However I would say she made her own bed similar to Corbyn.
Last few weeks I have been doing radio interviews on a complex controversial topic. I know how difficult it is to think on your feet, and not fall into traps. So I have some sympathy for misspeaking on the spot.
However, there is no excuse when you write in to a newspaper and say jews or travellers have not experienced racism (only prejudice). With an attempt of an intellectual argument. In a normal context that would have been dumb, but in the context of a Labour Party coming out of an antisemitism scandal it was as good as writing a resignation.
Much like Corbyn I donāt think she is racist or antisemitic. However saying dumb shit gives the impression that you are (or failed to pick up a history book). It also undermines the good work done fighting racism and prejudice.
Itās akin to starting a debate arguing that you have it worse than Mexicans or Muslims who dont really experience racism. (And comparing their problems to having red hair)
Why even enter that argument ? You donāt make your cause better by stepping on others.
I have sympathy for her struggles as a politician, I donāt for her exit.
āIt is my job to highlight the risks of a Labour governmentā¦ā
Two things: firstly, it is your job to run the countryās economy. Secondly, this sums up the entire Tory strategy: our record in government is abysmal, so letās just scaremonger.
If he delivers the kind of majority the polls are projecting, heāll be untouchable. I think you might be, again, treating what the Toryās have done to politics over the last decade as normal.
As so often with her, I understand, I think, the point she is trying to make. But itās always a case of why are you even going there? Why is it useful? And why now, for christs sake?
It shows stupidity and lack of political nous, or it shows a certain wilful provocative arrogance. I suppose thatās what the investigation was trying to establish. Good news Diane - the investigation found you werenāt antisemitic. You were just thick!
She was raised in abject poverty by a mother who could not read or write. She has said at various points that she was at risk of being taken into care.
Like a lot of kids in that situation she ended up pregnant at 16 to a lad a few years older than her who didnāt stick around, and dropped out of formal education at GCSE level.
From there she started a career in social care, got a NVQ and learned sign language. Through the care industry she got involved in Union Politics and eventually became a union rep. That was her route into the Labour Party and she eventually contested a seat and got to where she is now. And ever step of the way, there will have been people judging her, mocking her, and misunderstanding her because of her upbringing and mistakes she made as a child.
Can you imagine the strength it must have taken to get to where she is now from where she was a 16? Anyone who thinks she is thick hasnāt got the first clue. She has incredible natural intelligence, and is hard as nails to boot.
Because I never made a point about the manner of her speech, as in the tone of it or whatever you might (and yer Pal) think. She cannot even properly respond to some political questions and even misses the point in some interviews, its an intelligence issue, not speech per se, and there is a massive body of excerpts demonstrating it. So I now have to run off and gather all these to deal with this bluster? When its clear neither of you have checked this out before responding, because if you had you would have seen some of the embarrassing responses she gives re simply not up to being a DPM.
Then of course there is the dynamic this throws onto Starmer, whom probably gets to dictate and have his way, never really being subject to checks and balances by her. The gap is stark, hardly arguable, unless you are here, then oppression seems to be the guiding light.
Just a reminder people here can only respond to what you wrote, and not what you think you wrote.
If you have a problem with anything I post, report it and it will be dealt with. But since at least one other person took that point from your post, perhaps the problem is with you?
Not being in the UK, I donāt see much of her beyond what I read. You mentioned the way she speaks, I went and listened to the first hit on Google. I heard a left wing politician using left wing talking points to evade answering a question the way all politicians (which irritated me) and a working class accent from somewhere in the Northeast I would guess - which is what I presumed you were alluding to.
Andrew Neil is a tough cookie, and the way he was persistent in the interview is a good thing. I wish journalists had that sort of rigor over here.
Iāve never seen Angela Raynor, being overseas, but good luck to her. I love the background Mascot shared above.
For far too many years, politics was the domain of richer, more privileged people. Iām not blaming anyone if that is their background, but if it is to be representative, then it needs a good mix. Without knowing too much about Raynor, other than what Iāve just seen and read, good luck to her.
In the interview linked above she didnāt come across as thick, at all, but my take is she will be better prepared next time, and thatās a good thing, aided by the function of a robust political interviewer like Andrew Neil.
You must be having a laugh in HQ - you simply took the word speech and ran with it in a way which suits you. There are at least 5 or 6 intelligible aspect of speech.
There isnāt a politician alive that could withstand a grilling from him without being made to look either evasive or foolish. Boris Johnson knew that and point blank refused an interview during his election campaign.
