Travel1 min ago
Is Rees-Mogg A Hypocrite?
Answers
He said the outcome for May was a, “terrible result for the Prime Minister”. He said about Johnson's vote, “It was a good victory for the prime minister, he won comfortably" Regardless of what he said the respective PMs should do next, those comments alone are hypocritical
17:42 Wed 08th Jun 2022
> If the circumstances were mirrored
What do you mean? It really can't be said (in great detail) any more clearly than Corby did at 16:33, so I'll copy and paste that here as it was on the previous page now:
Rees-Mogg said, after the May confidence vote, "[Theresa May] said in 2017 she would lead the Conservative Party if she had the support of the parliamentary party. Clearly when you've got more than a third voting against you don't. So if she honours her word she will decide in the interests of the party and the nation she will go."
She did better than Johnson and a majority of one would have been fine for the current PM, according to Rees-Mogg.
He was arguing the size of the vote itself showed she had lost the support of her party, not the policies she wanted to follow.
That is why he is a hypocrite.
What do you mean? It really can't be said (in great detail) any more clearly than Corby did at 16:33, so I'll copy and paste that here as it was on the previous page now:
Rees-Mogg said, after the May confidence vote, "[Theresa May] said in 2017 she would lead the Conservative Party if she had the support of the parliamentary party. Clearly when you've got more than a third voting against you don't. So if she honours her word she will decide in the interests of the party and the nation she will go."
She did better than Johnson and a majority of one would have been fine for the current PM, according to Rees-Mogg.
He was arguing the size of the vote itself showed she had lost the support of her party, not the policies she wanted to follow.
That is why he is a hypocrite.
As I said in response to that when it was posted tge first time, the operative words are ‘in the interest of the party and the nation’. Her departure was in the interests of the party and the nation - JRM knew that, as we all did. Boris’s departure would not be in the interests of the party and the nation - and JRM knows that too - as we all should.
> As I said in response to that when it was posted tge first time, the operative words are ‘in the interest of the party and the nation’.
No, the operative words (when looking at the hypocrisy) are "Clearly when you've got more than a third voting against you don't [have the support of the parliamentary party.]"
But when talking about Boris Johnson's VOC, he said that a winning majority of only one would show that Johnson did [have the support of the parliamentary party.]
No, the operative words (when looking at the hypocrisy) are "Clearly when you've got more than a third voting against you don't [have the support of the parliamentary party.]"
But when talking about Boris Johnson's VOC, he said that a winning majority of only one would show that Johnson did [have the support of the parliamentary party.]
For clarity I'll give an analogy that I think fits here.
In this analogy JRM knows two people - one is a good mate and the other he despises.
Unbeknownst to JRM, they both regularly beat their children. When he finds this out he says of the person he doesn't like, "It's a disgrace - she should go to jail for that".
Of his friend, he says, "Spare the rod and spoil the child"
That's hypocrisy and that is structurally what JRM did with his announcements.
In this analogy JRM knows two people - one is a good mate and the other he despises.
Unbeknownst to JRM, they both regularly beat their children. When he finds this out he says of the person he doesn't like, "It's a disgrace - she should go to jail for that".
Of his friend, he says, "Spare the rod and spoil the child"
That's hypocrisy and that is structurally what JRM did with his announcements.
naomi24
//SP/ellipsis, so are you saying that the principle you’re championing overrides circumstances and the damage that could result from applying that principle? Is there no room for common sense?//
The principle I'm championing (I can't talk for Ellipsis) is honesty and having a moral compass. I would have far more respect for JRM if after the BJ vote of confidence he said, "This is not a good result for the PM and we must work at building the trust and backing of the party. We hear the warning shot".
That would've been completely fair. Instead he "a vote of 51% is still a majority".
Seriously hypocr...
Actually naomi24 - let's try this the other way round. What's your definition of hypocrisy?
//SP/ellipsis, so are you saying that the principle you’re championing overrides circumstances and the damage that could result from applying that principle? Is there no room for common sense?//
The principle I'm championing (I can't talk for Ellipsis) is honesty and having a moral compass. I would have far more respect for JRM if after the BJ vote of confidence he said, "This is not a good result for the PM and we must work at building the trust and backing of the party. We hear the warning shot".
That would've been completely fair. Instead he "a vote of 51% is still a majority".
Seriously hypocr...
Actually naomi24 - let's try this the other way round. What's your definition of hypocrisy?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.