Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
A lot of people are missing the point here: the country is going to the dogs!

Yeah, I've banged that drum before, but where I live, a spate of post office robberies has left this area reeling. Criminal gangs are operating in my area with impunity.

If rural areas in the middle of nowhere are suffering a crime wave, then God knows what is happening in our cities.

In these instances, the police have been useful as an ice cube maker on the Titanic!

You should come and live in Henley. A crime wave here is someone stealing a bottle of vodka from Waitrose. Our police station is literally part time, closed on evenings, weekends and bank holidays.

@ Whirlwind

Well I would say that British values are superior, but I know what you mean. Rubbing that in their face is likely to goad them into attacking.

 r_squared wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
May's back in Scotland on the campaign trail. Translation: hidden away in some stage managed event.

She's attacked the SNP for their record on taxation and VAT.

VAT is not devolved to the Scottish parliament

God help us on Friday if May wins...

I'm still pretty certain that May will win, despite the surge of support apparent on the Internet. Whilst I know personally of a few people who are now voting "not Tory", many appear to be sticking to what they perceive as the better option in what they think is a Sophies choice.

I don't agree with that position, but I understand it. I just don't think that there's enough support for "not Tory", but then my constituency is deeply blue, as is my workplace, so I'm finding it difficult to assess what the feeling is out there.

The way the system works, May can get between 34% and 38% of the total votes cast and end up with a hung parliament or a solid majority at either end of the range, depending on how things fall out in the marginal seats.

The main factor in her favour is that the Right is pretty much a solid block. UKIP is a busted flush and can be forgotten about. The NI Unionists don't operate outside NI but act as proxy Tories in parliament anyway. The broad left wing is split between six different national and regional parties. Without proportional representation, this is liable to split the left-wing vote and let the right-wing slip up the middle in a lot of seats.

I think May will win, but there is a chance it can all go wrong for her. I think we will see a pretty low total Tory vote. I mean, it will be surprising if the Tories get 40+% and a landslide.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

They said we may have 400 from Islamic state in Syria, Iraq. UK citizens and maybe some 400 more in the region on BBC
None of those people should ever set a single foot back on UK soil.

Far as I care. They gave up that right when they enlisted with them. They knew who they where joining and what they did yet still went to fight for them.

I do wonder how reliable those numbers are. I'm sure I'll be on watch lists for travelling back and forward to Iraq as a civilian. I'll definitely be on Shin Bet's radar because I also travel back and forward to Israel with Iraqi stamps in my passport. I'm not sure how much they can conceivably know about what I do in Iraq, though. So how much can they know about other UK nationals? Maybe people that aren't white get considerably more lengthy interviews at passport control...

We simply do not know what constitutes the decision to deciding who gets placed on a watched list. Several of my friends are on the list because they were friends and on a uni society committee with someone who is currently being charged under the terrorism act. Peak times they were being questioned once a month.
The mutual friend being charged, his crime was simply being in possession of a list of censored books in the UK after he returned from acting as a translator for the Kurdish YPG in Syria...

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 r_squared wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
May's back in Scotland on the campaign trail. Translation: hidden away in some stage managed event.

She's attacked the SNP for their record on taxation and VAT.

VAT is not devolved to the Scottish parliament

God help us on Friday if May wins...

I'm still pretty certain that May will win, despite the surge of support apparent on the Internet. Whilst I know personally of a few people who are now voting "not Tory", many appear to be sticking to what they perceive as the better option in what they think is a Sophies choice.

I don't agree with that position, but I understand it. I just don't think that there's enough support for "not Tory", but then my constituency is deeply blue, as is my workplace, so I'm finding it difficult to assess what the feeling is out there.

The way the system works, May can get between 34% and 38% of the total votes cast and end up with a hung parliament or a solid majority at either end of the range, depending on how things fall out in the marginal seats.

The main factor in her favour is that the Right is pretty much a solid block. UKIP is a busted flush and can be forgotten about. The NI Unionists don't operate outside NI but act as proxy Tories in parliament anyway. The broad left wing is split between six different national and regional parties. Without proportional representation, this is liable to split the left-wing vote and let the right-wing slip up the middle in a lot of seats.

I think May will win, but there is a chance it can all go wrong for her. I think we will see a pretty low total Tory vote. I mean, it will be surprising if the Tories get 40+% and a landslide.

Well, it is the reason they were prepared to go all out and destroy UKIP and pander to their euro-sceptic wing. It was worth it to keep hold of, and consolidate the right wing support of the country.
If the left was as united, we may never see the Tories in power again. Sadly, the chances are, there will be more left wing parties, rather than fewer, unless Labour or the Lib Dems somehow manage to suddenly appeal to a broad spectrum of the electorate.

 Optio wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

They said we may have 400 from Islamic state in Syria, Iraq. UK citizens and maybe some 400 more in the region on BBC
None of those people should ever set a single foot back on UK soil.

Far as I care. They gave up that right when they enlisted with them. They knew who they where joining and what they did yet still went to fight for them.

I do wonder how reliable those numbers are. I'm sure I'll be on watch lists for travelling back and forward to Iraq as a civilian. I'll definitely be on Shin Bet's radar because I also travel back and forward to Israel with Iraqi stamps in my passport. I'm not sure how much they can conceivably know about what I do in Iraq, though. So how much can they know about other UK nationals? Maybe people that aren't white get considerably more lengthy interviews at passport control...

We simply do not know what constitutes the decision to deciding who gets placed on a watched list. Several of my friends are on the list because they were friends and on a uni society committee with someone who is currently being charged under the terrorism act. Peak times they were being questioned once a month.
The mutual friend being charged, his crime was simply being in possession of a list of censored books in the UK after he returned from acting as a translator for the Kurdish YPG in Syria...

Well then. If 23,000 or so on list. How many are on it for direct cause?

I mean there's 3000 or so according to news... "dangerous" ones on that list.
A scarily high number!

And off topic but the 400 jihadi fighters still in Islamic state, who are UK citizens.
Leave em to the local laws. Made bed, enlisted, killed or worse.

Lie in it. Probably crowded in there jails that bed.

Diane Abbot made a complete fool of herself on T.V again. To think that might end up as Home Secretary...*sudders*

Are there any front benchers anywhere who aren't a useless sack of gak? Surely just one isn't too much to ask for.

 r_squared wrote:

Sadly, the chances are, there will be more left wing parties, rather than fewer, unless Labour or the Lib Dems somehow manage to suddenly appeal to a broad spectrum of the electorate.

There's only one economically centre-left mainstream party in England, and one in Scotland. No other leftist party has representation in mainland Britain (I'm not familiar enough with NI politics to speak on it). I might be able to vote in good conscience if we had more variety on the actual (economic) left, rather than what passes for the left because all discourse is now so far to the right (where Corbyn's mooted corporation tax is higher than under Blair, Brown or Thatcher, for instance, but portrayed as borderline communism). That said, yes, you're right, if centre-left-leaning voters turned out as a bloc the right would have no chance whatsoever.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Diane Abbot made a complete fool of herself on T.V again. To think that might end up as Home Secretary...*sudders*

Are there any front benchers anywhere who aren't a useless sack of gak? Surely just one isn't too much to ask for.

He might be better off swapping her to a lower ranking post.
Right now she meant to be shadow of one of highest cabinet posts... Why does he keep her there, culture minster or something.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Diane Abbot made a complete fool of herself on T.V again. To think that might end up as Home Secretary...*sudders*

Are there any front benchers anywhere who aren't a useless sack of gak? Surely just one isn't too much to ask for.

Yep, even as a Labour supporter, I have a hard time with DA. She was grossly unprepared for that interview, and has damaged the campaign, again. If she was leader, I would vote elsewhere.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/diane-abbot-interview-harris-report-dermot-murnaghan_uk_5935c42ee4b0099e7fae7337

She practically gifts the press a headline the minute she opens her mouth, and when she's brought up at work, I have nothing to say. She's a liability.

 r_squared wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Diane Abbot made a complete fool of herself on T.V again. To think that might end up as Home Secretary...*sudders*

Are there any front benchers anywhere who aren't a useless sack of gak? Surely just one isn't too much to ask for.

Yep, even as a Labour supporter, I have a hard time with DA. She was grossly unprepared for that interview, and has damaged the campaign, again. If she was leader, I would vote elsewhere.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/diane-abbot-interview-harris-report-dermot-murnaghan_uk_5935c42ee4b0099e7fae7337

She practically gifts the press a headline the minute she opens her mouth, and when she's brought up at work, I have nothing to say. She's a liability.

If he gets in number 10, id say she is going to replaces inside a week.
Loyalty beside, she a liability in the role, there's no room for that.

She can shuffle down to some minor one that matter less of she cannot remember her stuff.
Or if keeps it up, back bench her.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ Whirlwind

Well I would say that British values are superior, but I know what you mean. Rubbing that in their face is likely to goad them into attacking.

I think it's more that we should concentrate on the values that we thing make the world a better place for everyone (so liberalism, freedom of speech and movement and so on). It's hard to attack an idea, a principle. By saying British value are superior there is a risk of both real and perceived hypocrisy. Out intervention in Libya etc that has made a lot of peoples lives worse with the constant fighting could be perceived as a 'British value' depending on your mind set, experiences, access to news and so on. There's also a risk that it alienates allies (for example why are our values superior to say French or German values etc?).

The reality is that British values doesn't really mean anything, you'll get a dozen different answers if you asked the question in the street.

There's also the risk that calling things 'British values' makes all of the public more of a target because we get perceived as 'British'. We all get lumped into the same group. For some where maybe they are poor, downtrodden by society (perceived or not) then those values might not be regarded highly at all. It's a lot more difficult to attack an 'idea'.

 jhe90 wrote:

Right now she meant to be shadow of one of highest cabinet posts... Why does he keep her there, culture minster or something.

To be fair, Corbyn doesn't accept the ranking of cabinet positions that is imposed by the mainstream media, prefering to understand them as originally intended where they're all of equal significant, including PM, and works on that basis. I agree with the position, just as I do with his refusal to play at adversarial PMQs etc, but I do wonder whether he'd do better if he went along with the current paradigm - it seems self evident that he would but on the other hand he certainly draws support specifically because he doesn't.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Diane Abbot made a complete fool of herself on T.V again. To think that might end up as Home Secretary...*sudders*

Are there any front benchers anywhere who aren't a useless sack of gak? Surely just one isn't too much to ask for.

Yes, she is not portraying herself as particularly capable (although perhaps she is just bad at interviews). She's a bit like the Toriy's Boris, every time they open there mouth the respective leaders probably wish they had been sent on some *really important* work half way across the globe.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Pursuing a strategy of running down defence because we're unlikely to be invaded, is the sort of strategy that will spell disaster for this nation.

Then again build up army and get less polices as money has to come somewhere. You want bigger army or more cops?-)

For those that came interested Northern Ireland parties would align themselves as follows!

Democratic Unionist Party;

Conservative economically and socially, will pretty much vote along Tory lines in every vote. Strongly tied into Christian moralism. (currently 8 MPs)

Ulster Unionist Party;

Conservative economically and socially. Would be more socially liberal than the Democratic Unionist Party and more so of late. (Currently 2 MPs)

Alliance Party;

No one really knows where they stand economically. Somewhere in the middle! Socially liberal and getting more so. Main electoral platform is a neutral position on the constitutional position of Northern Ireland. (Currently 0 MPs)

Social Democratic and Labour Party;

Left of centre economically; they operate as the NI sister Party of the mainland Labour Party. Traditionally socially conservative but becoming more socially liberal. Will vote with Labour Party. (Currently 3 MPs)

Sinn Fein;

Marxist, Trotskyites economically. Socially liberal. Abstentionists, they won't take their seats in Westminster. (Currently 4 MPs)

To caveat all this though, few people in NI vote along economic lines. Whilst there are no left wing Unionist parties ( a few small ones with little support) this does not mean unionism is united economically. Hardline Unionist trade union folks will vote for the democratic unionists party despite economic differences to help secure the country's constitutional position. Equally socially and economic conservative economic nationists will vote for Sinn Fein or SDLP because again the national question trumps all.

The mainland Conservative party have organised here with limited success. Without the opposing Labour it wouldn't make sense to vote for them over Democratic Unionists or Ulster Unionist. The failure of the Labour Party and their refusal to organise here has allowed division politically to fester on the national question. My grandfather was one of a few folks who established the NI Labour Party many years ago the party failed as the mainland party refused to support or acknowledge them. The party failed and people went back to their trenches.

Pretty simple really!

If this election proves as close as some polls are predicting the conservative leaning NI MPs could play a central role in helping May.

Must say we were all annoyed our leaders were left out of the BBC debate when the greens and UKIP were allowed in! They have a single MP each! Joke!

nfe wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

Right now she meant to be shadow of one of highest cabinet posts... Why does he keep her there, culture minster or something.

To be fair, Corbyn doesn't accept the ranking of cabinet positions that is imposed by the mainstream media, prefering to understand them as originally intended where they're all of equal significant, including PM, and works on that basis. I agree with the position, just as I do with his refusal to play at adversarial PMQs etc, but I do wonder whether he'd do better if he went along with the current paradigm - it seems self evident that he would but on the other hand he certainly draws support specifically because he doesn't.

They may be but its still a top level post, you have like finance, security and policing, foreign office etc. Top level. NHS also. That's a high tier job.
Then below things like enterprise, culture, other smaller mandates that have less impact.

 Knockagh wrote:

Sinn Fein;

Marxist, Trotskyites economically. Socially liberal. Abstentionists, they won't take their seats in Westminster. (Currently 4 MPs)

Could you support them being Maxist with some stated policies, please? Not doubting, necessarily, but given that in real terms (on a scale running from total state control of economy to total free market) Corbyn is only a little left of centre yet gets called a communist every five minutes, I'm always rather sceptical when mainstream UK parties are described as being anything hard left.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jhe90 wrote:

nfe wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

Right now she meant to be shadow of one of highest cabinet posts... Why does he keep her there, culture minster or something.

To be fair, Corbyn doesn't accept the ranking of cabinet positions that is imposed by the mainstream media, prefering to understand them as originally intended where they're all of equal significant, including PM, and works on that basis. I agree with the position, just as I do with his refusal to play at adversarial PMQs etc, but I do wonder whether he'd do better if he went along with the current paradigm - it seems self evident that he would but on the other hand he certainly draws support specifically because he doesn't.

They may be but its still a top level post, you have like finance, security and policing, foreign office etc. Top level. NHS also. That's a high tier job.
Then below things like enterprise, culture, other smaller mandates that have less impact.

Again, they're only top level because people say they are.

nfe wrote:

 Knockagh wrote:

Sinn Fein;

Marxist, Trotskyites economically. Socially liberal. Abstentionists, they won't take their seats in Westminster. (Currently 4 MPs)

Could you support them being Maxist with some stated policies, please? Not doubting, necessarily, but given that in real terms (on a scale running from total state control of economy to total free market) Corbyn is only a little left of centre yet gets called a communist every five minutes, I'm always rather sceptical when mainstream UK parties are described as being anything hard left.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jhe90 wrote:

nfe wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

Right now she meant to be shadow of one of highest cabinet posts... Why does he keep her there, culture minster or something.

To be fair, Corbyn doesn't accept the ranking of cabinet positions that is imposed by the mainstream media, prefering to understand them as originally intended where they're all of equal significant, including PM, and works on that basis. I agree with the position, just as I do with his refusal to play at adversarial PMQs etc, but I do wonder whether he'd do better if he went along with the current paradigm - it seems self evident that he would but on the other hand he certainly draws support specifically because he doesn't.

They may be but its still a top level post, you have like finance, security and policing, foreign office etc. Top level. NHS also. That's a high tier job.
Then below things like enterprise, culture, other smaller mandates that have less impact.

Again, they're only top level because people say they are.

Heathcare, security,defense, policing, the country's finances.
They are always going to get higher priority in any system.

Sinn Fein don't really hide their Marxist credentials, they are called worse at the end of the day!

They believe in revolutionary socialism. They had (or maybe have!) a private army whose goal was to esptablish a socialist republic.

Again though I reiterate it's complicated as not all their supporters would adhere to this. SF will have a hugely diverse support base all united behind their belief that anything is allowed to get their constitutional demands met. But the true believers still label themselves revolutionary socialists. They openly talk about being revolutionaries it was a big thing to be a lefty revolutionary in the late 60s and 70s when the IRA had their revival, not so much now. Although rarely in front of their American funders, for obvious reasons!

I doubt this answers your question you would need to read A history of the IRA as a movement. It's complicated!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh yes and I always think their payment structure pretty much shows their economic leanings. SF pay all their staff the same amount they work on an averag wage (around £26k) and all employee from elected reps to clerical staff are paid this. Any surplus goes into the party coffers. Salaries must be signed over to the party when you accept a position. Can't get more lefty than that! Some rules came out afew years ago that made this more difficult but they seem to have worked a way round it.

 jhe90 wrote:

Heathcare, security,defense, policing, the country's finances.
They are always going to get higher priority in any system.

Only because people perceive them to be. Not for any innate reason.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Knockagh wrote:
Sinn Fein don't really hide their Marxist credentials, they are called worse at the end of the day!

They believe in revolutionary socialism. They had (or maybe have!) a private army whose goal was to esptablish a socialist republic.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh yes and I always think their payment structure pretty much shows their economic leanings. SF pay all their staff the same amount they work on an averag wage (around £26k) and all employee from elected reps to clerical staff are paid this. Any surplus goes into the party coffers. Salaries must be signed over to the party when you accept a position. Can't get more lefty than that! Some rules came out afew years ago that made this more difficult but they seem to have worked a way round it.

You can get a lot more lefty than that. It's certainly leftist, but it's not necessarily even socialist, depending on your interpretation of the term, let alone Marxist. I know it might be splitting hairs when we're viewing it from the perspective of mainstream UK politics, but as someone who finds their own political positions deliberately misrepresented so they can be exploitatively appropriated as peejoratives, I tend to feel getting terminology right is extremely important

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
A lot of people are missing the point here: the country is going to the dogs!

Yeah, I've banged that drum before, but where I live, a spate of post office robberies has left this area reeling. Criminal gangs are operating in my area with impunity.

If rural areas in the middle of nowhere are suffering a crime wave, then God knows what is happening in our cities.

In these instances, the police have been useful as an ice cube maker on the Titanic!

You should come and live in Henley. A crime wave here is someone stealing a bottle of vodka from Waitrose. Our police station is literally part time, closed on evenings, weekends and bank holidays.

So it's shut for most of the year? What a shambles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 r_squared wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 r_squared wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
May's back in Scotland on the campaign trail. Translation: hidden away in some stage managed event.

She's attacked the SNP for their record on taxation and VAT.

VAT is not devolved to the Scottish parliament

God help us on Friday if May wins...

I'm still pretty certain that May will win, despite the surge of support apparent on the Internet. Whilst I know personally of a few people who are now voting "not Tory", many appear to be sticking to what they perceive as the better option in what they think is a Sophies choice.

I don't agree with that position, but I understand it. I just don't think that there's enough support for "not Tory", but then my constituency is deeply blue, as is my workplace, so I'm finding it difficult to assess what the feeling is out there.

The way the system works, May can get between 34% and 38% of the total votes cast and end up with a hung parliament or a solid majority at either end of the range, depending on how things fall out in the marginal seats.

The main factor in her favour is that the Right is pretty much a solid block. UKIP is a busted flush and can be forgotten about. The NI Unionists don't operate outside NI but act as proxy Tories in parliament anyway. The broad left wing is split between six different national and regional parties. Without proportional representation, this is liable to split the left-wing vote and let the right-wing slip up the middle in a lot of seats.

I think May will win, but there is a chance it can all go wrong for her. I think we will see a pretty low total Tory vote. I mean, it will be surprising if the Tories get 40+% and a landslide.

Well, it is the reason they were prepared to go all out and destroy UKIP and pander to their euro-sceptic wing. It was worth it to keep hold of, and consolidate the right wing support of the country.
If the left was as united, we may never see the Tories in power again. Sadly, the chances are, there will be more left wing parties, rather than fewer, unless Labour or the Lib Dems somehow manage to suddenly appeal to a broad spectrum of the electorate.

The Lib Dem tactic of cashing in on the Remain vote has backfired. They'll be lucky to get 12 seats. I suspect that's more to do with the damp squib of a leader they have.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Diane Abbot made a complete fool of herself on T.V again. To think that might end up as Home Secretary...*sudders*

Are there any front benchers anywhere who aren't a useless sack of gak? Surely just one isn't too much to ask for.

This is why Labour will lose on Thursday. Middle England will never vote for that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Diane Abbot made a complete fool of herself on T.V again. To think that might end up as Home Secretary...*sudders*

Are there any front benchers anywhere who aren't a useless sack of gak? Surely just one isn't too much to ask for.

Yes, she is not portraying herself as particularly capable (although perhaps she is just bad at interviews). She's a bit like the Toriy's Boris, every time they open there mouth the respective leaders probably wish they had been sent on some *really important* work half way across the globe.

Over the years, I've asked many a time as to how Abbott and Bojo got to where they are. I've yet to receive a satisfactory answer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Pursuing a strategy of running down defence because we're unlikely to be invaded, is the sort of strategy that will spell disaster for this nation.

Then again build up army and get less polices as money has to come somewhere. You want bigger army or more cops?-)

More police.

@nfe I agree to a degree. I was using rather trite examples. However if you have an interest in it I would suggest picking up a copy of Henry Pattersons,The Politics of Illusion: Republicanism and Socialism in Modern Ireland. It's a great read and delves into the complexity I was trying, probably rather poorly, to convey. The marriage of nationalism and Marxism, along with SFs support for the Nazis is indeed a weird mix.

Exact political labels are I think impossible. Local regions always have issues, historical and cultural that won't allow an exact fit. That's why global political movements are doomed from the outset.

 Knockagh wrote:
@nfe I agree to a degree. I was using rather trite examples. However if you have an interest in it I would suggest picking up a copy of Henry Pattersons,The Politics of Illusion: Republicanism and Socialism in Modern Ireland. It's a great read and delves into the complexity I was trying, probably rather poorly, to convey. The marriage of nationalism and Marxism, along with SFs support for the Nazis is indeed a weird mix.

I'll stick it on the list

 jhe90 wrote:

 r_squared wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Diane Abbot made a complete fool of herself on T.V again. To think that might end up as Home Secretary...*sudders*

Are there any front benchers anywhere who aren't a useless sack of gak? Surely just one isn't too much to ask for.

Yep, even as a Labour supporter, I have a hard time with DA. She was grossly unprepared for that interview, and has damaged the campaign, again. If she was leader, I would vote elsewhere.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/diane-abbot-interview-harris-report-dermot-murnaghan_uk_5935c42ee4b0099e7fae7337

She practically gifts the press a headline the minute she opens her mouth, and when she's brought up at work, I have nothing to say. She's a liability.

If he gets in number 10, id say she is going to replaces inside a week.
Loyalty beside, she a liability in the role, there's no room for that.

She can shuffle down to some minor one that matter less of she cannot remember her stuff.
Or if keeps it up, back bench her.

He wouldn't dare, imagine the Racism row that would ensue. She'll be safe in her post until she feths up so badly that not even the race card will protect her.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 r_squared wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Diane Abbot made a complete fool of herself on T.V again. To think that might end up as Home Secretary...*sudders*

Are there any front benchers anywhere who aren't a useless sack of gak? Surely just one isn't too much to ask for.

Yep, even as a Labour supporter, I have a hard time with DA. She was grossly unprepared for that interview, and has damaged the campaign, again. If she was leader, I would vote elsewhere.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/diane-abbot-interview-harris-report-dermot-murnaghan_uk_5935c42ee4b0099e7fae7337

She practically gifts the press a headline the minute she opens her mouth, and when she's brought up at work, I have nothing to say. She's a liability.

If he gets in number 10, id say she is going to replaces inside a week.
Loyalty beside, she a liability in the role, there's no room for that.

She can shuffle down to some minor one that matter less of she cannot remember her stuff.
Or if keeps it up, back bench her.

He wouldn't dare, imagine the Racism row that would ensue. She'll be safe in her post until she feths up so badly that not even the race card will protect her.

I don't know much about Abbot. Is she as incompetent an administrator as she is a public speaker?

Impossible to tell. She's been a backbencher all her career, and sits on a number of committees . But she's never held a ministerial post.

She simply has never been tested in that regard.

I read Corbyn's interview in the Metro this morning, he was talking about his 'strong' cabinet, he named 3-4 people but Abbot wasn't among them. That seemed an omission to me, given how much exposure she has.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I read Corbyn's interview in the Metro this morning, he was talking about his 'strong' cabinet, he named 3-4 people but Abbot wasn't among them. That seemed an omission to me, given how much exposure she has.

Or an admission that she isn't up to the task. To be fair if Labour did win (whether through power sharing or not), there are going to be a lot of anti-Corbyn Labour people that might fall in line and it will open up a larger selection of people for cabinet posts.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I read Corbyn's interview in the Metro this morning, he was talking about his 'strong' cabinet, he named 3-4 people but Abbot wasn't among them. That seemed an omission to me, given how much exposure she has.

Or an admission that she isn't up to the task. To be fair if Labour did win (whether through power sharing or not), there are going to be a lot of anti-Corbyn Labour people that might fall in line and it will open up a larger selection of people for cabinet posts.

If he proves he can lead to victory yes he might sway former enemies out of own self interest of power and career opportunities.
That unlocks the higher level of candidates with abit more front bench experience to utilize.

Yes, I can see the race card playing up on Abbot but also the fact I she is as bad behind the scenes as infornt of the camera though then she will be a utter car crash and replacement goes from a image problem to a need for competent ministers and county not being a laughing stock in international events of she has to go.