I always find it amazingly funny how ultra left wing politicians, who spout on about their “Socialist credentials” to all and sundry, often prefer to attack their own colleagues as “class lackeys and lick spittles," if they fail to meet the standards of ‘socialism,’ that they themselves purport to follow, but then often fail to keep the faith themselves.
 |
| Diane Abbott Showing Herself In An Academic Light |
I was reminded of this particular story today, when a comedian brought it up on a radio show where the politician involved was a guest, whilst not new, it nicely illustrates the sheer personal bullshit that socialism is based upon.
It concerns a particular favourite of mine, a left wing socialist and race warrior, who in her younger days could see a class traitor in every bush, Ms Diane Abbott, life time Labour MP for Hackney, who has pronounced on her colleagues perceived socialist failings, whenever they clashed with her view of true socialism.
When Tony Blair sent his son to a “selective” school i.e. they pick pupils on exam or financial qualities etc, she criticised him and said that “people voted Labour because they believed in equality” …
Not content with this, she then took on Solicitor General Harriet Harman, who also sent her son to a selective grammar school (Its funny how when they get the money, their kids always have compelling reasons why they should go to an elitist school denied to the rest of the socialist voting plebs …. hmm), with the comment "She made the Labour Party look as if we do one thing and say another."
Ms Abbott, whose main claim to fame is that she was the first black female MP, is no stranger to elitism in education, having been to Harrow grammar school and Cambridge University (which I guess makes her fairly unique in Hackney?). She was then fast tracked into the Civil Service (another elitist piece of tosh, that ensures that the privileged remain in the upper echelons of the civil service, and don’t dirty their hands in real civil service jobs like “job centres”), before moving through PR and Journalism, into ‘safe seat’ labour politics, in a constituency with a high ethnic minority population who will always vote for her on a tribal, ethnic basis.
She also has had an opinion on the education of (or rather the education failure of) black boys. Her argument apparently was that white teachers, especially white women teachers, couldn't deal with black boys, who needed a black male role model to control them, presumably because they had no black male role models at home.
She didn’t question why it is that so many black women were abandoned by the black fathers of their children, and had to bring the children up alone, ah well can’t expect too much from a socialist, after all the suggestion that 'only blacks', and especially 'black males', should teach black boys, could possibly be considered “racist” if it was uttered by a white woman MP, talking about ‘only having white male teachers teach white boys’. I guess in some worlds, it's only whites who are capable of being racists?
Still her possible double standards on “Anti Racism” are maybe no surprise? After all when it came to the education of her only son James (for whom only a double-barrelled surname was good enough), she barely paused in her condemnation of private education systems and the Labour Party elite who used the system for their children, before deciding that the state education in Hackney and Newington was not good enough for her only child, and despatched him to a selective school at £10,000 ($15,000) p.a. Obviously, when she is paying for it, there are no longer any problems about white male and females teaching this particular young black man, in an elitist environment.
To be fair, when challenged she said it was an “indefensible” decision, but that she wouldn’t change her mind ... so much for socialist solidarity. No one thought to ask her what she would have done if she had succeeded in having all private schools closed? Strangely the fact that her constituents couldn’t ever afford the education remedy that she took, because she had both the money and the power, appears not to be her main reason for saying it was ‘indefensible’.
She was attacked by erstwhile left-wing colleagues for this, in fairly forthright terms, which brings us back nicely to my opening observation about how much pleasure the left gets from attacking itself. She was also attacked by the Black caucus in her constituency, and in the wider black communities, for both this and her opinions on Jamaican and Nigerian corruption.
Maybe people in Hackney didn’t “vote Labour because they believed in equality” …maybe they believed in the rich and powerful being more equal, Oops hang on, that’s not very socialist is it? It's only sad that the voters in these modern day "rotten boroughs", who would apparently vote for a brick if it was the "official labour party" candidate, apparently don't have the intelligence to see these hypocrites for what they are.
It's this complete apathy in some inner city wards, that allows these left-wingers to carry on 'representing' areas, which they apparently are unable, or unwilling, to try to change for the better. What excuse can Ms Abbott have, for apparently deciding that with a permanent Labour Council, Education Authority, and MP, she was unable to find one decent local state school in Hackney for her son ... but was happy for her constituents to have this second class education for their kids?
Oddly I think Ms Abbott seems a bit of a laugh when I see her on TV, and probably doesn't take herself too seriously, so it’s a shame if she felt she had to play the 'left-wing socialist card' to get on in the Labour Party, when the political tide was turning, and she could have made it as a centre right Blairite Labour MP anyway. She is obviously more inclined towards calling it as it is, and not as some socialist daydream.
This whole episode seems to have ended her career hopes unless one of the loony left takes over the party, and is seemingly a high price to pay for hypocrisy, but there are so many whores in politics that probably she will live through it, and come back as a government minister. Lets hope that it’s not as a minister for education, as the final act of a hypocrite is to deny to others the advantages that you have had yourself e.g. Non repayable Student Grants, and Private or Grammar education.
The term 'Champagne Socialist' was devised for these rich individuals, who get away with this left-wing hypocrisy. There are many in the New Labour experiment who have been tarred with this particular brush, but their apathetic voters seem oblivious to the insult to their intelligence that millionaire socialists represent.
Ms Abbott’s quoted remark about her actions;
“It's absolutely true that it's inconsistent, to put it mildly, for someone who believes in a fairer and more egalitarian society to send their child to a private, fee-paying school. I've always believed that private schools prop up the class structure of society. It's inconsistent, it's indefensible and that's why I haven't sought to defend it”. Diane Abbott: [On her decision to send her son to a private school.]
The quote that upset the Jamaicans and Nigerians
...when it comes to corruption, Nigerians make Jamaicans, and every other nationality in the world, look like mere amateurs. Diane Abbott.
When Tony Blair sent his son to a “selective” school i.e. they pick pupils on exam or financial qualities etc, she criticised him and said that “people voted Labour because they believed in equality” …
Not content with this, she then took on Solicitor General Harriet Harman, who also sent her son to a selective grammar school (Its funny how when they get the money, their kids always have compelling reasons why they should go to an elitist school denied to the rest of the socialist voting plebs …. hmm), with the comment "She made the Labour Party look as if we do one thing and say another."
Ms Abbott, whose main claim to fame is that she was the first black female MP, is no stranger to elitism in education, having been to Harrow grammar school and Cambridge University (which I guess makes her fairly unique in Hackney?). She was then fast tracked into the Civil Service (another elitist piece of tosh, that ensures that the privileged remain in the upper echelons of the civil service, and don’t dirty their hands in real civil service jobs like “job centres”), before moving through PR and Journalism, into ‘safe seat’ labour politics, in a constituency with a high ethnic minority population who will always vote for her on a tribal, ethnic basis.
She also has had an opinion on the education of (or rather the education failure of) black boys. Her argument apparently was that white teachers, especially white women teachers, couldn't deal with black boys, who needed a black male role model to control them, presumably because they had no black male role models at home.
She didn’t question why it is that so many black women were abandoned by the black fathers of their children, and had to bring the children up alone, ah well can’t expect too much from a socialist, after all the suggestion that 'only blacks', and especially 'black males', should teach black boys, could possibly be considered “racist” if it was uttered by a white woman MP, talking about ‘only having white male teachers teach white boys’. I guess in some worlds, it's only whites who are capable of being racists?
 |
| No Colour Issues For Private Education .... |
Still her possible double standards on “Anti Racism” are maybe no surprise? After all when it came to the education of her only son James (for whom only a double-barrelled surname was good enough), she barely paused in her condemnation of private education systems and the Labour Party elite who used the system for their children, before deciding that the state education in Hackney and Newington was not good enough for her only child, and despatched him to a selective school at £10,000 ($15,000) p.a. Obviously, when she is paying for it, there are no longer any problems about white male and females teaching this particular young black man, in an elitist environment.
To be fair, when challenged she said it was an “indefensible” decision, but that she wouldn’t change her mind ... so much for socialist solidarity. No one thought to ask her what she would have done if she had succeeded in having all private schools closed? Strangely the fact that her constituents couldn’t ever afford the education remedy that she took, because she had both the money and the power, appears not to be her main reason for saying it was ‘indefensible’.
She was attacked by erstwhile left-wing colleagues for this, in fairly forthright terms, which brings us back nicely to my opening observation about how much pleasure the left gets from attacking itself. She was also attacked by the Black caucus in her constituency, and in the wider black communities, for both this and her opinions on Jamaican and Nigerian corruption.
Maybe people in Hackney didn’t “vote Labour because they believed in equality” …maybe they believed in the rich and powerful being more equal, Oops hang on, that’s not very socialist is it? It's only sad that the voters in these modern day "rotten boroughs", who would apparently vote for a brick if it was the "official labour party" candidate, apparently don't have the intelligence to see these hypocrites for what they are.
It's this complete apathy in some inner city wards, that allows these left-wingers to carry on 'representing' areas, which they apparently are unable, or unwilling, to try to change for the better. What excuse can Ms Abbott have, for apparently deciding that with a permanent Labour Council, Education Authority, and MP, she was unable to find one decent local state school in Hackney for her son ... but was happy for her constituents to have this second class education for their kids?
Oddly I think Ms Abbott seems a bit of a laugh when I see her on TV, and probably doesn't take herself too seriously, so it’s a shame if she felt she had to play the 'left-wing socialist card' to get on in the Labour Party, when the political tide was turning, and she could have made it as a centre right Blairite Labour MP anyway. She is obviously more inclined towards calling it as it is, and not as some socialist daydream.
This whole episode seems to have ended her career hopes unless one of the loony left takes over the party, and is seemingly a high price to pay for hypocrisy, but there are so many whores in politics that probably she will live through it, and come back as a government minister. Lets hope that it’s not as a minister for education, as the final act of a hypocrite is to deny to others the advantages that you have had yourself e.g. Non repayable Student Grants, and Private or Grammar education.
The term 'Champagne Socialist' was devised for these rich individuals, who get away with this left-wing hypocrisy. There are many in the New Labour experiment who have been tarred with this particular brush, but their apathetic voters seem oblivious to the insult to their intelligence that millionaire socialists represent.
Ms Abbott’s quoted remark about her actions;
“It's absolutely true that it's inconsistent, to put it mildly, for someone who believes in a fairer and more egalitarian society to send their child to a private, fee-paying school. I've always believed that private schools prop up the class structure of society. It's inconsistent, it's indefensible and that's why I haven't sought to defend it”. Diane Abbott: [On her decision to send her son to a private school.]
The quote that upset the Jamaicans and Nigerians
...when it comes to corruption, Nigerians make Jamaicans, and every other nationality in the world, look like mere amateurs. Diane Abbott.
Update 2019: If you want to know how this all worked out for her and her pampered son James .... go here.
***************************************
This post is from the site No PC Views.
if you are viewing it elsewhere, then it has been scraped or stolen.
You may wish to view the post in its original context by visiting No PC Views (http://no-pc.blogspot.co.uk/)
No comments:
Post a Comment
All comments are welcomed, or even just thanks if you enjoyed the post. But please make any comment relevant to the post it appears under. Off topic comments will be blocked or removed.
Moderation is on for older posts to stop spamming and comments that are off topic or inappropriate from being posted .... comments are reviewed within 48 hours. I don't block normal comments that are on topic and not inappropriate. Vexatious comments that may cause upset to other commentators, or that are attempting to espouse a particular wider political view, are reviewed before acceptance. But a certain amount of debate around a post topic is accepted, as long as it remains generally on topic and is not an attempt to become sounding board for some other cause.
Final decision on all comments is held by the blog author and is final.
Comments are always monitored for bad or abusive language, and or illegal statements i.e. overtly racist or sexist content. Spam is not tolerated and is removed.
Commentaires ne sont surveillés que pour le mauvais ou abusif langue ou déclarations illégales ie contenu ouvertement raciste ou sexiste. Spam ne est pas toléré et est éliminé.