https://twitter.com/Jamin2g/status/8718 ... 62336?s=09" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hopefully Corbyn doesn't keep her on in his shadow cabinet, or elevate her to the cabinet, after the election. But just because she doesn't interview well doesn't mean she'd be as disasterous as Theresa May was as Home Secretary. But there has to be someone better, surely.

Still voting Labour of course. There's no other viable option.

How dare an interviewer try and catch out someone who could be Home Secretary on Friday ?

Does she like a drink (alcohol)?

Imploding Turtle wrote:Hopefully Corbyn doesn't keep her on in his shadow cabinet, or elevate her to the cabinet, after the election. But just because she doesn't interview well doesn't mean she'd be as disasterous as Theresa May was as Home Secretary. But there has to be someone better, surely.

Still voting Labour of course. There's no other viable option.

Sad but true..

Imploding Turtle wrote: But just because she doesn't interview well doesn't mean she'd be as disasterous as Theresa May was as Home Secretary.

I think it goes a bit beyond not interviewing well. She has no idea about what she's being asked.

Must have given claretandy a semi.

She's not well in some way.

To be fair, she does seem unwell, or under the influence perhaps of medication. Which rather begs the question why she did the interview.

conyoviejo wrote:Sad but true..

Sad definitely, but it'll take a brave man to vote for Corbyn and that bloated mess.

Perhaps she was just a bit " tired and emotional " , again.

randomclaret2 wrote:To be fair, she does seem unwell, or under the influence perhaps of medication. Which rather begs the question why she did the interview.

She does look wasted but i think it's just an honest attempt to recall the details of a report she's mostly forgot, or she's just trying to find a way to wing it through the interview. I don't know why these people can't just be upfront about it if they don't recall the salient details fo a report they might not have read for a year instead of this absolutely desperate attempt to get by without the tiniest bit of embarrassment. Just ask the interviewer to remind you of some of the details for ***** sake.

I do wonder if Lab will try to avoid her saying anything for the next four days.

Corbyn has revelled in the pressure, but she still comes across as hopeless, less robotic than may, but still useless.

Lancasterclaret wrote:I do wonder if Lab will try to avoid her saying anything for the next four days.

Corbyn has revelled in the pressure, but she still comes across as hopeless, less robotic than may, but still useless.

I think after the other weekend when she did interviews she was told not to do, and then crashed and burned in one of them, that Corbyn won't be keeping her on whether he's Prime Minister or not.

tim_noone wrote:She's not well in some way.

That was my thought too

Lancasterclaret wrote:I do wonder if Lab will try to avoid her saying anything for the next four days.

Corbyn has revelled in the pressure, but she still comes across as hopeless, less robotic than may, but still useless.

Apparently she wasn't even sanctioned to do the interview and booked it herself !

Bin Ont Turf wrote:Sad definitely, but it'll take a brave man to vote for Corbyn and that bloated mess.

I've never missed voting Bot,so it look like I'm gonna be a brave man.

claretandy wrote:Apparently she wasn't even sanctioned to do the interview and booked it herself !

If that's true then you don't need to worry about her being Home Secretary is Labour win.

Imploding Turtle wrote:She does look wasted but i think it's just an honest attempt to recall the details of a report she's mostly forgot, or she's just trying to find a way to wing it through the interview. I don't know why these people can't just be upfront about it if they don't recall the salient details fo a report they might not have read for a year instead of this absolutely desperate attempt to get by without the tiniest bit of embarrassment. Just ask the interviewer to remind you of some of the details for ***** sake.

I'm regularly contacted by people where we have worked for the or on land/buildings they own. It can be up to 25yrs ago and the expect you to remember it like it was yesterday, as though it's the only report you have ever produced. You just have to be honest and ask them to remind you of the basics, never mind the detail. Sometimes honesty is the best policy.

I read somewhere that she had been told not to do anymore interviews before the election.

God help us if she ever became Home Secretary, May was bad enough!

conyoviejo wrote:I've never missed voting Bot,so it look like I'm gonna be a brave man.

Neither have I me old chum, and neither have I ever once voted Tory. I'm in a spot of bother.

I just can't vote for Corbyn though, it'll be like hoisting the white flag up to Europe and these Mussie nutters.

It looks like another protest vote here.

Imploding Turtle wrote:Hopefully Corbyn doesn't keep her on in his shadow cabinet, or elevate her to the cabinet, after the election. But just because she doesn't interview well doesn't mean she'd be as disasterous as Theresa May was as Home Secretary. But there has to be someone better, surely.

Still voting Labour of course. There's no other viable option.

Bin Ont Turf wrote:Neither have I me old chum, and neither have I ever once voted Tory. I'm in a spot of bother.

I just can't vote for Corbyn though, it'll be like hoisting the white flag up to Europe and these Mussie nutters.

It looks like another protest vote here.

Who do you vote for in a protest vote though? I'm seriously considering spoiling my vote for the first time ever.

Corbyn is dangerous and I can't vote for the tories after the destruction of the public services.

I don't want to do it but I don't see what choice I have as voting for anyone else is a waste of a vote too!

WadingInDeeper wrote:I'm regularly contacted by people where we have worked for the or on land/buildings they own. It can be up to 25yrs ago and the expect you to remember it like it was yesterday, as though it's the only report you have ever produced. You just have to be honest and ask them to remind you of the basics, never mind the detail. Sometimes honesty is the best policy.

The report was less than a year ago. Shes supposed to be Home Secretary in waiting.......

Scary. Anyone with half a brain can't vote for them IMHO.

Apparently that's now two interviews she's given against the wishes of the leadership, and both have been horrendous.

Hopefully she'll be potted on Friday morning.

Clockwork Claret wrote:The report was less than a year ago. Shes supposed to be Home Secretary in waiting.......

Scary. Anyone with half a brain can't vote for them IMHO.

What's the other option? Vote for the "can't deport because fo a cat" woman who accused the Police Federation of "scaremongering" and "crying wolf" when they said that cutting the police force can lead to more terrorist attacks? No thanks.

ksrclaret wrote:Apparently that's now two interviews she's given against the wishes of the leadership, and both have been horrendous.

Hopefully she'll be potted on Friday morning.

She'll return with a massive majority. Some people are blind in their party loyalty.

Imploding Turtle wrote:What's the other option? Vote for the "can't deport because fo a cat" woman who accused the Police Federation of "scaremongering" and "crying wolf" when they said that cutting the police force can lead to more terrorist attacks? No thanks.

Find half a brain from somewhere..?

Imploding Turtle wrote:What's the other option? Vote for the "can't deport because fo a cat" woman who accused the Police Federation of "scaremongering" and "crying wolf" when they said that cutting the police force can lead to more terrorist attacks? No thanks.

Boy, has that come back to bite her! Exactly what the police predicted has happened. You need boots on the ground, in the community to gain people's trust enough to gather intelligence. Fire brigade policing just won't work!

Imploding Turtle wrote:What's the other option? Vote for the "can't deport because fo a cat" woman who accused the Police Federation of "scaremongering" and "crying wolf" when they said that cutting the police force can lead to more terrorist attacks? No thanks.

May was wrong IT you are absolutely 100%correct but she delivered a proposal that she believed was right and guided by austerity.

What Abbot as just done on Sky News is totally unforgivable and IMO disrespectful to all the dead and injured of the terrorist attacks. Abbot is the shadow Home Secretary and she was asked a question on the Harris Report into Terror, She should have analysed and absorbed every single word in that report since March 22nd 2017 after the Westminster attack.. She's not thick she's pig ******* ignorant and lazy.

PaintYorkClaretnBlue wrote:Who do you vote for in a protest vote though? I'm seriously considering spoiling my vote for the first time ever.

Corbyn is dangerous and I can't vote for the tories after the destruction of the public services.

I don't want to do it but I don't see what choice I have as voting for anyone else is a waste of a vote too!

There is no point spoiling a vote.
2 parties likely to have a chance. Decision is May or Corbyn and Abbott

Does anyone know why the majority of labour MP's don't like/won't work with Corbyn?

He is obviously a commited socialist and the labour party manifesto is full of genuine socialist ideals. As a non labour supporter I do admire his passion and obvious commitment. I would like to understand the reasons for the current 'political disagreement' in the labour party.

Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbott, Thornberry, Chakrabati, Watson?

Seriously, running the country? Wow, if you don't​ find that scary or lacking in judgement you probably shouldn't be allowed to vote. I agree with just about everything being said about how poor is Theresa May, but I wouldn't trust that bunch to run a bath.

Mala591 wrote:Does anyone know why the majority of labour MP's don't like/won't work with Corbyn?

He is obviously a commited socialist and the labour party manifesto is full of genuine socialist ideals. As a non labour supporter I do admire his passion and obvious commitment. I would like to understand the reasons for the current 'political disagreement' in the labour party.

They know he's toxic. They will loose badly and they know it.

He is completely disengaged from the PLP. He's an idealist not a realist.

He has a big 'fanbase' desperate for those ideals. Doesn't mean he will get close to power, even with 35+% of the vote.

I've never really liked her, there has never been substance to her appearances just bluster, but this is embarrassing.
I actually feel sorry for her.

NewForestClaret wrote:Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbott, Thornberry, Chakrabati, Watson?

Seriously, running the country? Wow, if you don't​ find that scary or lacking in judgement you probably shouldn't be allowed to vote. I agree with just about everything being said about how poor is Theresa May, but I wouldn't trust that bunch to run a bath.

I take exeption....thornberry can run my bath!

BleedingClaret wrote:I've never really liked her, there has never been substance to her appearances just bluster, but this is embarrassing.
I actually feel sorry for her.

for the love of god no

Clockwork Claret wrote:The report was less than a year ago. Shes supposed to be Home Secretary in waiting.......

Scary. Anyone with half a brain can't vote for them IMHO.

If people are in half a mind to vote Labour. They shouldn't worry.

That's all it takes

Apart from anything else, she's Shadow Home Secretary and there have just been two terrorist attacks. Couldn't she have guessed she was going to be questioned on them?

Her being in charge of the police is a small price to pay for 4 extra days bank holiday and free everything

Oh for pete's sake if that's all you lot can do is criticise one persons performance in front of a hostile interviewer looking to trip her up then gawd help us.

More constructive and useful to remember what this bundling incompetent excuse for a government have been doing to the Country and the majority of its people every time it "cons" people into voting for it.

South West Claret. wrote:Oh for pete's sake if that's all you lot can do is criticise one persons performance in front of a hostile interviewer looking to trip her up then gawd help us.

More constructive and useful to remember what this bundling incompetent excuse for a government have been doing to the Country and the majority of its people every time it "cons" people into voting for it.

Pretty sure she tripped herself up...

Irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

South West Claret. wrote:Oh for pete's sake if that's all you lot can do is criticise one persons performance in front of a hostile interviewer looking to trip her up then gawd help us.

More constructive and useful to remember what this bundling incompetent excuse for a government have been doing to the Country and the majority of its people every time it "cons" people into voting for it.

Not so much conned in 2010 when the country was Labour war weary, fed up of the policy of women spitting babies out for cash and uncontrolled immigration.

South West Claret. wrote:Oh for pete's sake if that's all you lot can do is criticise one persons performance in front of a hostile interviewer looking to trip her up then gawd help us.

More constructive and useful to remember what this bundling incompetent excuse for a government have been doing to the Country and the majority of its people every time it "cons" people into voting for it.

He didn't need to be terribly hostile, did he? There has just been a terrorist attack on a bridge in London. Last year a major report was published which recommended how to stop terrorist attacks on bridges. Is it especially hostile to ask the Shadow Home Secretary if she has read the thing?

See post 42.

Damo wrote:Her being in charge of the police is a small price to pay for 4 extra days bank holiday and free everything

So instead lets tax the rich less, the poor more, cut the police some more because it's not like we've needed them recently, cut the NHS some more because it's not like we've needed them recently, sell more arms to Saudis because what could possibly go wrong, suppress inconvenient reports that expose how the aforementioned Saudis fund extremism here, etc. etc.

South West Claret. wrote:Oh for pete's sake if that's all you lot can do is criticise one persons performance in front of a hostile interviewer looking to trip her up then gawd help us.

More constructive and useful to remember what this bundling incompetent excuse for a government have been doing to the Country and the majority of its people every time it "cons" people into voting for it.

Hostile ? He asked her if she'd read it !
And after she'd said "yes"

He then probably presumed because we'd had 3 terrorist attacks in around 10 weeks and she is Shadow Home Secretary she'd read it recently..

See post 42.

South West Claret. wrote:See post 42.

See thread title.

South West Claret. wrote:Irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

In what way is it irrelevant? Her lack of any detail was astounding. As a one off you may just about accept but this is a common thread and it's frankly terrifying that she could - in theory - become Home Secretary.