The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[MakemineVanilla]

3 hours ago, blandy said:

I don’t think she’s thick, in the sense of lacking intelligence...

 

There is such a thing as "emotional intelligence", which she obviously lacks.

Training is available, which I think amounts to - Shut your gob and give your arse a chance!

[Jareth]

26 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

Aren't they all mate, aren't they all!

What are you on about? 

[ml1dch]

20 minutes ago, Anthony said:

What point are you trying to make? That she makes it up? That others make it up?

I don't think enough brain cells have been activated to create anything that could be considered a "point".

[bickster]

1 hour ago, foreveryoung said:

Aren't they all mate, aren't they all!

That was your first draft wasn't it? You didn’t mean to press send.

[Chindie]

Abbott isn't stupid. Her background and career is one of someone pretty intelligent.

Her issue has always been she jumps in with both feet on her pet concerns and doesn't think before she jumps. Which will combine with other things about her (she's left wing, vocal, black, pointedly middle class, overweight...) to have people, sadly, queuing up to criticise her and have a pop.

Starmer will be delighted though. Even setting aside the political angle, he would be happy to get rid of her because she's not someone that generates 'good' headlines. And then he'll be happy to get rid of another left winger in the party, and another ally of the great Satan, an unmissable chance to continue the purge.

[Jareth]

2 hours ago, foreveryoung said:

Aren't they all mate, aren't they all!

This needs an explanation. 

[ml1dch]

31 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Starmer will be delighted though. 

There's obviously a minor political silver lining to take from it, but I think on balance he'd still be happier with his MPs not writing really stupid letters in national newspapers  

[Chindie]

13 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

There's obviously a minor political silver lining to take from it, but I think on balance he'd still be happier with his MPs not writing really stupid letters in national newspapers  

I don't think he cares.

Abbott isn't a front bench figure, she's not even a senior figure in the party anymore on any scale other than her time served, she's not really a relevant figure anymore, we're still miles out from an election, and it's a topic that the average person isn't going to give a **** about really. It doesn't markedly damage the party, he gets to purge another pesky dirty commie in a cupboard, he gets to ditch a figure that courts controversy and bad headlines who people generally dislike (deserved or not) he gets to look to decisive, etc etc.

Net, he gains imo. They'll have been punching the air at HQ.

[Designer1]

3 hours ago, foreveryoung said:

Aren't they all mate, aren't they all!

WTF are you on about?

[blandy]

10 hours ago, Chindie said:

Starmer will be delighted though. Even setting aside the political angle, he would be happy to get rid of her because she's not someone that generates 'good' headlines. And then he'll be happy to get rid of another left winger in the party, and another ally of the great Satan, an unmissable chance to continue the purge.

I agree with most of your post, but this bit I’m not so sure. She’s massively popular in her constituency. Without the whip she can’t stand again for Labour. Like with  Catweazle, if she stands as an independent it’s potentially a safe seat lost, when he needs every single thing to go his way. Unlike Catweazle she’s got the sense to apologise immediately and will probably get the whip back after some training course or something.

[LondonLax]

9 hours ago, Jareth said:

This needs an explanation. 

Sadly I think we can form our own judgment without one at this point. 

[LondonLax]

9 hours ago, Chindie said:

I don't think he cares.

Abbott isn't a front bench figure, she's not even a senior figure in the party anymore on any scale other than her time served, she's not really a relevant figure anymore, we're still miles out from an election, and it's a topic that the average person isn't going to give a **** about really. It doesn't markedly damage the party, he gets to purge another pesky dirty commie in a cupboard, he gets to ditch a figure that courts controversy and bad headlines who people generally dislike (deserved or not) he gets to look to decisive, etc etc.

Net, he gains imo. They'll have been punching the air at HQ.

The Labour leader will want high profile Labour MPs working on his plan for the common goal of reelection.

Not high profile MPs who shit the bed in the national media.

There will have been sighs of ‘here we go again’ rather than high fives at HQ. 

[blandy]

2 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

There will have been sighs of ‘here we go again’ rather than high fives at HQ. 

Deffo.

Starmer: “We’ve cleaned out the scourge of antisemitism”

Abbott: “Abusing Jews isn’t racist” (I paraphrase)

Smarter: “oh, FFS!”

[OutByEaster?]

I think Starmer will be quietly pleased with the opportunity to rid himself of another of those that don't share his view of the party.

 

[blandy]

Just now, OutByEaster? said:

I think Starmer will be quietly pleased with the opportunity to rid himself of another of those that don't share his view of the party.

Small consolation, maybe. We’ll be able to tell by whether she gets the whip back. Catweazle too stubborn, too stupid to have any chance, but Abbott is smarter and perhaps more reluctant to lose her (significant) income, too. She might have a hoop to jump through, but I reckon Starmer will welcome her back.

[OutByEaster?]

I'm not sure he's the "welcome back" sort. He's been pretty ruthless thus far.

 

[Jareth]

There is something to say about racism and prejudice as it affects the lives of people today, there's a lot to be said about that, but I think Abbot had had one too many mojitos when she hit send. She makes actual factual points in her letter and those are not wrong, but what's depressing is that they are now blithely ignored because she failed to acknowledge the bloody holocaust, I mean how on earth could she not acknowledge that in the context of her letter on historical racism?.

[desensitized43]

17 minutes ago, Jareth said:

There is something to say about racism and prejudice as it affects the lives of people today, there's a lot to be said about that, but I think Abbot had had one too many mojitos when she hit send. She makes actual factual points in her letter and those are not wrong, but what's depressing is that they are now blithely ignored because she failed to acknowledge the bloody holocaust, I mean how on earth could she not acknowledge that in the context of her letter on historical racism?.

Perhaps because she doesn't see Jews or Roma as a race? I think she's wrong on pretty much every level but if that's your point of view then I guess it can explain what she said. It's her perception that only people who look different to white people can be victims of racism.

You have to ask what she's trying to gain from thinking this and then saying it aloud. I dont know, but I wonder if there's some kind of protectionist thing going on where she feels that if people other than black people can be subject to racism it somehow diminishes how vile and unacceptable it is? Or that she feels the historical and ongoing injustice suffered by black people is worse than anything other races have and do suffer? Like there's some kind of pyramid of hatred where the horrors of slavery and injustice is somehow above all and trumps the misery that others had to go through.

[Jareth]

1 minute ago, desensitized43 said:

Perhaps because she doesn't see Jews or Roma as a race? I think she's wrong on pretty much every level but if that's your point of view then I guess it can explain what she said. It's her perception that only people who look different to white people can be victims of racism.

You have to ask what she's trying to gain from thinking this and then saying it aloud. I dont know, but I wonder if there's some kind of protectionist thing going on where she feels that if people other than black people can be subject to racism it somehow diminishes how vile and unacceptable it is? Or that she feels the historical and ongoing injustice suffered by black people is worse than anything other races have and do suffer? Like there's some kind of pyramid of hatred where the horrors of slavery and injustice is somehow above all and trumps the misery that others had to go through.

I think her biggest fail here was to install her own hierarchy of racism. I have full sympathy with her for the vile stuff that is routinely thrown at her on twitter, but if your gripe is that there is a hierarchy of racism, then you can't defeat that by doing it yourself. It's just impossible to pit one set of oppressed people versus another, it's self defeating. Deffo putting it down to a drunk email, can't see any other explanation. 

[blandy]

59 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

I wonder if there's some kind of protectionist thing going on where she feels that if people other than black people can be subject to racism it somehow diminishes how vile and unacceptable it is? Or that she feels the historical and ongoing injustice suffered by black people is worse than anything other races have and do suffer? Like there's some kind of pyramid of hatred where the horrors of slavery and injustice is somehow above all and trumps the misery that others had to go through.

Well said. I couldn’t think of how to express it, but you’ve captured it completely. The only thing I’d add, is that I don’t think it’s in any way (if it is the line of thinking she had) intended as a malign thought by her, more an accidental consequence of an understandable focus on racism against black people and therefore a lack of similar focus on racism against other races or ethnic groups.