Woe betide anyone wanting to become a politician. Any eager teenager keen on life as a minister better be prepared to a full and exhaustive trawl through their private life. It matters not whether they have have left school. And one more piece of advice, after the bullying, tribal attacks on 16-year-old Rory Weal, if you happen to hold left-wing view, make sure you’re on the bread line.
Following in the well-known footsteps of William Hague, the then hairy Thatcherite youth who appeared at the Conservative Party conference in 1977, Rory Weal rose up earlier this week at the Labour Party conference to defend the welfare state.
Before a gripped conference he said: ‘Two and a half years ago, the home I had lived in since birth was repossessed… I owe my entire wellbeing and that of my family to the welfare state. That is why I joined the Labour Party. That very same welfare state is being ruthlessly ripped apart by a vicious, rightwing Tory-led government.’
Powerful stuff. The Labour faithful loved it and gave him a standing ovation as the 16-year-old stalked off stage, ever-so-slightly chuffed by the reception. And he was lauded. He spoke with passion, conviction, fluency and anger. Whether it is true really doesn't matter. Even Ladbrokes pencilled in the odds of him becoming Prime Minister by 2040.
But there’s a long way to go yet. After all, the right wing press have only just got started. Seemingly affronted by the sight of a coherent, lucid 16 year-old leftie, the tribal Tory media, with their Lib Dem lapdogs, have gone into overdrive with an extraordinary campaign of character assassination. It turns out that Rory once went to a private school and even now goes to a grammar. His father was once a millionaire. How dare he talk of the welfare state, they froth, seemingly forgetting it's there for everyone and not just the destitute. If you have money, it seems, you can't be left wing.
And the circumstances of his life seem to have been ignored and forgotten. As a 13/14 year-old he lost his childhood home and his family disintegrated. I don't know what services he relied upon but something worked. Here is a kid who, despite personal trauma, has secured good GCSEs and has a very promising future. But, the right choose instead to try and besmirch his character instead.
The predictable hacks were out in force. The despicable Guido Fawkes took a pop, commentators on the Daily Telegraph and the egregious Melanie Phillips had a go.
In fact, I think you would struggle to find a more explicit example of the terrible, irresponsible power of the media than her column. Vindictive, bullying, and utterly unreasonable, it reveals nothing but the inadequate nature of Melanie Phillips. Her article, under the quite paranoid headline of 'The Labour Mantra of hate finds a new star in 16-year-old Weal', can be found here and an excellent critique by The Guardian's Zoe Williams here.
On Twitter, the conversation has followed similar lines. Rory Weal has faced severe personal attacks. Oddly, his actual points have rarely been challenged. I had a long debate with a couple of Liberal Democrat supporters about Rory and both were convinced he misrepresented his position. Neither, of course, could realistically defend such an argument as they know so little of his personal details. Had attacking his arguments been the focus that would not have been an issue.
Instead, we've had the very ugly spectacle of tribal Tories and loyal Lib Dems attack and question the life of a 16 year-old boy simply because he had the temerity to speak fluently, attack their political positions and not be poor enough.
As Owen Jones fluently argues in Chavs, the real class warriors are Tories. How true he is. Only now the Lib Dems have joined them.
If he'd got up and spoke at the Tory conference, you'd all be guffawing at the Hague-a-like snot-nosed public/grammar-school boy who grew up in a mansion.
I don't mind people questioning what 16 year-old might want to get up at a conference. Christopher Howse wrote a perfectly decent piece in which he basically said such a person was a 'freak'. But that isn't what people, on the whole, have said. Instead they question his motives and complain he isn't poor enough.
As for Melanie Phillips' article, it's one of the most appallingly vindictive pieces I've seen by her, and that's against some pretty stiff competition.
I don't condone the attacks on his character, but there are a few prescient points on this: 1. He supports a party which strongly supports the 'comprehensive' education system, yet he has attended private/grammar schools, and as such, has benefited from their higher standards. It seems a tad hypocritical of him to benefit from such institutions and then tacitly support their abolition. It smacks of champagne socialism; 2. The Tories and Lib Dems are certainly not the only political parties to resort to ad hominem attacks. A seem to remember a Labour by-election campaign run on the basis of 'keep out the Tory toffs' a few years ago. Labour supporters are all to ready to criticise Cameron & Osborne for their Bullingdon Club days. I'm not condoning the ad hominem attacks made by the coalition parties, but it is a bit rich for Labour to criticise the tactic when they use it themselves.
1 - he doesn't choose which school he goes to, unlike his politics which he clearly has chosen. However, going to a private or grammar school does not preclude a person from holding left wing views. For the record, I went to a private school & my parents have a big house.
2 - I certainly wouldn't defend the frequently cretinous election campaigns run by Labour against both the Lib Dems & Tories (and vice versa). The Tory toff tactic deployed at a byelection before the election was fatuous in the extreme. Having said that, mentioning the Bullingdon occasionally seems like a perfectly reasonable tactic. After all, John Prescott was never allowed to forget he was waiter.
I never said that going to a private/grammar school should preclude one from holding left wing views. He is entitled to support whichever party he likes. However, having been granted opportunities that are denied to most people in the 'comprehensive' education system (I speak from experience, having been through it), it is hypocritical of him to support a party which advocates the closing of those opportunities. And other people are entitled to point that out.
Of course, there is a line to be drawn. There is a difference between confronting apparent hypocrisy and an unwarranted ad hominem attack. The Philips article does go too far, it is right that she is called out for it, but with the appropriate caveats.
The Labour party hasn't wanted to shut private schools for decades. As for grammar schools, as education minister Thatcher closed more of them than Shirley Williams.
Why are they opposing the Academy programme then? Why do they not want better schools to be able to select brighter students? Why did they establish league tables which make difference between an A grade and a C grade, stifling excellence?
Labour support the status quo, which is piss-poor. Master Weal has benefited from exceptional institutions, but supports a party which advocates policies completely at odds with them. That is hypocrisy, whichever way you look at it.
But to describe the attacks on Rory Weal as class war, is ridiculous. He's a grotty, snot-nosed teenager, who should be fingering girls behind the bike-shed, not talking at Labour conference.
Precocious talent is one thing. Precocious political activism, is creepy. We've got too many political anoraks with no experience of anything else in the British Body politic as it is. He's just one more identikit party machine clone in the making.
Rule: No public political office 'till you're 40. There you go. Sensible policies for a happy britian.
"!The danger of the academy programme is that it drives down standards of most schools while those with sharper elbows benefit further."
Simply not true. No evidence for that assertion. And the free-schools programs from the US have benefited the most deprived MORE than other secotors of society.
Being a libertarian, I respect other individuals. I will always seek to defend them from attack. I do not respect their opinions. I will attack their opinions if I disagree with them.
Master Weal does indeed hold views different to mine, but that is not the source of his hypocrisy. As I have explained, that is because he has benefited from the private/grammar school system, and yet supports a party which has policies completely at odds with that system, and by saying nothing on the matter, thereby tacitly supports those policies.
He does not deserve unwarranted personal attacks. He does deserve to have his opinions subjected to scrutiny.
It is not hypocrisy as he did not choose where he is schooled.
And if we look at the Swedish model of free schools, which Gove is keen on, it has been shown in research published last year the biggest winners were those children who came from middle class homes.
The impact on the worst off was negligible, if at all.
I understand your point on Master Weal's choice, but the fact remains that he has benefited. Given the choice, would he choose to move from his grammar school and enter a mainstream comprehensive? I somehow doubt it.
So if the Swedish model doesn't have any effects on the worst off, then it's not having any negative effects. Nobody loses out, and some people are better off. Fantastic - sign me up.
There is no evidence that the academies programme will have any ill effects on the most disadvantaged pupils. It will simply stop holding the brighter ones back. Good.
And if you apply a genuine voucher system widely, instead of labour councils (who genereally represent poor people) obstructing progress, then the poor, if you look at the US evidence (their society is more like ours than sweden's is) the poor will benefit MOST.
Even if the middle class benefit, and the poor don't it's still a benefit, no?
Well at least you're talking about the issues. I disagree. Sadly, however, I haven't got time now for a protracted conversation on education policy just now, but will try and respond in detail later.
Why has this unedifying spectacle - the reputation of a 16 year old boy being trashed - captured the imagination of so many people?
I suspect that their hair-splitting arguments about his grammar school and millionaire father have very little to do their real motivation.
Young people are hated and despised by large numbers of people in Britain. I see someone has already described him as a freak. Doubtless someone else will be along in a bit to accuse him of being gay.
Sceptical journalist on national daily. Left-wing liberal, frustrated with all politicians, regardless of political persuasion.
And I love cricket.
All entries are in a personal capacity.
19 comments:
If he'd got up and spoke at the Tory conference, you'd all be guffawing at the Hague-a-like snot-nosed public/grammar-school boy who grew up in a mansion.
And you know it.
"True Class warriors are Tories"?: piffle.
I don't mind people questioning what 16 year-old might want to get up at a conference. Christopher Howse wrote a perfectly decent piece in which he basically said such a person was a 'freak'. But that isn't what people, on the whole, have said. Instead they question his motives and complain he isn't poor enough.
As for Melanie Phillips' article, it's one of the most appallingly vindictive pieces I've seen by her, and that's against some pretty stiff competition.
I don't condone the attacks on his character, but there are a few prescient points on this:
1. He supports a party which strongly supports the 'comprehensive' education system, yet he has attended private/grammar schools, and as such, has benefited from their higher standards. It seems a tad hypocritical of him to benefit from such institutions and then tacitly support their abolition. It smacks of champagne socialism;
2. The Tories and Lib Dems are certainly not the only political parties to resort to ad hominem attacks. A seem to remember a Labour by-election campaign run on the basis of 'keep out the Tory toffs' a few years ago. Labour supporters are all to ready to criticise Cameron & Osborne for their Bullingdon Club days. I'm not condoning the ad hominem attacks made by the coalition parties, but it is a bit rich for Labour to criticise the tactic when they use it themselves.
@tangentreality
1 - he doesn't choose which school he goes to, unlike his politics which he clearly has chosen. However, going to a private or grammar school does not preclude a person from holding left wing views. For the record, I went to a private school & my parents have a big house.
2 - I certainly wouldn't defend the frequently cretinous election campaigns run by Labour against both the Lib Dems & Tories (and vice versa). The Tory toff tactic deployed at a byelection before the election was fatuous in the extreme. Having said that, mentioning the Bullingdon occasionally seems like a perfectly reasonable tactic. After all, John Prescott was never allowed to forget he was waiter.
So your point, basically boils down to "Melanie Phillips is ghastly"
Well duh!
This is why I don't read her. And I'm a Tory.
@Jackart Do you just wilfully ignore other people's arguments or just mine to wind me up?
I suspect the latter because you can't be that daft.
I never said that going to a private/grammar school should preclude one from holding left wing views. He is entitled to support whichever party he likes. However, having been granted opportunities that are denied to most people in the 'comprehensive' education system (I speak from experience, having been through it), it is hypocritical of him to support a party which advocates the closing of those opportunities. And other people are entitled to point that out.
Of course, there is a line to be drawn. There is a difference between confronting apparent hypocrisy and an unwarranted ad hominem attack. The Philips article does go too far, it is right that she is called out for it, but with the appropriate caveats.
The Labour party hasn't wanted to shut private schools for decades. As for grammar schools, as education minister Thatcher closed more of them than Shirley Williams.
Why are they opposing the Academy programme then? Why do they not want better schools to be able to select brighter students? Why did they establish league tables which make difference between an A grade and a C grade, stifling excellence?
Labour support the status quo, which is piss-poor. Master Weal has benefited from exceptional institutions, but supports a party which advocates policies completely at odds with them. That is hypocrisy, whichever way you look at it.
Obviously, winding you up is a bonus.
But to describe the attacks on Rory Weal as class war, is ridiculous. He's a grotty, snot-nosed teenager, who should be fingering girls behind the bike-shed, not talking at Labour conference.
Precocious talent is one thing. Precocious political activism, is creepy. We've got too many political anoraks with no experience of anything else in the British Body politic as it is. He's just one more identikit party machine clone in the making.
Rule: No public political office 'till you're 40. There you go. Sensible policies for a happy britian.
The danger of the academy programme is that it drives down standards of most schools while those with sharper elbows benefit further.
But to accuse Rory Weal of hypocrisy is simply not the case. He holds views which are different from yours.
But at least you are challenging his views & not him personally.
"!The danger of the academy programme is that it drives down standards of most schools while those with sharper elbows benefit further."
Simply not true. No evidence for that assertion. And the free-schools programs from the US have benefited the most deprived MORE than other secotors of society.
Basically, the teaching unions are evil.
Being a libertarian, I respect other individuals. I will always seek to defend them from attack. I do not respect their opinions. I will attack their opinions if I disagree with them.
Master Weal does indeed hold views different to mine, but that is not the source of his hypocrisy. As I have explained, that is because he has benefited from the private/grammar school system, and yet supports a party which has policies completely at odds with that system, and by saying nothing on the matter, thereby tacitly supports those policies.
He does not deserve unwarranted personal attacks. He does deserve to have his opinions subjected to scrutiny.
It is not hypocrisy as he did not choose where he is schooled.
And if we look at the Swedish model of free schools, which Gove is keen on, it has been shown in research published last year the biggest winners were those children who came from middle class homes.
The impact on the worst off was negligible, if at all.
I understand your point on Master Weal's choice, but the fact remains that he has benefited. Given the choice, would he choose to move from his grammar school and enter a mainstream comprehensive? I somehow doubt it.
So if the Swedish model doesn't have any effects on the worst off, then it's not having any negative effects. Nobody loses out, and some people are better off. Fantastic - sign me up.
There is no evidence that the academies programme will have any ill effects on the most disadvantaged pupils. It will simply stop holding the brighter ones back. Good.
And if you apply a genuine voucher system widely, instead of labour councils (who genereally represent poor people) obstructing progress, then the poor, if you look at the US evidence (their society is more like ours than sweden's is) the poor will benefit MOST.
Even if the middle class benefit, and the poor don't it's still a benefit, no?
Well at least you're talking about the issues. I disagree. Sadly, however, I haven't got time now for a protracted conversation on education policy just now, but will try and respond in detail later.
Why has this unedifying spectacle - the reputation of a 16 year old boy being trashed - captured the imagination of so many people?
I suspect that their hair-splitting arguments about his grammar school and millionaire father have very little to do their real motivation.
Young people are hated and despised by large numbers of people in Britain. I see someone has already described him as a freak. Doubtless someone else will be along in a bit to accuse him of being gay.
The personal attacks are deeply unpleasant & conveniently ignore the issues.
Post a Comment