BS: Left Hypocricy

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who all got that way by exploiting the poor" What a pompus and self-righteous geberalization that is...not to mention outdated.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.