Jacob Rees-Mogg

[Murph7355]

This chap should be PM.

Was on 5 news tonight (don't ask, no idea why it was on TV!) talking about Google's tax payments and, as usual when I've seen him speak, nailed it. The newsreader and some nondescript opposing view simply could not put up a cohesive argument.

Many won't be able to see beyond the accent or colour of his rosette, but I've always been impressed by him and the sheer common sense he speaks. We need more politicians like this.

[Murph7355]

handpaper said:

Can we have more descriptive thread titles, please - I clicked on the link thinking "Oh no, don't tell me he's dead, too!"

If he'd died I'd have been more descriptive

REALIST123 said:

rs1952 said:

dandarez said:

On Cameron's EU reforms?

'Pretty thin gruel'. (J. Rees-Mogg)

That's exactly what I mean. Not the sort of thing to appeal to the average man on the Clapham omnibus, is it?

In 2016, that average man's first thought on the Clapham omnibus would be:

"What's gruel?"

Which perhaps says more about the average man than R-M?

100%. And this above all else is why this country is in deep st.

[Murph7355]

FredClogs said:

Yeah, because we wouldn't want a governmental system which represented the will of the electorate would we? That would never do. Easy solution, send everyone to Eton and give everyone a Bently and a Nanny and then Jacob-Rees Mogg would be the perfect figure head... Job jobbed, as they say.

From his wiki page...

At the 1997 general election, Rees-Mogg was the Tory candidate for the solidly Labour seat of Central Fife and attracted ridicule after canvassing a largely working-class neighbourhood with his nanny;[4] on election night he came third, gaining 9% of the votes cast,[7] slightly fewer than half of the votes won by the previous Conservative candidate in 1992. However, rumours that he had gone around the constituency in a Bentley were described as "scurrilous" ? he insisted it had been a Mercedes.

So the accuracy and/or sense of what he says is secondary to his background, accent and the car he drives (is driven in)?

This is why this country is totally screwed. People such as yourself are always deriding the "race to the bottom" when it comes to salaries etc, but appear supportive of a race to the bottom when it comes to intellect and common sense.

One begats the other. The sooner people with that view can see that rather than blaming everything else under the sun the better.

You don't have to have attended Eton to understand what he says. You just have to listen beyond his accent and think for yourself. And perhaps put aside other personal prejudice and misguided beliefs.

If you're incapable of that I'd question whether you should be able to vote.

[Murph7355]

FredClogs said:

I don't agree with his politics, that's nothing to do with the fact he's a privileged, sanctimonious 50 year old Harry Potter look alike, I just don't agree with much of what he says - and I do listen. He's Euro sceptic, I'm not, he's a vocal supporter of zero hour contracts, I'm not, he opposed Gay marriage, I do not... Just because he talks with a received pronunciation (which is entirely an affectation) and has a "good education" doesn't mean he is right or his politics aren't the same old Tory dogma. Seems to me that some people can't see past his supposed "charm" and listen to what he says, but that's not me.

Quit the rhetoric and dogma and take apart his arguments on each of the items you cite.

Your view is typical - I don't agree with it so I'll stick my fingers in my ears and issue insults based on nothing more than the chips on my shoulder.

The piece that prompted me to post was about Google's taxes. As a simple example, do you think that the key aspect is maximising net receipts or fixation on a notional %age?

[Murph7355]

Digga said:

But really, people don't. In the same way as - and this I have exploited to my own benefit as a buyer - most people are incapable of looking past grotty decor and fittings to see the underlying value of the property they are viewing.

I have said this for ages and I'm sure I'm right. If you get out of the South East, or the city at the very least, then you will 'get' why people feel disenfranchised and hence how UKIP managed so many surprise votes (if not seats) last year. Whoever exploits that in the right way wins. End of discussion - see The Trump for reference.

I'm from the North. There are as many small minded, "disenfranchised" people in the South East as there are in the North. Quite possibly more.

The more politicians pander to that demographic the more people will move towards it. Scary prospect if you dwell on it.

Exploitation of the electorate sums it up. At the risk of getting all FredClogs, aren't politicians meant to work for the electorate, not exploit it...?

[Murph7355]

crankedup said:

Terrible state of UK politics at the moment, dreadful political European problems. Said many times over the years that without a strong credible opposition to our UK Government we are, as a Society, in a democratically weak place. With those major European questions looming the last thing we need is a one Party Nation.

If there must be one, economically at least it's not Labour...

[Murph7355]

MarshPhantom said:

Murph7355 said:

I'm from the North. There are as many small minded, "disenfranchised" people in the South East as there are in the North. Quite possibly more.

I should have added that I live in the South East (and previously abroad at various times)...so have seen enough in all quarters to feel able to comment.

(NB I exclude Scotland in my assertion by the way. Some very nice people in Scotland, and it's a beautiful country. But it appears to have cornered the global market in chippy fqers).

[Murph7355]

BlackLabel said:

Wonder what his PHs username is? ...

bhstewie - playing the double bluff

[Murph7355]

turbobloke said:

You're on NP&E.

Foot = shot.

You should know by now that jj isn't like everyone else on NP&E. He's more erudite, good looking and debonair for starters.

Though it is ironic that he dislikes the "toffs" condescending the "knuckle draggers" when the only reason he must come on here is to condescend groups of people who are different to him

Hayek said:

...

Independent said:

At the weekend Matthew Parris, the writer and gay former Conservative MP, used his Times newspaper column to declare: “For the 21st-century Conservative Party, Jacob Rees-Mogg would be pure hemlock.

“His manners are perfumed but his opinions are poison. Rees-Mogg is quite simply an unfailing, unbending, unrelenting reactionary.

“His record on every moral, social, sexual or reproductive issue I’ve looked at is brute moral conservative. He has been a straight-down-the-line supporter of every welfare cut I’ve checked.

...

Is there a point where all careers/spheres will need your sexuality identified when making comments? Or is being gay in this context actually part of the career/vocation?

[Murph7355]

I don't agree with his views on this, but the we are unlikely to agree with all the views of people in power.

He won't become PM as too many people in this country cannot see past the accent. It'll be nothing to do with his views on those two topics.

[Murph7355]

BJG1 said:

I don't like this argument, it does a massive disservice to the myriad of religious people around the world (many of them gay) who are sensible enough not to interpret every word in their book as gospel and are very happy to embrace same-sex marriage (though apparently not sensible enough to know it's all bks). Also, organised religions already pick and choose which bits of their book to take seriously, the Catholic church does not follow the letter of the bible as it knows society has evolved and some of the stuff is wrong. They just use what's said about homosexuality to justify their own bigotry and hatred.

The State should state the terms of marriage and grant licences to institutions to marry. If those institutions are unwilling to abide by those terms they are free to not marry anyone.

The problem is with that approach, where do you draw the line on what a "club" can or cannot determine for itself?

I find it more strange that people knowing a club's rules still want to join despite knowing they cannot work within the club's rules.

People wouldn't dream of joining a cookery club only to bemoan the fact that they didn't do enough car stuff and insist that change.

Or, perhaps more pertinently, I wouldn't join the WI and insist they bend everything they do to suit a male agenda.

Freedom of expression cuts all ways. In defending one minority group you often deny the same defence to another.

Where things are a "lifestyle choice" rather than fundamental to living (employment etc) I think "clubs" need to be allowed the freedom to set their own entry criteria and they will live or die on it. Antiquated ideas will almost certainly prompt the latter.

[Murph7355]

Jinx said:

Dazed and Confused said:

Would anybody like to confirm or deny whether this is a chicken or not?




You all sound like a bunch of lunatics, frankly.

If it identifies as a Chicken - who am I to oppress it.

Is it gender neutral or gender fluid?

[Murph7355]

djc206 said:

Muslims do not hold 26 seats in the House of Lords though do they? Islam is a minor religion in the UK, Christianity still dominates this country and is heavily involved in its political institutions despite the fact that only a minority of Britons are actually practicing Christians.

I think you're viewing it too simplistically. The way the left is with Christianity is about reducing the role of religion in the running of the UK. The defence of Islam is about freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Christians don't get spat on in the streets or have their places of worship burned down or descrated by others, Christians have nothing to fear beyond dwindling significance and influence. You can switch out Islam for Judaism in the above and it is equally applicable.

If we're ever to achieve some semblance of balance, whether Christianity is the majority religion, or the majority of MPs are Christian is totally irrelevant.

Equality means all sides being treated equally in all circumstances. If it's acceptable to deride one religion's medieval views, then it should be for any religion. If you do not allow this, you will never, ever achieve equality.

I would suggest you will actually create a far worse situation for the minority you set out to protect by breeding animosity within the ranks of the majority.

Over compensation when striving for equality seems to be something that we struggle to avoid across the board. I suspect it's believed we will reach an end objective more quickly that way. Personally I think it's hugely counter productive.

[Murph7355]

johnxjsc1985 said:

After giving this much though I have concluded the following. Your born, you live your life and then you die and that's it. I don't think I will be going to heaven or hell and I am fairly certain that I will appear as a butterfly or bluebottle.
I just find it really hard to get my head around intelligent people (so called) needing something other worldly to make sense of their lives.

I'm not what I'd call a regular church goer (once a month max really), but IME of people who are I don't think they do need something "other worldly".

When religion starts being taken too literally is when problems start. Fortunately I don't think the majority, in any religion, do that in the most part.

[Murph7355]

paul789 said:

What a combo......captions, please (if you feel like it - if you don't, then don't).

Is she saying "My vote's yours and always has been as I appreciate the way you logically set things out, even if I don't always agree with them"?

[Murph7355]

paul789 said:

I think Minford is thinking 'conkers'.

Minford is wondering whether the gender neutral one is his ///ajd stalker off the internet.

[Murph7355]

Alpinestars said:

Amazed at the support JRM gets on PH. Change his name to Mullah Mogg, who is "honest" enough to give his views on abortion and womens' rights, I wonder if he'd get the same support? It's almost a case of my enemies' enemy, is my mate.

Those topics are a small percentage of life and on many other things he talks absolute sense. Calmly. And logically thought out.

If the notional Mullah Mogg did the same then he would be equally lauded (at least by the OP ).

Do I agree with his views on abortion/gay marriage? Nope. Would they stop me voting for him? Probably not. It's highly unlikely I'd agree on every political issue with an MP, and I respect his general approach and wish the 649 others would all be the same.

(To be fair, a number of them are. I like Frank Field for example. Though disagree with many of his politics).

[Murph7355]

bloomen said:

I regard anyone religious as mentally ill and that's before this little fella's character is taken into account. If he ends up PM it'll be the clinker on top of the entire Brexit turd.

Tolerance not high on your list of beliefs then?

[Murph7355]

jjlynn27 said:

LOL.

The evidence of your IT work is few daily Certificates of Attendance? Those are right up there with CCIEs, OSCPs and CISSPs of this world.
The academics of NP&E seem very impressed. They do, however, explain your posts on IT matters.

I'm not sure what the other pictures seem to show? I don't think that I've ever doubted that you are/were race mechanic. If I did, I'll gladly apologize and take that back.

Give up on the personal attacks. It makes you look a bigger bell end than usual. Which is some feat

[Murph7355]

Derek Smith said:

And there, I think, is the danger of the likes of Mogg and Johnson.

Floating voters, the ones who actually decide who will govern the country, like nothing better than a strong and stable government, hence May's pathetic emphasis on this aspect during her lacklustre campaign. The next aspect of government that really irritates them is financial mismanagement, evidence by a drop in the value of their take-home pay.

The second part is going to be difficult to manage post brexit, but the first should be in the minds of all tories.

Ambitious chancers such as Mogg and Johnson might well be Corbyn's best ally.

The second part will be no more difficult to manage post March 2019 than it is today. Arguably future governments will have more freedom than now.

For every Mogg and Johnson, there is an Abbott and a Rayner. And a McDonnell. And a Long-Bailey.