"clumsy remarks she made in the past"
Isn't it funny that when people on the Abbot-Corbyn axis make "clumsy remarks" or inelegant comments or stumble into unfortunate coincidences, the remarks are always about Jewish people? It never seems to happen when they're talking about black or Desi people.
@politecameraaction here's a thought exercise for you.
Line up a traveller, a black person, a white jew, a Lithuanian and a white gay, all male.
Dress them identically.
Now pick the odd one out.
Apart from anything else, I thought persecution of Jews was antisemitism. Is there a genetic marker that automatically makes you a jew? Is that why black Jews aren't as accepted by some?
What race is a traveller?
What race is a Lithuanian?
What race is a gay?
Racism is racism.
Anti-semitism is Anti-semitism.
Xenophobia is xenophobia.
Homophobia is homophobia.
Every single one is disgusting but only one can be happen without a person even speaking (besides orthodox Jews).
I don't understand why it's so hard to understand the point she was making.
A thought experiment for PCM?, that’s an oxymoron
politecameraaction
Free MemberIsn’t it funny that when people on the Abbot-Corbyn axis make “clumsy remarks” or inelegant comments or stumble into unfortunate coincidences, the remarks are always about Jewish people? It never seems to happen when they’re talking about black or Desi people.
She was talking about black people, in fact she was comparing the experience of the two, not to mention also irish people and travellers. It must take real effort, to look at someone saying "W vs X vs Y vs Z" and say "WHY DO THEY ONLY EVER TALK ABOUT Y, AND NEVER Z"
I don't think that I have ever heard Diane Abbott talk about Jewish people before.
You have politecameraaction?
"She was talking about black people"
No, that's true, fair point. It wasn't black or Desi people that she so clumsily dismissed, nor did Corbyn ever clumsily do so in 40 years, nor did any of her fellow travellers. And yet when it comes to talking about Jewish people, it's one inadvertent oopsie-daisy and misunderstanding after another!
I don't think there is any misunderstanding at all concerning Jewish people. I don't recall ever hearing Jeremy Corbyn (since you brought him up) talking about Jewish people. What do you think his views on Jewish people are?
The only misunderstanding that I can see here is you clumsily confusing Jewish people with the actions of the Israeli government.
Owen Jones right to quote the conversation between Abbott and Starmer, Starmer needs to answer that.
Jones' second tweet is full on grifting though. He knows full well that Hoyle would have had to break process to let Abbott speak as convention is that everyone who is on the written order paper gets called first, and she wasn’t on the order paper.
This is a week after Jones was calling for Hoyle to resign after not following procedure over the Gaza vote. Grifter.
Yes it's definitely grifting to let people talk about someone in the room but not give her a right of reply.
To be fair, it's the first time i've seen Owen Jones twitter feed outside of the Starmer thread, i'll await Binners to post the picture later.
@Ransos Which is not what I said, and you know full well. Hoyle was sticking to parliamentary process, probably due to the criticism about the Gaza vote. Any of the MPs could have asked to yield their time so Abbott could speak. They didn't. Do you not understand that? Please explain that? And nothing you have said doesnt make Jones a grifter for trying to score a point about it. One week after he wanted Hoyle to resign for not following parliamentary process!
Personally I think Abbott should have been given the floor, but wasn't going to happen after the silly games last week. Owen Jones knows that.
There is a simple principle of fairness here, for which the Speaker could've used his discretion, instead of allowing everyone to talk about her and over her like she's a child. It does rather come across as mansplaining which is perhaps why Andy approves.
Like Andy mentioned above, any of the MP’s chosen to speak could have stood up and said “I yield to the honourable lady for Hackney” whilst gesturing to Diane Abbot who would be allowed to speak, the fact that no one did this says just as much as much as Lindsay Hoyle not offering an exception to parliamentary procedure.
And as for Hoyle….
He deviated from the order paper at least twice Scroll down to page 5
The two I noticed were both Tories.
Including the last question to Mark Francois, who wasn't down. Francois was fulsome in his praise for Hoyle after he ****ed with the SNP motion for a ceasefire the other week, quid pro quo eh?
the fact that no one did this says just as much as much as Lindsay Hoyle not offering an exception to parliamentary procedure.
Yes fair comment. Also Lindsey Hoyle couldn't offer an exception. Thats the outcome of the silly no compromise motion by the SNP over Gaza last week, which they knew labour could not accept. Silly games. SNP could have worded it differently and won the house, but they didnt want that. Following that Hoyle had to stick to process. Its sad Abbott didnt get a chance to speak. I have no affiliation here. Just calling it as I see it.
LOL yes of course it's all the SNP's fault.
The Guardian today
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/13/frank-hesters-ugly-words-about-me-are-a-reminder-all-parties-including-labour-must-stand-against-racism
Apparently, six MPs were called who weren't on the order paper so Andy's comment is incorrect. The speaker's office offered a justification based on not letting government ministers speak consecutively.
I don’t understand why it’s so hard to understand the point she was making.
Because policecameraaction doesn't want to understand, they've an 'agenda' which we've seen many times before.
What was Hoyle on, not letting her speak when everyone was speaking about her - or was it on purpose, to put her in her 'place' just like they've been trying for decades?
Any of the MPs could have asked to yield their time so Abbott could speak.
Not sure that is the procedure at PMQ's.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12029702.abbott-denies-attack-on-nurses-was-racist/
Anyone remember this one? My kids were all born in the Homerton in the years around this which is maybe why it sticks in the mind. But tbf I don't think anyone considered the Finnish nurses recruited to be likely to be victims of actual racism. Though I remember one recruit quoted in the local paper saying she'd be happy to confirm to me Nordic stereotypes cited by Abbott, unfortunately like most Finns she didn't. Back when recruiting from the EU was easy
A pretty accurate appraisal of the situation from the Mash
Also Lindsey Hoyle couldn’t offer an exception. Thats the outcome of the silly no compromise motion by the SNP over Gaza last week, which they knew labour could not accept.
And yet the Speaker's Office gives a completely different reason for Diane Abbott not being called to speak when the House of Commons were debating an issue which directly concerned her.
According to the Speaker's Office Diane Abbott wasn't called to speak because "there wasn't enough time". No mention at all about procedure.
So she stood up 46 times...
Michael Gove 'exercises Christian forgiveness' over Tory donor's alleged remarks about Diane Abbott
"My natural inclination is to exercise Christian forgiveness."
It is very Christian and generous of Michael Gove to forgive Frank Hester for his shocking racist remarks but I guess that as a Hindu Rishi Sunak might struggle a bit with that, still, I am sure that focusing on "ten million quid" will help.
In the meantime big-hearted and warmly generous Gove announces the current Tory government's determination to ostracise anyone and any organisation which they consider doesn't uphold British Christian values (rich racists excluded)
How do I report the government for it's extremist views? Cos it definitely hits the new definition.
@ransos As said yesterday. Procedure meant Hoyle couldn't call Abbott. Also effect of last weeks debate. I think that makes my analysis correct. Also confirms O Jones was grifting, as he knew all of this.
suggested the Speaker had been "unduly cautious" given what happened the last time he tried to be flexible with procedure.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68564637
Personally think she should have been given the floor. Also good to see Raynor has added weight to re-admission to the PLP. I get why Starmer is being ruthless and hope Abbott serves out her time with deserved dignity. And that includes being more considered in her comments.
LOL yes of course it’s all the SNP’s fault.
@Northwind yes, as an SNP voter, in this case I think it was. They could have worded it differently. Engaged with Labour before and carried the vote? Why didnt they? Impact is Hoyle now adheres to procedure more. Hopefully Stephen Flynn will learn from this and be a more effective politician.
Anyway I am done here.
Procedure meant Hoyle couldn’t call Abbott.
For clarity here is an official comment by a spokesperson for the Speaker's Office :
During prime minister’s questions, the speaker must select MPs from either side of the house on an alternating basis for fairness.
This takes place within a limited timeframe, with the chair prioritising members who are already listed on the order paper.
This week – as is often the case – there was not enough time to call all members who wanted to ask a question.
No mention of procedure being an issue, just "not enough time".
Procedure meant Hoyle couldn’t call Abbott. Also effect of last weeks debate. I think that makes my analysis correct.
Your "analysis" was that people on the order paper get called first, which is factually incorrect.
Diane Abbot's latest Tweet and this thread show three depressing things:
1) the Tories' immense hypocrisy. Sunak is an awful PM but (as a Hindu and British Asian) does it not grate a bit that his colleagues are so happy to come to the aid of an overt racist with "Christian forgiveness"?
2) the premise of David Baddiel's book (pamphlet, really) Jews Don't Count that there are plenty of people who consider themselves anti-racists, but for whom anti-Jewish racism just doesn't matter and isn't really. And as for racism against travellers - well, that's just a manifestation of people's "lived experience", apparently.
3) the Labour Party's incredible ability to somehow turn every Tory disaster into a bad news story about themselves.
Because policecameraaction doesn’t want to understand, they’ve an ‘agenda’ which we’ve seen many times before.
It's true, my agenda looks like this:
1. Slag off self-proclaimed anti-racists that have a blind spot around anti-Semitism.
2. Blame the SNP for everything.
I admit I've been slacking on #2 on this thread, but I see someone else has got around to it.
What race is a gay?
lol who gave Gianni Infantino a login?
1) the Tories’ immense hypocrisy. Sunak is an awful PM but (as a Hindu and British Asian) does it not grate a bit that his colleagues are so happy to come to the aid of an overt racist with “Christian forgiveness”?
Nope, not at all if you have an understanding of the ties between Narayana Murthy (Sunak’s father in law and infosys founder) and what Narendra Modi (Indian PM) is doing to the Muslim population in India, Sunak is perfectly happy being ensconced in the tech bro fascist scene as shown by his cosying up to Ellen Musk, Narayana has also very questionable political views on integration of Muslims into Indian life as shown by his very close friendship and support of Modi’s policies.
Just because Sunak is of Indian heritage does not mean he is sympathetic to racial integration.
Diane Abbot’s latest Tweet and this thread show three depressing things
What is depressing about Diane Abbott's latest tweet?
Edit: Where in this thread has anyone said that "Jews don't count", since you have decided to throw David Baddiel’s allegation into the thread?
C4 news reporting on Diane Abbot and also the author of the Forde report (5mins in) on the fact she should have been re-admitted into the Labour Party in April last year.
So starmer is talking absolute bollocks regarding the very thorough investigation needed to allow her back in, he’s using it as excuse to purge yet another left leaning politician from his party.
The Labour Party is now red Tories through and through
Slag off self-proclaimed anti-racists that have a blind spot around anti-Semitism.
Sounds fair, nobody here has done that though. What I have said is Jews arent a race therefore anti-Semitism =/= racism. It's just as disgusting, as I said before, but it's not the same. But if anti-Semitism is racism then why isn't homophobia? Same logic applies.
who gave Gianni Infantino a login?
You'll have to explain that one, I don't get the reference.
Gary Younge nails it: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/15/britain-racism-tory-labour-diane-abbott
/blockquote>From that link,
One official called Abbott an “angry woman” (a clear racist trope)
Am I missing something here? How is that 'clearly' racist?
Yeah I saw that too cougar and did wonder why I wasn't picking up a "clear" racist trope.
Dredging the back of my mind I think it's something to do with portraying black women as angry but I could well be wrong. Certainly tenuous at best.
It's stuff like this that just undermines decent points.
Well if that is the case surely "angry black woman" works better as a racist trope than just "angry woman"?
In the case of Diane Abbott I don't even recall her ever doing the side to side head move which is associated with angry black women from the ghetto.
The trope is 'angry black woman'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angry_black_woman
In describing a black woman as an angry woman, missing the racist bit out - and unless unaware completely of the trope (and it's noted no apology has been made which doesn't make it sound like an accident) - it's a bit dog whistley for me.
If aware you'd avoid completely. If unaware / not deliberate you'd be falling over yourself to apologise?
Right.
Seems a bit of a leap to expect an apology for something he didn't say. For being sexist, perhaps.
Am I missing something here? How is that ‘clearly’ racist?
I find it vanishingly unlikely that the person who said it was unaware of the trope.
If aware you’d avoid completely
Surely if aware you would avoid saying "angry black woman" ? Or would you also avoid describing white women as "angry women"?
According to your link it is only a recognised racist trope in the United States, why should it be a problem in the UK?
All this smacks of the nonsense and furore caused over whether Jeremy Corbyn called Theresa May a "stupid woman" under his breath, or whether he said "stupid people".
