Who are you calling a hypocrite?

...oh - the man who is very likely to be Labour's next leader. Figures.

It looks like the Sun has managed to outdo its already outrageous swathes of hypocrisy by having the nerve to print a story accusing someone else of hypocrisy. I'm really quite surprised the earth hasn't fried under the hypocrisy enthralled gasses spilling out from that big toxic ball (when used in its correct form - screwed up and thrown into a bin) of lies that we call 'The Sun'.

Under the headline 'Sunburnt' (that's the best they could do apparently), read the words:

'Is two faced Burnham the most hypocritical politician in Britan?'

So - The Sun - let me address you directly, and let me first answer that question for you - no. That title currently lies with the more than worthy George Osbourne, who before the general election said:

 'We choose the whole nation. ... We choose responsibility ... We choose aspiration ... We choose families.' (see the whole speech here)

Before ensuring that under 25s aren't entitled to his pretend living wage (ooh - double points there for creating hypocrisy-ception), scrapping maintenance grants for poor students (aspiration is for the rich only), limiting tax credits to two children (because you're only a human being if you got there first or second...yeah, sounds like a Tory policy to me), and dumping the responsibility of paying the TV licence of the over 75s on the BBC (because then you kill two birds with one stone - keep the voting pensioners happy, continue in plan to destroy public institution that provides legitimate competition to good friend Rupert Murdoch's world domination efforts).

So now we've cleared that up, let's look a little closer at your article (you should be comfortable with this, given your willingness to get up close and personal with, and invade the privacy of anyone who wanders into your path of self righteous, self serving twaddle and has the audacity to challenge it).

So you're upset because Andy Burnham wouldn't give an interview for you to twist into some sort of campaign against him, but he didn't have any such concerns in 2010? It probably was ill-advised for him to go anywhere near you in the first place, absolutely. There probably is an element of hypocrisy there too, but do you not also think your derogatory, unnecessarily personal, inflammatory and misleading attacks on the previous Labour leader since that interview may have had something to do with the decision not to come back to you? It may even have been fear of such attacks had he not complied, that lead him to do the 2010 interview - but now it's clear you'll attack him either way, why not go for the 'screw you' option, and why not remind everyone of the despicable way you treated the Hillsborough victims along the way? Or he could be a hypocrite, like you definetly aren't.

So - the detail I promised: 

'As far as he’s concerned, if you read the Sun you just don’t matter'

Because, of course, the sole way of finding out anything about Andy Burnham is through your newspaper. The Internet, radio, television, other newspapers (yeah - you know, another point of view, you should try it some day) and hustings events are out of the question. The sole way of Sun readers finding out about a contender in a contest to lead a left wing party is through the vested interested of a right wing newspaper. Sun readers apparently have no clue that other sources of information are out there. You've set expectations of your readers a little low there haven't you? 

'He’s much more interested in winning the backing of the faithful Leftie few and seizing the Labour party crown whatever the consequences.'

Yes, well done, that idea makes perfect sense. The way he's going to win the leadership contest, is by only gaining the support of the - ahem - 'leftie few'. I quite like the term 'leftie' - it's sort of adorable, and not in a 'oh look at the cute kitten while we brainwash you with right-wing propaganda' sort of way either. Result. 

'That’s astonishing at a time when Labour so clearly needs to reinvent itself and reach out to voters who deserted them in droves at the election.'

Which was absolutely nothing to do with your scaremongering. 

'It says much that he considers addressing the electorate through a national newspaper a ‘favour’ in the first place.'

What if he wanted to address the electorate through a non-biased medium? Typical leftie, wanting a fair representation of what he actually says. It does indeed say a lot about him, that he sees politians and newspapers operating on a 'you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours' basis, and has the restraint to only call it a 'favour'.

'Burnham shows every sign he would repeat the mistakes of hopeless predecessor Ed Miliband'
Oh, you mean the guy who's policies would actually benefit your readers, rather than the guy who's policies would benefit you? Take cover everyone, I feel another Sun induced hypocrisy heatwave coming along.


Maybe next time you chose to attack someone who stands in the way of your own interests, at least do it on the basis of a vice you're not so obviously guilty of (admittedly, you will find that very limiting), or at least avoid the subject of hypocrisy. Because a paper being hypocritical by accusing someone of hypocrisy due to its own hypocritical nature, thus becoming even more hypocritical, has made me type the word hypocrite and its various forms in so many ways the word has lost all meaning to me. Or maybe that's what you were hoping for - that you would become so hypocritical that it hides all your hypocrisy. PLEASE SOMEONE MAKE IT STOP.