Oh fuck yeah. Banging on about how much they care about the poor next to articles about £15,000 holidays, £5,000 dresses and £20,000 holidays. The fact that they don't see the hypocrisy in that is frustrating. It's everything that's wrong with the left wing. Middle class, wealthy people taking a paternalistic patronising approach to the poor.
They are as bad as the mail. As a case in point, there was an article in the Guardian this week. It was written by a C of E canon.
He was complaining that the Tories discriminated against Muslims but pander to Hindus. His evidence was a letter written by a woman from the Hindu Forum, she had no religious authority but was drawing attention to the fact the Tories have offered to repeal a law which forbids discrimination on the base of caste and called for people to vote Tory for this reason.
He compared this to the case of Lufther Rahman in Tower Hamlets. After being expelled from the Labour Party he stood as an independent as Mayor but was stripped of his office and banned from holding public office because of electoral fraud and corruption.
One of the aspects of the Rahman case was that 100 imams signed a letter telling Muslims it was their religious duty to vote for Rahman, to vote for Labour was Haram and amounted to apostasy (which is punishable by death).
The Canon writing was complaining that it was so unfair on Rahman that she could write the letter and he couldn't and showed Rahman was being discriminated against. He failed to draw the distinction between someone with no religious authority suggesting a party on the basis of one policy and religious leaders threatening people with eternal damnation if they didn't vote the way they wanted. If I, as a lay person, can see the difference then as a Canon of the C of E he certainly would have known. He also glossed over the other aspects of Rahman's campaign such as fraud, threats and intimidation, which there is no suggestion the Hindu lady was involved in.
Also a quick google revealed that the Canon held salaried positions on several Tower Hamlets quangos to which he was appointed by....Lufther Rahman. None of this was disclosed in the article.
Just as a comparison, there are allegations of electoral fraud against UKIP in Thanet. Should the Mail print an article complaining how unfair it was when Muslims are exploiting postal votes in elections that poor old Nige is being investigated. Let's say it gave a glowing endorsement to Farage, and it came out that the writer was in the pay of UKIP. Well the masses ranks of Guardianistas would be frothing at the mouths and decrying a readership being deliberately mislead.
When it's in the Guardian they just sagely nod their heads and bemoan the Tories terrible Islamophobia without questioning the bias. So many readers of the Guardian appear to believe it is unbiased reporting with no agenda and they unquestioningly accept everything it says.