Op-ed; Has there ever been a more divisive POTUS than Donald Trump? Could be but social media is adding to negtaive news about Trump's presidency which is only three weeks in. Desperate Theresa May was quick to visit Trump at the White House with some citing BRexit as the reason for her hasty visit and range of promises. BRexit takes the rap for many things but if and when the UK leaves the European Union it will need trade deals and friendly relations with the USA more than ever. Still did Theresa May have to commit to a costly UK state visit for Trump so soon into his presidency? This week House of Commons Speaker John Bercow was in trouble with the Tory government for speaking out on Trump. The Commons Speaker is supposed to be neutral but he chose to express his strong feelings about the visit in the respect that it would include Trump addressing both Houses of British Parliament. Bercow is expected to sign off such events at Westminster and it is clear this time he will not play ball. Timing is important in so many things and that includes this proposed state visit. Friday the Guardian reports; The government has abandoned the idea of Donald Trump addressing the joint Houses of Parliament when he comes to Britain for a state visit later this year after objections by MPs led by the Commons Speaker John Bercow. Pres. Trump could yet surprise us all and be a roaring political success but this woman is not holding her breath.
If unelected Prime Minister Theresa May had waited she may have been able to make an informed decision on a Trump UK visit. Instead the UK now appears committed to welcoming the Trumps. It will be a costly visit that is bound to include a great deal of security. But the President will bring his own mass of security and they are sure to be armed and dangerous. British gun laws will not be respected. Trump not being welcomed into parliament is a good move but what about his state visit? A petition with more than 1.8 million signatures asking the British government to "Prevent Donald Trump from making a State Visit to the United Kingdom" is due to be debated February 20 but it seems the outcome is already decided. But at least it looks like he will be denied addressing Westminster. https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/171928/ https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/10/british-officials-drop-plans-donald-trump-address-parliament-queen-elizabeth http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/donald-trump-uk-state-visit-will-not-address-uk-parliament-plans-dropped-a7574096.html
2 Comments
Emily Thornberry Labour MP, via Facebook
Dear Friends, Following this week's vote on Article 50, I have written a letter to my constituents regarding Labour's position on the Bill. I share that letter with you below. As always, please let me have your thoughts. Best wishes, Emily "I understand your concerns about Labour’s decision to vote in favour of Article 50, and I appreciate the strong feelings that this issue evokes. Like many in my constituency, which voted overwhelmingly to remain, I too was in favour of remaining in the European Union and campaigned hard for that outcome, as did the Labour Party as a whole. However, while the outcome of the referendum was not the one I hoped for, and while I share your disappointment, the result itself was clear. Nationally, the British public voted to leave the European Union, and I do not believe that it would have been democratic or realistic for Labour to seek to overturn the result of a democratically-held vote. It is a difficult decision to make for an MP when the country votes one way and your constituency votes another. I made my decision on the basis of what I believe is best for our country, and therefore best for Islington. It would do untold damage to our democracy to hold a referendum and then refuse to accept the result. And it would have been wrong for the Labour Party to adopt a position other than one that recognises that we have been given our instructions. The Labour Party contains people in both camps. In that way we represent the country, and should seek to heal the divide. While I am disappointed that the Article 50 Bill passed without amendment, the government’s concession on giving Parliament a meaningful vote on a final deal to leave the EU is a welcome one, and follows months of concerted pressure from Labour. We have consistently said that Parliament must have a meaningful vote on any final Brexit deal, giving MPs the opportunity to vote on the final deal before it is agreed, and – crucially – that the Commons has a debate and vote before the European Parliament does. Voting for Article 50 does not mean we are giving Theresa May a blank cheque, and indeed, this vote was just the start of the negotiating process. Labour will be using every opportunity to protect jobs, rights and living standards, and to ultimately achieve the best possible deal for Britain, one that reflects a profoundly different vision for our country to that of the Tories. I share your concerns about the government’s plans for Britain post-Brexit. The Chancellor’s suggestion that they would wilfully “break the economic model” to make Britain a Singapore-style tax haven when we leave the EU is not acceptable. It poses a serious threat to our economy and to jobs and public services. My role is to ensure that the government gets as good a deal as possible for Britain when it enters into negotiations with its counterparts in Brussels. This means looking after our economy and jobs first. While the result of the referendum was clear, it did not define the terms of exit. It is therefore of great importance that the Opposition holds the government to account on its plans for Brexit every step of the way. This is not a responsibility I take lightly, and I can assure you that I will challenge the government relentlessly on aspects of its plan that run counter to the national interest, and be a vocal champion for a progressive Brexit that protects the UK economy and the rights of the British public. At this difficult and uncertain time for our country, the Labour Party needs to provide a strong, active, and distinctive voice, campaigning for the needs of our communities and the best interests of the country in a post-Brexit Britain. We also need to assert a positive, unifying vision for that future, and confront the division and extremism that we have seen since the referendum." Also Diane Abbott, Labour MP, view via the Guardian Labour MP Diane Abbott experiences a high level of racist and sexist attacks on social media. When she was a no show for a vote on Article 50 last week she was made a figure of fun and by some in her own party. We opted to believe that she was as claimed ill. Ms Abbott was present for the vote this week and obeyed the party whip. But there is a distinct lack of apologies on offer. False claims of abuse on social media draw mainstream media attention but real abuse is often ignored especially if it is against Ms Abbott. Perhaps then we should not be surprised to encounter more of this abuse Thursday. A twitter account hiding behind claims of a military background sharing a vile petition regarding Ms Abbott. Looking at the person behind the petition they have three petitions live and all three appear to be racist and linked to the EU referendum. It is obvious that Tessa Black, whoever that really is, is a BRexiteer. Sadly the nature of the petitions and the supporters seems to confirm a bunch of racists though personally I do not view Brexiteers that way; there is an element of that though. Does Change.org support racism we wonder? So this brief opinion piece will be sent to change.org for an opinion. We will update with any reply received. Update: A petition against the damaging racist petition was launched late Saturday: https://www.change.org/p/change-org-remove-racist-petition-against-dianne-abbott?recruiter=15560422&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink Please sign and share. Another story re sexist attacks on Ms Abbott is in the Sunday tabloids- http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-david-davis-sexism-row-9803354 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38917719 More: http://www.standuptoracism.org.uk/press-release-diane-abbott-mp-anti-racist-campaigners-round-conservatives-hard-brexit-fortress-britain-ahead-national-conference-saturday/ Forget WikiLeaks PMQs Wednesday had its own NickiLeaks. "Text messages, allegedly from Tory council leader David Hodge and intended for someone in Whitehall named Nick, suggest the council was offered a "sweetheart deal" by the government. Theresa May suggested the Labour leader was using "alternative facts" for his attack - but failed to explain what deal if any had been offered to Surrey council." January 19, we posted a report titled "TORY SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL LOOKING AT 15% COUNCIL TAX RISE." Surrey Conservative County Council had announced plans to hold a referendum as it looked at increasing Council Tax by 15%.. The council was citing much needed funding for social care as the cause of this whopping tax hike. At PMQs Wednesday the jig was up though. Leader of the official opposition Jeremy Corbyn, Labour, is in possession of leaked emails which appear to show a deal between the Tory council and government done to prevent the required local referendum on the proposed excessive council tax hike. Unelected PM Theresa May, Tory, squirmed and resorted to her normal defensive modus operandi attempting to attack Corbyn personally. She showed herself to be guilty as charged. The mainstream media have been quick to pick up the story. "Jeremy Corbyn stuns Theresa May with secret texts 'exposing special deal' for Tory council" reports the Daily Mirror. Helping out Tory councils in Tory heartlands may be nothing new from this government but it may be to some voters. February 2016 "Tory Councils In South Get Most Of £300m ‘Cushion’ From Cuts - As Labour’s Northern Heartlands Miss Out." Wednesday David Hodge leader of Surrey County Council has posted the following update on the Surrey website: Statement from David Hodge Leader of Surrey County Council: Whether you believe Mr Hodge is up to you.
Perhaps the email sent "inadvertently" to the wrong person will have a positive impact nationwide? https://news.surreycc.gov.uk/2017/02/08/statement-from-surrey-county-council-leader-following-council-tax-decision/amp/ Op-ed: Prince Charles and his wife Camilla were in my city Kingston-upon-Hull Wednesday. The visit is just one of many events during Hull City of Culture 2017. I did not turn out to greet them but some people did. Footage of the royal couple visiting the newly refurbed Ferens Art Gallery and the Holy Trinity church appeared on lunchtime local news. The couple also visited some local community projects. It looked like a few hardy royal fans turned out to wish the couple well though you could hardly say huge crowds. Perhaps it was a decent turn out considering the weather. It has been a damp, grey and cold day here in Hull today, Wednesday. Prince Charles looked rather care worn in the footage but like us all he is not getting any younger. But perhaps he had already had some bad news. Wednesday afternoon media outlets reported the death of his goddaughter Tara Palmer Tomkinson. She is described by the BBC as a socialite, former Sunday Times columnist and reality TV star. Ms Tomkinson was aged just 45. "Officers were called to her flat in Bramham Gardens, South Kensington, at 13:40 GMT. A woman in her 40s was found dead at the scene, the Met Police said." She battled some health issues and drug problems in recent years. She partied hard. The cause of death is not known at this time. The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall later led tributes to Tara Palmer-Tomkinson, and said they were "deeply saddened", by her death. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-38911818 https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/feb/08/tara-palmer-tomkinson-dies-aged-45 "The cause of death has not yet been confirmed. However, the socialite had been battling a brain tumour since January 2016. She revealed she was fighting the illness after going for a set of blood tests after feeling run down.
Doctors discovered a growth in her pituitary gland which was non-malignant but was affecting the production of hormone prolactin." The Sun Op-ed: The Tory government has admitted the housing system is broken. They should know as previous Tory governments set the ball in motion.
Unelected PM Theresa May is expected to reveal a white paper aimed at tackling housing shortages and tenancy insecurities. Tory PM Margaret Thatcher began the de-regulation of housing and allowing tenants to buy their council property at a knock down price but councils were not allowed to rebuild and replenish housing stock as revenue raised was ring-fenced. Over time just who owns these sold-off properties is dubious; there are claims that plenty of MPs are landlords. Between 1997 and 2010 Labour governments failed to act on housing. Since a return to Tory led governments in 2010 matters have got much worse. Homelessness is increasing and insecure tenancies blight lives. Interest rates are low but many people cannot afford to buy a home. Gavin Barwell was appointed Minister of State for Housing, Planning and Minister for London at the Department for Communities and Local Government on July 17, 2016, and Sunday February 5, 2017 he was working overtime touring television studios. He appeared on ITV's Peston and later on BBC's Sunday Politics with Andrew Neil. "Gavin Barwell said there would be minimum tenancies and more homes built for rent in a "change of tone" from previous Tory policy. He said the government had not given up making home ownership available to all." Mr Barwell talked the talk on the housing white paper but who will walk the walk? For some the biggest concern over the housing white paper is will new housing be built on green belt land. For others the worries include;
Now we have a Labour Party led by Jeremy Corbyn the opposition is promising a radical overhaul of housing. So are the Tory Party simply jumping on the bandwagon or do they want to make a real positive difference? Time will tell. Call me a cynic but there is bound to be more to this than meets the eye. More http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1328270/A-Britain-STILL-belongs-aristocracy.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38873524 https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/04/may-abandons-home-owning-democracy-thatcher-tories http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-set-to-announce-major-shift-in-housing-policy-and-deliver-more-affordable-rental-homes-a7563861.html http://www.countrylife.co.uk/country-life/who-owns-britain-top-uk-landowners-20178 Op-ed: In the UK election spending is strictly controlled. If you and your campaign managers overspend criminal charges can follow. In 2016 as the UK geared up for local council and PCC elections, and London gets set to elect a new mayor, the Tory party was in the corruption spotlight. They failed to answer allegations of serious overspending which in theory could and should put their place in government into question. With a slim majority the Conservative party is in a precarious position. In 2016 26 Tory MPS were under investigation for electoral fraud by the Electoral Commission in conjunction with the Crown Prosecution Service; more MPs than the Tory majority. The story appears to have died a death but the investigation rolls on. The deadline now appears to be May 9, 2017. So time is tight and now seems a good time to get this news back out there. In April 2016 we reported "Allegations of election overspending look set to undermine the legitimacy of the UK Tory government but will allegations be explained away?" Once again Channel 4 news was at the heart of allegations against the Conservative party; little wonder the government is looking at curbing Channel 4. Early in 2015 C4 reported on the story of David Cameron's fathers' links to an off shore tax haven following it up a few months later with "George Osborne family business' £6m offshore deal"; in 2016 it has been a series of revelations that appear to indicate the Tory Party did not play fair during the 2015 General Election campaign." In November 2015 the Mail Online claimed Channel 4 could be sold off to raise £1billion adding David Cameron confirms ministers are 'looking at all the options' for the station." Cameron was quick to insist he was a huge fan of Channel 4 harking back to its origins; he may however not like the direction its news service is now taking. Channel 4 investigators have uncovered a series of overspends by the Tory party during its successful 2015 General Election campaign; a lot depends on what was local spending and what national. Channel 4 News "obtained further undeclared receipts showing more than £38,000 was spent accommodating activists at hotels across the country, as part of the BattleBus2015 campaign. The spending was not declared to the Electoral Commission in accordance with the law. The investigation has also obtained evidence that the BattleBus campaign was focused on local candidates, suggesting the accommodation costs incurred should have been declared on local candidate spending returns, if so this could constitute a criminal offence." The Conservative party claims administrative errors or should that be incompetence? Some however will suspect purposeful wrongdoing in order to win an election at any price. And although the Conservative party and others may try to dismiss the allegations selective overspending at elections is a criminal offence. The typical Tory method of firstly denying allegations and then back pedalling somewhat should not save them this time, assuming the Electoral Commission and our political system is fit for purpose. Ultimately the Conservative Party confirmed to Channel 4 News that it had failed to declare the costs related to the Battlebus hotels due to what it described as an "administrative error" despite previously stating that all of the party's returns were accurate. While in many ways it matters whether the extra costs were actually an administrative error or the Tories flouting the rules to get their way back into government either way it looks like they have broken the law. Will the Conservative Party run true to form trying to dig up election spending inconsistencies across parties and maybe even reforming the electoral commission and its rules to suit? In 2016 they employed 'smear' tactics against senior members of the Labour Party helped on by some in the party and mainstream media so inclined as distraction politics. The Electoral Commission has strict rules about election spending but does it have any teeth when it comes to wrongdoing? "The Electoral Commission is an independent body set up by the UK Parliament. It regulates party and election finance and sets standards for well-run elections. The Commission is independent of Government and answerable to Parliament" but is it? Channel 4 News's Political Correspondent Michael Crick has spent more than three months investigating Conservative Party expenses in 2014 and 2015. You can read how the investigation has proceeded at ElectionExpenses.co.uk.
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/complaints http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/political-parties-campaigning-and-donations/political-party-spending-at-elections http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3304019/Channel-4-sold-raise-1billion-Cameron-confirms-ministers-looking-options-station.html https://www.channel4.com/news/conservative-election-expenses-the-timeline More: Tories accused of disregarding election spending law Will Electoral Commission prosecute Tory Party? Press release
Becky Ramsay SHOCKING!! UNBELIEVABLE!! Would it shock you to know that for the last 5 years MORE people have died in open water than at the hands of drink drivers........ It has often been said to me when I visit Fire services that the same person responsible for reducing Road fatalities is the same person who is responsible for reducing water related fatalities. Obviously it goes without saying that RTA`S are the biggest accidental killer in the UK so I have often seen water safety taking a back bench in many fire services. I totally understand cuts have been made and the purse strings are tight. This does not help when the aim is to ensure our loved ones are aware of the dangers in and around open water. We need to have dedicated specialists trying to reduce water related fatalities daily not annually all around our country. I have been campaigning for over 5 years in memory of Dylan and the surface has only been scratched. Yes awareness campaigns are taking place up and down the country, Emergency services are using social media to get the message out. (Lets be honest how many of our teenage children follow the fire service or RNLI or ROSPA or any of the other organisations out there trying to make a difference?) How many of our children would see the posts which are posted? We can sit back and wait for summer to arrive and again I will offer my thoughts and sympathies to all families who suffer the loss which mine has......OR WE CAN START NOW SHARING THE POSTS YOUR CHILDREN MAY SEE YOUR FAMILY AND FRIENDS WILL SEE UR POSTS. U NEED TO SHARE THE POST TO SHARE THE AWARENESS! It got me thinking why is there not people in place where there job role is specifically to work on reducing water related fatalities. I won`t talk about the cost of an actual recovery I just know it is probably much higher than you think. According to stats over a 5 year period This is what I found out! 2009,2010,2011,2012,2013 In 2009, There was 405 Water related fatalities.There was 380 fatalities caused by drink drivers this is the total figure including actual drivers who died in the incidents In 2010, There was 420 Water related fatalities.There was 240 fatalities caused by drink drivers this is the total figure including actual drivers who died in the incidents In 2011, There was 407 Water related fatalities.There was 240 fatalities caused by drink drivers this is the total figure including actual drivers who died in the incidents In 2012, There was 371 Water related fatalities.There was 230 fatalities caused by drink drivers this is the total figure including actual drivers who died in the incidents In 2013, There was 381 Water related fatalities.There was 240 fatalities caused by drink drivers this is the total figure including actual drivers who died in the incidents So in total over that one 5 year period we lost 1984 lives in water related accidents. In total we lost 1330 lives in drink drive related incidents. We do so much as a country to try and prevent drink driving why can`t we put as much effort in to reducing water related fatalities. So many people lives are lost and it is preventable. I know discovering this information for me was a huge thing to think that water related fatalities by far out way drink drive related fatalities has truly shocked me. I truly hope we can learn from these findings. My findings have come from a government document via Department for Transport and ROSPA. Please sign and share Becky's petition: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/168941 Op-ed: The first 100 days in any new U.S. presidency is telling. The world looks on and decides what may follow based on those first 100 days. It also sees what is the new President's priorities. Donald Trump dived head first into his presidency January 20, 2017, and has acted like a man possessed. The latest, there are so many bad news stories to chose from, relates to gun laws. President Obama tried many times to tighten gun laws but Republicans watered down his policies. Following the Sandy Hook school massacre Obama was finally able to tighten gun laws in relation to background checks to weed out mental ill people but it took time to enact. Thursday this was overturned. "Washington (CNN) The Republican-led House voted Thursday to repeal an Obama-era regulation that required the Social Security Administration to disclose to the national gun background check system information about people with mental illness. The regulation instituted in the final days of the Obama administration required the SSA to share information about those who are considered incapable of managing their own disability benefits due mental illness." It took Obama time to pass the legislation and with sleight of hand it is removed. Payback from Pres. Trump to the powerful NRA gun lobby. It highlights his executive order limiting who can enter the USA had nothing to do with safety. More people die in the USA from guns than terrorism. "Mass shootings: There were 372 mass shootings in the US in 2015, killing 475 people and wounding 1,870, according to the Mass Shooting Tracker, which catalogues such incidents. A mass shooting is defined as a single shooting incident which kills or injures four or more people, including the assailant.Source: Mass Shooting Tracker And that is just mass shooting numbers!" The following was our report in early 2014 as Obama tried to bring in some gun controls. President Obama announces gun restrictions for the mentally ill January 1, 2014 Since December 2012, when 26 people, including children, were massacred at a US school, Sandy Hook Elementary, President Obama has been under pressure to tighten lax gun laws. Initially there was a wave of support for any new gun measures but the children and adults killed at Newtown were hardly cold in their graves before people forgot. Instead of wanting change too many began to make excuses. At the forefront of the fight to maintain the gun status quo was the US gun lobby, GOP led Congress and the NRA, national rifle association. They were more interested in money and protecting themselves against some vague, unknown threat. Throughout 2013 the two sides pulled this way and that and finally January 3, 2014 US President Obama has announced change, or at least a watered down version of change, as more extensive background checks of potential gun owners gets underway. You may say it is a start but is it enough or is it too little and too late? Gun deaths continued to spiral out of control during 2013 in the US but there still seemed little real will for change. Of course those who have lost loved ones in senseless gun crimes view the matter differently. President Barack Obama's administration Friday announced measures aimed at limiting access to firearms for the mentally ill. As the BBC report continues, “The changes clarify ambiguous regulations and allow hospitals to provide more information for background checks, officials said. The actions come more than one year after the Newtown school shooting, which sparked a national gun debate. Passing common-sense gun safety legislation - including expanding background checks and making gun trafficking a federal crime - remains the most important step we can take to reduce gun violence” The White House statement was released late Friday and said the “two new actions "will help strengthen the federal background check system and keep guns out of the wrong hands". The announcement however leaves this writer baffled. One question springs to mind – when is a person sane and when is he or she not? Mental illnesses of some form or another, affects a large percentage of the population. Some people have long standing mental health issues but others just snap under pressure. Whilst the new measures will go some way to minimize gun crime in the US they hardly touch on the crux of the matter, which are too many guns in circulation. However it is worth mentioning that currently in the US there are many thousands of mentally ill people known to the system who can purchase weapons. The information regarding their mental health does not necessarily get to the gun sellers. Obama's announcement Friday will tighten that loophole and satisfy some, at least for now. Obviously US politicians know that defining a person with mental illness will not be easy, nor will preventing gun purchases: “The first proposed regulation, from the Department of Justice, aims to clarify who is prohibited under federal law from possessing a firearm for reasons related to mental health. That change includes clarifying the term "committed to a mental institution" to include involuntary inpatient as well as outpatient commitments, the White House said. The second proposed action, brought by the Department of Health and Human Services, lifts certain privacy provisions preventing states from forwarding relevant information to the background check system.” And after all the fancy words this “The change could give medical entities covered by federal health privacy law permission to disclose "limited information necessary to help keep guns out of potentially dangerous hands", the White House said. “The proposed rule will not change the fact that seeking help for mental health problems or getting treatment does not make someone legally prohibited from having a firearm," the White House said.”
To give President Obama his due, he tried implementing a raft of measures to tighten gun control following the Sandy Hook massacre but the republican led Congress kicked them all into touch. Their aim it seems is to undermine the President, pay lip service to those who fund them and not serve the people. As most people now accept, if the murder of 20 children and six staff in a school could not convince Congress gun laws needed changing what will? "Passing common-sense gun safety legislation - including expanding background checks and making gun trafficking a federal crime - remains the most important step we can take to reduce gun violence," the White House statement concluded. Opinion: Singling out the mentally ill could lead to a witch-hunt, may offer some protection but ultimately will not prevent further deaths in the USA. It could obviously prevent further gun deaths where the perpetrator is known to have mental illness but I am tempted, after more than one year, to conclude “Big Deal”. Didn't Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook killer, use his mother's weapons? Source: BBC Diane Abbott is a strong, principled Labour MP who is often under attack. Look at her timeline or anti Diane Abott trolls on social media and you will find a shocking level of racist and sexist abuse levied at her. Thursday she is under attack for failing to support Jeremy Corbyn in the Article 50 debate in the House of Commons Wednesday. Diane was suffering a migraine and was a no show. This means she is logged as abstaining. While Ms Abbott and others have berated some for abstaining in other votes it is not an unusual move. What is unusual or should that read vindictive is an alleged email plot to deride Ms Abbott on social media. Politics Home is the source of this news. U.K. Labour Party MPs are privately mocking close Jeremy Corbynally Diane Abbott for missing Wednesday’s historic vote on Article 50 due to “illness” — circulating an email among themselves ironically suggesting that they get #PrayForDiane trending on Twitter. Again it is an anonymous source leaking the email. No doubt it was one of the usual suspects. “I’m very worried about Diane’s illness and I know many colleagues will share my concern,” the email begins. “Can we organize a PLP collection for flowers? I’ve tried to get colleagues to donate informally, but I’ve only raised 64p and can only think this is because they are too traumatized and worried to focus on it properly at the moment. Maria Carroll a friend on social media shared the story saying: "How can we respect our MPs and seek unity when this is their behaviour? I'm sure many of us either suffer from migraine or know someone who does. Its debilitating and it's onset is sudden and relentless. Dianna Abbott, no matter what people think of her politics, her statements or her principles is the most abused MP in the house. She suffers racial discrimination, misogyny and ridicule daily, gets hate mail and death threats, but she keeps going and keeps fighting for her beliefs and is highly regarded by her constituents. Why is this happening? because she supports Corbyn and because she supports the labour position on article 50. This is horrid, it's the kind of behaviour we try to stop in schools. It's the kind of behaviour we expect of UKIP not labour. This is now going too far and I urge you all to email you MPs and ask them to get behind the democratically agreed labour policy on Brexit - at conference, at NPF, at NEC and shadow cabinet. It might not be your preferred position but it's the majority labour position. And I'm sick of it being used and seeing members being used to ridicule Labour. What does this kind of behaviour deliberately given to the press make voters think? This was my reply: "My husband suffers with migraines. Thankfully less often at this time. Twice he has been hospitalised. The first time for three days when a stroke was suspected. He is now retired but during his working life experienced sceptics. It was "its only a headache" "i get migraines too" and more. But if he did not get home quickly enough he could not. He was often unable to communicate properly, his vision was at times severely impaired and more. Did Diane pull a sickie? I thought we lefties were generous individuals who would not judge but instead empathise with her migraine?" This story undermining Ms Abott and the Labour Party leadership shows a childish vindictive element in the Parliamentary Labour Party. The conclusion has to be that those involved like riding the political gravy train but do not care about forming a government or how they and the party are viewed. Who was the anonymous source, a person who lacks the backbone to be named? Could be .... ........ But who knows apart from the sneak and the source. But it has all the hallmarks of a disloyal bully. Another posisble suspect is John Mann a known disloyal bully who once had his sights set on becoming party leader. http://www.politico.eu/article/prayfordiane-labour-mps-mock-jeremy-corbyn-ally-abbott-brexit-vote/ |
Archives
September 2021
Categories
All
|