Diane Abbott suspended from the Labour Party

Archibald Knox said:
I “think” I might have an inkling of her thought processes here, but they were so badly expressed and so obviously wrong that I cannot be sure.

I think she might have been trying to say that because black people look very different from the WASP majority, they are instantly subject to racism on appearance alone. Whereas other people such as Jews, Irish, and Romany are not easily distinguishable on skin colour alone, so overt racism may not follow so immediately but prejudice does soon after.

However, it is obviously wrong to express the judgement that there are different degrees of racism and prejudice, it’s all wrong and discriminatory. And to say that Jews have not suffered as much racism after knowing of the Holocaust is wholly perverse. And that’s not even bringing in examples of the terrible treatment of Ireland and its people by Brits for hundreds of years.

I think the issue is that Abbott is now coming up 70 years old later this year and like many pensioners her thinking has slowed and lost its flexibility and her ideas have become rigid. She has simply lost the self-awareness of what she says. When she realised, she apologised.

She may not be thick but she is making every appearance of it. And that’s not electable, given how it will be exploited by the press. However, I know little about things such as “Critical Race Theory” and how it influenced her thinking. If it is a dogmatic cult then it is stupid to embrace it.

For Starmer, it was an easy decision. She is one of the few unreformed Corbynistas left that he wants rid of and she has handed him her career on a plate. The whip has been suspended and will not be restored until after the internal inquiry has been completed and maybe not even then.

That Labour internal inquiry will take months, maybe a year. It should not need to take that long but it would be convenient for Starmer if the whip could not be restored before the next General Election (expected Spring 2024?). Then Abbott could not stand as the Labour candidate in any seat, let alone the one she holds. But that is bound to cause ructions in her local constituency party as well.

Well, we’ll see, maybe it will die down over the summer but Abbott should realise she is well over the hill now and should not stand again but retire instead. And leave her place to a black woman 30 years younger and with more energy and ambition.
Click to expand...

Well said. That’s pretty much how I interpreted where she was coming from as well.
Time to apologise properly, and go away and write a book.
 
Archibald Knox said:
I “think” I might have an inkling of her thought processes here, but they were so badly expressed and so obviously wrong that I cannot be sure.

I think she might have been trying to say that because black people look very different from the WASP majority, they are instantly subject to racism on appearance alone. Whereas other people such as Jews, Irish, and Romany are not easily distinguishable on skin colour alone, so overt racism may not follow so immediately but prejudice does soon after.

However, it is obviously wrong to express the judgement that there are different degrees of racism and prejudice, it’s all wrong and discriminatory. And to say that Jews have not suffered as much racism after knowing of the Holocaust is wholly perverse. And that’s not even bringing in examples of the terrible treatment of Ireland and its people by Brits for hundreds of years.

I think the issue is that Abbott is now coming up 70 years old later this year and like many pensioners her thinking has slowed and lost its flexibility and her ideas have become rigid. She has simply lost the self-awareness of what she says. When she realised, she apologised.

She may not be thick but she is making every appearance of it. And that’s not electable, given how it will be exploited by the press. However, I know little about things such as “Critical Race Theory” and how it influenced her thinking. If it is a dogmatic cult then it is stupid to embrace it.

For Starmer, it was an easy decision. She is one of the few unreformed Corbynistas left that he wants rid of and she has handed him her career on a plate. The whip has been suspended and will not be restored until after the internal inquiry has been completed and maybe not even then.

That Labour internal inquiry will take months, maybe a year. It should not need to take that long but it would be convenient for Starmer if the whip could not be restored before the next General Election (expected Spring 2024?). Then Abbott could not stand as the Labour candidate in any seat, let alone the one she holds. But that is bound to cause ructions in her local constituency party as well.

Well, we’ll see, maybe it will die down over the summer but Abbott should realise she is well over the hill now and should not stand again but retire instead. And leave her place to a black woman 30 years younger and with more energy and ambition.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of that. But I don’t agree she should leave her place to someone that fits a certain mould i.e. black, female and younger.

Perhaps instead the position should go to the most capable.

It of course would be against the law and in fact racist, to make such a position only available to a black person. And it’s ageist to suggest younger people have more energy.
Energy levels are down to the individual. I know many sloth like younger folk.
 
One has to wonder how common her views are among at least part of the left, is that why she thought it was okay to put them in writing?

I can certainly remember Rupa Huq (she's had the whip restored BTW) and the "superficially black Kwasi Kwarteng" comments, shadow minister Tan Dhesi, made similar comments at about the same time, I'm sure there have been others.
 
Malced said:
I agree with most of that. But I don’t agree she should leave her place to someone that fits a certain mould i.e. black, female and younger.
Perhaps instead the position should go to the most capable.
Click to expand...
That was not the meaning I intended. As a black woman, Abbott brought a somewhat different quality to Parliament no matter what your opinion on her politics or personality. And did so when she had many obstacles. I would not like Parliament to necessarily replace that with another dull, machine politician. And yes, energy and enthusiasm are important, cynicism is not really helpful at the moment.

Sloth-like people rarely make it in politics, it’s a hard climb up that greasy pole. But given our recent history of PMs, the odd sloth would do less harm.

Edit: Mind you, on second thoughts... isn’t Bozo’s defining quality meant to be laziness?
 
Last edited:
Archibald Knox said:
Can’t agree with that. Do not confuse a lack of conventional formal qualifications with stupidity.
Click to expand...

You don't have to agree with me Archie but I was not even considering formal qualifications.

She's absolutely clueless and can't do anything without a script and has no real understanding of issues as she has demonstrated in public time and time again.

She is also as rough as a badgers @rse but you don't have to agree on that either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top