I said on here a while back that Jacob Rees-Mogg might be the Tories' answer to Corbyn and now James Delingpole, no less, concurs. And the Speccies beneath the line are lapping it up. This really could happen folks!
Speaking as a leftie politics geek I like watching JRM... He knows his stuff and puts his viewpoint across very well.
He's polite too which is also nice.
I effing well prefer him to the others (May, Leadsom, Davis). And I'm sure plenty of others would also.
He is indeed a Corbyn WYSIWYG and people are in the mood for that. What's his vision? Well aside from all the inevitable jokes about forcing NHS prescriptions to be presented in Latin, I'm not at all sure.
But he is:
a) very smart b) engaging c) straight-talking d) loaded e) a bit bonkers
Not the worst set of traits for a PM.
He has a vision I'd say. It's a very small state, super sovereign, low tax sort of vision I think.
People on the right want a smaller state, till they don't...
Consistently voted for mass surveillance of people’s communications and activities Consistently voted against allowing marriage between two people of same sex Consistently voted against allowing terminally ill people to be given assistance to end their life
For the left three examples of wanting a larger state would be:
State enforcement of the smoking ban Letting agent fees The state guaranteeing jobs for young people
A true libertarian would go for:
No mass surveillance of comms & activities (The counter-argument here is terrorism) That the state has no business in mandating who can and can't marry one another. The state should not be involved in an individual contracting with a medical practioner to end their own suffering. (And on the other side generally) It is down to the Landlord, and not the state as to what activities occur in any of their public houses. The state has no business regulating the contracts between landlords and renters....
Given that the state is expected to provide the legal structure required for those contracts to exist and to be enforced, why should the state not also have a role in regulating what is and isn't a fair contract ?
This is a fascinating piece of research, which political campaigners would do well to study: http://www.pnas.org/lookup/doi/10.1073/pnas.1703801114 Support for redistribution is shaped by compassion, envy, and self-interest, but not a taste for fairness
An appeal to fairness can be a very strong political message - but not, apparently in relation to redistribution.
We all have our trigger words too, and for me whenever I hear the word "Fair" from a politician I instinctively check my wallet and wait for it to be lightened in favour of some undeserving scrote.
This Leadsom thing seems very odd. If she truly does want to be leader, why did she bail out last year when she had a very good shot at it?
Agree it's a puzzle. At the time I thought perhaps she realised she would be out of her depth. But if that were the case then, if anything it's a greater challenge now without a majority...
This is a fascinating piece of research, which political campaigners would do well to study: http://www.pnas.org/lookup/doi/10.1073/pnas.1703801114 Support for redistribution is shaped by compassion, envy, and self-interest, but not a taste for fairness
An appeal to fairness can be a very strong political message - but not, apparently in relation to redistribution.
Redistribution has always seemed to me to be about self-interest. Those on the receiving end benefit by being on the receiving end; those whose wealth is redistributed via the state enjoy the benefits of living in a stable society and gain from the emergence of a wider talent and wealth creating pool.
Take me: I was a net beneficiary of state-mandated redistribution. It allowed me to enjoy benefits that no previous generations of my family had enjoyed. That enabled me to go to university, advance in my career, help build a business, become a top rate taxpayer and start to be a net payer-out of taxes. What's not to like?
Jacob Rees Mogg is extremely well spoken and highly articulate. We tend to equate those traits with being very smart in the UK. See also Dan Hannan and Boris Johnson, for example. It has caused us no end of trouble over the years.
If Rees Mogg were to be elected Conservative party leader, it would be a very clear signal that the Tories were retreating from the 21st century. Very much like Corbyn's Labour party.
If he can get to the vote of the membership stage,anything can happen with one good speech,look at cameron.
Thank god for the low interest cap on my student loan.
Yeah. I'm on plan1 too. I'm not remotely happy about *benefiting* from it, though.
The plan2 students/graduates have been comprehensively done over by their elders.
The Tories and LD's tore up the generational settlement.
That has consequences.
Yeah, the point was made here a few days ago that it is almost as if they were designed never to be paid off.
If that were the case, the tories wouldn't have frozen the threshold.
That cynical little change to the t&c's had massive implications. Now they very much are designed to be (mostly) paid off, even with stagnant real wages. 9% on over £21k/year seems like a small *tax* now, but in 10/20 years, with moderate inflation/wage rises, the amount repaid every month will balloon.
But the real value of those extra contributions would be small as the loans would be similarly larger.
The real value of the contributions will be much larger than they are now (at 9% over £21k) thanks to the compounding effect of inflation/wage rises.
eg; If the average graduate salary in X years is £100k, they'll pay 9% on ~80% of their salary, even if £100k in X years only buys you the same amount of stuff as todays average graduate salary.
The t&c's are brutal.
The repayment threshold won't be frozen forever will it? There will have had to be a lot of inflation in X amount of years for £100k to be the same as today's average graduate salary. The threshold should have also risen significantly in those X years too.
It does seem an unlikely hypothetical that the repayment threshold would go below the minimum wage, for example.
given that the interest rate is inflation + 3% inflation won't solve the problem of getting the loans repaid.
All else being equal, high inflation benefits a graduate on plan II more than low inflation.
Worked example:
Debt of £1, inflation = 5% for 30 years. Cash cost of debt after 30 years: £4.32 Repayment asked for: £10.06 2.32 * original value. Inflation = 0, cash cost of debt after 30 years = £1 Repayment asked for: £2.42 2.42 * original value.
This is a fascinating piece of research, which political campaigners would do well to study: http://www.pnas.org/lookup/doi/10.1073/pnas.1703801114 Support for redistribution is shaped by compassion, envy, and self-interest, but not a taste for fairness
An appeal to fairness can be a very strong political message - but not, apparently in relation to redistribution.
Redistribution has always seemed to me to be about self-interest. Those on the receiving end benefit by being on the receiving end; those whose wealth is redistributed via the state enjoy the benefits of living in a stable society and gain from the emergence of a wider talent and wealth creating pool.
Take me: I was a net beneficiary of state-mandated redistribution. It allowed me to enjoy benefits that no previous generations of my family had enjoyed. That enabled me to go to university, advance in my career, help build a business, become a top rate taxpayer and start to be a net payer-out of taxes. What's not to like?
There's more. Aggregate demand is potentially suffering because of inequality. If rich capitalists are not careful then there will be nobody with any money to buy their products.
This is a fascinating piece of research, which political campaigners would do well to study: http://www.pnas.org/lookup/doi/10.1073/pnas.1703801114 Support for redistribution is shaped by compassion, envy, and self-interest, but not a taste for fairness
An appeal to fairness can be a very strong political message - but not, apparently in relation to redistribution.
Redistribution has always seemed to me to be about self-interest. Those on the receiving end benefit by being on the receiving end; those whose wealth is redistributed via the state enjoy the benefits of living in a stable society and gain from the emergence of a wider talent and wealth creating pool.
Take me: I was a net beneficiary of state-mandated redistribution. It allowed me to enjoy benefits that no previous generations of my family had enjoyed. That enabled me to go to university, advance in my career, help build a business, become a top rate taxpayer and start to be a net payer-out of taxes. What's not to like?
Jacob Rees Mogg is extremely well spoken and highly articulate. We tend to equate those traits with being very smart in the UK. See also Dan Hannan and Boris Johnson, for example. It has caused us no end of trouble over the years.
If Rees Mogg were to be elected Conservative party leader, it would be a very clear signal that the Tories were retreating from the 21st century. Very much like Corbyn's Labour party.
He has made many, many millions in his business dealings, which doesn't necessarily indicate any misunderstanding as to his smartness, nor retreat from the 21st century. It does argue for a certain base level intelligence and an understanding of how the world works.
Why don't you sum him up in a line or two for us so we can see what you think his potential leadership signals.
Thank god for the low interest cap on my student loan.
Yeah. I'm on plan1 too. I'm not remotely happy about *benefiting* from it, though.
The plan2 students/graduates have been comprehensively done over by their elders.
The Tories and LD's tore up the generational settlement.
That has consequences.
Yeah, the point was made here a few days ago that it is almost as if they were designed never to be paid off.
If that were the case, the tories wouldn't have frozen the threshold.
That cynical little change to the t&c's had massive implications. Now they very much are designed to be (mostly) paid off, even with stagnant real wages. 9% on over £21k/year seems like a small *tax* now, but in 10/20 years, with moderate inflation/wage rises, the amount repaid every month will balloon.
But the real value of those extra contributions would be small as the loans would be similarly larger.
The real value of the contributions will be much larger than they are now (at 9% over £21k) thanks to the compounding effect of inflation/wage rises.
eg; If the average graduate salary in X years is £100k, they'll pay 9% on ~80% of their salary, even if £100k in X years only buys you the same amount of stuff as todays average graduate salary.
The t&c's are brutal.
The repayment threshold won't be frozen forever will it? There will have had to be a lot of inflation in X amount of years for £100k to be the same as today's average graduate salary. The threshold should have also risen significantly in those X years too.
It does seem an unlikely hypothetical that the repayment threshold would go below the minimum wage, for example.
given that the interest rate is inflation + 3% inflation won't solve the problem of getting the loans repaid.
All else being equal, high inflation benefits a graduate on plan II more than low inflation.
Does it? I wouldn't have thought so given the interest rates are linked to inflation.
Thank god for the low interest cap on my student loan.
Yeah. I'm on plan1 too. I'm not remotely happy about *benefiting* from it, though.
The plan2 students/graduates have been comprehensively done over by their elders.
The Tories and LD's tore up the generational settlement.
That has consequences.
Yeah, the point was made here a few days ago that it is almost as if they were designed never to be paid off.
If that were the case, the tories wouldn't have frozen the threshold.
That cynical little change to the t&c's had massive implications. Now they very much are designed to be (mostly) paid off, even with stagnant real wages. 9% on over £21k/year seems like a small *tax* now, but in 10/20 years, with moderate inflation/wage rises, the amount repaid every month will balloon.
But the real value of those extra contributions would be small as the loans would be similarly larger.
The real value of the contributions will be much larger than they are now (at 9% over £21k) thanks to the compounding effect of inflation/wage rises.
eg; If the average graduate salary in X years is £100k, they'll pay 9% on ~80% of their salary, even if £100k in X years only buys you the same amount of stuff as todays average graduate salary.
The t&c's are brutal.
The repayment threshold won't be frozen forever will it? There will have had to be a lot of inflation in X amount of years for £100k to be the same as today's average graduate salary. The threshold should have also risen significantly in those X years too.
It does seem an unlikely hypothetical that the repayment threshold would go below the minimum wage, for example.
given that the interest rate is inflation + 3% inflation won't solve the problem of getting the loans repaid.
All else being equal, high inflation benefits a graduate on plan II more than low inflation.
Does it? I wouldn't have thought so given the interest rates are linked to inflation.
Its marginal, but the higher inflation the less the additional 3% is on top as a proportion..
Redistribution has always seemed to me to be about self-interest. Those on the receiving end benefit by being on the receiving end; those whose wealth is redistributed via the state enjoy the benefits of living in a stable society and gain from the emergence of a wider talent and wealth creating pool.
I think you are absolutely right here, Mr Observer. Is our present society in the UK stable enough to endure? Let alone the world society, of course. I wonder if any PB Tories will respond to this particular point of yours.
Jacob Rees Mogg is extremely well spoken and highly articulate. We tend to equate those traits with being very smart in the UK. See also Dan Hannan and Boris Johnson, for example. It has caused us no end of trouble over the years.
If Rees Mogg were to be elected Conservative party leader, it would be a very clear signal that the Tories were retreating from the 21st century. Very much like Corbyn's Labour party.
Yes. JRM wrote the following in The Telegraph in 2013
"It is widely accepted that carbon dioxide emissions have risen but the effect on the climate remains much debated while the computer modelling that has been done to date has not proved especially accurate. Sceptics remember that computer modelling was behind the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the global financial crisis; common sense dictates that if the Meteorological Office cannot forecast the next season’s weather with any success it is ambitious to predict what will happen decades ahead. However, even if all their fears are right the influence of the United Kingdom is limited. This country is responsible for under 2 per cent of global emissions so even if the British freeze and industry is made uncompetitive it will not save the world."
Now, while this may sound clever and convincing when delivered in JRM's plummy tones, it is actually riddled with non-sequiturs, misunderstandings and logical inconsistencies. He clearly doesn't have the slightest idea what he's talking about, but people still lap it up because he talks so nicely.
This is a fascinating piece of research, which political campaigners would do well to study: http://www.pnas.org/lookup/doi/10.1073/pnas.1703801114 Support for redistribution is shaped by compassion, envy, and self-interest, but not a taste for fairness
An appeal to fairness can be a very strong political message - but not, apparently in relation to redistribution.
We all have our trigger words too, and for me whenever I hear the word "Fair" from a politician I instinctively check my wallet and wait for it to be lightened in favour of some undeserving scrote.
Agree with this. 'fair' can be a weasel word that can be meaningless, or can hide the devil. When it is used, always look for what is not being said.
Jacob Rees Mogg is extremely well spoken and highly articulate. We tend to equate those traits with being very smart in the UK. See also Dan Hannan and Boris Johnson, for example. It has caused us no end of trouble over the years.
If Rees Mogg were to be elected Conservative party leader, it would be a very clear signal that the Tories were retreating from the 21st century. Very much like Corbyn's Labour party.
Yes. JRM wrote the following in The Telegraph in 2013
"It is widely accepted that carbon dioxide emissions have risen but the effect on the climate remains much debated while the computer modelling that has been done to date has not proved especially accurate. Sceptics remember that computer modelling was behind the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the global financial crisis; common sense dictates that if the Meteorological Office cannot forecast the next season’s weather with any success it is ambitious to predict what will happen decades ahead. However, even if all their fears are right the influence of the United Kingdom is limited. This country is responsible for under 2 per cent of global emissions so even if the British freeze and industry is made uncompetitive it will not save the world."
Now, while this may sound clever and convincing when delivered in JRM's plummy tones, it is actually riddled with non-sequiturs, misunderstandings and logical inconsistencies. He clearly doesn't have the slightest idea what he's talking about, but people still lap it up because he talks so nicely.
Hmm not sure - it adds another tick in the box for me. Plus I don't mind a sceptical PM given that the government seems pretty committed to hockey sticks, gaping holes in the data, and so forth.
Jacob Rees Mogg is extremely well spoken and highly articulate. We tend to equate those traits with being very smart in the UK. See also Dan Hannan and Boris Johnson, for example. It has caused us no end of trouble over the years.
If Rees Mogg were to be elected Conservative party leader, it would be a very clear signal that the Tories were retreating from the 21st century. Very much like Corbyn's Labour party.
Yes. JRM wrote the following in The Telegraph in 2013
"It is widely accepted that carbon dioxide emissions have risen but the effect on the climate remains much debated while the computer modelling that has been done to date has not proved especially accurate. Sceptics remember that computer modelling was behind the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the global financial crisis; common sense dictates that if the Meteorological Office cannot forecast the next season’s weather with any success it is ambitious to predict what will happen decades ahead. However, even if all their fears are right the influence of the United Kingdom is limited. This country is responsible for under 2 per cent of global emissions so even if the British freeze and industry is made uncompetitive it will not save the world."
Now, while this may sound clever and convincing when delivered in JRM's plummy tones, it is actually riddled with non-sequiturs, misunderstandings and logical inconsistencies. He clearly doesn't have the slightest idea what he's talking about, but people still lap it up because he talks so nicely.
So he's 'wrong' because he doesn't sign up to your religion.
I like that article, so I've just signed up at www.Readyformogg.org
Jacob Rees Mogg is extremely well spoken and highly articulate. We tend to equate those traits with being very smart in the UK. See also Dan Hannan and Boris Johnson, for example. It has caused us no end of trouble over the years.
If Rees Mogg were to be elected Conservative party leader, it would be a very clear signal that the Tories were retreating from the 21st century. Very much like Corbyn's Labour party.
Yes. JRM wrote the following in The Telegraph in 2013
"It is widely accepted that carbon dioxide emissions have risen but the effect on the climate remains much debated while the computer modelling that has been done to date has not proved especially accurate. Sceptics remember that computer modelling was behind the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the global financial crisis; common sense dictates that if the Meteorological Office cannot forecast the next season’s weather with any success it is ambitious to predict what will happen decades ahead. However, even if all their fears are right the influence of the United Kingdom is limited. This country is responsible for under 2 per cent of global emissions so even if the British freeze and industry is made uncompetitive it will not save the world."
Now, while this may sound clever and convincing when delivered in JRM's plummy tones, it is actually riddled with non-sequiturs, misunderstandings and logical inconsistencies. He clearly doesn't have the slightest idea what he's talking about, but people still lap it up because he talks so nicely.
It isn't, actually. Or if it is, identify one each of non-sequiturs, misunderstandings and logical inconsistencies.
Jacob Rees Mogg is extremely well spoken and highly articulate. We tend to equate those traits with being very smart in the UK. See also Dan Hannan and Boris Johnson, for example. It has caused us no end of trouble over the years.
If Rees Mogg were to be elected Conservative party leader, it would be a very clear signal that the Tories were retreating from the 21st century. Very much like Corbyn's Labour party.
Yes. JRM wrote the following in The Telegraph in 2013
"It is widely accepted that carbon dioxide emissions have risen but the effect on the climate remains much debated while the computer modelling that has been done to date has not proved especially accurate. Sceptics remember that computer modelling was behind the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the global financial crisis; common sense dictates that if the Meteorological Office cannot forecast the next season’s weather with any success it is ambitious to predict what will happen decades ahead. However, even if all their fears are right the influence of the United Kingdom is limited. This country is responsible for under 2 per cent of global emissions so even if the British freeze and industry is made uncompetitive it will not save the world."
Now, while this may sound clever and convincing when delivered in JRM's plummy tones, it is actually riddled with non-sequiturs, misunderstandings and logical inconsistencies. He clearly doesn't have the slightest idea what he's talking about, but people still lap it up because he talks so nicely.
Hmm not sure - it adds another tick in the box for me. Plus I don't mind a sceptical PM given that the government seems pretty committed to hockey sticks, gaping holes in the data, and so forth.
I'd like to see the thoughtful, kind momentum Labour campaign ran in a GE w Mogg as Con leader.... there may be a few little inverse snobbery personal attacks I reckon
Jacob Rees Mogg is extremely well spoken and highly articulate. We tend to equate those traits with being very smart in the UK. See also Dan Hannan and Boris Johnson, for example. It has caused us no end of trouble over the years.
If Rees Mogg were to be elected Conservative party leader, it would be a very clear signal that the Tories were retreating from the 21st century. Very much like Corbyn's Labour party.
Yes. JRM wrote the following in The Telegraph in 2013
"It is widely accepted that carbon dioxide emissions have risen but the effect on the climate remains much debated while the computer modelling that has been done to date has not proved especially accurate. Sceptics remember that computer modelling was behind the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the global financial crisis; common sense dictates that if the Meteorological Office cannot forecast the next season’s weather with any success it is ambitious to predict what will happen decades ahead. However, even if all their fears are right the influence of the United Kingdom is limited. This country is responsible for under 2 per cent of global emissions so even if the British freeze and industry is made uncompetitive it will not save the world."
Now, while this may sound clever and convincing when delivered in JRM's plummy tones, it is actually riddled with non-sequiturs, misunderstandings and logical inconsistencies. He clearly doesn't have the slightest idea what he's talking about, but people still lap it up because he talks so nicely.
So he's 'wrong' because he doesn't sign up to your religion.
I like that article, so I've just signed up at www.Readyformogg.org
No, he's wrong because he's wrong. His arguments are nonsensical and, like you, he seems unable to distinguish scientific fact from uninformed opinion.
Jacob Rees Mogg is extremely well spoken and highly articulate. We tend to equate those traits with being very smart in the UK. See also Dan Hannan and Boris Johnson, for example. It has caused us no end of trouble over the years.
If Rees Mogg were to be elected Conservative party leader, it would be a very clear signal that the Tories were retreating from the 21st century. Very much like Corbyn's Labour party.
Yes. JRM wrote the following in The Telegraph in 2013
"It is widely accepted that carbon dioxide emissions have risen but the effect on the climate remains much debated while the computer modelling that has been done to date has not proved especially accurate. Sceptics remember that computer modelling was behind the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the global financial crisis; common sense dictates that if the Meteorological Office cannot forecast the next season’s weather with any success it is ambitious to predict what will happen decades ahead. However, even if all their fears are right the influence of the United Kingdom is limited. This country is responsible for under 2 per cent of global emissions so even if the British freeze and industry is made uncompetitive it will not save the world."
Now, while this may sound clever and convincing when delivered in JRM's plummy tones, it is actually riddled with non-sequiturs, misunderstandings and logical inconsistencies. He clearly doesn't have the slightest idea what he's talking about, but people still lap it up because he talks so nicely.
So he's 'wrong' because he doesn't sign up to your religion.
I like that article, so I've just signed up at www.Readyformogg.org
No, he's wrong because he's wrong. His arguments are nonsensical and, like you, he seems unable to distinguish scientific fact from uninformed opinion.
Jacob Rees Mogg is extremely well spoken and highly articulate. We tend to equate those traits with being very smart in the UK. See also Dan Hannan and Boris Johnson, for example. It has caused us no end of trouble over the years.
If Rees Mogg were to be elected Conservative party leader, it would be a very clear signal that the Tories were retreating from the 21st century. Very much like Corbyn's Labour party.
Yes. JRM wrote the following in The Telegraph in 2013
"It is widely accepted that carbon dioxide emissions have risen but the effect on the climate remains much debated while the computer modelling that has been done to date has not proved especially accurate. Sceptics remember that computer modelling was behind the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the global financial crisis; common sense dictates that if the Meteorological Office cannot forecast the next season’s weather with any success it is ambitious to predict what will happen decades ahead. However, even if all their fears are right the influence of the United Kingdom is limited. This country is responsible for under 2 per cent of global emissions so even if the British freeze and industry is made uncompetitive it will not save the world."
Now, while this may sound clever and convincing when delivered in JRM's plummy tones, it is actually riddled with non-sequiturs, misunderstandings and logical inconsistencies. He clearly doesn't have the slightest idea what he's talking about, but people still lap it up because he talks so nicely.
So he's 'wrong' because he doesn't sign up to your religion.
I like that article, so I've just signed up at www.Readyformogg.org
No, he's wrong because he's wrong. His arguments are nonsensical and, like you, he seems unable to distinguish scientific fact from uninformed opinion.
By my reckoning - in the past 100 years there have been 11 new PMs without an election. All held at least one great office of state previously. 8/11 were a past chancellor. With Brexit you could make a claim for DexEU to be added to the list.
But Patel, Leadsom, Davidson and JRM should have no chance. Still who knows!?
Jacob Rees Mogg is extremely well spoken and highly articulate. We tend to equate those traits with being very smart in the UK. See also Dan Hannan and Boris Johnson, for example. It has caused us no end of trouble over the years.
If Rees Mogg were to be elected Conservative party leader, it would be a very clear signal that the Tories were retreating from the 21st century. Very much like Corbyn's Labour party.
Yes. JRM wrote the following in The Telegraph in 2013
"It is widely accepted that carbon dioxide emissions have risen but the effect on the climate remains much debated while the computer modelling that has been done to date has not proved especially accurate. Sceptics remember that computer modelling was behind the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the global financial crisis; common sense dictates that if the Meteorological Office cannot forecast the next season’s weather with any success it is ambitious to predict what will happen decades ahead. However, even if all their fears are right the influence of the United Kingdom is limited. This country is responsible for under 2 per cent of global emissions so even if the British freeze and industry is made uncompetitive it will not save the world."
Now, while this may sound clever and convincing when delivered in JRM's plummy tones, it is actually riddled with non-sequiturs, misunderstandings and logical inconsistencies. He clearly doesn't have the slightest idea what he's talking about, but people still lap it up because he talks so nicely.
Hmm not sure - it adds another tick in the box for me. Plus I don't mind a sceptical PM given that the government seems pretty committed to hockey sticks, gaping holes in the data, and so forth.
I'd like to see the thoughtful, kind momentum Labour campaign ran in a GE w Mogg as Con leader.... there may be a few little inverse snobbery personal attacks I reckon
Which would I think drive peoples' sympathy to him.
Jacob Rees Mogg is extremely well spoken and highly articulate. We tend to equate those traits with being very smart in the UK. See also Dan Hannan and Boris Johnson, for example. It has caused us no end of trouble over the years.
If Rees Mogg were to be elected Conservative party leader, it would be a very clear signal that the Tories were retreating from the 21st century. Very much like Corbyn's Labour party.
Yes. JRM wrote the following in The Telegraph in 2013
"It is widely accepted that carbon dioxide emissions have risen but the effect on the climate remains much debated while the computer modelling that has been done to date has not proved especially accurate. Sceptics remember that computer modelling was behind the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the global financial crisis; common sense dictates that if the Meteorological Office cannot forecast the next season’s weather with any success it is ambitious to predict what will happen decades ahead. However, even if all their fears are right the influence of the United Kingdom is limited. This country is responsible for under 2 per cent of global emissions so even if the British freeze and industry is made uncompetitive it will not save the world."
Now, while this may sound clever and convincing when delivered in JRM's plummy tones, it is actually riddled with non-sequiturs, misunderstandings and logical inconsistencies. He clearly doesn't have the slightest idea what he's talking about, but people still lap it up because he talks so nicely.
Hmm not sure - it adds another tick in the box for me. Plus I don't mind a sceptical PM given that the government seems pretty committed to hockey sticks, gaping holes in the data, and so forth.
I'd like to see the thoughtful, kind momentum Labour campaign ran in a GE w Mogg as Con leader.... there may be a few little inverse snobbery personal attacks I reckon
Which would I think drive peoples' sympathy to him.
Yes I'd say so. The Corbynites wouldn't be able to resist. JRM would be the perfect bait to expose the hard lefts true colours
Jacob Rees Mogg is extremely well spoken and highly articulate. We tend to equate those traits with being very smart in the UK. See also Dan Hannan and Boris Johnson, for example. It has caused us no end of trouble over the years.
If Rees Mogg were to be elected Conservative party leader, it would be a very clear signal that the Tories were retreating from the 21st century. Very much like Corbyn's Labour party.
Yes. JRM wrote the following in The Telegraph in 2013
"It is widely accepted that carbon dioxide emissions have risen but the effect on the climate remains much debated while the computer modelling that has been done to date has not proved especially accurate. Sceptics remember that computer modelling was behind the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the global financial crisis; common sense dictates that if the Meteorological Office cannot forecast the next season’s weather with any success it is ambitious to predict what will happen decades ahead. However, even if all their fears are right the influence of the United Kingdom is limited. This country is responsible for under 2 per cent of global emissions so even if the British freeze and industry is made uncompetitive it will not save the world."
Now, while this may sound clever and convincing when delivered in JRM's plummy tones, it is actually riddled with non-sequiturs, misunderstandings and logical inconsistencies. He clearly doesn't have the slightest idea what he's talking about, but people still lap it up because he talks so nicely.
Well from a scientific point of view rather than your religious point of view it is indeed spot on.
Comments
But if that were the case then, if anything it's a greater challenge now without a majority...
Take me: I was a net beneficiary of state-mandated redistribution. It allowed me to enjoy benefits that no previous generations of my family had enjoyed. That enabled me to go to university, advance in my career, help build a business, become a top rate taxpayer and start to be a net payer-out of taxes. What's not to like?
Worked example:
Debt of £1, inflation = 5% for 30 years.
Cash cost of debt after 30 years: £4.32
Repayment asked for: £10.06
2.32 * original value.
Inflation = 0, cash cost of debt after 30 years = £1
Repayment asked for: £2.42
2.42 * original value.
Why don't you sum him up in a line or two for us so we can see what you think his potential leadership signals.
https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/887303451088109568
"It is widely accepted that carbon dioxide emissions have risen but the effect on the climate remains much debated while the computer modelling that has been done to date has not proved especially accurate. Sceptics remember that computer modelling was behind the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the global financial crisis; common sense dictates that if the Meteorological Office cannot forecast the next season’s weather with any success it is ambitious to predict what will happen decades ahead. However, even if all their fears are right the influence of the United Kingdom is limited. This country is responsible for under 2 per cent of global emissions so even if the British freeze and industry is made uncompetitive it will not save the world."
Now, while this may sound clever and convincing when delivered in JRM's plummy tones, it is actually riddled with non-sequiturs, misunderstandings and logical inconsistencies. He clearly doesn't have the slightest idea what he's talking about, but people still lap it up because he talks so nicely.
I like that article, so I've just signed up at www.Readyformogg.org
NEW THREAD
But Patel, Leadsom, Davidson and JRM should have no chance. Still who knows!?