“CAN THE PM EXPLAIN TO PARENTS WHY CUTTING CAPITAL GAINS TAX, CUTTING INHERITANCE TAX, CUTTING CORPORATION TAX & CUTTING THE BANK LEVY ARE ALL MORE IMPORTANT THAN OUR CHILDREN’S FUTURE?
WE WANT EDUCATION TO BE A LADDER FOR ALL, SHE WANTS IT TO BE A STAIRWAY FOR THE FEW.”
Earlier this year, when Theresa May’s Tory record on school funding was laid bare in the House of Commons we saw the Conservative leader’s true face beneath the media manufactured veneer. Instead of answering the point, the conservative leader made a personal attack on the leader of the opposition’s children.
When confronted with the facts about the Tory record on education, May’s political instinct was to attack her critic’s kids. The remark she made produced winces on the faces of even her own side – such was May’s ugly lack of taste.
She attacked Corbyn on where his children went to school. Clearly both May and her much vaunted ‘team’ (that is to say #toryelectionFraud orchestrator and Chief of Staff Nick Timothy) were ignorant of the fact that the leader of the opposition actually divorced his first wife because of what he believed: that his children should be educated in the same state schools as the children of his constituents.
The mother of the children, as is her unquestioned right and duty by all the laws of human nature, decided the education of her children was the most important priority for her to think about. The breach of privacy involved in such an attack by the Prime Minister of the nation requires a level of unBritish rudeness that most in this country would find deeply offensive. The issue is complex, which is why Theresa May’s choice to attack someones offspring instead of fronting up to her record is distinctly disgusting. All because Corbyn had pointed out that:
“THIS GOVT IS CUTTING THE SCHOOL BUDGET BY 6.5% BY 2020.”
It is a sign of the decent person Corbyn is – regardless of where you stand on his politics – that he ignored the jibe May made about this, and continued with the facts. Facts are important, and the fact is, children are the most important thing in human society. Another fact is that Theresa May doesn’t have any children, and as such, shouldn’t be attacking anyone through their kids. To do so if you have kids is bad enough. To do that when you don’t have any kids is just perverse.
The Western World is currently being lead by a generation of politicians who, like Theresa May, and unlike the vast majority of those they are supposed to represent, don’t have kids. People who don’t have kids have no ‘skin in the game’ when it comes to planning the future – at least, not in the same way that those who have munchkins to care for do – and I say this as someone who does not have children, and might never be able to afford to have them.
What May’s jibe about Corbyn’s children showed was that this is a woman who sees nothing as sacrosanct – everything and anything is fair game to be subsumed into her mission of perpetuating her own career. What does it say of a person who doesn’t even ‘play the man not the ball’, but instead ‘throws the ball at the mans child’ when confronted with the point:
“THE PROPOSED NATIONAL FUNDING FORMULA WILL LEAVE 1000 SCHOOLS ACROSS ENGLAND FACING FURTHER CUTS. TEACHERS ARE BUYING EQUIPMENT OUT OF THEIR OWN POCKETS, PARENTS ARE DOING MORE FUNDRAISERS. THERE’S NO MONEY FOR OUR SCHOOLS, YET SHE’S FOUND £320 MILLION FOR GRAMMAR SCHOOLS.”
This nasty streak in May reveals something profound about the weakness of her candidacy – despite the spin, she is no ‘Return of the Iron Lady’. The people who liked Margaret Thatcher liked her because Thatcher believed in something. We may find her beliefs abhorrent, but at least Thatcher, like Corbyn, actually held those beliefs. Theresa May believes in nothing, as evidenced by her actions during the Remain campaign and after. her total lack of any political convictions is a hallmark of her Iain Duncan Smith mentored political career.
Another reason the people who liked Thatcher did so is because they felt that, whether it was true or not, as a citizen, a voter & as the head of a family, Thatcher understood them & understood their lives in a real, not an abstract way.
They worked real jobs, and they saw that Thatcher had grown up in a green grocers shop. They felt the state of politics needed a radical change, and so, in her destructive way, did Thatcher. But the cornerstone of Thatcher’s popularity, particularly with the working class, was that she did everything: like the working class mothers of Britain, Thatcher worked at furthering her political career, she ran a household & she raised kids.
That is nothing like Theresa May – what we have here is a poundshop patriot, a thriftstore Thatcher, who, with her nasty jibes at someone else’s kids, shows that despite her previous speeches, she truly is going to restore and reinvigorate ‘the nasty party’. This means we have degraded to a point where the current leader of the Tory Party makes Margaret Thatcher look humane, relateable & compassionate.
“THE MANIFESTO ON WHICH SHE STOOD PROMISED THAT :
“UNDER A FUTURE CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT, THE MONEY FOLLOWING YOUR CHILD INTO SCHOOL WILL BE PROTECTED.”
Theresa May claims to be providing ‘choice for parents’, but what that means is some parents will have to choose sub standard schools. The reason Theresa May is so tin eared to the justified criticisms of her education policy is because dealing with parenting & sub standard schooling is something of which Theresa May has literally no clue.
As such, in future, she should refrain from attacking people who do.