Labour

Forums New posts
Just checking in - is the pop at Sarwar just the usual stuff or is there a principle here that people shouldn't be members of bodies they oppose?
 
Archie said:
Just checking in - is the pop at Sarwar just the usual stuff or is there a principle here that people shouldn't be members of bodies they oppose?
Click to expand...
Don't you think it's just a bit hypocritical? Even for a politician!
 
Archie said:
So just to be clear, it's hypocritical to be a member of a body you oppose?
Click to expand...
He's often said that labour would scrap the HoL and it was as recently as May he said he wouldn't take a place there if the election was lost.

"Being hypocritical means claiming to hold certain moral standards, beliefs, or virtues, while simultaneously acting in a way that contradicts them. It describes behavior that is insincere, two-faced, or characterized by a double standard."

Looks like a slam dunk to me.
 
The only exception I might suggest would be if becoming a member was the first steps needed to abolishing it. There's no sign of that.
 
Archie said:
Just checking in - is the pop at Sarwar just the usual stuff or is there a principle here that people shouldn't be members of bodies they oppose?
Click to expand...

Archie said:
OK, but the question was 'is there a principle here that people shouldn't be members of bodies they oppose?'
Click to expand...

Archie said:
So just to be clear, it's hypocritical to be a member of a body you oppose?
Click to expand...

C’mon Archie…….. you’re bursting!
 
Who
paigntonhibby said:
how are they bigoted cvnts? I dont hear any anti catholic rhetoric coming from them.
The king is the head of the church of england so he has to be a protestant just as the pope as the head of the catholic church has to be a catholic, is the catholic church bigoted cvnts?
And all of this has affected your life how?
Click to expand...
Who mentioned the King? Or anything to do with the risk family. 👀 not me. Not for a second did i think the King could be Catholic🤣🤣🤣🤣 but you knew that!
The establishment of the UK are without doubt bigoted…it was tradition for a new PM to be NOT A CATHOLIC… hence Tony Blairs waiting time to convert, that wasn’t just laziness- why?
Princess Diana - hounded for even someone telling stories that grew legs that she was thinking about it.
The establishment runs the country not the king, if you think that there is not some top level sinister bigitry going on then you are a tad Naive!
You think the media in Scotland don’t shite bias to their hun pals? 🤣
Your last sentence is comically pathetic on a forum for everyone to post their opinions and thoughts on 🤪
 
Jack said:
I don't know what you mean.
Click to expand...
Archie's asking if it's hypocritical for a politician to be a member of a body they oppose. Farage and his mates were MEPs despite being opposed to the EU. So was that hypocritical? Or were they undermining it from within, and therefore not hypocritical to be members?
Not trying to catch you out or anything.
 
MeanwoodHibee said:
Archie's asking if it's hypocritical for a politician to be a member of a body they oppose. Farage and his mates were MEPs despite being opposed to the EU. So was that hypocritical? Or were they undermining it from within, and therefore not hypocritical to be members?
Not trying to catch you out or anything.
Click to expand...
Farage wasn't undermining the EU parliamement as he was seldom present!
 
Hattie said:
Who

Who mentioned the King? Or anything to do with the risk family. 👀 not me. Not for a second did i think the King could be Catholic🤣🤣🤣🤣 but you knew that!
The establishment of the UK are without doubt bigoted…it was tradition for a new PM to be NOT A CATHOLIC… hence Tony Blairs waiting time to convert, that wasn’t just laziness- why?
Princess Diana - hounded for even someone telling stories that grew legs that she was thinking about it.
The establishment runs the country not the king, if you think that there is not some top level sinister bigitry going on then you are a tad Naive!
You think the media in Scotland don’t shite bias to their hun pals? 🤣
Your last sentence is comically pathetic on a forum for everyone to post their opinions and thoughts on 🤪
Click to expand...
There are no laws banning catholics from PMs office, the only restriction would be advising the king on the appointment of bishops etc , which is normally the PMs job and if he is catholic would have to be delegated to another minister, normally the chancellor. The only person in the country that cannot be a catholic is the king
 
paigntonhibby said:
There are no laws banning catholics from PMs office, the only restriction would be advising the king on the appointment of bishops etc , which is normally the PMs job and if he is catholic would have to be delegated to another minister, normally the chancellor. The only person in the country that cannot be a catholic is the king
Click to expand...
I can't be catholic either!
 
greencol said:
Farage wasn't undermining the EU parliamement as he was seldom present!
Click to expand...
Aye, well apart from that!

MeanwoodHibee said:
Archie's asking if it's hypocritical for a politician to be a member of a body they oppose. Farage and his mates were MEPs despite being opposed to the EU. So was that hypocritical? Or were they undermining it from within, and therefore not hypocritical to be members?
Not trying to catch you out or anything.
Click to expand...
I would suggest they and other groups, the French lot for example, were definitely disrupters. I'd also say they did not use their position in a positive way that was of benefit to the organisation.

They fought the organisation from within but I'm not sure they fought to destroy it.

It did give Farage a good wage and a platform.

More mercenary than hypocritical probably.
 
Jack said:
Aye, well apart from that!


I would suggest they and other groups, the French lot for example, were definitely disrupters. I'd also say they did not use their position in a positive way that was of benefit to the organisation.

They fought the organisation from within but I'm not sure they fought to destroy it.

It did give Farage a good wage and a platform.

More mercenary than hypocritical probably.
Click to expand...
Sorry, bit of whitabootery here. The kinnocks appear to have made a lucrative family dynasty on the coattails of the EU
 
paigntonhibby said:
Sorry, bit of whitabootery here. The kinnocks appear to have made a lucrative family dynasty on the coattails of the EU
Click to expand...
Well it would have been a bit of whataboutery if anyone had mentioned anyone other than "Farage and his mates".

I'm sure there were many people, from many countries, made a good living representing their constituents in the EU. I'm sure a good many still do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dub
We
paigntonhibby said:
There are no laws banning catholics from PMs office, the only restriction would be advising the king on the appointment of bishops etc , which is normally the PMs job and if he is catholic would have to be delegated to another minister, normally the chancellor. The only person in the country that cannot be a catholic is the king
Click to expand...
It was a “tradition” as i said. I never said it was a law.
Tony Blair wanted to convert for a long time, but left it till he was no longer PM… why do you think that was?
 
Hattie said:
We

It was a “tradition” as i said. I never said it was a law.
Tony Blair wanted to convert for a long time, but left it till he was no longer PM… why do you think that was?
Click to expand...
There was more than one reason , its part of the PMs remit to advise the monarch on ecclesiastical issues such as nominating bishops and he felt converting would have caused political distraction.
The northern ireland talks were ongoing and converting halfway through could have suggested bias.
His govt were pushing through legislation that the catholic church was vehemently opposed to, such as stem cell and gay couple adoption. so converting at that time wouldnt have been a good look.
 
Archie said:
Just checking in - is the pop at Sarwar just the usual stuff or is there a principle here that people shouldn't be members of bodies they oppose?
Click to expand...
Archie said:
So just to be clear, it's hypocritical to be a member of a body you oppose?
Click to expand...
Lol, even for you, this is incredible. YES, it's an example of rank hypocrisy to wield power you've previously vociferously asserted it's unacceptable to wield.

For once in your life, maybe just accept a point without the disingenuous rhetorical questions? It's so blatantly hypocritical it really can't be defended, even with your attempted ... well, I actually don't know what you're attempting to do here? What's your point, Archie?
 
aggie said:
Lol, even for you, this is incredible. YES, it's an example of rank hypocrisy to wield power you've previously vociferously asserted it's unacceptable to wield.

For once in your life, maybe just accept a point without the disingenuous rhetorical questions? It's so blatantly hypocritical it really can't be defended, even with your attempted ... well, I actually don't know what you're attempting to do here? What's your point, Archie?
Click to expand...
No need to be just so personal.

The point is clear - if you don't agree with a body should you join it? This is being lobbed at Sarwar, but could equally apply to the SNP taking seats at Westminster or indeed Holyrood. Clearly the SNP don't support Westminster and were, initially at least, lukewarm on devolution. But they made a decision to go along with it.

Now that has paid huge dividends in terms of power in Scotland and personal advancement for a lot of individuals.

Contrast this with Sinn Fein's approach where they don't take up Westminster seats. They used to refuse to take up seats in the Dial as well. When that policy changed it caused a major split.

Now @Jack spotted the potential for the SNP to be hoist by this, so he qualifed his response by saying it's OK if you join a body as steps to get rid of it.

That's the approach the SNP have taken. But surely the same could be applied to Sarwar? I realise that people here hate him, but there is an exact parallel with the SNP.

So it's not a hypothetical point at all. But rather a very real example of compromises that have to be made in the real world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
  • Menu
  • Home
  • Hibs Chat
  • New Posts
  • Just Back
  • Chatroom