Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)

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.
 
Because Dianne Abbott attracts more vitriol than any other politician, and we all know why that is. It's tiring seeing her treated as nothing other than a figure of fun for the right-wing. In the run up to the last election, a study of abuse sent to female MPs exposed that she was the target of almost half of all the abusive messages. It's tiring just seeing lazy and unarticulated criticisms of her like 'lol imagine her as Home Secretary', especially when you consider the disgusting and racist policies of our most recent Home Secretaries yet they escape with less criticism than a woman whose worst sin is alleged incompetence. If Abbott makes an error, it is immortal and she is forever deemed to be incompetent whereas her white, male counterparts (be it belonging to the "left" or "right") can commit blunder after blunder or implement vile policies and still be treated with far more credibility as a political figure than Abbott is.

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.
 
How
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.

Very interesting.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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 :lol:
 
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.

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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

Exactly this. She also gets called 'stupid' extremely often, which is something women get a lot more often than men.
 
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.

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.
 
What the feck is wrong with these people?

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.
 
why people get so worked up about a politician accidentally muddling up some figures in an interview is beyond me. i'd prefer to focus on their actual fecking politics. dianne abbot is an excellent politician. i couldn't care less if she drinks a mojito or muddles up some numbers, who the hell hasn't done either of those things?
 
Don't tell Corbyn, probably not too keen to be assassinated and dismembered.

That's usually a risk when a leader tries to implement polices that serve the interests of the people rather than capital, domestic elites and foreign interests.
 
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?

They were an undemocratic clique where only 500 out of the 20000 members were allowed a vote on the leadership. It deliberately excludes voices that dissent from its Blairite politics, which, considering the reality that the majority of Labour students will not share those views, means that it's about time it is replaced with a democratic grassroots organisation.

Good read about the problems here - https://tribunemag.co.uk/2019/03/labour-students-is-unfit-for-purpose
 
That's usually a risk when a leader tries to implement polices that serve the interests of the people rather than capital, domestic elites and foreign interests.

There's nothing wrong with wanting everyone's life to be better. It would be great if no-one was hungry or starving or homeless or sick or suffering at all but no-one has yet come up with the magic solution to prevent this.
 
There's nothing wrong with wanting everyone's life to be better. It would be great if no-one was hungry or starving or homeless or sick or suffering at all but no-one has yet come up with the magic solution to prevent this.

No, but it's nice when a politician at least tries, and it's clear that you will not solve any of those pervasive problems if you have no genuine desire to do so in the first place. Or, worse, pursue policies that consciously intensify and even create such problems.
 
No, but it's nice when a politician at least tries, and it's clear that you will not solve any of those pervasive problems if you have no genuine desire to do so in the first place. Or, worse, pursue policies that consciously intensify and even create such problems.

That's it.

btw I think Corbyn being 'neutral' in the GE in as far as Brexit is concerned gives him the opportunity to run fully on strengthening the welfare state and policies that will help working families.
 
That's it.

btw I think Corbyn being 'neutral' in the GE in as far as Brexit is concerned gives him the opportunity to run fully on strengthening the welfare state and policies that will help working families.

He won't be strengthening anything if we leave the EU, especially if we leave without a deal (that is presuming he gets into power, which he won't).
 
He won't be strengthening anything if we leave the EU, especially if we leave without a deal (that is presuming he gets into power, which he won't).

If we remain after a 2nd Ref, policies he is running on can be implemented.

But we do not know what will happen before Oct 31st.

EDIT:

Sounds like Boris is just playing for time.

He will deliver 'hard brexit' and run on that.
 
It's the right call. It's farcical having a deputy leader who disagrees so much with the leadership and the membership.