Friday, 1 February 2013

Private Principles

It is no more or less "hypocritical" for a politician of any party to send his or her child to a commercial school than it is for a politician of any other party to do so. At least Labour politicians ever use the schools for which they legislate, unlike most Lib Dems or practically all Conservatives.

As Harold Wilson made manifest while both Prime Minister and a parent, there has never been any Labour Party policy to abolish these strange institutions, which sell themselves as especially adept at putting pupils through an examination system which is largely rubbish anyway, and which frequently embody the views that adolescence ought to be lived out in single-sex residential environments while the relationship between parents and children ought to be strictly financial and nothing more.

Meaning that Diane Abbott was no more or less a hypocrite than any Conservative or Liberal Democrat, including Nick Clegg. She certainly acquitted herself better than Tony Blair or Harriet Harman, who did in fact send their children to schools that it was then, although mysteriously not for very much longer, the Labour Party policy to abolish.


  1. Diane Abbott is not a hypocrite?

    You do mean that Labour MP who decided that the dreadful Labour-created comprehensives that she is so keen on for everyone else's children, weren't good enough for her own children, right?

    You do mean the lady who said she only goes private (with money from taxpayers priced out of private schools by her party) because "West Indian mums care more about their kids"?

    Let's not bring up Diane Abbott, shall we?

    The woman is beyond parody, and beneath contempt.

  2. Not at all. Wrong on every count.

  3. She has said and done all the things I listed-check the record and get your facts right.

  4. You started with a question, to which the answer is No.

    You got worse from there.

    And you had not read the original post.

    That's right-wing youth for you. In Britain, at any rate. Purely social, and absolutely nothing to do with politics.

  5. Every problem we have with social mobility today dates back to the Labour Party's disgraceful, disgraceful assault on this country's grammar schools.

    Just when state school kids were beating private-school kids to Oxbridge palces, in record numbers.

    This pack of frauds have destroyed education in this country bu closing the grammar schools.

    Tony Crosland (that vile left-wing fanatic) vandalised Britain's schools and murdered the potential of millions.

    At least Abbott admitted on Andrew Neil's show that her own decision to send her kids to private school was "completely indefensible"

    Pity the rest of the Labour Party elite don't have the same honesty.

  6. You have got the wrong party. Everyone except Peter Hitchens and me always does on this one, even people who know the truth perfectly well. So, just this once, it is not because you are an overeager 15-year-old, although of course that is what you are.

    Why does no one ever ask the party that really did destroy the grammar schools why its politicians never, ever, ever use the school system that they themselves created?

  7. You despicable little liar.

    You think you can get away with lying because I don't know the history?

    It was Antony Croslan who vowed to "close every f-ing grammar school" in Britain and introduced Circular 10/65 (which the Tories scrapped).

    You won't get away with lying, just because I may be younger than you.

  8. That really is the only thing that you know about the subject, isn't it?

  9. I know full well (if that's what you mean) that many grammar schools closed under the Tories-although Major famously wanted "a grammar school in every town".

    The difference is, it wasn't a party principle, simply a failure to reverse what Labour had done.

    By the way, why do you pretend P. Hitchens agrees with you?

    He says hatred of grmmar schools is "Labour's real Clause 4"

  10. So, in answer to my question, yes.