By: Meddle
- 10th October 2016 at 21:52Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Diane Abbot's appearance suggests that she is obese to the degree that she will experience a number of ailments if she fails to lose weight. I don't consider this bitchy or a shallow judgement. You shouldn't be Shadow Health Secretary if you fall into a group of people at a greater risk of Type 2 Diabetes or heart disease than the general population. Surely this is common sense?
By: AlanR
- 10th October 2016 at 23:09Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well, she is quite possibly the most condescending person on the planet, and incredibly irritating. She rolls her eyes at every opportunity, and sits there shaking her head with her eyes closed while in the middle of a discussion, which is not only rude, but makes her look mentally ill.
By: Beermat
- 11th October 2016 at 07:54Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not sure I follow that logic, Meddle. You have to be a perfect physical specimen (who therefore never encounters a health service) to be a a minister responsible for the health service? Would you say the minister of transport can only drive a supercar, and never encounter roadworks?
By: Beermat
- 11th October 2016 at 10:53Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not at all John - I have applied the the principle by which one extends an opponent's debating position to its extreme by applying it to another case without changing the internal logic of the statement, in order to highlight its fallacy. I can't remember the Latin name for it.
Are you saying Abbott is the first 'overweight' health minister, and the rest all jogged until they were the correct shape for the post, as Abbott should do?
In fact the first Secretary of State for Health, on the establishment of the post, was that well known athletic sylph, Ken Clarke. Is there something else colouring your opinion?
By: Beermat
- 11th October 2016 at 11:00Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Starfish, that is even more true of the Conservative Party - much more so, in fact.
New
Posts: 949
By: Starfish Prime
- 11th October 2016 at 11:58Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Starfish, that is even more true of the Conservative Party - much more so, in fact.
Yes but they aren't the ones with an entirely unelectable leader. As I said, there was a rule to balance it, which was having a minimum of 25% support from fellow elected MPs but it was overlooked and the farce allowed to continue.
By: Beermat
- 11th October 2016 at 12:32Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Actually I love the very British idea that once one has decided that one would never vote for someone that makes that person unelectable.
It leads to the same sort of dismay some remainers felt when the exiters won the referendum - in their minds the un-votable-for was voted for.
Churchill was branded 'unelectable' in the 1930's - it took an effort of (unelected) statesmanship and leadership unsurpassed in our history as far back as Alfred the Great to prove otherwise and he was elected in 1951. There is no such thing as 'unelectable'. Just unelected.
By: bazv
- 11th October 2016 at 12:57Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Actually I love the very British idea that once one has decided that one would never vote for someone that makes that person unelectable.
If you really believe that about Corby and his cronies - you are as out of touch with public opinion as Corby and his cronies LOL
Corby is not going to be electable to the majority of british voters ; )
By: Beermat
- 11th October 2016 at 13:17Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Fair point Bas - was more about the 'system' than the colour in this case. Starfish - you have just used 'LOL' to emphasise a debating point. Unless there was a joke in there I missed, you need to work on your discourse or find a more suitable forum. Youtube comments might suit.
Have you ever heard the phrase 'Not a part of the solution, part of the problem'?
If you really think being 'in touch with public opinion' helps a rational political argument then there is little point discussing this any further. It helps get votes when you are unable to change public opinion through poor rhetorical skills or just having a rubbish product to sell, but I am not asking for your vote. You go back to attacking 'Socialism for employers' or whatever you've been told is the problem.
I don't expect Corbyn to do well. But a little political education along the way looks like it might be helpful, and it isn't going to come from 'Down with elites, up with grammar schools' May.
By: bazv
- 11th October 2016 at 13:33Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thing is though Beermat - I think what many forget about elections is that one is quite normally voting for the party/leader that you think will be the lesser of 2 evils :D
I do not trust any politicians - look who we have as 'First Minister' up in Jockland - one would trust her as far as one could throw her !
By: Beermat
- 11th October 2016 at 13:37Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yeah. Maybe one of us should stand? 'Key Forum Party' has a ring to it. A broad 'Putting the World to Rights Coalition'
New
Posts: 949
By: Starfish Prime
- 11th October 2016 at 13:50Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Funnily enough we have a thoroughly unelected Prime Minister.
And yet she'd still comfortably beat Corbyn in any election.
New
Posts: 949
By: Starfish Prime
- 11th October 2016 at 13:53Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Actually I love the very British idea that once one has decided that one would never vote for someone that makes that person unelectable.
It leads to the same sort of dismay some remainers felt when the exiters won the referendum - in their minds the un-votable-for was voted for.
Churchill was branded 'unelectable' in the 1930's - it took an effort of (unelected) statesmanship and leadership unsurpassed in our history as far back as Alfred the Great to prove otherwise and he was elected in 1951. There is no such thing as 'unelectable'. Just unelected.
Doesn't take a genius to figure this out mate. Milliband lost badly, regarded as too far left, so Labour picked someone even further to the left just to make completely sure they had no chance. It's not just a matter that he's too far to the left, people just don't trust the guy. When you refuse to sing the national anthem on top of that, it seals your fate.
New
Posts: 949
By: Starfish Prime
- 11th October 2016 at 13:54Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And that has never happened under labour ; )
Gordon Brown LOL. And even he would have comfortably beat Milliband or Corbyn in an election despite being one of the dumbest chancellors in history.
New
Posts: 949
By: Starfish Prime
- 11th October 2016 at 14:01Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Fair point Bas - was more about the 'system' than the colour in this case. Starfish - you have just used 'LOL' to emphasise a debating point. Unless there was a joke in there I missed, you need to work on your discourse or find a more suitable forum. Youtube comments might suit.
Have you ever heard the phrase 'Not a part of the solution, part of the problem'?
If you really think being 'in touch with public opinion' helps a rational political argument then there is little point discussing this any further. It helps get votes when you are unable to change public opinion through poor rhetorical skills or just having a rubbish product to sell, but I am not asking for your vote. You go back to attacking 'Socialism for employers' or whatever you've been told is the problem.
I don't expect Corbyn to do well. But a little political education along the way looks like it might be helpful, and it isn't going to come from 'Down with elites, up with grammar schools' May.
Those three letters describe Corbyn perfectly. He has several completely unsaleable policies, one of which is scrapping Trident, then you have blocking military action against ISIS.
Socialism is socialism, whether it's for the rich or the poor, however socialising the wealthy is senseless.
As regards education, local schools were far better in the early '90s than they were in 2010.
Posts: 1,613
By: Meddle - 10th October 2016 at 21:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Diane Abbot's appearance suggests that she is obese to the degree that she will experience a number of ailments if she fails to lose weight. I don't consider this bitchy or a shallow judgement. You shouldn't be Shadow Health Secretary if you fall into a group of people at a greater risk of Type 2 Diabetes or heart disease than the general population. Surely this is common sense?
Posts: 6,535
By: John Green - 10th October 2016 at 22:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Bruce suffers from TOOBOO - Terminally Offended On Behalf Of Others.
Yes Meddle, that is all accurate but, you musn't state the obvious.
Posts: 4,996
By: AlanR - 10th October 2016 at 23:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
She must have been taking lessons from the equally obnoxious Anna Soubry. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXUfGC4U0PQ
Posts: 3,447
By: Beermat - 11th October 2016 at 07:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not sure I follow that logic, Meddle. You have to be a perfect physical specimen (who therefore never encounters a health service) to be a a minister responsible for the health service? Would you say the minister of transport can only drive a supercar, and never encounter roadworks?
Posts: 6,535
By: John Green - 11th October 2016 at 10:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Grossly exaggerated, irrational extension of Meddle's comment.
If you are holding any public office then you should be a reasonable advertisement for that office.
Posts: 949
By: Starfish Prime - 11th October 2016 at 10:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The problem with the system is that the Labour membership is only a small percentage of the overall electorate, even of those that vote Labour.
They had a rule to balance this out (minimum support from those with seats) but it was ignored.
Posts: 3,447
By: Beermat - 11th October 2016 at 10:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not at all John - I have applied the the principle by which one extends an opponent's debating position to its extreme by applying it to another case without changing the internal logic of the statement, in order to highlight its fallacy. I can't remember the Latin name for it.
Are you saying Abbott is the first 'overweight' health minister, and the rest all jogged until they were the correct shape for the post, as Abbott should do?
In fact the first Secretary of State for Health, on the establishment of the post, was that well known athletic sylph, Ken Clarke. Is there something else colouring your opinion?
Posts: 3,447
By: Beermat - 11th October 2016 at 11:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Starfish, that is even more true of the Conservative Party - much more so, in fact.
Posts: 949
By: Starfish Prime - 11th October 2016 at 11:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes but they aren't the ones with an entirely unelectable leader. As I said, there was a rule to balance it, which was having a minimum of 25% support from fellow elected MPs but it was overlooked and the farce allowed to continue.
Posts: 3,447
By: Beermat - 11th October 2016 at 12:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Funnily enough we have a thoroughly unelected Prime Minister.
Posts: 3,447
By: Beermat - 11th October 2016 at 12:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Actually I love the very British idea that once one has decided that one would never vote for someone that makes that person unelectable.
It leads to the same sort of dismay some remainers felt when the exiters won the referendum - in their minds the un-votable-for was voted for.
Churchill was branded 'unelectable' in the 1930's - it took an effort of (unelected) statesmanship and leadership unsurpassed in our history as far back as Alfred the Great to prove otherwise and he was elected in 1951. There is no such thing as 'unelectable'. Just unelected.
Posts: 6,044
By: bazv - 11th October 2016 at 12:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If you really believe that about Corby and his cronies - you are as out of touch with public opinion as Corby and his cronies LOL
Corby is not going to be electable to the majority of british voters ; )
Posts: 6,044
By: bazv - 11th October 2016 at 12:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And that has never
happened under labour ; )
Posts: 3,447
By: Beermat - 11th October 2016 at 13:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Fair point Bas - was more about the 'system' than the colour in this case. Starfish - you have just used 'LOL' to emphasise a debating point. Unless there was a joke in there I missed, you need to work on your discourse or find a more suitable forum. Youtube comments might suit.
Have you ever heard the phrase 'Not a part of the solution, part of the problem'?
If you really think being 'in touch with public opinion' helps a rational political argument then there is little point discussing this any further. It helps get votes when you are unable to change public opinion through poor rhetorical skills or just having a rubbish product to sell, but I am not asking for your vote. You go back to attacking 'Socialism for employers' or whatever you've been told is the problem.
I don't expect Corbyn to do well. But a little political education along the way looks like it might be helpful, and it isn't going to come from 'Down with elites, up with grammar schools' May.
Posts: 6,044
By: bazv - 11th October 2016 at 13:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thing is though Beermat - I think what many forget about elections is that one is quite normally voting for the party/leader that you think will be the lesser of 2 evils :D
I do not trust any politicians - look who we have as 'First Minister' up in Jockland - one would trust her as far as one could throw her !
Posts: 3,447
By: Beermat - 11th October 2016 at 13:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yeah. Maybe one of us should stand? 'Key Forum Party' has a ring to it. A broad 'Putting the World to Rights Coalition'
Posts: 949
By: Starfish Prime - 11th October 2016 at 13:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And yet she'd still comfortably beat Corbyn in any election.
Posts: 949
By: Starfish Prime - 11th October 2016 at 13:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Doesn't take a genius to figure this out mate. Milliband lost badly, regarded as too far left, so Labour picked someone even further to the left just to make completely sure they had no chance. It's not just a matter that he's too far to the left, people just don't trust the guy. When you refuse to sing the national anthem on top of that, it seals your fate.
Posts: 949
By: Starfish Prime - 11th October 2016 at 13:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Gordon Brown LOL. And even he would have comfortably beat Milliband or Corbyn in an election despite being one of the dumbest chancellors in history.
Posts: 949
By: Starfish Prime - 11th October 2016 at 14:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Those three letters describe Corbyn perfectly. He has several completely unsaleable policies, one of which is scrapping Trident, then you have blocking military action against ISIS.
Socialism is socialism, whether it's for the rich or the poor, however socialising the wealthy is senseless.
As regards education, local schools were far better in the early '90s than they were in 2010.