Topic: The Labour Party (*)

[killer-heels]

Labour can argue the Freedom of movement debate by arguing. the question now is not are people for or against freedom of movement. the question now is are people willing to pay the price to stop freedom of movement as the EU keep telling us, Freedom of movement +the single market are inseparable. you can't have one without the other.
This has been a fiasco. we are still having polls asking what do people prioritize, the single market or freedom of movement, we are now at the stage of what price are are we willing to pay to get these priority's. what we would like and what we are willing to pay are 2 different things.

I hate to be on the side of many Leaver's on this but it looks like Le Pen will get significant support in the election next Spring, whether she wins or not is another thing. The EU need to look at it all again because the more things get batted away, the more resentment will grow. Le Pen apparently is targetting the 2022 elections as her moment to get in so she is in this for the long game.

Thankfully it looks like Merkel is taking the initiative around this and talking about Freedom of Movement controls. It probably wouldn't apply to us but for the good of Europe, it needs to be tackled.

[oldfordie]

I hate to be on the side of many Leaver's on this but it looks like Le Pen will get significant support in the election next Spring, whether she wins or not is another thing. The EU need to look at it all again because the more things get batted away, the more resentment will grow. Le Pen apparently is targetting the 2022 elections as her moment to get in so she is in this for the long game.

Thankfully it looks like Merkel is taking the initiative around this and talking about Freedom of Movement controls. It probably wouldn't apply to us but for the good of Europe, it needs to be tackled.

Yeah, it could happen, she is not favourite to win but 2/1 tells us she is no outsider.
Why dont the UK really play the game smarter then. announce publicly the referendum result stands but we will wait for the support of a possible new French government before triggering article 50 as there is a growing feeling in EU citizens that this Freedom of movement clause has to be addressed.
I would imagine the EU would crap themselves more hearing that than the likes of Boris coming out with stupid threats.

[killer-heels]

Yeah, it could happen, she is not favourite to win but 2/1 tells us she is no outsider.
Why dont the UK really play the game smarter then. announce publicly the referendum result stands but we will wait for the support of a possible new French government before triggering article 50 as there is a growing feeling in EU citizens that this Freedom of movement clause has to be addressed.
I would imagine the EU would crap themselves more hearing that than the likes of Boris coming out with stupid threats.

You cannot control Boris, he is an outsider on that cause.

It makes sense to box smarter but as it stands the government is doing a massive fact finding mission still and May is doing what she did in the Home Office which is gather information, get all the facts, lock herself away in a cupboard and then come back with her proposal. There are stories yesterday confirming this as well.

By waiting till March, it gives her more time to get in as much info and it brings their the European's focus away to their own elections. She also has her baying internal party right wingers waiting to put the boot in.

Whatever happens it probably will be too late for us to get a good access to the single market and control immigration but I hope that the EU look to reform it, which would be kind of ironic.

[alonsoisared]

Why does he need to do anything other than walk there, lay a wreath and walk back?  The picture with the other person doesn't make it look any better.

fucking hell 

I nipped in to see if anyone had commented on that. IMO one of the very best posters on this site reduced to this. What is it about jeremy corbyn and this forum?

Good to see positive inroads in the polls, down in no small part to the sudden willingness of the labour party to stop embarassing themselves by going after their own leader at every minor opportunity. I really dont know whats next for labour or if there is any way back but thank god for a bit of a positive step for the first time in ages.

[oldfordie]

You cannot control Boris, he is an outsider on that cause.

It makes sense to box smarter but as it stands the government is doing a massive fact finding mission still and May is doing what she did in the Home Office which is gather information, get all the facts, lock herself away in a cupboard and then come back with her proposal. There are stories yesterday confirming this as well.

By waiting till March, it gives her more time to get in as much info and it brings their the European's focus away to their own elections. She also has her baying internal party right wingers waiting to put the boot in.

Whatever happens it probably will be too late for us to get a good access to the single market and control immigration but I hope that the EU look to reform it, which would be kind of ironic.

What is so special about triggering article 50 in March though, why so soon if they are struggling to get a plan. all I can think of is the 2 yrs are up while a Tory government is in power and plenty of time before the next GE to change all our laws that take away EU restrictions covering everything that goes against Tory policy. bang goes workers rights and conditions. Torys fiddle work out who gets those lost EU subsidies.etc

[redmark]

I dont want to bat away immigration concerns, I want to fight against the rhetoric that has caused people like you to now label it as a "concern."

The right are winning the war of legitimising xenophobia and every time we accept their concerns we move a little closer to even more dangerous ground. The Tories, UKIP and the right wing press are radicalising the public and there is no one willing to stand up to it.

Labour are doing exactly what you want them to do, which is to echo the Tory line on Brexit, when they should be fighting against this march towards intolerance and layng down a vision of the future that appeals to more than just the anti-immigration mob.

The left has been standing up against racism and discrimination for decades, including supporting EU freedom of movement, calling on the UK to take more refugees and defending muslims against discrimination, while opposing intervention in muslim countries. And we've been losing the argument for years. Part of the problem is that they've all become conflated, by certain sections of the media of course, but it's the media we have.

I don't think the Labour Party should be against immigration, or against freedom of movement. But we do need to change the record and talk more about other things - things that might actually matter to the people we're losing, to the Tories in the south and UKIP in the north (roughly speaking). The problem I think for the left is that we focus so much on disadvantaged groups, on certain 'identities', that we've overlooked the actual circumstances of many people. Worse, the constant identity-driven rhetoric leaves them with the impression (not unreasonably) that they're last on the left's list of priorities. And then we call them stupid and selfish.

The Labour Party will never get elected without winning (or at least splitting) the white working class vote. We could even ignore class as just another identity and focus on 'circumstance'. There are a lot of people having a shitty time who feel that the cosmopolitan, metropolitan Labour Party does not reflect their priorities; that it prioritises every other identity before them and takes their vote for granted. Attacks on ethnic groups, muslims or women by people like Frottage and Trump is clever politics; every time someone on the left defends immigrants contributions to society, highlights discrimination against muslims or points to wage inequality between men and women, it just reinforces in the minds of Frottage/Trump's target voter that he (and she, for many who are more worried about their leaking roof than the glass ceiling) is last in the left's priority list.

All of those fights for equality are right. But if we get sucked into those topics as defining the limits of political debate, we lose.

[redmark]

Yes of course it's irrlevent what people voted, the question was what do Labour MPs do now. the answer is what they are supposed to do hold the government to account. did that referendum vote say anything about article 50 having to be triggered in March 2017, can you show me that caveat,?
 Parliament does not need caveats to give them the right to stop a bill that they believe is disastrous for our country, does that really need to be explained or justified..that has played a part in our democracy for hundreds of years. you want to by-pass this democratic process on a advisory referendum result that carry's no weight or mandate.
So you haven't got the moral high ground on this as you want to ignore the very basics of democracy.

Labour can hold the government to account and argue for various amendments and improvements to any Brexit plan. But ultimately, any Labour MP whose constituency voted Leave cannot vote against it, unless you fancy a snap election with a Tory/UKIP landslide.

[redmark]

Labour still needs to get into the freedom of movement debate.

How? Corbyn's "open borders", or McDonnell's "we can lose freedom of movement, but we must keep passporting rights"?

[Yorkykopite]

This is such a powerful article. The whole thing is worth reading. I've posted the conclusion below.

https://waitingfortax.com/2016/11/16/labours-brexit-tactics/

In the face of that heavy Remain position, John McDonnell has nevertheless managed to spin 180 degrees from a pre-referendum ‘Brexit will help the corporate elites‘ to a full-blooded post-referendum ‘Brexit will hurt them‘.

Even the thoughtful members of the Labour Party have engaged in repeated attempts to burnish the quality of the democratic mandate. Writing in Prospect, Ed Miliband, for example, argued: “There is a clear mandate for Brexit from the referendum. I am not seeking to reverse the result. We are leaving the EU.” I do not find it easy to understand the impulse to airbrush away the lies of a campaign rich with them or the fact that a 2% swing would have delivered a different result. These facts might not change the mandate but it defies reality to pretend they are irrelevant to is quality.

The answer is that the Party is cowed.

Face with a vigorous and scornful media it seems determined to repeat its mistakes from the last Parliament. Then MPs bowed their heads regretfully to ‘overspending’ allegations and the need for austerity. Now they genuflect to demands for a Brexit that ignores the limitations of the mandate.

That's a damning conclusion because it shows that McDonnell (I presume he's the 'leader' now) is making the same mistake as Ed Miliband on austerity - which is to find out what the Tories and the Daily Mail want and to come up with a "lite" version for Labour, forgetting that there is a massive section of the British population who voted against Brexit and (very likely) a growing one that voted to Leave but is now concerned about the wretched the deal Britain will be forced to take.

My only disagreement with the article is that I think McDonnell has always been for a Hard Brexit ('socialism in one country') and that he only pretended to think the EU was a good idea earlier this year.

[Danny Boys Dad]

That's a damning conclusion because it shows that McDonnell (I presume he's the 'leader' now) is making the same mistake as Ed Miliband on austerity - which is to find out what the Tories and the Daily Mail want and to come up with a "lite" version for Labour, forgetting that there is a massive section of the British population who voted against Brexit and (very likely) a growing one that voted to Leave but is now concerned about the wretched the deal Britain will be forced to take.

My only disagreement with the article is that I think McDonnell has always been for a Hard Brexit ('socialism in one country') and that he only pretended to think the EU was a good idea earlier this year.

Isn't that what a lot of MP's, not just Labour are doing? Given the vote for Brexit in a lot of traditional Labour areas it would be hard for them to decide to actively against it at the moment, even though that would be justified in my opinion.

Maybe what they are doing is going along with the idea of Brexit and raising issues and identifying problems with the process until the country as a whole realises what a bad idea it is.

McDonnell and Corbyn might lean naturally towards a Brexit position but that was always an 'old labour' view, didn't Labour campaign against it in the 70's?

[Yorkykopite]

Isn't that what a lot of MP's, not just Labour are doing? Given the vote for Brexit in a lot of traditional Labour areas it would be hard for them to decide to actively against it at the moment, even though that would be justified in my opinion.

Maybe what they are doing is going along with the idea of Brexit and raising issues and identifying problems with the process until the country as a whole realises what a bad idea it is.

McDonnell and Corbyn might lean naturally towards a Brexit position but that was always an 'old labour' view, didn't Labour campaign against it in the 70's?

Well, remember that 70 percent of Labour voters voted to Remain. Then take a look at the charts that accompany the article. It's not altogether clear that Labour would be punished electorally by standing out against Brexit (or, to put it a different way, insisting that Parliament retain control of the negotiations).

I think you're right about McDonnell's and Corbyn's preference. The majority of the Labour party in the 1970s campaigned to STAY in Europe, but there was both a left-wing and right-wing rump that campaigned to leave.

[oldfordie]

Labour can hold the government to account and argue for various amendments and improvements to any Brexit plan. But ultimately, any Labour MP whose constituency voted Leave cannot vote against it, unless you fancy a snap election with a Tory/UKIP landslide.

The Labour party have agreed to back the Torys plan to trigger article 50 in March 2017 . how are they holding the government to account if they have agreed with the Tory government that they are correct to trigger article 50 when they have no idea what those plans + intentions are.
It doesn't matter if you voted leave or stay everybody should be concerned over the way the Torys are handling Brexit. the argument isn't Labour shouldn't be stopping the Torys triggering article 50. the argument is Labour shouldn't be agreeing with the Torys that they are ready to trigger article 50 unless they know they have a credible plan.
Labour are giving their blessing for the Torys to trigger article 50, if this goes wrong then they have no right to argue the Torys were stupid to trigger article 50 as their plans were flawed, they agreed with those Tory plans when they agreed to trigger article 50.
Whatever happens this will backfire on Labour, if Brexit is a success then Labour will get no credit, if Brexit is a failure then Labour will be torn apart for backing the Torys vote to trigger article 50. it's the austerity vote issue over again.
There is no easy way out of this problem for any party but voting along with the Torys to give them the power to implement a Tory Brexit is madness.

[Danny Boys Dad]

Well, remember that 70 percent of Labour voters voted to Remain. Then take a look at the charts that accompany the article. It's not altogether clear that Labour would be punished electorally by standing out against Brexit (or, to put it a different way, insisting that Parliament retain control of the negotiations).

They'd be savaged by the right wing press though, enemies of the people and all that. Until the 'people' recognise that Brexit is a bad idea (and more and more seem to be coming round to that) then it might be as well to go along with it for a while.

Should they make a stand now and say that Brexit is a bad idea? I'd like them to but I can see why they might not and it's not all about what they might think of it personally.

I think you're right about McDonnell's and Corbyn's preference. The majority of the Labour party in the 1970s campaigned to STAY in Europe, but there was both a left-wing and right-wing rump that campaigned to leave.

Foot and Benn were on the leave side, so were the SNP at the time. Interesting to read about that election and see a lot of the parallels with this one. Shame about the result this time.

[SP]

They are going to be savaged by the right wing press any way. Is there any hope that they will be soft on a party led by Corbyn? And unlike the more marginal areas where they can be savaged, there is actually a coherent argument about protecting the interests of the voters they need to win over.  If they are going to be demonised, it is a good cause to fight for. Far better to actually fight for the country than just roll over and meekly surrender.

[Danny Boys Dad]

They are going to be savaged by the right wing press any way. Is there any hope that they will be soft on a party led by Corbyn? And unlike the more marginal areas where they can be savaged, there is actually a coherent argument about protecting the interests of the voters they need to win over.  If they are going to be demonised, it is a good cause to fight for. Far better to actually fight for the country than just roll over and meekly surrender.

I'd agree, but given that Brexit seems to be unravelling on a daily basis perhaps they are going along with it for now, making the point that UK jobs etc must be protected through access to the single market, raising the fact that the Tories are clueless and waiting for the point at which they will have the support to try and kick it into the weeds where it belongs.

The Lib Dems can come out against Brexit because it doesn't risk anything, they were gutted by Clegg's support for the Tories so they've got nothing to lose.

[Yorkykopite]

They are going to be savaged by the right wing press any way. Is there any hope that they will be soft on a party led by Corbyn? And unlike the more marginal areas where they can be savaged, there is actually a coherent argument about protecting the interests of the voters they need to win over.  If they are going to be demonised, it is a good cause to fight for. Far better to actually fight for the country than just roll over and meekly surrender.

Yes. It's time to educate public opinion. Rather than hide behind May's apron. Come on Labour. Give us some leadership.

[SP]

I'd agree, but given that Brexit seems to be unravelling on a daily basis perhaps they are going along with it for now, making the point that UK jobs etc must be protected through access to the single market, raising the fact that the Tories are clueless and waiting for the point at which they will have the support to try and kick it into the weeds where it belongs.

The Lib Dems can come out against Brexit because it doesn't risk anything, they were gutted by Clegg's support for the Tories so they've got nothing to lose.

If Brexit unravels, the party that took a strong position against the fudging will be in a much stronger position. At the moment, Labour can be portrayed as dithering on the sidelines whilst the country burns. 

[Danny Boys Dad]

The people have spoken, 52% of 70% of them anyway or whatever it was.

This was the losing sides reaction in 1975:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/6/newsid_2499000/2499297.stm

Members of the "No" campaign accepted their defeat and promised to work constructively within the EEC.

Industry Secretary Tony Benn, who had come under criticism from the prime minister during the campaign, said: "When the British people speak everyone, including members of Parliament, should tremble before their decision and that's certainly the spirit with which I accept the result of the referendum."

Bit more of a decisive vote in favour though I think, 60% or thereabouts of 60% or thereabouts

[Danny Boys Dad]

If Brexit unravels, the party that took a strong position against the fudging will be in a much stronger position. At the moment, Labour can be portrayed as dithering on the sidelines whilst the country burns.

I'd agree with that too, it's definitely arguable that we've seen enough to realise what a mess this is going to be. I'd personally prefer it if they came out and said that they are against Brexit unless the government can clearly show that it is going to be in the best interests of the country, no more lies on the side of buses, no more blojo saying it will be a 'titanic' success with no proof, no more pretending that immigration is the root of all evils.

If they can't get the government to be clearer about things like the customs union, access to the single market, how much we're going to have to bribe companies to stay here etc then they should tell them to clear off.

[filopastry]

I'm not sure there's any real idea in government at this stage about what the eventual Brexit deal looks like, for all of the initial clumsy posturing, until proper talks begin neither side really know what the other really wants from a deal, what they are willing to compromise on and what they aren't.

In opposition though you can talk about broad goals, as at least they won't be used against you in negotiation as they would for the government.

[Danny Boys Dad]

I'm not sure there's any real idea in government at this stage about what the eventual Brexit deal looks like, for all of the initial clumsy posturing, until proper talks begin neither side really know what the other really wants from a deal, what they are willing to compromise on and what they aren't.

I think they need to make it clear what sort of deal they are looking for. During the campaign even some of the leavers were saying that we would remain in the single market or something very much like it, so is that a goal of the negotiations with everything else up for grabs around that? Are the government so against freedom of movement that they would sacrifice the single market to get it?

The problem at the moment is that we can't negotiate and then decide if we're leaving or not based on a firm agreement, we have to decide to leave and then see what will happen which is madness.

[Yorkykopite]

Bit more of a decisive vote in favour though I think, 60% or thereabouts of 60% or thereabouts

The word you're looking for Danny is "lot". It was 17 million v 8 million (67.2%). Benn would have had to have been a Kamikaze to think there was a future in continuing to campaign against the EEC.

[filopastry]

I think they need to make it clear what sort of deal they are looking for. During the campaign even some of the leavers were saying that we would remain in the single market or something very much like it, so is that a goal of the negotiations with everything else up for grabs around that? Are the government so against freedom of movement that they would sacrifice the single market to get it?

The problem at the moment is that we can't negotiate and then decide if we're leaving or not based on a firm agreement, we have to decide to leave and then see what will happen which is madness.

I think the problem is if you now come out and say Single market access is all important, then you pay a massive political price if you can't achieve that and the EU has you over a barrel and can demand the highest possible price for single market access as a result.

In reality we will no doubt going in asking for full access to the single market and restrictions on the movement of people, the EU will start out with the choice of either something that looks very much like our current EU membership deal (full access but freedom of movement and full financial contributions) or WTO trade rules, no passporting and we do what we like on immigration.

Everyone will negotiate from there and I can't help but feel that we'll end up a lot closer to one of the EU opening positions than we will ours!

[SP]

The not talking about what is important is not key at all. The EU members know that 12% of our tax take is from financial services, so they know that passporting is important to us. It is not as is the details of the UK economy are classified. The EU know what we rationally need. The silence is not poker tactics, its is sheer bloody ineptitude. The Government do not have a fucking clue what to do, and are prevaricating hoping that something turns up.

[filopastry]

The not talking about what is important is not key at all. The EU members know that 12% of our tax take is from financial services, so they know that passporting is important to us. It is not as is the details of the UK economy are classified. The EU know what we rationally need. The silence is not poker tactics, its is sheer bloody ineptitude. The Government do not have a fucking clue what to do, and are prevaricating hoping that something turns up.

The problem is its all important to us, immigration control is as well for political reasons.

Its all important to the EU as well for political reasons in many areas (freedom of movement) but also for single market access given the hefty trade deficit we run with the EU, I'm not one of the headcases claiming we have the EU over a barrel, but we do have some leverage, albeit far less than they do.

The minute you say publicly what you need to achieve you are putting a massive political price for the government on not achieving that goal, and that can certainly be used in negotiations against you.

Neither side in this negotiation is offering anything at present, nor would I expect them to until Article 50 is triggered.

I fully agree that the government probably hasn't set out its goals internally yet, and the whole thing is a bit of a mess, but even if they had got everything organised I doubt you would see much difference in what is said externally.

It might make sod all difference in the end anyway, the EU may decide they aren't particularly interested in negotiating and its either scenario 1 - EU membership in all but name or Scenario 2 - Piss off and make do on WTO rules.

The UK will obviously hope that they can force some concessions and get something in the middle, time will tell if that is likely or not

[Danny Boys Dad]

I think they have to be clear about what they are aiming for, but it's hard to be clear when there are probably many reasons why people voted to leave.

What they have to take into account is that 48% of voters wanted to stay, and that means (as pointed out in another thread) that they voted for the single market, customs union, freedom of movement etc to some degree or another. If you add to that the leave voters who wanted to leave for some reason but wanted to retain some aspect of EU membership, such as single market membership, then there is probably a clear mandate for that to be a 'red line' in the negotiations.

The government can't be allowed to go into the negotiations without saying what they are aiming for, and really the negotiations should come before the exit, not the other way round.

Who trusts the likes of disgraced former defence secretary Liam Fox, David Davis and Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson to get the best deal without being told beforehand what to accept and what not to accept? Anyone?

[oldfordie]

They are going to be savaged by the right wing press any way. Is there any hope that they will be soft on a party led by Corbyn? And unlike the more marginal areas where they can be savaged, there is actually a coherent argument about protecting the interests of the voters they need to win over.  If they are going to be demonised, it is a good cause to fight for. Far better to actually fight for the country than just roll over and meekly surrender.

Labours position now just doesn't make any sense. I wonder if they want us to sleepwalk into a hard Brexit. they have agreed to Trigger article 50 regardless of what information comes to light over the next few months. so what does it mean to Trigger article 50, it means if the EU+UK don't reach a deal inside 2 yrs we automatically have a hard Brexit. we haven't chosen that hard Brexit. it's been imposed upon us by EU rules. I seriously doubt any deal will be made inside 2 yrs. the EU+UK are miles apart, we are still making impossible demands, demands they laughed at both before and after the vote. the Torys will blame the EU for being inflexible but if the Torys real aim is a hard Brexit then this is how they will get it.

[Danny Boys Dad]

Labours position now just doesn't make any sense. I wonder if they want us to sleepwalk into a hard Brexit. they have agreed to Trigger article 50 regardless of what information comes to light over the next few months. so what does it mean to Trigger article 50, it means if the EU+UK don't reach a deal inside 2 yrs we automatically have a hard Brexit. we haven't chosen that hard Brexit. it's been imposed upon us by EU rules. I seriously doubt any deal will be made inside 2 yrs. the EU+UK are miles apart, we are still making impossible demands, demands they laughed at both before and after the vote. the Torys will blame the EU for being inflexible but if the Torys real aim is a hard Brexit then this is how they will get it.

I hope that this is just a temporary position to calm the brexiteers but I wish that they would start stressing the advisory nature of the referendum and that they won't agree to anything that puts the country in a worse or potentially worse position. For me that would include a soft brexit as well where we're in but not part of the decision making process.

[oldfordie]

I hope that this is just a temporary position to calm the brexiteers but I wish that they would start stressing the advisory nature of the referendum and that they won't agree to anything that puts the country in a worse or potentially worse position. For me that would include a soft brexit as well where we're in but not part of the decision making process.

I wouldn't want Labour arguing for a soft Brexit right now.   I would be hammering the point of all voters leave or stay should be concerned over the way the Torys are handling Brexit. why should Labour get involved in the s.. storm when all they have to do is keep attacking the Torys. stir the s.. why are Nissan privy to the Tory plans but not our MPs. they have no excuses to justify this secrecy.
Labour are saying they are going to fight to protect jobs+rights. they have a funny way of doing this.
They have agreed not to stand in the way of a vote to allow a Tory Brexit without any knowledge of it's affects on all the those jobs etc they are supposed to be fighting for.
This approach has to change, they can't agree to vote for anything unless they know what the effect will be on this country, they won't know these facts until the Torys explain their plans.

[Danny Boys Dad]

I wouldn't want Labour arguing for a soft Brexit right now.

I meant that I'd be against a soft brexit as well, with all the obligations and commitments and none of the input. I've always thought that the 'Norway option' was just daft, they may as well be part of it properly.

If our final deal was to be part of the single market and customs union with freedom of movement, abiding by EU regulations and paying in to the EU then what's the point of leaving?

[oldfordie]

I meant that I'd be against a soft brexit as well, with all the obligations and commitments and none of the input. I've always thought that the 'Norway option' was just daft, they may as well be part of it properly.

If our final deal was to be part of the single market and customs union with freedom of movement, abiding by EU regulations and paying in to the EU then what's the point of leaving?

Yes. I understood your point and agree with it. there is no point of a soft brexit but that's not really the way to fight Brexit now. I don't want it but if we trigger article 50 then that's what we have to fight for as we wont be able to change our minds and tell the EU were staying.  it's damage limitation once we trigger article 50.

[Dr. Beaker]

I also find it difficult to make sense of Labour's stance. Do you think they could just be clearing the deck for the imminent tory supernova, ie not giving the public the idea that they are playing fast and loose with the nations interests for their own political gain, meanwhile working furiously in the background on a unifying sensible alternative to be produced magically at the last moment to the relief of a grateful nation. No neither do I - but you never know.

[killer-heels]

Diane Abbott is to manage Labour's immigration brief. She is probably the most incompetent politician going.

[TepidT2O]

Diane Abbott is to manage Labour's immigration brief. She is probably the most incompetent politician going.

What could possibly go wrong?

[zero zero]

Diane Abbott is to manage Labour's immigration brief. She is probably the most incompetent politician going.

Indonesia: Droughts:Written question - 41141
Q Asked by Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington)
Asked on: 24 June 2016

To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what steps she has taken to assist people in the Indonesian province of Province of Davao del Norte affected by the drought in that province.

A Answered by: Justine Greening
Answered on: 30 June 2016

There is no province called Davao del Norte in Indonesia.

[killer-heels]

Indonesia: Droughts:Written question - 41141
Q Asked by Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington)
Asked on: 24 June 2016

To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what steps she has taken to assist people in the Indonesian province of Province of Davao del Norte affected by the drought in that province.

A Answered by: Justine Greening
Answered on: 30 June 2016

There is no province called Davao del Norte in Indonesia.

Classic Abbott. She was the one who said Mao did more good then he did harm, so i guess gaffes are common.

[oldfordie]

Classic Abbott. She was the one who said Mao did more good then he did harm, so i guess gaffes are common.

The biggest mass murderer of all time and shes defending him. 60 million killed mostly due to deliberate starvation and she says he did more good than harm.
Then she has to argue against all the cruel Tory cuts.

[zero zero]

Classic Abbott. She was the one who said Mao did more good then he did harm, so i guess gaffes are common.

Note the date. June 24th. The entire planet is reeling from Brexit and Diane Abbott picks that time to ask about drought relief for an Indonesian province that doesn' exist.

[Lush is the best medicine...]

Note the date. June 24th. The entire planet is reeling from Brexit and Diane Abbott picks that time to ask about drought relief for an Indonesian province that doesn' exist.

just imagine what Chris Morris could have gotten out of her on brass eye

[killer-heels]

Note the date. June 24th. The entire planet is reeling from Brexit and Diane Abbott picks that time to ask about drought relief for an Indonesian province that doesn' exist.

I didnt even notice the date. She was the International Development Minister so maybe it was in her remit.

She is crazy though. I remember she did something with undecided voters in London before the 2015 election and most of the bits they highlighted had her just shouting at them.