To think people who would otherwise vote for corbyn may not because of Diane Abbott?

[chunkychicken1]

Sorry if there's already a thread about her latest cringeworthy interview but I couldn't find one... here she was on sky new last night, clearly having failed to read the police report she was there to discuss:

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.thesun.co.uk/news/3731086/shadow-home-secretary-diane-abbott-car-crash-interview-sky-police-security-london-bridge-attacks-terror/amp/

I like corbyn and what he stands for, but I can't give him my vote with these buffoons around him!

Look at what the right to buy council house carrot on a stick did for voting Conservative. People voted for what suited them.

As they did with all those de-mutualisations and privatisations. "Ordinary" people got windfalls when various building societies and pension firms de-mutualised - they voted in their own interests to secure their personal windfalls and then sold them to make a quick buck. They didn't seem to care that the shares would ultimately end up in the hands of the bankers. Everyone knew that "mutuals" were more beneficial, i.e. self-owned, non profit organisations, but the stakeholders (i.e. customers), just voted out of self interest.

Agree that there she was, on the way to the studio in her work gear and gets a phone call. She was definitely being pulled by her own people.

I was just putting the counter argument noble.

all this bash the bankers bollocks. why not bash the idiots who took out 120% mortgages.

the health service is struggling yet still people with an ingrowing toenail turn up to be treated or people who are drunk.

you have to do a bit of helping yourself. you have to do a bit of helping in your community. you cant just sit back and draw up a shopping list and hand the bill to the bankers. this is what Jeremy is suggesting.

all the soundbites in the world cant get away from that.

looking perfectly healthy

Let's not be judgemental about appearances.

She might have just been stood down by phone.

Equally, she might actually be ill.

There are many types of illness with which she could still be ambulatory and looking okay, from thyroid issues or some other deficiency , through alcoholism to goodness knows what.

My money is she's ill, won't accept she's ill AND has just been stood down by phone.

Ahh, the old '3 generations of worklessness' canard. Proved to be complete rubbish years ago but that never stopped the Tories trotting it out, overandoverandoverandoveragain, to show just how much they despise the proles.

all the soundbites in the world cant get away from that.

Just as chanting "strong and stable" will not protect you from those who mean to do harm.

There are many types of illness with which she could still be ambulatory and looking okay, from thyroid issues or some other deficiency , through alcoholism to goodness knows what
Yes but on her way to the interview, not far away from the studio, after being in the papers for yet another car crash interview - I get what you're saying but I think on this occasion that it quacks like a duck and swims in a pond with feathers on and webbed feet.

Looks like she was pulled and someone papped her at the same time.

I think she is definitely unwell whether that be self inflicted or something else. However shame on the Labour Party for allowing her to continue her ramblings. It really isn't doing them any favours.

I wonder as she is such a car crash that they have told her to go off sick until Friday. If she is Home Secretary god help us all. She has a habit of doing that to wriggle out of anything important. I also wonder why she is insisting on carrying on?

I suspect Labour Party HQ is discussing this as we speak. JC really needs to make a statement of some sort around this. One of the top 3 jobs in politics and he appoints her. I wonder if she has something on him?

For those who are saying that JC will replace her should the unthinkable (in my view of course!) happen on Thursday. Why isn't he doing it now?

That old politician's trick, make.

We know your views on strong and stable. You're on here 24/7 repeating them, after all.

What about your views on labour's maths? You can't answer those questions credibly just by saying, "ah but the Tories..."* if you want people to agree with you. You must have done some analysis on why you agree that tax rises will cover it and will provide a sufficiently consistent income. Where is that reasoning?

• If anyone remembers Jesus in "this morning with Richard not Judy" (showing my age!), that's what you sound like!

OP:
It's an interesting question. Having seen her in action - recently in particular - that thought did cross my mind. However, it may not just come down to the "car crash" interviews she has been involved in, of late, but the woman herself. She is awful and brimming over with hypocrisy.

Putting forward that bankers paying higher tax being 'practical input to help the disabled' as a counter-argument to banker-bashing rather looks like a suggestion that it's something that they do deliberately, rather than something they seek to avoid.

There'd be plenty more money for disabled people if wealthy people and companies paid their taxes properly, wouldn't there? If the banks hadn't gone for the quick profit and fucked the lot of us....

Mummy is right. The bash the bankers (you know the people who are paying vast sums of tax) is getting boring. Someone correct me but don't a very small percentage of people pay 50% of the tax. Most people on average wages are not net contributors but lets not stop them doing what Mummy says, after all, they are entitled and want to get their monies worth.

But there are no Tory plans for growth.....nothing at all.

Why? Because they are doing just fine.

That's not what the figures say.

The economy's now at the bottom of the G7, making us the worst-performing advanced economy in the world; wages for most people are lower than before the crash; house prices have started to fall and inflation on food and other essentials is up.

That is not just fine. It's the opposite in fact. I'm not at all surprised May isn't keen to discuss that.

If the banks hadn't gone for the quick profit

Such a shame that so many customers of building societies and pension/life insurance companies voted for demutualisation then isn't it? If they'd stayed mutual, the huge profits would have been used to benefit their own customers. As it turns out, it looks like it was turkeys voting for christmas due to greed and short-term-ism.

I've just seen that interview and I was cringing for her. I couldn't even watch the end of it.

We have almost full employment and very low mortgage rates. I don't think house prices coming down is a bad thing tbh. We brought a new build last year at the higher end of the market. There is no way that its worth what I paid although I paid stamp duty straight to the government.

Its our last house hopefully so I am just enjoying it.

Full employment on very low wages and in unstable insecure jobs.

Yeah that's fabulous.

I think you need to start looking at Labours plans in a lot more detail noble and realise that the definition of "wealthy" is going to actually end up being anyone above the average wage in order to pay for their huge shopping list.

kittens - I don't know what its like where you live but where I am I know in person at least 20 families where 3 generations have never worked. I could name them and the villages they live in but this would out me. but then maybe rather than being a keyboard warrior London dweller I actually go out and work with "the poor" and try to do things in my community that make a difference. and because of this, I do come across these families in real life.

free tuition fees puts money in at the wrong end of the education system. the money needs to be in at the bottom not at the top.

there was a report done a few years ago and if I could find the damn thing I would link to it, where it shows that you can identify almost 100% the kids at 2 who are going to struggle.

this is what needs to happen. put the money in at the bottom not give free tuition fees to someone whose degree is going to mean that they end up earning above average wages.

That's not what the figures say.

Thanks Sleepy.

The economy is indeed stumbling terrible. I meant that the rich/Tory supporters are doing just fine.

But bankers do pay a lot of tax! E.g. DF was a banker (retired many years ago, long before the financial crisis!). He paid tax at high rates for over 40 years. Now he has retired he still works long hours in his 70's doing banking and financial advice on a self employed basis. His last tax bill was for 6 figures.

There is a big difference between high earners who pay 1/3 of income tax receipts and people like the new duke of Westminster who avoided multiple 0000's in IHT.

The same goes for corporations. There's a huge difference between small companies and start ups and the Cadburys of this world. Increase corporation tax too much and you stifle investment and therefore employment. But for the bigwigs? I for one won't buy anything Cadbury makes until they pay their fair share of tax - if we all did that, they might listen!

Oh, I'm sorry! I thought you were serious. I was just... huh?

As you can see, I am suitably named.

what are the labour plans for growth exactly? As far as I see it, it's raising business costs through pushing up wage bills and corporation tax. Not very likely to result in economic growth. More than likely to cause unemployment and hours cuts.

Run by me again how the labour economic growth miracle works?

makeourfuture - how do you know that the tory supporters are doing fine? you base that on what?

I am struggling. I pay my staff well above minimum wages, I try to work in an ethical way within my business. I don't drive a new car or have sky tv or go on expensive holidays.