Sorry, but Lady Jenkin said that one of the reasons the poor are going hungry is that they can't

is talking about.

Quite clearly - they're wrong. Fin.

fwiw I agree with her. Unfortunately the perception of it will be that some sort of champagne quaffing marie antoinette figure.

We need more of this if we're going to save the country from another five years of tory ineptitude.

And also, she brought up class and so did Rich, before I even mentioned it. Take him to task if you're so sensitive

gets done because everyone's too busy calling her posh and out of touch. Very principled.

The real truth is that nobody's allowed to blame the poor for their own poverty. Ever. Even when it's absolutely their own fault.

I mean, who better to speak on such matters.

People filled in the blanks and she lost her job.

Though this one is a life peer and therefore can say what the f**k she wants cos she's old money, biotch!

Is it the life in PR or the life of rarified privilege that you think gives her the experience?

snobbish about people with St George's Flags and white vans? Hardly the same thing, is it?

What qualifies a historian to speak of the Roman Empire? Has he lived in it?

I thought it was basic maths, but obviously my opinion only counts if I matriculated from than the School of Hard Knocks.

At least down to a greater extent of interpretation than what Jenkin said.

Point being, it's solely down to the perception of what has been said rather than the content.

I don't see what she said here that's snobbish.



http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/image...4_79166701.jpg

I mean, she's obviously some very sharp and able PR person and has in no way got where she has purely on the basis she's from a good family.

Everyone knows exactly what she meant by that image - including Ed Miliband, which is why he forced her out for it. You are simply being disingenuous to pretend you don't understand the meaning.

What precisely has she done to qualify her views? I'm interested to know

Maybe it's the act of someone who thinks like that, maybe it's the act of someone who doesn't give a f**k as they know they can't be sacked, maybe she made a genuine mistake.

I don't know. I do know that it's played terribly though.

However, you are studiously avoiding the question of precisely why she needs to have been poor to make pronouncements on how to save money.

or been briefed on, but I suspect that she has taken these perfectly valid steps to learning about the issue. She may just have spent 20 minutes perusing The Guardian; this would give her a deep understanding of how everyone except posh people is starving in the gutter, dressed in rags.

true? Are you not being snobbish by agreeing with it?

I'm confused, j. Albeit not - it would seem - as confused as you.

Is it?

I'm suggesting she needs to have at least some level of experience of the situation for her opinion to be taken seriously. If she had some academic experience, some vocational experience or some voluntary experience then her opinion would be taken a great deal more seriously.

Surely you can understand that, can't you?

acquainted herself with the subject at least a teensy bit. And she can do basic maths. So those are two qualifications.

The essential point is that she was perfectly correct. Was that luck, do you think? Or because she is indeed qualified to comment?

Trust to propose that unprotected gay sex and sharing needles during intravenous drug use might not be good plans if I want to avoid AIDS.

with the the electorate thinking they are heartless toffs.

I think you'll agree that it's a crucial difference.

Oh no, never, you'd never do such a thing

not in the way that Thornberry's tweet so clearly was. At worst, it was clumsily put. But snobbish? No.

How others choose to spin it, of course, is a different matter.

It's this obsession with surface and presentation rather than the point at hand that's the real problem here, I'm afraid.

Also, she's not a spokesperson for anything. She's just someone who sat on a committee, heard a lot of evidence and gave an opinion.

If he speaks the truth, he speaks the truth. His bizarre political leanings do not alter the truth.

the party line - much to Labour's chagrin at times.

I would bear in mind his political bias, of course, but I would not dismiss him simply because of who he is.

Gays are often wonderful cooks. Have you tried Jeremy Lee's smoked eel sandwich at Quo Vadis, for example. Darling, it's to die for.