FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Dianne Abbott
Dianne Abbott
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
"Shadow Home Secretary..... Oh dear....." I don't know who is worse, her or Emily Thornberry? | |||
"Shadow Home Secretary..... Oh dear....." its a bit wtf is going on.. almost like he's baiting the plp to leg it and become 'new, new Labout' | |||
| |||
"How the fuck Andrew Neil and Micheal portilo put up with her is beyond me. I'm sure portilo asked for a bigger a sofa" Does it strike anyone else how like harry potter it is corbyn is voldemort mcdonnell is lucius malfoy and abbott is wormtail | |||
"How the fuck Andrew Neil and Micheal portilo put up with her is beyond me. I'm sure portilo asked for a bigger a sofa Does it strike anyone else how like harry potter it is corbyn is voldemort mcdonnell is lucius malfoy and abbott is wormtail " never seen/read it so couldn't say but they strike me as more like Stalin, Lavrenty Beria and a thick version of Rusty Lee with a strong penchant for rimming | |||
"Shadow Home Secretary..... Oh dear..... its a bit wtf is going on.. almost like he's baiting the plp to leg it and become 'new, new Labout'" He has taken his decision to ignore unity and do it his own way. Fair enough - He has his mandate. Once he inevitably loses - and loses big - I hope he and his supporters are able to live with themselves. | |||
| |||
"It's a dreadful appointment for two reasons. 1. It is tactically poor in terms of internal Party Politics. 2. She's thick as pigshit." I don't particularly like Dianne but don't feel the need to abuse her. She is a working class female with a Masters in history from Cambridge. Thick she is not. | |||
| |||
"It's a dreadful appointment for two reasons. 1. It is tactically poor in terms of internal Party Politics. 2. She's thick as pigshit. I don't particularly like Dianne but don't feel the need to abuse her. She is a working class female with a Masters in history from Cambridge. Thick she is not." Having a degree is very important but she comes over as thick and she does not live in the real world she is a dreamer and has no common sence | |||
"Shadow Home Secretary..... Oh dear..... its a bit wtf is going on.. almost like he's baiting the plp to leg it and become 'new, new Labout' He has taken his decision to ignore unity and do it his own way. Fair enough - He has his mandate. Once he inevitably loses - and loses big - I hope he and his supporters are able to live with themselves." Tend to agree, its like watching a slow motion car crash which will continue well past 2020.. whilst I agree with some of his policies he is never going to win the centre to secure a majority, those that are backing him know it and in some ways its almost a dereliction of their office in doing so.. | |||
"Shadow Home Secretary..... Oh dear..... I don't know who is worse, her or Emily Thornberry? " John McDonell beats both Diane and Emily hands down! | |||
| |||
| |||
"There are only a few people he can rely on to put on the front bench, she is one of them. Corbyn and his closest allies will never be in power, all they are doing is making sure that the Tories are unopposed for the next 9 years." I thought you were a fan of Corbyn ? | |||
"There are only a few people he can rely on to put on the front bench, she is one of them. Corbyn and his closest allies will never be in power, all they are doing is making sure that the Tories are unopposed for the next 9 years. I thought you were a fan of Corbyn ? " Nope, never have been. | |||
"Personally I think what some posters are missing is that Jeremy Cobayn was unanimously elected leader of the labour party twice by party members, and yes I voted for him on both occasions. I would be interested to know who would be happy to be one of several hundred thousand people to democratically elected a person but then be fine when less than 200 people (MPs) decide they didn't like the outcome? To me it doesn't particularly matter if he gets into power or not, he was elected to lead the labour party not the opposition." I don't think you understand what unanimously means. He is the leader of the opposition. You say that you dont care if he gets into power. Why would you elect a leader if you care if he gets into power or not? | |||
"Personally I think what some posters are missing is that Jeremy Cobayn was unanimously elected leader of the labour party twice by party members, and yes I voted for him on both occasions. I would be interested to know who would be happy to be one of several hundred thousand people to democratically elected a person but then be fine when less than 200 people (MPs) decide they didn't like the outcome? To me it doesn't particularly matter if he gets into power or not, he was elected to lead the labour party not the opposition. I don't think you understand what unanimously means. He is the leader of the opposition. You say that you dont care if he gets into power. Why would you elect a leader if you care if he gets into power or not? " Perhaps you should explain what it means then because to me it means no ambiguity in the result. I voted for him to be leader of the labour party, are you a member and thus have a democratic vote? | |||
"She is a working class female with a Masters in history from Cambridge. Thick she is not." No but she is a racist and we're not supposed to condone them  | |||
"Personally I think what some posters are missing is that Jeremy Cobayn was unanimously elected leader of the labour party twice by party members, and yes I voted for him on both occasions. I would be interested to know who would be happy to be one of several hundred thousand people to democratically elected a person but then be fine when less than 200 people (MPs) decide they didn't like the outcome? To me it doesn't particularly matter if he gets into power or not, he was elected to lead the labour party not the opposition. I don't think you understand what unanimously means. He is the leader of the opposition. You say that you dont care if he gets into power. Why would you elect a leader if you care if he gets into power or not? Perhaps you should explain what it means then because to me it means no ambiguity in the result. I voted for him to be leader of the labour party, are you a member and thus have a democratic vote?" Unanimous means that everyone voted the same way. In this case, that every single vote cast was for Corbyn, and that not 1 single vote was for Smith. Smith himself would have had to have either abstained or voted for Corbyn. | |||
"There are only a few people he can rely on to put on the front bench, she is one of them. Corbyn and his closest allies will never be in power, all they are doing is making sure that the Tories are unopposed for the next 9 years. I thought you were a fan of Corbyn ? Nope, never have been." Wish I could talk to you both ? I find you intriguing  | |||
"Personally I think what some posters are missing is that Jeremy Cobayn was unanimously elected leader of the labour party twice by party members, and yes I voted for him on both occasions. I would be interested to know who would be happy to be one of several hundred thousand people to democratically elected a person but then be fine when less than 200 people (MPs) decide they didn't like the outcome? To me it doesn't particularly matter if he gets into power or not, he was elected to lead the labour party not the opposition. I don't think you understand what unanimously means. He is the leader of the opposition. You say that you dont care if he gets into power. Why would you elect a leader if you care if he gets into power or not? Perhaps you should explain what it means then because to me it means no ambiguity in the result. I voted for him to be leader of the labour party, are you a member and thus have a democratic vote? Unanimous means that everyone voted the same way. In this case, that every single vote cast was for Corbyn, and that not 1 single vote was for Smith. Smith himself would have had to have either abstained or voted for Corbyn." Point taken, I stand corrected but my point remains the same he was still democratically elected, twice. As for the comment about why vote for him if he won't get into power, what do you do then, vote for someone who doesn't share your ideas or values. That's how Blair got to be pm and that really went well didn't it? | |||
"It's a dreadful appointment for two reasons. 1. It is tactically poor in terms of internal Party Politics. 2. She's thick as pigshit." I know you are entitled to your opinion, but some of this abuse is uncalled for, how did you come to the conclusion she was as that thick? This is a woman who has been in parliament for years, I am sure if she was incapable of being intelligent as you allege, she would not have lasted that long. At the end of the day, Jeremy tried the inclusive unity thing, it did not work, he got stubbed, with an attempted coup. He is better off appointing those MPs that believe in his views. Give him a chance to lead. | |||
"Shadow Home Secretary..... Oh dear..... its a bit wtf is going on.. almost like he's baiting the plp to leg it and become 'new, new Labout' He has taken his decision to ignore unity and do it his own way. Fair enough - He has his mandate. Once he inevitably loses - and loses big - I hope he and his supporters are able to live with themselves. Tend to agree, its like watching a slow motion car crash which will continue well past 2020.. whilst I agree with some of his policies he is never going to win the centre to secure a majority, those that are backing him know it and in some ways its almost a dereliction of their office in doing so.." You know, I once thought the only way forward was the centre ground, until New labour, came in. The tories did the same, as they realised it was the only way to get into power, but I do not think it is, because inherently a leopard cannot change their spots. I think the time has come for the left. It is a generation thing, and looking at continental politics, it is gaining ground, like the right is. For some reason, there is a bunch of people that believe in these extremes. So for the 1st time, I actually think the left is electable, if only the MPs can stop knifing the guy. | |||
"Personally I think what some posters are missing is that Jeremy Cobayn was unanimously elected leader of the labour party twice by party members, and yes I voted for him on both occasions. I would be interested to know who would be happy to be one of several hundred thousand people to democratically elected a person but then be fine when less than 200 people (MPs) decide they didn't like the outcome? To me it doesn't particularly matter if he gets into power or not, he was elected to lead the labour party not the opposition. I don't think you understand what unanimously means. He is the leader of the opposition. You say that you dont care if he gets into power. Why would you elect a leader if you care if he gets into power or not? Perhaps you should explain what it means then because to me it means no ambiguity in the result. I voted for him to be leader of the labour party, are you a member and thus have a democratic vote?" Can i ask why on earth would you vote for a leader who means your party would not get power? | |||
"Personally I think what some posters are missing is that Jeremy Cobayn was unanimously elected leader of the labour party twice by party members, and yes I voted for him on both occasions. I would be interested to know who would be happy to be one of several hundred thousand people to democratically elected a person but then be fine when less than 200 people (MPs) decide they didn't like the outcome? To me it doesn't particularly matter if he gets into power or not, he was elected to lead the labour party not the opposition. I don't think you understand what unanimously means. He is the leader of the opposition. You say that you dont care if he gets into power. Why would you elect a leader if you care if he gets into power or not? Perhaps you should explain what it means then because to me it means no ambiguity in the result. I voted for him to be leader of the labour party, are you a member and thus have a democratic vote? Unanimous means that everyone voted the same way. In this case, that every single vote cast was for Corbyn, and that not 1 single vote was for Smith. Smith himself would have had to have either abstained or voted for Corbyn. Point taken, I stand corrected but my point remains the same he was still democratically elected, twice. As for the comment about why vote for him if he won't get into power, what do you do then, vote for someone who doesn't share your ideas or values. That's how Blair got to be pm and that really went well didn't it? " Erm, yes it did. He won 3 general elections, ensured devolution in Scotland, Wales and NI, created the minimum wage, tax credits and pension credit, gave independence for the monetary policy committee, created peace in Northern Ireland, increased the police by 14,000 and cut crime by 32%, legislated for paternity leave, introduced civil partnerships and banned fox hunting. So which of those would you prefer he had never done? Which of those do you stand opposed to? | |||
"She is a working class female with a Masters in history from Cambridge. Thick she is not. No but she is a racist and we're not supposed to condone them " | |||
"Personally I think what some posters are missing is that Jeremy Cobayn was unanimously elected leader of the labour party twice by party members, and yes I voted for him on both occasions. I would be interested to know who would be happy to be one of several hundred thousand people to democratically elected a person but then be fine when less than 200 people (MPs) decide they didn't like the outcome? To me it doesn't particularly matter if he gets into power or not, he was elected to lead the labour party not the opposition. I don't think you understand what unanimously means. He is the leader of the opposition. You say that you dont care if he gets into power. Why would you elect a leader if you care if he gets into power or not? Perhaps you should explain what it means then because to me it means no ambiguity in the result. I voted for him to be leader of the labour party, are you a member and thus have a democratic vote? Unanimous means that everyone voted the same way. In this case, that every single vote cast was for Corbyn, and that not 1 single vote was for Smith. Smith himself would have had to have either abstained or voted for Corbyn. Point taken, I stand corrected but my point remains the same he was still democratically elected, twice. As for the comment about why vote for him if he won't get into power, what do you do then, vote for someone who doesn't share your ideas or values. That's how Blair got to be pm and that really went well didn't it? Erm, yes it did. He won 3 general elections, ensured devolution in Scotland, Wales and NI, created the minimum wage, tax credits and pension credit, gave independence for the monetary policy committee, created peace in Northern Ireland, increased the police by 14,000 and cut crime by 32%, legislated for paternity leave, introduced civil partnerships and banned fox hunting. So which of those would you prefer he had never done? Which of those do you stand opposed to?" Could it be he was getting back in power due to the opposition being in disarray? | |||
"Personally I think what some posters are missing is that Jeremy Cobayn was unanimously elected leader of the labour party twice by party members, and yes I voted for him on both occasions. I would be interested to know who would be happy to be one of several hundred thousand people to democratically elected a person but then be fine when less than 200 people (MPs) decide they didn't like the outcome? To me it doesn't particularly matter if he gets into power or not, he was elected to lead the labour party not the opposition. I don't think you understand what unanimously means. He is the leader of the opposition. You say that you dont care if he gets into power. Why would you elect a leader if you care if he gets into power or not? Perhaps you should explain what it means then because to me it means no ambiguity in the result. I voted for him to be leader of the labour party, are you a member and thus have a democratic vote? Unanimous means that everyone voted the same way. In this case, that every single vote cast was for Corbyn, and that not 1 single vote was for Smith. Smith himself would have had to have either abstained or voted for Corbyn. Point taken, I stand corrected but my point remains the same he was still democratically elected, twice. As for the comment about why vote for him if he won't get into power, what do you do then, vote for someone who doesn't share your ideas or values. That's how Blair got to be pm and that really went well didn't it? Erm, yes it did. He won 3 general elections, ensured devolution in Scotland, Wales and NI, created the minimum wage, tax credits and pension credit, gave independence for the monetary policy committee, created peace in Northern Ireland, increased the police by 14,000 and cut crime by 32%, legislated for paternity leave, introduced civil partnerships and banned fox hunting. So which of those would you prefer he had never done? Which of those do you stand opposed to?" He also acted like George Bush's poodle and took us into war in Iraq and Afghanistan. He let eastern European countries in the EU send their citizens here without any transitional controls. | |||
"Personally I think what some posters are missing is that Jeremy Cobayn was unanimously elected leader of the labour party twice by party members, and yes I voted for him on both occasions. I would be interested to know who would be happy to be one of several hundred thousand people to democratically elected a person but then be fine when less than 200 people (MPs) decide they didn't like the outcome? To me it doesn't particularly matter if he gets into power or not, he was elected to lead the labour party not the opposition. I don't think you understand what unanimously means. He is the leader of the opposition. You say that you dont care if he gets into power. Why would you elect a leader if you care if he gets into power or not? Perhaps you should explain what it means then because to me it means no ambiguity in the result. I voted for him to be leader of the labour party, are you a member and thus have a democratic vote? Unanimous means that everyone voted the same way. In this case, that every single vote cast was for Corbyn, and that not 1 single vote was for Smith. Smith himself would have had to have either abstained or voted for Corbyn. Point taken, I stand corrected but my point remains the same he was still democratically elected, twice. As for the comment about why vote for him if he won't get into power, what do you do then, vote for someone who doesn't share your ideas or values. That's how Blair got to be pm and that really went well didn't it? Erm, yes it did. He won 3 general elections, ensured devolution in Scotland, Wales and NI, created the minimum wage, tax credits and pension credit, gave independence for the monetary policy committee, created peace in Northern Ireland, increased the police by 14,000 and cut crime by 32%, legislated for paternity leave, introduced civil partnerships and banned fox hunting. So which of those would you prefer he had never done? Which of those do you stand opposed to?" So he started the process of breaking up Great Britain, he sold honours for cash obviously apart from the knighthood for his brother, guess that was free, turned a blind eye to Special Rendition by the US, sold all our gold reserves for the lowest price in decades and allowed a foreign diplomat to demand an end to a criminal investigation into BAESystems and slush founds. Then of course of covering up Mandelson's fraudulent mortgage application. Where is he now, oh yes, providing PR advice for evil despotic goverments such as Uzbekistan on retainers of £5 million per year. | |||
"Personally I think what some posters are missing is that Jeremy Cobayn was unanimously elected leader of the labour party twice by party members, and yes I voted for him on both occasions. I would be interested to know who would be happy to be one of several hundred thousand people to democratically elected a person but then be fine when less than 200 people (MPs) decide they didn't like the outcome? To me it doesn't particularly matter if he gets into power or not, he was elected to lead the labour party not the opposition. I don't think you understand what unanimously means. He is the leader of the opposition. You say that you dont care if he gets into power. Why would you elect a leader if you care if he gets into power or not? Perhaps you should explain what it means then because to me it means no ambiguity in the result. I voted for him to be leader of the labour party, are you a member and thus have a democratic vote? Unanimous means that everyone voted the same way. In this case, that every single vote cast was for Corbyn, and that not 1 single vote was for Smith. Smith himself would have had to have either abstained or voted for Corbyn. Point taken, I stand corrected but my point remains the same he was still democratically elected, twice. As for the comment about why vote for him if he won't get into power, what do you do then, vote for someone who doesn't share your ideas or values. That's how Blair got to be pm and that really went well didn't it? Erm, yes it did. He won 3 general elections, ensured devolution in Scotland, Wales and NI, created the minimum wage, tax credits and pension credit, gave independence for the monetary policy committee, created peace in Northern Ireland, increased the police by 14,000 and cut crime by 32%, legislated for paternity leave, introduced civil partnerships and banned fox hunting. So which of those would you prefer he had never done? Which of those do you stand opposed to? He also acted like George Bush's poodle and took us into war in Iraq and Afghanistan. He let eastern European countries in the EU send their citizens here without any transitional controls. " Sorry, I thought you wanted the government to have control of immigration? That's what he had. I don't see the problem. | |||
"Personally I think what some posters are missing is that Jeremy Cobayn was unanimously elected leader of the labour party twice by party members, and yes I voted for him on both occasions. I would be interested to know who would be happy to be one of several hundred thousand people to democratically elected a person but then be fine when less than 200 people (MPs) decide they didn't like the outcome? To me it doesn't particularly matter if he gets into power or not, he was elected to lead the labour party not the opposition. I don't think you understand what unanimously means. He is the leader of the opposition. You say that you dont care if he gets into power. Why would you elect a leader if you care if he gets into power or not? Perhaps you should explain what it means then because to me it means no ambiguity in the result. I voted for him to be leader of the labour party, are you a member and thus have a democratic vote? Unanimous means that everyone voted the same way. In this case, that every single vote cast was for Corbyn, and that not 1 single vote was for Smith. Smith himself would have had to have either abstained or voted for Corbyn. Point taken, I stand corrected but my point remains the same he was still democratically elected, twice. As for the comment about why vote for him if he won't get into power, what do you do then, vote for someone who doesn't share your ideas or values. That's how Blair got to be pm and that really went well didn't it? Erm, yes it did. He won 3 general elections, ensured devolution in Scotland, Wales and NI, created the minimum wage, tax credits and pension credit, gave independence for the monetary policy committee, created peace in Northern Ireland, increased the police by 14,000 and cut crime by 32%, legislated for paternity leave, introduced civil partnerships and banned fox hunting. So which of those would you prefer he had never done? Which of those do you stand opposed to? So he started the process of breaking up Great Britain, he sold honours for cash obviously apart from the knighthood for his brother, guess that was free, turned a blind eye to Special Rendition by the US, sold all our gold reserves for the lowest price in decades and allowed a foreign diplomat to demand an end to a criminal investigation into BAESystems and slush founds. Then of course of covering up Mandelson's fraudulent mortgage application. Where is he now, oh yes, providing PR advice for evil despotic goverments such as Uzbekistan on retainers of £5 million per year." So it was devolution that you didn't agree with out of all the things I listed? The rest you want to keep do you? Well how will Corbyn ever achieve anything if he doesn't get elected? | |||
"Personally I think what some posters are missing is that Jeremy Cobayn was unanimously elected leader of the labour party twice by party members, and yes I voted for him on both occasions. I would be interested to know who would be happy to be one of several hundred thousand people to democratically elected a person but then be fine when less than 200 people (MPs) decide they didn't like the outcome? To me it doesn't particularly matter if he gets into power or not, he was elected to lead the labour party not the opposition. I don't think you understand what unanimously means. He is the leader of the opposition. You say that you dont care if he gets into power. Why would you elect a leader if you care if he gets into power or not? Perhaps you should explain what it means then because to me it means no ambiguity in the result. I voted for him to be leader of the labour party, are you a member and thus have a democratic vote? Unanimous means that everyone voted the same way. In this case, that every single vote cast was for Corbyn, and that not 1 single vote was for Smith. Smith himself would have had to have either abstained or voted for Corbyn. Point taken, I stand corrected but my point remains the same he was still democratically elected, twice. As for the comment about why vote for him if he won't get into power, what do you do then, vote for someone who doesn't share your ideas or values. That's how Blair got to be pm and that really went well didn't it? Erm, yes it did. He won 3 general elections, ensured devolution in Scotland, Wales and NI, created the minimum wage, tax credits and pension credit, gave independence for the monetary policy committee, created peace in Northern Ireland, increased the police by 14,000 and cut crime by 32%, legislated for paternity leave, introduced civil partnerships and banned fox hunting. So which of those would you prefer he had never done? Which of those do you stand opposed to? He also acted like George Bush's poodle and took us into war in Iraq and Afghanistan. He let eastern European countries in the EU send their citizens here without any transitional controls. Sorry, I thought you wanted the government to have control of immigration? That's what he had. I don't see the problem. " You seem to have a warped view of history. Tony Blairs Labour government opened the floodgates on EU immigration when he let anyone from the EU come here without transitional controls. If Blair wanted control of EU immigration then he would've insisted on putting the transitional controls in (which he didn't do). | |||
"Personally I think what some posters are missing is that Jeremy Cobayn was unanimously elected leader of the labour party twice by party members, and yes I voted for him on both occasions. I would be interested to know who would be happy to be one of several hundred thousand people to democratically elected a person but then be fine when less than 200 people (MPs) decide they didn't like the outcome? To me it doesn't particularly matter if he gets into power or not, he was elected to lead the labour party not the opposition. I don't think you understand what unanimously means. He is the leader of the opposition. You say that you dont care if he gets into power. Why would you elect a leader if you care if he gets into power or not? Perhaps you should explain what it means then because to me it means no ambiguity in the result. I voted for him to be leader of the labour party, are you a member and thus have a democratic vote? Unanimous means that everyone voted the same way. In this case, that every single vote cast was for Corbyn, and that not 1 single vote was for Smith. Smith himself would have had to have either abstained or voted for Corbyn. Point taken, I stand corrected but my point remains the same he was still democratically elected, twice. As for the comment about why vote for him if he won't get into power, what do you do then, vote for someone who doesn't share your ideas or values. That's how Blair got to be pm and that really went well didn't it? Erm, yes it did. He won 3 general elections, ensured devolution in Scotland, Wales and NI, created the minimum wage, tax credits and pension credit, gave independence for the monetary policy committee, created peace in Northern Ireland, increased the police by 14,000 and cut crime by 32%, legislated for paternity leave, introduced civil partnerships and banned fox hunting. So which of those would you prefer he had never done? Which of those do you stand opposed to? So he started the process of breaking up Great Britain, he sold honours for cash obviously apart from the knighthood for his brother, guess that was free, turned a blind eye to Special Rendition by the US, sold all our gold reserves for the lowest price in decades and allowed a foreign diplomat to demand an end to a criminal investigation into BAESystems and slush founds. Then of course of covering up Mandelson's fraudulent mortgage application. Where is he now, oh yes, providing PR advice for evil despotic goverments such as Uzbekistan on retainers of £5 million per year. So it was devolution that you didn't agree with out of all the things I listed? The rest you want to keep do you? Well how will Corbyn ever achieve anything if he doesn't get elected? " Its far too simplistic to say Blair created peace in NI, John Major, among others, set that ball rolling years before. | |||
| |||
"Personally I think what some posters are missing is that Jeremy Cobayn was unanimously elected leader of the labour party twice by party members, and yes I voted for him on both occasions. I would be interested to know who would be happy to be one of several hundred thousand people to democratically elected a person but then be fine when less than 200 people (MPs) decide they didn't like the outcome? To me it doesn't particularly matter if he gets into power or not, he was elected to lead the labour party not the opposition. I don't think you understand what unanimously means. He is the leader of the opposition. You say that you dont care if he gets into power. Why would you elect a leader if you care if he gets into power or not? Perhaps you should explain what it means then because to me it means no ambiguity in the result. I voted for him to be leader of the labour party, are you a member and thus have a democratic vote? Unanimous means that everyone voted the same way. In this case, that every single vote cast was for Corbyn, and that not 1 single vote was for Smith. Smith himself would have had to have either abstained or voted for Corbyn. Point taken, I stand corrected but my point remains the same he was still democratically elected, twice. As for the comment about why vote for him if he won't get into power, what do you do then, vote for someone who doesn't share your ideas or values. That's how Blair got to be pm and that really went well didn't it? Erm, yes it did. He won 3 general elections, ensured devolution in Scotland, Wales and NI, created the minimum wage, tax credits and pension credit, gave independence for the monetary policy committee, created peace in Northern Ireland, increased the police by 14,000 and cut crime by 32%, legislated for paternity leave, introduced civil partnerships and banned fox hunting. So which of those would you prefer he had never done? Which of those do you stand opposed to?" I think he did some good but unfortunately Iraq was a huge mistake ! | |||
"Personally I think what some posters are missing is that Jeremy Cobayn was unanimously elected leader of the labour party twice by party members, and yes I voted for him on both occasions. I would be interested to know who would be happy to be one of several hundred thousand people to democratically elected a person but then be fine when less than 200 people (MPs) decide they didn't like the outcome? To me it doesn't particularly matter if he gets into power or not, he was elected to lead the labour party not the opposition." This reminds me of something I read the other day. It was a written with both Labour and the Conservatives in mind but applies more to Labour imo: 'The paradox of internal party democracy is that it exerts a profoundly anti-democratic influence on policy. By placing power in the hands of enthusiasts it tends to isolate a party from what the apathetic majority of the citizenry think; and the apathetic majority are the people a mainstream party needs to bear in mind if it is to win elections. A party experiencing a sudden rush of would-be activists should be very afraid: there is probably something wrong with them. The danger is particularly intense when — as is the case today — a wholesale reselection of prospective parliamentary candidates by all three parties looms.' | |||
"Shadow Home Secretary..... Oh dear..... its a bit wtf is going on.. almost like he's baiting the plp to leg it and become 'new, new Labout' He has taken his decision to ignore unity and do it his own way. Fair enough - He has his mandate. Once he inevitably loses - and loses big - I hope he and his supporters are able to live with themselves. Tend to agree, its like watching a slow motion car crash which will continue well past 2020.. whilst I agree with some of his policies he is never going to win the centre to secure a majority, those that are backing him know it and in some ways its almost a dereliction of their office in doing so.. You know, I once thought the only way forward was the centre ground, until New labour, came in. The tories did the same, as they realised it was the only way to get into power, but I do not think it is, because inherently a leopard cannot change their spots. I think the time has come for the left. It is a generation thing, and looking at continental politics, it is gaining ground, like the right is. For some reason, there is a bunch of people that believe in these extremes. So for the 1st time, I actually think the left is electable, if only the MPs can stop knifing the guy." elections are not won in this country on the left or on the right, they are centre right or centre right and I say this as someone of the left.. Blair realised it and moved Labour to the centre, Tory lite in effect but he only won 3 elections because a lot of people who had been leftish/centrist Tory under Thatcher and Major moved over and supported him.. and the same thing in reverse happened in 2010 and 2015, people moved to the party which at that time they thought would serve their interests better and Labour were not trusted with the economy.. people by and large will not go that far left to put Corbyn in power, even though a lot will agree with some of his policies.. I personally would prefer a Labour government which wont be perfect and will make mistakes like all parties in Government do historically but I just don't see it with Corbyn as leader.. | |||
"Shadow Home Secretary..... Oh dear..... its a bit wtf is going on.. almost like he's baiting the plp to leg it and become 'new, new Labout' He has taken his decision to ignore unity and do it his own way. Fair enough - He has his mandate. Once he inevitably loses - and loses big - I hope he and his supporters are able to live with themselves. Tend to agree, its like watching a slow motion car crash which will continue well past 2020.. whilst I agree with some of his policies he is never going to win the centre to secure a majority, those that are backing him know it and in some ways its almost a dereliction of their office in doing so.. You know, I once thought the only way forward was the centre ground, until New labour, came in. The tories did the same, as they realised it was the only way to get into power, but I do not think it is, because inherently a leopard cannot change their spots. I think the time has come for the left. It is a generation thing, and looking at continental politics, it is gaining ground, like the right is. For some reason, there is a bunch of people that believe in these extremes. So for the 1st time, I actually think the left is electable, if only the MPs can stop knifing the guy. elections are not won in this country on the left or on the right, they are centre right or centre right and I say this as someone of the left.. Blair realised it and moved Labour to the centre, Tory lite in effect but he only won 3 elections because a lot of people who had been leftish/centrist Tory under Thatcher and Major moved over and supported him.. and the same thing in reverse happened in 2010 and 2015, people moved to the party which at that time they thought would serve their interests better and Labour were not trusted with the economy.. people by and large will not go that far left to put Corbyn in power, even though a lot will agree with some of his policies.. I personally would prefer a Labour government which wont be perfect and will make mistakes like all parties in Government do historically but I just don't see it with Corbyn as leader.. " I am a labour supporter, have faith. No one expected Jeremy to lead the party...No one expected Brexit... we are living in strange times..... | |||
"Personally I think what some posters are missing is that Jeremy Cobayn was unanimously elected leader of the labour party twice by party members, and yes I voted for him on both occasions. I would be interested to know who would be happy to be one of several hundred thousand people to democratically elected a person but then be fine when less than 200 people (MPs) decide they didn't like the outcome? To me it doesn't particularly matter if he gets into power or not, he was elected to lead the labour party not the opposition." So the Labour Party basically has become a party of protest rather than a party of government..... you basically just became the lib dems.... and even they had the balls to govern in coalition! | |||
"Personally I think what some posters are missing is that Jeremy Cobayn was unanimously elected leader of the labour party twice by party members, and yes I voted for him on both occasions. I would be interested to know who would be happy to be one of several hundred thousand people to democratically elected a person but then be fine when less than 200 people (MPs) decide they didn't like the outcome? To me it doesn't particularly matter if he gets into power or not, he was elected to lead the labour party not the opposition. So the Labour Party basically has become a party of protest rather than a party of government..... you basically just became the lib dems.... and even they had the balls to govern in coalition! " others don't have balls either, it seems  | |||
 | |||
"Yes a party of protest with no chance of power .The party of whingers and fools. Well fuck that......I am soft left in my politics but find the other parties not at all to my liking..from historical viewpoints or idealogical ones...so basically i feel there is no party that i could vote for....Oh well after the next general election Corbyn will need to resign in shame.....Shit he will not as that is not the point of his politics is it ,.... "I've spoken to a couple of Corbyn supporters and their view is that instead of moving to the right to be more in tune with the electorate it's about getting the electorate to move to the left. Apparently this could take a while but they'll have to stick at it. Pretty delusional if you ask me. | |||
"Yes a party of protest with no chance of power .The party of whingers and fools. Well fuck that......I am soft left in my politics but find the other parties not at all to my liking..from historical viewpoints or idealogical ones...so basically i feel there is no party that i could vote for....Oh well after the next general election Corbyn will need to resign in shame.....Shit he will not as that is not the point of his politics is it ,.... "Having been a life long labour party supporter until the invasion of Iraq, at which point I sent my membership card to Tony Blair with a long letter explaining that the war was illegal and did not serve the interests of the British people to which I may add I await a response! From the age of 14 I delivered leaflets and took party in political activism and in my later youth was on the far left of the party. I was captivated by local people (councillors in Manchester) who were actively seeking to help and support the community. Most if not all of those councillors were working class people with day jobs but they gave their time and effort. I look at the Labour Party now and I the best description is the one above which is a slowly enveloping car crash. All the Labour party leaders are to some extent career politicians who put ideology before the needs, wants and desires of the electorate. I have met Dianne Abott and I applaud her enthusiasm and ambition in what is still predominately a white male environment but I have to agree she is no home secretary which saddens me. We, as an electorate, have no appetite have consistently rejected the extremist view save for those bedazzled by the UKIP and we have all seen what is happening to them! The Blair and Cameron governments are one and the same a brand of centre left / right democrats or the liberal party if you like. The 1914 Labour movement was formed to fight injustice and to promote human rights in a democratic society those objectives on the whole have been met but there is still work to do but the current Labour Party is not capable of working within the requirements of the electorate and that is the reason Mr Corbyn and his acolytes will never form a tangible alternatives to the incumbent. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Yes a party of protest with no chance of power .The party of whingers and fools. Well fuck that......I am soft left in my politics but find the other parties not at all to my liking..from historical viewpoints or idealogical ones...so basically i feel there is no party that i could vote for....Oh well after the next general election Corbyn will need to resign in shame.....Shit he will not as that is not the point of his politics is it ,....
Having been a life long labour party supporter until the invasion of Iraq, at which point I sent my membership card to Tony Blair with a long letter explaining that the war was illegal and did not serve the interests of the British people to which I may add I await a response! From the age of 14 I delivered leaflets and took party in political activism and in my later youth was on the far left of the party. I was captivated by local people (councillors in Manchester) who were actively seeking to help and support the community. Most if not all of those councillors were working class people with day jobs but they gave their time and effort.
I look at the Labour Party now and I the best description is the one above which is a slowly enveloping car crash. All the Labour party leaders are to some extent career politicians who put ideology before the needs, wants and desires of the electorate. I have met Dianne Abott and I applaud her enthusiasm and ambition in what is still predominately a white male environment but I have to agree she is no home secretary which saddens me.
We, as an electorate, have no appetite have consistently rejected the extremist view save for those bedazzled by the UKIP and we have all seen what is happening to them! The Blair and Cameron governments are one and the same a brand of centre left / right democrats or the liberal party if you like. The 1914 Labour movement was formed to fight injustice and to promote human rights in a democratic society those objectives on the whole have been met but there is still work to do but the current Labour Party is not capable of working within the requirements of the electorate and that is the reason Mr Corbyn and his acolytes will never form a tangible alternatives to the incumbent.
"So Noah if you think the party is being run by nutters, shouldn't you now re-engage with the party and help to steer it back to the centre ground. | |||
"Yes a party of protest with no chance of power .The party of whingers and fools. Well fuck that......I am soft left in my politics but find the other parties not at all to my liking..from historical viewpoints or idealogical ones...so basically i feel there is no party that i could vote for....Oh well after the next general election Corbyn will need to resign in shame.....Shit he will not as that is not the point of his politics is it ,....
Having been a life long labour party supporter until the invasion of Iraq, at which point I sent my membership card to Tony Blair with a long letter explaining that the war was illegal and did not serve the interests of the British people to which I may add I await a response! From the age of 14 I delivered leaflets and took party in political activism and in my later youth was on the far left of the party. I was captivated by local people (councillors in Manchester) who were actively seeking to help and support the community. Most if not all of those councillors were working class people with day jobs but they gave their time and effort.
I look at the Labour Party now and I the best description is the one above which is a slowly enveloping car crash. All the Labour party leaders are to some extent career politicians who put ideology before the needs, wants and desires of the electorate. I have met Dianne Abott and I applaud her enthusiasm and ambition in what is still predominately a white male environment but I have to agree she is no home secretary which saddens me.
We, as an electorate, have no appetite have consistently rejected the extremist view save for those bedazzled by the UKIP and we have all seen what is happening to them! The Blair and Cameron governments are one and the same a brand of centre left / right democrats or the liberal party if you like. The 1914 Labour movement was formed to fight injustice and to promote human rights in a democratic society those objectives on the whole have been met but there is still work to do but the current Labour Party is not capable of working within the requirements of the electorate and that is the reason Mr Corbyn and his acolytes will never form a tangible alternatives to the incumbent.
So Noah if you think the party is being run by nutters, shouldn't you now re-engage with the party and help to steer it back to the centre ground. "I thought you would be better suited to do that if they are looking for nutters. | |||
"Yes a party of protest with no chance of power .The party of whingers and fools. Well fuck that......I am soft left in my politics but find the other parties not at all to my liking..from historical viewpoints or idealogical ones...so basically i feel there is no party that i could vote for....Oh well after the next general election Corbyn will need to resign in shame.....Shit he will not as that is not the point of his politics is it ,....
Having been a life long labour party supporter until the invasion of Iraq, at which point I sent my membership card to Tony Blair with a long letter explaining that the war was illegal and did not serve the interests of the British people to which I may add I await a response! From the age of 14 I delivered leaflets and took party in political activism and in my later youth was on the far left of the party. I was captivated by local people (councillors in Manchester) who were actively seeking to help and support the community. Most if not all of those councillors were working class people with day jobs but they gave their time and effort.
I look at the Labour Party now and I the best description is the one above which is a slowly enveloping car crash. All the Labour party leaders are to some extent career politicians who put ideology before the needs, wants and desires of the electorate. I have met Dianne Abott and I applaud her enthusiasm and ambition in what is still predominately a white male environment but I have to agree she is no home secretary which saddens me.
We, as an electorate, have no appetite have consistently rejected the extremist view save for those bedazzled by the UKIP and we have all seen what is happening to them! The Blair and Cameron governments are one and the same a brand of centre left / right democrats or the liberal party if you like. The 1914 Labour movement was formed to fight injustice and to promote human rights in a democratic society those objectives on the whole have been met but there is still work to do but the current Labour Party is not capable of working within the requirements of the electorate and that is the reason Mr Corbyn and his acolytes will never form a tangible alternatives to the incumbent.
So Noah if you think the party is being run by nutters, shouldn't you now re-engage with the party and help to steer it back to the centre ground.
I thought you would be better suited to do that if they are looking for nutters. "Dont you listen to him Noah, you sound perfectly reasonable to me. | |||
"Yes a party of protest with no chance of power .The party of whingers and fools. Well fuck that......I am soft left in my politics but find the other parties not at all to my liking..from historical viewpoints or idealogical ones...so basically i feel there is no party that i could vote for....Oh well after the next general election Corbyn will need to resign in shame.....Shit he will not as that is not the point of his politics is it ,....
Having been a life long labour party supporter until the invasion of Iraq, at which point I sent my membership card to Tony Blair with a long letter explaining that the war was illegal and did not serve the interests of the British people to which I may add I await a response! From the age of 14 I delivered leaflets and took party in political activism and in my later youth was on the far left of the party. I was captivated by local people (councillors in Manchester) who were actively seeking to help and support the community. Most if not all of those councillors were working class people with day jobs but they gave their time and effort.
I look at the Labour Party now and I the best description is the one above which is a slowly enveloping car crash. All the Labour party leaders are to some extent career politicians who put ideology before the needs, wants and desires of the electorate. I have met Dianne Abott and I applaud her enthusiasm and ambition in what is still predominately a white male environment but I have to agree she is no home secretary which saddens me.
We, as an electorate, have no appetite have consistently rejected the extremist view save for those bedazzled by the UKIP and we have all seen what is happening to them! The Blair and Cameron governments are one and the same a brand of centre left / right democrats or the liberal party if you like. The 1914 Labour movement was formed to fight injustice and to promote human rights in a democratic society those objectives on the whole have been met but there is still work to do but the current Labour Party is not capable of working within the requirements of the electorate and that is the reason Mr Corbyn and his acolytes will never form a tangible alternatives to the incumbent.
So Noah if you think the party is being run by nutters, shouldn't you now re-engage with the party and help to steer it back to the centre ground. "I didn't say the party was run by nutters; those are your words not mine. My point is the electorate do not want a radical solution to some of the social imbalances. The majority (under the current electoral system) want a centrist approach. The labour party is a left wing protest party at the moment. | |||
"Yes a party of protest with no chance of power .The party of whingers and fools. Well fuck that......I am soft left in my politics but find the other parties not at all to my liking..from historical viewpoints or idealogical ones...so basically i feel there is no party that i could vote for....Oh well after the next general election Corbyn will need to resign in shame.....Shit he will not as that is not the point of his politics is it ,....
Having been a life long labour party supporter until the invasion of Iraq, at which point I sent my membership card to Tony Blair with a long letter explaining that the war was illegal and did not serve the interests of the British people to which I may add I await a response! From the age of 14 I delivered leaflets and took party in political activism and in my later youth was on the far left of the party. I was captivated by local people (councillors in Manchester) who were actively seeking to help and support the community. Most if not all of those councillors were working class people with day jobs but they gave their time and effort.
I look at the Labour Party now and I the best description is the one above which is a slowly enveloping car crash. All the Labour party leaders are to some extent career politicians who put ideology before the needs, wants and desires of the electorate. I have met Dianne Abott and I applaud her enthusiasm and ambition in what is still predominately a white male environment but I have to agree she is no home secretary which saddens me.
We, as an electorate, have no appetite have consistently rejected the extremist view save for those bedazzled by the UKIP and we have all seen what is happening to them! The Blair and Cameron governments are one and the same a brand of centre left / right democrats or the liberal party if you like. The 1914 Labour movement was formed to fight injustice and to promote human rights in a democratic society those objectives on the whole have been met but there is still work to do but the current Labour Party is not capable of working within the requirements of the electorate and that is the reason Mr Corbyn and his acolytes will never form a tangible alternatives to the incumbent.
So Noah if you think the party is being run by nutters, shouldn't you now re-engage with the party and help to steer it back to the centre ground.
I thought you would be better suited to do that if they are looking for nutters. "Are you saying I am a nutter? Can I ask why you formed that opinion? | |||
"Yes a party of protest with no chance of power .The party of whingers and fools. Well fuck that......I am soft left in my politics but find the other parties not at all to my liking..from historical viewpoints or idealogical ones...so basically i feel there is no party that i could vote for....Oh well after the next general election Corbyn will need to resign in shame.....Shit he will not as that is not the point of his politics is it ,....
Having been a life long labour party supporter until the invasion of Iraq, at which point I sent my membership card to Tony Blair with a long letter explaining that the war was illegal and did not serve the interests of the British people to which I may add I await a response! From the age of 14 I delivered leaflets and took party in political activism and in my later youth was on the far left of the party. I was captivated by local people (councillors in Manchester) who were actively seeking to help and support the community. Most if not all of those councillors were working class people with day jobs but they gave their time and effort.
I look at the Labour Party now and I the best description is the one above which is a slowly enveloping car crash. All the Labour party leaders are to some extent career politicians who put ideology before the needs, wants and desires of the electorate. I have met Dianne Abott and I applaud her enthusiasm and ambition in what is still predominately a white male environment but I have to agree she is no home secretary which saddens me.
We, as an electorate, have no appetite have consistently rejected the extremist view save for those bedazzled by the UKIP and we have all seen what is happening to them! The Blair and Cameron governments are one and the same a brand of centre left / right democrats or the liberal party if you like. The 1914 Labour movement was formed to fight injustice and to promote human rights in a democratic society those objectives on the whole have been met but there is still work to do but the current Labour Party is not capable of working within the requirements of the electorate and that is the reason Mr Corbyn and his acolytes will never form a tangible alternatives to the incumbent.
So Noah if you think the party is being run by nutters, shouldn't you now re-engage with the party and help to steer it back to the centre ground.
I thought you would be better suited to do that if they are looking for nutters.
Are you saying I am a nutter? Can I ask why you formed that opinion?"No I replying to CLCC they are nutters not you Noah, as you know they try and twist everyones posts so I have now decided not to reply to any of their posts in future. | |||
"Yes a party of protest with no chance of power .The party of whingers and fools. Well fuck that......I am soft left in my politics but find the other parties not at all to my liking..from historical viewpoints or idealogical ones...so basically i feel there is no party that i could vote for....Oh well after the next general election Corbyn will need to resign in shame.....Shit he will not as that is not the point of his politics is it ,....
Having been a life long labour party supporter until the invasion of Iraq, at which point I sent my membership card to Tony Blair with a long letter explaining that the war was illegal and did not serve the interests of the British people to which I may add I await a response! From the age of 14 I delivered leaflets and took party in political activism and in my later youth was on the far left of the party. I was captivated by local people (councillors in Manchester) who were actively seeking to help and support the community. Most if not all of those councillors were working class people with day jobs but they gave their time and effort.
I look at the Labour Party now and I the best description is the one above which is a slowly enveloping car crash. All the Labour party leaders are to some extent career politicians who put ideology before the needs, wants and desires of the electorate. I have met Dianne Abott and I applaud her enthusiasm and ambition in what is still predominately a white male environment but I have to agree she is no home secretary which saddens me.
We, as an electorate, have no appetite have consistently rejected the extremist view save for those bedazzled by the UKIP and we have all seen what is happening to them! The Blair and Cameron governments are one and the same a brand of centre left / right democrats or the liberal party if you like. The 1914 Labour movement was formed to fight injustice and to promote human rights in a democratic society those objectives on the whole have been met but there is still work to do but the current Labour Party is not capable of working within the requirements of the electorate and that is the reason Mr Corbyn and his acolytes will never form a tangible alternatives to the incumbent.
So Noah if you think the party is being run by nutters, shouldn't you now re-engage with the party and help to steer it back to the centre ground.
I thought you would be better suited to do that if they are looking for nutters.
Are you saying I am a nutter? Can I ask why you formed that opinion?
No I replying to CLCC they are nutters not you Noah, as you know they try and twist everyones posts so I have now decided not to reply to any of their posts in future. " | |||
"Yes a party of protest with no chance of power .The party of whingers and fools. Well fuck that......I am soft left in my politics but find the other parties not at all to my liking..from historical viewpoints or idealogical ones...so basically i feel there is no party that i could vote for....Oh well after the next general election Corbyn will need to resign in shame.....Shit he will not as that is not the point of his politics is it ,....
Having been a life long labour party supporter until the invasion of Iraq, at which point I sent my membership card to Tony Blair with a long letter explaining that the war was illegal and did not serve the interests of the British people to which I may add I await a response! From the age of 14 I delivered leaflets and took party in political activism and in my later youth was on the far left of the party. I was captivated by local people (councillors in Manchester) who were actively seeking to help and support the community. Most if not all of those councillors were working class people with day jobs but they gave their time and effort.
I look at the Labour Party now and I the best description is the one above which is a slowly enveloping car crash. All the Labour party leaders are to some extent career politicians who put ideology before the needs, wants and desires of the electorate. I have met Dianne Abott and I applaud her enthusiasm and ambition in what is still predominately a white male environment but I have to agree she is no home secretary which saddens me.
We, as an electorate, have no appetite have consistently rejected the extremist view save for those bedazzled by the UKIP and we have all seen what is happening to them! The Blair and Cameron governments are one and the same a brand of centre left / right democrats or the liberal party if you like. The 1914 Labour movement was formed to fight injustice and to promote human rights in a democratic society those objectives on the whole have been met but there is still work to do but the current Labour Party is not capable of working within the requirements of the electorate and that is the reason Mr Corbyn and his acolytes will never form a tangible alternatives to the incumbent.
So Noah if you think the party is being run by nutters, shouldn't you now re-engage with the party and help to steer it back to the centre ground.
I didn't say the party was run by nutters; those are your words not mine. My point is the electorate do not want a radical solution to some of the social imbalances. The majority (under the current electoral system) want a centrist approach. The labour party is a left wing protest party at the moment."Indeed they were my words. I generally think most people on the extremes of either side are nutters. I don't want to see an extreme government from either side, but what I am saying Noah is if all the centrists leave a party, then it will taken over by the extremes. | |||
"Yes a party of protest with no chance of power .The party of whingers and fools. Well fuck that......I am soft left in my politics but find the other parties not at all to my liking..from historical viewpoints or idealogical ones...so basically i feel there is no party that i could vote for....Oh well after the next general election Corbyn will need to resign in shame.....Shit he will not as that is not the point of his politics is it ,....
Having been a life long labour party supporter until the invasion of Iraq, at which point I sent my membership card to Tony Blair with a long letter explaining that the war was illegal and did not serve the interests of the British people to which I may add I await a response! From the age of 14 I delivered leaflets and took party in political activism and in my later youth was on the far left of the party. I was captivated by local people (councillors in Manchester) who were actively seeking to help and support the community. Most if not all of those councillors were working class people with day jobs but they gave their time and effort.
I look at the Labour Party now and I the best description is the one above which is a slowly enveloping car crash. All the Labour party leaders are to some extent career politicians who put ideology before the needs, wants and desires of the electorate. I have met Dianne Abott and I applaud her enthusiasm and ambition in what is still predominately a white male environment but I have to agree she is no home secretary which saddens me.
We, as an electorate, have no appetite have consistently rejected the extremist view save for those bedazzled by the UKIP and we have all seen what is happening to them! The Blair and Cameron governments are one and the same a brand of centre left / right democrats or the liberal party if you like. The 1914 Labour movement was formed to fight injustice and to promote human rights in a democratic society those objectives on the whole have been met but there is still work to do but the current Labour Party is not capable of working within the requirements of the electorate and that is the reason Mr Corbyn and his acolytes will never form a tangible alternatives to the incumbent.
So Noah if you think the party is being run by nutters, shouldn't you now re-engage with the party and help to steer it back to the centre ground.
I didn't say the party was run by nutters; those are your words not mine. My point is the electorate do not want a radical solution to some of the social imbalances. The majority (under the current electoral system) want a centrist approach. The labour party is a left wing protest party at the moment.
Indeed they were my words. I generally think most people on the extremes of either side are nutters.
I don't want to see an extreme government from either side, but what I am saying Noah is if all the centrists leave a party, then it will taken over by the extremes."Indeed. At some point in the near future - the very latest being the GE in 2020 the current direction of the Labour Party will be utterly dismissed by the electorate. I suspect that various local and European results may force the issue earlier but Corbyn as leader is untenable, and it is my hope that it will soon dawn on the many decent people still blinded by his star at present. The Labour Party will undoubtedly be back, as it always has done before. It is the only voice of the liberal left, and that section of the population needs them to be far stronger and electorally relevant than they are at present. | |||
"Yes a party of protest with no chance of power .The party of whingers and fools. Well fuck that......I am soft left in my politics but find the other parties not at all to my liking..from historical viewpoints or idealogical ones...so basically i feel there is no party that i could vote for....Oh well after the next general election Corbyn will need to resign in shame.....Shit he will not as that is not the point of his politics is it ,....
Having been a life long labour party supporter until the invasion of Iraq, at which point I sent my membership card to Tony Blair with a long letter explaining that the war was illegal and did not serve the interests of the British people to which I may add I await a response! From the age of 14 I delivered leaflets and took party in political activism and in my later youth was on the far left of the party. I was captivated by local people (councillors in Manchester) who were actively seeking to help and support the community. Most if not all of those councillors were working class people with day jobs but they gave their time and effort.
I look at the Labour Party now and I the best description is the one above which is a slowly enveloping car crash. All the Labour party leaders are to some extent career politicians who put ideology before the needs, wants and desires of the electorate. I have met Dianne Abott and I applaud her enthusiasm and ambition in what is still predominately a white male environment but I have to agree she is no home secretary which saddens me.
We, as an electorate, have no appetite have consistently rejected the extremist view save for those bedazzled by the UKIP and we have all seen what is happening to them! The Blair and Cameron governments are one and the same a brand of centre left / right democrats or the liberal party if you like. The 1914 Labour movement was formed to fight injustice and to promote human rights in a democratic society those objectives on the whole have been met but there is still work to do but the current Labour Party is not capable of working within the requirements of the electorate and that is the reason Mr Corbyn and his acolytes will never form a tangible alternatives to the incumbent.
So Noah if you think the party is being run by nutters, shouldn't you now re-engage with the party and help to steer it back to the centre ground.
I didn't say the party was run by nutters; those are your words not mine. My point is the electorate do not want a radical solution to some of the social imbalances. The majority (under the current electoral system) want a centrist approach. The labour party is a left wing protest party at the moment.
Indeed they were my words. I generally think most people on the extremes of either side are nutters.
I don't want to see an extreme government from either side, but what I am saying Noah is if all the centrists leave a party, then it will taken over by the extremes.
Indeed.
At some point in the near future - the very latest being the GE in 2020 the current direction of the Labour Party will be utterly dismissed by the electorate. I suspect that various local and European results may force the issue earlier but Corbyn as leader is untenable, and it is my hope that it will soon dawn on the many decent people still blinded by his star at present.
The Labour Party will undoubtedly be back, as it always has done before. It is the only voice of the liberal left, and that section of the population needs them to be far stronger and electorally relevant than they are at present."Or maybe this is just the end of the Labour Party as we knew it? UKIP were Tories on steroids and UKIP have just been out Kippered by the Tories themselves since the Brexit vote. Perhaps the new version of Labour are just a jump to the left of the old Labour and will find their alignment alongside parties like Podemos in Spain and that one in Greece that I can't even pronounce, never mind spell. Question is then, where is the new centre ground now that both traditional parties have become more extreme versions of what they were recently? It was said that elections in the UK are won in the centre ground, perhaps not any more. | |||
| |||
"Personally I think what some posters are missing is that Jeremy Cobayn was unanimously elected leader of the labour party twice by party members, and yes I voted for him on both occasions. I would be interested to know who would be happy to be one of several hundred thousand people to democratically elected a person but then be fine when less than 200 people (MPs) decide they didn't like the outcome? To me it doesn't particularly matter if he gets into power or not, he was elected to lead the labour party not the opposition." And there you have it. Jeremy has been elected by party members to lead the party, not the opposition. And that's all he will ever do. Come back LibDems, all is forgiven. | |||
"Personally I think what some posters are missing is that Jeremy Cobayn was unanimously elected leader of the labour party twice by party members, and yes I voted for him on both occasions. I would be interested to know who would be happy to be one of several hundred thousand people to democratically elected a person but then be fine when less than 200 people (MPs) decide they didn't like the outcome? To me it doesn't particularly matter if he gets into power or not, he was elected to lead the labour party not the opposition. I don't think you understand what unanimously means. He is the leader of the opposition. You say that you dont care if he gets into power. Why would you elect a leader if you care if he gets into power or not? " If it wasn't such a critical time in the country it would almost be laughable. With BREXIT and a conservative party set to blow itself apart at any moment Labour is throwing away its best chance of winning an election in years. | |||
| |||
"Personally I think what some posters are missing is that Jeremy Cobayn was unanimously elected leader of the labour party twice by party members, and yes I voted for him on both occasions. I would be interested to know who would be happy to be one of several hundred thousand people to democratically elected a person but then be fine when less than 200 people (MPs) decide they didn't like the outcome? To me it doesn't particularly matter if he gets into power or not, he was elected to lead the labour party not the opposition. I don't think you understand what unanimously means. He is the leader of the opposition. You say that you dont care if he gets into power. Why would you elect a leader if you care if he gets into power or not? If it wasn't such a critical time in the country it would almost be laughable. With BREXIT and a conservative party set to blow itself apart at any moment Labour is throwing away its best chance of winning an election in years." This. Labour can't afford Borises or Hunts, because they are seeking power, and not in it. | |||
"She's supposedly intelligent. You'd never guess it by her interviews. "Compared to what an amoebe,she could probably beat one of them in a quiz just. | |||
"She's supposedly intelligent. You'd never guess it by her interviews.
Compared to what an amoebe,she could probably beat one of them in a quiz just."She could probably spell amoeba though.. 
ps, not a fan of her myself.. | |||
"She's supposedly intelligent. You'd never guess it by her interviews.
Compared to what an amoebe,she could probably beat one of them in a quiz just."Those in glass houses and all that. | |||
"It's a dreadful appointment for two reasons. 1. It is tactically poor in terms of internal Party Politics. 2. She's thick as pigshit. I don't particularly like Dianne but don't feel the need to abuse her. She is a working class female with a Masters in history from Cambridge. Thick she is not." Shame you choose to comment and run(no longer on site) as its a fair point you make. Is she great no.but come on folks is T May any better? Or for that matter Boris? His own sister has said about his dealing with the EU that he and David Davis require a few Adults in the room! Besides Labour cannot form a goverment alone, they would have to win Scotland back and they will not. In a coalition deal Diane is likely to have to trade in her seat to someone else. So stop worrying. | |||
| |||
"Diane Abbot shunted off the Labour campaign, due to "illness". Convenient, or not?" An absolute joke. Has she got Brexit flu again? Will she be bunking off work when things get tough for her in the Home office as Home secretary? | |||
| |||
| |||
"Diane Abbot shunted off the Labour campaign, due to "illness". Convenient, or not? An absolute joke. Has she got Brexit flu again? Will she be bunking off work when things get tough for her in the Home office as Home secretary? " I predict she will "step down" (be chucked) for "personal reasons/health", or she will get moved to some less damaging post. The woman is an embarrassment to British politics.  | |||
| |||
| |||
"bit of short term amnesia going on here... whats the difference between abbott ducking interviews and debates..... and a certain "teresa may" ducking interviews and debates..... just leave that out there......." .....She's just been replaced. | |||
| |||
"bit of short term amnesia going on here... whats the difference between abbott ducking interviews and debates..... and a certain "teresa may" ducking interviews and debates..... just leave that out there......." The difference for me is the flexibility of mind being quite stark. They are both career politicians. If May would have been in Rudds place in the leaders debates, the amount of bickering shown by the party leaders - it was a canny move for May not to be drawn into it as none of them could be heard or made headway. If you watched it, what do you remember apart from Farrons opening gambit? | |||
"Diane Abbot shunted off the Labour campaign, due to "illness". Convenient, or not? An absolute joke. Has she got Brexit flu again? Will she be bunking off work when things get tough for her in the Home office as Home secretary? I predict she will "step down" (be chucked) for "personal reasons/health", or she will get moved to some less damaging post. The woman is an embarrassment to British politics. "Oh, she's gone... blimey... now, wonder if I can do that with the Lottery numbers? | |||
| |||
| |||
"bit of short term amnesia going on here... whats the difference between abbott ducking interviews and debates..... and a certain "teresa may" ducking interviews and debates..... just leave that out there....... The difference for me is the flexibility of mind being quite stark. They are both career politicians. If May would have been in Rudds place in the leaders debates, the amount of bickering shown by the party leaders - it was a canny move for May not to be drawn into it as none of them could be heard or made headway. If you watched it, what do you remember apart from Farrons opening gambit?" Most people especially some in the Tory party will only remember one thing and that's May ducked it and allowed Rudd to step up to the plate days after she had lost her father.. Someone strong and stable would have turned up. Fronted down the others and got their message cross but May bottled it.. That's what people will remember.. | |||
"bit of short term amnesia going on here... whats the difference between abbott ducking interviews and debates..... and a certain "teresa may" ducking interviews and debates..... just leave that out there....... The difference for me is the flexibility of mind being quite stark. They are both career politicians. If May would have been in Rudds place in the leaders debates, the amount of bickering shown by the party leaders - it was a canny move for May not to be drawn into it as none of them could be heard or made headway. If you watched it, what do you remember apart from Farrons opening gambit? Most people especially some in the Tory party will only remember one thing and that's May ducked it and allowed Rudd to step up to the plate days after she had lost her father.. Someone strong and stable would have turned up. Fronted down the others and got their message cross but May bottled it.. That's what people will remember.." Which is silly really, given that it was like a crap Jeremy Kyle show for the ignorant. I can't blame her for not wanting to waste her time in pathetic squabbling for the mindless audience. | |||
| |||
"bit of short term amnesia going on here... whats the difference between abbott ducking interviews and debates..... and a certain "teresa may" ducking interviews and debates..... just leave that out there....... The difference for me is the flexibility of mind being quite stark. They are both career politicians. If May would have been in Rudds place in the leaders debates, the amount of bickering shown by the party leaders - it was a canny move for May not to be drawn into it as none of them could be heard or made headway. If you watched it, what do you remember apart from Farrons opening gambit? Most people especially some in the Tory party will only remember one thing and that's May ducked it and allowed Rudd to step up to the plate days after she had lost her father.. Someone strong and stable would have turned up. Fronted down the others and got their message cross but May bottled it.. That's what people will remember.." Exactly everyone i know left and right saw it as arrogant. Thats the only word i heard all the following day... | |||
| |||
"bit of short term amnesia going on here... whats the difference between abbott ducking interviews and debates..... and a certain "teresa may" ducking interviews and debates..... just leave that out there....... The difference for me is the flexibility of mind being quite stark. They are both career politicians. If May would have been in Rudds place in the leaders debates, the amount of bickering shown by the party leaders - it was a canny move for May not to be drawn into it as none of them could be heard or made headway. If you watched it, what do you remember apart from Farrons opening gambit? Most people especially some in the Tory party will only remember one thing and that's May ducked it and allowed Rudd to step up to the plate days after she had lost her father.. Someone strong and stable would have turned up. Fronted down the others and got their message cross but May bottled it.. That's what people will remember.. Which is silly really, given that it was like a crap Jeremy Kyle show for the ignorant. I can't blame her for not wanting to waste her time in pathetic squabbling for the mindless audience. " I tend to agree but it's the reality of the modern politic.. The style over substance, sharp dressing, cliche and sound bite sounding way which has come over across the pond.. Hearing some of the public say 'she looks like a leader' and 'I don't like how he dresses' speaks volumes.. She set her stall out at the start of the campaign which was this is about 'me' with no mention of her party on show till the last few days. Given that it's inevitable that she needed to step up as in not doing so for some in such circumstances has looked confusing at least.. what's happened is she has talked the talk yet would not walk the walk.. Her standing has dropped throughout and that's down to not following through on the strategy set out by whomever or it was the wrong one.. | |||
"Barry Gardiner has just told the BBC that Diane Abbott is coming to terms with a diagnosis of a serious and long term illness. One day before the votes are to be cast, it should either be kept out of the press, kept among MP's or she should make a direct one off announcement. Having this kind of subdued explanation put out is just poor and will no doubt gain a sympathetic vote for her performance recently. " Had she gave an interview about whatever it is then some would say oh look it's just an attempt to get some sympathy votes.. | |||
| |||
"bit of short term amnesia going on here... whats the difference between abbott ducking interviews and debates..... and a certain "teresa may" ducking interviews and debates..... just leave that out there....... The difference for me is the flexibility of mind being quite stark. They are both career politicians. If May would have been in Rudds place in the leaders debates, the amount of bickering shown by the party leaders - it was a canny move for May not to be drawn into it as none of them could be heard or made headway. If you watched it, what do you remember apart from Farrons opening gambit? Most people especially some in the Tory party will only remember one thing and that's May ducked it and allowed Rudd to step up to the plate days after she had lost her father.. Someone strong and stable would have turned up. Fronted down the others and got their message cross but May bottled it.. That's what people will remember.. Exactly everyone i know left and right saw it as arrogant. Thats the only word i heard all the following day..." I have a family member who has decided on that none show and her strong and stable mantra to switch his vote.. His comment was along the lines of she is taking my vote for granted and it's out of order.. | |||
"Barry Gardiner has just told the BBC that Diane Abbott is coming to terms with a diagnosis of a serious and long term illness. One day before the votes are to be cast, it should either be kept out of the press, kept among MP's or she should make a direct one off announcement. Having this kind of subdued explanation put out is just poor and will no doubt gain a sympathetic vote for her performance recently. Had she gave an interview about whatever it is then some would say oh look it's just an attempt to get some sympathy votes.." Exactly. It's a no win position. She's obviously put in some poor media performances. But the way some people have gone after her is unnecessarily vicious. There are politicians who are far more dangerous that we should focus on - and I'm including other Labour ones. I'm no fan of John McDonnell, for starters. | |||
"I deleted my reply about Abbot as, I am just annoyed with Labout atm. 1 day before votes are to be cast, I suppose an explanation is needed, I just hope it isn't used for political purposes. " But you did so initially? Respect you looked at it and deleted it but it shows just how cynical to a degree we have all become, lack of trust, lied to by people for years maybe.. | |||
"Barry Gardiner has just told the BBC that Diane Abbott is coming to terms with a diagnosis of a serious and long term illness. One day before the votes are to be cast, it should either be kept out of the press, kept among MP's or she should make a direct one off announcement. Having this kind of subdued explanation put out is just poor and will no doubt gain a sympathetic vote for her performance recently. Had she gave an interview about whatever it is then some would say oh look it's just an attempt to get some sympathy votes.. Exactly. It's a no win position. She's obviously put in some poor media performances. But the way some people have gone after her is unnecessarily vicious. There are politicians who are far more dangerous that we should focus on - and I'm including other Labour ones. I'm no fan of John McDonnell, for starters. " The whole weight of the rabid right and the media is a nasty piece of work.. People may well say yeah but politics is a tough business but sometimes it shows a side of some of our own that is not at all nice.. | |||
| |||
"I deleted my reply about Abbot as, I am just annoyed with Labout atm. 1 day before votes are to be cast, I suppose an explanation is needed, I just hope it isn't used for political purposes. But you did so initially? Respect you looked at it and deleted it but it shows just how cynical to a degree we have all become, lack of trust, lied to by people for years maybe.." We haven't had an opposition for years. This was my reply. -- One day before the votes are to be cast, it should either be kept out of the press, kept among MP's or she should make a direct one off announcement. Having this kind of subdued explanation put out is just poor and will no doubt gain a sympathetic vote for her performances recently. -- To add, if she knew she wasn't fit, either she, her leader or her team should have recognised this and not put her on the political stage. It is a failure in duty of care. Something which is quite their mantra in protecting. | |||
"I deleted my reply about Abbot as, I am just annoyed with Labout atm. 1 day before votes are to be cast, I suppose an explanation is needed, I just hope it isn't used for political purposes. But you did so initially? Respect you looked at it and deleted it but it shows just how cynical to a degree we have all become, lack of trust, lied to by people for years maybe.. We haven't had an opposition for years. This was my reply. -- One day before the votes are to be cast, it should either be kept out of the press, kept among MP's or she should make a direct one off announcement. Having this kind of subdued explanation put out is just poor and will no doubt gain a sympathetic vote for her performances recently. -- To add, if she knew she wasn't fit, either she, her leader or her team should have recognised this and not put her on the political stage. It is a failure in duty of care. Something which is quite their mantra in protecting. " Really? So when Theresa May was dealing with her diabetes (looking quite ill as well), did you think it was a failure in her duty of care in carrying on as home secretary? Or did you think she should carry on regardless? Neither women would use the sympathy card like that. Well, I don't think so anyway. | |||
"I deleted my reply about Abbot as, I am just annoyed with Labout atm. 1 day before votes are to be cast, I suppose an explanation is needed, I just hope it isn't used for political purposes. But you did so initially? Respect you looked at it and deleted it but it shows just how cynical to a degree we have all become, lack of trust, lied to by people for years maybe.. We haven't had an opposition for years. This was my reply. -- One day before the votes are to be cast, it should either be kept out of the press, kept among MP's or she should make a direct one off announcement. Having this kind of subdued explanation put out is just poor and will no doubt gain a sympathetic vote for her performances recently. -- To add, if she knew she wasn't fit, either she, her leader or her team should have recognised this and not put her on the political stage. It is a failure in duty of care. Something which is quite their mantra in protecting. Really? So when Theresa May was dealing with her diabetes (looking quite ill as well), did you think it was a failure in her duty of care in carrying on as home secretary? Or did you think she should carry on regardless? Neither women would use the sympathy card like that. Well, I don't think so anyway. " Sorry.. Neither womAn... Tut tut tut.... | |||
"I deleted my reply about Abbot as, I am just annoyed with Labout atm. 1 day before votes are to be cast, I suppose an explanation is needed, I just hope it isn't used for political purposes. But you did so initially? Respect you looked at it and deleted it but it shows just how cynical to a degree we have all become, lack of trust, lied to by people for years maybe.. We haven't had an opposition for years. This was my reply. -- One day before the votes are to be cast, it should either be kept out of the press, kept among MP's or she should make a direct one off announcement. Having this kind of subdued explanation put out is just poor and will no doubt gain a sympathetic vote for her performances recently. -- To add, if she knew she wasn't fit, either she, her leader or her team should have recognised this and not put her on the political stage. It is a failure in duty of care. Something which is quite their mantra in protecting. Really? So when Theresa May was dealing with her diabetes (looking quite ill as well), did you think it was a failure in her duty of care in carrying on as home secretary? Or did you think she should carry on regardless? Neither women would use the sympathy card like that. Well, I don't think so anyway. " We do not know what Abbot is suffering from but it is enough for her to step down or be removed from office one day before a GE vote. If Abbot knew she had a long term condition it should be in the public eye well before the GE day. May seems to be dealing with diabetes pretty well now considering recent events. Being honest, I was amazed an commented at the time. She was at a Welsh assembly in the morning, did Andrew Neil interview in the afternoon, rampaging in the evening. That night, Manchester happened and she was speaking to Corbyn at 4am. Attending Cobra I believe at noon. I am not blowing smoke up her arse, but she seems quite good! More campaigning, etc etc then London attacks. Corbyn lookes shattered during any ongoing interview, he seems to slow, eyes close, speech patterns reduce, the authority he starts with concedes quickly. | |||
| |||
"I deleted my reply about Abbot as, I am just annoyed with Labout atm. 1 day before votes are to be cast, I suppose an explanation is needed, I just hope it isn't used for political purposes. But you did so initially? Respect you looked at it and deleted it but it shows just how cynical to a degree we have all become, lack of trust, lied to by people for years maybe.. We haven't had an opposition for years. This was my reply. -- One day before the votes are to be cast, it should either be kept out of the press, kept among MP's or she should make a direct one off announcement. Having this kind of subdued explanation put out is just poor and will no doubt gain a sympathetic vote for her performances recently. -- To add, if she knew she wasn't fit, either she, her leader or her team should have recognised this and not put her on the political stage. It is a failure in duty of care. Something which is quite their mantra in protecting. " If they were aware.. | |||
"I deleted my reply about Abbot as, I am just annoyed with Labout atm. 1 day before votes are to be cast, I suppose an explanation is needed, I just hope it isn't used for political purposes. But you did so initially? Respect you looked at it and deleted it but it shows just how cynical to a degree we have all become, lack of trust, lied to by people for years maybe.. We haven't had an opposition for years. This was my reply. -- One day before the votes are to be cast, it should either be kept out of the press, kept among MP's or she should make a direct one off announcement. Having this kind of subdued explanation put out is just poor and will no doubt gain a sympathetic vote for her performances recently. -- To add, if she knew she wasn't fit, either she, her leader or her team should have recognised this and not put her on the political stage. It is a failure in duty of care. Something which is quite their mantra in protecting. Really? So when Theresa May was dealing with her diabetes (looking quite ill as well), did you think it was a failure in her duty of care in carrying on as home secretary? Or did you think she should carry on regardless? Neither women would use the sympathy card like that. Well, I don't think so anyway. We do not know what Abbot is suffering from but it is enough for her to step down or be removed from office one day before a GE vote. If Abbot knew she had a long term condition it should be in the public eye well before the GE day. May seems to be dealing with diabetes pretty well now considering recent events. Being honest, I was amazed an commented at the time. She was at a Welsh assembly in the morning, did Andrew Neil interview in the afternoon, rampaging in the evening. That night, Manchester happened and she was speaking to Corbyn at 4am. Attending Cobra I believe at noon. I am not blowing smoke up her arse, but she seems quite good! More campaigning, etc etc then London attacks. Corbyn lookes shattered during any ongoing interview, he seems to slow, eyes close, speech patterns reduce, the authority he starts with concedes quickly. " Shock horror.. People with diabetes can work as hard as those without.. They can even be world class athletes too.. And fair play to them.. | |||
"I deleted my reply about Abbot as, I am just annoyed with Labout atm. 1 day before votes are to be cast, I suppose an explanation is needed, I just hope it isn't used for political purposes. But you did so initially? Respect you looked at it and deleted it but it shows just how cynical to a degree we have all become, lack of trust, lied to by people for years maybe.. We haven't had an opposition for years. This was my reply. -- One day before the votes are to be cast, it should either be kept out of the press, kept among MP's or she should make a direct one off announcement. Having this kind of subdued explanation put out is just poor and will no doubt gain a sympathetic vote for her performances recently. -- To add, if she knew she wasn't fit, either she, her leader or her team should have recognised this and not put her on the political stage. It is a failure in duty of care. Something which is quite their mantra in protecting. Really? So when Theresa May was dealing with her diabetes (looking quite ill as well), did you think it was a failure in her duty of care in carrying on as home secretary? Or did you think she should carry on regardless? Neither women would use the sympathy card like that. Well, I don't think so anyway. We do not know what Abbot is suffering from but it is enough for her to step down or be removed from office one day before a GE vote. If Abbot knew she had a long term condition it should be in the public eye well before the GE day. May seems to be dealing with diabetes pretty well now considering recent events. Being honest, I was amazed an commented at the time. She was at a Welsh assembly in the morning, did Andrew Neil interview in the afternoon, rampaging in the evening. That night, Manchester happened and she was speaking to Corbyn at 4am. Attending Cobra I believe at noon. I am not blowing smoke up her arse, but she seems quite good! More campaigning, etc etc then London attacks. Corbyn lookes shattered during any ongoing interview, he seems to slow, eyes close, speech patterns reduce, the authority he starts with concedes quickly. Shock horror.. People with diabetes can work as hard as those without.. They can even be world class athletes too.. And fair play to them.. " True. Once you know what's?wedding with you and you know how to cope with the ailment. But if you're struggling with how your body functions not knowing what the ailment is, it can be a really scary time of one's life. Happened to a family relative. It wasn't nice to watch.... | |||
"I deleted my reply about Abbot as, I am just annoyed with Labout atm. 1 day before votes are to be cast, I suppose an explanation is needed, I just hope it isn't used for political purposes. But you did so initially? Respect you looked at it and deleted it but it shows just how cynical to a degree we have all become, lack of trust, lied to by people for years maybe.. We haven't had an opposition for years. This was my reply. -- One day before the votes are to be cast, it should either be kept out of the press, kept among MP's or she should make a direct one off announcement. Having this kind of subdued explanation put out is just poor and will no doubt gain a sympathetic vote for her performances recently. -- To add, if she knew she wasn't fit, either she, her leader or her team should have recognised this and not put her on the political stage. It is a failure in duty of care. Something which is quite their mantra in protecting. Really? So when Theresa May was dealing with her diabetes (looking quite ill as well), did you think it was a failure in her duty of care in carrying on as home secretary? Or did you think she should carry on regardless? Neither women would use the sympathy card like that. Well, I don't think so anyway. We do not know what Abbot is suffering from but it is enough for her to step down or be removed from office one day before a GE vote. If Abbot knew she had a long term condition it should be in the public eye well before the GE day. May seems to be dealing with diabetes pretty well now considering recent events. Being honest, I was amazed an commented at the time. She was at a Welsh assembly in the morning, did Andrew Neil interview in the afternoon, rampaging in the evening. That night, Manchester happened and she was speaking to Corbyn at 4am. Attending Cobra I believe at noon. I am not blowing smoke up her arse, but she seems quite good! More campaigning, etc etc then London attacks. Corbyn lookes shattered during any ongoing interview, he seems to slow, eyes close, speech patterns reduce, the authority he starts with concedes quickly. Shock horror.. People with diabetes can work as hard as those without.. They can even be world class athletes too.. And fair play to them.. True. Once you know what's?wedding with you and you know how to cope with the ailment. But if you're struggling with how your body functions not knowing what the ailment is, it can be a really scary time of one's life. Happened to a family relative. It wasn't nice to watch...." Once you know what's wrong with you... Stupid autocorrect.... | |||
"Barry Gardiner has just told the BBC that Diane Abbott is coming to terms with a diagnosis of a serious and long term illness." And what about her responses to emails which duped her into believing they were from Corbyns office, where she says she's not happy about lying about her health? | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Shadow Home Secretary..... Oh dear....." She's hot! | |||
| |||
