Diane Abbott Back!

[dazzer6666]

What the f@@k has colour got to do with it? She is an incompetent hypocrite who doesn't like the Country she lives in.

This. **** all to do with colour.

 

[Your Mum]

This. **** all to do with ...

your mum

 

[Cheshire Cat]

Some of the comments on here read seriously prejudiced to me -competence or otherwise regardless.

But then again, "Prejudice is a great time saver. You can form opinions without having to get the facts" as someone once said.

 

[Triggaaar]

Diabetes IS a serious long term condition.

Who said it wasn't?

I really don't get why Ms Abbott comes in for such vituperative personal abuse from Tories.

She's incompetent, so she gets abuse from all sides. Her own side even dropped her before the election as they were so embarrassed.

Is it because they are frightened of a strong black woman who isn't scared to offer opinions that don't agree with their white, male, middle class, little Englander view?

Wow.

 

[Triggaaar]

Some of the comments on here read seriously prejudiced to me

Yep, this one is pretty awful:

Is it because they are frightened of a strong black woman who isn't scared to offer opinions that don't agree with their white, male, middle class, little Englander view? You might think that she would be a poor Home Secretary or other potential Cabinet member, but that doesn't seem to justify the hatred she engenders.

But then again, "Prejudice is a great time saver. You can form opinions without having to get the facts" as someone once said.

Facts? She was so bad that her own party dropped her. Why do you think they dropped her? It wasn't because she'd been diagnosed with a serious illness.

 

[Bold Seagull]

You learn something new every day: diabetes 2 is not a serious condition. Medical journals being rewritten as I type.

 

[Triggaaar]

Diabetes IS a serious long term condition.

Who said it wasn't?

1. Diabetes is a serious condition.

Again, who said it wasn't?

2. It was stated it was tempory so everyone knew she would be back.

Wrong again - I've already quoted several people saying that she wouldn't be back. Tell you what, you quote all the posts that said she just need a couple of weeks off and would be back as shadow home secretary, and I'll quote (again) those that said she wouldn't be back.

Stop making stuff up.

You're talking shit. It's very clear that people here thought she wouldn't be back as she'd just been diagnosed with a serious condition. It turns out that neither of those things are the case.

PS - given that you're a bit slow on this I'll give you some help - she was diagnosed a couple of years ago.

 

[Triggaaar]

You learn something new every day: diabetes 2 is not a serious condition. Medical journals being rewritten as I type.

And who said that? Try and get your facts right.

 

[Bold Seagull]

And who said that? Try and get your facts right.

You keep on saying it...

 

[Bozza]

You learn something new every day: diabetes 2 is not a serious condition. Medical journals being rewritten as I type.

I think the key thing here is that Shadow Home Secretary is a serious job. Home Secretary even more so. The Labour Party don't seem to understand that though for some reason.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I think the key thing here is that Shadow Home Secretary is a serious job. Home Secretary even more so. The Labour Party don't seem to understand that though for some reason.

I'd replace her with another candidate in a heartbeat, Chaka immediately springs to mind to add a bit of centrist balance. Doesn't stop diabetes 2 being a serious illness though.

 

[Triggaaar]

You keep on saying it...

I certainly haven't.

Addressing the part about who said it was not a serious condition: you said it!

No.

Well the scam seems to have worked. Voters thought she'd just been diagnosed with a serious condition (she hadn't) and voters thought she wouldn't be back (she is):

She hasn't just been diagnosed with a serious condition. She was diagnosed 2 years ago.

She was failing in the run up to the election and Labour knew she was going to cost them votes, so they made us think she'd just been diagnosed with a serious condition (again, she hadn't), and they made us think she was gone from the cabinet for good. I'm aware they carefully chose the language, which covered them for bringing her back, but look at the reactions on here and it's clear people thought she was gone for good. If it was just a couple of weeks off, there was no need to bring in someone else.

The fact is, Labour used her ill health to trick voters. It worked.

 

[pb21]

Could she not have a long term condition that is being exacerbated by the pressures of electioneering, appearing on live TV several times a day being grilled on massive issues and running around to various demos and conferences speaking in public etc.

I can imagine this would take its toll on those a picture of health.

Were those TV appearances as intense and as regular as they are at the moment, did they occur at the same time as general electioneering off screen as shadow home secretary and was her condition the same then as it is now?

You say it yourself campaigning wasn't on.

Gardiner, the Brent North MP, told Talk Radio: “I don’t have her medical condition. I’m given to understand she’s been diagnosed … It’s a long-term condition, and she’s been coming to terms with that.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-for-the-period-of-her-ill-health-corbyn-says

Maybe she is fine, maybe she isn't.

If she does have a long term health condition that would prevent her from undertaking her duties as an MP then yes she should not stand.

If on the other hand she does have a long term health condition but that would not prevent her from undertaking her duties as an MP then yes she should stand, why not?

Surely being shadow home secretary (or home secretary) entails more duties and responsibilities with an increased workload above and beyond those of a regular MP?

Well being interviewed carries it's own pressures.

Maybe I'm being naive but I don't think it's outside the realms of possibility that she is ill and that is affecting her at the moment more so than it may be expected to in the future, or may not.

I'm going to hold off leveling any further criticism her way until it's clear.

Well the scam seems to have worked. Voters thought she'd just been diagnosed with a serious condition (she hadn't) and voters thought she wouldn't be back (she is):

You've been proper mugged off.

No I haven't?

She does have an illness that was exacerbated by the pressures of electioneering, appearing on live TV several times a day being grilled on massive issues and running around to various demos and conferences speaking in public etc.

An illness that precluded her from acting as shadow home secretary, but not one that precluded her from standing as an MP.

 

[Triggaaar]

Give up man! Your previous posts clearly show you saying it was not a serious condition.

No I certainly didn't.

Aslo, on the part that you said she would not be back: it was clear from the offset it was planned to bring her back. Just re-read the coverage at the time.

No, you read the posts on here. People on here said she wouldn't be back, because that's what people here thought.

Just give in and admit it. At this point its like you are arguing the sky is not blue!

What? You're talking absolute nonsense. I didn't say it wasn't a serious condition. You saying I did will not change the fact that I did not. I said she hadn't just been diagnosed.

 

[Triggaaar]

She does have an illness that was exacerbated by the pressures of electioneering, appearing on live TV several times a day being grilled on massive issues and running around to various demos and conferences speaking in public etc.

An illness that precluded her from acting as shadow home secretary, but not one that precluded her from standing as an MP.

But she's back to being shadow home secretary! And if her illness is exacerbated by pressure, she wouldn't make a very good home secretary would she.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I certainly haven't.
No.


She hasn't just been diagnosed with a serious condition. She was diagnosed 2 years ago.

She was failing in the run up to the election and Labour knew she was going to cost them votes, so they made us think she'd just been diagnosed with a serious condition (again, she hadn't), and they made us think she was gone from the cabinet for good. I'm aware they carefully chose the language, which covered them for bringing her back, but look at the reactions on here and it's clear people thought she was gone for good. If it was just a couple of weeks off, there was no need to bring in someone else.

The fact is, Labour used her ill health to trick voters. It worked.

Oh I see, you used a cynical play on words to show how cynical Labour were being. Nice work.

 

[pb21]

But she's back to being shadow home secretary! And if her illness is exacerbated by pressure, she wouldn't make a very good home secretary would she.

No.

She wouldn't make a a very good home secretary regardless, but I am willing to accept that Abott's condition at the time was affecting her and made her appear an even worse option than Rudd.

 

[Triggaaar]

Oh I see, you used a cynical play on words to show how cynical Labour were being. Nice work.

I'd say thanks, but that's not really what I did. It's a serious point, Labour did make it sound like she'd just been diagnosed with something so people would stop saying bad things about her level of performance. Since she'd been diagnosed two years earlier, they didn't need to wait until the election to drop her. Since they've now said what the condition is, they could have said that before the election. They could have been honest and said she was diagnosed with diabetes two years ago, and the stresses of the election campaign were proving difficult for her. As it was, they mislead the public.

 

[Triggaaar]

I, and others, have directly quoted you saying it was not a serious condition.

No you haven't, because I didn't say that.

Stop it before you make yourself look worse.

That's never going to happen. You're telling me I said something I didn't say.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I'd say thanks, but that's not really what I did. It's a serious point, Labour did make it sound like she'd just been diagnosed with something so people would stop saying bad things about her level of performance. Since she'd been diagnosed two years earlier, they didn't need to wait until the election to drop her. Since they've now said what the condition is, they could have said that before the election. They could have been honest and said she was diagnosed with diabetes two years ago, and the stresses of the election campaign were proving difficult for her. As it was, they mislead the public.

The serious point, is that you are taking a cynical view of it, which may or may not be the truth of it. Announcing to the world she is suffering with diabetes 2 is perhaps not something she wanted to do, and when this was announced, it was said she was suffering with an illness, they didn't say when or what until later. She has now made that public, which may have been difficult for her because it will feel like a sign of weakness, but some at least are being less cynical about it.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/19/diane-abbott-diabetes-labour-diabetic