To think this young man represents so much of what is wrong with champagne socialism?

[Pissfarterleech]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2042623/Rory-Weal-Child-star-Labour-conference-truth-life-poverty.html

It's not like we have tons and tons of targets to choose from and everyone's zoning in on him, he's jolly well made himself a target.

He made a good speech for a mere teenager. That was why he was allowed to do it.
One speech in those circumstances can gain great fame. I suppose it is reasonable to assume this kid will go into politics.

A more interesting one was the mature teacher who made a controversial speech at a conference, got the sack, and became very famous. She still appears on discussion progs and has a book out. Some of you may remember her name. Sudden fame can help a career or destroy you.

William H. the Tory Foreign secretary once wore a baseball cap as a stunt.
If he wears it at next weeks conference, even the broadsheets would put the picture on the front page. (Come on William, you can do it.)

Kelly2000 did you hear/read every single word of his speech or are you extreme and harsh views on the child based on what the Daily Fail and/or other websites told you he said? I am assuming the latter because I am struggling to see how a mature broadminded person who heard the whole speech word for word could derive from it the points you're making.

Do people only vote for a party with whom they agree every single policy? I say this because while I vote Labour, I don't agree with their education policy on schools. So come 2015, I will probably still vote Labour yet my children will be at an independent school. I am clearly more evil than Rory the 16 yo child who actually attended both an independent and grammar school.

Wordfactory Tories always think Labour spouts rubbish; and Labour think Tories spout rubbish (that party politics, alas.)

Attacking mere teenagers is a different matter. How are you on whipping horses? (In the news currently)

I think horsey women like you could get turned on by the Tory Foreign secretary if he donned the baseball cap next week....If you have WHs number give him a ring. Use your charm and crack the whip.

novice, at one time private education and grammar schools were a very big deal to labour.

I suspect that is no longer the case and that it's now perfectly okay to use both and not be thumping great hypocrite?

I think it's okay to have been a pupil at one or the other but to make a choice to send your child to one puts you at odds with the party faithful.

Thanks for that Sue52.

I guess the party faithful excludes Diane Abbbot?

Diane's been in disgrace since then. Bloody hypocrite.

Yes, hypocrisy is a complex subject. Its a bit like consistency. None of us are totally consistent. Because in the final analysis we are human beings.

That said ,I am pretty constistent about wanting tea and wads at this time in the evening. Carruthers, bring the horses down to the back door at once.

sue52, is it 'cos she is black? *

• Black Mothers will do anything for their children, remember!

I'm suprised that it hasn't been mentioned that his father's previous wealth was built on buying and leveraging up property given it was exactly this behaviour which has contributed to the downturn we are in now and the relatively unaffordable level of house prices. I wonder if this behaviour is one of Ed's good or bad businesses??

novice,
No I heard the whole speech it was awful. If he is a mere child, then I fail to see why labour had him there as after all he is just a mere child. He is also old enough to be a parent, go to prison if he commits a crime, pay tax work full time etc. He made points againt one party, but no-one is allowed to highlight the faults with his remarks because he is just a ikkle boy. No doubt we are allowed to think his speech was wonderful though.

And if you think the dailymail is so bad, why do you read it as you obviously do otherwise you could not have any idea about the quality of their articles?

But I love the idea that it is ok for him to mislead people as some people are in the situation he claimed to be in. So what labour thought giving a working class child from an academy who is suffering from lack of EMA the chance to speak at their conference was just too radical, so they got a middle class, still relatively wealthy teenager only educated at either fee-paying or selective schools to come in instead and imagine what it would be like and tell everyone else that whilst he goes to selective schools this is wrong and other people should not go. Heaven forbid a poverty striken academy child was given that chance, he might end up taking a university place from a nice middle class child.

I think undoubtedly the Labour Party is most culpable in all this, for ruthlessly exploiting a child - and they have a great deal of form for that.

The child's school should have taught him to understand how the media work.

This is from the daily mail....

Having said that and read the article with a critical eye, I would have liked to have seen the labour party find a child from a non selective school that is from the 'wrong side of town'. I am not a huge fan of any of the 3 big parties and would like someone to stand for election who stands for what they believe in. Labour screwed up when they went for Miliband. They should have put Frank Field in charge.

Also, his parents were fools to have not put enough aside in savings and borrowing more than they could afford. Here in the US the welfare is less and therefore the vast majority of people have much more in cash savings as well as money tucked away in pension plans compared to people in the UK.

Ah yes, Diane Abbot who bleated on MN about

a.) How she decided to put her son before her principles and send him to a public school (while single handedy turning around Hackney hellhole schools natch

b.) How her son is disadvantaged because his mother is a single parent MP. My o level Biology tells me 2 people make a child. Oh and only a Labour politician would squeeze victim status out of being an MP.,

The woman makes me feel physically ill.

Yes it speaks volumes that the fact that public money has been used to prop up a greedy businessman who was too stupid to put some emergency funds aside, beggars belief.

And they think it is something to be glad about?!
Fuck me.

There is no denying he gave an excellent, well delivered speech.

But it begs the question - couldn't they have found an equally eloquent, comprehensive school educated 16 year old?

It kinda makes Gove case for him - doesn't it?

Confidence, eloquence, polish - where'd he get that from then? An independent school? You don't say!

Disingenuity, lies and bluster - where'd he get that from then?

I was going to put "over-weening" in front of confidence. Clearly I should've.

Could add: "Belief that he's entitled to rule the Western world."

I thin this lad would have done better to study meeja studies than Latin

lemonbalm - are you saying that we shouldn't expect confidence and eloquence from comprehensive school pupils? And that it's ok that Labour couldn't be bothered to find a comprehensive educated 16 year old reliant on the welfare state, to talk at the conference?

Gove often bangs goes on about how our education system totally fails the brightest poor pupils. Labour appear to agree.

I don't understand why the forore. Oh, yea! The daily wail strikes again with its pointless spin, lets-make-a-mountain-out-of-a-molehill-mantra.

The kid came from a well-to-do family that went broke. He had to leave his private school and was lucky enough to get a place in a grammar school - not private. He lost his home, and his parents split. If it hadn't been for the welfare state, and state run schools he would have been destitute.

All he was saying is that if it wasn't for the welfare state, which the Tories are itching to dismantle by stealth and by spin, he would have been in absolute poverty. That is just a truth. What's the biggie?