#Rudd shame: exploits #Manchester for a cheap smear #GE17


Home Secretary Amber Rudd – the person Theresa May has thrust into a leaders’ debate because she daren’t appear herself – covered herself in shame and disgrace this morning by trying to exploit last Monday’s tragedy in Manchester for the sake of a cheap smear in the desperate hope of political gain. As ITV News reported,

Home Secretary Amber Rudd has suggested a General Election victory for Labour would increase the risk of future terror attacks.

Rudd’s comments rightly provoked absolute outrage on social media, with even comedian Bill Oddie getting in on the act:

Pretty bloody low, Bill. Pretty bloody low.

If the Tories are so desperate that they’re that crass, the Telegraph’s disclosure of barely-concealed panic at Tory HQ over their disastrous campaign and Labour’s polling surge starts to look very, very believable.

The Tories are in chaos – and Amber Rudd’s sudden status as a figurehead shows just how dire things have become.

The SKWAWKBOX is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you found this information helpful and can afford to, please do click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal. Thanks for your support so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.


  1. Amber Rudd using the murder of children to score cheap political points is utterly obscene and marks a new low in the history of the Conservative Party.

  2. The truth of the matter is that if the Tories win, the UK will be even more hated by the people whose countries, such as Syria, are being bombed, their children dying or mutilated by horrific injuries; who feel so marginalised and misunderstood, that their only response is to retaliate.
    This is the dirtiest GE I have ever witnessed and it’s all down to the Tories.

  3. Just HOW can it be that these vile tactics, along with the cowardice of TM in not facing a leader of the opposition she has dubbed “weak”, are not picked up and questioned by MSM? Free press my backside.

  4. The Tories have sunk to Trump-like lows. Revolting. How long will it be before the Tory toffs start mocking disabled people in public and calling immigrants rapists?

    It won’t work. Labour are 500,000 strong and the message is getting out about the Tory con. I urge all members who can to sign up to the pledge below and go doorknocking on election day to remind people to vote. We need EVERY Labour vote. A high turnout will be a humiliation for this awful, exploitative, fearmongering Tory government and prove that the politics of fear and division no longer work.

    It’s time for change.


  5. I don’t have a lot of negative criticism for The Skwawkbox – indeed the vast majority of Skwawkbox articles I hold in very high esteem – but I feel that this really needs to be said: I think that this is an appalling article, and for 2 reasons:
    • Firstly, the notion that talking about the Manchester atrocity is in any way disrespectful to the victims and their families is toxic, because it’s an excuse to silence debate. Any excuse to quell debate is toxic, but when politics is so dire that it costs lives, it’s even more important than ever that we talk about it and try to address the issues to prevent more lives being lost in the future! Not doing so is an injustice to those who’ve died and is more shameful than anything else. Debate absolutely needs to continue.
    • Secondly, that ITV article makes no mention of Manchester whatsoever, so The Skwawkbox’s claim that Rudd made a cheap exploitation of the Manchester victims is unfounded, or at least uncited. If it wasn’t for my first point – that I disagree that talking about issues is in any way shameful – then I’d say that the shame here lies with The Skwawkbox.
        Nonetheless, I’m in no way defending Rudd’s claim in the ITV article. As The Skwawkbox has previously covered – in articles much better than this one – it is abundantly clear that Corbyn actually played a vital role in settling the peace of Northern Ireland. Corbyn clearly has an untarnished track record of reducing terrorism, so Rudd’s claim to the contrary is grossly unfounded, and for that she rightly should be shamed. But not merely for talking about it.

    1. P.s.: As the ITV videos won’t play for me (they just disappear to white when I click them), I’m assuming that the text of that article accurately reflects the videos to make that second point of “unfounded, or at least uncited”. It at least holds that there is no mention of Manchester in the text of that article.

  6. I think Corbyn is well within his rights to attack Rudd back for this. There have been security cuts and Foreign Policy she’s supported that have increased the risk of terrorism. I’m no fan of his, but I thought he was brave in bringing the issues up so soon after Manchester. As JR Haigh says, we have to talk frankly, and in doing so we are in no way reducing the bomber’s responsibility.

    But Rudd does have a point here. The great thing about Corbyn, we keep hearing, is that he’s brave and knows we have to talk to terrorists openly. The logic of that position invites more attacks. It is very dangerous.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: