More genius maths by Diane Abbott

Diane Abbott thinks she was in primary school at the age of 15.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/feb/21/some-use-immigration-as-euphemism-for-race-says-diane-abbott

“I remember Enoch Powell’s speech, I think I was in primary school, and I wasn’t following it in huge detail, but I do remember how I felt,”

Reply 1

Good bloke

19

Original post by bob072

Diane Abbott thinks she was in primary school at the age of 15.

Have you not considered the possibility that she was still in primary school remedial class at that age, trying and failing to master basic arithmetic before being let loose on secondary education.

Reply 2

username1799249

19

I wish we were all perfect like you. Perhaps the reporter made a typo?

Reply 3

username2752874

22

Dianne Abbot - Distinction in Part III Maths at Cambridge confirmed.

Reply 4

Jammy Duel

21

Original post by ByEeek

I wish we were all perfect like you. Perhaps the reporter made a typo?

Several news organisations must have made the same typo then, it's also quite a significant error that one would expect to have been corrected over 24 hours later.

Reply 5

username1799249

19

Such a shame you pick up on such an inconsequential error when the main body of her point is well thought out. She makes some fair points. Who cares where she was when she heard the rivers of blood racist rant?

Reply 6

username1221160

19

Do people really have such empty lives that they spend their time than trawling through speeches to pick up on irrelevant errors?

Reply 7

CountBrandenburg

16

Original post by ByEeek

Such a shame you pick up on such an inconsequential error when the main body of her point is well thought out. She makes some fair points. Who cares where she was when she heard the rivers of blood racist rant?

Not many people make such a large mistake of saying they were in primary school at a certain point opposed to being in secondary school. No one would think it happened about 5 years earlier...
besides that much of what she said was waffle and nothing truly substantial. Much like her other works as shadow Home Secretary

Reply 8

username1738683

12

From her speech, the few tangible crumbs of anything tangible are that she would like to make it easier for immigrants to bring their families in and that she is very proud of the absence of any mugs with Immigration Controls printed on them at a Labour conference. It is safe to say that were she in a position to do so, border patrols would become totally redundant. Nothing new there, she was always like that.

The age verification issue, she probably got mixed up because it's all for effect. May not remember it at all but it is part of the crude tactic of hijacking the moral high ground and pre-empt any serious discussion indeed. She was always like that too, in fact has earned a living out of it. Still does.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 9

fallen_acorns

20

I am not a fan of hers, but this is just desperate grasping..

It may seem crazy to you all who are still young that you cant remember what level of schooling you were in when a certain event happened, but surely you can understand that as you age, time becomes condensed, specific details and distinctions fade.

I mean take myself. If you asked me when I was 13-14 when year of school was I in when princess diana's funeral happened.. I would probably be able to tell you exactly, and tell you my memories of the day

Now, well over a decade later, and more then doubled in age, I don't know. I remember that It was sometime in primary school, and I can remember somewhat of what happened, and where I was, but I would have to look up the year and then work it out, to find out exactly what year of school I was in.

After another 40 years? when I am around abbots age.. it seems very plausible that I could mistake the age even further and push it up to early secondary school.

Older people get muddled up about their memories all the time, its a very normal thing, and If you cant empathise and understand, I would strongly suggest you go and spend some more time with your grandparents who probably miss you.

Reply 10

Good bloke

19

Original post by ByEeek

the rivers of blood racist rant?

Try to maintain some kind of balance.

One thing it wasn't was a racist rant. It was a measured speech from the heart and the mind of an intellectual, a tellingly prescient foretelling of what multiculturalism (before it was named) might bring, and has been acknowledged as such by Powell's political enemies (including arch-lefty Michael Foot). With so many decades of hindsight most people would say pretty well everything he predicted came true.

The one phrase he didn't use, of course, was 'rivers of blood'. rather he referred to Virgil's Aeneid which mentioned 'the Tiber foaming with much blood'.

You should read more about it before spouting off. Start here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivers_of_Blood_speech

Reply 11

username1799249

19

Original post by CountBrandenburg

Not many people make such a large mistake of saying they were in primary school at a certain point opposed to being in secondary school. No one would think it happened about 5 years earlier...
besides that much of what she said was waffle and nothing truly substantial. Much like her other works as shadow Home Secretary

Not many people nit pick to this extent. Could you please tell me why it is so important to determine her exact whereabouts when she heard Enoch Powell's disgraceful Rivers of Blood speech?

Reply 12

CountBrandenburg

16

Original post by ByEeek

Not many people nit pick to this extent. Could you please tell me why it is so important to determine her exact whereabouts when she heard Enoch Powell's disgraceful Rivers of Blood speech?

I would nitpick because by claiming she was in primary school, she can much more easily brush away any misunderstandings of the Rivers of Blood speech (or the Birmingham speech, either work) it can easily show that at the time, she simply played along with the sentiments of the time and even afterwards failed to look back at the speech in retrospect. One could suggest the only reason why she tried to establish a personal sentiment between herself and the speech is to somehow cover for her own incompetence, and give herself, and by extension the Labour Party, a sort of moral high ground over the Conservatives

Reply 13

username1799249

19

Original post by CountBrandenburg

I would nitpick because by claiming she was in primary school, she can much more easily brush away any misunderstandings of the Rivers of Blood speech (or the Birmingham speech, either work) it can easily show that at the time, she simply played along with the sentiments of the time and even afterwards failed to look back at the speech in retrospect. One could suggest the only reason why she tried to establish a personal sentiment between herself and the speech is to somehow cover for her own incompetence, and give herself, and by extension the Labour Party, a sort of moral high ground over the Conservatives

My goodness - all that from saying "primary" instead of "secondary". You are wasting your time on politics. You should be a theologian.

Reply 14

Kenneth56

6

Some years Diane Abbot had a Treasury brief and she knew her stuff and was good at doing the numbers.

Whilst I disagree with her politics I think that taking cheap shots at her is unfair.

Reply 15

Good bloke

19

Original post by Kenneth56

Some years Diane Abbot had a Treasury brief

No she didn't.

Reply 16

bob072

OP

12

Original post by Kenneth56

Whilst I disagree with her politics I think that taking cheap shots at her is unfair.

I fully agree, the original post was rather frivolous and unimportant but aalso humourous given past interviews. I didn't expect it to actually be a serious debate thread or that anybody is shallow enough to judge her on this.

Reply 17

Kenneth56

6

Original post by Good bloke

No she didn't.

Sorry, you are quite right, I remembered incorrectly.

However, she did sit on the Treasury Committee from Nov 1995 to March 1997 and I remember she was quite outspoken and had a good grasp of the subject and the numbers.