Who do you support for Labour party leader?

[TheKnightWho]

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.

But it's not practising what you preach if it puts you at a disadvantage and you're preaching that people should be on the same level. As I have explained several times now. The fact that it puts you at a disadvantage is directly relevant, and not a side matter that happens to be annoying.

Do you actually have a response to that point? Because saying we should "agree to disagree" only works when you're not obviously trying to avoid addressing a point you don't have an answer for.

 

[backontrack]

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

I'd say that the right are also very good at it.

Isn't Farage married to a German? I wonder what kind of passport his children have.
Didn't David Cameron erm...you know...have offshore dealings revealed in the Panama Papers?
Haven't several high-profile Tory MPs like Liam Fox and Eric Pickles been revealed to have ludicrous expense claims such as short taxi rides?
Didn't David Cameron once eat a pasty from a shop that had already closed?
Didn't Tory MP Philip Davies make all those bigoted claims while the Tories were kicking up a lot of noise over Naz Shah?
Didn't the Tories continually attack Labour for a lack of Christmas rail services - then shut down all trains on Boxing Day?

 

[47802]

But it's not practising what you preach if it puts you at a disadvantage and you're preaching that people should be on the same level. As I have explained several times now. The fact that it puts you at a disadvantage is directly relevant, and not a side matter that happens to be annoying.

Do you actually have a response to that point? Because saying we should "agree to disagree" only works when you're not obviously trying to avoid addressing a point you don't have an answer for.

Alright lets say I don't believe in private education then simply I don't send my kids to private school.

Right that might put my family at a disadvantage in your eyes and as result it is justified in your view. In my view its not for the following reasons.

1. I am taking part in something I fundamentally disagree with
2. I am seen to be not practising what I preach by others
3. The means justifies the end in your view, not in mine.

As a final point I would also agree with 'Backontrack' regarding Corbyn, McDonnell, and Abbot in that they don't strike me as very capable people, they frankly lack a vision for the future, which also I think applies to our current Prime Minister and many Tories.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Alright lets say I don't believe in private education then simply I don't send my kids to private school.

Right that might put my family at a disadvantage in your eyes and as result it is justified in your view. In my view its not for the following reasons.

1. I am taking part in something I fundamentally disagree with
2. I am seen to be not practising what I preach by others
3. The means justifies the end in your view, not in mine.

As a final point I would also agree with Backontrack regarding Corbyn, McDonnell, and Abbot in that they don't strike me as very capable people, they frankly lack a vision for the future, as does I think our current Prime Minister and many Tories.

And it still puts your kids at a disadvantage. If you want to work outside of the system be my guest, but you won't be anywhere near as successful.

It still isn't practising what you preach though, because it's still putting kids at a disadvantage and not on the same level (which is what you preach).

And I don't see how your final point is relevant. I don't like Corbyn, but I think your incoherent criticism needs to be addressed.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

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

That doesn't make sense. Diane Abbot described what as indefensible?

 

[47802]

That doesn't make sense Diane Abbot described what as indefensible?

Sending her kids to private school. Frankly I'm rather bemused as to how this Woman got to Cambridge because she doesn't come across as being particularly bright, in fact Thick as Pig **** springs to mind every time I hear her speak.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Sending her kids to private school. Frankly I'm rather bemused as to how this Woman got to Cambridge because she doesn't come across as being particularly bright.

You're claiming that Diane Abbot said it was indefensible that she sent her own kids to a private school? Really? I can't find any record of that. Are you sure she didn't say something slightly different, which you're somewhat misquoting?

If you want to show that Diane Abbot was being hypocritical, then you need to show that
(a) She did something that she had stated people should not do, and
(b) There was no change of mind or special circumstances involved that would have justified her behaviour.

So far your answers have been too vague to give much indication either way.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

in fact Thick as Pig **** springs to mind every time I hear her speak.

How lovely! Nice to see that you're basing your views on solid reasoning, and not on - say - insulting people by calling them things like Pig****.

 

[backontrack]

On another note, Me and my Spoon in the Private Eye recently lampooned Corbyn very accurately.

 

[47802]

You're claiming that Diane Abbot said it was indefensible that she sent her own kids to a private school? Really? I can't find any record of that. Are you sure she didn't say something slightly different, which you're somewhat misquoting?

If you want to show that Diane Abbot was being hypocritical, then you need to show that
(a) She did something that she had stated people should not do, and
(b) There was no change of mind or special circumstances involved that would have justified her behaviour.

So far your answers have been too vague to give much indication either way.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


How lovely! Nice to see that you're basing your views on solid reasoning, and not on - say - insulting people by calling them things like Pig****.

Interview from the Daily Mirror

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/diane-abbott-i-sent-my-son-to-private-230293

 

[Butts]

Sending her kids to private school. Frankly I'm rather bemused as to how this Woman got to Cambridge because she doesn't come across as being particularly bright, in fact Thick as Pig **** springs to mind every time I hear her speak.

Remember she attended Newnham College - which incidentally still does not admit Men - probably a "Token Aunty Tom" at that time.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Interview from the Daily Mirror

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/diane-abbott-i-sent-my-son-to-private-230293

OK, so I'll give you that she did say what she did was 'intellectually indefensible'. Going through that interview, she seems to be saying that at the time, she sent her son to a fee-paying school because the local schools were not very good. She also seems to imply that because the Labour Government subsequently improved the state of schooling locally, she would not now need to make the same choice. That appears to be perfectly consistent with a belief that the Government should make state schooling good enough that people shouldn't need to send children to fee-paying schools (which I think is roughly what Diane Abbot's beliefs are) - so if I'm correct, by itself that doesn't seem hypocritical. Besides, describing your own actions as 'intellectually indefensible' sounds rather more akin to an apology rather than to hypocrisy.

There's an interesting comment on Wikipedia:

Her son contacted a radio phone-in to say that his mother was following his own wishes: "She's not a hypocrite, she just put what I wanted first instead of what people thought," he told LBC. He added that he had wanted to go private rather than attend a local state school in Abbott's Hackney constituency.

That seems to imply that Diane Abbot was doing what her son wanted - which might not have been what she herself wanted - in other words respecting the opinions and wishes of someone who possibly disagreed with her. That would definitely not be hypocrisy.

So the only thing we are left with is the issue that Diane Abbot had previously apparently previously criticised other Labour MPs for doing what she then did. That may be hypocritical - depending on precisely what she said, or whether she still stood by her comments. I can't offhand find any reference to what her exact comments were, but the gist I get reading through the Mirror interview is that she seems to be regretting those comments whatever they were, but not being willing to say so. If so, I'd interpret that as a case of being too unwilling to admit mistakes rather than a case of hypocrisy, but I may be wrong.

FWIW, I don't on the whole think very highly of Diane Abbot. But in this particular case, it looks to me like the accusations of hypocrisy against her were not based on a full analysis of all the circumstances, and were probably not entirely fair.

 

[47802]

OK, so I'll give you that she did say what she did was 'intellectually indefensible'. Going through that interview, she seems to be saying that at the time, she sent her son to a fee-paying school because the local schools were not very good. She also seems to imply that because the Labour Government subsequently improved the state of schooling locally, she would not now need to make the same choice. That appears to be perfectly consistent with a belief that the Government should make state schooling good enough that people shouldn't need to send children to fee-paying schools (which I think is roughly what Diane Abbot's beliefs are) - so if I'm correct, by itself that doesn't seem hypocritical. Besides, describing your own actions as 'intellectually indefensible' sounds rather more akin to an apology rather than to hypocrisy.

There's an interesting comment on Wikipedia:



That seems to imply that Diane Abbot was doing what her son wanted - which might not have been what she herself wanted - in other words respecting the opinions and wishes of someone who possibly disagreed with her. That would definitely not be hypocrisy.

So the only thing we are left with is the issue that Diane Abbot had previously apparently previously criticised other Labour MPs for doing what she then did. That may be hypocritical - depending on precisely what she said, or whether she still stood by her comments. I can't offhand find any reference to what her exact comments were, but the gist I get reading through the Mirror interview is that she seems to be regretting those comments whatever they were, but not being willing to say so. If so, I'd interpret that as a case of being too unwilling to admit mistakes rather than a case of hypocrisy, but I may be wrong.

FWIW, I don't on the whole think very highly of Diane Abbot. But in this particular case, it looks to me like the accusations of hypocrisy against her were not based on a full analysis of all the circumstances, and were probably not entirely fair.

Well If I had her views and did what she did then I would regard myself as a hypocrite, but then I'm not left wing and don't have her views about private education.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Well If I had her views and did what she did then I would regard myself as a hypocrite, but then I'm not left wing and don't have her views about private education.

That's basically a restatement of what you said initially - but you've said nothing that backs it up, and you've not identified any fault with my reasoning - which appears to suggest that Diane Abbot's actions were not in fact hypocritical.

Of course, if you know precisely what Diane Abbot's views are (which you seem to be implying that you do), perhaps you could enlighten us as to what her views are, and clarify whether my statement of what I understand Diane Abbot's views are was correct?

 

[47802]

Well if you know precisely what Diane Abbot's views are, perhaps you could enlighten us as to what they are, and clarify whether my statement of what I understand Diane Abbot's views are was correct?

Ok I will rephrase it from what we know of her views which you have outlined fairly well then I would regard her as a hypocrite, I guess you probably wouldn't

 

[Sox]

If you want to show that Diane Abbot was being hypocritical, then you need to show that
(a) She did something that she had stated people should not do, and
(b) There was no change of mind or special circumstances involved that would have justified her behaviour.

I'd rather stick to trains but is this your own private definition of hypocrisy or did you borrow it off somebody else?

As far as I can tell (Google), Diane Abbott stays well clear of condemning Grammar Schools as she knows she will be branded a hypocrite.

However, she has a consistent track record in voting against Academy Status schools. She is an hypocrite because she has used her wealth to buy her way out of local authority control for the education of her own child but would equally conspire to deny that choice to others.

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10001/diane_abbott/hackney_north_and_stoke_newington/divisions?policy=6687

 

[Steveman]

Ok I will rephrase it from what we know of her views which you have outlined fairly well then I would regard her as a hypocrite, I guess you probably wouldn't

She is a total hypocrite and undoubtedly the most racist mp in the commons but gets away with it because she's black which means she's untouchable.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Ok I will rephrase it from what we know of her views which you have outlined fairly well then I would regard her as a hypocrite, I guess you probably wouldn't

But there's still no reasoning there! You've stated time and time again that you think she's a hypocrite. Yet you have failed to give any justification for your views. I've provided you with detailed reasoning for why her actions were probably not hypocritical if you consider them in a bit more detail. You have not shown any fault with my reasoning, from which I can only assume that you have not been able to find any fault with that reasoning.

At no point in all your posts have you shown that Diane Abbot has acted in a manner consistent with the definition of a hypocrite, yet you persist in accusing her of being one.

Do you have any reasoning?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'd rather stick to trains but is this your own private definition of hypocrisy or did you borrow it off somebody else?

Might I suggest you go back and re-read my post. You'll find that I very clearly stated precisely where I got the definition from (and yes, it was a reasonably authoritative source).

As far as I can tell (Google), Diane Abbott stays well clear of condemning Grammar Schools as she knows she will be branded a hypocrite.

However, she has a consistent track record in voting against Academy Status schools. She is an hypocrite because she has used her wealth to buy her way out of local authority control for the education of her own child but would equally conspire to deny that choice to others.

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10001/diane_abbott/hackney_north_and_stoke_newington/divisions?policy=6687

Academy status schools are not remotely the same thing as fee-paying, private schools (and are also not remotely the same thing as grammar schools). It's perfectly possible to be against turning schools into academies but in favour of private fee-paying schools - and in favour of people having the option to send their children to such schools if they wish (I don't know though whether that is Diane Abbot's view). The fact that Abbot has voted against academies is therefore not particularly relevant to this discussion.

 

[47802]

But there's still no reasoning there! You've stated time and time again that you think she's a hypocrite. Yet you have failed to give any justification for your views. I've provided you with detailed reasoning for why her actions were probably not hypocritical if you consider them in a bit more detail. You have not shown any fault with my reasoning, from which I can only assume that you have not been able to find any fault with that reasoning.

At no point in all your posts have you shown that Diane Abbot has acted in a manner consistent with the definition of a hypocrite, yet you persist in accusing her of being one.

Do you have any reasoning?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Might I suggest you go back and re-read my post. You'll find that I very clearly stated precisely where I got the definition from (and yes, it was a reasonably authoritative source).



.

Hang on a minute has she not admitted that her own position is indefensible, and by your own analysis of the comments, which you describe as a apology I would describe it as hypocrisy.

By her actions she is also saying that the state schools are not very good in Hackney which not a good advert for Labour given its been run by Labour since 2001.

She also strikes me and yes this is personal opinion as someone who has a chip on her shoulder both in terms of race and class, the class thing and the politics of envy being the thing that many left wingers suffer from despite the fact the class thing is fast disappearing except in the minds of many left wingers.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I'd rather stick to trains but is this your own private definition of hypocrisy or did you borrow it off somebody else?

Might I suggest you go back and re-read my post. You'll find that I very clearly stated precisely where I got the definition from (and yes, it was a reasonably authoritative source).

Oooops - sorry, my bad here. I just realized on re-reading that I misread your post, so what I wrote wasn't appropriate. Because you used the word 'definition' I thought you were querying the definition of hypocrisy that I quoted earlier from the Cambridge Dictionary - hence my reply. In fact you were asking about my suggestion for what you'd need logically to show to demonstrate hypocrisy. That was mine, not taken from anywhere. (It seems a reasonable set of rules to me though - would you disagree with it?)

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Hang on a minute has she not admitted that her own position is indefensible, and by your own analysis of the comments, which you describe as a apology I would describe it as hypocrisy.

What she said was this:

DA Well it was intellectually indefensible. The idea that you have to pay to send your child to school is.

That's not the same as 'hypocritical' and the second sentence suggests that what she is describing as indefensible wasn't so much her own actions but the state of schools at the time. Her choice of words isn't particularly clear, but I think you're pushing it a lot to interpret that as meaning 'what I did was hypocritical' - that's not there at all in her words.

Let's look at what Diane Abbot actually did, rather than what she said about it afterwards: Was it hypocrisy?

Well the way I see it is: It would be hypocrisy if she said that people should not do something and then did that same thing herself. Would you disagree with that?

What she did was send her son to a fee-paying school, apparently on his request.

So - has she ever said that people should not do that? That people should not listen to the wishes of their children and choose the best possible school for their children out of the options that are available to them. I've looked round and I can't find any record of her saying anything like that. If she'd said so, and was saying that at the time that she sent her son to a private school, then that would clearly be hypocrisy because she'd be doing the opposite of what she said. But since - as far as I can tell - she hasn't said that - then there doesn't appear to be any case against her. (Unless you can find some quote of hers that proves me wrong?)

The view she appears to have expressed is (paraphrasing) that it looks bad for Labour if Labour MPs send their children to selective or fee-paying schools - that appears to be the basis of her criticism of other MPs. So - she certainly has acted in a way that (in her view) is bad for Labour publicity-wise (presumably it would be bad for publicity precisely because too many people would jump to conclusions without looking at the full picture - as has been amply demonstrated in this very thread!). In other words, she put the wishes of her son above political convenience. That seems to me morally like a fairly good thing to do - not something you would normally criticise someone for.

By her actions she is also saying that the state schools are not very good in Hackney which not a good advert for Labour given its been run by Labour since 2001.

She sent her son to a fee-paying school in 2003, and in the mirror interview you linked to, she stated that the schools in the area had improved since then.

DIANE ABBOTT Well, since I made that decision Labour built five new secondary schools in Hackney, one of them with some of the best GCSE results in the country. I wouldn’t have to make the same choice today.

In 2003, Labour had been in control locally for 2 years. I'm not sure whether that's long enough to blame them for the state of schools there at the time.

 

[yorksrob]

She also strikes me and yes this is personal opinion as someone who has a chip on her shoulder both in terms of race and class, the class thing and the politics of envy being the thing that many left wingers suffer from despite the fact the class thing is fast disappearing except in the minds of many left wingers.

In what way is class fast disappearing ?

The very things that encouraged class mobility in the second half of the twentieth century, such as home ownership, free university education, access to higher end employment are becoming less available to working class people than they were.

High property prices, extortionate higher education, unpaid internships - these are all phenomena that are entrenching wealth and privilege, not reducing it.

 

[northwichcat]

Isn't Farage married to a German? I wonder what kind of passport his children have.

Plus Farage is the descendant of an immigrant. Yet he's never used the argument "Don't like me? Well people like me only get created as a result of immigration."

 

[47802]

In what way is class fast disappearing ?

The very things that encouraged class mobility in the second half of the twentieth century, such as home ownership, free university education, access to higher end employment are becoming less available to working class people than they were.

High property prices, extortionate higher education, unpaid internships - these are all phenomena that are entrenching wealth and privilege, not reducing it.

Depends what you call working class, I would say the distinction between working class and Lower Middle class has essentially disappeared while many of those things above have hit the middle class probably more.

Its more a case now of the well off verses the rest of us, plus a non working/poorly paid underclass, but I wouldn't call it the same class distinction of 50 years ago, I'm old enough to remember the first company I worked for in the 1970's it had a works canteen, staff canteen, managers canteen, and directors canteen, I think and hope you would be hard pressed to find that kind of nonsense these days.

 

[Butts]

Depends what you call working class, I would say the distinction between working class and Lower Middle class has essentially disappeared while many of those things above have hit the middle class probably more.

Its more a case now of the well off verses the rest of us, plus a non working/poorly paid underclass, but I wouldn't call it the same class distinction of 50 years ago, I'm old enough to remember the first company I worked for in the 1970's it had a works canteen, staff canteen, managers canteen, and directors canteen, I think and hope you would be hard pressed to find that kind of nonsense these days.

So where do you draw the line in your definition of well off ?

 

[yorksrob]

Depends what you call working class, I would say the distinction between working class and Lower Middle class has essentially disappeared while many of those things above have hit the middle class probably more.

Its more a case now of the well off verses the rest of us, plus a non working/poorly paid underclass, but I wouldn't call it the same class distinction of 50 years ago, I'm old enough to remember the first company I worked for in the 1970's it had a works canteen, staff canteen, managers canteen, and directors canteen, I think and hope you would be hard pressed to find that kind of nonsense these days.

Class might not be codified in the same way as fifty years ago, but it still exists in the form of entrenched wealth and power. Such issues are getting worse, not better.

Sadly I've never worked anywhere with a decent canteen

 

[47802]

Class might not be codified in the same way as fifty years ago, but it still exists in the form of entrenched wealth and power. Such issues are getting worse, not better.

Sadly I've never worked anywhere with a decent canteen

Yes that is true to some degree but I don't see Corbyn's Socialist Labour party as the solution to the problem
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So where do you draw the line in your definition of well off ?

well that's 64,000 dollar question for which many will have different opinions for me it would any household that earns more than 4 times the average wage.

 

[Butts]

Yes that is true to some degree but I don't see Corbyn's Socialist Labour party as the solution to the problem
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


well that's 64,000 dollar question for which many will have different opinions for me it would any household that earns more than 4 times the average wage.

So I ask again who are The Well Off in "It's the well off verses the rest of us"
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes that is true to some degree but I don't see Corbyn's Socialist Labour party as the solution to the problem
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


well that's 64,000 dollar question for which many will have different opinions for me it would any household that earns more than 4 times the average wage.

So are you saying someone on £90,000 per year is not well off ?

 

[northwichcat]

for me it would any household that earns more than 4 times the average wage

So are you saying someone on £90,000 per year is not well off ?

Average household income is £22,044. You could have a situation where a household consists of two working aged parents and three working aged children (especially if there's twins or triplets in the family) or you could have a household consisting of one person with no children. Double the average household income would be a very good income if it's the latter, while it would be a poor amount if it's the former.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Depends what you call working class, I would say the distinction between working class and Lower Middle class has essentially disappeared while many of those things above have hit the middle class probably more.

Its more a case now of the well off verses the rest of us, plus a non working/poorly paid underclass, but I wouldn't call it the same class distinction of 50 years ago, I'm old enough to remember the first company I worked for in the 1970's it had a works canteen, staff canteen, managers canteen, and directors canteen, I think and hope you would be hard pressed to find that kind of nonsense these days.

Not really. Class is very much alive and well, and this "anti-estblishment" attitude you have has been a divide-and-conquer tactic by much of the press.

Class is not entirely about money, but even not taking that into account lumping together people who earn £80k with those who earn £15k in their adult lives is hilarious.

I'd also say that upper middle and lower middle class people live very different lives, knowing many on both sides of the divide.

 

[47802]

Not really. Class is very much alive and well, and this "anti-estblishment" attitude you have has been a divide-and-conquer tactic by much of the press.

Class is not entirely about money, but even not taking that into account lumping together people who earn £80k with those who earn £15k in their adult lives is hilarious.

I'd also say that upper middle and lower middle class people live very different lives, knowing many on both sides of the divide.

If you say so, although I think class and the politics of envy is mainly and obsession of the left wing. Where as if someone up the road has a large house and a couple of Rolls Royce's parked outside I don't really care good for them, as long as I can have a reasonable standard of living and we enable the poorest in society to have a reasonable standard of living that's all I'm interested in.

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

and the politics of envy is mainly and obsession of the left wing.

...it's an obsession of the right-wing press.