But this is the Labour thread isn’t it? Don’t need any of your deflection techniques for this one.
Just the usual contradictory rubbish from the upper echelons of the Labour party - and this is between people who support each other (apparently).
McGinn had to go. I think Abbott was misinformed.
Case closed.
In the meantime, more shadow cabinet posts being filled, including one Jack Dromey
http://www.itv.com/news/2016-10-09/jeremy-corbyn-welcomes-10-returning-mps-to-shadow-team/
That the same pony she came out with . Living in a nice house & earimg well despite poor people not being able to , is not the same as denying them selective education but using it yourself . I had 2 of my 4 go to a selective school & it was free . People like this hypercritical leftie want to be allowed to pay for it but deny my children the chance because I can’t afford it . Unbelievable.
Yeah, alright Lord D. Some would point out that she’s relieving an already put upon school system which has become targets obsessed. Her kid was in school long before she became a Labour shadow cabinet member. People do what’s right for their kids. Am I a hypocrite because I’m presently financing part of Juvenile Unit #1’s education, where others could not? Or am I doing right by my kid?
I think you can be both.
Doing right for you kid is natural and imo it is perfectly acceptable to use whatever resources you have or care to use to help your offspring. If you then go around spouting that it is wrong to give a kid a leg up in the world because it is not fair, then you are a hypocrite.
Toby Young @ toadmeister 45m45 minutes ago
Interesting that the more people are to be able to remember Britain in the 70s, the less likely they are to vote for Corbyn.
2 Likes
Those awful seventies. Close to full employment. One could walk out of one job on a Friday and into another on the Monday.
Free higher education.
Let’s not return to those dark dark times 
Meh, it’s a BBC article but it is well balanced on first read
Pap, if you could garuantee that Labour actually could somehow bring such a state of affairs about, I’d seriously consider and actually, probably would vote for them. I think a lot of people would.
Re. the selective schools issue. Its indefensible.
Yes, yes, I take the point that one can want to live in a world where there were no selective schools but given the situation as is, sends their kid to one because it’s in their child’s best interest in an imperfect world, but its still hypocritical given that you’re neglecting to do precisely what you’re asking others to do by proxy - that is; ballast failing schools with their own kids that could otherwise gain what you yourself obviously agree is the superior standard of education that can be gained at a grammar/private school.
The analogies put forward so far therefore fall down.
A closer analogy would be claiming to be a vegetarian on the basis that you oppose the suffering of animals - but that you’ll continue to gorge yourself on beefburgers until there’s some sort of government regulation in place which limits meat consumption by banning its import/criminalising those who transgress the rules.
Its rank hypocrisy.
1 Like
Honestly, I don’t think we need an analogy.
It’s just pure hypocrisy and there is one reason and one reason only that Pap is defending it.
No-one can guarantee anything, but I’d rather take a chance on a constructive approach than continue down the path we’ve been treading. That said, what makes more sense? Paying to retrain someone to be able to work in a changing market that has rendered them obsolete, or paying for their benefits and a regime that tests whether they’re allowed to have those benefits? Forever?
Even from a relatively wealthy Conservative perspective, there are a load of policies which have broad appeal. I’ve mentioned before that few will want to spend family treasure on education, housing or health if they don’t need to.
Capitalism isn’t dead, but this form of it is on its last legs, grotesque, misshapen and ready to be put to death. Either that, or we end up in a massive war. The “strongest” financial nation is propped up only by force of arms. I don’t have any time for bailiffs, but would probably feel a bit of sympathy for one that turned up to a defaulting debtor who had a nuclear arsenal in his living room. Beyond violence, the US is attempting to position itself in the centre of a global trading empire, containing the likes of Russia and China with military force. The answers are not going to come from the other side of the pond, especially considering the treatment of any reformer that attempts to roll things back. Sanders is the latest example. I suppose we should be thankful the conclusion wasn’t violent.
We’ve got a chance not just to reform this country, but set a standard for the world in how a modern democratic 21st century state conducts itself. Is all of that guaranteed? Of course not. We’ll have to fight for it, just as we do with any true advance. Look at the bother we’ve had to go through just to keep a leader the system didn’t want. I can guarantee that left unchecked, we’ll slide into nationalism and conflict, and could well be talking about the 0.1%.
Someone thinks May was much better than Corbyn.
John Rentaghoul, eh?
1 Like
“Unelectable” Corbyn’s policies more popular with public than Tories’…
There’s a surprise - take media smears out of the equation and people actually see the light!
1 Like
There’s no media conspiracy against Corbyn. You may be joking, I hope so. You’ve literally half quoted a link
