jabba the hutt to be replaced as shadow home sec

Typical political trick - going at the last minute for the impressionable shallow male vote, by promoting a mild tempered pleasant beauty queen type.

 

some pretty sexist & unkind comments on this thread

 

There's no doubt she's been poor in this election and generally (despite being a Labour supporter) I dont really have much time for her, although by all accounts she's a very good local MP.

However her treatment has been really, really poor. The right-wing press went after her for not remembering facts and figures whilst giving the Tory ones a free ride (see Hammond getting HS2 wrong by £20bn).

I hope she's ok. It cant be easy messing up like that and feeling like you're letting a lot of people down and costing votes. Politics is a horrible business and to Corbyn's credit he's avoided all personal attacks and slurs.

 

That's because there's a lot of unpleasant and sexist people on this thread.

 

My wife told me after we watched Diane make her big blunder that she had an illness or was drunk by the way she acted, my wife used to do nursing I just laughed and said don't talk nonsense, looks like my wife was right about the illness.
I just hope her illness is curable just like I would with anyone.

 

http://www.thelondoneconomic.com/tl...screet-man-public-life-charge-mi6-gchq/06/06/

Meanwhile this absolute cockwomble continues in high office

 

That's simply not true RS. The BBC have been accused of bias only yesterday for the way Boris was interviewed. The left accuse the BBC of right wing bias and the right accuse the BBC of left wing bias.

 

Taking one interview and using it as an example of institutional bias is just daft.The BBC is institutionally pro-Conservative. It's Head of News is a former Times Editor. It's leading presenters (Marr, Kuenssberg, Robinson, Humphreys, Neil are all Conservatives.

Find me someone who you think is pro-Labour.

 

I haven't accused anybody of institutional bias, that is the mantra of others on here. I believe they are pretty neutral in general but that's my view. You're welcome to yours.

 

The right pillock the lefts fuckups. The left pillock the rights.

 

So are the people who post unpleasant stuff about May unpleasant people? Or is it ok because they don't agree with her politically.

 

It is a common tory tactic to cry wolf about bias, but I have to agree that generally, there's been more balance in this election coverage. Compared to the last one especially when Miliband was attacked every single day and Cameron walked freely unaccountable.

Consider the last week and how often BBC and even Sky have commented on Mays poor home secretary record and the cut in police numbers.

If you picked up a left wing paper, you'll see left wing bias, if you pick up a right wing publication (which are more numerous than left) you'll see right wing bias.

 

In general I think the BBC are neutral and anyone who claims that the likes of Andrew Neil of being biased in his interviews is just finding fault where there isn't one. He interrogates politicians of all colours in the same way.

You're right that this election campaign has been pretty balanced in fact the only real bias that I can remember was the audience on the leaders debate and that was in no way a right wing audience.

 

Funny how you only remember the "left wing bias".

 

Yes, they are although I can understand the anger because for Abbott, her mistakes are just that, mistakes with little consequence.

May as PM has run down the NHS, send cancer sufferers back to work, cut school budgets, cut 20k police, cut firearms officers, back fox hunting, give no Brexit policy, sell arms to Saudi Arabia, voted for bombing Syria and Libya turning both into basket cases produce an uncontested manifseto etc. etc.

 

Not including the BBC here, but here's a Loughborough Uni report into the media bias in this election.

 

Look how biased the guardian & Mirror are.

 

The Tory manifesto commits to remaining as signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights for the entirety of the next Parliament.
" We will not repeal or replace the Human Rights Act while the process of Brexit is underway but we will consider our
human rights legal framework when the process of leaving the EU concludes."

Her statement to-day:
" We need to make sure that our police, security services and intelligence agencies have the powers they need.
If our human rights laws stop us from doing that, we will change those laws as soon as we can."

My interpretation of that statement is she can't do anything until 2022 ( when Brexit concludes) and ask the question
what's she done over the past seven years with regards to the police and security powers.
History has proved you do not defeat terrorism by ignoring or diminishing human rights.

If as predicted they do win tomorrow Human Rights will not be the only piece of legislation that is looked at.
Trade Unions and Workers rights will also come under intense scrutiny IMO.

 

Pity we can't see it by readership. The Mail and the Sun are the two biggest papers, and two of the biggest critics of Labour. Surprised to see The Star as the most neutral paper - although its readership doesn't get much past the pictures.

 

******, basically.