Sounds about right, given most Head Girls only got the role because their rich parents gave the headmaster a hefty brown envelope to make sure the apple of their eye got all the benefits avialble to her...
Obviously set up by Murnaghan who cherry picked some sub text from a report. The worrying thing is not that she didn't know what he key points were, but she doesn't appear to have the common sense to a) work out she's being set up and b) admit that she doesn't know the specifics that were being referred to. That is just basic interviewee skills and she's hardly a novice to the tv studio!! Abbott has been a liability to the Labour Party and this kind of ridicule could cost them dearly in the election.
Following on from Dumpfs Tweeted comments about Sadiq Khan, I just saw that he couldn't let the subject drop. A spokesman for Mr Khan had responded at the time (not on Twitter), saying the Mayor had "more important things to do" than respond to Donald Trump's "ill-informed tweet" that "deliberately" took his remarks "out of context". Reasonable enough? Oh no...... Trump tweeted again on Monday, saying: "Pathetic excuse by London Mayor Sadiq Khan who had to think fast on his "no reason to be alarmed" statement. MSM [mainstream media] is working hard to sell it!"
What gets me about the singling out of Abbott, including from the Dire Leader herself last week, is that there's two obvious flaws with it: i.) The Dire Leader criticising a prospective Home Secretary when her record was ****ing appalling is an utter farce ii.) Are people aware that Abbott can be replaced? To be honest I cannot see her lasting past the first reshuffle as Home Secretary anyway - and to hazard a guess, if the situation was different, either Barry Gardiner or Emily Thornberry would be earmarked for Home Secretary rather than making up 2/3 of his Britait team The real worry about Abbott is less what she does, but more what both The Sun and UKIP are claiming about her, and what that's stirring up as a result. First of all there was UKIP tweeting not once but twice a faked image by the (currently incarcerated on charges of racially-aggravated harassment) Far Right ****wit Joshua Bonehill-Paine that claimed to be a poster from Abbott's constituency saying Labour would put black families first, which UKIP eventually had to back down from after being called out on it (yet it also drew the exact response they were hoping to get from the party faithful), while The Sun too has been clearly trying to paint her as Malcom X's angry cousin several times during the election - and it has to be pointed out there is a hell of a lot of vile comments out there on Twitter that aren't shy on being outright racist about Abbott, and that includes tweets from members of the Tory party.
More Stories from the Election Trail Yesterday the Dire Leader was in Edinburgh for a BBC livestream, where her minders had to remind the 70 or so supporters bussed in to cheer and clap just so it looked like they hadn't gone the whole hog and brought some mannequins. Meanwhile, in Gateshead, Jeremy Corbyn addressed a crowd of 10,000 ...which the BBC failed to mention at any point.
Just to put current times into perspective, it seems hardly to have been mentioned in the news that on this day in 1944, 156,000 troops landed in Normandy to begin the liberation of Europe. That is well worth remembering. Incidentally my father was one of them so if things had gone a bit differently I might not have been typing this!
Tell the EU to dock that off the article 50 "divorce settlement" bill. And if after that it means they owe the UK anything, tell them we'll let them off it.
Not exactly the best idea, given the Germans would likely respond by handing us a repair bill for those dams...
All accepted, but it doesn't alter the fact that Abbott is walking and definitely talking disaster on legs without any help by a rabid tabloid press.
The issue is that if you say this, and there's a lot of people spouting the rote-learned comment "Diane Abbott will cost Corbyn the election" on Twitter today, then you have to take into account that the following people would, by that same logic, have cost the Tories the election i.) Theresa May, for calling a snap election for no logical reason and following that up with Dementia tax and bringing back fox hunting ii.) Michael Fallon, Amber Rudd and Damian Green, for all manner of brainfarts on all manner of subjects throughout the campaign iii.) Phillip Hammond and Jeremy Hunt (among others), for a complete lack of campaigning on the Dire Leader's behalf iv.) Boris Johnson, for doing jsut enough to look like he;s supporting his leader...so he can stab her in the back sooner rather than later
Just putting this out there: the Dire Leader slashing police funding during her time as Home Secretary to the point that 20,000 less officers are on our streets is far more "naughty" than running through a field of wheat
Once again, I don't disagree with any of the above - but the Tories have 'wriggle room' to be able to act like this and still prevail. Labour don't have that facility. For Labour to get anywhere near any sort of victory they cannot afford the public humiliation that Abbott is inflicting. The internal disunity has surprisingly largely been a non-issue, Corbyn himself has been gathering support around the country. There even appears to be a manifesto with decent policies. But few will be likely to put any faith in a party with her potentially being a senior member of the cabinet.
This should have received even more prominence. She is saying something to the effect of 'it's ok because we haven't cut the anti-terrorism budget'. Really? Regardless of how immediate 24 hour news makes terrorism, and regardless of how politicians might want to push the importantce terrorism for their own agenda, the fact is for the vast majority of us (and it really is hard to state the vastness here!) terrorism will not directly affect us in our lifetime (ironically the anti-terrorism measures will do). It is "normal" crime that is very likely to affect us, and what we need to be protected from. This is done by the regular police force. But if the police budget has been cut and the anti-terrorism budget not cut, then it is logical to suggest that the cuts have fallen disproportionately on the normal police force, and will therefore have a disproportionate affect on the majority of us who need normal police more than anti-terrorist police. It might then be argued that pursuing a blinkered anti-terrorist strategy actually makes most of us less safe!
Isn't saying that we will change Human Rights to 'fight' terrorism, effectively an announcement that the terrorists have won, since it means they have affected our way of life? Strong and stable?
Dianne Abbott has thrown in the sick note. If this is stress-related courtesy of the election campaign, she is probably not physically fit enough to be Home Secretary (which is one ministerial position going to be very stressful indeed of late) .
Which is why she's been replaced in the shadow cabinet with Lyn Brown, who was Shadow Policing Minister until this morning - although let's be honest, it's not the election campaign that's been stressful to Abbott, it's been the way that the national press have been hounding her for weeks with all manner of nasty attacks on her and her character, which has been lapped up by the far right who have been only too happy to dogpile in with their own take on it. In other news, even nature itself has turned against the Tories: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...onservatives-theresa-may-advert-a7776136.html
Politics is indeed an unpleasant game and not for the weak-willed. I thought Corbyn would crumble under the weight and duration of it, but he has done well. Abbott, not at all.
