Concern for Dianne - Latest Update

[Sue]

Did I miss the thread on here about Theresa May? Whose media presence has been notable by its absence, apart from one or two abysmal instances?

Or the thread about the present Foreign Secretary's recent performance?

And he is, for the moment, still in post.

[red devil]

Sue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Did I miss the thread on here about Theresa May?

> Whose media presence has been notable by its

> absence, apart from one or two abysmal instances?

There isn't a specific thread on May but she's taken plenty of flak in this thread, quite rightly so...

[red devil]

robbin, in case you missed it, I asked you a question further up this page...

[Windrush]

Relax, all is fine.

Dianne is up and about looking her usual robust self this morning and she has given her vote.

Please, can all of us who are registered in Hackney give her your vote today and hope that it will ot be too long before she re-appears on BBC Question Time.

[titch juicy]

Is it better for a politician to attempt to answer a question and get it wrong/fumble about for an answer, or to not even attempt to answer a question repeatedly and give hackneyed soundbites instead. Even if asked the same question 6 times?

[One Who Does]

titch juicy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Is it better for a politician to attempt to answer

> a question and get it wrong/fumble about for an

> answer, or to not even attempt to answer a

> question repeatedly and give hackneyed soundbites

> instead. Even if asked the same question 6 times?

Surely that is up to the public to decide. Purely a subjective matter.

[titch juicy]

One Who Does Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> titch juicy Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Is it better for a politician to attempt to

> answer

> > a question and get it wrong/fumble about for an

> > answer, or to not even attempt to answer a

> > question repeatedly and give hackneyed

> soundbites

> > instead. Even if asked the same question 6

> times?

>

> Surely that is up to the public to decide. Purely

> a subjective matter.

Agreed. That's why I'm asking the public.

[uncleglen]

If the question is about her special field then she should know the answer, or at least be carrying about the notes so that she can find the answer; and if not, she should own up to not knowing.

I once observed a teacher who was teaching a GCSE class the completely wrong thing- I discretely pointed it out so that he could rectify the error but he would not do it....epic fail- her performance reminded me of that incident

[alice]

She smashed it last night. Go Dianne!

[Sue]

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If the question is about her special field then

> she should know the answer, or at least be

> carrying about the notes so that she can find the

> answer; and if not, she should own up to not

> knowing.

> I once observed a teacher who was teaching a GCSE

> class the completely wrong thing- I discretely

> pointed it out so that he could rectify the error

> but he would not do it....epic fail- her

> performance reminded me of that incident

If somebody is ill, they may be rendered incapable of doing the simplest thing.

I have no idea what may be the nature of Diane's illness, but sometimes when I've been unwell in the past (physically, but also including being off work with stress) I couldn't​ do anything much at all, let alone anything requiring thought.

I agree she shouldn't have been put in that position if she was ill, but we have no idea of the background.

[uncleglen]

Theresa May was up front about her diabetes- why do we not know what is wrong with Diane- then it would end the speculation. Although she cannot have been ill when she said all those other things about Harriet Harman and Tony Blair's school choices, or the Andrew Neil interview about why she chose private for her child...

[JoeLeg]

It's fair to say Abbott has never made it easy for herself, and I don't have a lot of sympathy for the political situation she finds herself in.

But if there is actuall illness, one possibility is that she doesn't have a full diagnosis yet, she may be waiting on test results etc before making an announcement.

[edcam]

What an unpleasant thread.

[jaywalker]

What edcam said.

I have been thinking, in the absence of any reply from Admin, that I will have to take up my commitment to leave the forum. This has been characterised as 'flouncing' or what have you - obviously, just a personal weakness of mine, or whatever you choose to associate with that word. So there it is. Au revoir.

[edhistory]

jaywalker Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Au revoir.

[Seabag]

jaywalker Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What edcam said.

>

> I have been thinking, in the absence of any reply

> from Admin, that I will have to take up my

> commitment to leave the forum. This has been

> characterised as 'flouncing' or what have you -

> obviously, just a personal weakness of mine, or

> whatever you choose to associate with that word.

> So there it is. Au revoir.

Oh gawd, really JW

Stop being a nob, have a cup of tea and come back once you've cooled off.

[????]

Anyway, I'm glad she made a full 'one day recovery' to accept her significantly increased majority

[Earl Aelfheah]

Dianne Abbott has type 2 diabetes: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/13/diane-abbott-reveals-illness-and-hits-out-at-vicious-tory-campaign

[KalamityKel]

hmmm it's not as if she's only just been diagnosed with it...

[rendelharris]

KalamityKel Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> hmmm it's not as if she's only just been diagnosed

> with it...

To be fair (and I speak as one who's not a great fan and would rather Corbyn kept her out of the shadow cabinet) she admits she failed to manage it properly in the hurly-burly of the election, and I think most people who've had to manage a long term chronic illness will recognise the difficulties of keeping on top of it at times of great stress. It was clear that there was something wrong - someone with a Cambridge degree might well get figures wrong but they don't start spouting rubbish like we'll have half a million policemen for ten grand or whatever it was unless there's something badly wrong. Some of the interviewers who so relished using her as a coconut shy might want to have a word with themselves, and the social media bullying has been beneath contempt - the Tories also didn't exactly cover themselves with glory by raising the prospect of her in power at every opportunity. I do also feel though that Corbyn and his team must take some responsibility and should have pulled her out earlier when it was clear she was struggling - not only for her own sake but in an election where they lost 42%-40% who knows how many votes her "car crash" performances cost.

Sorry, banging on a bit but one thing more: had Mrs.May, herself a diabetic, made slips on figures due to mismanaging her medication, one suspects the majority of the press would have said poor woman, what a heroine for sacrificing herself for the country, hats off to her - they would definitely have looked for a reason rather than immediately starting with "Cor what a thickie" headlines.

[red devil]

I don't see how you can ask the interviewers to have a word with themselves,it's part of their job to pick up on errors/cock-ups etc, and like the rest of us they didn't know about her condition...

[rendelharris]

red devil Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't see how you can ask the interviewers to

> have a word with themselves,it's part of their job

> to pick up on errors/cock-ups etc, and like the

> rest of us they didn't know about her condition...

Indeed, but it needn't be part of their jobs to act sneeringly and aggressively when these errors are made - why not politely say, "I think you may want to correct yourself there," not "What? Are you seriously telling me...?" a la Nick Ferrari. Why did he have to start pretty much shouting at her with derision, clearly relishing her confusion? Perhaps if he wasn't so consumed with his own ego he might have thought something's wrong here, she's very confused, let's give her a chance to recover without putting the boot in.

I'm not asking that we go back to the 1950s style of "Prime Minister, perhaps you'd like to tell us which of your successes you think are most notable..." but the way many interviewers now set themselves up as the opposition is tiresome and militates against getting the best out of the subject and the most valuable information for the viewers/listeners. Eddie Mair on PM on Radio 4 is a prime example of how an interviewer can be affable, courteous, witty and still hard hitting - he gets much more out of his interviewees than, for example, John Humphries or Nick Robinson on Today, who interrupt sneeringly at every opportunity and who take up 75% of any interview with the sound of their own voice.

ETA - no, they didn't know about her condition, but if many of us on here guessed there was something physically and/or mentally wrong with her, to someone sitting opposite her in a radio booth that must have been quite obvious and a reason to back off, not relish her confusion and try to trip her up even more.

[red devil]

With Ferrari and other shock jocks of his ilk, you know exactly beforehand what he's going to be like if he gets a sniff of something. Forewarned id forearmed etc.

Posters on here were guessing about her physical/mental state after she announced she was temporarily standing down from campaigning (June 7th), not at the time of the car crash interviews. Hindsight is a wonderful thing...

[rendelharris]

Well the thread didn't start until evening of June 6th! Certainly a lot of people elsewhere, both online and people I spoke to, were saying directly after the Ferrari interview that there must be something wrong with her, you don't get things that spectacularly wrong if you're in a normal healthy state.

[Mick Mac]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

you don't get things

> that spectacularly wrong if you're in a normal

> healthy state.

Of course you do/could. A lack of intelligence or a lack of attention to detail can result in many unprofessional mistakes.