Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
video of David Lammy, telling us why we should vote for him
http://www.winkball.com/walls/Election2010/davidlammymp/
(you can scroll down to the replies to see the video, for some reason i couldn't embed the video in this initial post)
Tags for Forum Posts: 2010_general_election, David_Lammy, Tottenham_constituency, Winkball
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Birdy_Too on
-
He may well have his reasons as did Diane Abbot, amongst others who don't adhere to their own preachings, but you leave yourself wide open for critisism.
It's like politicians preaching about tax avoidance or some other financial irregularity or family morality and then getting caught for something similar, not a leg to stand on. You should lead by example or not at all. Just my opinion and I am sure many don't care about his hypocritical stance.
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
The latest Labour flyer claims that " David Lammy is leading the campaign to save the 24-hour casualty unit at the Whittington hospital "
Funny, I thought it was Lynne Featherstone who first raised the matter.
From the Journal - "Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour MP for Islington North, who has been spearheading the campaign"
"The Liberal Democrats were at the front of the protest led by Terry Stacy, Leader of Islington Council, with Bridget Fox and Rhodri Jamieson-Ball, "
Somebody may be leading the campaign, but I'm not sure it's Mr Lammy.
-
Permalink Reply by StephenBln on
-
but Birdy, you don't live and bring your kids up where you grew up either..
Does that make you a bad person.. as well?
next you'll be saying that the postman, nurses and fireman should live in their respective areas.. That's too 1984ish for me!
I would have thought that living 37 years in the area makes him clearly aware of what's up and what needs to be or can be done.
BTW, I wouldn't vote for him either, but doesn't mean that I won't stick up for his right to live where he wants to..
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
Birdy I agree with Hugh on this point. I hold no brief for David Lammy, but I do think we can get too personal about politicians. I have never met him, but I understand he now lives in the same Ward as I've been in for 24 years (Stroud Green). This is not a million miles away: its just over the railway approach bridge. Although the Ward has LibDem councillors who do their best, you must remember that this is within the framework of un-relieved 45-year single-party control of the entire Borough.
There is some truth in what you say, but if ever more detailed enquiries are made into the legitimate decisions of politicians in their private lives, who would ever want to stand? What kind of people do you want to represent you in the future? I think you will tend to get lowest-common denominator candidates. In terms of paint, off-white, offensive to the least number of people and having no real policies or leadership ability.
The background as I see it to the sensitivity to this issue, is the essential role that the UK's schools play in the country's highly developed class system (I'm neither UK born nor educated). The implication of course, is that there is variation in the quality of schooling – I see huge variation. This is something I deplore and I hope policies can be put in place to bring up all schools to a high standard.
Politicians should be allowed to move homes without it being a big issue. You suggest there's a double standard: but it doesn't follow that DL is less in favour of improving local schools by moving a short distance. Decisions about where a politician chooses to live does not directly affect voters or residents. Their policies may do. That is why I have raised questions about the effectiveness of David Lammy's proposed measures to combat saturation betting shops, that his government promoted via their flawed gambling act.
-
-
Sorry Clive, but this is not a personal attack on David but political critisism of his decision not to support his local school and to move to a Lib Dem constituency just as his children become of schooling age. Apparently the local Labour party weren't too happy about this either? This ethic is also applicable to many civies and other Harringay councilors who chose not to support local schools and opt to drive out of the community to school their children and other state schools. It will be interesting to see what the folk who chose to ship their kids off elsewhere will do when it comes to secondary education.
I went to my local state infant, junior and secondary school and it was a real mix of social economic groups which I believe gave you an good outlook of society rather than surrounding yourself with people from certain wealthy and educated backgrounds sustaining the gap between such segments of our society.
Many people don't even view our local schools and automatically put schools to the west on their priority list, whilst it is their decision to do this I think it damages the larger community regeneration by not believing in your communities services. An area will only get better when people take the time, effort and belief in investing in their community. This is happening now with all our local schools but would be a faster process if more local parents believed and encouraged the community.
David Lammy is my local MP so I chose to question his political ethic, I would question that no matter who was my MP or councilor. It will also be interesting to see whether our future councilors chose the same route of not supporting their community.
-
Permalink Reply by Old-Age-Emporium(OAE) on
-
I'm sure we'll always have non-doms on the fringe of every party and I suppose children shouldn't be election fodder.
However, since the Lammy machine makes so much of his record, stated intention, origins and capability I find it curious that neither he nor his Office have got around to telling us just why he slipped quietly away from his constituency, and why the two state primary schools on his previous doorstep, or indeed the faith primary school nearby his present home, are fine for his electorate's children but not for his.
These things may not be of critical importance - but they are more than straws in the wind by which we may get some inkling into how our MP sees himself at the heart of his constituency, or not. For me, since the comparison arises between the man who once again yesterday asked me for my vote and the man who has ably represented the constituency where I worked for a quarter century, it comes down to a matter of shadow and substance - or Nu Labour and True Labour.
Jeremy Corbyn, in addition to all his other commitments, has always been a real support (not just a photo-op'supporter') to all the schools of North Islington and beyond. My memory of the choice-of-school saga above is slightly at variance with the wikipedia quote. I believe Holloway Boys was Jeremy's choice; Acland Burghley in neighbouring Camden was the attempted compromise; Q.Elizabeth's the breakpoint. Jeremy himself was a Grammar school boy, but then so were many of us from the 1950s-'60s.
-
-
1. I am not a Labour politician who preaches how good our education system is. He does have the right to chose what he wants to do, but for myself and many others he’s lost all credibility as an MP, a Labour MP at that.
2. I do bring my children up where I live and haven’t moved to escape the gaps in the education market. Many do that in civi life, but they’re not preaching some sort of melted down socialism.
3. If I still lived in the city of my birth I would send them to the local school. I have moved as many do when they flock to college/uni/new job.
4. If you believe in a community, you support it to enhance it for all to benefit.
-
Permalink Reply by Adam on
-
...and another Labour MP avoids local schools.
This is Harriet Harman (Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, Leader of the House of Commons, and Minister for Women and Equality) being interviewed by The Sun:
The Sun: I did notice that you sent your son outside your borough to another school, a better school. Should you not be making sure your schools are of a standard that you'd be proud to send your children there.
Harman: There's nothing hypocritical about sending your child to a school outside the borough, loads of people do it.
None of my kids went to a private school and I didn't do anything anyone else couldn't do. And it was under the Tories when a lot of schools had leaking roofs and not enough teachers and an endless stream of supply teachers. We've changed that.
Full interview here
-
-
"loads of people do it",
The trouble is if everyone took that stance local schools would suffer, quite ironic that she's got 'equality' in her job description. By sending your child to another school you are admitting the one local to you is failing or not good enough.
-
-
None of my kids went to a private school and I didn't do anything anyone else couldn't do.
Harriet's a Blairite scamp and word weasel. No, of course she didn't send Harry or Joe to a private school, any more than Blair or Booth sent Euan, Nick, Kathryn (or I s'pose young Leo) to private schools.
Like Blair, she sent both her boys to Grant Maintained Schools - her namesake Harry, with the older Blairlets, to the then GM London Oratory; his younger brother Joe to the GM St Olave's Grammar School in Bromley. Did Hubby Jack Dromey raise any Corbyn-style objections back then in 1996? History does not record, but their relationship did not crack under the strain. Clearly both Jack & Harriet had nodded off at that year's Labour Party Conference when Shadow Education Secretary, David Blunkett, said loud and clear: "Read my lips. No more selection, by any means!"
Grant Maintained Status for schools was the Tory Thatcher/Baker child of the 1988 "Education Reform" Act - designed to weaken the influence of Local Education Authorities (LEAs). GM Schools were owned and managed by their own boards of school governors, with their own admissions and interview procedures. True literally, they weren't private - they were privileged 'state' schools, with a grant (as in the London Oratory's case) of as much as £250,000 per annum extra and a direct line to the Secretary of State. No bloody truck with LEAs such as the Socialist Republic of Islington!
Any wonder that Blair and Harman's out-of-borough chosen school should have been judged by Ofsted outstanding in every department and every key stage both then and since? Any surprise that their school's Head for 29 years till 2007, John McIntosh, should have been a prominent member of a Tory 'think tank' during the early-mid '90s ? Any puzzlement as to why the Oratory's well endowed Arts Centre is named the 'John McIntosh Arts Centre' ?
When New Labour's School Standards & Framework Act abolished Grant Maintained Status in 1988, these 1,000+ schools supposedly reverted to their pre-1988 status, or sought voluntary aided, voluntary maintained or foundation status. Harman & Blair's Tory Headmaster, to make up for his sudden £250K per annum deficit, asked parents to pay a "voluntary contribution" of £30 per pupil per month, in addition to commercial sponsorship. Did Blair & Booth and Harman & Dromey object to this unofficial fee paying ? History again does not record. Anyway, "loads of people" and "loads of schools" do it, so who could refuse? There's nothing hypocritical about sending your child outside the borough. Word weasel. Lammy, attend and learn well - but then you haven't sent your lad out of the borough, have you ?
Of course, within two years of the Tory GM's demise, Blair&Harman's government introduced Mark 2: City Academies, aka 'Academies' - for we can't possibly deny our children throughout the nation the right and privilege of attending their Local Academy - catering for every age and key stage, womb to tomb.
At least Harriet is consistent. She spins the same tale to today's Born Again Tory Soaraway as she told to 1997's Born Again NuLabour Soaraway.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
