• wewbull@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Part of taking on a government role is that you publically back all government positions. Your personal positions are for behind closed doors only. She’s now secretary of state for culture, and so argues the government position.

    Why the government have picked this hill to die on… I have no idea.

    • IcyToes@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      No, you back agreed cabinet positions of the party they represent. As the leader chooses the cabinet, the cabinet represents his position on things.

      You’re elected to represent the people that elect you and have a mandate to change things.

      Ultimately the people in charge have either no backbone/integrity, or there are really really good incentives/reasons to abandon your previous position…

      • wewbull@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        13 hours ago

        How is what you’re saying in your first paragraph any different to what I said?

        • IcyToes@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 hours ago

          I thought you were insinuating that government positions were old entrenched ones that existed before they were elected.

          Sometimes they are. Selling weapons to Saudi’s, backing Israel is a long running theme.

          It felt like you were justifying the decision by downplaying their agency.

    • Apocalypteroid@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Because they are terrified that the slightest whiff of any anti-Israeli sentiment will cause the right wing rags to descend into frothy-mouthed calls of antisemitism.

      • wewbull@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 day ago

        God forbid they could support the Jewish, and oppose football hooligans (and genocide).

  • HermitBee@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    22 hours ago

    I reckon there’s probably a middle ground which both supports allowing people to watch football, and does not support selling weapons to a genocidal state.

      • phutatorius@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 hours ago

        And it’s a club with a mob of hooligans who were attacking Muslim-appearing people in Amsterdam a few months ago. That was when they were playing against Ajax, who have historically had a large base of Jewish fans (rather like Spurs in London). So it was definitely more about hooliganism than Jewish identity.

      • HermitBee@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        15 hours ago

        Yeah, I know who they are, I just don’t think that even the most horrible football fan behaviour is remotely on a par with arms dealers selling weapons to Israel.

          • HermitBee@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            38 minutes ago

            Sure, but if you’re trying to accuse someone of hypocrisy, both things need to be of a similar magnitude.

            I’m neither pro-murder, nor pro-kicking-in-the-bollocks, but I still think “You used to be against murder, but now you’re in favour of kicking people in the bollocks, you’re such a hypocrite” is a nonsensical argument.