UK General Election, 2017

[Pragma]

Is Tim Farron really so unpopular in Southport? That's interesting. What do you think are the factors behind that?

He's seen as two things: single-issue and all-talk. Most people here don't vote for single-issue candidates. Even our own little separatist movement from Sefton has a full manifesto and is at the town hall debates. People now view him as being only someone to vote for if you desperately want to remain in. And secondly, people her don't trust the national liberal democrats. They're seen as all-talk. Farron is seen as someone who is the epitome of both of these things. The only reason the LDs won here was John Pugh, who is now standing down. This could be a surprise conservative gain if the local party doesn't put some dirt between them and Farron.

[IntruderEmerald]

This is honestly laughable:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39775693

It really is unbelievable that such incompetent politicians such as Diane Abbott make it to the frontbench.

So, she got some number mixed up with some other number in her head. Could happen to anyone, especially in such a stressful situation as an interview. And she corrected herself literally a second after the incident. Is this the best example you have of a politician being incompent?
This is typical of democracy. People berate politicians for irrelevant trivial crap while turning a blind eye to all the actually awful things they are doing. It's all about being a smooth talker and appearing competent, not about actually being competent. It's bread and circuses, nothing more.

Except this was more than getting some numbers mixed up. She is shadow home secretary and is
therefore responsible for policy on policing. The fact she doesn't know her own figures for her own policy shows she is completely incompetent. Also, she didn't correct herself a second later. She gave another incorrect figure of £80million, which would mean these police officers would be getting payed £8000! This is definitely not trivial camp. These are important issues and the electorate should be properly informed and pointing out when a frontbencher can't explain there own policy is important.

[jamescfm]

.

[Aquinas]

This is honestly laughable:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39775693

It really is unbelievable that such incompetent politicians such as Diane Abbott make it to the frontbench.

Diane Abbott is often under-estimated, but she's not stupid. She can be very perceptive, and I enjoy her performances on This Week with Neill & Portillo...but I've gotta admit, that was embarrassing. I can't seriously envisage her as Home Secretary (but then again, I would have said the exact same thing before this particular gaffe as well). I'd give her her own chat show, but not a seat in the Cabinet.

He's seen as two things: single-issue and all-talk. Most people here don't vote for single-issue candidates. Even our own little separatist movement from Sefton has a full manifesto and is at the town hall debates. People now view him as being only someone to vote for if you desperately want to remain in. And secondly, people her don't trust the national liberal democrats. They're seen as all-talk. Farron is seen as someone who is the epitome of both of these things. The only reason the LDs won here was John Pugh, who is now standing down. This could be a surprise conservative gain if the local party doesn't put some dirt between them and Farron.

From what I hear, John Pugh is a very hard-working MP, and like most Lib Dem MPs, has been having to work even harder over the last few years due to the decimation of the Liberal Democrats in the House of Commons in 2015. But he's getting older, and he's standing down...and it's the same story as in so many other Lib Dem seats. Lib Dem MPs are not generally very good at "handing over" their seat to a Lib Dem successor. To get elected to Parliament in the first place, a Liberal Democrat has to work bloody hard (far harder than most Labour or Conservative candidates, since there are not really any safe Lib Dem seats)...and when they retire, too often a Labour or Conservative MP takes their place.

Interesting what you say about Farron. With the increased coverage coming from the General Election, I had been hoping Tim Farron would have more of a chance to raise his profile and make a positive impression...but I guess we'll have to wait to see if that actually happens.

[Oakwood]

Does Tim Farron actually stand for anything or is he Nick Clegg 2.0 (ala just there to be a "moderating force") ?

[Aquinas]

Does Tim Farron actually stand for anything or is he Nick Clegg 2.0 (ala just there to be a "moderating force") ?

To be fair, the Lib Dems really *are* standing for something distinctive at this election. They are the only major party committed to averting Brexit. (Whether or not that will be an asset to them or not remains to be seen...)

I would say there is some distance between Farron and Clegg. Clegg is far more on the "economic liberal" wing of the party, whereas Farron is more left-wing and more focused on social issues. But obviously, I'm a Lib Dem, so I'm interested enough to notice such things...unfortunately, my hunch is that the large majority of the British public probably hold exactly the view you suggested (ie. Tim Farrron = Nick Clegg 2.0).

[jamescfm]

.

[Aquinas]

Undoubtedly, they're very, very different people- about as different as you can get within the Lib Dems I imagine. One point worth noting though is that Farron is viewed now (at the start of his leadership) in a similar way to Clegg was viewed at the end of his leadership- after five years as Deputy PM. If you compare that to early Clegg, he was actually a charismatic and popular politician; hence 'Cleggmania' after the TV debates. In my view, Farron is nowhere near that mark but I suppose he was chosen from a pool of eight contenders...

Unfortunately/unfairly, I think Farron sort of "inherited" the image Clegg had at the time he left power. I don't think Farron can be blamed too much for this, as it was mainly due to the dramatic (and I really mean dramatic) decline in media coverage of the Lib Dems after the 2015 election. So basically, by default he became the "Nick Clegg 2.0" referred to by Oakwood.

Believe it or not, Farron is charismatic (I know because I've heard him speak, and spoken to others who have heard him speak). He is a very good "presenter". He has a way of coming across as an ordinary northern bloke who is not part of the Westminister establishment (truth be told he is actually a complete political nerd who is very much part of the Westminster world, but he has a way of hiding that).

[Reddy]

Except this was more than getting some numbers mixed up. She is shadow home secretary and is
therefore responsible for policy on policing. The fact she doesn't know her own figures for her own policy shows she is completely incompetent. Also, she didn't correct herself a second later. She gave another incorrect figure of £80million, which would mean these police officers would be getting payed £8000! This is definitely not trivial camp. These are important issues and the electorate should be properly informed and pointing out when a frontbencher can't explain there own policy is important.

Let's be honest, you're talking shit here. If you really wanted to know the costing of the policy, its referenced in the article. That's evidently not the case, you want to score nonsense political points to distract from the substantive issues: i.e. the Tories have slashed police funding and the result has been a rise in crime.

I can't believe I'm doing it but I have to defend Abbott here and agree with hrafn and James. She may be an embarrassing, race-hustling and racist one trick pony but a gaffe is hardly indicator of what a person actually knows. It kind of reminds me of what Brown did in 2010, calling that lady a "bigot" for her views on immigration while in the privacy of his car. Of course people say nasty things about others in private but in today's world, we rarely apply the same rules we allow ourselves to politicians. We are harsh on trivial things and lax on important things. Theresa May's expensive boots will get more criticism than her waffling and u-turns on major policy.

[Aquinas]

If you listen to the interview in full, it's obvious she was struggling and she gave an impression of not being fully on top of her brief. A Shadow Home Secretary ought really to have been better prepared than this, especially given she was talking about Labour's policy commitments during a General Election campaign.

In this case, as in many other cases, what probably made the public/media impact was not just that this was a gaffe, but that this was a gaffe that pointed to a bigger picture. The bigger picture being that Diane Abbott has a long history of making mistakes and saying and doing problematic things, and she is not an ideal candidate for Home Secretary.

So in other words, if this had just been about this single gaffe, then I would be more sympathetic to the view expressed by James, Hrafn and Reddy. But it isn't - at the heart of it, this is about more than that - this is about Diane Abbott, and more broadly, the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn's leadership.