If there is no such thing as bad publicity then can someone please explain the glaring exception to the rule - Abbott. Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott is the human embodiment of the Labour Party's missteps. If ever an MP rolls their eyes, expect to see Abbott giving a nonsensical rant about ten subjects at once. Abbott is the political version of turning up to PE at secondary school and for some reason the substitute geography teacher is in charge. You know that they were hired in the first place, they must know something. So why are they hunched in the corner of the gym, fumbling to find their words, whilst being pummelled by basketballs?
Imagine for a moment that Abbott was in fact Health Secretary. That's a scary thought, but not as scary as coming to the realisation that if Labour won the last election, that outcome was highly likely.
Understandably, Corbyn wouldn't want the seat in commons next to him turning blue, but whilst Labour's red wall was washed away in the North, Abbott sat there looking smug. Sure, sit smug, but know a literal post box would still win that seat. In fact, a post box would be able to make a better symbolic statement about protecting the rights of the working class than Abbott ever could.
You don't need to be a genius to figure out the true reason Abbott is allowed to sit on the front row. A line-up of white working-class Labour men wouldn't look too good for a political party pretending to be open and inclusive. Strange really that the Conservatives have had a better track record for racial and gender inclusivity. Especially strange when even the term conservatism would suggest the opposite. In PMQ's October 2019 Abbott was allowed to talk once again, having been previously silenced after she claimed police only cost £30 per officer, per year. Obviously, she yet again tripped over her own words and then literally tripped back into her own seat.
It's easy to forget how poorly Abbott holds herself until she is paired with a speaker like Dominic Raab, who calming and eloquently bounces back any question with a well-rehearsed sensible response.
In the run-up to the 2019 general election, the Labour party looked set to borrow more money to spend on the NHS. This could be fine and very achievable with good all-round budget spending/saving. If however, that money was to be haphazardly spent the same way Alistair Darling 'splashed out' during the Brown administration, when a disaster (such-as Covid-19) appears the NHS would arguably be in a worse position. Re-appointing funding, scrapping certain investments and cancelling new projects would be a new disease all on its own. Like it or hate it, conservative austerity did bring down national burrowing year-on-year thus reducing growth in the UK deficit.
Abbott has been the victim of much racism and sexism, which is unsurprising as bullies were often bullied themselves at some point.
In 1996, Abbott claimed Finnish nurses were unsuitable because they had never seen a black person before. Let us all take a moment to shake our heads and tut. Her view was supported by fellow Labour MP Bernie Grant, even though saying his name in the house of commons feels like saying the word Nazi in a central Berlin shopping centre. Abbott has often been criticised for her suggestions that white mothers don't care about their children as much as African or Indian mothers do. She has also publicly backed terrorists of the IRA (as did Corbyn) and has since refused to apologise as in her own words, "I've moved on".
In 2012, Abbott tweeted "white people love playing divide and rule", she then later apologised as she obviously didn't mean to generalise white people... obviously.
Amazingly Abbott went on record as being a fan of chairman Moa Zedong, the man was responsible for killing up to eighty-million people, destroying sites of global-historical and cultural importance, and being a totalitarian leader. In normal circumstances, comments like that would have the individual removed from the public eye. Abbott on the other hand, seems to walk around with an air of blissful ignorance whilst the people around her have never face-palmed harder.
Abbott has stood behind some morally just and socially correct causes in the past, but in her own words, I've moved on.
IMO- Max T
About the Creator
By Dumping Tonnes of Sand Into the Ocean for 12 Years, China Has Created Brand-New Islands From Scratch
Over the past twelve years, China has quietly carried out one of the most ambitious and controversial engineering projects in modern history: the creation of entirely new islands by dumping millions of tonnes of sand into the ocean. What began as small-scale land reclamation has evolved into a sweeping transformation of the South China Sea, reshaping geography, geopolitics, and international relations. How Artificial Islands Are Created The process behind these artificial islands is deceptively simple but technically complex. Specialized dredging ships extract sand from the seabed and pump it onto shallow reefs and submerged rocks. Over time, layer upon layer of sand is deposited, gradually rising above sea level. Once land emerges, it is reinforced with concrete, rock barriers, and infrastructure to prevent erosion. China has used this method extensively, particularly on disputed reefs and shoals. What were once barely visible features at low tide have become full-fledged islands, complete with runways, ports, radar systems, and buildings. Why the South China Sea Matters The South China Sea is one of the world’s most strategically important waterways. An estimated one-third of global maritime trade passes through it each year, carrying trillions of dollars’ worth of goods. The region is also believed to hold vast reserves of oil, natural gas, and rich fishing grounds. Multiple countries — including Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, and Taiwan — claim parts of the sea. China, however, asserts sweeping sovereignty over most of it, marked by its controversial “nine-dash line.” The creation of artificial islands has strengthened China’s physical presence and reinforced its territorial claims. From Sandbars to Strategic Strongholds What makes China’s island-building campaign particularly significant is how quickly reclaimed land has been militarized. Satellite imagery and independent analyses show airstrips long enough to handle military aircraft, deep-water harbors capable of hosting naval vessels, and advanced surveillance systems. These installations allow China to project power far beyond its mainland coast, extending its reach across Southeast Asia. Critics argue that these islands act as unsinkable aircraft carriers, altering the balance of power in the region. Environmental Consequences Beneath the Surface While the geopolitical implications are widely debated, the environmental cost is equally alarming. The dredging process destroys coral reefs, which are among the most biodiverse ecosystems on the planet. Sediment clouds generated during sand dumping smother marine life, disrupt fish breeding grounds, and permanently alter underwater landscapes. Marine scientists warn that damage to coral reefs can take decades — if it recovers at all. For coastal communities that rely on fishing, these changes threaten livelihoods and food security. International Law and Global Pushback China’s actions have drawn sharp criticism from the international community. In 2016, an international tribunal ruled that China’s expansive claims in the South China Sea had no legal basis under international law. The ruling also stated that artificial islands do not generate territorial waters or exclusive economic zones. China rejected the decision, calling it invalid and continuing its construction activities. Meanwhile, other nations have responded with diplomatic protests and increased naval patrols, including freedom-of-navigation operations by the United States and its allies. A New Kind of Territorial Expansion Historically, empires expanded by conquering land. China’s island-building represents a new model: creating territory where none existed before. This approach blurs the line between engineering achievement and strategic maneuvering, raising difficult questions about how international law should adapt to technological capabilities. If artificial islands become widely accepted as legitimate territory, it could set a precedent for other nations to reshape oceans for strategic advantage. The Broader Global Implications Beyond Asia, China’s actions have sparked global debate about maritime governance, environmental responsibility, and the future of territorial disputes. Smaller nations fear being sidelined, while major powers worry about the erosion of established international norms. At the same time, the sheer scale of the project highlights China’s engineering capacity and long-term planning. Turning submerged reefs into permanent landmass within just over a decade is a feat few countries could replicate. Conclusion: Engineering the Future of Power By dumping tonnes of sand into the ocean for over a decade, China has not merely created islands — it has reshaped the strategic landscape of an entire region. These artificial islands stand as symbols of ambition, controversy, and a shifting world order. As technology continues to expand what is physically possible, the challenge for the global community will be ensuring that innovation does not come at the cost of environmental destruction, regional stability, and international law. The islands may be made of sand, but their impact is anything but fragile.
By Fiazahmedbrohi 3 days ago in The Swamp
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.