Who should the next Labour leader be?

[unixman]

Abbott is arguably the biggest hypocrite in UK politics:

"She criticised Harriet Harman, for sending her son to a selective school in Orpington, Kent.
Ms Abbott said: 'She made the Labour Party look as if we do one thing and say another.'"

a year or two later..

"Labour MP Diane Abbott made a second attempt to defend her decision to send her son to a fee-paying school .. sending her child to the £10,000 per year City of London school"

I'm alright jack - do as i say, not as i do.

Sure but she was completely open about it. Basically sacrificing her credibility for her son's education. Wrong, yes, but others would have tried to keep it quiet, or cover it with weasel words. At least she didn't do that.

[MicrosoftBob]

She was also completely open about being racist, she'd be perfect as the Labour leader for Scotland

[Taita]

Sure but she was completely open about it. Basically sacrificing her credibility for her son's education. Wrong, yes, but others would have tried to keep it quiet, or cover it with weasel words. At least she didn't do that.

Apologies (for) from politicians for compromising the keystone positions of their election platforms are a despicable insult to their electors. It is the same as an employee lying about material facts to win a job. Owning up after the fact is kids' playground stuff.

[d000hg]

Not approving that private schools exist, but taking advantage of them if you've the money to pay for it, isn't necessarily hypocrisy in my view. If you're lucky enough to be rich then not doing the absolute for your kids is cutting off your nose - or in fact your kids' noses - to spite your face.

I've some friends who struggled with this, except in their case it was in regard to the free nursery hours their kids is entitled to (15 hours/week IIRC). Turns out the local private nursery is eligible and though they don't agree with private education, one visit made it very hard to turn down something - for free - which would 100% be advantageous to their child's education.

[Taita]

Not approving that private schools exist, but taking advantage of them if you've the money to pay for it, isn't necessarily hypocrisy in my view. If you're lucky enough to be rich then not doing the absolute for your kids is cutting off your nose - or in fact your kids' noses - to spite your face.

I've some friends who struggled with this, except in their case it was in regard to the free nursery hours their kids is entitled to (15 hours/week IIRC). Turns out the local private nursery is eligible and though they don't agree with private education, one visit made it very hard to turn down something - for free - which would 100% be advantageous to their child's education.

"Not approving that private schools exist, but taking advantage of them if you've the money to pay for it, isn't necessarily hypocrisy in my view." Off course not, at least your kids will be one step ahead of you because, hopefully, the teachers in the independent schools can define hypocrisy! Here is one of many definitions to start them off....Hypocrite | Define Hypocrite at Dictionary.com



dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypocrite






a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

[Taita]

Preferably someone not creepy. And not involved in the last Labour government.

The Labour Party and The Unions are all about workers' rights? Getting on for half a century after the women at Ford won the legal right to equal pay, are women paid equally? Name two nationally recognisable female Union leaders.....

The party searches for a LEADER when what they need in the 21st century, where employers trip over themselves to comply with hard won legislation, is a PURPOSE.

[d000hg]

blah blah blah

Maybe next time you should read the definition, and what I wrote, before quoting it. The word you are looking for is pragmatic, not hypocritical.

[vetran]

Maybe next time you should read the definition, and what I wrote, before quoting it. The word you are looking for is pragmatic, not hypocritical.

I suppose if for years as a politician you fight against selective or private education and then when it actually affects you then you quietly go against your creed and subscribe to it then it could be considered by the dim as pragmatic.

Though most people would suggest that it was hypocritical.

Maybe if St Francis of Assisi took up fox hunting so he had a nice coat you would describe it as 'pragmatic'?
Or if the Pope started a brothel to pay for new robes?


It is strange how self interest seems to overcome such lofty ideals, the conversation I had with a lefty walking round a grammar school how it went against his beliefs but his kids were more important - I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.

Now if he had told me he had stopped being a labour supporter or was going to ask them to back selective schools because he realised selective schools worked then that would have been pragmatic. Bet he voted Labour next time and never told them he sent his son to a Grammar school.

[TykeMerc]

Not approving that private schools exist, but taking advantage of them if you've the money to pay for it, isn't necessarily hypocrisy in my view. If you're lucky enough to be rich then not doing the absolute for your kids is cutting off your nose - or in fact your kids' noses - to spite your face.

I've some friends who struggled with this, except in their case it was in regard to the free nursery hours their kids is entitled to (15 hours/week IIRC). Turns out the local private nursery is eligible and though they don't agree with private education, one visit made it very hard to turn down something - for free - which would 100% be advantageous to their child's education.

Sorry, you're trying to put a spin on what is clearly rank hypocrisy and call it something else, maybe you should think about what the word hypocrisy means.

Hypocrisy is stating that you hold a view (in this case private education is morally wrong) and then knowingly acting in a way that directly opposes that view (sending your kids to a private school). That's not pragmatism it's outright hypocrisy.

It's nothing to do with having the means or ability it's all about saying one thing and doing the opposite.

Maybe next time you should read the definition, and what I wrote, before quoting it. The word you are looking for is pragmatic, not hypocritical.

Total bollocks.

[WordIsBond]

Not approving that private schools exist, but taking advantage of them if you've the money to pay for it, isn't necessarily hypocrisy in my view. If you're lucky enough to be rich then not doing the absolute for your kids is cutting off your nose - or in fact your kids' noses - to spite your face.

Maybe, but it's pretty close to hypocrisy. That person is admitting that private schools are better -- "the absolute for your kids." if that's what they really believe, being opposed to the existence of private schools may not be hypocritical, it may just be stupid. You're too daft to acknowledge even to yourself what you really know to be true -- that private schools are better and those who care about their kids should put them there if they can.

I can give a better illustration of your point, though. Suppose someone says child benefit is an expensive bureaucracy. He wants to increase dole benefits so those on the dole with kids aren't worse off, reduce employee NI contributions so those in work with kids aren't worse off, and get rid of CB entirely. He wants to replace A (child benefit) with B. Maybe it isn't workable because many people don't have kids, but we're talking Labour policies in this thread, so unworkable is cool.

If he has a choice, he should choose B (lower tax, no child benefit), but if the choice doesn't exist, he can use A with a clear conscience while saying, "There should be a better way." If he uses A while pretending not to, that's hypocrisy. Or (here's where our Labour politicians often get in trouble) if he uses A while preaching it is morally deficient about it, that's always hypocrisy.

That's true whether it is private schools or "creative" tax management or some kind of environmentalist faux pas. It's amazing how often these people preach about morality and are doing the exact opposite. I think when you get into politics you must be required to take a pill that makes it impossible to blush.

It rarely does any great damage to the country. Few are hurt much by a politician's kids being at a school they rave against, or some Labour leader making a little extra tax-free money in Lichtenstein. My life isn't worse because they do these things, and it wouldn't be better if they stopped. But it does have entertainment value, and often does help keep that kind of person from gaining any real power. So thank you, Abbott and Hodge, for the amusement and for helping to keep yourselves and your party on the appropriate side of the House of Commons.

Maybe Labour MPs should start a private school for their kids that guarantees that the education there will never be better than the median school in Hackney North. Who could complain?