Who do you support for Labour party leader?

[Johnuk123]

Being politically against the idea of grammar schools and private schools doesn't make you a hypocrite for using them.

Really ? That statement is ridiculous.
It's the very definition of hypocrisy.

Similar blatant hypocrisy is Corbyn's idea that we should get rid of nuclear weapons but if we did ever need them we could turn to America for help.

 

[PHILIPE]

In his seech today, Jeremy Corbyn pledged rights for unions and workers, but in the next breath promises equality.

 

[backontrack]

Tom Watson's speech was fantastic. He is a great orator.

McDonnell and Corbyn did actually show some willingness to move on in that conference; much improved from this time last year. So, all in all, a good showing.

(However, I still find Len McCluskey absolutely repulsive. He is awful.)

 

[Busaholic]

Being politically against the idea of grammar schools and private schools doesn't make you a hypocrite for using them. I've never understood the argument. .

IF you've spent a lot of your political career saying that grammar schools and/or private schools should not be allowed to exist, and in the case of grammars have played a part in their destruction, then it becomes a case of 'don't do what I do, do what I say' and, in most people's book, I would suggest, that is rank hypocrisy.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

IF you've spent a lot of your political career saying that grammar schools and/or private schools should not be allowed to exist, and in the case of grammars have played a part in their destruction, then it becomes a case of 'don't do what I do, do what I say' and, in most people's book, I would suggest, that is rank hypocrisy.

I don't think that's necessarily the case. It may be a case of, being realistic and living in the World as it is, not the World as you'd ideally like it to be. You may well believe that it would be better in principle for all if all schools were comprehensives. However, when you are selecting a school for your child, you don't have the luxury of redesigning the education system in your area. You have to make an imperfect choice from those options which the authorities have made available. If the choice is such that (you believe) the only way to get a good education for your child is to send him to the local grammar school (for example because the very existence of that grammar school has damaged the quality of all other local schools by removing the most academic children from them), then you would arguably be failing in your duty as a parent if you didn't seek to send your child there.

You may well believe that the relevant authorities have failed by giving you a sub-optimal set of choices, and it would be better if all the local schools were comprehensives, but ultimately you have to make the best (or at least, the least bad) choice for your child out of those options that are actually available. That by itself is not hypocritical.

 

[Busaholic]

I don't think that's necessarily the case. It may be a case of, being realistic and living in the World as it is, not the World as you'd ideally like it to be. You may well believe that it would be better in principle for all if all schools were comprehensives. However, when you are selecting a school for your child, you don't have the luxury of redesigning the education system in your area. You have to make an imperfect choice from those options which the authorities have made available. If the choice is such that (you believe) the only way to get a good education for your child is to send him to the local grammar school (for example because the very existence of that grammar school has damaged the quality of all other local schools by removing the most academic children from them), then you would arguably be failing in your duty as a parent if you didn't seek to send your child there.

You may well believe that the relevant authorities have failed by giving you a sub-optimal set of choices, and it would be better if all the local schools were comprehensives, but ultimately you have to make the best (or at least, the least bad) choice for your child out of those options that are actually available. That by itself is not hypocritical.

Or you could do a Hazel Blears and, as part of your remit as a minister in the Department of Health, introduce cuts which result in the proposed closure of accident and emergency departments of hospitals all over the country and , when these duly come to pass in your Salford constituency, you have the brass neck to go on the picket line! Of course, as the pigs in Animal Farm came to realise, there is no such thing as hypocrisy by those in power, it's only the 'little people' who get exercised by such petty concerns.

 

[47802]

Really ? That statement is ridiculous.
It's the very definition of hypocrisy.

Similar blatant hypocrisy is Corbyn's idea that we should get rid of nuclear weapons but if we did ever need them we could turn to America for help.

Indeed and typical of the left wing, hence my dislike of the left not only for their policies but also for their blatant hypocrisy.

I have I bit of a dilemma in that there is a by election in my constituency, the main parties are not standing against Labour out of respect for Jo Cox, however given my extreme dislike of Corbyn and his Marxist side kick I am tempted to vote for one of the minor parties that will be standing, I have spoken to a few others in my constituency who also feel the same way.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Indeed and typical of the left wing, hence my dislike of the left not only for their policies but also for their blatant hypocrisy.

I have I bit of a dilemma in that there is a by election in my constituency, the main parties are not standing against Labour out of respect for Jo Cox, however given my extreme dislike of Corbyn and his Marxist side kick I am tempted to vote for one of the minor parties that will be standing, I have spoken to a few others in my constituency who also feel the same way.

If you want to work within the system to change it you have to give yourself the best chance you can.

This is liking accusing communists of being hypocrites for owning property: an unfocused accusation of hypocrisy designed to shut down debate.

 

[47802]

If you want to work within the system to change it you have to give yourself the best chance you can.

This is liking accusing communists of being hypocrites for owning property: an unfocused accusation of hypocrisy designed to shut down debate.

Rubbish that's just an excuse for the utter hypocrisy of the left.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Rubbish that's just an excuse for the utter hypocrisy of the left.

That isn't an argument. That's just repeating your point.

Like I said - if you want to change the system you have to work with the tools you're given. If you can't accept that then you're simply anti-democratically trying to prevent those who disagree with you from being on the same footing as you. If you haven't got any real response, I can only conclude that you don't like having that advantage taken away and that you just want to snipe at the left without actually responding to the real arguments.

Now, if Corbyn refused to get rid of grammar schools upon getting into power then you might have a point, but then I don't think there's any question that that's exactly what he'd do. The issue with grammar schools is what happens to those who don't get into them - it has nothing to do with those who actually go to the selective schools themselves.

 

[47802]

That isn't an argument. That's just repeating your point.

Like I said - if you want to change the system you have to work with the tools you're given. If you can't accept that then you're simply anti-democratically trying to prevent those who disagree with you from being on the same footing as you. If you haven't got any real response, I can only conclude that you don't like having that advantage taken away and that you just want to snipe at the left without actually responding to the real arguments.

Now, if Corbyn refused to get rid of grammar schools upon getting into power then you might have a point, but then I don't think there's any question that that's exactly what he'd do. The issue with grammar schools is what happens to those who don't get into them - it has nothing to do with those who actually go to the selective schools themselves.

Well I still think its total rubbish, fundamentally if your a left winger who doesn't believe in private schools then why are you sending our kids to private schools? someone I know personally supposedly very left wing, yet he runs his own business and is the most capitalistic person I know in terms of running his own business, also sends his kids to private school, yet me as centre ground person with no particular axe to grind against private schools would probably never send my kids to private school even if I could afford it. Yes you can call working within the system if you like, but I don't.

If I don't believe in something then I will try not to do something I don't believe in.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Well I still think its total rubbish, fundamentally if your a left winger who doesn't believe in private schools then why are you sending our kids to private schools, someone I know personally supposedly very left wing, yet he runs his own business and is the most capitalistic person I know in terms of running his own business, also sends his kids to private school, yet me as centre ground person with no particular axe to grind against private schools would probably never send my kids to private school even if I could afford it. Yes you can call working within the system if you like, but I don't.

I don't care what you call it - what matters is what it is, not the name for it. You've got to work with the tools you're given or you're never going to stand a chance of getting anything changed. I could equally call any right-winger a hypocrite for opposing other people's use of them, as they supposedly stand for personal choice.

Thinking no-one should have an advantage does not entail putting yourself at a disadvantage against people who have that advantage. That's why it's an unfocused accusation of hypocrisy, because it makes no bl**dy sense.

 

[47802]

I don't care what you call it - what matters is what it is, not the name for it. You've got to work with the tools you're given or you're never going to stand a chance of getting anything changed. I could equally call any right-winger a hypocrite for opposing other people's use of them, as they supposedly stand for personal choice.

Thinking no-one should have an advantage does not entail putting yourself at a disadvantage against people who have that advantage. That's why it's an unfocused accusation of hypocrisy, because it makes no bl**dy sense.

That's just the usual bull**** and hypocrisy from the left wing who will say anything that suits them.

Hopefully the majority of people in country who I think are centre ground will tell Corbyn and his Marxist side kick to get lost as they did with Michael Foot in the eighties. The disappointment for me is that I would much prefer a moderate Labour Government running the country over the Tories but that doesn't look very likely anytime soon.

 

[TheKnightWho]

That's just the usual bull**** and hypocrisy from the left wing who will say anything that suits them.

Hopefully the majority of people in country who I think are centre ground will tell Corbyn and his Marxist side kick to get lost as they did with Michael Foot in the eighties. The disappointment for me is that I would much prefer a moderate Labour Government running the country over the Tories but that doesn't look very likely anytime soon.

You keep saying it's hypocrisy without explaining yourself, and you're not actually addressing what I'm saying.

I'll repeat myself: Thinking no-one should have an advantage does not entail putting yourself at a disadvantage against people who have that advantage.

If you can't actually come up with a decent response beyond "that's bull****" then I really don't think you have any business saying that I'm saying "anything that suits [me]", because it sounds like you don't have any idea what you're talking about and you're just parroting what you read in the paper.

 

[47802]

You keep saying it's hypocrisy without explaining yourself, and you're not actually addressing what I'm saying.

I'll repeat myself: Thinking no-one should have an advantage does not entail putting yourself at a disadvantage against people who have that advantage.

If you can't actually come up with a decent response beyond "that's bull****" then I really don't think you have any business saying that I'm saying "anything that suits [me]", because it sounds like you don't have any idea what you're talking about and you're just parroting what you read in the paper.

Yes its an argument you can use to justify your hypocrisy, and some people might think its valid but I don't end of.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Yes its an argument you can use to justify your hypocrisy, and some people might think its valid but I don't end of.

Yes and you've provided absolutely no reasoning, which means you're talking out of your a*se.

Nice circular reasoning though. "I'm correct, therefore any argument against me must be wrong."

 

[47802]

Yes and you've provided absolutely no reasoning, which means you're talking out of your a*se.

Nice circular reasoning though. "I'm correct, therefore any argument against me must be wrong."

Why I'm I talking out of my arse, If I don't believe in something then I don't do it that's pretty simple.

Your saying that a left winger who doesn't believe in something is justified in doing something they don't believe because it may disadvantage them in the current system. OK fine but to me that's not a justifiable reason and frankly any politician could use that as an excuse to justify just about anything.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Indeed and typical of the left wing, hence my dislike of the left not only for their policies but also for their blatant hypocrisy.

Perhaps, rather than simply throwing this kind of wild accusation about, you could explain precisely in what manner you think those politicians being discussed have shown hypocrisy? Because so far all I've seen in this thread are wild accusations of hypocrisy that are not substantiated by actual reasoning or evidence.

To help you, here's a definition of hypocrisy, from the Cambridge English Dictionary:

a situation in which someone pretends to believe something that they do not really believe, or that is the opposite of what they do or say at another time:

 

[TheKnightWho]

Why I'm I talking out of my arse, If I don't believe in something then I don't do it that's pretty simple.

Your saying that a left winger who doesn't believe in something is justified in doing something they don't believe because it may disadvantage them in the current system. OK fine but to me that's not a justifiable reason and frankly any politician could use that as an excuse to justify just about anything.

Yes, and it would be nice if you would explain why my reasoning is wrong instead of insulting me repeatedly.

And no, you couldn't use it to justify just about anything. It's an argument against a particular accusation of hypocrisy - it can't really be adapted to much else.

 

[backontrack]

Yes, and it would be nice if you would explain why my reasoning is wrong instead of insulting me repeatedly.

And no, you couldn't use it to justify just about anything. It's an argument against a particular accusation of hypocrisy - it can't really be adapted to much else.

I'm not sure he actually insulted you in that post - for once.

 

[47802]

Perhaps, rather than simply throwing this kind of wild accusation about, you could explain precisely in what manner you think those politicians being discussed have shown hypocrisy? Because so far all I've seen in this thread are wild accusations of hypocrisy that are not substantiated by actual reasoning or evidence.

To help you, here's a definition of hypocrisy, from the Cambridge English Dictionary:

the original comment referred to Diane Abbot who in her own words described as indefensible, I'm sure there well be plenty to dig out re Corbyn and McDonnell over time

 

[backontrack]

That's just the usual bull**** and hypocrisy from the left wing who will say anything that suits them.

Hopefully the majority of people in country who I think are centre ground will tell Corbyn and his Marxist side kick to get lost as they did with Michael Foot in the eighties. The disappointment for me is that I would much prefer a moderate Labour Government running the country over the Tories but that doesn't look very likely anytime soon.

What do you think 'left wing' is? Is it left of Bliar, or left of Miliband, or just a term for Corbyn's followers?

 

[TheKnightWho]

I'm not sure he actually insulted you in that post...

He came pretty close. Either way, it doesn't change my point.

 

[backontrack]

the original comment referred to Diane Abbot who in her own words described as indefensible, I'm sure there well be plenty to dig out re Corbyn and McDonnell over time

And what of all the other hypocritical politicians out there?

Abbott is a hypocrite. We know that. But when Labour supporters are hypocrites, they're not any worse than all the Tory hypocrites out there.

The semantics of what party one follows does not make the hypocrisy any more/less severe.

 

[47802]

Yes, and it would be nice if you would explain why my reasoning is wrong instead of insulting me repeatedly.

And no, you couldn't use it to justify just about anything. It's an argument against a particular accusation of hypocrisy - it can't really be adapted to much else.

I'm I insulting you? I think you are insulting me.

Why is your view wrong I'm not saying wrong but fundamentally I don't agree with it, to me its potentially just an excuse and justification for hypocrisy, yes there might be some merit in your argument but how do we know someone is actually doing it for that reason, and it doesn't look good for persuading people to your cause.

Put simply in my view you should practice what you preach.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I'm I insulting you? I think you are insulting me.

Why is your view wrong I'm not saying wrong but fundamentally I don't agree with it, to me its potentially just an excuse and justification for hypocrisy, yes there might be some merit in your argument but how do we know someone is actually doing it for that reason, and it doesn't look good for persuading people to your cause.

Put simply in my view you should practice what you preach.

Preaching that everyone should be on the same level means that you put that into practice when you get into government. It doesn't mean putting yourself at a disadvantage.

My point is that it isn't hypocrisy, and until you explain otherwise all you're doing is telling me that you're correct over and over again without actually explain why.

Saying that someone might be doing it for different reasons isn't a very good argument either - we can't mind-read, so we take them in good faith until they demonstrate we should do otherwise.

 

[47802]

And what of all the other hypocritical politicians out there?

Abbott is a hypocrite. We know that. But when Labour supporters are hypocrites, they're not any worse than all the Tory hypocrites out there.

The semantics of what party one follows does not make the hypocrisy any more/less severe.

Yes there are some from other parties as well but the left seem to be very good at it

 

[backontrack]

He came pretty close. Either way, it doesn't change my point.

True.

I may as well add my two pence to this subject, while I'm here: I feel that a left-wing government would be good, but not with Corbyn or any of his gang (McDonnell, Abbott, Thornberry) as leader.

To me, Corbyn as a leader is deeply ineffectual. I don't think he's a very good orator, for example. He's shown that he can't control his MPs, but also that he can't control his supporters. All those Momentum trolls needed reining in while they were trashing Angela Eagle, and either Corbyn wasn't interested or he was just too weak to control them.

I don't think too highly of McDonnell, either. Describing people who didn't want Corbyn as 'f***ing useless' isn't a quality I look for in a Shadow Chancellor (let alone an actual Chancellor). Diane Abbott is just plain terrible (I read in the Eye about her trying to stop Finnish nurses from being able to come to London hospitals because she didn't think they were fit to touch black people, for instance), and, as proved over the schooling subject, she's a hypocrite. And remember when Thornberry had that flag gaffe?

Truth is, I feel that they're all too closely associated with Corbyn too. And, aside from being a stubborn wet blanket of a leader, Corbyn is too heavily associated with 1980s politics, which is a major stumbling block. We need someone whose politics looks to the future rather than the past. We need progression...at least, that's what I'd campaign for. Co-operation in reducing emissions and turning completely to renewables (didn't Portugal go a week on solely renewables a while back?), while, at the same time, rearranging our infrastructure spending and trying to sort out our NHS (not with Abbott as Shadow Health Sec).

I identify as left-wing. I'd call myself a socialist. But this shadow government isn't enough for me. It's not progression, and, even if Corbyn had his way, it still wouldn't be progression. I bet you that.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I should probably add that I don't even like Corbyn, and I certainly didn't vote for him. I just think that criticism of him should actually make sense.

 

[47802]

Preaching that everyone should be on the same level means that you put that into practice when you get into government. It doesn't mean putting yourself at a disadvantage.

My point is that it isn't hypocrisy, and until you explain otherwise all you're doing is telling me that you're correct over and over again without actually explain why.

Saying that someone might be doing it for different reasons isn't a very good argument either - we can't mind-read, so we take them in good faith until they demonstrate we should do otherwise.

I think I have already explained why I don't think its a good argument not only for the reasons above but fundamentally if I don't believe in something then I wont do it its that simple, not well its justified because it might put me at a disadvantage otherwise. Clearly we are not going to agree on this point so there isn't much point in going on about it any further.