Labour hypocrisy...champagne socialists - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit

Labour hypocrisy...champagne socialists

£0.00 @
Shami C. shadow attorney general opposes grammar schools for all by Conservatives but sends her own child to selective school for a fee...how very socialist...haha what a crock Corbynistas !
davewave Avatar
4m, 2w agoPosted 4 months, 2 weeks ago
Shami C. shadow attorney general opposes grammar schools for all by Conservatives but sends her own child to selective school for a fee...how very socialist...haha what a crock Corbynistas !
Tags:
davewave Avatar
4m, 2w agoPosted 4 months, 2 weeks ago
Options

All Comments

(73) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
Page:
#1
let's face it her and baroness Warsi of Dewsbury were never elected but both have power. I wonder if it was on merit or something else....
banned 3 Likes #2
shadey12
let's face it her and baroness Warsi of Dewsbury were never elected but both have power. I wonder if it was on merit or something else....

There's plenty others like that, why pick on them 2, is it their ethnicity ?
1 Like #3
Bermudaboy
shadey12
let's face it her and baroness Warsi of Dewsbury were never elected but both have power. I wonder if it was on merit or something else....

There's plenty others like that, why pick on them 2, is it their ethnicity ?


​warsi sticks in my mind because I was born and I lived in Dewsbury. shami because she was mentioned.
2 Likes #4
Some Leftiers-than-thou have claimed an exceptionalism of religion Mr & Mrs T Blair or race Ms D Abbott or special needs Ms Ruth Kelly, in order to justify going private. Others have resorted to claiming never to have been that Left-wing in the first place. After all, with the rest of Left-wing ideals so bankrupt, maybe belief in state education as an engine of social change was equally worthless
Many hundreds have done this including councillors, whilst pushing for others to support comprehensives
They always have the same lame excuse and should all be shamed for their hypocrisy which they will readily admit
#5
nothing at all got to do with corbyn!
so when something gets wrong with this thread will it be your fault op!!
3 Likes #6
In what way is someone who opposes state grammar schools and sends their child to a fee-paying non-state school different to someone who supports grammar schools and sends their child to a fee-paying non-state school?

Politicians are hypocrites. It looks as though some people have only just discovered this. (_;)
#7
RonChew
In what way is someone who opposes state grammar schools and sends their child to a fee-paying non-state school different to someone who supports grammar schools and sends their child to a fee-paying non-state school?
Politicians are hypocrites. It looks as though some people have only just discovered this. (_;)

Well she says ‘In my lifetime, I have met too many people, including incredibly bright, successful people, who carry that scar of failing the 11-plus.’ yet she has put her own child through a selection exam. The only difference is that rather than it being a school based solely on merit, it requires a fee.

Either she's against selection or she isn't.
#8
It has been shown that opening these Grammar schools means a poorer standard of schools in the area for all who don't get in. Maybe she wants equality for everyone and therefore better standards for everyone?
#9
zwerty
It has been shown that opening these Grammar schools means a poorer standard of schools in the area for all who don't get in. Maybe she wants equality for everyone and therefore better standards for everyone?

It's very easy to argue for equality for everyone, when that doesn't include you or your kids.

She's against selection, yet she put her child through a selection exam. That's hypocrisy. In fact it's the definition of hypocrisy. If you look in the dictionary under hypocrisy, the word simply won't be there because we've changed it's spelling to Chakrabarti. It's just easier.
#10
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
RonChew
In what way is someone who opposes state grammar schools and sends their child to a fee-paying non-state school different to someone who supports grammar schools and sends their child to a fee-paying non-state school?
Politicians are hypocrites. It looks as though some people have only just discovered this. (_;)
Well she says ‘In my lifetime, I have met too many people, including incredibly bright, successful people, who carry that scar of failing the 11-plus.’ yet she has put her own child through a selection exam. The only difference is that rather than it being a school based solely on merit, it requires a fee.
Either she's against selection or she isn't.
I suspect that you haven't got children. If you did have children, you would, like any parent, want to ensure that they got the best education that you can afford.

I oppose the 11+ despite having sat and passed it many years ago. More recently, my children have sat and passed the 11+, partly because I was fairly certain that they would pass but mainly because I wanted to get them the best available state education in the area in which I live. And, because the schools are selective, that education is at a grammar school. It's a sad fact of life that, in areas where there are selective schools, the best teachers end up teaching in the grammar schools.
#11
RonChew
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
RonChew
In what way is someone who opposes state grammar schools and sends their child to a fee-paying non-state school different to someone who supports grammar schools and sends their child to a fee-paying non-state school?
Politicians are hypocrites. It looks as though some people have only just discovered this. (_;)
Well she says ‘In my lifetime, I have met too many people, including incredibly bright, successful people, who carry that scar of failing the 11-plus.’ yet she has put her own child through a selection exam. The only difference is that rather than it being a school based solely on merit, it requires a fee.
Either she's against selection or she isn't.
I suspect that you haven't got children. If you did have children, you would, like any parent, want to ensure that they got the best education that you can afford.
I oppose the 11+ despite having sat and passed it many years ago. More recently, my children have sat and passed the 11+, partly because I was fairly certain that they would pass but mainly because I wanted to get them the best available state education in the area in which I live. And, because the schools are selective, that education is at a grammar school. It's a sad fact of life that, in areas where there are selective schools, the best teachers end up teaching in the grammar schools.

You'd suspect incorrectly and we have rather similar stories, except I like Grammar schools.

I benefitted from a Grammar school education and my children might do as well. I support her right to send her kid to any school she wants and I think her decision is absolutely understandable and what any parent would do.

But it's hypocritical to say selection is wrong for someone else's kid and not for your own. That's irrefutable but I understand. The workforce is competitive so why not give your kid an advantage whilst actively working to disadvantage others. Cold-hearted but smart.
1 Like #12
It's not champagne socialists, it's politics. Politics is a career and they are all tories at heart. Just go with different parties to make a career.
2 Likes #13
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
RonChew
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
RonChew
In what way is someone who opposes state grammar schools and sends their child to a fee-paying non-state school different to someone who supports grammar schools and sends their child to a fee-paying non-state school?
Politicians are hypocrites. It looks as though some people have only just discovered this. (_;)
Well she says ‘In my lifetime, I have met too many people, including incredibly bright, successful people, who carry that scar of failing the 11-plus.’ yet she has put her own child through a selection exam. The only difference is that rather than it being a school based solely on merit, it requires a fee.
Either she's against selection or she isn't.
I suspect that you haven't got children. If you did have children, you would, like any parent, want to ensure that they got the best education that you can afford.
I oppose the 11+ despite having sat and passed it many years ago. More recently, my children have sat and passed the 11+, partly because I was fairly certain that they would pass but mainly because I wanted to get them the best available state education in the area in which I live. And, because the schools are selective, that education is at a grammar school. It's a sad fact of life that, in areas where there are selective schools, the best teachers end up teaching in the grammar schools.
You'd suspect incorrectly and we have rather similar stories, except I like Grammar schools.

I benefitted from a Grammar school education and my children might do as well. I support her right to send her kid to any school she wants and I think her decision is absolutely understandable and what any parent would do.

But it's hypocritical to say selection is wrong for someone else's kid and not for your own. That's irrefutable but I understand. The workforce is competitive so why not give your kid an advantage whilst actively working to disadvantage others. Cold-hearted but smart.
You honestly think her kids are going to struggle? They are sorted for connections and contacts even if they fail miserably at school.
#14
EN1GMA
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
RonChew
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
RonChew
In what way is someone who opposes state grammar schools and sends their child to a fee-paying non-state school different to someone who supports grammar schools and sends their child to a fee-paying non-state school?
Politicians are hypocrites. It looks as though some people have only just discovered this. (_;)
Well she says ‘In my lifetime, I have met too many people, including incredibly bright, successful people, who carry that scar of failing the 11-plus.’ yet she has put her own child through a selection exam. The only difference is that rather than it being a school based solely on merit, it requires a fee.
Either she's against selection or she isn't.
I suspect that you haven't got children. If you did have children, you would, like any parent, want to ensure that they got the best education that you can afford.
I oppose the 11+ despite having sat and passed it many years ago. More recently, my children have sat and passed the 11+, partly because I was fairly certain that they would pass but mainly because I wanted to get them the best available state education in the area in which I live. And, because the schools are selective, that education is at a grammar school. It's a sad fact of life that, in areas where there are selective schools, the best teachers end up teaching in the grammar schools.
You'd suspect incorrectly and we have rather similar stories, except I like Grammar schools.
I benefitted from a Grammar school education and my children might do as well. I support her right to send her kid to any school she wants and I think her decision is absolutely understandable and what any parent would do.
But it's hypocritical to say selection is wrong for someone else's kid and not for your own. That's irrefutable but I understand. The workforce is competitive so why not give your kid an advantage whilst actively working to disadvantage others. Cold-hearted but smart.
You honestly think her kids are going to struggle? They are sorted for connections and contacts even if they fail miserably at school.

No doubt. Dulwich College, then on to somewhere like Durham, Kings or St Andrews to do PPE or Law and then they might do a bit of actual work before joining a policy think-tank and then entering public life in some way.

At least his mum has torpedoed her political career in the space of a week. She'll make a career as a low-rent talking head for the next 20 years, infuriating people as she always has.
#15
She's against selection, yet she put her child through a selection exam. That's hypocrisy. In fact it's the definition of hypocrisy.
.............................
She wants the best for her children - right now that is a Grammar school. How is that hypocrisy? Should she send her kids to a worse school, affecting their future, just to make a point? Or can she send them to the best schools while still fighting for the best for all? I don't see why anyone would see an issue here.
#16
zwerty54
She's against selection, yet she put her child through a selection exam. That's hypocrisy. In fact it's the definition of hypocrisy.
.............................
She wants the best for her children - right now that is a Grammar school. How is that hypocrisy? Should she send her kids to a worse school, affecting their future, just to make a point? Or can she send them to the best schools while still fighting for the best for all? I don't see why anyone would see an issue here.

She's against selection, she sent her son to a school based on selection. I don't have a problem with any parent wanting the best for their kid, but why work to stop others wanting the same. Either selection is wrong and can leave 'scars' (her word) or it's acceptable.

(There's also three state secondaries rated 'Outstanding' by OFSTED in the Dulwich area).
#17
Fact is, most people if not all, would send their kids to a paying school if they could afford it, regardless of political views or part affiliation. It's just natural to want the best for your kids.

Is a fee paying school different to a grammar school? In terms of entrance? Or is it a case of you can get into a fee paying school if you can afford it and a grammar school if you pass the exam?
1 Like #18
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1337442050/twitter.jpg
#19
YouDontWantToKnow
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1337442050/twitter.jpg


​Possible stupid question, did you make that?
#20
EN1GMA
Fact is, most people if not all, would send their kids to a paying school if they could afford it, regardless of political views or part affiliation. It's just natural to want the best for your kids.
Is a fee paying school different to a grammar school? In terms of entrance? Or is it a case of you can get into a fee paying school if you can afford it and a grammar school if you pass the exam?
I think that the political argument is purely about state grammar schools which only admit those who pass the entrance exam but are free.

There are other non-state schools, some of which call themselves grammar schools (e.g. Manchester Grammar School), which have admission exams but still charge fees. The standards of these entrance exams are very variable and the pass mark is usually set at such a level that they will get the right number of pupils to produce the right amount of fee income.

Obviously, the further down the pecking order the school is, the lower the entrance requirements are. Really, all that parents who send their children to the lesser schools pay for is smaller classes, which, allegedly, benefit children though the government would tell you otherwise.
2 Likes #21
Bermudaboy
shadey12
let's face it her and baroness Warsi of Dewsbury were never elected but both have power. I wonder if it was on merit or something else....
There's plenty others like that, why pick on them 2, is it their ethnicity ?

Are there? Perhaps you can list them or even give just a few examples. Cant be hard if there are plenty.

Personally I believe anyone who would deny poor people the chance to give their children a decent education whilst at the same time sending her own child to a school that costs £19,000 a year is a hypocrite.

You seem to think ethnicity immunises people from legitimate criticism, if so you are a racist.
#22
Being against selection is an ideal. It is a reflection of the bigger picture. It certainly does not mean you should ignore the best education for your kids within the system currently have.
1 Like #23
Zxwerty
Being against selection is an ideal. It is a reflection of the bigger picture. It certainly does not mean you should ignore the best education for your kids within the system currently have.

So she is against selection except where her own kid is concerned and that's not hypocrisy?
2 Likes #24
I do love that even when Labour are committed to election suicide by being idealists, they can't even do that right.

Actually no, I hate it because the opposition to the government should be credible. It shouldn't be a sixth-form lark.
1 Like #25
davewave

Shami C. shadow attorney general opposes grammar schools for all by Conservatives but sends her own child to selective school for a fee...how very socialist...haha what a crock Corbynistas !
There is a huge difference between a person acting in personal capacity and official capacity. Namely one is a personal choice and the other is a national choice.
.
A person choice could be , I eat vegetarian, but my national policy choice could be 100g of meat daily.
Another could be, I spend all my money, but my official capacity could recommend a natuonal saving of 5% or support ISA,
Another could be, I have no child, this is a personal choice, but my official recommendation for national policy could be1.5- 2.2 children
Another one could be, I choose to rent or live in a mansion, but one could have an official policy to build council houses
..so so on.
.
You get paid a salary for your official function as an employee and not paid a salary to do what you like that is consistent with your personal preference. Therefore it is perfectly in order and how it should be.
#26
splender
davewave

Shami C. shadow attorney general opposes grammar schools for all by Conservatives but sends her own child to selective school for a fee...how very socialist...haha what a crock Corbynistas !
There is a huge difference between a person acting in personal capacity and official capacity. Namely one is a personal choice and the other is a national choice.
.
A person choice could be , I eat vegetarian, but my national policy choice could be 100g of meat daily.
Another could be, I spend all my money, but my official capacity could recommend a natuonal saving of 5% or support ISA,
Another could be, I have no child, this is a personal choice, but my official recommendation for national policy could be1.5- 2.2 children
Another one could be, I choose to rent or live in a mansion, but one could have an official policy to build council houses
..so so on.
.
You get paid a salary for your official function as an employee and not paid a salary to do what you like that is consistent with your personal preference. Therefore it is perfectly in order and how it should be.
but isnt Corbyn bringing a new kind of politics?
Is this how Soviet/Chinese socialism should work in Britain, no one gets the opportunities unless you're connected/related to senior comrades > well done Shami!
#27
Fred Smith
Zxwerty
Being against selection is an ideal. It is a reflection of the bigger picture. It certainly does not mean you should ignore the best education for your kids within the system currently have.
So she is against selection except where her own kid is concerned and that's not hypocrisy?
No, see #25.
.
One is a personal choice and the other is an official choice which is a job function. No employer pays you to do a job using your personal choice. You are supposed to do what you like in your own free time and money.
#28
Zxwerty
Being against selection is an ideal. It is a reflection of the bigger picture. It certainly does not mean you should ignore the best education for your kids within the system currently have.
and if anyone tries to open up that same education system to people without as much money but based on merit then as a Socialist you look to block it - what a joke she is!
#29
splender
Fred Smith
Zxwerty
Being against selection is an ideal. It is a reflection of the bigger picture. It certainly does not mean you should ignore the best education for your kids within the system currently have.
So she is against selection except where her own kid is concerned and that's not hypocrisy?
No, see #25.
.
One is a personal choice and the other is an official choice which is a job function. No employer pays you to do a job using your personal choice. You are supposed to do what you like in your own free time and money.
entirely hypocritical move by Shami!
#30
EN1GMA
Fact is, most people if not all, would send their kids to a paying school if they could afford it, regardless of political views or part affiliation. It's just natural to want the best for your kids.

Is a fee paying school different to a grammar school? In terms of entrance? Or is it a case of you can get into a fee paying school if you can afford it and a grammar school if you pass the exam?
yes your description is correct regarding entrance - more of a socialist meritocracy (which Labour is against oO )
#31
davewave
splender
davewave

Shami C. shadow attorney general opposes grammar schools for all by Conservatives but sends her own child to selective school for a fee...how very socialist...haha what a crock Corbynistas !
There is a huge difference between a person acting in personal capacity and official capacity. Namely one is a personal choice and the other is a national choice.
.
A person choice could be , I eat vegetarian, but my national policy choice could be 100g of meat daily.
Another could be, I spend all my money, but my official capacity could recommend a natuonal saving of 5% or support ISA,
Another could be, I have no child, this is a personal choice, but my official recommendation for national policy could be1.5- 2.2 children
Another one could be, I choose to rent or live in a mansion, but one could have an official policy to build council houses
..so so on.
.
You get paid a salary for your official function as an employee and not paid a salary to do what you like that is consistent with your personal preference. Therefore it is perfectly in order and how it should be.
but isnt Corbyn bringing a new kind of politics?
Is this how Soviet/Chinese socialism should work in Britain, no one gets the opportunities unless you're connected/related to senior comrades > well done Shami!
That's a diffrent topic, But staying to topic, she has done the right thing for her family, that's what a mum and child should do. It has nothing to do with politics. It is a family choice.
.
When your mum and dad put you at a school, they did not use politics, or did they? Mine didn't, we just went to the best choice available in the area.
#32
Fred Smith
Bermudaboy
shadey12
let's face it her and baroness Warsi of Dewsbury were never elected but both have power. I wonder if it was on merit or something else....
There's plenty others like that, why pick on them 2, is it their ethnicity ?
Are there? Perhaps you can list them or even give just a few examples. Cant be hard if there are plenty.

Personally I believe anyone who would deny poor people the chance to give their children a decent education whilst at the same time sending her own child to a school that costs £19,000 a year is a hypocrite.

You seem to think ethnicity immunises people from legitimate criticism, if so you are a racist.
If you say that poor children are denied decent education, how many days have you campaigned at your local LEA (Local Education Authority) and are you sitting in any (parent) education committees? Name us just one committee or action group that you belong to if you feel strongly about it? ( I had belonged to two once.)
#33
Fred Smith
Zxwerty
Being against selection is an ideal. It is a reflection of the bigger picture. It certainly does not mean you should ignore the best education for your kids within the system currently have.
So she is against selection except where her own kid is concerned and that's not hypocrisy?
Yes, I can oppose bankers ripping us off, but I still use banks.
#34
EN1GMA
It's not champagne socialists, it's politics. Politics is a career and they are all tories at heart. Just go with different parties to make a career.

Same old. Same old..

I dont know why you bother ? ;)
#35
davewave
Zxwerty
Being against selection is an ideal. It is a reflection of the bigger picture. It certainly does not mean you should ignore the best education for your kids within the system currently have.
and if anyone tries to open up that same education system to people without as much money but based on merit then as a Socialist you look to block it - what a joke she is!

You really think poor and disadvantaged kids will get into these schools? Not likely... or it would be in very small numbers. Why not aim for a better system for all.

Edited By: zwerty6 on Oct 10, 2016 18:46
#36
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
zwerty54
She's against selection, yet she put her child through a selection exam. That's hypocrisy. In fact it's the definition of hypocrisy.
.............................
She wants the best for her children - right now that is a Grammar school. How is that hypocrisy? Should she send her kids to a worse school, affecting their future, just to make a point? Or can she send them to the best schools while still fighting for the best for all? I don't see why anyone would see an issue here.
She's against selection, she sent her son to a school based on selection. I don't have a problem with any parent wanting the best for their kid, but why work to stop others wanting the same. Either selection is wrong and can leave 'scars' (her word) or it's acceptable.

(There's also three state secondaries rated 'Outstanding' by OFSTED in the Dulwich area).
See my #25.
.
There is no hypocrisy, name me one child that she actually stopped from going to that school?! She merely made the best selection for her child as any parent could do. All children could apply to any existing fee paying school today, just like her.
.
Just like Trump, he can say he gropes women, but he could preach ordinary Americans not to grope women, surely, this got to be a good decent characteristic to do?!
#37
zwerty6
davewave
Zxwerty
Being against selection is an ideal. It is a reflection of the bigger picture. It certainly does not mean you should ignore the best education for your kids within the system currently have.
and if anyone tries to open up that same education system to people without as much money but based on merit then as a Socialist you look to block it - what a joke she is!
You really think poor and disadvantaged kids will get into these schools? Not likely... or it would be in very small numbers. Why not aim for a better system for all.
Its the whole point so yes it was in place before.
Its the system which was working and which was modified to a largely fee-based system in the 1970's onwards - seems its OK for Shami's kids but bad news for those who cant afford the fees.
#38
I have seen and met many champagne socialists. My experience of them is that they drink the champagne, talk the talk but do not walk the walk. So now I don't think champagne socialist exists , no more so than tap water capitalists.
#39
splender
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
zwerty54
She's against selection, yet she put her child through a selection exam. That's hypocrisy. In fact it's the definition of hypocrisy.
.............................
She wants the best for her children - right now that is a Grammar school. How is that hypocrisy? Should she send her kids to a worse school, affecting their future, just to make a point? Or can she send them to the best schools while still fighting for the best for all? I don't see why anyone would see an issue here.
She's against selection, she sent her son to a school based on selection. I don't have a problem with any parent wanting the best for their kid, but why work to stop others wanting the same. Either selection is wrong and can leave 'scars' (her word) or it's acceptable.
(There's also three state secondaries rated 'Outstanding' by OFSTED in the Dulwich area).
See my #25.
.
There is no hypocrisy, name me one child that she actually stopped from going to that school?! She merely made the best selection for her child as any parent could do. All children could apply to any existing fee paying school today, just like her.
.
Just like Trump, he can say he gropes women, but he could preach ordinary Americans not to grope women, surely, this got to be a good decent characteristic to do?!
She is speaking as a member of the government and plans to stop all kids from a meritocratic(only) Grammar School system!
1 Like #40
splender
I have seen and met many champagne socialists. My experience of them is that they drink the champagne, talk the talk but do not walk the walk. So now I don't think champagne socialist exists , no more so than tap water capitalists.
you describe meeting Champagne Socialists and then beleiving they dont exist - huh? oO

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Looking for Twitter login?
Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!