Is Rees-Mogg A Hypocrite?

[sp1814]

If not - why?

https://www.indy100.com/politics/jacob-rees-mogg-theresa-may

[THECORBYLOON]

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 polices she wanted to follow.

That is why he is a hypocrite.

[Ellipsis]

> Ellipsis, if you’re talking about honesty, making it up as you go along does nothing for your credibility.

Making up that I'm making it up do anything for yours, Naomi. The quotes about the numbers are there for all to read or listen to, so I'll leave people to do that.

[Ellipsis]

Thank you, Corby, we cross-posted.

[JDavis]

There were several different options for leaving. Over 48 percent voting remain doesn't seem to me a mandate for a hard Brexit.

[Ellipsis]

doesn't* do anything

[naomi24]

Corby, the operative words there being ‘in the interests of the party and the nation’. Her continuance in office wasn’t in the interests of the party and the nation. She was a disaster.

[naomi24]

JDavis. ‘Leave’ means only one thing. Leave.

[Zacs-Master]

He appointment as PM wasn’t in the interests of the party and the nation but it happened. It happened because no one else wanted the job.

[JDavis]

Naomi,

Repeating it constantly doesn't make it right. Yes or no, did the ballot paper specify a particular form of Brexit?

[naomi24]

JDavis, The ballot paper asked ‘Leave’ or ‘Remain’ - just two options.

[sp1814]

Whatever JRM’s opinion of TM and BJ was/is, is relevant.

If he thought that TM was a rubbish prime minister he is quite within his rights to say that the result was appalling for her.

But if he then goes on to say that a majority of one is still a working majority for BJ, then he’s a hypocrite.

And it’s his feelings for the two prime ministers that drives his hypocrisy. It’s based on two results contradicting his world view.

[sp1814]

Any chance we could keep on subject?

[naomi24]

SP, could you answer my question at 18.57 weds please?

[JDavis]

Naomi,

Right, and do you accept there were different options for leaving?
You're interpreting it very narrowly as the one you wanted and throwing out insults like treacherous and duplicitous.

Wouldn't a second vote on whichever deal the PM had chosen have been more democratic?

[sp1814]

naomi24

You wrote:

[i]So SP, by your reckoning, if it’s hypocritical to fail to support May - who survived the vote - is it equally hypocritical to fail to support Boris - who also survived the vote? It should be. No?[i]

By my reckoning if May securing 70% of the parliamentary party is "an appalling result which should result in her resignation", then Johnson securing even less than that is likewise an appalling result which should lead to his resignation.

It's not hypocritical to support both PMs after surviving the result but it's very very hypocritical indeed to call for the resignation of one who actually did better than the the other.

[Ellipsis]

> if it’s hypocritical to fail to support May - who survived the vote - is it equally hypocritical to fail to support Boris - who also survived the vote?

No. Logic error.

It wasn't hypocritical to fail to support May. This is why it was helpful for me to post the definition of hypocrisy! He can't be hypocritical for his failure to support May in and of itself, he can only be hypocritical when what he said about May's result is compared to what he said about Johnson's result. Corby's post at 16:33 shows what he said in each case, and his hypocrisy.

[naomi24]

JDavis, the PM couldn’t get her ‘deal’ past parliament let alone past the electorate!! SP has asked that we stick to the topic of this thread so may I suggest if you want to continue to drag over tge tatty remains of ancient history you start a separate thread.

[JDavis]

You've still not answered the question.

[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?

[naomi24]

JDavis, if you’re talking to me I’ve answered the questions you’ve asked me.