I felt they made a bigger play for what you could term your working class white van man because of brexit and UKIP, but really can’t see how their values align with a large percentage of ethnic minority voters.
Seriously. The number of turkeys voting for Christmas is shocking. But then it is the British way, to bend the knee before our betters
Diane Abbott is a poor interviewee, yet on Saturday morning while all the string of Tories were lining up on different platforms to say Rudd should not resign, Michael Gove in an interview with John Humphrey says that the BBC is 'weaponising' the Windrush scandal. In the face of actual people really suffering the strategy was and is to turn on the BBC or Abbott. FFS. Javid is supposed to have sorted the victims of Grenfell, nearly a year on it hasn't happened, and Boris Johnson has washed his hands of the woman in an Iranian jail once he made things worse for her. Yeah, and the Tories have got Brexit well under control...not. The story is about the present government and its current actions, the shadows remain there until elected. If the Tories are so much better than Labour we will presumably see that made manifest on Thursday. London will turn blue?
This government is led by the person who dreamt up the hostile environment policy. Deflecting criticism by talking about potential Labour failings somewhat misses the point.
Which is what has this government actually done since the Brexit referendum?
Net immigration is down because people are leving. GDP growth is near zero in Q1 2018. If that's down in Q2 then people will start to reforecast the year.
And financial services are enacting contingency plans for Brexit by creating or enlarging subsidiaries in the EU27 ready for a potential loss of market access.
Does the government have any policies?
We are entering an age of rapid technical innovation and change where every sector will be affected. From health to comms to financial services to transport. And yet the government has no policies!
Oh sorry, I forgot. DIANE ABBOTT. How silly, to slag off the Tories when DIANE ABBOTT exists. Hey everyone, DIANE ABBOTT! She's probably the worst politician ever! RACIST DIANE ABBOTT! Look at her, all black and racist! Not like the Tories!
Oh sorry, I forgot. DIANE ABBOTT. How silly, to slag off the Tories when DIANE ABBOTT exists. Hey everyone, DIANE ABBOTT! She's probably the worst politician ever! RACIST DIANE ABBOTT! Look at her, all black and racist! Not like the Tories!
You're such a reactionary child that's borderline laughable.
I know the game for you is to take what someone says completely out of context, dress it up in Leuth clothing and spit it back out to make it unrecognisable from what was actually said.
Did someone say something? All I heard was 'Oh shit, my beloved Tory Party are in trouble, I'd best employ the Diane Abbott Distraction Technique, all while painting myself as some kind of centrist voice of reason'
Did someone say something? All I heard was 'Oh shit, my beloved Tory Party are in trouble, I'd best employ the Diane Abbott Distraction Technique, all while painting myself as some kind of centrist voice of reason'
Re. Diane Abbott - How can a person who once called every attack on the British State as a victory for everyone, now want to become part of the British State?
Re. Diane Abbott - How can a person who once called every attack on the British State as a victory for everyone, now want to become part of the British State?
Re. Diane Abbott - How can a person who once called every attack on the British State as a victory for everyone, now want to become part of the British State?
Re. Diane Abbott - How can a person who once called every attack on the British State as a victory for everyone, now want to become part of the British State?
Did she? When?
Go from 2:48 if you just wanna hear the bit about my post @Greenie , or listen from the start if you wanna hear her call certain terrorist organisations, "dissidents", even though she refuses to explain which ones -
What you have to decide - and this is not a political point -many Conservatives get this - is between two choices. This doesn't just apply to illegal immigration, but the benefits system and other things too. Now if I had magic powers, I would magically send all illegal immigrants back to where they came from - but as this isn't the case with me or the government - the uncomfortable truth is, many illegal immigrants have crap lives and are being exploited (used in the black economy, prositution etc...). You try finding them!
But sadly it is a vote winner to make wild claims that you can't meet. But if you want the UKIP votes you do need to show you are hard on illegal immigration and when you promise people you will do something, you have to try to do something that looks like you are having success. The Windrush people, old people who have contributed fully to this country but did not have the necessary paperwork were targets in plain sight. Not much work needed to find them. There is also no way ministers were not aware what was going on! It was helping the numbers.
The mistake the public makes is that they think the government knows where all these illegal immigrants are. It gains votes to demonise and make people believe they will do something that nobody has done before. But governments of all colours have tried to deport illegal immigrants for decades and will continue to do so. But you can't go into elections with figures that contradict your promises so when you make the promises you have to deliver something!
With benefits, if you make benefits too complicated to claim many people that need them don't/can't claim them - especially older/disabled people who really struggle. If you make them too simple unscrupulous people take advantage and play the system. So you have to find a middle ground - but there will always be a small number of complete to**ers who will take advantage and play the system. In the way of things they represent a financial drop in the ocean - but they are a useful tool to fuel outrage and allow decent people who are down on their luck to be hit hard with the public's blessing. Another way to win votes off hard working people who don't want to subsidise scroungers.
I had a friend who used to be a fraud officer in a jobcentre. They had targets - stiff ones but the government of that day could claim to have saved X million etc... I was shocked to find that very few people they caught were prosecuted and most were able to claim again and get caught again making the figures look better! To the same extent, jobcentres tried (I don't know how they work now) to place people into work who didn't need their help - easy wins which made the figures look better. It isn't what something is, but what you can make it look like that is important!
The choices are do you try to do what is right - or create a false reality where it looks like you are doing something you are not.
If you slag off immigrants and use dodgy rhetoric it's probably going to win votes however illogical policies regarding immigration might be - this applies to all the main parties.
The debate over immigration tends to get a bit hysterical. There are illegal immigrants here but due to the clumsy way things are handled some of those who have every right to be here have been treated like criminals.
The two main parties have both failed in their recent policies on immigration from what I can see.
Yes, it does apply to all parties - we should expect the government of the day - whatever colour - to address the issue with resolve and compassion and not let the issue out of the bag as a vote winner. It creates the wrong atmosphere and plays to people's prejudices.
It was sad that immigration became the issue during Brexit. It should have been the preserve of Farage and his closet racists, but not decent politicians to use this tactic.
I am not criticising the Conservative party here - it has many decent members - it is just the UKIPesque element seems to hold too much sway at the moment. I admire the conservatives who stand up to that and there are a significant number who do.
Re. Diane Abbott - How can a person who once called every attack on the British State as a victory for everyone, now want to become part of the British State?
Did she? When?
Go from 2:48 if you just wanna hear the bit about my post @Greenie , or listen from the start if you wanna hear her call certain terrorist organisations, "dissidents", even though she refuses to explain which ones -
She really dosen't do herself any favours does she. I know people who work with her and they describe her as more than competent, whatever that means, however as a Labour supporter I feel she is the weak link, and would prefer a different person in her shadow role.
She may be better when she isn't put on the spot, but that is politics today. I have been anti her since I learned she sent her son to a private school many years ago! I think that is hypocritical. But I do think she clearly does not look well. It can be argued she has a senior shadow post so it is fair game, and I think Corbyn has to address this for her sake and for votes as she will be absolutely hammered in the next election.
Re. Diane Abbott - How can a person who once called every attack on the British State as a victory for everyone, now want to become part of the British State?
Did she? When?
Go from 2:48 if you just wanna hear the bit about my post @Greenie , or listen from the start if you wanna hear her call certain terrorist organisations, "dissidents", even though she refuses to explain which ones -
She really dosen't do herself any favours does she. I know people who work with her and they describe her as more than competent, whatever that means, however as a Labour supporter I feel she is the weak link, and would prefer a different person in her shadow role.
Dianne Abbott appears to me to suffer from 'brainfreeze' when being interviewed - I find it excruciating to watch. I actually thought during some of her interviews that she was in the early stages of dementia given how bad she was.
I'm sure she's decent when it comes to dealing with people on a one-to-one basis and I'm sure her policy ideas aren't bad. She's really popular in her constituency. She has a tendency to get in a muddle on live TV, which is amplified by her critics - such a high-profile job clashes with her public persona and Labour probably would be better off, in an electoral sense, with someone else in her position. It'd be a shame if she's forced out by the optics over the substance though.
However, we've never had a chance to see what sort of Home Secretary she'd actually be. Whereas we're discovering exactly what May (and Rudd) were:
Re. Diane Abbott - How can a person who once called every attack on the British State as a victory for everyone, now want to become part of the British State?
Did she? When?
Go from 2:48 if you just wanna hear the bit about my post @Greenie , or listen from the start if you wanna hear her call certain terrorist organisations, "dissidents", even though she refuses to explain which ones -
She really dosen't do herself any favours does she. I know people who work with her and they describe her as more than competent, whatever that means, however as a Labour supporter I feel she is the weak link, and would prefer a different person in her shadow role.
Dianne Abbott appears to me to suffer from 'brainfreeze' when being interviewed - I find it excruciating to watch. I actually thought during some of her interviews that she was in the early stages of dementia given how bad she was.
I'm sure she's decent when it comes to dealing with people on a one-to-one basis and I'm sure her policy ideas aren't bad. She's really popular in her constituency. She has a tendency to get in a muddle on live TV, which is amplified by her critics - such a high-profile job clashes with her public persona and Labour probably would be better off, in an electoral sense, with someone else in her position. It'd be a shame if she's forced out by the optics over the substance though.
However, we've never had a chance to see what sort of Home Secretary she'd actually be. Whereas we're discovering exactly what May (and Rudd) were:
I'm sorry but in such a high profile position you have to be competent in media interviews - she is spectacularly bad. She's an utter liability to Labour's election campaign.
I'm sure Corbyn has taken pity on her as they go back a long way.
She may be better when she isn't put on the spot, but that is politics today. I have been anti her since I learned she sent her son to a private school many years ago! I think that is hypocritical. But I do think she clearly does not look well. It can be argued she has a senior shadow post so it is fair game, and I think Corbyn has to address this for her sake and for votes as she will be absolutely hammered in the next election.
She'll win her constituency with one of the widest margins of any MP at the next election.
I'm sure she's decent when it comes to dealing with people on a one-to-one basis and I'm sure her policy ideas aren't bad. She's really popular in her constituency. She has a tendency to get in a muddle on live TV, which is amplified by her critics - such a high-profile job clashes with her public persona and Labour probably would be better off, in an electoral sense, with someone else in her position. It'd be a shame if she's forced out by the optics over the substance though.
However, we've never had a chance to see what sort of Home Secretary she'd actually be. Whereas we're discovering exactly what May (and Rudd) were:
I'm sorry but in such a high profile position you have to be competent in media interviews - she is spectacularly bad. She's an utter liability to Labour's election campaign.
I'm sure Corbyn has taken pity on her as they go back a long way.
Pure diversion tactics because 'look at her, all black and racist'. Or something
She may be better when she isn't put on the spot, but that is politics today. I have been anti her since I learned she sent her son to a private school many years ago! I think that is hypocritical. But I do think she clearly does not look well. It can be argued she has a senior shadow post so it is fair game, and I think Corbyn has to address this for her sake and for votes as she will be absolutely hammered in the next election.
She'll win her constituency with one of the widest margins of any MP at the next election.
Yes, and I am not saying she shouldn't stand as an MP - It is just she shouldn't have a shadow position and should focus on her constituency during an election campaign. The point is to win an election not to try to lose it!
She may be better when she isn't put on the spot, but that is politics today. I have been anti her since I learned she sent her son to a private school many years ago! I think that is hypocritical. But I do think she clearly does not look well. It can be argued she has a senior shadow post so it is fair game, and I think Corbyn has to address this for her sake and for votes as she will be absolutely hammered in the next election.
She'll win her constituency with one of the widest margins of any MP at the next election.
My arthritic springer spaniel, Humphrey, would get the vote if he stood for Labour in Hackney North and Stoke Newington in the local elections
She looks ill and clearly has no clue on her own parties policy which is why she simply avoids answering the actual question. Once again she's left looking a complete and utter fool.
Tory Home Secretary is forced to quit over lying to MP's and the public about pursuing a disgusting, shameful policy resulting in the enforced detention, withdrawal of medical treatment and lost jobs of 100's of innocent British citizens...yeah but...Diane Abbot once got herself tied up in knots over some police numbers in an interview!
Most definitely equal to one another...
Don't forget that she's also a massive racist. Something that some people will completely ignore, which is ironic really seeing as racism is such a disgusting trait for anyone to have.
I'm sure she'd have been hounded out had she worn a rosette other than red.
She looks ill and clearly has no clue on her own parties policy which is why she simply avoids answering the actual question. Once again she's left looking a complete and utter fool.
Tory Home Secretary is forced to quit over lying to MP's and the public about pursuing a disgusting, shameful policy resulting in the enforced detention, withdrawal of medical treatment and lost jobs of 100's of innocent British citizens...yeah but...Diane Abbot once got herself tied up in knots over some police numbers in an interview!
Most definitely equal to one another...
Don't forget that she's also a massive racist. Something that some people will completely ignore, which is ironic really seeing as racism is such a disgusting trait for anyone to have.
I'm sure she'd have been hounded out had she worn a rosette other than red.
She looks ill and clearly has no clue on her own parties policy which is why she simply avoids answering the actual question. Once again she's left looking a complete and utter fool.
Tory Home Secretary is forced to quit over lying to MP's and the public about pursuing a disgusting, shameful policy resulting in the enforced detention, withdrawal of medical treatment and lost jobs of 100's of innocent British citizens...yeah but...Diane Abbot once got herself tied up in knots over some police numbers in an interview!
Most definitely equal to one another...
Don't forget that she's also a massive racist. Something that some people will completely ignore, which is ironic really seeing as racism is such a disgusting trait for anyone to have.
I'm sure she'd have been hounded out had she worn a rosette other than red.
We have focused on the easy target - Abbott - but what about May now. And her part in the current scandal. She is much more culpable than Rudd in my opinion. Should she get a free pass?
We have focused on the easy target - Abbott - but what about May now. And her part in the current scandal. She is much more culpable than Rudd in my opinion. Should she get a free pass?
Comments
Which is what has this government actually done since the Brexit referendum?
Net immigration is down because people are leving. GDP growth is near zero in Q1 2018. If that's down in Q2 then people will start to reforecast the year.
And financial services are enacting contingency plans for Brexit by creating or enlarging subsidiaries in the EU27 ready for a potential loss of market access.
Does the government have any policies?
We are entering an age of rapid technical innovation and change where every sector will be affected. From health to comms to financial services to transport. And yet the government has no policies!
Laissez faire or simply no clue?
I know the game for you is to take what someone says completely out of context, dress it up in Leuth clothing and spit it back out to make it unrecognisable from what was actually said.
Stop trying to be a pointless hero.
https://andrewgilliganblog.wordpress.com/2017/05/21/diane-abbott-backed-victory-for-the-ira-see-the-document/
But sadly it is a vote winner to make wild claims that you can't meet. But if you want the UKIP votes you do need to show you are hard on illegal immigration and when you promise people you will do something, you have to try to do something that looks like you are having success. The Windrush people, old people who have contributed fully to this country but did not have the necessary paperwork were targets in plain sight. Not much work needed to find them. There is also no way ministers were not aware what was going on! It was helping the numbers.
The mistake the public makes is that they think the government knows where all these illegal immigrants are. It gains votes to demonise and make people believe they will do something that nobody has done before. But governments of all colours have tried to deport illegal immigrants for decades and will continue to do so. But you can't go into elections with figures that contradict your promises so when you make the promises you have to deliver something!
With benefits, if you make benefits too complicated to claim many people that need them don't/can't claim them - especially older/disabled people who really struggle. If you make them too simple unscrupulous people take advantage and play the system. So you have to find a middle ground - but there will always be a small number of complete to**ers who will take advantage and play the system. In the way of things they represent a financial drop in the ocean - but they are a useful tool to fuel outrage and allow decent people who are down on their luck to be hit hard with the public's blessing. Another way to win votes off hard working people who don't want to subsidise scroungers.
I had a friend who used to be a fraud officer in a jobcentre. They had targets - stiff ones but the government of that day could claim to have saved X million etc... I was shocked to find that very few people they caught were prosecuted and most were able to claim again and get caught again making the figures look better! To the same extent, jobcentres tried (I don't know how they work now) to place people into work who didn't need their help - easy wins which made the figures look better. It isn't what something is, but what you can make it look like that is important!
The choices are do you try to do what is right - or create a false reality where it looks like you are doing something you are not.
The debate over immigration tends to get a bit hysterical. There are illegal immigrants here but due to the clumsy way things are handled some of those who have every right to be here have been treated like criminals.
The two main parties have both failed in their recent policies on immigration from what I can see.
It was sad that immigration became the issue during Brexit. It should have been the preserve of Farage and his closet racists, but not decent politicians to use this tactic.
I am not criticising the Conservative party here - it has many decent members - it is just the UKIPesque element seems to hold too much sway at the moment. I admire the conservatives who stand up to that and there are a significant number who do.
Why she remains in her post is beyond me.....
However, we've never had a chance to see what sort of Home Secretary she'd actually be. Whereas we're discovering exactly what May (and Rudd) were:
I'm sure Corbyn has taken pity on her as they go back a long way.