Continuing Discussion
561653
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 20 Feb 18 at 10:27
|
Rees-Mogg with his top hats and butlers cannot it seems be in any way connected with or sympathetic to the mass of British people but, in reality, can he be any more disconnected than May, Johnson, Gove, Rudd, Hunt etc.?
He has some irrational religious beliefs but he seems to keep those in a separate box.
Of more concern to me is his resistance to increases in tax on those who can pay and his general support for welfare cuts; but he's a Conservative, so nothing surprising there.
Almost certainly less devious than any of the obvious competitors. Probably the best they have, hence the betting.
|
>> Rees-Mogg with his top hats and butlers cannot it seems be in any way connected
>> with or sympathetic to the mass of British people
I wonder how much of that is just an act and/or playing upto his 'character' and how much is actually him?
|
I quite like his political views but then again, I'm a fan of Boris too and the way he speaks his mind.
Pat
|
Far from speaking his mind I very much have the view that Johnson will say exactly whatever his followers want to hear and thinks will advance will advance the career of Johnson.
A more egotistical personality seeking self advancement it is difficult to imagine - oh hang on there's always Trump.
|
Yes, it is CG and you know what?
I quite like the way Trump goes about things for America too.
The sooner people realise that worldwide people want things to change and that the way they have always done things is no longer acceptable, we will start to see some stabilisation.
If Trump, Brexit, UKIP, Boris and JC etc are not a message, then the people who should be listening are a lot less intelligent than we expect them to be.
Pat
|
It is just possible that Trump is going to pull this off. About 6 months ago I put a small amount on him getting a second term.
Perhaps a fool's wager, but I've just got this feeling...
Of course he's an utter scumbag, but look at the electorate.
|
>> If Trump, Brexit, UKIP, Boris and JC etc are not a message, then the people
>> who should be listening are a lot less intelligent than we expect them to be.
I 100% agree that it is a message and that it needs to be listened to. A very strong and spreading message.
But sadly I see no sign of the other politicians hearing the message.
|
|
Populist leaders do generally deliver change all right but not usually in the way envisaged by those attracted to their slogans and beguiling messages of something for nothing. Do you really not see through the rhetoric and slogans of Trump and his like?
|
Trump is a despicable piece of excrement who has offered his condolences following the Florida school shootings on Wednesday but hasn't said a word about gun control, along with many other Republicans who have also been funded to the tune of millions of dollars by the NRA.
This is nothing to do with populism, the majority of Americans are in favour of tighter gun laws.
After taking office, Mr Trump attended the NRA's national convention...
"Only one candidate in the general election came to speak to you, and that candidate is now the president of the United States...you came through for me, and I am going to come through for you".
www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/florida-shooting-us-gun-violence-why-epidemic-control-permits-law-a8212946.html
The NRA gets most of its funding from gun manufacturers, and appears to spend much of it supporting the GOP. So which master are Trump and the Republican party serving?
His campaign is known to have received at least $21m from the NRA.
The shooter legally bought an AR-15 rifle when he was 18, even though the minimum age for buying alcohol is 21.
|
"Populist leaders do generally deliver change all right but not usually in the way envisaged by those attracted to their slogans and beguiling messages of something for nothing."
Are you talking about Mr Corbyn in particular, or any of them?
|
|
Populist leaders are normally popular by means of some cult or movement. Change often happens and its usually a tangent to their own aims and at their own expense.
|
|
Rees Mogg is the very worse of what the Tory Party can be. His public and TV persona is that of someone you want to slap. I fear Jezza will walk it.
|
Actually Z, your public persona is one I want to slap, but it doesn't stop me liking you:)
Pat
|
>>>He has some irrational religious beliefs but he seems to keep those in a separate box.<<<
>>>Almost certainly less devious than any of the obvious competitors.<<<
I would rather we had people in charge of our destiny who were devious, or possibly even corrupt, than someone with irrational religious beliefs - of any faith. Historically religion has been the underlying basis of more wars than any other single cause. In recent times maybe less so - however current problems have a significant number of participants who actually believe that their religious beliefs justify the actions.
|
It will come as no surprise to many of you that I support Jacob Rees-Mogg (JRM) as the next leader of the Conservative Party!
No doubt the more left-leaning of you here will exclaim "with supporters like you, he doesn't need enemies". I'm sure he won't care: in fact he will never know, will he?
If push come to shove and there is a Tory leadership contest, (not too unlikely after predicted losses in the next council elections), I and many others, will be doing our best to (a) ensure he is on the ballot paper and (b) cast our votes for him.
He is a man who seems to have strong political beliefs though (unlike most of that ilk) and by and large, they coincide with mine.
The fact that he is a traditional Roman Catholic matters not one jot to me. I am confident that his religious beliefs will not affect his decisions as leader. There are, after all fewer RCs and Christians generally, in the UK, than there were when religion played a major part in the government of the country.
I would not trust Boris Johnson as far as I could throw him. Boris is for Boris.
www.lbc.co.uk/politics/parties/conservatives/jacob-rees-mogg/jacob-rees-mogg-to-host-lbc-show/
|
Oh ffs.
I largely agree with Roger on this one.
(Sigh)
|
>> Oh ffs.
>>
>> I largely agree with Roger on this one.
>>
>> (Sigh)
>>
Sorry about that. :-)
|
|
It must be groundhog day.
|
|
Farage in his covert coat does slightly resemble a groundhog now that you mention it.
|
>> Rees-Mogg with his top hats and butlers cannot it seems be in any way connected
>> with or sympathetic to the mass of British people but, in reality, can he be
>> any more disconnected than May, Johnson, Gove, Rudd, Hunt etc.?
Rees-Mogg was born into a wealthy family and has accrued more in his own business. I cannot see how anybody who lives like he does can have the foggiest about life in straightened circumstances. Same goes for Boris and probably Hunt and Rudd. Gove had an ordinary upbringing in the Scottish middle classes but seems to have decided he prefers fogeydom.
There are plenty of Tory politicians with their feet on the ground including Nicky Morgan, Justine Greening, Anna Soubry and Dominic Grieve. Those are all remainers which may colour my view - are there some on the out side?
|
>>
>>
>> Rees-Mogg was born into a wealthy family and has accrued more in his own business.
>> I cannot see how anybody who lives like he does can have the foggiest about
>> life in straightened circumstances.
>>
No more than anybody born in to a comfortable middle class background can either.
I've no idea what Rees-Mogg would be like as a Prime Minister and he wouldn't be my choice. But some of the greatest social reformers have come from privileged back backgrounds while some of those who worked up from poor beginnings have done little or nothing to help those they left behind. The self-made man who proclaims "If I can do it, anybody can" tends to be contemptuous of those who couldn't.
Social class is no measure of a man's quality or compassion, nor of his ability to understand the plight of those far beneath him.
|
I often think there's little value in posting simply 'good comment' but that post is worth more than just a thumbs up R O'R.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Sun 18 Feb 18 at 19:21
|
|
as soon as someone mentions that the family has 100 million pounds banked off shore in tax havens, mostly gained from asset stripping companies and that Rees Mogg has publicly supported the use of such tax avoidance schemes. then his bid for leadership of the country is doomed.
|
Rees-Mogg is a charismatic MP and I quite like him. However in my opinion he is best kept on the back benches where he can use silly words such as floccinaucinihilipilification.
|
"Rees-Mogg is a charismatic MP..."
He has all the charisma of a bad odour, in my view. If people in general really do see politicians of his ilk as charismatic then we are truly in for some bad times.
And is charisma actually a desirable quality, anyway? It puts me in mind of fundamentalist preachers who want their audiences to be influenced by something other than clearly argued, rational policies.
|
>> we are truly in for some bad times.
Just over a year before it all starts the way our lot are managing this transition. Pat should share her research with no. 10 Downing Street because they clearly have not thought things through.
BREXIT could still mean access to the single market but they are ruling that out.
|
>> Social class is no measure of a man's quality or compassion, nor of his ability
>> to understand the plight of those far beneath him.
Like Sooty I'd applaud that but I don't think it applies to JR-M or any of the other Tories referenced in my earlier post, with a possible pass for Amber Rudd.
|
|
Rudd looks a cold fish to me.
|
>> Rudd looks a cold fish to me.
You may well be right. My point was that unlike Gove, Johnson etc she's not obviously out of touch. That maybe just result of her lack of obvious public persona. OTOH the (rapidly retracted) stuff about compelling employers to publicise the proportion of their employees born outwith UK was perhaps a straw in wind.
|
Well, at least I got that one Manatee:)
Pat
|
>> Well, at least I got that one Manatee:)
:)
|
">> Well, at least I got that one Manatee:)
:)"
Alas, I don't believe poor old Brompt has twigged yet ;-)
|
|
In other nominative determinism news, I think Mike Hookem is till UKIP's Fisheries spokesman.
|
>> Alas, I don't believe poor old Brompt has twigged yet ;-)
Didn't even hear the whoosh.....
|
> Like Sooty I'd applaud that
Just for clarity, my post was about politics in general and no one in particular. I don't really follow what JMR stands or doesn't stand for.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Sun 18 Feb 18 at 22:42
|
|
JRM... He's anti-abortion for example. Lots of other things I would disagree with him on for sure.
|
|
You are never going to find an MP whose views coincide exactly with yours, unless you are that MP. Life (and political allegiance) is all about compromise.
|
|
His views do not coincide with many UK citizens. That's the point. If it were not for BREXIT he'd have no chance as a future PM. The concern now is he might.
|
But when you look at the alternatives there is no-one who stands out, no budding "statesmen" types. Maybe it's always looked like this at this stage of a Parliament but if you think back to the days of Thatch and before there were always characters lurking in the background who I thought could easily replace the current PM.
Those who (I assume) must be considered by their leaders to be doing a reasonable job due to their longevity in Cabinet (the likes of Gove and Hunt) manage to alienate them,selves from the electorate. But they are possibly the kinds who would have been a potential leader in the past.
|
>> JRM... He's anti-abortion for example.
>>
That on it's own would not preclude me from supporting either a bid for the leadership or even election as an MP. Abortion, like fox hunting and the decriminalisation of male homosexual acts are a matter for parliament as a whole and the chances of any of those acts being reversed are precisely nil, whatever the prime minister of the days views might be.
For example, I believe the Labour mayor of London thinks homosexuality is a sin?
|
>> Abortion, like fox hunting and the decriminalisation of
>> male homosexual acts are a matter for parliament as a whole and the chances of
>> any of those acts being reversed are precisely nil, whatever the prime minister of the
>> days views might be.
I wouldn't be so sure. While reversing the Sexual Offences Act 1967 is not going to happen there are bits of equality legislation a 'moralist' could chip away at. Gay married couples adopting is one example.
Abortion law too is vulnerable to a moralstic campaign that focuses on late abortion and uses that as a smokescreen to roll back other rights or impose additional controls, for example around the requirement for two doctors to authorise the process.
JR-M and his cohort of 'libertarians' are perfectly capable of manipulationg a campaign along those lines. PLenty of American money to fund anti-abortion stuff.
|
I'd bet abortion laws will not tighten. It would be a massive vote loser and no party would touch it with a barge pole.
That is also why I do not see Rees-Mogg leading the conservative party, MP's realise how divisive he would be. My money is on May fighting at least one more election, simply because of lack of an alternative.
|
>> I'd bet abortion laws will not tighten. It would be a massive vote loser and
>> no party would touch it with a barge pole.
I wish I was convinced. IMHO there are enough people obsessive on the subject that, given a well funded and plausible (even though grossly misleading) campaign they could convince the public that reducing abortion rights was absolutely in their interest. Even though, in reality they and more so their children would be worse off.
There's even a recent precedent.........
|
The abortion was just one example of where my views would differ to Rees Mogg. He's against abortion even in cases of rape.
It's a worry that the real damage BREXIT might cause is internal and not about trade, financial services, etc.
Stopping/controlling people coming here that is one reason why some voted for BREXIT. Ironically it's it might just stop some of us from deciding to live somewhere nicer than here. So kind of a swap - I go to somewhere in Europe and someone can come here should be allowed ;-) Net migration is zero.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Mon 19 Feb 18 at 20:26
|
So kind of a swap - I go to somewhere in Europe and someone can
>> come here should be allowed ;-) Net migration is zero.
>>
Like some sort of residency swap, probably a TV show in there somewhere.
|
>> >>
>>
>> I wish I was convinced. IMHO there are enough people obsessive on the subject that,
>> given a well funded and plausible (even though grossly misleading) campaign they could convince the
>> public that reducing abortion rights was absolutely in their interest. Even though, in reality they and more so their children would be worse off.
>>
>> There's even a recent precedent.........
>>
When even Ireland look set to allow abortion there is no chance of the UK rolling back any of the gains. However committed the anti's are they are very small in number and feelings are equally strong on the pro abortion side, but with at least three or four times the voting firepower. Blair became a Roman Catholic, a church which fought the abortion laws tooth and nail and still does not accept it but even at the height of his popularity he would not have dared turn the clock back.
Nice dig about Brexit in the last line, but whereas the voting public can be fluid on economic decisions depending on the prevailing mood and the arguments put forward the one thing they would never do is reverse the social freedoms won over the last fifty years. And alienating 95% of the female population alone will never win an election.
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Mon 19 Feb 18 at 22:12
|
>>one thing they would never do is reverse the social freedoms won over the last fifty years.
Like freedom of movement, trade, and employment?
Lolz.
|
> I wish I was convinced. IMHO there are enough people obsessive on the subject that, given a well funded and plausible (even though grossly misleading) campaign they could convince the public that reducing abortion rights was absolutely in their interest. Even though, in reality they> and more so their children would be worse off.
I really don't see it either, I don't think it's an issue that people really see a need for change. I don't think it's in the top 100 of concerns of the population, that to me says it's staying as is.
|
>> I really don't see it either, I don't think it's an issue that people really
>> see a need for change. I don't think it's in the top 100 of concerns
>> of the population, that to me says it's staying as is.
Absolutely, none of those things. I don't though buy the idea that social change cannot be wound back. Fifty years ago the 'mixed economy' with the state running key infrastructure, involved in strategic industry and with some form of economic planning seemed a fixture.
Abortion is an interesting example. It's not impossible for a US styled/funded right to life movement to gain traction in the UK. Some might say it's happening already with 'vigils' at abortion clinics. Usual stuff about pictures of aborted foetuses, scans of already recognisable features at only a few weeks gestation. Build on that the, not wholly unscientific, concern about the convergence of survival of pre-term children with the current limit of 24 weeks. In fact of course the vast majority of abortions for failure of contraception etc happen long before that. Late abortions are practically all in cases where the foetus is non-viable and/or the Mother's health is at risk. Maybe the Daily Mail or other mainstream media will decide the issue deserving (or rather salesworthy).
J R-M led Tory party places some words in its manifesto about late abortions, points out the 67 Act is 40 years old and adds some ambiguous weasel words about reform. Youth and feminism might shout from the rooftops but to what avail?
Even amongst females support for abortion is surely way less that 90+% predicated above. There are plenty who will defend the right of their youthful selves (or profess shame) and their daughters (whose case was exceptional) but want controls now.
Not saying such a thing is likely but it's certainly not implausible.
|
>>Not saying such a thing is likely but it's certainly not implausible.
I've not been following very carefully, sorry. But if you are saying it is not implausible for abortion legislation to be reversed, then I agree wholeheartedly.
|
>> I've not been following very carefully, sorry. But if you are saying it is not
>> implausible for abortion legislation to be reversed, then I agree wholeheartedly.
Was trying to express thoughts I'd had following the exchange with R o'R above but doing so with a deadline to go out to a colleagues leaving do. As a result I failed to clear even my own low barrier for clarity of expression.
|
>> Not saying such a thing is likely but it's certainly not implausible.
>>
I agree but disagree on how implausible. I'm relaxed about it, I really don't see a change anywhere on the horizon. I suspect so do you but remain concerned.
|
>> I agree but disagree on how implausible. I'm relaxed about it, I really don't see
>> a change anywhere on the horizon. I suspect so do you but remain concerned.
I wouldn't trust the beggars further than I could throw them.
In the climate that's brought us Brexit, Trump, extreme right representatives in German and other national assemblies I'd rule nothing out.
|
>> I wouldn't trust the beggars further than I could throw them.
>>
>> In the climate that's brought us Brexit, Trump, extreme right representatives in German and other
>> national assemblies
Possible labour leaders threatening to seize the assets of the city of London, and warning the press they will be curbed
extreme right wing leadership candidates pushing the idea of tax avoidance for the rich
>>I'd rule nothing out.
Agree with you
|
>> Possible labour leaders threatening to seize the assets of the city of London, and warning
>> the press they will be curbed
Parts of the City are ripe for picking. Too much tax dodged for too long.
And the 'warning to the press' (see below) looks more like combining the attack on tax avoidance to tax exile proprietors (Barclays, Harmsworths et al) predictions of the 'old' media's mortality in a digital age.
“A free press is essential for democracy and we don’t want to close it down, we want to open it up. At the moment, much of our press isn’t very free at all. In fact it’s controlled by billionaire tax exiles, who are determined to dodge paying their fair share for our vital public services.
“The general election showed the media barons are losing their influence and social media means their bad old habits are becoming less and less relevant. But instead of learning these lessons they’re continuing to resort to lies and smears. Their readers – you, all of us – deserve so much better. Well, we’ve got news for them: change is coming.â€
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 20 Feb 18 at 23:41
|
|
You have to admit that there's more than a whiff of having a clamp down on them as they report things he doesn't like. Who does he think should own them?
|
>> You have to admit that there's more than a whiff of having a clamp down
>> on them as they report things he doesn't like. Who does he think should own
>> them?
Well that's the thing isn't it. I agree that the press serves us badly but when politicians start saying they are going to control it in some way then alarm bells should ring.
Perhaps Corbyn would like just one, party-controlled, newspaper that we could all rely on. It could be called "Truth".
|
>> In the climate that's brought us Brexit, Trump, extreme right representatives in German and other national assemblies I'd rule nothing out. >>
Perhaps it's because people actually want them.
There are other points of view besides centrist, or left, opinions.
I have as much right to deride your opinions as you have to deride mine :-)
|
>> Perhaps it's because people actually want them.
>> There are other points of view besides centrist, or left, opinions.
>> I have as much right to deride your opinions as you have to deride mine
I wasn't suggesting that their election didn't represent public opinion but rather that there seems to be a political paradigm shift such that assumed givens like abortion or gay rights can no longer be seen as fixed.
The ongoing battles in US over both abortion and trans rights - forcing them to use toilets for their birth gender rather that they have acquired are live examples.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 21 Feb 18 at 12:32
|
>>
>>
>> I wasn't suggesting that their election didn't represent public opinion but rather that there seems to be a political paradigm shift such that assumed givens like abortion or gay rights
>> can no longer be seen as fixed.
>>
>> The ongoing battles in US over both abortion and trans rights - forcing them to
>> use toilets for their birth gender rather that they have acquired are live examples.
>>
I'd be more than confident that they are fixed in the UK and Europe. The US is on a different planet in many social issues, availability of military grade firearms to eighteen year olds being one.
|
That reminds me - a concert I went to in California in 2016 made quite a thing in it's blurb that it would have gender neutral toilets.
At the campground I regularly used that one as it was the only one which never had a queue. I don't think gender neutrality was a condition of using them.
But like disabled ones over here. It doesn't seem right to use them (where poss) but it also seems daft to queue for a "normal" persons one when there is an empty one there.
(Luckily this thread is prone to drift already!!!)
|
> But like disabled ones over here. It doesn't seem right to use them (where poss)
>> but it also seems daft to queue for a "normal" persons one when there is
>> an empty one there.
Most public ones need a radar key, seen a couple in pubs that need them as well.
|
>> (Luckily this thread is prone to drift already!!!)
>>
Like men at a toilet?
|
|
Speak for yourself Roger! :-)
|
The ongoing battles in US over both abortion and trans rights - forcing them to>> use toilets for their birth gender rather that they have acquired are live examples.
>>
Don't forget the spams get excited about both those issues especially the former. Here they are much less of an issue nowhere near the amount of funding or publicity. Hence there's less interest by politicians to try and change them. Plus with brexit parliaments time is likely to be pretty full.
|
I hope we are all pro-lifers, whether pro-choice or not.
I suppose it all depends on whether the stage at which babies can survive outside the womb is material to the discussion, but if it can then it seems harder to argue that a foetus is not a person.
|
"Sexual Offences Act 1967"
The year I was born.
Ding Dong.
|
Controversial but we see so many child abuse cases some of them are beyond my comprehension.
In those cases when this country is out the E.U I would bring the hangman back.There is no European court to intervene and It might send a example to these monsters who are amongst us.
Just my take on it.
|
|
Brexit will take us back a hundred years so you may be in luck. Repugnant idea.
|
"Brexit will take us back a hundred years"
How do you know that it won't be 120 years?
|
>> He asked the 100 members of this forum for an opinion.
As the 200 members for an opinion on here?
|
>> In those cases when this country is out the E.U I would bring the hangman
>> back.There is no European court to intervene and It might send a example to these
>> monsters who are amongst us.
we repealed capital punishment in the Uk years before we joined the EU.
|
>> we repealed capital punishment in the Uk years before we joined the EU.
And we're party to various treaties, not just the European Convention on Human Rights, that outlaw the practice.
|
Oh FFS, look who is back.... - Manatee
