BS: Left Hypocricy

Subject: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Nov 03 - 05:37 AM

The admission from Dianne Abbott, that she had enrolled her child in a private school,at the cost of over £10000 peryear,is the "straw which broke the camels' back" as far as I am concerned.
Is there no end to the hypocricy of socialist politicians.
After the "New labour" scam,we have seen a steady stream of politicians, who refuse to live by their principles, while exhorting the masses to do so.
Miss abbotts amazing answer to questions on her behavior is that as her action is indefensible,and she does not try to defend it....She
deserves some sort of credit...Are we all mad to swallow this crap...As Mudcat contains a high proportion of "socialists" I would be interested to hear their comments or excuses...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Nov 03 - 06:14 AM

I think Dianne Abbott will suffer for it come the next election. When she was talking on BBC2 about it, she seemed to have come to the settled conclusion that it was a price worth paying.

However, life IS complicated and few of us are completely free of hypocracy. I've always been a great supporter of the NHS and any treatment I've had has been through it. Last month, though, we paid for my wife to have an operation at a private clinic to have gallstones removed, because her friend had been waiting eighteen months to have hers treated under the NHS.   I don't think that it would have been a very moral position for me to insist she spends 18 months in pain 'as a matter of principle.' If anyone thinks that is hypocritical of me, I'll have to live with it. I would far rather it had been done under the NHS, but I wasn't prepared to pay that price.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Nov 03 - 06:45 AM

Just one more thing on that front while I'm thinking about it. When I say 'we paid' I mean it - we don't have private insurance. One of the policies the Tories are proposing is that 60% of the cost of an NHS operation could be used to part-fund the private treatment. There are apparently only about 3% of private treatments that are paid directly that would benefit from this policy, and ours was one. It would have saved me several thousands of pounds - and I UTTERLY REJECT IT.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: Leadfingers
Date: 02 Nov 03 - 07:56 AM

I wish people would stop referring to 'Socialists'in relation to the
current Members of Parliament.Please remember that Princess Tony dropped Socialism from the New Labour agenda in 1997.There are very few Socialist politicians left who admit to the label.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Nov 03 - 08:05 AM

I have a great dislike for the Capitalist System and all the injustices that it perpetuates,and for years I naively thought that Socialism was way to a better life and world.
When I see the number of so called"left wingers" who desert their principles,(especially over education,which should be the corner stone of a fair society) It only proves the point, that there is no political answer as power corrupts.
How can all these people on Mudcat espouse socialism,knowing whats really going on....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Nov 03 - 08:13 AM

Leadfingers...Would not the "true Socialists" turn out like Blair and co,given a little power?. In my experience almost always.
DMG's argument about the health service is powerful, but taken to its logical conclusion would mean that "were all tories" every man for himself......Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Nov 03 - 08:25 AM

No more than the "New Republicans" will turn out the right-wing loonies, or even admit that's what they are.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: Rapparee
Date: 02 Nov 03 - 08:43 AM

"Hypocrisy" is everywhere, on the Left and on the Right.

Some years ago it came out that the Catholic Church was a major shareholder in the drug company that produced most of Italy's birth control pills! To me, THAT'S hyprocrisy!

I disagree, Ake. I went to private schools, from grade school through college. We had little money; I suspect that the local parish paid my way (and my siblings' ways) through grade school. I washed dishes and cleaned floors in high school to pay my tuition, in college I worked in the library, took out loans, and sold myself to the Army reserves (and had my college education interupted when the unit was activated for Vietnam). If someone, Socialist or rapid capitalist, wants their children to go to private schools AND the cost can be worked out, why shouldn't they?

I'm not a socialist, politically or otherwise. You might call me an individualist if you must label me anything at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: kendall
Date: 02 Nov 03 - 08:49 AM

Why do you condemn the whole party for the actions of a few? That broad brush approach is convenient, but it weakens your argument.
I have no use for Ted Kennedy, or Jesse Jackson, or the Clintons, but they are not the democrat party. I like John McCain and Bill Cohen, but they are not the republican party. Seems a bit silly to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: mack/misophist
Date: 02 Nov 03 - 10:47 AM

Socialism is a set of principles and ideals. It is not a party or a person or any concrete thing. It is not necessarily a set of procedures. Neither is it completely at odds with capitalism. The only good reason to give up the ideal is in exchange for a better one.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: kendall
Date: 02 Nov 03 - 11:48 AM

Socialism takes into account the needs of ALL people, not just the rich who got that way by exploiting the poor.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: Amos
Date: 02 Nov 03 - 12:13 PM

Kendall:

I guess that's true of some brands of socialism. But the dualism between "the rich who got that way by exploiting the poor" and "all the people" is kinda strained. An awful lot of people make incomes above the median -- about as many as don't. And in almost every case, the revenue is a result of voluntary transactions all up and down the line.

Where it starts to get rotten is when the forces of defense and the processes of law are used to enforce those transactions, thus corrupting the free-market mechanism in favor of one or another party. Once that starts, all bets are off. As now.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: Peter T.
Date: 02 Nov 03 - 12:29 PM

The old, old question: do you put your family or the larger common good first? This is not a question of concern for the right wing -- they have no interest in society -- nor much concern for the family, since their brand of capitalism is destroying the family faster than anything socialists ever thought of, but that is for another day. There is a difference between suffering yourself in order to promote the larger good, and making your children suffer (the classic example is the do-gooder with neglected children). Still, it does seem to me that someone who is spending 10,000 pounds a year on her child cannot be living in a poor district -- the public school must be pretty good where she is. How the child can suffer in a well-off British public school, unless they have become complete crap, is a mystery to me. I assume it is because New Labour is full of the intensely upwardly mobile, and the idea that their children might actually benefit from being in a pretty good ordinary high school rather than an intensely driven private school probably never occurs to them. The poor kid is probably doing French, and ballet lessons, and summer computer camp, and god knows what else.


yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: C-flat
Date: 02 Nov 03 - 12:45 PM

Dianne Abbott attempted to defend her decision on TV the other night by accusing the local education system of failing black children.
It may be true but it isn't what she was saying initially. In fact she claimed it was her sons' choice to go private. That's a LOT of pocket money!

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Nov 03 - 12:57 PM

Peter ..I agree with much you say ,but I was really trying to get people to think beyond the "socialist " "capitalist" argument, as I think these terms no longer mean anything.
When a professed left wing socialist can do something completely at odds with her beliefs and treat it in such a cavalier way,it seems to me that these beliefs could have meant nothing to her to begin with.
Please excuse me if I dont express myself very well but I feel this subject is of great importance, as abuses are now becoming the norm.
    Ake..

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: GUEST,Gene Burton
Date: 02 Nov 03 - 01:34 PM

Socialism is a means of economic organisation by which the economy, in its entirety, is publicly rather than privately owned. I'd have thought that the actions of a member of what is now pretty much a free-market capitalist party, is irrelevant to a discussion of the merits (or otherwise) of socialism.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Nov 03 - 01:44 PM

I can't actually see why this is really any different from using the money to buy any other kind of advantage for her son, such as a more expensive house, which would typically be in an area where the state schools were a lot better provided for. (Which is what most of her cvritics in the media and politics have done.)

I agree that it is not fair that some children should have vastly less resources put into their education, or into their health care, or into their living conditions than others, that's true enough.

I wish there was an effective political movement which was determined to achieve a society where all children really did have an equal start in life.

But I can't see how that would have been brought any closer by Diane Abbott doing the politically convenient thing and "sticking to her principles" at the expense of what she judged were her son's best interests.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Nov 03 - 01:51 PM

If people dont stick to their principles ,How do we know that they are Socialists?

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: alanabit
Date: 02 Nov 03 - 02:07 PM

"How the child can suffer in a well-off British public school, unless they have become complete crap, is a mystery to me."

Hi Peter, I thought that comment of yours was interesting for two reasons. Firstly, I am given to wonder whether British public schools ever were any good anyway. Secondly, it has long been my belief that children were sent to these schools because the parents did not wish to live with their own children.
My own first hand experience of the British public school system was near disastrous. By the age of fifteen I was pretty close to being mentally ill. It is not the same for everyone, I know. However, I like to be careful about the assumption that these institutions actually do any more good than a well run state school.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: Peter T.
Date: 02 Nov 03 - 02:08 PM

It is hard to know what constitutes principles that have effective political weight any more. I would tentatively suggest that there are people who lean more towards "liberty" and people who lean more towards "equality". Equalitarians would suggest that there are certain forms of "positive liberty", helping hands, that require some intervention; while libertarians are concerned about the stifling of personal initiative, and defend certain forms of "negative liberty" (freedom from interference) as more conducive to individual thriving than the assumptions of others as enshrined in governments and institutions. Except for extremists on both sides, these are negotiated on a daily basis in all democratic societies. An equalitarian principle (enunciated by John Rawls) would be that any inequalities in the society should be made on behalf of the least well off.
Both of these positions are influenced, poisoned, by the vast influence of the market, which is the template for many arguments about whether liberty or equality are best served by a neutral market, and whether we have anything like a neutral market. Libertarians tend to believe that any interference in the market is inefficient, and ultimately attacks the freedom implicit in the capacity to buy and sell as one wishes; and that a rising market tide will make the poor better off later, even if they are miserable today, so one should harden one's heart against the claims of those who are hungry today in a world of obvious inequality. Equalitarians think that this is sheer hypocrisy by the rich, and that the market is a flawed tool for social betterment, in part because it contains a model of human behaviour (infinite self-interest against all others) that is itself a menace.

I tend to go for the equalitarians myself, unless I spend a lot of time in their company, when I go the other way.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: Peter T.
Date: 02 Nov 03 - 02:14 PM

By public school, I meant the opposite of a private school (North American here).

I went to a very expensive private school, and it nearly killed me. Hogwarts with no magic, and no girls.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: Amos
Date: 02 Nov 03 - 02:20 PM

it is not fair that some children should have vastly less resources put into their education, or into their health care, or into their living conditions than others,

No it isn't fair, but there is no one in charge of making life fair, I am sorry to point out. If she had the funds, and chose to use them to put her son in what she saw as a better school, that what the hell business is it of anyone else's? Regardless of whether she was living up to expectations from the left or the right or the fore or the aft, she acted according to her best judgment and harmed no-one. Where's the beef? That she wasn't practicing pure Socialism? Surely someone has pointed out that pure socialism has never yet succeeded in use?

Here's the deal: people's inherent rights and freedoms may be equal, but you can bet your buns their levels of ability are not. When this is acknowledged it becomes magically incumbent on individuals to be as able as they possibly can, because it is only human ability that brings about decent survival for the individual and the family and the community. That's where all value comes from.

And it is only the able who can then exercise compassion in offering a hand to the less able, out of charity. Otherwise, there is no hand to offer!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Nov 03 - 02:23 PM

Well, Inthinkmthe thing to aim for is to be a libertarian egalitarian. I think they are the opposite sides of the same coin. If a coin doesn't have both sides it's worthless.

...

"Public schools" - we're getting into the old confusion here. "Public Schools" this side of the Atlantic doesn't mean State Schools, it means an especially posh kind of Private School.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Nov 03 - 02:33 PM

Amos...I cant agree....This woman was a self-styled "firebrand socialist member of parliament",influencing countless young people.
If she wanted to have the luxury of picking and choosing her principles, she should have picked another job....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Nov 03 - 02:41 PM

"...there is no one in charge of making life fair"

And that is where I'd disagree. I believe it's all our job to work towards that, and to use whatever abilities and advantages we have to do that more effectively.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Nov 03 - 02:48 PM

The problem here is, that we've nailed our colours to the Socialist mast,but just like capitalism, it contains an achilles heel....The fact that ,when it comes down to the wire,people always look after number 1.    Left wing MPs are a bigger threat to eventual equality than the conservatives ,as they give the impression that there is some realistic alternative.....Not in politics there isn't   Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: Amos
Date: 02 Nov 03 - 02:53 PM

McGrath:

By "no-one" I meant no external office or officer -- of course all justice stems from the individual heart, which is the only place it abides anyway.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Nov 03 - 02:58 PM

It stems from the individual heart - but we also have a hand to play in what is done in our name, and that is every bit as important.

I don't actually think we disagree too much about these things, Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: Peter T.
Date: 02 Nov 03 - 03:32 PM

After I've nailed my colours to the mast, looked at my achilles heel, and gone down to the wire, I will unmix my metaphors.....

A civilized society tries to prevent things coming down to the wire, where self-preservation is the only goal. But even in concentration camps, people will sacrifice themselves for others. There are examples all around us of people refusing to be obsessed about "Number 1". Many people organize their lives quite happily around others -- children, lovers, parents, larger social goals -- without losing themselves or their self-respect. All this Number 1 nonsense is what I mean about the poison of libertarian markets. The opposite is also poison: the individual should be sacrificed for the good of everyone else. It is a balancing act. That is why it is complicated, and why many people loathe it.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Nov 03 - 03:50 PM

Thanks for that Peter ..I well deserved it.
I know that there are a lot of good people around,its just that not many are in political life.I also think our society is becoming more selfish by the day ...Cheers Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: AliUK
Date: 02 Nov 03 - 04:02 PM

erm...my immediate reaction is " so what?". I thought this was all about democracy and the freedom of choice...Ake you´re being a bit reactionary aren´t you? I´ve always been a humanist ( for a few years I foolishly said I was socialist but then discovered it was another label for those that like to dress up half-baked dogma as a political agenda...a bit like the other socialism really..you know the National one) anyway, I thought that socialists were fighting for the right to choose. then I discovered that they were fighting for the right for you to choose what they wanted to offer you. Not for me really. i want good health/education/housing. cheap water and electricity for everyone. i also want tot live in a society that doesn´t villify you for your choices of where you want to send your children or have your gallstones removed. no I´m not left-wing. i can proudly say that I am Alistair-wing.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: Amos
Date: 02 Nov 03 - 04:02 PM

Selfishness is not actually an awareness of best practice for Number One. It tends to insulate, isolate, and polarize number 1 from all the other numbers.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Nov 03 - 04:20 PM

Alasdair.
I agree with most of your message,but you tend to forget the millions who cant afford to buy the services you mention.The "two tier society" seems to me ,to make any sort of equality impossible.
    Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: kendall
Date: 02 Nov 03 - 05:10 PM

Capital is the result of labor. Therefor, labor is more important. (Abraham Lincoln)

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: Mark Clark
Date: 02 Nov 03 - 05:14 PM

I tend to think hypocrisy is really the only thing that separates mankind from other species. It turns out that other species use tools, have loving families, communicate through language, etc., but, to my knowledge, mankind is the only species that depends on hypocrisy. Most of civilization and culture arises because of the dichotomy between the way we actually are and the way we might wish to be or the way we wish others would see us. Hypocrisy may be the very foundation of human nature.

The fundamental problem with any ’ism is that people mistakenly believe that the central tenets of  “the faith” completely and satisfactorily account for all aspects of socio-economic interaction. This happens with capitalism, socialism, communism, nazism, conservativism and a host of others. Solutions to obvious problems are only thought meritorius when they are in line with canonical ’ism thought.

Only when people begin to break out of these ’ism straightjackets will we begin to see real progress in social growth. As Peter T suggests, we really need to deal with all the dirty complexity of each problem to find adequate solutions and that complexity is never embodied in a single belief system.

A steadfast adherence to any simple model for human society is why we are so easily manipulated by those willing to use our belief systems to manipulate us and the game to their own advantage.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: harvey andrews
Date: 02 Nov 03 - 05:14 PM

I see very different attitudes here between Brit and US.
Generally speaking, being left wing in Britain means not believing that money should buy advantage in education or health. These two should be available to all, at the best quality, when needed, is the creed. Abbott put herself up for election and asked for people's votes as a member of a party whose members would generally agree with the above premise.
She got the votes and represents a very poor area of London. By becoming an MP she qualified for a high salary that now enables her to pay school fees of £10,000, a figure far beyond the reach of her constituents.
By sending her child outside the State school system she is betraying her voters and their beliefs and hopes. She should resign her job as an MP and finance her betrayal some other way.
Otherwise she is a hypocrite.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Nov 03 - 06:34 PM

If all the hypocrites in the House of Commons resigned, there wouldn't be many left. On either side - but perhaps more especially on the Labour benches, because to be a hypocrite you have to have had principles in the first place.

But I can't see any essential difference between buying a place in a posh school, and buying a house in a posh area where the State Schools are up to scratch, or buying in private tutors from a Public School to give your kids an extra hand, like Tony Blair does. It's the inequality based on money that is at the root of this, not the inequality based on how people use the money.

And no doubt if Dianne Abbott had sent her son to some not-to-good local school, everyone would be up in arms about how wicked it was for her to subordinate the best interests of her son to make a political point.

No, of course there shouldn't be any rotten schools. "Education, Education, Education" said Tony Blair. That was in 1996 wasn't it? And a few months later he was swept into Downing Street.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: AliUK
Date: 02 Nov 03 - 06:48 PM

ahhh...once again freedom of choice has been mistaken for selfishness...or maybe I just didn´t express myself clearly enough. As Mark said, until we are able to get away from "-ismitis" we shall never be in a position to do anything worthwhile. Also, Diane Abbot worked hard to get where she is today ( politics is not just a vocation but also a preofession) if she represents her costutuents to the best of her ability within a democratically elected Parliament then she can do what the hell she likes with her money. who knows what goes on in the halls of Westminster and what conversations and opinions are aired. We only get to see the public face of it. If the schools wheer Ms. Abbott live are not of a standard that she feels is good enough for her son then she has a duty as a parent and an individual to procure what is best, this doesn´t compromise her principles in any way if she continues to fight for her constituency!

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: Gareth
Date: 02 Nov 03 - 06:49 PM

I have no intention of defending the indefensible - I speak as one who made a point of opting out of Company "Health Insurance Schemes" when I was employed by companies who offered one - And no I did not gain financialy by opting out.

What worries me is the non involvement of parents in thier childrens education - Where you have disinterest, and a "gang" culture, you are going to get failure.

And that don't bode well for the future.

Mind you - We do seem to be missing Fionn - That Guru of the left, jumping in to condemn Diane Abbott - Perhaps we could learn where his children were educated.

For myself - Well I've no children I know about, not even grazing the local hillside, or the Kent Marshes.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: InOBU
Date: 02 Nov 03 - 06:54 PM

This conversation comes at an interesting time for me. In the United States the devide between public (state) and private schooling is very complicated, as there is unequal funding for state run schools in the same cities. In the poorest neighborhoods the schools which need the most aid, get the least. And, most of the over two million people we now have in the bigest prison population had to go to, well just guess which school. So school is the first culling out in the system which leads to opportunity or jail.
We Quakers did not use sugar or cotton during slave days. Our prison system is getting to look more and more like the slave system as it is privatized and even used for strike breaking. Here is the delema. We maintain private schools, some of which, many of which, are too expensive for Quakers to go to even with some financial aid. So, are we taking part in a similar unfairness similar to those who bought goods which supported American slavery.
I am happy to report that the New York Quarterly meeting is not sleeping on this question. The delema is that as long as American schools are segrigated into haves and can't ever gets, we can only be working towards justice, and not living justice. We provide a large number of scholarships, and yet we feel we must do more. We are holding workshops on making Quaker schools more Quaker, and egalitarinanism is a big coming part of that struggle.
No answer as yet.
Cheers
Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Nov 03 - 07:12 PM

Diane Abbott? Why should I make excuses for a politician I never heard of before today? :-)

Hypocrisy has always been common on both sides of the political divide, and in the middle of it as well.

Experience has shown that any social theory can easily be corrupted by people willing to corrupt it, so no system is a panacea. One needs good, honest, and dedicated people running a system in order to make it work reasonably well...whether it's "left", "right", or somewhere in the middle.

The right is basically the philosophy of the rugged individual, while the left is the philosophy of collective responsibility. Either philosophy has its advantages and its pitfalls. The wisest philosophy unites the good points of both. Sounds like Diane Abbott, like so many others, has fallen for the temptations of high office.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: harvey andrews
Date: 02 Nov 03 - 07:16 PM

freedom of choice is no freedom if you cannot choose.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: harvey andrews
Date: 02 Nov 03 - 07:20 PM

"If the schools wheer Ms. Abbott live are not of a standard that she feels is good enough for her son then she has a duty as a parent and an individual to procure what is best",

For the school and its pupils and her son who should go there. She asked for the people's votes and she got them, then she abandoned them. Good officers lead from the front, so should politicians who profess principle in order to gain employment

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: Leadfingers
Date: 02 Nov 03 - 07:39 PM

The much vaunted minimum wage in UK is £4.8op an hour,so assuming that a forty hour week is worked thats £9600 per annum.Ms Abbotts
school fees are reported at £10,ooo per annum.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Nov 03 - 07:59 PM

I've never understood why it is that, given that there are always a lot of people competing to become MPs, MPs get so much. Market Forces should bring their wages down to a much more modest level. Say the national average wage, plus necessary expenses.

It's not as if they actually govern the country.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: Rapparee
Date: 02 Nov 03 - 08:46 PM

"Good officers lead from the front..."

No, not necessarily. Good officers, and good leaders in general, lead from where ever they can be most effective. Usually, that's behind, directing, moving, coaching, plugging up holes. If you're in front you can't see what problems are developing.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Nov 03 - 08:52 PM

I think people should be selected to govern by lottery from an extensive pool of those who have:

1. indicated they are willing to serve in governmental capacity, and

2. meet the necessary age and educational/etc requirements to do so.

At one fell swoop you have eliminated party politics (an inherently corrupt and divisive system which lies and cheats its way into power by any means possible). You have also eliminated idiotic, dishonest political campaigns and the expenses associated therewith.

I suspect that the people who ended up with the job of governing under the lottery system would be FAR more constructive in their attitude toward each other and would actually do a considerably better job of governing than what is presently occuring!

And I am dead serious about that. Political parties are a VERY bad idea...whether there's one, two, or five or ten of them. They serve not the public, but themselves. They are a self-aggrandizing, self-perpetuating power structure resembling a "gang" (in the criminal sense of that word).

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: AliUK
Date: 02 Nov 03 - 10:18 PM

"freedom of choice is no freedom if you cannot choose."

I thought that was what I said. And I´m with LH when it comes to party poitics.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: GUEST,boab
Date: 03 Nov 03 - 01:25 AM

Iam not, and never have been a communist. Having said that, I encountered the communist dictum early in life-"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". I still haven't heard a logical argument which can convince me that this isn't a valid and humane statement which has its roots in decency. Those who try to negate the sentiment by pointing to the "needs' of ne-er-do-wells and slackers, have their objections confounded by the first six words. Sadly, as the majority have pointed out, humans are a fickle bunch, and will always in the end do what they perceive to be to their personal benefit, even if it adversely affects the lives of others. Hypocricy exists in politics as in all walks of life. As Rabbie Burns once said "Facts are cheils that winna ding"--in other words, we'll damn-well have to live with it. Ms Abbot's constituents have the right to vote; they should know what to do when the time comes.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: C-flat
Date: 03 Nov 03 - 02:59 AM

What makes Abbotts' actions unacceptable is the fact that she was outspoken in her attacks on both Tony Blair and Harriet Harman for their decisions to privately educate their children.
She made no attempt to defend her choice;

"It is inconsistent, to put it mildly, for someone who believes in a fairer and more egalitarian society to send their child to a fee-paying school.
"I had to choose between my reputation as a politician and my son."

I'm not against choice but Ms Abbott was elected because of what she said she stood for.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: jonm
Date: 03 Nov 03 - 03:22 AM

Would it be possible to add one more tick-box to the ballot paper - reading "none of the above" - ? This would give the electorate the opportunity to show their disgust at the whole process by which we seem to elect only the self-serving on the basis of a few well-scripted soundbites with no foundation in personal philosophy.

If the Government were to abolish fee-paying schools and convert them all to state funding, the average class size would fall, there would be a pool of teachers in excess of the current requirement and, theoretically, standards would rise, since public schools generally have far higher achievement rates.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: Peter T.
Date: 03 Nov 03 - 08:47 AM

Well, if she attacked other people for their hypocrisy on this issue, and then did it herself, she really deserves the boot!

yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Nov 03 - 08:48 AM

The problem I have with so called socialists is that they seem to be stuck in a kind of time warp..consider this statement from a previous post.."The rich who all got that way by exploiting the poor" What a pompus and self-righteous geberalization that is...not to mention outdated. We now live in a society where hard work will often reap great benefits. As for an MP sending a child to private school...so what. We all have freedom of choice..socialists seem to believe that we do not, we must all adhere to some strict political dictum..even down to the education of one's own child. There is a lot of hipocrisy in this thread as far as I can se.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Nov 03 - 08:59 AM

"The rich who all got that way by exploiting the poor" - well if it's rephrased "The rich countries got that way by exploiting the poor countries", maybe it's a bit harder to shrug off.

Which is more hypocritical - to do things which are against your principles, and to admit that you are doing so? Or just to adjust your principles to suit your own convenience and claim that you are acting within them?

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: harvey andrews
Date: 03 Nov 03 - 09:10 AM

"As for an MP sending a child to private school...so what. We all have freedom of choice.."

Yes, to walk the dog,read a book,buy a paper or a meal, but the choices you espouse in education and health are only available to a small percentage of the population who can afford it. A nurse,a young couple working on the minimum wage etc just don't have that choice. Therefore it is not a choice it is an exercise of privilege based on wealth. If you believe that money should be the only criterion for all services you'll see nothing wrong with that. Personally I, and many others like me find it undefensible.
It's that devil take the hindmost, I'm all right Jack philosophy that has got us all into the mess we're in today.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: greg stephens
Date: 03 Nov 03 - 09:16 AM

Well I'm glad C-flat tried to drag the conversation back to hypocricy. Socialism/capitalism, equality/privilege we can all debate that. But this thread started off about the stomach-churning hypocricy of Diane Abbot, who made her money and reputation by attacking certain kinds of behaviour, and then behaves exactly the same herself when she perceives it is in her family's interest to do so.
   I'm not going to criticise her for acting in the best interest of her son. I'm going to criticise her because her insincerity and dishonesty makes me want to throw up.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Nov 03 - 09:46 AM

So are you saying that people who are able to make choices should be deprived of them because that particular choice is not available to all ? Are we only to be allowed to "choose" what the majority can choose. Many people work very hard to be able to send children to alternative schools for many reasons other than the fact they can afford it. Do we abolish private business altogether ? I am afraid I do not understabd the narrowness of this view.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Nov 03 - 10:40 AM

No, you need a wide variety of choices and a maximum of freedom to choose...combined with mutual responsibility...and that's where law and morality come in. They are the mechanisms or notions that have to do with exercising responsibility.

People who want all of one thing at the expense of another are on a dangerous track, whether they are socialists or capitalists.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: jacqui.c
Date: 03 Nov 03 - 10:43 AM

I agree with C-flat and Greg. Ms Abbott has consistently attacked other members of her party for putting their children before their socialist principles but has now done the same thing herself. When she made these attacks on others she was already a mother and, in her position would have been aware of the parlous state of the local schools. The fact that black children, in particular boys, do not do well under our wonderful system is not a brand new phenomenon. What sort of politician is she that she did not think, before sounding off, 'what would I do in their position?' Ms Abbott actually added to the furore by stating that she 'couldn't recall' one of the attcks she made, although it was during a televised broadcast, which is still available. Nice lady.

If I could have afforded it I would have sent my children to fee-paying schools and I would be paying for medical treatment I need rather than waiting my turn on an NHS list. I don't resent the people who can do this as, on the whole they are paying twice, once into the state system via taxes and rates and then out of their own pockets for services which they are NOT taking from the state. These people are, to a degree boosting the state system, so where's the problem?

These days I find it difficult to ally myself to any political party as, from recent experience, they all come out the same. But, LH, I would suggest that criterion 1 needs to be 'those who do not want the job' as all our wonderful politicians would be falling all over themselves to be put on the list otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: Rapparee
Date: 03 Nov 03 - 10:54 AM

If she castigated others for something and then did the same thing herself, yes, she's a hypocrite. I don't think that hyprocrisy has ever been a bar to public office, however.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: The Barden of England
Date: 03 Nov 03 - 10:57 AM

The point to me here is that she is a member of parliament. Aren't they supposed to be there for the good of all. What she has plainly shown us that politicians do not have the power to change things for the good of anyone, except maybe for themselves over the short term. Pretty sad state of affairs really.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: Peace
Date: 03 Nov 03 - 11:02 AM

My step-dad used to say that there's no point talkin' morals in a whorehouse. He may have been right when one considers government.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: harvey andrews
Date: 03 Nov 03 - 01:07 PM

Guest, what I'm saying is that in two fields, health and education I think it morally wrong that those with money can buy their way out of the health queue or into a good school.I could buy a doctor to operate on me next week. The same doctor, who also works for the health service, would put me on a waiting list of many months. If he operated only in the health service the waiting lists would be cut dramatically. And if those who buy their way out of the State education system had to send their children to local schools you can bet those schools would be a damned sight better in no time at all.
Choice of itself is not necessarily a good thing, in fact I think one of our problems today is choice overload. Ask the british who now try to find a telephone enquiries number without being ripped off!
In Abbotts case she got votes by saying she would not buy her way out as she found it morally wrong. Therefore by breaking her own code she should forfeit those votes, as I hope she will at the next election.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Nov 03 - 01:17 PM

"And if those who buy their way out of the State education system had to send their children to local schools you can bet those schools would be a damned sight better in no time at all."

As they generally are in the prosperous areas where such people tend to live anyway. More ways than one to skin a cat.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: harvey andrews
Date: 03 Nov 03 - 06:21 PM

True McGrath, but I think you get my point.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Nov 03 - 06:40 PM

After an extensive study of the postings by the great thinkers who make up the Mudcat Forum, I have come to the opinion that most "socialists" are indeed hypocrites,as they find it so difficult to put their beliefs into practice.
The Capitalist/conservatives on the other hand seem to have no difficulty practicing what they preach,no matter how abnoxious their beliefs may seem to normal people....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: Peace
Date: 03 Nov 03 - 07:02 PM

Read somewhere recently--maybe on the Mudcat site--that 'Communism is humans exploiting humans, and capitalism is the reverse.'

However, we should ALL beware of stupid people in groups.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: Mark Clark
Date: 03 Nov 03 - 07:15 PM

The policies and actions of George W. Bush may in fact be entirely true to his core beliefs. But if he is not a hypocrite then he is a charlatan and a liar. His policies are often the precise opposite of his political rhetoric so is he a hypocrite or a liar?

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: kendall
Date: 03 Nov 03 - 07:26 PM

You are right McGrath, rich countries do exploit poor ones.

The USA has 5% of the world's population, yet we consume 30% of its resources. This is cold hard fact. Exploitation works on many levels.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Nov 03 - 07:36 PM

Mark as far as I can see Mr Bush is simply a mouthpiece for American business interests.
I dont think he deserves the distinction of a "title".
    Ake.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: AliUK
Date: 03 Nov 03 - 08:15 PM

working within the confines of democracy. George W Bush was elected President. Also working in the confines of democracy Tony Blair was elected PM ( in one of the worst turnouts for a general election in Britain ever. People seemed to think that by not bothering to vote they were making a statement. They got what they deserved).Hypocrisy is prevelant everywhere. I am quiet sure that Ms. Abbott went through a long period of anguish before deciding to put her son into a private school. I live in a part of Brazil where illiteracy is roughly 60%. State schools are not worth the material they´re built with and there doesn´t look as though there is going to be any improvement soon whilst the First World still insists on Brazil paying back the money it owes. Here in Brazil we have a saying " Chorando com a barriga cheia" ( crying with a full stomach). What´s the illiteracy rate in the UK and the USA?

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: Mark Clark
Date: 03 Nov 03 - 08:36 PM

Make no mistake, George W. Bush did not become president within the confines of democracy. He became president because the U.S. Supreme Court decided there wasn't enough time for democracy to take its course.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: GUEST,Obie
Date: 03 Nov 03 - 10:17 PM

George Bush not elected democratic??
After all he came second in "da vote" and "da guvner" of Florida made the final decision.
   TANK GOD HE'S ME BRUDDER!!

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: LadyJean
Date: 04 Nov 03 - 12:33 AM

I know nothing of Ms Abbott, or her children. I do know that it is a remarkable person indeed, who will sacrifice their offspring to their principals. To be honest, I wouldn't think much of someone who did. I went to a private school because public schools do an impressively poor job of educating learning disabled girls.
The headmistress of said school was a member in good standing of the American Civil Liberties Union, and the lawyer for that organization sent his daughters there, one of them was a classmate and friend of mine.
In the U.S.A. many of the upper middle class children who attend public schools spend their days in the rareified atomosphere of a "Gifted and Talented" program, where they have limited contact with the hoi polloi. The difference between a "Gifted" program and a private school is that it is funded by the taxpayers.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: Deda
Date: 04 Nov 03 - 01:01 AM

working within the confines of democracy. George W Bush was elected President.

I guess this is a common misconception but this did NOT happen, as Mark and Obie have pointed out. He LOST the election, and then had it handed back to him in the worst piece of judicial malfeasance in the history of the Supreme Court, imho.

As for left-wing hypocricy, give me a break. I'm generally on the left side, so right-wing hypocricy leaps out at me in technicolor. In fact, a score of really gross examples occur to me even now, but I don't want to go there. OTOH, left-wing hypocricy always strikes me as mild and emminently forgiveable. I assume that the other side sees things exactly the other way round.

John Prine, "You forgive us, we'll forgive you, We'll forgive each other till we all turn blue, then we'll whistle and go fishing in heaven."

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Nov 03 - 01:18 AM

Most people are hypocrites, Akenaton...on occasion. It is when the occasions become too frequent and automatic that it really becomes a problem. I'd say from what I've seen of life in general that only fully fledged spiritual masters (and a few other truly exceptional people) are never hypocritical, and they comprise maybe 1/1000 of one percent of the human race...at best. :-)

Are you saying that Leftists are hypocritical more often than rightists? I doubt it, I think that they are just hypocritical about different things, that's all. Their style is different.

Most people are also largely unaware of their own hypocrisy most of the time...so are they hypocrites, really, in the conscious sense, or are they just people living what could best be called unexamined lives?

I don't know if Al Capone was hypocritical, but he certainly was dangerous. :-) So was Joe Stalin. I'd classify Capone as an agressive capitalist crook and Stalin as an aggressive socialist dictator. So?

What is a "leftist" anyway? Give us your definition...

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 04 Nov 03 - 03:33 AM

Opinions will never be reconciled. I'm fairly sure that each and every person writing here is as decent as any other. Extremes of either creed [left or right] are wrong, and destructive. Free enterprise is a healthy concept, as is the "socialisation" of essential public functions, but both concepts stir the propaganga machines of right or left into screeching hyperbole. There is a boundary which separates "freedom" from "licence". We'll never agree just exactly where that boundary is, more's the pity.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Nov 03 - 07:04 AM

"Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue" - which people always seem to attribute to Oscar Wilde, like so many good quotes, but in fact it was Matthew Arnold, taken from La Rochefoucauld, who wrote "Hypocrisie est un hommage que la vice rend à la vertu."

It strikes me there is an awful lot of hypocrisy around, in many of the attacks which have been made on Diane Abbott for this. I don't mean here - I'm meaning politicians and media types who are happy to buy privilege for their own children, and who have been rejoicing at putting the boot in here.

It strikes me that she was damned either way. Either she'd send her son to a local school which she believed would fail his needs, in whcih case she'd be attacked as a hypocrite for subordinating her son's intersts to her own political ambitions; or she'd buy him a privileged education that she believed would be better for him, and be excoriated for that, in the light of criticisms she had previously made of other politicians who had made similar decisions.

The paradox is that, for all we know, sending her son to a posh school rather than to a local school might not prove to be the best thing after all - but then those are the kinds of risks all parents take whatever decision they make about such things.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: Peter T.
Date: 04 Nov 03 - 10:26 AM

"It is a remarkable person indeed who will sacrifice their offspring to their principals." Oh, I don't know, I can think of many high school principals whose days are spent eating children.

Considering that you are using "their" with a singular noun, and you can't tell the difference between "principals" and "principles", shouldn't you phone your old private school and ask for a refund?

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: AliUK
Date: 04 Nov 03 - 10:54 AM

Getting a bit picky aren´t we Peter also that was a bit of a low shot. I think this thread has run it´s course, when that kind of comment comes in.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: GUEST,Obie
Date: 04 Nov 03 - 10:57 AM

The greatest hypocricy of all is in the preaching of right wing fundamentalist christians. They claim to believe the bible word for word but choose to ignore it's teaching.
Did not Christ tell his followers to give all that they had to the needy. ( thats All, not a token tythe)
If you die rich you better know how to get that camel through the eye of the needle.
It is pretty obvious that Christ was the first left wing hippie. To think that his views on sharing both the good and bad aligned with socialism surely borders on heresy !
However if you watch a TV evangelist in action the solution would be to send him a bit of money, you can keep the rest and maybe even take it to heaven with you.
   Good Luck!!

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: Peter T.
Date: 04 Nov 03 - 12:24 PM

Couldn't resist -- one old private school grad attacking another (you get trained into nasty humour in those places).

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Nov 03 - 12:28 PM

Yes, well, people just sift through the Bible and find the parts that appear to support their passion of the moment, blithely ignoring the parts that don't...and never even attempt to reconcile the contradictions inherent in their own thinking. They do the same thing with other great religious books like the Koran too, funnily enough...

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Nov 03 - 02:54 PM

Little hawk..The rightists dont need to behave in a hypocritical fashion,Their dogma is basically "the law of the jungle" and the validity of that can never be refuted, regardless of what we think of it ethically.
The leftist, on the other hand, is never done examining his theories for a better world,but all these theories involve the sacrifice of self ,in the interests of others to some extent.This is a severe problem for the leftist ,as it has been shown time and again that people in general want to be further up the materialist ladder than their neighbours,and this leads to hypocritical actions.
At this stage in my life,(having been a communist for most of it) I see no realistic alternative to the right ,and I include the Blair govt in that.
My thoughts are now turning to something more spiritual (not religion)
I feel that the socialists continued opposition to the right,simply stops opponents looking at the problem in a new way...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: kendall
Date: 04 Nov 03 - 04:23 PM

Ake, my good friend, Helen Schneyer, said, "Everyone needs a dog to kick."

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Nov 03 - 07:39 PM

That's interesting, Akenaton. I've been looking mainly to the spiritual (but not the religious) for the answers, and for the important questions, for a long time now.

Here's a thought. "The sacrifice of self in the interests of others" IS in one's own self-interest, provided it's done in a balanced, sensible and wise fashion. It is tremendously in one's own self-interest, as can be discovered within any harmonious and cooperative association of people, whether it be a family, a community or a nation. It's in everyone's interest! It is the very glue that holds civilization together. It turns out to be really no sacrifice at all, but mutual gain.

"Survival of the fittest" on the other hand is a credo for people who wish to live like mere savage predator animals, only their intellectual gifts make them far more dangerous and destructive than those animals could or would ever be. It's not a fit credo upon which to base any human community.

Here is how the hypocrisy of the right works:

Yes, everyone is out for himself, but that's supposed to be GOOD, because the gains of the most aggressive "trickle down" to the rest...

Hypocrisy.

God is on the side of the rich, that's why they're rich.

Hypocrisy.

People need strong leadership because they are like little children who must be disciplined and led. The strong therefore have a moral right to make decisions for the weak.

An element of truth in that...BUT...it is a mere excuse for the most ambitious and rapacious to dictate to the rest and hire men with guns to enforce their diktat, if necessary. Hypocrisy.

The right believes it is good. Being good, it never has to say it's sorry (to quote from Love Story) when people suffer and die due to its policies. "When the going gets tough the tough get going."

More self-serving hypocrisy...and it is used by the extremists of both the right and the left frequently. Stalin had the same basic philosophy, couched in the terms of state socialism.

I could probably go on and on, but I think that's enough for now...

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Nov 03 - 08:37 PM

"When the going gets tough the tough get going."

That always makes me think it sounds like, when things get difficult they run away and take care of themselves themselves. Which is generally true.

"When the going gets tough the strong hold on."

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: kendall
Date: 04 Nov 03 - 10:02 PM

That phrase, "Survival of the fitest"...where did that come from? I believe Darwin said "Natural selection." yet survival of the fitist is attributed to him. Just curious, not trying to be pedantic.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Nov 03 - 03:56 AM

Little Hawk.. I could not agree with one part of your post,where you said the right believes itself to be "good"
In my experience, people of the right are aware of the injustices in their dogma....they just except them as a price to be payed for "progress",as they see it.
On the other hand, they see the left as well meaning fools, with policies which are in practice, unworkable.
I think the word for the right is pragmatic.
Pease dont think of me as an apologist for these people,this is just an observation ....Ake.
I think it is important ,if we want to change an unjust society, that we recognise the weaknesses in our own stance...Best Wishes...

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: Wolfgang
Date: 05 Nov 03 - 05:19 AM

I got curious and here's what I found:

Charles Robert Darwin (1809-1882: "The expression used by Mr. Herbert Spencer, of the Survival of the Fittest, is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient." in: "Origin of the Species" (1859).

So Darwin has used this phrase but acknowledged H. Spencer as originator.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: Wolfgang
Date: 05 Nov 03 - 05:24 AM

Maybe it is clearer if I add when Darwin wrote 'is more accurate' in the context of the citation he meant more accurate than 'natural selction' which is the expression he normally uses at other places.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Nov 03 - 06:02 AM

And of course "survival of the fittest" means fittest for the situation involved. There are are lots of situations where worms or rats are much more fitted to survival than human beings.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 05 Nov 03 - 12:31 PM

Sorry to come late to this (I know Gareth misses me.)

In the UK, so-called parental choice is an illusion invented by the Tories, and "new" Labour has been happy to continue the deception. In practice parents are able to express preferences but for a majority of them meaningful choice is non-existent. A few - typically the most articulate and pushy - do manage to hold out for the best, and this inevitably is at the expense of the rest.

The children of such parents tend to prosper. The more a school can attract these youngsters, the higher it rises in the "league tables." And the higher they go in the tables, the greater their attraction to such families.... Thus a virtuous circle is created into which neighbouring schools cannot break. Instead they sink into decline and often end up being closed. This system is wasteful, and massively damaging for those cohorts of students who, through no fault of their own, are in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Such was the fate of students at St Richard of Chichester school in north London when Tony Blair chose to bypass that and other catholic schools near his home in favour of one much farther away, that could afford to be more selective (Brompton Oratory). It was a huge signal to thinking parents that if they could afford to do so, they should avoid St Richard, and St Richard closed within a year or so. I said on BBC Newsnight at the time that Blair should have resigned as Labour leader on the basis that the party was at that time still promoting the "old" Labour education policy. Diane Abbott was vociferous in her criticism of Blair on the same point, as she was too about Harriet Harman.

Contrary to Peter T's assumption, Abbott lives in an area that has some of the worst deprivation in Britain, and in which some of the state schools are admittedly, and almost inevitably very poor. She has used some of her own money to buy her son out of that disadvantage, and I agree with McG of H that there may be nothing intrinsically wrong in that (beyond the hypocirsy that she condemned others for the same thing).

But Abbott is still urging other parents to continue supporting the state schools, for the sake of the kids in those schools - even if they can afford to follow her own example. This is ludicrous.

Both Blair and Abbott could have afforded to move to other areas before their children's secondary-school education became an issue. They would still have been exposed to accusations of hypocrisy, and of thrusting on others what they would not accept for themselves. But they would have done greatly less damage to the state schools on their doorsteps, and the children who have no alternative but to attend those schools.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: Peter T.
Date: 05 Nov 03 - 01:17 PM

Is Tony Blair a Catholic? I didn't know that. If Michael Howard gets in, then there will be a Jew (once again) as the head of the Conservatives. What is the Lib-Dem leader?



yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: Ringer
Date: 05 Nov 03 - 01:43 PM

Ginger-haired & stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: Ringer
Date: 05 Nov 03 - 01:44 PM

TB is not a catholic, by the way, but his wife, Cherie, is.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Nov 03 - 01:49 PM

Blair's wife and children are Catholics, but he isn't quite. He goes to Mass with them, but hasn't actually made the jump, possibly for political reasons. It is said there could be constitutional problems having a Catholic Prime Minister, because of vestiges of anti-Catholic laws. This probably technically isn't so (unlike the case with the Queen or her successors), but it might have been embarrassing, for example, when the Pope came out against the invasion of Iraq as being an unjust war.

Charles Kennedy is Lib-Dem leader. He's a Catholic. So for that matter was Iain Duncan-Smith.

In the unlikely event that Michael Howard became Prime minister he'd be the first practising Jew to have the job. Disraeli was actually Church of England.

...

Actually I suspect the choice of the Oratory for young Blair may well have been because when you are living in Downing Street, it's a lot closer than anywhere in Islington, where he used to live. So the appropriate charge that time wouldn't so much have been hypocrisy but counting his chickens before they were laid, since at the time, he wasn't living in Downing Street. Still it would have perhaps been a bit silly of him to plan on the assumption he was going to lose in 1997. but it was a pretty safe bet Labour was going to win.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: Gareth
Date: 05 Nov 03 - 07:08 PM

No I don't miss you Fionn, and neither will most Mudcatters.

Ho typical that when you are asked to make a pertinant comment on the hypocracy of Dianne Abbott condeming actions and doing the same herself you spend your post condeming Tony Blair and his wife.

Kevin McGrath put that in perspective. What a pity you spend your time trying to justify yourself rather than concentrate o real problems and concerns.

BTW - where did your children go to school ? - This is a pertinant point as you seem to have wasted our time reading your polemics !

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Nov 03 - 07:22 PM

No hypocricy on the *true* left. Impossible. When one attempts to configure one's self with planet and it's *all* of its inhabitants, then one is spiritually *hooked up*. When you are spiritually *hooked up* there's but one truth. You can't have hypocricy with just one truth because there is no place left for rationalizations...

Very simple: We v. Me.

When we think *We* (which I have found as a common denomanator with those of the *true* left) then we are doing a loving God's work of sharing our planet, our water, our air, our resources, our ideas, our labors, our love... our....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 05 Nov 03 - 07:26 PM

Oh Gareth, do I really have to deal with this? I suppose I'd better...

My daughter goes to a catholic state grammar school, the catchment area of which she lives within. It was chosen from the state schools that were willing to accept her. Her choice. Not mine. Not her mum's. Northern Ireland, alas, is one of those parts of the UK that has clung to selective education, and overwhelmingly to faith-based schools. The last NI education minister, Martin McGuinness, was committed to abolishing selection (ie the 11-plus), and with any luck he will soon be back in office to see that through.

Until recently I was on the governing bodies of two first-class comprehensives in deprived areas. Then this summer one of them closed, largely as a consequence of the present system of so-called parental choice.

Always a pleasure talking to you, Gareth.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 05 Nov 03 - 07:38 PM

I meant to say that as McGrath ha indicated, there is no problem about the UK having a Catholic PM. The issue of papal opposition would not be a factor. A PM would live with that just as a catholic US president (eg Kennedy) would have to do. Or as Church of England PMs have had to do when their policies have been criticised by Archbishops of Canterbury.

Blair's difficulty was with the Catholic church. He had been accustomed to partaking of the eucharistic bread, courtesy of an accommodating parish priest, but this was stopped on the advice of the primate, the late Cardinal Basil Hume, on the ground that Blair had not been instructed in the faith. (This emerged from correspondence published after Hume's death.)

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Nov 03 - 08:19 AM

Fionn

In your post of 05 Nov 03 - 07:26 PM. When you state, " Northern Ireland, alas, is one of those parts of the UK that has clung to selective education, and overwhelmingly to faith-based schools."

Can't understand the "alas" part of it - the system currently in existence in Northern Ireland is considered to provide the best level of education in the United Kingdom - that is backed up by results obtained right across the board irrespective of faith.

For some reason a "comprehensive" state system has always worked in Scotland, it has never worked in England, who now appear to be reverting to a split system, something like the old "Grammer School", "Secondary School" model.

The foundation of the Scottish system dates back to the time of John Knox - a school in every Parish and a college in every city available to all. Best thing the Scottish Parliament did was to reject the introduction of University Tuition Fees.

My own experience as a parent with what was on offer from the state system in Southern England was that it was in general manned by the disaffected, disinterested, and totally demoralised. To lessen the burden all of my children were hooked out of that system into schools that were independent of the state system. My wife and I paid for it, our choice for the benefit of our children, in order to do that we did without other things. But as a parent a good education is one of the few things of any real value you can actually give a child. So I certainly don't blame Diane Abbot regarding her chosen course of action, anyone is entitled to change their minds on any subject at any time. Hypocrisy? to some maybe, sort of like home ownership under Harold Wilson, when he flatly refused to allow council house tennents the right to purchase their homes - Harold and Mary at the time owned five residences, Callaghan and Healey each owned two - but us epsilons weren't even allowed to own one - now that was what I would call a real example of the hypocrisy of the Left that had major impact on the population - where so-and-so's kid goes to school does not.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Nov 03 - 12:39 PM

Very simple: We v. Me.

That depends how inclusive or inclusive. "We whites" "We Aryans"...

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 06 Nov 03 - 08:24 PM

No reversion in that direction yet, guest. Wirral, Kent, Lincs etc never went comprehensive in the first place. Education in NI is obviously better for the select few; not so good for the rest. But also bear in mind that a high proportion of state schools there are faith-based and therefore better funded.

Blair wants to see more faith-based schools in England and Wales (he has even been supportive of a school in Gateshead that teaches creationism instead of evolution). And of course that would bring in more money and would no doubt raise standards. But in my view the state should not be looking to the churches to pick up a tab it should be picking up itself.

Just to repeat, guest, Abbott is urging other parents who can afford to follow her example (ie people like you) not to do so, for the sake of the kids who are stuck with the state system regardless. Anyone but a kindred spirit would find that stance ludicrous.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Nov 03 - 08:56 PM

In other words, "Don't copy me - what I'm doing is not really right."

I can't see anything ludicrous about that. There are all kinds of reasons why anybody might do things that they would prefer other people didn't do, and which they can't really justify.

What is ludicrous is when people pretend that whatever they happen to decide to do to suit themselves must be right. And that's what most people in public life seem to persuade themselves is the case.

The truth is, people aren't perfect and shouldn't pretend they are. It doesn't fool anybody anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Nov 03 - 02:58 PM

For socialism to have any remote chance of replacing capitalism it must be espoused by people who have a firm belief in the founding principles.
Miss Abbott is certainly not one of them.
And by the sound of his last post neither is Mr McGrath....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocrisy
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Nov 03 - 04:00 PM

People who always sticks to their principles in all their actions are very rare,in any situation. People who bend their principles, but claim to be sticking to them are very common.

People who break their principles on occasion, but admit it, and still hold them as something to aspire to, are perhaps rarest of all.

There are elected politicians who are genuinely principled socialists - they only take what they need from their parliamentary salary, an ordinary working wage. The rest they pass on to where it is more needed.

But there's very few of them, sadly few - most take the money and hold onto it. That's where the break with principles come in, not in how they spend it. Some choose to spend that money sending their kids to expensive schools, while still living in a poor area among the people who elected them. More manage to have their cake and eat it, by buying expensive houses next to good quality state schools.

When politicians and media lefties who have made the second choice demonize Diane Abbott for making the first choice, as if there was any real difference - that is real hypocrisy. WE shouldn't be taken in by it.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: Amos
Date: 07 Nov 03 - 04:29 PM

What brand of socilaism are you espousing the principles of, then, ake? The sort that informed the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? The sort that inspired the communes of the 60's or the 1890's? The sort that governs Denmark? Hard to understand what founding principles you are referring to!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Nov 03 - 04:33 PM

Mcgrath ..Much to my disgust ,Socialism has been beaten in the war for peoples hearts and minds, Helped in no small measure, by people of the ilk of Miss Abbott, a media socialist if ever I heard one.I was not in the least surprised by her hypocrisy,but am very surprised at your seeming excuse of her.
I believe you to be a good and sincere man,by your writing ,and wish that you could see the loss of the war as a chance for a new beginning ....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Nov 03 - 05:15 PM

I don't believe in the possibility of losing, in the end. But the end is a long way off.

The thing is Diane Abbott's hypoctrisy is in no way worse than that of most of the people in the media and in politics who have been attacking her as a way of diverting ayyemtion from themselves. No words, and in some ways better, because less camouflaged.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: greg stephens
Date: 07 Nov 03 - 05:21 PM

McGrath, nobody's attacking Abbot for making the choices(well,nobody much). they are attacking her for her attacks on other people for making the choice, while being perfectly happy to do it herself. It's not being socialist or capitalist, it's being two-faced.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 07 Nov 03 - 05:29 PM

Sheer, utter bunkum, McGrath. Who in the media or in politics, in their criticising of Abbott's decision, have shown themselves to be worse than she has shown herself to be?

If you can't understand why her position is ludicrous, let me explain. She is saying, almost in as many words: "Do as I say, not as I do, because what I am doing is wrong." She knows she is wrong, on a matter of honour; she is blatent about it, and has every intention of continuing the behaviour that she herself judges to be wrong. Yet she is also continuing to rake in her £200,000 a year (not to mention those BBC fees which she somehow failed to register).

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: Gareth
Date: 08 Nov 03 - 07:13 PM

Abbott's earning £200,000 ? What basis do you have for this Fionn ?

Apart from your own prejudices.

Reference to the online records of the Parliamentary Commisioner for standards makes no mention of this.

Though I note that despite your statement "Yet she is also continuing to rake in her £200,000 a year (not to mention those BBC fees which she somehow failed to register).

Diane Abbott does declare her earning from journalism etc.

Click 'Ere

and Click 'Ere

Unless, of course as a 'Crusading Journalist' you have better, more informed sources, which you must keep confidential !

If you have it is your duty to bring these matters to the attention of the Parliamentary Commissioner, and the Labour Party Executive - If not then I suggest you shut up - In this or any other non music thread.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Nov 03 - 07:31 PM

Gareth ,Your continued abuse of a fellow member,seems to me to be personal ,undeserved and does not contribute to the vey good discussion.....Whats going on...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Nov 03 - 07:50 PM

Who's worse? Or rather, who is more hypocritical?

People who buy better education for their childrten by buying houses in the right expensive places, and using other kinds of influence, so as to get their kids into schools which are much better equipped and resourced. And then they preen themselves on the fact that these are, technically, within the state system of education, and pretend that they aren't buying privilege every bit as much as if they'd paid for a place directly.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: Gareth
Date: 08 Nov 03 - 08:01 PM

Fionn is reaping what he has sown.

akenaton, did you trouble yourself to check the accuracy of those links I posted, and compare the facts with what Fionn pasted ?

- A British MP earns £56,000 pa - not £200,000 - whatever her other faults are Diane Abbott does declare her extra parliamentary earnings.

Fionn would have it otherwise - OK let him act on that information, or shut up.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Nov 03 - 08:18 PM

Gareth ...With respect,I dont believe you have the authority to tell anyone to "shut up".This forum is supposed to allow free speech.
Fionn is free to make his observations on Miss Abbotts earnings, and if you find them incorrect you are free to contradict him....Although,how either of you know the amount of money she really "takes home " is beyond me.
A personal fued on an interesting thread like this is a right pain in the arse ...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: Gareth
Date: 08 Nov 03 - 08:26 PM

I did contradict him - any complaints !

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Nov 03 - 08:49 PM

Im sure Miss Abbott's nauseating "second job" as a token leftie for the media must be very lucrative.
It seems strange to hear Miss Abbott ,a supposed left wing socialist,supported by a self confessed party hack like you ...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: Gareth
Date: 09 Nov 03 - 06:45 PM

"Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: Gareth - PM
Date: 02 Nov 03 - 06:49 PM

I have no intention of defending the indefensible - I speak as one who made a point of opting out of Company "Health Insurance Schemes" when I was employed by companies who offered one - And no I did not gain financialy by opting out. ... "

Akenatom - Congratulations on a good memory - You are correct in calling me a "self confessed party hack".

You will also recall that in the past I have defended factually that bloody woman, M Thatcher, when urban ledgends have twisted facts to acuse that B***h of doing something that was not correct. Lets be fair
there is enuf misery on her hands not to need to invent facts.

Hack or not, I try to be acurate and fair !

By the same token Diane Abbott condemns herself over this, a point that Fionn, probably due to malice, ignores.

Fionn acuses Diane Abbott of not declaring her earnings from the BBC. A quick click of the mouse, using the links I posted above, proves this to be incorrect. Please do not suggest that a journalist of Fionn's claimed experience and computer litteracy, was not capable of checking against the "Register of Interests".

I suggest you PM Fionn and ask him for his source of her earnings.

As I said earlier, if Fionn has evidence that Diane Abbott has broken the law then he has a duty to lay his information before the Commisioner for Parliamentry Standards, and the Labour Party Executive. If he has not then I respectfully suggest that a long period of silence from Fionn would be both in order, and of benefit to any serious discussion in this or any other thread.

He has not done so. In which case I suggest that he refrains from posting - Full Stop.

With best wishes,

Gareth

PS if you wish to continue this discuission outside of the forum PM me, or E-Mail me at gcw72@hotmail,com

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 09 Nov 03 - 09:19 PM

I went to the hurdy-gurdy/bagpipes gathering at Audlem yesterday, hence I'm a bit late getting back to this thread, and hence perhaps Gareth's frustration.

Gareth raised two points with me. On the question of Ms Abbott's income, I'm afraid I relied on a BBC report, maybe in Jeremy Vine's Sunday politics slot a week or two ago. So far as the reporter could ferret out (because the info is withheld from the public domain), the typical MP rakes in about £190k a year in salary and allowances/expenses, a large proportion of which area at fixed rates and can be claimed without receipts, regardless of whether the expense was actually incurred. Being an MP also opens up other potential sources of income - for instance the Telegraph said this week that Ms Abbott's fee for flogging her story of the present episode will probably equate to the £10,000 school fees she is forking out.

The other point was something I read in one of the broadsheets this week but I can't remember which. I'm just heading off to the Balkans for a couple of weeks so I'll PM Gareth with a bit more on this if I remember. (While I'm away, I trust he'll find someone else to fill his life.) From Gareth's links on this point I assume he is saying Abbott had covered the telly money in her reference to "occasional journalism," but I may have overlooked something in my present haste. Gareth may think that full-programme participation every week in a televised politics show is covered by a reference to "occasional journalism," but I'm afraid I don't. Commendably responsible thought about the parliamentary commissioner, Gareth, but I couldn't be bothered.

Ake, Gareth is offended that my income has sometimes come from journalism, but he's as well rambling here as in bed. I'm sorry if our spats sometimes demean the threads, however. Just skip any posts from him, and from me too, because I do occasionally retort.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 03 - 09:27 AM

You all are sure a bunch fit to keep me away from socialism..self righteous or what ?

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: ard mhacha
Date: 12 Nov 03 - 01:38 PM

Abbott is right, why should she send her son to mix in a school full of raggy-assed, snotty nosed,socialists brats. Ard Mhacha.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Nov 03 - 07:31 PM

Guest..9 27 AM
If you'r influenced by an egocentric shower of arseholes like us, your not fit to be a socialist..
Seriously ,has anybody got any idea whats going to replace socialism as an alternative to the right,now that its been completely dis credited by its proponents...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: Gareth
Date: 12 Nov 03 - 07:51 PM

Well. needless to say at the time of posting Fionn has not bothered to PM me - What a surprise !!!

The rest of his post is his usual sneers, and deliberate misinformation on an MP's income and my attitude.

As Fionn's coments are generalised a number of points


1/. MP's Office and research costs are pad for by the Parlimentary Fee's Offive, against vouchers, reciepts etc.. The money does not go into the MP's pocket.

2/. Some montrhs ago I was asked to install a bit of standard party software into our local MP's computer system. No go, as this LAN was supplied by the Fees office I was not allowed to do so by the Parlimentary IT people (Yes using NT) - It's use was political, not parlimentary.

Instead the MP concerned had to buy out of his own pocket a PC and Printer to run it. Which he was happy to do.

3/. On the odd bit of reseach, or other work etc I do for South Wales MP's and AM's for which I can charge (ie non party political), I have to justfy those charges with time sheets, receipts, etc. before the the fees office, or the Assembly will pay me. - Oh and incase your wondering my earnings on this are less than £1000 pa.

Not the same story you are touting around is it Fionn ??

Finally Fionn acusses me of denigrating his making a living from journalism. - Balls - I despise Fionn because he makes his living as a proffessional anti, desperatly trying to get into Parliament himself.

Perhaps if Fionn was capable of pointing at a positive article by himself I might have a reason to appologise, but untill such time I see no reason why myself, any intelligent 'Catter, or the public should treat him other than as a squalid pain.

BTW I have no doubt that "ANON" will acuse me of attacking Fionn whilst he is away - Interesting, I have had no difficulty in logging in through another computter in the past, in Wales, or elsewhere !

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 26 Nov 03 - 11:36 AM

Sorry to revive a thread that's past it's sell-by date, but Gareth won't be able to sleep at night until I do. (For his information, I did log on to the internet quite often while in the Balkans, but unlike him I don't live my life in these threads and had other priorities.)

His three numbered points above don't seem to have any bearing at all on what I said earlier, in particular my remark that many MP expenses are claimed as fixed allowances for which receipts are not required. I made no reference at all to office and research costs which are a separate matter entirely.

To pick up on another point in his last post, I'm a bit puzzled as to why he would think I'm desperately trying to get into parliament. I've never expressed the slightest interest in this, and though I have often held office in the Labour party and trade-union movement, I've always made it clear that I did not want to represent the Labour party in any public arena. Skirting close to expulsion from Labour as I have done over the past ten years would not seem a sensible strategy for seeking nomination as a parliamentary candidate.

To go back to the point about Abbott failing to register her BBC earnings, which I did not have time to clear up before heading to Croatia, here is an extract from the "London Spy" column of the Daily Telegraph (5 November):

Since it was revealed that Labour MP Diane Abbott is sending her son to the posh City of London school, some have wondered how she will afford the annual fees of more than £10,000. After all, her entry in the most recent Register of Members' Interests mentions no additional income on top of the basic MP's salary of £56,538.

But Abbott's entry is incorrect. For Spy can reveal that she has failed to register the cash that BBC1 has been paying her - since January - to appear on its Thursday night political review, This Week.

"Any remunerated work taken on by an MP, unless completely unrelated to parliamentary matters, has to be registered within four weeks of that interest coming about if it amounts to more than £550," the official in charge of the register explained yesterday.

Abbott, it seems, has therefore broken Commons rules. Should a fellow MP wish to complain, she could expect a serious rap on the knuckles.

"It was an oversight," she said yesterday. "There was no attempt at concealment: I thought I had declared something, but it seems that's not the case."

As to how much Abbott has earned, her co-star Michael Portillo - who does register such interests - includes two separate payments of "between £5,000 and £10,000" for appearances on the programme between January and July this year.

I think this should clear things up for Gareth. I did check for myself and found the situation to be as reported; moreover the Daily Telegraph's education correspondent (who did not write the above item) tells me that she also had checked and had discovered the failure to register but decided not to include the fact in her own reports.

Gareth has been kind enough to suggest that I enter a complaint, but as the article makes clear, this would be for one of Abbott's fellow MPs to take up. I'd be happy to give Gareth some links that might help his understanding of the registration process if he would find that helpful.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: Gareth
Date: 26 Nov 03 - 07:02 PM

Newark ? Fionn. Now don't tell me that you were the same person who when he failed to get the Labour Parlimentary nomination then spent the rest of his time collecting "evidence" on financial fraud against the selected candidate ?

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 27 Nov 03 - 05:57 AM

Well I suppose I can see why Gareth has wandered away from the argument. To be honest, I'd rather deal with the wilder personal stuff in PMs than keep a dead thread in the list, but since he keeps posting it for all to see, I feel obliged to keep the record straight.

No, I am not the "same person" who did those things in Newark, who no doubt had a different name from mine anyway. (My name is Peter Kirker, as Gareth knows.) I am notorious myself for making silly mistakes, but I would have thought it better to check before speculating on an allegation like this.

As I thought I'd made clear, I have never expressed interest in standing for any parliamentary seat in any party's name. Neither am I a member of Newark Labour Party any more than I was ever an official of Buckingham Labour Party (Gareth's last peculiar theory). With respect, I suggest that if Gareth has any more of these ideas, he tests them out on me via PMs before putting them in the forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: GUEST,Frankham
Date: 27 Nov 03 - 01:46 PM

Aketon, you ask how can people espouse socialism when there are
those on the left who send their children to private schools?
First of all not socialists do this. Second, many are thought to be
socialists when in fact they are branded by right wingers as such.

Socialism is a economic and political philosophy and like any
other ideological construct, there are different ways to interpret
it. You are looking for consistency in an all too human world which
is tilting at windmills. Many of the principles are workable
applied to politics and economics regardless of the practioners and their embracing or rejecting of some parts or all of it.

You might as well say that any form of ideology is invalid when
compromised by any who say they follow it. So in that logic,
all religion, political parties, philosophical thought has to be invalid because someone doesn't follow it to the letter.

Socialism is also a large tent and there are many warring tribes that live beneath it. It's rare to find socialists that agree conclusively about everything. It's not a lock-step sheep herded type of thing but requires a lot of thinking and rehashing to
define it.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Nov 03 - 05:43 PM

Hi Frank Iv been a Socialist most of my life,but iv begun to see that lust for power and human greed always spoil the ideal.
This world is always going to be a cesspit, if we rely on politics to make things better.
Im reminded of the story of my hero Akenaton,leader of the mightiest empire on earth who got "socialism".He got rid of all the old gods and declared everyone "Sons of the Sun".The one true God,the life force.He believed that once every body thought like him ,there would be no need for armies or war.He neglected the military and within a few years the priests had "done him up like a kipper" to get their old lucrative jobs back.....Nothing changes...... Ake.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Nov 03 - 05:27 PM

"Be thou incapable of change in that which is right,and men will rely upon thee. Establish unto thyself principles of action; and se that thou ever act according to them.First know that thy principles are just,and then be thee".....


    AKHENATON.....1300 BC.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: kendall
Date: 30 Nov 03 - 07:41 PM

He was that odd looking Pharoe, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 06 Feb 04 - 06:45 AM

Just an update on poor forgetful Diane Abbott. The rest of this post is lifted from the (London) Daily Telegraph of Feb 3, 2004.

Second probe for Abbott

Diane Abbott's failure to declare outside earnings is to be the subject of a second investigation by the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner, Sir Philip Mawer. Last week, Abbott was forced to make a formal apology to the Commons for "forgetting" to register the £17,500 she earned as a pundit on the BBC programme This Week.

Now a second batch of earnings, from the London radio station LBC, are to come under scrutiny. In July, Abbott and Ann Widdecombe stood in for presenter Nick Ferrari. Widdy declared her earnings ("up to £5,000"), but Abbott did not.

Tory MP Andrew Rosindell has submitted a formal complaint, which Sir Philip will investigate.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: mooman
Date: 06 Feb 04 - 07:00 AM

Clearly a case of onset of CRAFT's* syndrome in Diane's case...


* Can't Remember A F*****g Thing

Peace,

moo

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Feb 04 - 08:16 AM

I'm gobsmacked- the Left can include flawed characters- just like the Right?

Unbelievable.

Subject: RE: BS: Left Hypocricy
From: freda underhill
Date: 06 Feb 04 - 08:45 AM

very good mooman - Craft's syndrome - hope I remember that one..

freda