I guess it depends if you consider her role in securing arms contracts with Saudi Arabia to be 'supplying extremists' or not.

 

So if you sell an old car to someone else, are you responsible if they use it in an armed robbery getaway? :wacko:

 

BREAKING. Diane Abbott replaced as Shadow Home Secretary role "for health reasons" LOL. More like because she's a total liability. Lyn Brown replaces her.

 

I guess 'incompetence' is now classified as a 'heath reason' now... :rolleyes:

So if you sell an old car to someone else, are you responsible if they use it in an armed robbery getaway? :wacko:

 

Given that a car's primary function isn't to 'blow up things', that's not a reasonable analogy.

Given that a car's primary function isn't to 'blow up things', that's not a reasonable analogy.

 

The point was that you are only responsible for your own actions, not someone else's.

Hell at Abbott. It's despicable the amount of abuse she's received during this campaign in comparison to the millions of white Tory MPs who've been just as bad if not worse, so I feel for her.

 

But good move for Labour, late in the game as it is.

Hell at Abbott. It's despicable the amount of abuse she's received during this campaign in comparison to the millions of white Tory MPs who've been just as bad if not worse, so I feel for her.

 

I don't feel one bit sorry for her. She was promoted beyond her ability and was a gaffe prone liability. Lily Allen saying she was "bullied" because she's a black woman is wrong. If she's been bullied it's because she was useless in the role.

Edited June 7, 20178 yr by common sense

It's been clear for weeks that Diane Abbott was not well. She studied Law at Cambridge. A black working-class woman can only get to do that if she is highly intelligent.

The point was that you are only responsible for your own actions, not someone else's.

I'd take this seriously as a line if I didn't think you were the kind of person who'd say it's only 'common sense' that women shouldn't get drunk and wear short skirts.

Diane Abbot is remarkably more competent than Boris Johnson is and I don't see anywhere near as much criticism of his repeated failures and gaffs. MSM has it out for the countries first WOC MP

It's been clear for weeks that Diane Abbott was not well. She studied Law at Cambridge. A black working-class woman can only get to do that if she is highly intelligent.

 

Or they had a quota to fill? :teresa:

 

I'd take this seriously as a line if I didn't think you were the kind of person who'd say it's only 'common sense' that women shouldn't get drunk and wear short skirts.

 

Why do you think I'm that sort of person?

 

Has she been preaching radical Islam?

Has she been supplying guns & bombs to extremists?

Has she been leaking security details to terrorists?

 

No! Therefore she is *not* responsible for the actions of brainwashed dupes!

Let me get this straight- you want *more* police, yet a *less* government-controlled state? You do realise those aims are fundamentally incompatible, right?

 

She is UTTERLY responsible for policy, which affects safety of UK citizens. As others have said she has sold weapons to states which DO support terrorism, and she reduced the police effectiveness to do their job (as their official has publicly stated) - we were lucky the attacks were in London and Manchester which can draw in police from elsewhere. if it was in a small provincial town the culprits would have probably escaped into the bargain.

 

Never said she was responsible for the ACTIONS of any human being doing anything. She is responsible for PREVENTING or CATCHING and PROSECUTING the illegal criminal actions of UK citizens and people living here, and to do that you need a properly resourced police force. That's what they say. Either they are lying or she is. PS she was admitted she was an idiot by reversing her cuts, a bit too late in the day, but better 5 years in the future than never. Her own actions scream "I WAS WRONG!!!"

 

There is nothing incompatible with supporting freedom and democracy and having more police officers. It is only a problem in states where the police (or military) carry out the wishes of a government intent on preventing freedom and democracy and fair trials (ie public executions of innocent people - see an unarmed Brazilian citizen executed on London Northern Line due to a twatty trigger-happy commander 2006, having allowed said person to enter the underground without stopping and asking who he was - just a bit too Muslim-ey looking, no compensation to his family). Otherwise it is essential. Fairly obviously, anarchy without a police force is the end result. Any fool can see that.

 

Theresa May just wants to remove freedoms as an answer. Which isn't the problem, as any expert is happy to state, unless you are bringing in prison camps for anyone who is reported by someone else to have said something. Hearsay justice is one more step away from an undemocratic regime.

 

 

Or they had a quota to fill? :teresa:

Yes, because we all know Cambridge was applying quotas in the early 70s. Don't be so ridiculous.

She is UTTERLY responsible for policy, which affects safety of UK citizens. As others have said she has sold weapons to states which DO support terrorism, and she reduced the police effectiveness to do their job (as their official has publicly stated) - we were lucky the attacks were in London and Manchester which can draw in police from elsewhere. if it was in a small provincial town the culprits would have probably escaped into the bargain.

 

A small provincial town wouldn't have been targeted in the first place - insufficient shock value...

 

A small provincial town wouldn't have been targeted in the first place - insufficient shock value...

The IRA used to attack military bases in small provincial towns.... I grew up in a military family and used to swim at naval bases and army barracks in Scotland in small towns. Anywhere is a target as long as lives will be lost

 

 

Next!

So, the General Election is tomorrow, and you don't want the Conservatives to win. It's too late to influence someone's vote away from the Tories.

 

Or is it?

 

There was a study carried out in 2011 by psychologists that discovered that having reminders of cleanliness made someone more likely to express more right-wing views, and a reminder of cleanliness just before voting, like seeing a bar of soap, made people more likely to vote for conservative leaning candidates.

 

So, it goes that if you want someone to vote for more liberal candidates, then you need to have consistent reminders of uncleanliness primed into people just before they cast your vote.

 

So what should you do?

 

When you go to vote, don't bother showering that morning. Don't wash your face, don't clean your hair. Heck, even rub excrement over your face if you have to. Then make sure you go down to the polling station at a time when there's likely to be lots of people there. That reminder of uncleanliness will click an unconscious switch in people's head, making them less likely to vote Conservative, and in a marginal constituency, it could make all the difference between a Conservative MP & a Labour MP for your constituency.

 

And before you ask, yes, I am suggesting this out of an altruistic aim to stop the Conservatives winning a majority at the election with well researched evidence, and most definitely not out of an evil desire to trick all of you to smear poo on your face in public.

A small provincial town wouldn't have been targeted in the first place - insufficient shock value...

 

bollocks. Bournemouth had a bomb on the Pier in the 80's. We don't have shock troops at hand to deal with terrorists even with SAS located nearby. When it happened I managed to get easily past police roadblocks (I was in work early), and once there they got staff like me to go round the Council offices looking for bombs! I am NOT making this up.....!

 

The police are not better staffed these days, and terrorists are always changing expectations.

I agree with what you're saying about Corbyn's support being concentrated in the wrong places, it's not going to be enough to make a difference where it matters, but I disagree that the way back into power for Labour is to go back to the centre. There isn't much further right the Tories can go without making themselves look unelectable, which they hate, so they will swing back eventually and Labour benefit from not looking like Tories. And Corbyn has done a lot to remind people that there is more to the political spectrum in this country than a dull centre and a far-right, for parties that have a chance of winning. It's reopened the narrative for a left-wing government in the future, even if it doesn't come now.

 

Any centrist for Labour right now, and we've seen this with the last remnants of the Blairites will look uninspired and the Tories won't let 'the last Labour government' go as a strapline. The reason Corbyn is getting anywhere is because he's different and inspiring. It won't win him this election, but five years on, if he runs again or has the right successor... The reason this isn't the 1992 to 2022's 1997 and therefore Labour should swing back to the centre is that people already know what a 'New Labour' government is like, it isn't new anymore and has too much baggage right now. Maybe in the late 2030s.

 

Perhaps, but imo they have shifted way too far to the left. I know plenty of people who have voted Labour in the past but won't do so because of Corbyn (and these are people who identify fully with the Labour party). I doubt there will ever be a full left-wing government in the next 30 years. I just cannot see it.

 

I also disagree that Corbyn is taking the Labour party somewhere. Maybe the results might show differently tomorrow, but I feel he's taken the Labour party backwards even from 2015.

I also disagree that Corbyn is taking the Labour party somewhere. Maybe the results might show differently tomorrow, but I feel he's taken the Labour party backwards even from 2015.

 

I'd say 1 step forward, 2 steps back. Although I believe that Labour will suffer a net loss of seats tomorrow, they will do so with a larger % of the votes from last time thanks to Greens & Lib Dem switchers, which will give Jeremy Corbyn the justification he needs to stay on as leader. What happens after that though...

I'd say 1 step forward, 2 steps back. Although I believe that Labour will suffer a net loss of seats tomorrow, they will do so with a larger % of the votes from last time thanks to Greens & Lib Dem switchers, which will give Jeremy Corbyn the justification he needs to stay on as leader. What happens after that though...

 

He's got some vocal supporters, but if you actually look at all the stats I suspect he will have done worse. e.g. Greens/UKIP not running in a lot of close seats. The fact is he just does not have widespread appeal, he's a cult hero.

Perhaps, but imo they have shifted way too far to the left. I know plenty of people who have voted Labour in the past but won't do so because of Corbyn (and these are people who identify fully with the Labour party). I doubt there will ever be a full left-wing government in the next 30 years. I just cannot see it.

 

I also disagree that Corbyn is taking the Labour party somewhere. Maybe the results might show differently tomorrow, but I feel he's taken the Labour party backwards even from 2015.

 

Their manifesto is comparable to Scandinavian social democratic, it's centre-left rather than far left. Corbyn is, but he's been reined in slightly, enough to produce a popular manifesto. To countermand your point I know (how it sounds in my circles at least) people who didn't care to make comment on political parties or I would have never thought of as left wing express admiration for his principles and his policies. He's getting through in a way Miliband didn't. At the very least, he's reminded people that Labour can be different from the Conservatives, and that has to be a good thing.

 

I also think we will see a left-wing government in the next few decades (granted, maybe not full, I don't actually think the UK is as right-leaning as its governments suggest, but you know, media influence and all the left parties are split, making it harder) if only because of a generation spending their lives railing against the government + the environmental factor which will allow the current out-there Green policies to eventually become mainstream and those are more easily adopted and presented by centre-left parties. Radical political change and destruction of political parties unpopular in government is happening in nations as big as France, after 5 years of Tories trying and failing to muddle through without Europe, that has to be at least on the agenda.

Or they had a quota to fill? :teresa:

Why do you think I'm that sort of person?

Because you're the kind of person who posts the first half of that post when someone mentions a black person got into the best university in the country. Bigots tend to victim blame rape victims.

Edited June 7, 20178 yr by Qassändra