Ā You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Is he good, bad or indifferent for British Politics?
On one hand, he's charming, witty, self-deprecating and seems to have captured the attention of younger people who aren't attracted to Corbyn's style of politics, so he seems to be filling a vacuum to the right-of-centre...
On the other, he could be a ruthless tactician and staunch Brexiteer, biding his time while the Leave process stumbles along its inevitable course, ready to step into the breach when TM&Co have done the dirty work and discredited themselves.
He's clearly loyal to a fault, to the point that I personally feel he's very authentic, but I'm very anti-Brexit. He's one of the few politicians whose likeable-ness seems to transcend his politics, which could be very good if he creates a more positive mood around a process we're bound to, but could also be a lethal weapon if it's exploited by others in office.
I'm sure there will be many amongst us who despise him simply because he's moneyed and educated, but leaving those prejudices aside, what are other people's opinions of him?
I think his financial position - and a seemingly vocational bent when it comes to politics - put him in a position of strength, and his acumen, manners and professionalism make him a good roll model for a newly politicised younger generation.
So is he destined to be a loyal, affable, media-friendly back-bencher? Or is he destined for greater things?
A true man of the people.
Some folk you can never tire of slapping.
The labour party love him. Every time he opens his mouth, their share of the vote goes up.
Or is he destined for greater things?
No. See above.
I had the misfortune to see him interviewed on the telly about something, I'm not sure what it was as after about 10 seconds I wanted to put my foot through the box. Unbelievably arrogant was my first impression.
Thought this was going to be an obituary.
Carry on.
In fairness, he has an eye for a gag...
[img] 
[/img]
He's a poisonous lump of condensed privilege in an affable Bertie Wooster wrapper. Sort of Boris-lite.
I believe he quite fancies enhancing Britain's post-Brexit competitiveness by embracing Indian-style employment conditions along with dumping environmental protections whenever convenient.
This again?
Didn't we bash JRM a few weeks ago?
Wouldn't it be better to just "cut and paste" the comments out of that thread.
I think I was on holiday that week... š
Consistently decries people claiming benefits as scroungers who should be sent back to the work house but is happy to [url= https://www.ft.com/content/d5efd3a0-b32f-11e6-a37c-f4a01f1b0fa1 ]accept Ā£7.6m of public money to do up his ancestral home.[/url],
Nasty piece of work with just enough charm to make the public forget just how much contempt he actually holds for them.
The further he's kept from the reigns of power the better.
He's right of Atilla the Hun - don't be fooled by his affable exterior.
A thoroughly unlikeable individual.
I'm sure there will be many amongst us who despise him simply because he's moneyed and educated
Sadly, yes and such people are toxic.
So is he destined to be a loyal, affable, media-friendly back-bencher?
Yes.
Well, true to form, the venomous element have demonstrated their intellect by proposing slapping or assaulting televisions... Very bright.
I guess that's the sad thing about the modern era - some people aren't clever enough to recognise different political opinions without wanting to inflict violence one those who form them. It's a tribal, football thug mentality.
One of the main points I was hoping to discuss is how a man who, despite being from a fairly privileged background (he made most of his money off his own bat might I add) has garnered a huge following amongst younger people.
And how a man who, to me and many others at least, seems quite likeable in spite of his having differing political opinions...
manners and professionalism make him a good roll model for a newly politicised younger generation.
Indeed.
The kids on our local estate speak of little else.
Take away the affectations and you have another right wing idealogue with no plan or intention of helping or caring about anyone apart from himself and those like him.
A dangerous distraction at best.
And how a man who, to me and many others at least, seems quite likeable in spite of his having differing political opinions...
That is quite rare and it was interesting the Rees-Mogg and Jess Phillips were paired up on TV - I don't agree with much ( any ? ) of her politics, but she comes across as genuine and likable.
but is happy to accept Ā£7.6m of public money to do up his ancestral home.,
That's a rather silly post! It [i]was[/i] his wife's family's home but is now owned by a trust who want to preserve it for future generations. He doesn't have anything to do with it!
Hang on minute....
You are actually Jacob Rees-Mogg, doing a spot of market research for a potential leadership bid, and I claim my gold monocle š
One of the main points I was hoping to discuss is how a man who, despite being from a fairly privileged background (he made most of his money off his own bat might I add) has garnered a huge following amongst younger people.
has he actually?
his voting record is against gay rights, for tuition fees, against financial support for 16-19 y/o's in education, against policies promoting human rights etc
ironic instagram pics aside, I struggle to see how he appeals to young people (or anyone else for that matter, but that's a different point)
I'm sure Adolf had his charming moments - doesn't make him someone I'd have a pint with.
Moggs background, for me, has f all to do with ether I like him or not. It's opinions I'm judging him on.
Every time I see him I do tend to think "As thick as mince" as someone else put it.
I used to respect him for making sure all Parliamentary rules, regulations, policies and procedures (no matter how archaic) were followed and implemented as they should be.
That was up until the triggering of article 50 legal challenge where he seemed to over look the process required.
Bell
End.
I've started to suspect he's being lined up to be the next Boris.
- Was considered a totally out of touch and ridiculous relic of a bygone era
- Started to appear on HIGNFY and other areas of popular culture
- Now (somehow) appears to be being perceived as lovably, quirky and potential leadership material
All hail marketing...
his voting record is against gay rights, for tuition fees, against financial support for 16-19 y/o's in education, against policies promoting human rights etc
I suspect his voting record is more representative of his loyalty to his Prime Minister than his personal views. And there's not a single member of the house who votes entirely with their own heart, completely independent to the whip!
I'm sure there will be many amongst us who despise him simply because he's moneyed and educated
I despise him because he is a staunch defender of entrenched privilege. In other words, a true conservative.
I suspect his voting record is more representative of his loyalty to his Prime Minister than his personal views
Can you back that up with fact or are you just guessing?...
councilof10 - Member
Well, true to form, the venomous element have demonstrated their intellect by proposing slapping or assaulting televisions... Very bright.
I guess that's the sad thing about the modern era - some people aren't clever enough to recognise different political opinions without wanting to inflict violence one those who form them. It's a tribal, football thug mentality.
Seems like you started the thread just so you could post that.
I notice you ignored his policies and voting record in your op.
Shall we concentrate on those for a while?
What do YOU think of his views and record?
Can you back that up with fact or are you just guessing?...
Probably, if I had the time or inclination. Can you produce proof to the contrary?
How about you tell us what you think of his policies and voting record?
Or are you just trolling for a reaction?
I await his Portilline conversion. Quite like him, despite not agreeing with with word he says. Minister for the 18th Century.
How about you tell us what you think of his policies and voting record?
The majority of the "controversial" votes are listed - and defended - right [url= http://www.skeptical-voter.org/wiki/index.php?title=Jacob_Rees-Mogg ]here.[/url]
On same sex marriage, he said "I'm a Roman Catholic, and have made it clear to my association, from very early on, that in this sort of matter I would take my whip from the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, rather than from the Government's whip's office."
So I think that reinforces that whilst some of his votes are at the behest of the whip, others are governed by his faith. I can't find any reason not to respect that.
Policies?
[url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/gran-who-doesnt-understand-politics-really-impressed-by-theresa-may-20170424126456 ]Seems like this is more the rationale at work here[/url]
So I think that reinforces that whilst some of his votes are at the behest of the whip, others are governed by his faith. I can't find any reason not to respect that.
So anything goes, as long as opinions are genuinely held?
So anything goes, as long as opinions are genuinely held?
That's why he was voted into parliament!
That's why he was voted into parliament!
You were talking about respect. I see no reason to respect someone whose opinions I find abhorrent, and palming off to the church is a cop out.
You agree with his political views?
That's nice.
You've asked what other's think of him.
I find his views abhorrent.
Satisfied?
Question answered?
Where now?
Would you like to make another assumption about why I dislike him, or would you like to discuss the views we disagree on?
Probably, if I had the time or inclination. Can you produce proof to the contrary?
I don't have to prove or disprove anything, I'm not the one making a statement.
The burden of proof is very much upon you..
I think he looks a bit like Hitler, that can't be a good thing can it....
So I think that reinforces that whilst some of his votes are at the behest of the whip, others are governed by his faith. I can't find any reason not to respect that.
You must be loving the DUP thing then? With their anti-dinosaur, gay burning views then?
You agree with his political views?
Nope, I respect them, but I certainly don't agree with them.
The main crux of my post was to discuss the implications of having a politician whose likeability and ability to engage the most improbable quarters of the population transcended his political views.
Possibly a bit too nuanced for some...
So I think that reinforces that whilst some of his votes are at the behest of the whip, others are governed by his faith. I can't find any reason not to respect that.
I'd prefer that a MP voted in the interests of the country and his constituency.
Someone in Whitehall recently referred to him as "the right honourable member for the early 20th Century," which just about sums him up. He seems to live in his own little bubble completely disconnected from the real world.
His oily demeanour and some of his comments make me want to kill kittens, but I'm not sure as it comes from a place of malice. I almost feel sorry for him.
Nope, I respect them, but I certainly don't agree with them.
I'm still curious as to why you find his views worthy of respect.
The main crux of my post was to discuss the implications of having a politician whose likeability and ability to engage the most improbable quarters of the population transcended his political views.
Simple.
See Trump or Brexit.
Where substance is ignored & being popular is what counts & bugger the consequences.
In a word: [url= https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism ]Populism[/url]
The main crux of my post was to discuss the implications of having a politician whose likeability and ability to engage the most improbable quarters of the population transcended his political views.
I don't think his personality is likeable.
I don't think he has any particular unique ability.
I don't agree that he's engaging the most improbable levels of society.
Likeability? š
I'd prefer that a MP voted in the interests of the country and his constituency.
That's not how it works though is it. MPs play a 3-way balancing act between their convictions, the party line, and their constituents. Unfortunately, "convictions" is always bottom of the list. So I kind of respect a politician who is prepared to defy the party line because of his faith.
Now, I'm not religious in any way, but I respect people who are, and I respect that for those with strong faith, their religious views will override party policy. His constituents knew what they were voting for.
Now, I'm not religious in any way, but I respect people who are, and I respect that for those with strong faith, their religious views will override party policy.
I see, so if their religious views mean that they believe children should be sold into slavery, you respect that? I see no reason for religion being used as an excuse for justifying abhorrent views.
hatter - Member
Consistently decries people claiming benefits as scroungers who should be sent back to the work house but is happy to accept Ā£7.6m of public money to do up his ancestral home.,
He doesn't own the ancestral home - it's owned by the Wentworth Woodhouse Preservation Trust.
Are we now at the point where money to save / restore old buildings must also go through a Momentum sub committee who will decide whether cash will be awarded based on who used to own the properties?
His constituents knew what they were voting for.
Yes, a Tory. Where he was elected that's the overriding factor. Unfortunately the candidate the local association shoved in front of them is happy to sometimes allow his personal religious beliefs to trump their interests and those of the country. I see nothing to respect there.
I see, so if their religious views mean that they believe children should be sold into slavery, you respect that?
I'm questioning whether it's sensible to reply to someone who's clearly not equipped for this debate, but I'll give you the benefit of my doubts one last time.
Despite what some people might think, Catholicism doesn't advocate selling children into slavery. If it did, and Mr Rees Mogg still chose to be a Catholic, I very much doubt his constituents would have voted for him.
If the Catholic Church decided to start enslaving kids, I credit Mr Rees Mogg with strong enough moral fibre to denounce his faith. To suggest otherwise is just silly.
If history teaches us anything, it's that politics and religion is a match made in heaven, and combining the two always ends brilliantly!
[img] 
[/img]
I'm questioning whether it's sensible to reply to someone who's clearly not equipped for this debate, but I'll give you the benefit of my doubts one last time.
I see that my point went straight over your head, but given the shallowness of your comments so far, that's no great surprise. Let me try and explain it more simply for you.
If the Catholic Church decided to start enslaving kids, I credit Mr Rees Mogg with strong enough moral fibre to denounce his faith. To suggest otherwise is just silly.
Sigh. Rees-Mogg justifies his position on same sex marriage because of his faith. No other reason is given. Now, the bible says all sorts of things that could be used to justify a very wide variety of positions, including selling children into slavery and murdering people who work on the sabbath. I am asking you why you believe that justifying a particular political view because of faith is worthy of respect.
councilof10 - Member
I'm questioning whether it's sensible to reply to someone who's clearly not equipped for this debate....
š
Stay on my arm, you little charmer....
Someone in Whitehall recently referred to him as "the right honourable member for the early 20th Century," which just about sums him up. He seems to live in his own little bubble completely disconnected from the real world.His oily demeanour and some of his comments make me want to kill kittens, but I'm not sure as it comes from a place of malice. I almost feel sorry for him.
this
Now, the bible says all sorts of things that could be used to justify a very wide variety of positions, including selling children into slavery and murdering people who work on the sabbath. I am asking you why you believe that justifying particular a political view because of faith is worthy of respect.
Read your post back. "The Bible" is not the same as "The Catholic Church"!
If only I'd trusted my instincts with you... š
Read your post back. "The Bible" is not the same as "The Catholic Church"!If only I'd trusted my instincts with you...
Ah, so taking instructions from the Catholic Church is worthy of respect, but taking instructions from the bible is not? If you're capable, I suggest you have a think about that for a minute.
[quote=councilof10 ]Read your post back. "The Bible" is not the same as "The Catholic Church"!
Interesting - so which bits of the bible does the Catholic church denounce?
I'm questioning whether it's sensible to reply to someone who's clearly not equipped for this debate, but I'll give you the benefit of my doubts one last time.
Nice ad hominem.
Interesting - so which bits of the bible does the Catholic church denounce?
As far as I can tell, using faith as a justification for prejudice is sometimes good, and sometimes bad. I'm sure the councillor will be along to explain it all.
Is there any specific reference to not bumming choirboys?
Is there any specific reference to not bumming choirboys?
š
I guess that if your priest says it's not ok, other priests are available.
Thank you binners, it needed saying. Also who was advocating the burning of dinosaurs?
Hmm, a social club that picks and chooses which rules from its guidebook to ignore and which ones to go batshit mental if someone insults is probably worthy of the scorn it gets. And that's before we get on to bumming choirboys.
Interesting - so which bits of the bible does the Catholic church denounce?
Who said it denounces the bible? The modern Catholic Church has been quite clear and open about its teachings, its interpretation of the bible and its stance on its application to political issues.
It's not exactly "hard-line" in its beliefs - people like to misinterpret its stance on gay marriage etc, and whilst its views/teachings aren't in line with my own (I'm not a Catholic), we're not exactly talking about stoning the gays in public squares!
Outstanding member of Parliament and adds colour and variety to our country. His Channel 4 Referendum piece with Jess Phillips was one of the few highlights of a dire campaign. His put down about Eton to David Dimbleby on Question Time was also marvellous
Thank you binners, it needed saying. Also who was advocating the burning of dinosaurs?
A pyranosaurus ?
the right honourable Chumley Warner
[quote=councilof10 ]Who said it denounces the bible?
I assumed that must be the case from your suggestion of separation between the two - are you now telling me that it doesn't denounce any of the bible?
Despite what some people might think, Catholicism doesn't advocate selling children into slavery. If it did, and Mr Rees Mogg still chose to be a Catholic, I very much doubt his constituents would have voted for him.
If there's one thing I've learned from reading comments from both sides of the debate post-Brexit, is that for a large number of people their political party allegiances and hatreds trump many many other issues to the point of insanity.
For instance, Nick Clegg could come up with a way of giving everyone in the country a free solid gold house and there would be a portion of the electorate who went "yeah, but I could never vote for the Lib Dems because Tuition Fees." Blair, Iraq. Corbyn, something he said back when the world was in black and white, and so on and so on. A lot of folk will vote Labour / LD / Tory simply because that's who they vote for.
Never mind religion and child slavery, if Rees-Mogg advocated the eating of babies he'd probably still retain his seat in an election.
I assumed that must be the case from your suggestion of separation between the two - are you now telling me that it doesn't denounce any of the bible?
One is a book, one is a religion. Are you not aware of the difference? To be honest, if you don't know enough about religion to understand that difference, I'm not going to waste my time answering your silly posts!
can we have a button that makes councilof10 go back to waxing his crack?
[quote=councilof10 ]One is a book, one is a religion. Are you not aware of the difference?
I think I can just about cope with that - however the religion is ostensibly based upon the book, you appear to be suggesting that the religion rejects some parts of the book and I was after evidence for that. If you can't provide any evidence for your assertions then no worries.
To be honest, if you don't know enough about religion to understand that difference, I'm not going to waste my time answering your silly posts!
Ooh look, another ad-hom. But then the only reason you started this thread was as excuse to throw those around.
OP: Dear STW, what do you think of this man who I like
STW: We don't like him for various reason
OP: What a horrible lot you are
Have I missed anything or does this need to run for another three pages?
I think it's quite sweet seeing a man open up, via the medium of an internet forum, to his latent, and previously repressed homosexuality. But I fear that the strongly held faith of the object of his desires - which ironically forms a large part of the attraction - will prevent his feelings being reciprocated.
Life can be so cruel sometimes
OP: Dear STW, [s]what do you think of this man who I like[/s] what are your thoughts on how this man might affect the political landscape?
STW: We don't like him [s]for various reason[/s] because he's rich and we're envious
OP: What [s]a horrible lot you are[/s] an incredible inability to debate the original point many of you seem to possess.
One is a book, one is a religion. Are you not aware of the difference? To be honest, if you don't know enough about religion to understand that difference, I'm not going to waste my time answering your silly posts!
It seems to me that there is an inherent contradiction in your posts, that several of us have picked up on, that you're either refusing to admit, or cannot see. Alternatively, we could all be wrong and stupid.
I'm going with Occam's razor.
[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/tory-backbench-mp-jacob-rees-mogg-failed-to-declare-interests-9923362.html ]Why I don't like him[/url]
I'm going with Occam's razor.
Why? Because you saw it mentioned on STW, googled it and thought it might make you sound more educated?