line sometimes but in the case of Diane Abbott, it seem to get crossed a little too frequently.

(I'm not much of a fan of Diane Abbot, though the link in the thread shows I knew little about her, and don't just think this is left/right issue. The left are just as bad, as recently shown by the abuse Emma Barnett received after JC's Women's Hour c**k up)

In reply to Big Ger:
IMO, MP's regardless of their flavour, should be questioned and scrutinised at any given opportunity. This way the electorate knows we are getting the best man or in this case women for the job. I personally wouldn't class this as bullying.
The same questioning and scrutiny was happening when the chuckle brothers, Johnson and Gove were campaigning for Brexit.

However, what I would class as bullying and harassment and dam right nastiness is assaults on peoples race, gender.
That is bullying the world over.

In reply to Thrudge:

The mystery is why she would even be in the running for the post when Keir Starmer, an actual lawyer and ex-DPP, is available. How about having the Home Office run by someone who understands what's going on for a change?

In reply to summo:


Wow you've really got the measure of labour voters there haven't you?

In reply to Dave Garnett:

The mystery is why she would even be in the running for the post when Keir Starmer, an actual lawyer and ex-DPP, is available. How about having the Home Office run by someone who understands what's going on for a change?

Because Abbott has still got the photo's?

In reply to handofgod:

The tone of this thread is vile, bottom line is she's a target for bullies, she's female and successful and she's black.
Online abuse often focuses on women espousing feminism or any strong opinions (Diane Abbott on one side, Katie Hopkins on the other; I wonder what descriptive epithets have appeared on her twitter feed). Additionally if you're not WASP then there's a mine of abusive terms just waiting to be used.
Just think about living with a constant level of personal abuse for years - rhetorical question; do you think she ever received verbal abuse back in the 70s?

In reply to john arran:


Exactly, how will the Corbyn loving remainers square that circle.

In reply to pasbury:


Possibly true (although she's not above a little light racism herself). However, her being bullied, doesn't make her capable of being home secretary.

In reply to pasbury:


Oh, come on. None of the criticism here is racist or sexist, it's about manifest laziness, smugness and incompetence. If a middle-aged, middle-class white male of any party had committed the colossal electoral gaffes Abbott has he would be getting just as hard a time and quite right too.

I'm not saying she hasn't had all sorts of other stuff to deal with, and that should be dealt with by the law, but being a victim of racist comments isn't an excuse for the air of entitlement she generates.

In reply to pasbury:

"The tone of this thread is vile"

Why? we have been criticising her for her TV and radio appearances which almost everyone is in agreement on, she was terrible, unprepared and appeared clueless. What has been vile?

" bottom line is she's a target for bullies, she's female and successful and she's black."

OK, what's that got to do with her recent TV and radio appearances (which this thread is about)? Is she beyond criticism because she is female and black and receives abuse online from racist bullies? Of course not. And shes not being criticised for any of those things (female, black, successful)

If you are disgusted that she receives racist abuse online, you won't find anyone on here arguing with you on that.

What do you think of her recent performances on TV and radio and ability to be Home secretary out of interest?

In reply to pasbury:

I just read your profile, you got me! nice one

In reply to pasbury:


You clearly haven't read this thread then.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


No there's been no unpleasant abuse here at all, just a bit of putting the boot in when she's down and questioning her competence in spite of a good record as a politician.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

ha - not being sarcastic now actually.

In reply to pasbury:


I thought she'd more or less retired as a politician, along with her mate Michael Portillo.

In reply to Jim C:


In which part have you managed to make an exception?

As a bully, or as a human being?

In reply to pasbury:


Exactly, competence as a back bencher who now aspires to Home Secretary. We have to presume she went onto the shadow cabinet under her own volition of course.

In reply to pasbury:
Its much more than that... look at the length of this thread. Political gaffes are common but less common than avoiding even answering questions where they know they don't know. I genuinely think Boris plays gaffes and stunts on purpose to cover his inability to focus on things he is less interested in. So what is it about Diane that creates so much interest? In the absence of a better explanation my view is that she is different and this is back in part to playground bully mentality. I also think she is not helped by having a defensive front, built from years of facing shit, that makes her look a bit cold and aloof. My main thesis is this is irrelevant to the election today compared to the much bigger issues yet it is still the biggest focus on UKC a community of people I'd expect to be better informed and behaved than the average population.

On that... another useful distraction from Diane...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/07/from-rust-belt-to-mill-tow...

In reply to Offwidth:

Trump or bush jr. are white guys and have taken a constant kicking on social media for their mistakes.

If any mp had arrived for tv or radio interviews so I'll prepared, multiple times during an election campaign they would have been highlighted just the same. I'm pretty sure that is why Boris has been hidden away for the past 7 weeks, willingly or otherwise.

In reply to pasbury:


All true. But not a qualification for being home secretary.

In reply to Offwidth:

This is all getting a bit deep for me. Just put your agenda on the table mate. Easier for everyone.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Easier for everyone............



https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/40562579accfc1ce96ef846c9189d9bcfef74b...

In reply to summo:
Show me the UKC thread where that issue dominated discussions in the proportion to the level of problem of and importance of Diane (their gaffes were legendary and they were the main candidate). They also got elected and are still regarded as good friends by the tories .... so are gaffes important or not?

I'd add even Trump and more so Bush Junior were both elected with pretty much full support of their parties with a bit over half of the white college educated, who must have been able to see what they were voting for in their leader.

In reply to Offwidth:

Trump is mentioned all the time. But, trump isn't aiming to be UK home Secretary. Gove has taken many a hiding in the press, Boris every other week as mayor... ever watched spitting image as a youth? Or even now r4's Friday night comedy show is dominated by left wing satirists.

Edit. The French charlie hebdo has a picture of a decapatitaed TM on its front cover today?....

In reply to pec:


I actually had gone back and followed it through. You haven't directly comapred the two, but you seem to have compared them implicitly. People have said what's happening to Abbott is disgusting. You've agreed and then said something along the lines of: "but what about all you on the left complaining about the treatment of Abott but at the same time saying all Tories are cnuts, and calling gove, johnson cnuts. Hypocrites!".

If you think they're hypocrites then surely that implies you think the two things are equivalent?

In reply to Offwidth:


She hasn't been so shy of publicity in the past, you couldn't keep her out of the studio when she had something to say.

Her woeful lack of preparation might, ironically, be at least partly caused by her very familiarity with broadcasting. She's used to being able to busk and respond to other opinions when she's on Andrew Neil's sofa. Rather like Corbyn's early experience as leader, she's discovering that delivering a consistent position and defending her party's record is a lot harder than attacking someone else's.

I think she's past her sell-by date and I do think she was semi-retired from serious politics until she got the call. I don't think she had any more of an inkling of the set of circumstances that would land her as Shadow Home Secretary than any of the rest of us and I doubt she's enjoyed the experience very much.

In reply to Big Ger:


Er, no... that's not what I'm saying at all.

When people abuse Abott that's bullying, when people criticise Abott or Gove or whoever for what they've done, that's not bullying. If people abuse Gove that's bullying too. But look at the tweets Abbot gets (photos in Jack Monroe article linked to above). Really nasty stuff. I'm sure Gove etc get some not nice stuff too, but I doubt it's in the same league.

In reply to edwardgrundy:
Almost certainly true, and that sort of stuff shouldn't? happen. But here and in that article there seems to be a sense that because she does get abuse, her obvious political and other shortcomings should be overlooked.

In reply to Dave Garnett:
Why don't you email and ask her. Politicians are ambitious folk and she could have chosen much easier briefs. Yes the gaffes were spectacular but it does look like she was ill and trying to wing it. The gaffes were no worse than those of Boris and he is actually in charge of UK diplomacy. If we want to talk about wobbly politicians who were in semi retirement but dragged like rabbits into headlights she's got a a long way to go to beat Liam Fox.

Storm in a teacup and adding nothing new to the well known dearth of talent in the current shadow cabinet due to internal Labour wrangling. If they win, things will change fast they will be better briefed and have a civil service behind them and by even the most optimistic projections will be in partnership where their most left wing excesses will be firmly curtailed (and may have to give up some cabinet posts).

In reply to edwardgrundy:
There is plenty of evidence politicians of all parties suffering way beyond bullying online and in letters, many if which are so bad they have been looked at as crimnal offences. Bullying of MP's by other MP's is part of the yah boo crap in Parliament that needs to go. Such is our broken democracy. Diane is only different in the level of attention and bullying behaviour she attracts for her given mistakes.

Some death threats to tory MPs:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/18/tory-mp-reveals-brexit-death-thr...

http://www.aol.co.uk/news/2017/03/15/factory-worker-admits-sending-death-th...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/anna-soubry-jo-cox-murder-thr...

In reply to MG:


I didn't really get that impression - but sure, obviously they shouldn't be overlooked.

In reply to summo:

Most of the far left are brexit according to Dennis Skinner.

In reply to Offwidth:


Agree with either most or all of that. RE the last sentence. Is your point that she only gets more abuse because she makes more mistakes? Or that she gets it worse for the level of mistakes that she makes?

In reply to edwardgrundy:

Yes she seems to get way more attention than anyone else for her importance and the same level of gaffe.

In reply to edwardgrundy:


I'm not clear how we know she gets more abuse. We can only judge what is in the public media. Who knows what politicians receive via the internet, emails etc?

In reply to Postmanpat:

If I had to guess, I would imagine Nigel Farage probably receives the most death threats and on-line abuse.

In reply to Offwidth:


You'll get no argument from me supporting Liam Fox. Or Boris Johnson or Michael Gove, for varying reasons.

In reply to FactorXXX:

I agree she's not up to the job and happy for people to say that.

That's seperate from the abuse she gets. have a look at that Jack Monroe article - there's a collage of some tweets about her

In reply to Postmanpat:

Just general perception.... might be wrong. If I had to bet on it I'd bet she's towards the upper end of the scale.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


Surely not, if that was the case that Farage was being bullied he would go off sick like DA.

In reply to Offwidth:

Yeah, that's my impression too

In reply to edwardgrundy:


Or that she is such an unliked personality that people from all sides, that would normally feel sorry for someone in that position , don't feel sorry for her.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Vocal black woman? I'd be surprised if she didn't get more than your average politician, although I am sure they all,get a lot

In reply to edwardgrundy:


Quite probably but I would imagine most high profile and controversial politicians are at the upper end of the scale.

In reply to AllanMac:


I'm a nice kind chap, spending time chatting to folk in care homes and , looking after elderly neighbour's, doing people favours etc , and I would normally defend people being bullied, but in the case of DA I found I had ran out of compassion.

In reply to Jim C:

that would be a sub category of my second one. I think most people think the abuse is pretty horrible

In reply to Postmanpat:

I can't imagine how right wing politicians would get any abuse. Surely those on the left believe in a fair, tolerant, equal and honourable society. Abusing people just because they share a different opinion must be against their very ethos and everything they stand for.

In reply to summo:


I believe you might even have taken my comment seriously - incredible!

In reply to john arran:


I see no humour in Corbyn gaining power.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I mean compared to other similar people.

In reply to summo:

no room for humour with the sheer joyous ecstasy of it all?

In reply to edwardgrundy:


Not exactly much to celebrate. I don't think any leader of any party, larger or small, has the ideas or ability to improve the UK long term. It's just a matter of opinion as to who is least bad.

In reply to summo:


With good reason Gove stabbed him in the back FFS! Told lies about it before and after. Boris is just as bad a Abbot complaining about things he thought JC had said when it was actually HIM!!

In reply to krikoman:


But that is one incident, one quote. Abbot went so far off track, multiple interviews and kept digging, she needed a jcb not a shovel.

In reply to pec:


Sorry I've only just see this!!!

So what you're saying is YOU think Gove is a back stabbing bastard.

I think he's aback stabbing bastard too.

But YOU think I think he's a back stabbing bastard, because I don't like him!!! That's your logic and that's why YOU are outraged!?!?! FFS!

Did you not consider I might not like him BECAUSE he's a back stabbing bastard?

Very interesting how you validate you reasoning.

Blimey!

In reply to summo:


That was (an attempt at) humour

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:


Yes, the left think the EU is a globalist corporatist conspiracy and the right think it's a socialist big state conspiracy.

They can't both be correct and, as usual, they are both wrong.

In reply to handofgod:

I see she (Diane) increased her majority, which is more than can be said of May

In reply to krikoman:

Incredible isn't it! 42,265 people put a cross next to her name <shakes head in giggling disbelief>

In reply to Trangia:


I think the answer is YES. Majority increased by 11000. Maybe her constituents know something the muck slingers don't about her abilities.

In reply to Andy Say:

Agreed.a good constituency MP.

But it does not mean she is good enough to have a brief above that.

In reply to neilh:


We know only too well from this election what happens when a politician is promoted beyond their competence.

In reply to neilh:
Well the Telegraph (the TELEGRAPH!) Called her one of Labours most effective frontbenchers a couple of years back. She's not been 'just' a backbencher for some time now. Parliamentary speech of the year in 2008 on civil liberties......
There is a lot more to that woman than you would ever guess from this nasty little thread.

In reply to john arran:

In reply to Andy Say:

I've heard her speak and she was great, I don't agree with everything she's said or stands for, but there's no MP I could say that about, or person to be honest.

In reply to Andy Say:
There are a lot of good backbenchers on both sides or who sit on committees etc.The labour guy who headed up the business one was excellent until he packed in being an mp at the election.

Most have a pet subject they are really worth listening to on .

In reply to all:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/13/diane-abbott-reveals-illne...

In reply to Offwidth:

Makes sense, I'm not diabetic, but I once suffered from hypoglycaemia in a job interview and made a lot less sense than Diane Abbott did in any of the interviews.

In reply to Offwidth: Theresa May is also diabetic, but then she didn't do any interviews, so it's hard to say how she was managing

In reply to handofgod:

I think the whopping majority she got shows the high opinion her constituents have of her. A woman with a truly impressive record.

In reply to pebbles:

Or does it show that she represents a very safe constituency, one which has had a Labour MP since the 1950's, one of the sort who would vote in a three legged donkey if you pinned a red rosette to it?

In reply to Big Ger:


Like Kensington?

If she was shit though, and people didn't like her, they just wouldn't vote would they? So her majority would decrease, I'd imagine.

In reply to The New NickB:

Makes sense, I'm not diabetic, but I once suffered from hypoglycaemia in a job interview and made a lot less sense than Diane Abbott did in any of the interviews.

I assume, that if her medical condition is causing mental blocks such as demonstrated in her interviews, that she and her employers will ensure that she can't be put in such situations again?

In reply to toad:


She's type 1 and injects herself 6 times a day.

In reply to pebbles:


My local MP got over 70% of the votes, just like Abbott and he is already facing calls for deselection!

It's a very scary form of mob rule from the Corbynites, who cannot face criticism. I know quite a lot of the people calling for him to be deselected and they are not young guns. They are in their 40s and 50s, some are church mouse WI retired types, wet as water individually but incredibly vicious as a mob.

In reply to krikoman:


I think they would vote for her, in a high pressure election like the last one, even if they didn't like her.

In reply :

No apologies to Diane yet I see.

In reply to FactorXXX:

Hypoglycaemia is one of the symptom of poorly managed diabetes. As she has only fairly recently had a diagnosis, poor management during a very stressful time is understandable, I am sure she has learnt from it.

I'm not a huge fan of DA, but it seems like a reasonable reason for her difficulties and it shouldn't exclude her from high office, even if she wouldn't be my first choice.

In reply to The New NickB:

I'd like to think that a reasonably intelligent and rational adult could learn to deal with something like type 2 diabetes within 2 years.

In reply to Offwidth:



She doesn't need an apology, because Summo diagnosed her as fit for work, so it was all her fault after all.

In reply to nathan79:


Yes you might like to think that, but it doesn't stop people being taken by surprise, or simply making a mistake.

Like I said above, she's a human being not f*cking super woman. Just because they are MPs doesn't mean they are invincible.

In reply to FactorXXX:



Sounds a bit like discrimination to be honest.

One of the foremen when I did my apprenticeship had diabetes, they found him on the train track on Saturday morning picking up litter. Luckily he was OK when they got his sugar levels right. Are you suggesting that she should lose her job because of her illness?