Err, literally all of them virtually every single day. It's their fecking job!
I think you've proven my point with that one sentence actually, so we'll leave this discussion here.
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Err, literally all of them virtually every single day. It's their fecking job!
I think you've proven my point with that one sentence actually, so we'll leave this discussion here.
My god the level of assumption in this post is unreal.
No, I don't get my news from social media soundbites. I'm well aware Abbott is a competent local MP. That isn't the same as being a competent politician or somebody who is correct on wider issues, and in this respect Abbott has been a complete and utter fecking disaster, no matter how you try to justify what she's said and done.
She's incompetent because she race baited. She's incompetent because she went on live tv and thought that 'well the most murderous dude ever wasn't really THAAATT bad!' was a fair statement to make next to people who were actual historians. And she's had multiple numbers blunders, not just the one, and they're hardly minor blunders ever. She went on radio and said 10 thousand police officers would cost around 300 thousand pounds, and then had no idea how to correct herself.
I can name a shit ton of MP's. A lot of them are total idiots, but many keep their head out of the firing line which Abbott hasn't done because she went ahead and made a bunch of media appearances. And her views are some of the most extreme in parliament which she's demonstrated on a number of occasions, but because it's far left instead of far right everybody is cool with waving it off and pretending it's harmless.
No it isn't. Abbott made more high profile media gaffes than other high profile politicians, thus she got criticism for it. It's as simple as that.
She made a bunch of appearances on news/tv and then recently that's been cut down a lot, probably because the party realise she's shit at it.
Yeah this is bang on. No one is arguing that people are not entitled to feel Dianne Abbott is incompetent. Of course they are. However, the troubling reality is that she is viewed so negatively be so many people, and it is really not commensurate with her history when compared to the countless other MPs whose sins range from outright gaffes to genuinely abhorrent and indefensible policies and ideas.
Yeah, definitely similar to the treatment against Sterling, and again we had to deal with people spouting shite like 'well Sterling doesn't help himself, he only has himself to blame for any criticism'.
She didn't only do it once. And she didn't just get her numbers wrong, she made a completely bizarre claim and then wasn't even able to properly correct herself because she had no idea what she's talking about. Everybody would be pissing their sides on here if Boris did it. And since when did the windrush policies not get criticised?
Rosindell will never be as much of a key player for the Tories as Abbott is. We're talking the shadow home secretary here, not a backbencher. Obviously defences have been made about relationships with current dictatorships because of the economic benefits, but if a high profile tory MP (say gove, or even Johnson) came out and defended Mussolini or Franco, do you think they'd be let off the hook or allowed to remain in a serious position of power?
Just to remind anyone who is interested about why people might have a problem with Abbott running the home office.
Diane Abbott has indefensible ideas. You just don't care as much about her indefensible ideas because they're far left as opposed to far right.
Expressing Maoist sympathies and race-baiting in the past is part of her history. She's claimed in the past that 'blue eyed, blonde finnish girls' are unsuitable as nurses because they haven't met black people before, has claimed white people love playing divide and rule, and has previously claimed that any defeat for the British state is a victory for us all. So yeah, let's not just pretend she's just been a bit silly with numbers before when she's said some fecking outrageous, horrendous things in her past, as bad as any Tory MP.
The press obviously focus on the sins of a high profile Labour MP more than those of a high profile Tory MP, because again the tabloids are pro-Conservative. But that doesn't make Abbott in any way innocent.
feck it i'm going to quote this question again because I genuinely can't believe how stupid it is.
The fact you think Abbott's somehow unique in her TV appearances amongst the front bench is absolutely baffling; and let's not pretend that Thornberry, McDonnell, Starmer or Corbyn don't say stupid stuff on the regular. The fact you've managed to be oblivious to that, let alone the many, many Tory incompetencies that actually matter (like how the feck has Chris Grayling's name not been mentioned yet?) but can reel off Abbott's failings says it all.
I bet you think Meghan Markle is terrible too, don't you?
Oh right so you can defend murderous dictators so long as you emphasise the economic benefits of your relationship with them. Got you. You can't defend the ones who are six feet under, but the ones who give you some money for the bombs they use to commit atrocities are fair game.
You're continuing to spectacularly miss the point and prove me right in doing so by having to defend the right to criticise Abbott. That's not the argument anyone is making. The argument is that she attracts an unmerited level of criticism and negativity. Your ridiculous comments about her number of media appearances only further prove the point.
The Windrush comment again illuminates the point that I am making. Windrush gets some criticism in the media, but its architects have received far less attention for their role than Abbott has for getting her numbers wrong in a live interview. It sums up everything that is wrong with our media and its coverage of politics.
She's unique in how fecking stupid she sounded when she made TV appearances. I can't think of anyone else so high profile who made as many errors, or said as many outright ludicrous shit while live on tv. Corbyn consistently gets criticism for shit he says as well, didn't he also get a bunch of criticism for failing to do maths? Again, Tory MP's (like grayling) DO get a level of shielding from the media because they're pro-Tory. I've said this on several occasions.
And yeah, it's me that's bowing out now if this is the level that you're stooping to. Yeah I just fecking hate anybody black who is in the media. Piss off.
And hey, let's not forget the time the PM said she was unhappy that the courts ruled that it was against the law for her to sell arms to the Saudis so they could blow up Yemeni people.
Hey, I didn't accuse you of anything. I just asked what you thought of someone the right wing press also constantly drags through the mud because of the colour of their skin. I'm glad that you can recognise that there's some similarities between the two people though. Perhaps there's some hope yet that you might recognise the pattern and begin to apply some critical thinking to what you're told to think about Abbott after all.
Is your life that sheltered that you have no clue who our Prime Minister is?
When did I say you could do that? When did I say it was ok? It's obviously incredibly wrong, but it's treated differently by the press as a whole. Working with an existing regime isn't considered the same as looking back to the past at regimes now roundly considered evil and wrong and saying 'yeah, they didn't do too badly, did they?'. This would apply to people on either sides, working/trading with Saudi Arabia now is considered low but necessary to many, but if a Tory MP were to praise a far right loon of the past, then he'd get the shit ripped out of him.
Your original post wasn't just 'Abbott is incompetent/horrible, but she gets way worse shit than others', otherwise I wouldn't have had any issue with it. You almost portrayed her as a totally innocent victim and referred to her incompetence as 'alleged' and made posts like 'god forbid we have a black woman as home secretary', as if the only thing anybody could criticise about Abbott is her skin colour. You've basically gone ridiculously far in the other direction and tried to portray her as completely the victim of the press, rather than somebody who has said some pretty vile/stupid things, but then unfairly picked out for extra abuse for that. Which would be fair.
And yes, the media often does have its priorities wrong and far too much focus is placed on 'Gottem!' moments rather than genuine issues or policies. You'll see no argument from me about that.
Sure, but does Boris Johnson not get criticised for being a buffoon? It's hardly like he's treated as a competent individual by most.
Sure, some of the press recently have tried to back him up, but only because the tabloids are pro-brexit and have an agenda on that basis. He's mostly treated like a complete and utter fecking tit.
Markle's an easy target. She's American, a divorcee and a B tier actress who doesn't fit with what their idea of a Princess should be. And yeah she's black, and the gutter press obviously aren't a fan of that. I didn't deny that there were any racist agendas in the press, I merely don't think that the 'abbott is incompetent' line is something which has hugely exaggerated. I think she's deserved a lot of the stick she's received as somebody who is so high profile in politics, and we should expect better from somebody who is shadow home secretary.
Should the same criticism be levelled at others? Yes, but we don't have a fair or equal press. If The Sun or the Daily Mail were pro-remain, I have no doubt they'd currently be tearing the shit out of past Boris Johnson comments.
Read my posts. I've made it quite clear that I have no problem with criticism of Abbott that is actually explained. And she is an innocent victim to the extent of the crap she has to deal with, in the same way Sterling was a victim to similar mistreatment in the media even if there were things he could have been fairly criticised for. And of course her incompetence is 'alleged', because it is subjective. Why are you treating it as if it is a fact?
No, that's not the point you made. You said 'I can't think of anyone else so high profile who made as many errors, or said as many outright ludicrous shit while live on tv'. Now, are you seriously going to argue that Abbott's balance sheet of 'errors/ludicrous shit' outweighs that of Johnson? Because I think you're being disingenuous if you claim otherwise.
What criticism of her hasn't been explained? Aside from that ludicrous mojito shit which nobody should have cared about. Criticism of her media appearances/shit comments about race, mao etc were deservedly criticised.
And you're objectively being incompetent if you go on radio/talk shows and end up looking that thick. She was a total and utter disaster and the radio interviewer ended up completely exasperated. She's a competent local MP, but that's not related to her competency as a high profile politician, because she consistently has fecked up when placed in the public eye. Numerous television/radio appearances have ended in her looking like an idiot, not because there's some huge bias against her, but because she said really silly things.
Johnson's a weird one. Nearly everybody accepts that he's a buffoon/a total weirdo, but he somehow finds himself in positions of authority anyway. I don't even think people on the right actually think Johnson is remotely competent, and I'm struggling to think of times where he's been portrayed as competent. He's sort of wormed his way in to positions of authority and somehow ended up as prime minister despite nobody really actually thinking he's prime minister material. Some of the press now are trying to back him, but again that's because they're mostly pro-leave. He obviously shouldn't be anywhere near any position of power.
Is this true?
The amnesty study was for female MPs only. This was another study that included male MPs too.
https://usir.salford.ac.uk/id/eprint/47069/3/MPs abuse v6.pdf
I think I'm sceptical because it seems to me that like of Boris and Farage are hated a lot more. Farage obviously isn't in the study but recently Jo Brand made a joke about how she'd like to throw battery acid in his face. You can read a thread on this forum about people that posters would be happy if they died and plenty of right wing politicians appeared on it. Don't get me wrong, Farage was the first person that popped into my head when I saw that thread but it got me thinking about the levels of hatred to towards these politicians and raised scepticism for me.
Thanks for the link, I'll have a look. That table certainly looks interesting and very surprising to me. I'll have a proper read of it later.
You have a point re Farage, although jokes such as the battery acid one are obviously only going to be directed against a male MP.
Yes.
I've always assumed most if not all MPs are subjected to abuse. Some brush it off, some use it to their advantage and others to highlight the abuse.
Having read it the study is less convincing that I would have liked. Certainly what it provides is interesting but its limitations are clear. As one example, it used chosen words to identify abuse; so, for instance, 'wankstain' was one of them, but 'bellend' does not appear to be on the list. A curious oversight in my humble opinion.
I've only ever heard people use the word bellend up north. I don't think I've heard it once since moving down to the midlands.
Is that so? Never knew it was a predominantly northern slur. To be fair I can't imagine the word in a Brummie accent
It is limited in scope sure but a study just looking a women is even more so. I suspect they omitted male MPs on purpose to make the point more stark. I don’t blame them for that as there’s no question that Abbott is subjected to some absolutely vile abuse.
Have a look at some of the recent posts in the Brexit thread.
Name an example of when Marxism worked.
To be fair the Salford study does also note that while male MPs typically received a greater volume of abuse, it was female MPs who were the recipients of 86% of all the tweets that constituted 'hate-speech' in their definition.
True. They describe that as being due to the slurs being gendered which is classed as hate speech, sexism specifically.
Please don't come out with that.
Please show me what policies if there are any the Lib/Dems and Torries have that will help anyone.
Lot of lip service I'm sure.
Burkina Faso under Thomas Sankara?
The current prime minister has said more outlandish things than Abbott, not only is he a buffoon, he's one who represents a small minority of people in this country, a buffoon from a privileged background who's parents probably paid his way through school.
Aware we've sort of moved on but it absolutely baffles me that people still trumpet the virtue of centrism as being 'electability' in an era where the two viable electoral options in the UK are decidedly not centrist in any way whatsoever.
And this isn't just my opinion, it's literally the opinion of...centrists! Because if you're a centrist who votes Lib Dem, you're almost demonstrably doing so because you think Labour have moved too far to the left, or that the Tories have moved too far to the right. And if that's your opinion, then the fact that these two parties largely continue to dominate the polls (with Farage's far-right Brexit Party hoovering up decent totals as well) surely undermines the very notion that what people want is inherently centrist government?
I'll admit the above is a slight simplification. I'll admit there no doubt remains plenty of people to the right of Corbyn who continue to ply for Labour. Similarly, there will be people milder than Boris and Cummings in their views still voting Tory. But, again, an analysis such as this would therefore predicate that the simple view that Labour won majorities under Blair because they were centrist is in itself a vast simplification...because naturally there would have been plenty of people to the left who compromised and opted for him, even if they'd still have voted for a left-wing candidate.
I don't even mean all this in a necessarily bad way to centrist-leaning voters. I agree with the idea of moderation. And of compromise. It's inherently necessary in any democracy. The problem is the idea the Lib Dems are inherently more sensible and rational than anyone else. They aren't. They were an integral part of a coalition government which enacted radical cuts to the public sector. They actively supported most of these cuts. Their position on Brexit is more solidified and more absolute than any other Remain-leaning party at this point and it's an unwavering position. Rather ironically, the fact that they've now actually committed to something has led to a bit of an increase in their popularity again. Because people like politicians actually holding views, instead of just believing in nothing except pretending to be smarter than everyone else around you because they don't believe it's 2004 anymore.
And this isn't just my opinion, it's literally the opinion of...centrists! Because if you're a centrist who votes Lib Dem, you're almost demonstrably doing so because you think Labour have moved too far to the left, or that the Tories have moved too far to the right. And if that's your opinion, then the fact that these two parties largely continue to dominate the polls (with Farage's far-right Brexit Party hoovering up decent totals as well) surely undermines the very notion that what people want is inherently centrist government?
I'll admit the above is a slight simplification. I'll admit there no doubt remains plenty of people to the right of Corbyn who continue to ply for Labour. Similarly, there will be people milder than Boris and Cummings in their views still voting Tory. But, again, an analysis such as this would therefore predicate that the simple view that Labour won majorities under Blair because they were centrist is in itself a vast simplification...because naturally there would have been plenty of people to the left who compromised and opted for him, even if they'd still have voted for a left-wing candidate.
I don't even mean all this in a necessarily bad way to centrist-leaning voters. I agree with the idea of moderation. And of compromise. It's inherently necessary in any democracy. The problem is the idea the Lib Dems are inherently more sensible and rational than anyone else. They aren't. They were an integral part of a coalition government which enacted radical cuts to the public sector. They actively supported most of these cuts. Their position on Brexit is more solidified and more absolute than any other Remain-leaning party at this point and it's an unwavering position. Rather ironically, the fact that they've now actually committed to something has led to a bit of an increase in their popularity again. Because people like politicians actually holding views, instead of just believing in nothing except pretending to be smarter than everyone else around you because they don't believe it's 2004 anymore.
Also...on Abbott, I don't think she's a particularly strong politician and she's made problematic comments in the past, but scrutiny towards her has been much harsher than it was to Boris when he was FS, for example. And a lot of the specific hatred directed towards her quite clearly has fairly racist roots.
Or when the then Chancellor of the Exchequer went on radio and made a complete balls up of the cost of HS2 by £20bn.
Exactly this. She also gets called 'stupid' extremely often, which is something women get a lot more often than men.
Or capable of winning majorities by the looks of things.
The main virtues of the lib Dems aren't their moderation, it's a) they aren't led by Corbyn the Useless or Johnson the Liar, b) they are opposing Brexit. Nobody said they'd been forgiven for their time in government only that there were far more important considerations at the moment. It's not a high bar I grant you but needs must.
So with an election looming, Momentum decide this is the perfect time to unaffiliate Labour Students..
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ad-of-party-conference?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
What the feck is wrong with these people?
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ad-of-party-conference?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
What the feck is wrong with these people?
Had to be done.
What purpose do 'Labour Students' actually serve?
Even without doing research, the list of people I have seen decrying the group being scrapped already tells me it was a good decision. 20,000 Labour students and yet only 500 have any influence in the 'Labour Students' group... it's basically a closed shop for like minded students on the right of the party. If you are a left wing Corbyn supporting Labour student, it's not the home for you I am afraid. Labour should not have any affiliated groups which won't adhere to very basic democracy.