Coffee House

Parts of the Left are beginning to realise that they got the family wrong

4 January 2013

One of the more interesting trends in British politics in the last few years has been sections of the left realising that the cultural changes of the 1960s and 70s too often chucked the baby out with the bathwater. Today, Diane Abbott has given an interview to Patrick Wintour in which she calls for more support for the family; arguing that stable families are the best way of preventing social breakdown. She also concedes that feminists were too ‘ambivalent’ about the family.

Interestingly, Abbott also comes out in favour of school uniforms. She points out that they are a check against materialism and the designer label arms race.

Now, I know that it is easy to mock Abbott — the left-wing fire brand who sent her son to a private school. But there’s something significant happening here which is that parts of the left beginning to grasp that social conservatives were right about some very important things.

Give the perfect gift this Christmas. Buy a subscription for a friend for just £75 and you’ll receive a free gift too. Buy now.

Show comments
  • global city

    No. Individuals come to understand that many of the core beliefs they have strived for are truly damaging to the very society they so wanted to improve, etc. This is usually when they get a life, have kids, meet someone they wish to be with long term, or just simply grow up and experience the real world.
    They drop off but the lunatic jugganaut they abandon keeps rolling on, picking up new useful idiots as it goes.

  • Justathought

    Is this blog now really troll free?

  • Ian Walker

    Socialism is a very persuasive creed, it seems reasonable at heart, with good intentions. It’s not hard to see why it might be popular among well-meaning middle-class students who later become politicians.

    The problem is that everywhere it has been tried, it has ultimately failed. Because, as the Iron Lady pointed out, they run out of other people’s money.

    Any good scientist will tell you that even the most beautiful and compelling theory has to be discarded if it fails to stand up to experiment. But of course for all it’s pretensions of intelligence, socialism is a faith, not a science.

    In short, socialists are wrong by definition. Perhaps it’s nice if they come to admit this on one or two issues, but they’ll soon replace them with something else, because at hard they are meddling do-gooders.

  • SirMortimerPosh

    Abbot has always been a beastly sack of lard, but now, she reveals that she is a beastly and mendacious sack of lard. Like her vile compatriots in the Labour Party, she realises that she must mouth some kind of retraction over the hopeless errors they made while ruining the country for thirteen years. Pointless wars, nearly four million immigrants, grotesque inflation of the housing market, unfathomable spending and a hideous rise in debt, banks running wild and in the end, national bankruptcy, but we are expected to forgive their criminal destruction of our well being and vote them in again because they mouth some sort of minor regret over one or two mistakes. The people should have risen up and hanged them from the lamp posts in Whitehall! Sad to say, so addicted to welfare has the country become, that as like as not, the Conservatives will be hard pressed to win next time. Their message may be drowned out by the howls of welfare addicted jackals, baying for their portion of other people’s money.

  • John Steadman

    Lay-off Diane – she’s always worth a few hundred thousand non-Labour votes.

  • Sarah

    On families, what she says is that the left should not “abandon the terrain to the right”. So not quite the same as “social conservatives were right all along” is it. You’ll note that she is not defining family as only the heterosexual, patriarchal, nuclear one.

    Wehter uniforms are a good thing is debatabel, a study published in The Journal of Educational Research by David L. Brunsma, of the University of Alabama, and Kerry A. Rockquemore, of the University of Notre Dame, states:
    “The findings indicate that student uniforms have no direct effect on substance use, behavioral problems, or attendance. A negative effect of uniforms on student academic achievement was found.”
    But again I suspect that the left does not concede this ground to the social conservatives.

  • sceptic3

    I heard someone on talk radio defending Labour’s mistakes. “they admit they got it wrong”, he said; this was immigration, “they won’t make the same mistakes again,” he pleaded, the prat was going to vote for them in 2015. Thing is; they are not supposed to make mistakes of this magnitude at all let alone learn from them? They’re already supposed to know what a mistake is before they make it, that’s why people vote for them. They’re supposed to know better.

    Trouble is the Tories are just as bad. What is going to damage the family next? Gay Marriage. Gay marriage and the redefinition of marriage, which set to evolve into marriage involving more than two people. So you won’t have to have your bit on the side any more; you can have it up front,as it were. I’m sure the Mrs will go for that; or is it the Ms? And what about the kids; but who cares? So long as the politics are correct.

  • JMckechnie

    Is it really the case that ‘parts of the Left are beginning to realise it got the family wrong’, or is it that it makes them more electable to say so? Call me a cynic, but I have my views on that.

  • Comtesse

    Could I just add that “having it all wrong” might not be the goal of leftish ideals but the starting point where voices are raised to meet challenges outside the ideal of having it right.

  • HooksLaw

    It’s never too ‘easy to mock Abbott — the left-wing fire brand who sent her son to a private school.’
    She recycled her institutionally left wing BBC earnings to give her children the best advantage she thought she could. Abbott believes in the family – her own. Its everyone else’s family she does not give a toss about.

    • Austin Barry

      Perhaps the gross hypocrisy of the corpulent Abbott deserves an eponymous neologism – Hippocrite.

  • david denton

    Both the left and right have made a total hash of our state education over the last 40 years. Two quite good PMs (Thatcher and Blair) were both guilty in this regard. It’s probable that the biggest failure of going ‘comprehensive’ has been the drop in quality of
    teachers; unsurprisingly – who would want to join a profession without a meritocracy at its heart. This decline in the standard and standing of teachers is the biggest problem we face. In Germany Teaching is still a profession to rival the Law or Medicine – we have a lot of rebuilding to do!

  • John Mackie

    ‘But there’s something significant happening here which is that parts of
    the left beginning to grasp that social conservatives were right about
    some very important things.’

    That’s as maybe. But will they ever admit social conservatives were right all along or pretend that they are the first people to come up with these (Obvious) conclusions?

  • ButcombeMan

    This Brillo interview of Diane is always worth seeing again. Masterly.

    Watch Portillo’s face.

  • Q46

    The Left beginning to grasp…

    Rubbish! What we have here is the Adams and McGuinness effect, where age has wearied them and they realise what a sack of merde they had been toting about throughout their youth, and now that experince has washed away the contents of the sack from their eyes, they can see the real World and how dumb they were.

    The putrid aims of the Left remain the same, to be prosecuted by the next generation of still wet behind the ears, narrowly informed ideologues who will get non productive jobs in and around politics and maybe even get into Parliament.

  • Augustus

    “”Politicians should always be very careful about being involved in these social issues…”

    Exactly, so where are those two little words that socialists are so allergic to: personal responsibility?

  • roger

    As an assistant headteacher at the school Abbott wouldn’t send her son to, with my son and grandson having been or at the school she couldn’t get her son into in Stokey ( I can’t see Balls and Cooper as real Stokies) I can’t stomach anything she says about the family. Her Turkish, Kurdish , Jewish or White constituents see very little of her and marked her card years ago as a one note opportunist.

    • Diane Abbott MP

      At the 2010 General Election I doubled my majority on an increased turn out. A good result in any year, but more so in a bad year for Labour. This may be a clue to what my constituents really think of me.

      • ButcombeMan

        You must be very proud.

        Now address the “baby father” issue and tell us (because you have so much influence) what YOU are going to do about it.

        (Hint) You will need to address both the (mainly black) male culture that thinks the itinerant baby-father model is OK and the female culture that accepts it, in some cases, is proud of it..

        While you are at it, you might tell us how you would address the guns, knives and drugs issues which so blights black communities. How you would create some educational black male role models, how you would deal with the general academic failure of young black males.

        Educational selection maybe?

        • StephanieJCW

          Diane Abbott isn’t only there to serve her black constituents. If she focused on the issues some black people face while ignoring all her other non black constituents people like you would accuse her of being racist.

          While you come out with daft comments such as this, you probably can’t expect to receive a response.

          • Hexhamgeezer

            Enjoying daddy’s xmas present are you?

          • Eddie

            Yes, but she is an wnit-white racist, isn’t she? Really – at heart – that is exactly what she is. Just read some of the comments she has made over the years.
            Other racists include the odious Bernie Grant and Darcus Howe.
            The reason why she gets a huge majority is because she represents a Labour-voting borough that whites have abandoned and into which Africans have flooded in the last 15 years (and also well-off socalled liberal whites have moved in to replace the whites who can no longer afford to live there thanks to mass immigration pushing property prices to silly levels).
            People like Diane Abbott and her silly divisive policies and attitudes CAUSE racism and conflict – not to mention the riots of 2011, which were undertaken mostly by criminal blacks spurred on by racist criminal idiots like Darcus Howe.

      • Andy

        In your Constituency you could put a dead rat up for election with a Labour rosette tied around its neck and it would be elected. It is merely a Labour Rotten Borough.

        But one is so pleased you now support Private Schools and have abandoned your ‘Socialist’ belief in their abolition.

        By the way would you also publish your 2011/12 Tax return. I am sure your constituents would like to know how much cash you raked in ‘representing them’ and yourself of course.

      • Austin Barry

        I suspect that the wider public view of your neon-lit hypocrisy corresponds rather more with the comments here than those of your slack-jawed constituents.

      • john woods

        You loathsome, obese, useless, troughing, white man’s tax eating, waste of space. what a great town London was until the effnic majorities destroyed it. If you were exported to Africa you’d probably keep an entire village in pork for a fortnight.

        • StephanieJCW


          Why is her race important. Do you bang on about the race of Osbourne or Milliband?

          And London is still a great town and it hasn’t been destroyed by anybody of any ethnic persuasion.

          • Colonel Mustard

            Perhaps because it is important to her and she defines herself by it. She uses her race politically in ways that Osborne and Miliband don’t.

      • Noa

        Why Diane, are you trying to play a game of ‘Divide and Rule’ here? Don’t you think you should leave that to the Whites?

      • SirMortimerPosh

        It just means you have landed up in a constituency stuffed full of immigrants and welfare addicts. Big surprise that people offering bread and circuses get re-elected by losers like your electorate.

      • Eddie

        Or…it could just mean that most people of the type who’d automatically vote for a candidate of the same skin colour as them (the racists) have moved into your constituency, and those who would vote for your political enemies have moved out? (Labour would win your seat if they made a bacon sandwich the Labour candidate, frankly.)

        Or it could mean just that the alternative candidates were worse – not that you are better.

        But then again, maybe your constituents just love your modesty.

        Who can tell?

      • JabbaTheCat

        Come on Fatbutt, answer the questions from your fellow readers…

  • WIlliam Blakes Ghost

    Is their anything Labour got it right on? I’m struggling to think of one area where they have ever been right (not even sacred cows like the NHS)…….

  • jordan ash

    Diane has visited the homes of her constituency single parent black mothers who proudly display photos of their sons wielding guns and has come round to the view thatd the society she helped create cannot sustain itself, it needs others to step in and help.

    • StephanieJCW

      Really? Or racist nonsense? (Because all black single mothers have criminals for sons and take pride in that fact. Oh yes indeed..)

  • StephanieJCW

    And which cultural changes are harmful and how do we reverse them?

  • StephanieJCW

    How exactly is the left to blame for weakening the family? Genuine question but it seems an oft used criticism with no actual evidence to support this.

    For example people state the growth of the welfare state ‘encourages’ women to have kids with no man for support. Yet single parent families are more likely to live in poverty. So where is the evidence that scores of women decide, woohoo, I’d prefer to be an impoverished mother as opposed to have a stable home with husband/.partner to help look after the kids?

    Surely it is far, far, far more complex than this?

    • Alexandrovich

      Watching Jeremy Kyle on daytime T.V. whilst ploughing through a bag of crisps and checking facebook? Bunging the chicken nuggets in the oven, ready for when the kids get home? It’s only ‘impoverished’ as far as you and the Guardian are concerned. You think they’d listen to radio 3 given the chance? Start drinking camomile tea and make their own bread? It’s a lifestyle choice but, I know, you just can’t believe it can you?

      • StephanieJCW

        No it’s an actual fact. Women are poorer after divorce. Fact.
        Married couples have more money that unmarried couples (why on earth do you think social conservatives hold marriage up as the ideal?!) Numerous studies note this.

        Becoming educated and securing a well paid job and having children AFTER this will lead to greater financial stability and income than having a kid at 1 and living off the state. These are facts. So if people choose to live off the state (and I fully believe people do), it’s mot merely money but a whole host of other factors at play.

  • Wilhelm

    Africans have this phrase ” It takes a village to raise a child,” ( keep in mind you raise livestock and you rear children )

    I am not sure where this quote comes from but Mandela’s book “Long
    Walk to Freedom” gives us a clue. In one of the chapters he describes
    the traditional African subsistence farming rural extended family way of

    Black tribal society is polygamous. Mandela’s biological mother was
    one of 5 wives that his father had. He only saw his father a handful of
    times during his lifetime. The men marry, produce children and then move
    on and find other wives elsewhere. The women are left at home to raise
    the children. They band together in small communities to collectively
    raise the children in an extended family. The wives of one male will be
    scattered over a number of these “kraals”. / groups of huts.

    The offspring from these various mothers freely move from hut to hut
    in each kraal and look upon all the adult women as their mothers and
    all the kids as their brothers and sisters although they are not
    biologically related. This is the “the village” that is raising the
    child. The hut they live in with their mother is their house but their kraal is their home.

    Father’s move around from kraal to kraal visiting their various wives and off spring.
    custom probably accounts for the absentee black fathers that now find
    themselves in western societies. They are genetically wired to behave in
    this fashion and no amount of westernisation is going to change it.

    • StephanieJCW

      Doubtful. You use one example of one particular culture in one country to try (and fail) to describe a general so called black culture (and plenty of people speak of raising a child).

      It does not exist. Skin pigmentation describes nothing more than how likely one is to burn in the sun.

      Although you probably don’t accept that as you a racist in the classical sense of the world (that race is a primary determinant of one’s behaviour.)

      • Wessex Man

        You could never guess just how racist he is, clue, he sports a big pointy hat.

        • Wilhelm

          Wessex Man

          I’m disappointed you feel that way. I suspect you wouldn’t say that if you were living in the multicultural dystopian nightmare of Tower Hamlets. Only a person living far away from the black ghetto would come out with a smug, supercilious smart ass comment like that. Such a shame.

          • Wessex Man

            Why thank you, have a nice day.

          • Max

            I call on the Spectator to ban Wilhelm/Eddie/Hypocrisy Spotter from posting on this site. The moderator had the good sense and decency to delete his earlier vile racist post on this thread, so in the knowledge that they are dealing with a vile racist with the capacity for such hateful racist vitriol, they should simply prevent any further posts. Whatever he calls himself, the same IP address will show up, so simply block him. We have a black MP making a series of important, valid posts here. For “Eddie” to use this forum to pollute the debate with his vile racism is shameful. Ban Eddie now. For the sake of the Spectator’s reputation as a serious journal, and for the sake of the otherwise decent, non-racist people who post and read this website.

            • Noa

              You want to silence debate by labeling views diverging from your own as racist.
              As your spiritual predecessors simply sent such deviants to concentration camps presumably that will be your next proposal?

            • Fergus Pickering

              I think vile racists should be able to post like anybody else. We don’t ban Socialists who are far more harmful to the Commonweal. I think censorship is a shameful thing.

              I would be extremely worried if my daughter wished to marry a muslim of any shade. What does that make me?

              • StephanieJCW

                Well it depends? Is it based on the way he actually practices his faith or just a lazy prejudice that states all muslim men are violent misogynists?

                • Noa

                  Perhaps he might object to her enforced conversion and his future grandchildren being trained at the Knightsbridge madrassa to treat him as a kaffir and subject of the caliphate.

            • StephanieJCW

              Nah, even open racists deserve free speech. Those who exhibit basic common decency can just look at them with pity.

              • Sarah

                It depends if it’s speech or malicious communication and/or discriminatory verbal attacks and/ or defamation and/or incitement. Eddie frequently strays into the latter categories.

            • Sarah

              Well it’s encouraging that the Spectator is finally taking a stand against his race-hate diatribes, but disappointing that they not only let his sex-hate ones stand, but that seem to actively encourage them.

              But then race-hate affects men and the Spectator is a lad mag.

          • StephanieJCW

            I used to live in South East London yet have a totally viewpoint to you. Proves what nonsense you’re spouting in this regard.

        • StephanieJCW


  • David Lindsay

    I should love to know whom you imagine to have been in government during the moral chaos of the 1980s, when Political Correctness arose and when the economic basis of paternal authority was dismantled while abortion was legalised up to birth. The same party made divorce legally easier than release from a car hire contract, and abolished the societal disapproval of adultery and desertion that was their recognition as grounds for divorce. We all know what that party is now trying to do.

    One year on from her questioning of the corporate advertising that masqueraded and masquerades as a healthy eating strategy, and only a little over a year since her denunciation of the deleterious effects of the pornogrification of mainstream culture, Diane Abbott has today decried the effects of feminism on that most fundamental of institutions, the family. No one should be remotely surprised.

    Abbott has her faults. She has been a lazy critic of Blue Labour, initially very much a Hackney phenomenon. John McDonnell had a broader and more interesting base of parliamentary support for Leader; he would not have won, but he would have ensured that important issues were aired. However, Abbott was repeatedly cheered to echo by the Any Questions audience in leafy Worcester in November 2011, not least when she denounced neoliberal economics in general and benefit cuts so that bankers could carry on paying themselves gargantuan bonuses in particular.

    Well, of course they cheered her to the echo there. Any examination of the Mail and Telegraph newspapers confirms that the Coalition’s savage cuts in services and in spending power, the road to yet further economic ruin, are no more popular with Conservative supporters, Middle England, or what have you, than they are with anyone else. The Coalition of Resistance to them can and must include Conservative supporters, Middle England, the Mail and Telegraph newspapers, and what have you.

    The Labour Leadership Election greatly heightened the profile of Diane Abbott. There has never been any Labour Party policy to abolish commercial schools, and Harold Wilson used them as a parent while he was Prime Minister. It is altogether another question whether or not they are any good, since they are merely adept at putting pupils through the examination system that they are the first to castigate as deficient and defective.

    They are often also the most anti-family institutions imaginable, founded on the assumption that the relationship between parents and children is thoroughly distant and purely financial, organised towards the living out of adolescence in single-sex residential environments, and unsurprisingly producing politicians of the sort that voted through Thatcher’s Children Act and other such legislative attacks on family life. But there has never been any Labour Party policy to abolish them.

    Abbott’s ordinary, rather than her Leadership Campaign, website made and makes clear her sympathy for the 11-plus, for single-sex schools, for Oxbridge as academically elitist, for universities’ flexible approach to entry grades if they see potential in the applicant, for the prevention of social rather than academic elitism by improving the schools attended by the poor, for raising poor pupils’ aspirations so that they actually apply to the top universities, and for reinstating full grants so that they can afford to go.

    She has also been consistent in her opposition to European federalism, in her role as a voice of her ethnic community on immigration by people who cannot speak English or who come from countries with no historic ties to Britain, in her support for action against such things as not giving up seats to elderly people on public transport, and in her opposition to the New Labour assault on civil liberties.

    All in all, no wonder that she hated both Thatcherism and Blairism so much. Making it doubly unsurprising that she decries the effects of feminism on that most fundamental of institutions, the family.

    • StephanieJCW

      “and abolished the societal disapproval of adultery ”

      How on earth does one do this? Also it’s foolishness. I’m not sure there ever was complete societal disapproval of adultery. It was practiced freely by the highest members of society (see our male monarchs for example and the benefits to be earned as mistress of the King.)
      I am not sure we are any more permissive or less permissive of it than we have ever been. But people now have greater understanding of relationships and are willing to accept that there is a lot of grey when it comes to something such as affairs.


        You are trying to introduce the straw man of ‘complete disapproval’ when what is clearly intended is a ‘general disapproval’. There was cetainly a general disapproval of adultery, not least because it cannot be good for society to encourage liars and cheats, but also because of the obvious harm that would be caused to children and wider society.

        What has happened is that the mirage of personal satisfaction at all and any costs has been elevated above the Christian virtues of duty and responsibility. We are seeing the sort of society that develops from the principle of ‘eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die’. Although for many people it is not very merry, not least those of us that are having to pay for the selfishness of others.

        • StephanieJCW

          Nope, not trying to introduce any such strawman. I just disagree that society’s attitudes to adultery have changed all that much since the 60s. Look at the reaction to Catherine’s Hakim latest tome suggesting we adopt a more French style approach to infidelity. It met with widespread disapproval.

          Has there been a large scale increase in divorces citing adultery as a reason?

          (That’s a rhetorical question by the way.)

          If anything I would say we, particularly women have become LESS accepting of adultery. And instead of looking the other way and ignoring one’s husband’s philandering to preserve a marriage, adultery typically ends it.

          But once again in referring to the ‘selfishness of others’ you take a black and white view of adultery. What of a marriage where one party, for whatever reason, unilaterally imposes a vow of celibacy on the relationship. Does the other person just embrace a life of no sex until they both die?

      • StephanieJCW

        I didn’t write this as a response to David Lindsay? What happened??

    • Wessex Man

      Now listen here David Lindsay, you do talk the mos zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    • Magnolia

      David there was moral chaos in the 1970s as well.
      I did my homework by candlelight when there were power cuts and my dad was given special petrol vouchers by the government during the fuel crisis when he worked for a company with good exports.
      The action of the miners in bringing the country to a grinding halt and the three day week when the rubbish piled up and the dead were left unburied all happened before Mrs T’s reign.
      The Labour government before last had to go to the IMF with the begging bowl before she came to power.
      The chaos and mess started long before Mrs T tried her best to drag us all up to some sort of rescue and global standard.


      When trolling quality won’t work go for quantity

    • Fergus Pickering

      Precis that, Lindsay. If you could stick to 200 words people might read what you write. But once a windbag…

    • Noa

      Mr Lindsay, you may have hidden a point in there, but the sands of time conspire against its discovery.

      • James R

        @ Noa.Made me laugh at 8:13am on a Sunday morning.Thank you sir.

  • retundario

    Left-wingers always “smash” the repressive cultural structures of a particular society, believing that nirvana will ensue once that’s achieved, only to impose far harsher conservative cultural discipline on that same society when chaos ensues. Ridiculous Marxist over-optimism in human nature

  • anyfool

    So one fat lying multi faced hypocritical lefty realises a couple of obvious points, and we are supposed to believe that these dangerous people have changed.
    Mr Forsyth it is not time you passed through puberty.

  • Davey12

    Sadly the ex Eaton and Public school boys do not get it. Socialism is class hatred. They hate anything that the perceived ruling class do. Fox hunting, marriage, immigration. It is all just hatred. Any wrong can be justified by this hatred.

    That is why a Labour politician can work for a TV station that is funded by a government that kills gays, hangs thieves, tortures trade unionists and randomly fires bullets into crowds of young people protesting for a vote.

    Not quite everything, they like Champaign.

    • Fergus Pickering

      Where is Eaton and what is Champaign?

  • David Julian Price

    Daylight dawns for Diane! I’m not a big fan of her politics but I congratulate her for thinking ‘out of the box’ (at least as far as her generation of lefties is concerned) on this. Keep going Diane, one day you might just come over and join us here in the reality-based community…

  • In2minds

    January 4th and our first mention of Thatcher in the negative for 2013, is this a record?

    • Justathought

      And you have to agree The Lady always looked smashing, she set a high standard for those who hold high office. Hair check, makeup check, blue Channel two piece check, pearls check, handbag check.

      • David Lindsay

        She looked like a drag queen. Probably a joke on her by her entourage.

        • Wessex Man

          You are one sick piece of work.


            He is a troll. His aim is to subvert conservative comment and discussion where it might be of value to the cause.

  • Wilhelm

    Africans have this phrase ” It takes a village to raise a child,” ( keep in mind you raise livestock and you rear children )

    I am not sure where this quote comes from but Mandela’s book “Long Walk to Freedom” gives us a clue. In one of the chapters he describes the traditional African subsistence farming rural extended family way of life.

    Black tribal society is polygamous. Mandela’s biological mother was one of 5 wives that his father had. He only saw his father a handful of times during his lifetime. The men marry, produce children and then move on and find other wives elsewhere. The women are left at home to raise the children. They band together in small communities to collectively raise the children in an extended family. The wives of one male will be scattered over a number of these “kraals”. / groups of huts.

    The offspring from these various mothers freely move from hut to hut in each kraal and look upon all the adult women as their mothers and all the kids as their brothers and sisters although they are not biologically related. This is the “the village” that is raising the child. The hut they live in with their mother is their house but their
    kraal is their home.

    Father’s move around from kraal to kraal visiting their various wives and off spring.
    This custom probably accounts for the absentee black fathers that now find themselves in western societies. They are genetically wired to behave in this fashion and no amount of westernisation is going to change it.

  • Justathought

    Diane is an unrepentant repeat offender of the most heinous fashion violations ever displayed by an MP. She has managed upstage Michael Foot and Arthur Scargill, not even Gok Wan can save her now.

  • Justathought

    The true reason why she has come out in favor of school uniforms is because she knows that taxpayers will be landed with that bill also.

    Dianne can never be accused of having personally participated in ‘the designer label arms race’ (at least while there is a steady supply of old curtains around)

  • Russell

    “Now, I know that it is easy to mock Abbott”

    You really should have just left it there……Everyone can mock Abbott, she is that dim and hypocritical.

  • The Wiganer

    Labour have an election to to win. That is all.
    As always they will say what needs to be said until they are elected, then disregard the lot.

  • Hexhamgeezer

    is that creature in the picture something from Dr Who?

    • Austin Barry

      I’ve always been of the view that Diane is Idi Amin’s love child.

    • Noa

      She has a face that only a sponge cake could love.

  • Diane Abbott MP

    Just for the record I do not think that social conservatives, with their insistence on a single model of family life, got it right on the family. In fact they have failed to keep up with the British public who understand families come in all shapes and sizes including same-sex couples and single parent.
    And nothing has caused more damage to families and community life than the de-industrialisation of the Thatcher years and mass unemployment.
    But I believe family networks matter,however unorthodox. I am a second generation immigrant and immigrants Jewish/Irish/ Indian/ West Indian etc tend to feel strongly about family because, when you come here as a first generation immigrant, family networks are all you have.
    I also think that family breakdown may be contributing to some public health issues like drug abuse, alcohol abuse and mental health.
    So I think the debate on the family is too important to leave to the right. And I plan to return to it!

    • The Wiganer

      Classic. Blame Thatcher whilst ignoring the fact that manufacturing employment dropped sharply 1997-2010.

      • Stuart Eels

        Did you have too many sherberts last night? at least the woman is brave enough to come on here, how many others do. To attack her for her size is very childish after all you yourself could be an equal to Eric Pickles for all we know!

        • Noa

          Self promotion on a blog does not require courage.
          A smirking narcissism yes, of which she has plenty.

    • Russell

      So says the most useless lump of lard in the House of Commons.

    • Austin Barry

      “But I believe family networks matter,however unorthodox. I am a second generation immigrant and immigrants Jewish/Irish/ Indian/ West Indian etc tend to feel strongly about family because, when you come here as a first generation immigrant, family networks are all you have.”

      You’ve forgotten an immigrant group – the one which respects its family by FMG and honour killings. Funny that.

    • Colonel Mustard

      I am a 36th generation Englishman and tend to feel as strongly about my family as my parents, grandparents and those before them did.

      • Fergus Pickering

        36th generation, Colonel. Your family tree must fill a whole wall. Congratulations! How far back does that take you?

    • ButcombeMan

      WRONG. In the UK black community it is the social habits imported from Jamaica that has caused so much damage to your community-see “baby father”-below.

      • StephanieJCW

        Eh? A tiny minority of the UK’s so called black community is of Jamaican descent. And the vast majority of those who immigrated to the UK from Jamaica married before having children.Single parent families weren’t rampant amongst the Windrush generation.
        This is a class issue, the same high levels of unmarried parents exist about the white working class.

        • ButcombeMan

          This below from the 2001 census.: Accepted “Black Caribbean” is wider than black jamaican, but Jamaican extraction dominates black caribbean. Your “tiny minority” looks rather flaky indeed so flaky is it, it is staggering that you thought you might get away with it.

          Agreed single parent familes were not common with the Windrush influx but my general point about the “baby father” habit, coming out of Jamaica, IS true. It may be uncomfortable for Diane Abbot you may not like it either. You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.

          In the UK, there were 58,789,194 people, of whom 54,153,898 were White.

          Of those 58,789,194, 565,876 (1.0%) were Black Caribbean, 485,277 (0.8%)were Black African and 97,585 (0.2%) were Black Other. That’s a total of 1,148,738 people classified as All Black or Black British – that’s 2% of the total UK population or 24.8% of the Non-White UK population.

          • Colonel Mustard

            You would never believe those statistics watching the BBC.

        • Hexhamgeezer


    • Magnolia

      Diane says that “nothing has caused more damage to families and community life than the deindustrialisation of the Thatcher years and mass unemployment”
      Families were falling apart in the late sixties and early seventies (long before the Labour government had to go to the IMF with the begging bowl and prior to Mrs T) due to the development of the permissive society and the contraceptive pill, which allowed adults to be unfaithful without suffering the natural biological consequences and women could reliably plan their family size which meant that they could also plan some sort of career or life of work. The changes to the divorce laws in the seventies also played its part. My childhood was made chaotic and unbearable at times but this had nothing to do with the Thatcher years or unemployment. I had good role models in my grandparents and my friends parents who showed me what a good family life meant and I have faithfully reproduced that for my own lucky children. A child from a bad home doesn’t have to end up a bad parent themselves. It is not pre-ordained and it is not set in stone by a poor economy, lack of money or Conservative government.
      All governments have presided over a real lowering of the value of a wage in this country. The tax take has increased and the state has taken over a large part of the role that society and families used to control themselves.
      One wage used to feed and look after a family but it did not pay for booze and foreign holidays as well.
      New Labour and the Cosmo generation marginalised any parent who wanted to be a home maker or to rear their own children. That type of parent is still viewed as disgusting by most politicians in policy terms regardless of their own life situations.
      How much industrialisation did the last Labour government re-instate?
      Not a lot I think because a vaste London banking system doesn’t really count as a good way of providing lots of working and middle class jobs with which to raise families on.
      I think you (if you are Diane) are brave to speak out like this but you should not be sloppy and use the rote hatred of the left.

      • StephanieJCW

        Overall the contraceptive pill was a huge positive for society. I have nothing but praise for the positive impact it has had on my life. Being a mother of 15 was never something I aspired to.

        • Fergus Pickering

          My mother had three children not fifteen. Did she know something that you don’t?

    • Noa

      “…In fact they have failed to keep up with the British public who
      understand families come in all shapes and sizes including same-sex
      couples and single parent…”

      As an outstanding example of bloated self serving public sector parasitism I do not believe you have any contribution to make to the views of hard working, tax paying families.

    • Curnonsky

      If “family” is such a loose concept that it comes in all shapes and sizes, then what exactly is it you propose to support? If – let’s just say – a woman chooses to have multiple children by multiple men, none of whom stay long enough to raise the children (or have any confidence who fathered them) who is to say that is not a “family”? Unless you make value judgments of the kind Labour has steadfastly refused to make this is nothing more than easy blather devoid of meaning. Or is this part of an effort to “detoxify” your party?

    • Glenn Ludlow

      Same sex couples are going to struggle making a family – did they not teach biology at your school?

      • Fergus Pickering

        Elton John appears to be making one.

        • Noa

          No, buying one, or is it two now.

          As a child, which of Furnish or John would you prefer as your mummy?

    • John Cronin

      I do not think you could afford to get that obese were it not for your bloated MP’s salary and expenses. And you lecture us in the real world.

      Why can’t you send my kids to private school? I mean, that would be socialism.

    • Hexhamgeezer

      …..a Stalinist racist writes….

      • Hexhamgeezer

        sorry…I meant to say racist Stalinist hypocrite

    • anyfool

      So I think the debate on the family is too important to leave to the right. And I plan to return to it!

      When you return to this, will you also explain why it is alright for other children to suffer the ravages of the Comprehensive School System that you so judiciously avoided for your own children.

      Will you explain why you vote against any reforms submitted by Gove to improve the system you felt was so good, that you paid tens of thousands to avoid for your own children.

      Will you at least apologize for the damage you and people like you (bearing in mind you are not the only socialist politician to go private) did to the lives of millions, yet you continue to espouse this hideous system, that you avoided blah blah blah.

      Oh, also stop appearing on the BBC, when they chose that dim witted Jacqui Smith crook to replace you, does it not prove you are only there to make that other prick Portillo look intelligent..

    • Colonel Mustard

      Social conservatives rarely insist on anything, let alone the model for families. What they tend to do is support the preservation of what has been seen to work in creating a harmonious and well-adjusted society. In other words they challenge a blind belief in change for change’s sake which socialists tend to champion, regardless of verifiable consequences, and more recently have sought to coerce through legislation. I think you are a bit cheeky trying to turn that one on its head, although I am not surprised given the dogma inherent in the socialist position.

      What has caused more damage to families and community life is the cultural revolution begun by disaffected socialists in the 1960’s, mainly within education, and continued through to topsy-turvy law making from 1997-2010.

      • Sarah

        Harmonious for whom?

        You obviously haven’t read many diaries of the women and kids who lived in those harmonious families, or sat down and spoken to your grandmother.

  • John_Page

    I know that it is easy to mock Abbott

    Mock her? When this self-important control freak is “discussing the need to tackle obesity”?

    Mockery is way too good for this loathsome heap of hypocrisy. She is so sure she knows what is good for the rest of us. Even though she acknowledges she and others were wrong about big things in the past.

    Her line: I’ve got it right now and the state should make you do as I say.

    Disgusting. It has to be said loudly and clearly and frankly.

  • Trevor Kavanagh

    So, they now realise they got it wrong on the family. And on immigration. They got it wrong on welfare and the economy. They got it wrong on Europe, on education, on law and order. They haven’t found a way back from any of these mistakes…. And they are still going to win in 2015?

    • Daniel Maris

      Yep. Because the Tories have got it wronger.

    • Andy

      True that Abbott’s big mate, Gordon the Moron Brown and his evil sidekick Ed bollocks Balls, aided by Wee Ed the bag carrier Millipede, ruined the British economy. But why should Abbott care, with her gold plated Parliamentary pension ? The reality is she wont live to see the mess she and her mates wrought sorted out.

    • David Lindsay

      Europe? When, in 1983? Or in the recent vote on the EU Budget?

    • eeore

      Yeah they will – it will be disastrous for the country but they will win.

      The Liberals will be destroyed, which will show the idiocy of the ‘presidential debates’, the Tories have shown themselves replete of ideas (they had the ideas but they decided to just go with the OXbridge civil service and continue with New Labour policy), UKIP are simply a party to split the Tory vote and Labour have more than enough sheep to carry the vote.

      • Fergus Pickering

        I am prepared to bet you twenty quid that Labour will be unable to form a Government in 2015. The 40% will melt away as that time draws closer and they remain bankrupt of ideas. Can you tell me one thing they have said they will do/ I mean something of substance. No, of course you can’t. By they ay, shouldn’t you be eeyore?

      • AlfTupperDarlin

        donkey: “the Tories have shown themselves replete of ideas”

        Minor grammatical nit, but I think it is replete “with” ideas.

        That said I think you’re exaggerating. Here’s how the SOED defines “replete”:
        “Filled or abundantly supplied with”

        Fair enough, the Tories have had a fair few ideas, but “replete with”? I don’t think so.

        • Georgina

          @eeore & AlfTupperDarlin:

          Or did you mean “deplete of ideas?”

    • The_Missing_Think

      Very nice retrospective list… and HMG’s offical opposition?… they get to trough freely for decades, with not one grain of responsibility?

      And don’t try and make out that list happened in 13 years… it’s covered in Tory fingerprints.

      You heard of Enoch Powell? That was 1968, not 1997. This is mostly a LibLabCon list.

      Your list almost starts with immigration, that’s because we all know that the others are knock on effects from it.

      And who “No platformed” who again?

      So lets just be really honest shall we, that list is a product of the NUJ Media, because it is they that are gleefully and illegally supressing a legitimate legal party’s concerns about the political racial vortex called England.

      A BNP Govt, even in coaltion, would have conserved London as an English city… erh… in England?

      Scream scream.. the BNP Nazis want predominantly English cities in England… quick delete them, “No platform” them. Pure Nazism!

      I wonder why the subject of mass anti-immigration white flight is totally taboo in NUJ land… huh?

      I don’t wonder, it’s the stench of silent, evil prospers, Tory hypocrisy.

      • HooksLaw

        You are a thick nasty gobshite.

        • The_Missing_Think

          Peace and tough love!

        • SirMortimerPosh

          Well argued sir. I am agog at your eloquence. Bravo!

    • HooksLaw

      Labour always get it wrong, which is why its a mystery that some seem keen to pursue policies that would see them returned to power.

    • Richard StClair

      lots of people aren’t looking on the genocide of the poor/sick and disabled very kindly is why they are going to lose

      • SirMortimerPosh

        The greatest problem in Britain today is that the people believe they have a right to be kept by the state at the expense of the tax payer. Labour so expanded social security payments that now it is considered an outrage to withdraw gifts of money from parents who are earning between £50,000 and £60,000. Labour openly support the payment of tax money to these families.

        The only way out of this miasma is that people must be made to be responsible for their own upkeep. If they can not get a job, they must in conscience be supported, BUT MUST BE MADE TO WORK FOR THEIR WELFARE. If we provide as we do, income support that raises family earnings to more than the wages earned by unskilled low earners, people will be bound to refuse to work for a living. Isn’t it obvious? The graphs shown in an article last week in this magazine demonstrate that the welfare system disincentivises the poor from ever working. There should be no welfare without work.

    • BillyHW

      Wrong, wrong, wrong…and they still think they’re smarter and better than you.

    • Yorkieeye

      Well said – how can that be?

    • Sammy Oleeey

      Diane Abbott saying she supports school uniform is not the same as Labour realising they’ve ‘got it wrong on the family’. As far as I’m aware no one has ever advocated families splitting up, there is just a recognition that the family unit can take many forms other than what is traditionally seen as the norm. Now if the tories as ‘social conservatives’ were so right all along, why have they disowned section 28 and stopped stigmatising single mothers ? In reality there’s no hard and fast right or wrong on what is a constantly evolving society. As for immigration, whoever has been in power hasn’t got it right because migration is a fact that exists outside of government policy. it’s the easiest thing in the world to say stop immigration but how do you do that without turning into a police state? With Europe, again far from perfect, but at least Labour didn’t do anything as stupid as telegraph their intention to hold a referendum on continued membership of the EU, so letting potential foreign investors know not to bother. Law and order: I believe I’m less at risk now of being a victim of crime, especially violent crime, than I was 20 years ago, so Labour can’t have failed so badly. And education is always a mixed picture, but what is obvious is that incremental improvements to a system are always better than eye catching initiatives and instant solutions. Both parties are guilty of this, but Michael Gove is by far the worst offender.
      I hope you’re not the same Trevor Kavanagh who writes for the Sun, as making sweeping assertions with little basis in fact is no response to an attempt to address complex problems that affect us all and you should be capable of better.

  • Wilhelm

    Our very own Al Sharpton, race hustler Diane Abbott tweeted this ” Whites play divide and rule, we shouldn’t play the white mans game.”

    She also said ” she didn’t want the NHS hiring Swedish, blond, blue eyed nurses because she wanted hospital staff that looked like her constituents .” Andrew Neil carries out a demolition job on the Ebonic speaking dumpling. Comedy gold.


    In relation to Abbott’s comments about the importance of family. Diana Abbott’s ex-husband has said…

    “I would love to see my son again. This time last year I took him to the Motor Show
    at Canary Wharf and we had a great time. This week I’ve been walking around the show on my own and wishing my son was with me.”

    Poignantly, he adds: “I’ve even collected lots of brochures so that when and if I ever get to see him again, I can give them to him. It is very sad for me. I love my son and want the best for him.”

    At a party this week, Ms Abbott told me she had no regrets about sending James to his fee-paying school. “He is very clever and the school is competitive which suits him.” She adds: “He doesn’t see his father.”

    • StephanieJCW

      Her son is more than old enough to go and see his father if he chooses. That he doesn’t is telling.


        Telling of what?

    • Andy

      Of course ‘we’ are not allowed to send our children to fee-paying schools – only socialists are allowed to do that. Here is a woman who has spent her political life destroying everything, particularly education. But she spends her money sending her children to fee-paying schools while we are left with the messy and useless comprehensives she and her mates foisted on us. The word you are looking for is hypocrite.

      • TomTom

        The Taxpayer pays public school fees for lots of Government employees – £15,000,000 a year in fact

        • HooksLaw

          Some schools abroad are inadequate and some locations are not safe. Having a foreign policy has a cost as does having a defence policy. many locations abroad of course have ‘British schools’ and then children go to them.


    Diane Abbott is a favourite of the Spectator, despite being a creature of Ken Livingstone, and she has been awarded their Parliamentary Speech of the Year Award.

    If we remember, she has said that ‘the British invented racism’, and that ‘blonde, blue-eyed Finnish girls’ were unsuitable as nurses, and that ‘White people love playing ‘divide and rule’.

    She is in fact a marxist racist of the worst kind.

    It is telling that the Spectator will not support Stephen Lennon, who is not a racist while they will support Diane Abbot who has repeatedly proclaimed her racist views of white people.

    • Austin Barry

      She is black and cannot therefore be a racist. Only white people can be racist.

      (That’s right, isn’t it Diane?)

    • Sarah

      A racist of the worst kind?? Are you sure?

      I am sure being told that you like to divide and conquer caused you considerable existential angst, but it’s not quote up there with structural racism and lynching.

  • In2minds

    Diane Abbott – “more support for the family”. So is there a Mr
    Abbott then?

    • Austin Barry

      Should’ve gone to Specsavers.

  • Kevin

    For The Spectator to imply that it believes in an objective definition of “the family” is brazen.

  • Noa

    “…parts of the left beginning to grasp that social conservatives were right about some very important things…”

    Oh dear. Taking auguries from L’Abesse’s political regurgitations will lead to only lead to indigestion.


      What does it mean when none of the conservative commenters on a conservative website agree with the generosity being shown to an unreformed marxist hypocrite by the editorial team?

      Is the author wrong, or have we the people still not been transformed in our thinking so that we can also learn to embrace the left?

      • Austin Barry

        Unhappily, the Speccie is moving so far left that, in geographic terms, I place it somewhere just outside of Bodmin, where bovine creatures like Abbott snort and root in abject idiocy.

  • the viceroy’s gin

    Parts of the left are beginning to realise that they got the family wrong


    Well first, just what does “they got the family wrong” mean?

    Who got it wrong, what was it they got wrong, and who got it “right”, and what exactly did they get right?

    It’s difficult to read or make use of the McSpeccie’s ramblings, but perhaps if you spent a bit of time and effort, you’d actually be of interest and service, and the attempt to wade through your McPost would be worthwhile.

    In the new year, you should make a pledge to do more than tap out disjointed witterings, as this.

    • John Lea

      They transformed the welfare system, abolishing tax breaks for families, prioritising single mothers on council housing lists, providing financial incentives for woman NOT to remain married, and labelling anyone who dared suggest that ‘single parent families’ (usually single mother families) were not an ideal set-up for children or society as ‘ right-wing bigots’. Will that suffice?


        And the Spectator think it a good thing to support her.

        • ButcombeMan

          Exactly, this is just noise, from the thoroughly odious,obese and irrelevant Abbott.

          No doubt she was looking for just this sort of silly Speccie comment. Why feed the monster?

          I have always thought this woman had piles of chips, on both shoulders, and had eaten far too many of them.

          No more of this bilge please. Do get a grip on what is truly important.

      • David Lindsay

        That was Thatcher. All of it.

        • Wessex Man

          I’ve heard it all now, blaming Thatcher, out of power for twenty three years for this country’s woes now! We’ve had four of the biggest charlatans ever to hold the office of Prime Minister since. When are you going to start blaming Churchill, get your head out of your ****!

        • John Lea

          Let’s say it’s been the policy of successive governments not to tackle the issue of one-parent families, from Major to Cameron. It was New Labour, however, and hypocrites like Abbott in particular, who created the atmosphere in which anyone who dared to suggest that a welfare system which encouraged lone parents (of either sex) was damaging – not only to the children involved but to society more generally – was immediately stigmatised as a heartless right-wing fascist. They also used the same strategy in relation to immigration, but that’s another issue.

      • StephanieJCW

        “providing financial incentives for woman NOT to remain married”

        But financially married couples are better of and women are poorer as a result of divorcing. So where is the financial incentive to not remain married?


          Financially married couples are not better off. They are worse off.

        • Fergus Pickering

          If you have a child and no job and no money you are far better not to live with the father if he is similarly placed. On your own you will get a place to live and sufficient money to bring the child up without working at all. And you can always up your income by having another child. Marriage would be MOST unwise.

    • StephanieJCW

      That was my question. My issue with pieces like this is they never state how they left got the family wrong and, more importantly, what to do to fix it.

  • Time Traveller

    “Interestingly, Abbott also comes out in favour of school uniforms. She points out that they are a check against materialism and the designer label arms race”.

    No, they are an early manifestation of social control. As such, I would expect her to hold such a view.

    • wrinkledweasel

      TT, your comment is fascinating. And you are right, school uniforms are indeed an early manifestation of social control, and yet, I tend to think they are one of the better ones.

      Humility is best learned early in life. The school uniform confers a type of anonymity and equality that encourages the wearer to learn the values of inner strength, rather than the values of Nike and Apple.

      Since all public education is de facto social control, you can either, teach your kids at home or place them in an environment which enables them to be useful members of that society. Of course, you can take the wearing of uniforms too far, but it can come as no surprise that the likes of Diane Abbott intuitively warm to the idea.

      Diane Abbott, it must be said, thinks for herself. The fact that her thoughts can probably be stored on a Sinclair Spectrum memory chip is immaterial. (See her dreadful contributions to the Christmas edition of University Challenge) She’s one of nature’s pains in the arse and for that she probably represents better value than most of the lobby fodder in her egregious party.

      But just because she is a terrible woman does not mean she may, on this occasion, have a point.

    • StephanieJCW

      As someone raised in what was considered a ‘poverty stricken’ family (by UK standards) school uniforms were a God send.

      • Time Traveller

        Alternatively, a school friend of mine, diffident from the outset, was eventually driven to complete social withdrawal – unhelped, I believe, by the taunts and humiliation he suffered because his uniform was conspicuously secondhand, the best his widowed mother could afford.

        At a state school where affluence was unusually well-represented, his uniform’s threadbare patches and too-short legs and sleeves were probably more reliable social/fashion indicators than mufti would ever have been.

        • HooksLaw

          Your friend should have taken his/her parent(s) to Tesco where a wide range of suitable school uniforms would be available. Tesco’s sell a pair of boys trousers from £4.00

          Since uniforms do not last long for growing children your story somewhat lacks credibility and there is a wide range of nearly new wear available – the sale of which benefits seller and purchaser.

          • barbie

            I don’t think the story lacks crediblity at all. It depends on a person’s income to what they can afford and there may be more than one child. If the parent(s) is on benefits then providing uniform for one can be daunting, it might mean buying uniform or eating, that is the reality some people face. Until you’ve expierienced this kind of living you can’t really judge.

          • SirMortimerPosh

            He is obviously speaking about the past. Idiot!

        • racyrich

          Eh? Was his mufti able to compete with the rich kids’ then? Of course not. Uniform was his best chance of anonymity.

        • Ringstone

          That mufti being head to toe FCUK, NIKE, Jack Wills…..

    • HooksLaw

      No – uniforms are good for the reasons explained. To pretend otherwise is plain stupid and indeed betrays a lack of education.

      • barbie

        In the USA they don’t wear uniforms but kids are better educated than here, so uniforms are decrortive only, they don’t teach kids anything but uniformintiy, certainly stops free thinking and single minded achievement. Schools that don’t have uniform policy can be just as successful. Uniforms are used as a sort of collective control.

        • Fergus Pickering

          How are uniforms collective control? I don’t understand that at all. Explain it to me. I’ve always supposed the in the USA social control is much stronger than here and that the children are startlingly ignorant, being very vague, for instance, on the difference between the War of Independence and the Civil War. Is that not so?

      • Fergus Pickering

        You are right. I used to buy my daughters uniforms second hand and they were quite indistinguishable from anybody else’s. Of course, since the school was, and is, a grammar school, there was a very varied social mix, nobody rich (they went private), but plenty of people whose parents didn’t have much money. Of course if you buy uniforms that don’t fit you are off to a bad start, so don’t do that. And remember, it is far worse for a child to be born ugly then poor and there is no cure for ugliness, so count your blessings.. .

  • barbie

    Abbot always says what she thinks and she gets annoyed when people don’t listen to her; perhaps they are fed up with her. Who really listens to this woman? She says one thing and does something else herself, we used to say ‘two faced’ when we were younger. This is what you get with socialists, dicatating what you should and shouldn;t do, creating a society of yes people, expecting everything to be provided by the state, and the state obliges to make you obey them more. We were indoctrinated by the Brown era, and we escaped just in time, never again.


    Diane Abbott is simply telling ordinary people what to do, as she always does. I don’t think she has changed her mind about anything. She is a marxist hypocrite. Part of that includes being sure that ordinary people should do what she says not what she does.

    The headline of the interview, which you ignore, is that Abbott wants to tell people what food they and their children should be allowed to eat. How is this less totalitarian than the Abbott we have always known?

    • Austin Barry

      Is is typical of Abbott’s relentless hypocrisy that although rendered corpulent by self-indulgence, she tells us, with that curious eye-rolling idiocy, what to eat.

      • Airey Belvoir

        It takes Labour to put a clinically obese person in charge of their health policy and lecture us all on sensible diet.

      • Eddie

        When I first saw the photo above I thought Ainsley Harriot had let himself go!

        What a relief to see that it was just Diane FatButt, flobbering away with her wiggy hair and her gurny greasy grin of pure lard-dripping hypocrisy! Nice that she earns a 6 figure sum and sends her son to private school though – seems it’s not only regarding diet that she’s a big fat double-standards spouting dug-dragging turd spurtle!

        Watch this and wonder:

        (warning: best not to watch this too soon after eating…)

        • Eddie

          Did I say Ainsley Harriot?
          Sorry, I meant Idi Amin. She is saying:
          ‘Don’t worry won’t worry, you will all be one hundred per cent safe in the beautiful Ugandan republic of Hackney…’

    • dalai guevara

      If I am not mistaken than I have learnt something today. There is an previously undiscovered number in the conservative readship on here that appear to…love fried chicken. 😉

Can't find your Web ID? Click here