Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

Putting aside the question of whether it's compounded by race, why is it cuntish per se to use their innumeracy to poke fun at an oxbridge-educated career politician who is a hypocrite?

Would it be okay to mock the physical disability of a career politician to expose their hypocrisy? And wtf has her supposed innumeracy got to do with her hypocrisy?
 
Would it be okay to mock the physical disability of a career politician to expose their hypocrisy? And wtf has her supposed innumeracy got to do with her hypocrisy?

No. Disability and innumeracy aren't analogous, though. And the mistakes she made were pretty fundamental to her role as Shadow Home Sec announcing a new policy. I'm amazed at the idea she should get a free ride.

They're is no direct link beyond the fact that her buffoonery is just a convenient stick to poke her with, and she deserves poking because of her hypocrisy.

Now would answer my question, please?

Putting aside the question of whether it's compounded by race, why is it cuntish per se to use their innumeracy to poke fun at an oxbridge-educated career politician who is a hypocrite?
 
McKenzie sometimes writes with great insight, but she also - increasingly ime - ends up down the kind of prolier than thou WC gatekeeping dead ends that we rightfully criticise when people do it here.

Agreed - and, complicating it all a bit more ( for me anyway ) , there seems to be a degree of professional resentment on her part, feeling shut out of what she sees as m/c lefty politico media merrygoround , despite being an interesting ( no doubt ) articulate lefty academic herself .... I dunno , I always liked her + Bone, just don’t know where they’re headed politically - and the Phillips love in was an embarrassment
 
Last edited:
McKenzie sometimes writes with great insight, but she also - increasingly ime - ends up down the kind of prolier than thou WC gatekeeping dead ends that we rightfully criticise when people do it here.

I like Lisa a lot. But everyone calls things wrong on occasion. Phillips isn’t even WC. She’s developed her ultra-brummie persona to disguise her very comfortable upbringing.
 
Do you not agree that repeated attacks on Diane Abbot for her supposed innumeracy are in fact motivated by misogyny and racism?

An Amnesty International report found that in the 2017 election campaign, Abbott was the subject of almost half of all abusive tweets about female MPs on Twitter, receiving ten times more abuse than any other MP.[109]

She studied History at Cambridge btw. Not maths.
 
It's not the misremebering so much as the apparent inability to do very simple mental arithmetic. But, as I've already said, that's not what my issue with her is; it's just an easy thing to poke fun at her for (similar, say, to how I'd criticise Boris for being a womaniser).
If she has a record of doing this often then that would be a problem, but being caught in the moment misremembering one detail seems more an indictment of our 24/7 biased (she was interviewed by Nick ferrari) media than her incompetence. Whatever else her faults may be.
 
Putting aside the question of whether it's compounded by race, why is it cuntish per se to use their innumeracy to poke fun at an oxbridge-educated career politician who is a hypocrite?
Come off it FFS, she's hardly your typical Oxbridge product, is she? Would have got there on merit rather than being the public school type.
 
Interesting comparison actually...a woman's intellect (ability to do mental arithmetic) Vs a man being a 'womaniser'.

Not Boris' intellect, his buffoonery, his faux pas, his racism, his hypocrasy...nope... His interest in and ability to pull women.

Long live the Patriarchy.
 
Last edited:
Come off it FFS, she's hardly your typical Oxbridge product, is she? Would have got there on merit rather than being the public school type.

on this point...

Graduating with top marks, Abbott applied to Cambridge University, and was accepted, despite the doubts of her teachers. “My school didn’t send people to Oxford and Cambridge a lot,” she told the Times. “They were sort of proud of me, but only sort of.” Her history teacher had tried to dissuade Abbott from applying, claiming it would give her ambitions outside her social station, and make her a dissatisfied canteen worker in later life. Nevertheless, Abbott took her place at Newnham College, Cambridge, where she majored in history.

Diane Abbott | Encyclopedia.com
 
Come off it FFS, she's hardly your typical Oxbridge product, is she? Would have got there on merit rather than being the public school type.

By background, no. But she's she's indistinguishable from one now. A career politician who privately educates her kid.
 
Come off it FFS, she's hardly your typical Oxbridge product, is she? Would have got there on merit rather than being the public school type.
She is an Oxbridge educated privy councillor who sends her kids to private school. She is right there in the heart of the establishment by any reasonable measure.

Using racist or misogynist abuse to attack her is reprehensible. But that’s not what Athos did. That others have done it is not a reasonable criticism of Athos.
 
I'll take your word for it. Like I said I don't really follow twitter (and the above nonsense reinforces my belief that that is probably a good thing).
I'm sure it is a good thing: while this is hardly a new revelation, I think the way twitter effects peoples politics is pretty negative: theres a whole self reinforcing ecosystem of rugged proletarians, blue labour types and spiked! related pseudoacademics on there that Mackenzie seems to be partially embroiled in who spend a lot of their time rolling their eyes at the more ludicrous end of left wing politics (also a large self reinforcing ecosystem on there, so easy to find regular examples of).

It's a coarse and basic way of doing politics which often seems to coincide with a drift to coarser and more basic politics overall - cf people like Paul Embury, the way many radical feminists have found themselves in the orbit of the radical right over trans rights etc etc.
 
FFS are you seriously claiming that IB and LM are "on same side as racists / centrists"?

Absolutely pathetic. Frankly you could not find a better example than the above of why those of us that cautioned joining the LP were right - you end up aligning with shite like Phillips against Class War.
Who is aligning with Jess Philips? Have you watched that old guy Martin on Red and Black TV? A member of class war who does nothing but call everyone else stupid. Bone and MacKenzie are ridiculous in what they come out with.
 
She is an Oxbridge educated privy councillor who sends her kids to private school. She is right there in the heart of the establishment by any reasonable measure.

Using racist or misogynist abuse to attack her is reprehensible. But that’s not what Athos did. That others have done it is not a reasonable criticism of Athos.
She's at the hear of the establishment, but not by choice. What else can she do without power; that's where power is! Sad but true.

Yes, sending her kids to private school looks bad, but criticism of it is no better than arguing you can't oppose capitalism if you own a smartphone. She has to live in the world as is, and in Britain getting a private education gives you a better chance in life (or so it seems). It's obscene but until Labour can shut them down (if) that ain't going to change so critising her for hypocrisy is just bullshit. It's entirely congruent IMO to hold both the view against their existence while using them out of necessity - and who doesn't want the best for their kids?

I don't see how hairshirt style radical politics helps. Happy to be proven wrong.
 
She's at the hear of the establishment, but not by choice. What else can she do without power; that's where power is! Sad but true.

Yes, sending her kids to private school looks bad, but criticism of it is no better than arguing you can't oppose capitalism if you own a smartphone. She has to live in the world as is, and in Britain getting a private education gives you a better chance in life (or so it seems). It's obscene but until Labour can shut them down (if) that ain't going to change so critising her for hypocrisy is just bullshit. It's entirely congruent IMO to hold both the view against their existence while using them out of necessity - and who doesn't want the best for their kids?

I don't see how hairshirt style radical politics helps. Happy to be proven wrong.

She explicitly criticised Blair and Harman for sending their kids to private schools.
 
Who is aligning with Jess Philips? Have you watched that old guy Martin on Red and Black TV? A member of class war who does nothing but call everyone else stupid. Bone and MacKenzie are ridiculous in what they come out with.
No I've not watched Red and Black TV. And I think that sometimes Class War, Bone and MacKenzie get things wrong (as we all do) but I also recognise that they are hard working members of the labour movement and when all is said and done consider them comrades.
 
Interesting comparison actually...a woman's intellect (ability to do mental arithmetic) Vs a man being a 'womaniser'.

Not Boris' intellect, his buffoonery, his faux pas, his racism, his hypocrasy...nope... His interest in and ability to pull women.

Long live the Patriarchy.

I deliberately chose to compare the criticism of Abbot to a criticism of Boris that has not also been levelled at her. I'm sorry that was too subtle for you.
 
Last edited:
She's at the hear of the establishment, but not by choice. What else can she do without power; that's where power is! Sad but true.

Yes, sending her kids to private school looks bad, but criticism of it is no better than arguing you can't oppose capitalism if you own a smartphone. She has to live in the world as is, and in Britain getting a private education gives you a better chance in life (or so it seems). It's obscene but until Labour can shut them down (if) that ain't going to change so critising her for hypocrisy is just bullshit. It's entirely congruent IMO to hold both the view against their existence while using them out of necessity - and who doesn't want the best for their kids?

I don't see how hairshirt style radical politics helps. Happy to be proven wrong.
Of all the ridiculous things you've posted on here under your many now banned identities , the idea that sending kids to private school is somehow a necessity (which means labour should be arguing that for ever more private schools) is right up there with the stupidest.
 
She's at the hear of the establishment, but not by choice. What else can she do without power; that's where power is! Sad but true.

Yes, sending her kids to private school looks bad, but criticism of it is no better than arguing you can't oppose capitalism if you own a smartphone. She has to live in the world as is, and in Britain getting a private education gives you a better chance in life (or so it seems). It's obscene but until Labour can shut them down (if) that ain't going to change so critising her for hypocrisy is just bullshit. It's entirely congruent IMO to hold both the view against their existence while using them out of necessity - and who doesn't want the best for their kids?

I don't see how hairshirt style radical politics helps. Happy to be proven wrong.
why should her constituents, of whatever hue, feel about her work on their behalf if after many years as their mp the hackney schools still aren't good enough for her offspring?
 
I'm sure it is a good thing: while this is hardly a new revelation, I think the way twitter effects peoples politics is pretty negative: theres a whole self reinforcing ecosystem of rugged proletarians, blue labour types and spiked! related pseudoacademics on there that Mackenzie seems to be partially embroiled in who spend a lot of their time rolling their eyes at the more ludicrous end of left wing politics (also a large self reinforcing ecosystem on there, so easy to find regular examples of).

It's a coarse and basic way of doing politics which often seems to coincide with a drift to coarser and more basic politics overall - cf people like Paul Embury, the way many radical feminists have found themselves in the orbit of the radical right over trans rights etc etc.

I agree with a lot of that Killer b. I recognise some of my own antics on here in some of what you write.

However, I think the first thing to be pointed out about some of the stuff Lisa and others come out with is often a frustrated angry response to performative leftist hobbyists who are miles away from the backgrounds, workplaces and areas we inhabit. There are important issues here about class, leadership and the legitimacy of much of what passes for ‘left’ politics. Too much of it starts from a refusal to accept the class as it is, and to start from there, and instead appears to be lecturing, dismissive or even offensively counterproductive. Brexit is a classic case in point

The second point I’d make is that much of what is attacked needs to be attacked because of its political (or lack of political) content.

The third point I’d make is that lumping Lisa in with the Spiked loons is very wide of the mark. Even where they intersect on an issue it’s motivation is always for different motives and reasons.

The final point I’d make is about Diane Abbot. I’d imagine her life must have been a constant struggle against racism, misogyny and users of social and cultural capital always denied to people like her and us. This stuff defines your responses and lives with you constantly. We should acknowledge and understand that. But, regardless of that it doesn’t confer a free pass on your politics and decisions you make.
 
Last edited:
By background, no. But she's she's indistinguishable from one now. A career politician who privately educates her kid.
You're kidding me surely. By having got an Oxford education, Abbott, a black woman from an unprivileged background, is indistinguishable from the likes of Johnson and Rees-Mogg?

You're having a massive laugh. Well I am at least, at your interpretation of the effect education has in terms of class, race and gender.

BTW I would criticise her for the son's school thing. Not a stance I agree with.
 
No. Disability and innumeracy aren't analogous, though. And the mistakes she made were pretty fundamental to her role as Shadow Home Sec announcing a new policy. I'm amazed at the idea she should get a free ride.

They're is no direct link beyond the fact that her buffoonery is just a convenient stick to poke her with, and she deserves poking because of her hypocrisy.

Now would answer my question, please?

Putting aside the question of whether it's compounded by race, why is it cuntish per se to use their innumeracy to poke fun at an oxbridge-educated career politician who is a hypocrite?
Because shes not innumerate. She can count. She just fucked up one time
 
She explicitly criticised Blair and Harman for sending their kids to private schools.
Fair enough then.

Sending your kids to fee paying schools is fucking nothing like owning a smart phone, fucks sake
It is using the things of capitalism while living in a capitalist society. I think it possible to criticise both capitalism while needing to use it to survive.

Though it appears that wasnt specificially what she did
 
You're kidding me surely. By having got an Oxford education, Abbott, a black woman from an unprivileged background, is indistinguishable from the likes of Johnson and Rees-Mogg?

You're having a massive laugh. Well I am at least, at your interpretation of the effect education has in terms of class, race and gender.

BTW I would criticise her for the son's school thing. Not a stance I agree with.

Far enough, maybe 'indistinguishable' was a bit of hyperbole, but, like it or not, she's very much a part of the same establishment elite as those others, now. And that's not just a product of he education, but of her conscious - sometimes hypocritical - choices e.g. to privately educate.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom