One criticism I don't have much time for is "imposing your opinions on others." Every legislator imposes his or her opinions on people that don't agree with them. All that we are entitled to expect is that they should play by the rules of the game i.e. act peacefully, and uphold the democratic process.
Not sure I agree with that. JRM would be minded, I suspect, to repeal the Abortion Act. If he sought to whip his party to support such a move or even seek to regulate the on demand culture we have at the present time, that would be a deal breaker for me. Ditto the death penalty if he does indeed favour it (he may not).
I say this despite finding abortion morally abhorrent personally. The reason I say it is because I respect the right of others to have different views, particularly women who carry the child. I am not sure what JRM's position is on that. If his view is entirely personal I really don't have a problem. If it impinges on his public persona and votes that is a problem.
What is voting for Brexit, or Scottish independence, if not seeking to impose one's views on those who disagree (and the same is true in reverse?)
a) demonstrate that they can separate their private morality from a public morality that has very different values and credibly embody and shape the public morality; or
b) explain why they think public morality is wrong, accepting that their very different moral views are a legitimate subject for public debate.
Jacob Rees-Mogg is entitled to his views. He is not entitled to force them on a nation that does not share them at all.
He has not given the impression he would force them on the Nation unless of course you have some evidence he has
His past voting record is ample evidence that he is willing to impose his values on the nation.
Rubbish. Voting against abortion in a free vote when MPs are entitled to vote according to their conscience is very different from whipping your MPs to vote against abortion. The former is expressing your view and will only change the law if the majority of MPs share your values. The latter is imposing your values on the nation.
It's hardly a one-off. Never mind his implacable hostility to gay rights, he's voted repeatedly to repeal the Human Rights Act. That goes far beyond voting in a free vote.
I lose track but is repealing the Human Rights Act and replacing it with some British Bill of Rights not still Tory party policy? Its a daft policy (despite the pension boosting potential of having all the points decided under the Act relitigated on slightly different wording) but I think its still there.
One criticism I don't have much time for is "imposing your opinions on others." Every legislator imposes his or her opinions on people that don't agree with them. All that we are entitled to expect is that they should play by the rules of the game i.e. act peacefully, and uphold the democratic process.
Not sure I agree with that. JRM would be minded, I suspect, to repeal the Abortion Act. If he sought to whip his party to support such a move or even seek to regulate the on demand culture we have at the present time, that would be a deal breaker for me. Ditto the death penalty if he does indeed favour it (he may not).
I say this despite finding abortion morally abhorrent personally. The reason I say it is because I respect the right of others to have different views, particularly women who carry the child. I am not sure what JRM's position is on that. If his view is entirely personal I really don't have a problem. If it impinges on his public persona and votes that is a problem.
What is voting for Brexit, or Scottish independence, if not seeking to impose one's views on those who disagree (and the same is true in reverse?)
Oh I agree with your general point that imposing their views on others is what legislators do. Its just that there are some areas where I think they should exercise considerable restraint and abortion is one of them.
Rubbish. Voting against abortion in a free vote when MPs are entitled to vote according to their conscience is very different from whipping your MPs to vote against abortion. The former is expressing your view and will only change the law if the majority of MPs share your values. The latter is imposing your values on the nation.
If you vote against abortion on the grounds of your personal beliefs, you are trying to impose your conscience on the rest of the nation.
Whether you are successful or not is neither here nor there.
That is the nature of leadership. Politicians should advocate the morality that they stand for and attempt to see it realised.
Well, I for one would be very happy if a future Labour Chancellor didn't impose his or her opinions on my tax bill.
You only have the Chancellor to worry about. Some of us have to worry about a Scottish government feeling threatened from the left and desperate to find some red meat to assuage supporters gutted that they are not going over the parapet for Indyref2 any time soon.
Anyway, there's not a snowflake's chance in hell of JRM becoming party leader, so it's all rather academic.
About the same as Corbyn re Labour in 2014 then ?
That is the fallacy in all this. After Corbyn and Trump, people are looking for the next outsider to upset the apple-cart as if there's some kind of related process. To a small extent, there is, both because it shows what's possible and because there's a small inclination to fight fire with fire. However, I think the expectations are massively out; I'd expect the next Tory leader to either be in the cabinet at the time of the election, or to have served significant time in it.
I disagree. The lack of opposition to the concept of a referendum on either the Scottish independence vote or the UK Brexit vote was indicative of the consensus that does exist that first-order constitutional issues can only be settled by a direct vote of the people.
There was certainly opposition to whether the vote should be held but not to whether if the question should be put, it should be put in a referendum.
The problem is that a binary choice between options where one or more of the options is either poorly understood or impracticable is bad decision-making. I was discussing this on the previous thread. Referendums need to be rooted in constitutional principles rather than being used ad-hoc, precisely to avoid this poor quality of decision-making.
a) demonstrate that they can separate their private morality from a public morality that has very different values and credibly embody and shape the public morality; or
b) explain why they think public morality is wrong, accepting that their very different moral views are a legitimate subject for public debate.
Jacob Rees-Mogg is entitled to his views. He is not entitled to force them on a nation that does not share them at all.
He has not given the impression he would force them on the Nation unless of course you have some evidence he has
His past voting record is ample evidence that he is willing to impose his values on the nation.
Rubbish. Voting against abortion in a free vote when MPs are entitled to vote according to their conscience is very different from whipping your MPs to vote against abortion. The former is expressing your view and will only change the law if the majority of MPs share your values. The latter is imposing your values on the nation.
It's hardly a one-off. Never mind his implacable hostility to gay rights, he's voted repeatedly to repeal the Human Rights Act. That goes far beyond voting in a free vote.
I lose track but is repealing the Human Rights Act and replacing it with some British Bill of Rights not still Tory party policy? Its a daft policy (despite the pension boosting potential of having all the points decided under the Act relitigated on slightly different wording) but I think its still there.
The objections to the HRA come from the way it interacts with the European Court of Human Rights, rather than whether humans should have rights.
A surprising number of people think that humans in Britain didn’t have rights before 2007, and that if we repeal the HRA they’ll no longer have any!
Rubbish. Voting against abortion in a free vote when MPs are entitled to vote according to their conscience is very different from whipping your MPs to vote against abortion. The former is expressing your view and will only change the law if the majority of MPs share your values. The latter is imposing your values on the nation.
If you vote against abortion on the grounds of your personal beliefs, you are trying to impose your conscience on the rest of the nation.
Whether you are successful or not is neither here nor there.
That is the nature of leadership. Politicians should advocate the morality that they stand for and attempt to see it realised.
There is a clear difference between believing something is immoral and believing it should be illegal.
I am opposed to adultery, I would not make it illegal etc.
One criticism I don't have much time for is "imposing your opinions on others." Every legislator imposes his or her opinions on people that don't agree with them. All that we are entitled to expect is that they should play by the rules of the game i.e. act peacefully, and uphold the democratic process.
Not sure I agree with that. JRM would be minded, I suspect, to repeal the Abortion Act. If he sought to whip his party to support such a move or even seek to regulate the on demand culture we have at the present time, that would be a deal breaker for me. Ditto the death penalty if he does indeed favour it (he may not).
I say this despite finding abortion morally abhorrent personally. The reason I say it is because I respect the right of others to have different views, particularly women who carry the child. I am not sure what JRM's position is on that. If his view is entirely personal I really don't have a problem. If it impinges on his public persona and votes that is a problem.
What is voting for Brexit, or Scottish independence, if not seeking to impose one's views on those who disagree (and the same is true in reverse?)
Standing - the degree of personal stake in the issue. All citizens have a stake in Brexit or Sindy. What standing do I have to claim a personal stake in some stranger's abortion?
a) demonstrate that they can separate their private morality from a public morality that has very different values and credibly embody and shape the public morality; or
b) explain why they think public morality is wrong, accepting that their very different moral views are a legitimate subject for public debate.
Jacob Rees-Mogg is entitled to his views. He is not entitled to force them on a nation that does not share them at all.
He has not given the impression he would force them on the Nation unless of course you have some evidence he has
His past voting record is ample evidence that he is willing to impose his values on the nation.
Rubbish. Voting against abortion in a free vote when MPs are entitled to vote according to their conscience is very different from whipping your MPs to vote against abortion. The former is expressing your view and will only change the law if the majority of MPs share your values. The latter is imposing your values on the nation.
It's hardly a one-off. Never mind his implacable hostility to gay rights, he's voted repeatedly to repeal the Human Rights Act. That goes far beyond voting in a free vote.
I lose track but is repealing the Human Rights Act and replacing it with some British Bill of Rights not still Tory party policy? Its a daft policy (despite the pension boosting potential of having all the points decided under the Act relitigated on slightly different wording) but I think its still there.
The objections to the HRA come from the way it interacts with the European Court of Human Rights, rather than whether humans should have rights.
A surprising number of people think that humans in Britain didn’t have rights before 2007, and that if we repeal the HRA they’ll no longer have any!
Its not something I think we can meaningfully do prior to Brexit due to the current state of the Treaties. The ECtHR is occasionally very irritating (prisoners votes comes to mind) but the disruption withdrawing from it would cause is deeply unattractive.
Standing - the degree of personal stake in the issue. All citizens have a stake in Brexit or Sindy. What standing do I have to claim a personal stake in some stranger's abortion?
Or in her wish to commit infanticide on her new-born baby?
Anyway, there's not a snowflake's chance in hell of JRM becoming party leader, so it's all rather academic.
About the same as Corbyn re Labour in 2014 then ?
That is the fallacy in all this. After Corbyn and Trump, people are looking for the next outsider to upset the apple-cart as if there's some kind of related process. To a small extent, there is, both because it shows what's possible and because there's a small inclination to fight fire with fire. However, I think the expectations are massively out; I'd expect the next Tory leader to either be in the cabinet at the time of the election, or to have served significant time in it.
I wonder when we are going to see a reshuffle. She may be too frit to have one, because for instance moving Boris would provoke a leadership challenge from him, and leaving him in position would strengthen him. A pity if so, because her best hope of being well regarded in retrospect is that at least she put Tugendhat/Mercer/whomever on the road to their glorious PMship; just as, conversely, Cameron will be condemned for leaving a power vacuum to be filled by May.
Standing - the degree of personal stake in the issue. All citizens have a stake in Brexit or Sindy. What standing do I have to claim a personal stake in some stranger's abortion?
Or in her wish to commit infanticide on her new-born baby?
Now you're getting into the issue of when a foetus attains rights. Once the child is born, clearly it has standing.
I don't claim this is a simple issue. But that is precisely why absolutes are not very helpful.
Rubbish. Voting against abortion in a free vote when MPs are entitled to vote according to their conscience is very different from whipping your MPs to vote against abortion. The former is expressing your view and will only change the law if the majority of MPs share your values. The latter is imposing your values on the nation.
If you vote against abortion on the grounds of your personal beliefs, you are trying to impose your conscience on the rest of the nation.
Whether you are successful or not is neither here nor there.
That is the nature of leadership. Politicians should advocate the morality that they stand for and attempt to see it realised.
There is a clear difference between believing something is immoral and believing it should be illegal.
I am opposed to adultery, I would not make it illegal etc.
I agree with that but there are many ways in which a politician or political activist can seek to reform society, and legislation is only one of them. I would not have hate speech criminalised but I deeply disapprove of it; I just feel that changing social standards was the better route to go down, with fewer risks of unintended consequences.
Rubbish. Voting against abortion in a free vote when MPs are entitled to vote according to their conscience is very different from whipping your MPs to vote against abortion. The former is expressing your view and will only change the law if the majority of MPs share your values. The latter is imposing your values on the nation.
If you vote against abortion on the grounds of your personal beliefs, you are trying to impose your conscience on the rest of the nation.
Whether you are successful or not is neither here nor there.
That is the nature of leadership. Politicians should advocate the morality that they stand for and attempt to see it realised.
There is a clear difference between believing something is immoral and believing it should be illegal.
I am opposed to adultery, I would not make it illegal etc.
I agree with that but there are many ways in which a politician or political activist can seek to reform society, and legislation is only one of them. I would not have hate speech criminalised but I deeply disapprove of it; I just feel that changing social standards was the better route to go down, with fewer risks of unintended consequences.
Yes fair enough if you want to make speeches/try to persuade other people. But when you are making laws - it's different.
I'm sure the FCA has assured whoever will listen that you won't be able to fit a fag paper between what the EU decides is appropriate FinSec regulation, and the regs that the FCA implements. For now and ever more (as we are of a slightly religious flavour on here).
Its not something I think we can meaningfully do prior to Brexit due to the current state of the Treaties. The ECtHR is occasionally very irritating (prisoners votes comes to mind) but the disruption withdrawing from it would cause is deeply unattractive.
Our membership of the EU entails adherence to the Charter of Fundamental Rights regulated by the ECJ, which is a different charter from the Charter of Human Rights regulated by the European Court of Human Rights, There is no formal connection between the two, although there were moves to get the EU to sign up to the ECHR, which I think has been sytmied by the ECJ. So our leaving the EU should be neutral as far as our membership of the ECHR is concerned.
The basic question is why would we want to remove ourselves from oversight on our government's respect for human rights when we are promoting human rights as an objective good. It's partly because of a small number of decisions from ECtHR that irritate us and mainly because of a misunderstanding deliberately promoted by parts of our media and the Conservative Party about what the ECtHR actually does.
I disagree. The lack of opposition to the concept of a referendum on either the Scottish independence vote or the UK Brexit vote was indicative of the consensus that does exist that first-order constitutional issues can only be settled by a direct vote of the people.
There was certainly opposition to whether the vote should be held but not to whether if the question should be put, it should be put in a referendum.
The problem is that a binary choice between options where one or more of the options is either poorly understood or impracticable is bad decision-making. I was discussing this on the previous thread. Referendums need to be rooted in constitutional principles rather than being used ad-hoc, precisely to avoid this poor quality of decision-making.
I have some sympathy with that view. However, the process of Brexit is such that I don't think it was possible to do it any other way. Likewise with Scottish independence. (In theory, that latter one could be subject to a second vote on the actual terms but I dislike that solution as it gives Yes a free hit on the principle, which would have longer-lasting consequences than might be appreciated at the time).
Marx in particular has been 'debunked furiously' for 150 years by various entirely forgotten economists, yet the bugger still refuses to disappear.
If you're referring particularly to the transformation problem, Bohm-Bawerk, the Okishio theorem and all that though, there are quite interesting debunkings of that debunking recently by the likes of Alan Freeman, Paul Cockshott, and Andrew Kliman. Worth reading even if you're not convinced.
Still, to the original point: what makes you say Corbyn is a believer in Marxist economics and Picketty? Given that the two are mutually exclusive, and Corbyn's shown no sign of being interested in Marxist political economy.
Anyway, there's not a snowflake's chance in hell of JRM becoming party leader, so it's all rather academic.
That just reminds me of the comments about Brexit and Trump from last year. I can actually see the path for him as rather easier than for the 2 above. Brexit is fudged and he's the natural recipient of the betrayal narrative. Boris and co are tarnished by all the compromises and he ends up sent to the membership alongside Amber Rudd. And as for previous comments about not wanting it, please - totally irrelevant when it comes to it.
There is an authenticity about him that is hard not to admire, and I suspect there will be enough people who support at least one of his controversial positions (or recognise that he won't be able to unpick them) that they can live with the rest.
I disagree. The lack of opposition to the concept of a referendum on either the Scottish independence vote or the UK Brexit vote was indicative of the consensus that does exist that first-order constitutional issues can only be settled by a direct vote of the people.
There was certainly opposition to whether the vote should be held but not to whether if the question should be put, it should be put in a referendum.
The problem is that a binary choice between options where one or more of the options is either poorly understood or impracticable is bad decision-making. I was discussing this on the previous thread. Referendums need to be rooted in constitutional principles rather than being used ad-hoc, precisely to avoid this poor quality of decision-making.
I have some sympathy with that view. However, the process of Brexit is such that I don't think it was possible to do it any other way. Likewise with Scottish independence. (In theory, that latter one could be subject to a second vote on the actual terms but I dislike that solution as it gives Yes a free hit on the principle, which would have longer-lasting consequences than might be appreciated at the time).
Does all parliamentary legislation not follow that pattern? With a second reading on the principle, and only then going into the detail of committees and amendments at third reading? And of course the whole thing can then be voted down at the end for those unhappy with the details that have been finalised?
In some ways that is a far more British way of working than what is being done with Brexit, and would be entirely consistent with a second referendum, if the 2016 vote was based on principle?
There is an authenticity about him that is hard not to admire, and I suspect there will be enough people who support at least one of his controversial positions (or recognise that he won't be able to unpick them) that they can live with the rest.
The era in which authenticity is more important than being right is problematical. He could win.
Anyway, there's not a snowflake's chance in hell of JRM becoming party leader, so it's all rather academic.
That just reminds me of the comments about Brexit and Trump from last year. I can actually see the path for him as rather easier than for the 2 above. Brexit is fudged and he's the natural recipient of the betrayal narrative. Boris and co are tarnished by all the compromises and he ends up sent to the membership alongside Amber Rudd. And as for previous comments about not wanting it, please - totally irrelevant when it comes to it.
There is an authenticity about him that is hard not to admire, and I suspect there will be enough people who support at least one of his controversial positions (or recognise that he won't be able to unpick them) that they can live with the rest.
Indeed. Authenticity is hard to fake. JRM does it well.
Anyway, there's not a snowflake's chance in hell of JRM becoming party leader, so it's all rather academic.
That just reminds me of the comments about Brexit and Trump from last year. I can actually see the path for him as rather easier than for the 2 above. Brexit is fudged and he's the natural recipient of the betrayal narrative. Boris and co are tarnished by all the compromises and he ends up sent to the membership alongside Amber Rudd. And as for previous comments about not wanting it, please - totally irrelevant when it comes to it.
There is an authenticity about him that is hard not to admire, and I suspect there will be enough people who support at least one of his controversial positions (or recognise that he won't be able to unpick them) that they can live with the rest.
I was being a little flippant (who'd a thunk it?). I agree with you that it is possible to envisage a plausible path, but I still think it's a very unlikely path. He'd first have to negotiate the MPs' section of the obstacle race. It's hard to see MPs going for him, but, even if they did, I don't think members would do so; he's regarded as admirable in some ways, and certainly amusing, but I don't think he's seen as serious PM material.
Edit: Still, if it were JRM vs Boris, I'd go for JRM (and then probably resign from the party).
I don't see him having a cat in hells chance of winning the leadership. For all that I like some of the things he stands for constitutionally, like Gove he would be electoral poison. If the Tories chose him he will perform even worse than IDS did in the polls.
I am invariably diametrically opposed to the moral positions that JRM takes, but I appreciate that he is a man that has religious conviction - and can be relied upon to put the opposing case with great clarity that at least makes me think about the alternative opinion.
I don't see him being PM. I do though see him, in time, being widely recognised as one of the finest holders of one of the great offices of state of the current generation of politicians.
While I enjoy the clarity of JRM's thinking, is there any evidence that he has the managerial strengths to take on one of the great offices of state?
My hunch is that he's an ideas person, rather than an execution one.
I don't see him having a cat in hells chance of winning the leadership. For all that I like some of the things he stands for constitutionally, like Gove he would be electoral poison. If the Tories chose him he will perform even worse than IDS did in the polls.
Which is why he will not be chosen. No woman should be forced into having a child as a result of rape..
These allegations sound extraordinary and disturbing in the light of the Jo Cox murder. Of course the presumption of innocence is absolute but I'll bet the case won't be covered in the media the way alleged Brown Terrorism would be.
I don't buy JRMs argument that it's ok to hold any personal beliefs just so long as you don't let them influence government policy.
Why not? It is actions not thoughts or beliefs that are most important. And of course people should feel free to try to argue that government policy should be different - it would be odd if as leader the policy was something they obviously did not support but had no power to change, but in practice I would bet all PMs have some policy they didn’t back but couldn’t afford to change, albeit in less contentious areas than would be the case with JRM.
I had wondered what their approach might be in that respect. Every little thing which undermines the process helps though, I suppose, in terms of boycotting things.
Anyway, there's not a snowflake's chance in hell of JRM becoming party leader, so it's all rather academic.
That just reminds me of the comments about Brexit and Trump from last year. I can actually see the path for him as rather easier than for the 2 above. Brexit is fudged and he's the natural recipient of the betrayal narrative. Boris and co are tarnished by all the compromises and he ends up sent to the membership alongside Amber Rudd. And as for previous comments about not wanting it, please - totally irrelevant when it comes to it.
There is an authenticity about him that is hard not to admire, and I suspect there will be enough people who support at least one of his controversial positions (or recognise that he won't be able to unpick them) that they can live with the rest.
Standing - the degree of personal stake in the issue. All citizens have a stake in Brexit or Sindy. What standing do I have to claim a personal stake in some stranger's abortion?
Or in her wish to commit infanticide on her new-born baby?
What about her viewpoint? Having to feel the child of her rapist moving within her every day? A reminder 24/7 for months of what was done to her. The impact on her career as she is forced to have time off for a pregnancy she does not want. The danger of medical complications that may stay with her for life - pregnancy is not risk free and women still die from childbirth.
To be sure, the child is innocent but the child is a life-long reminder of a vicious, life-changing assault and with the world these days, the father might even claim visitation rights and another whole legal battle ensues.
This is a highly complex and life changing issue. In some instances, your life is in ruins for years afterwards - as well as recovering from the rape and the mental damage and trauma that causes.
I don't see him having a cat in hells chance of winning the leadership. For all that I like some of the things he stands for constitutionally, like Gove he would be electoral poison. If the Tories chose him he will perform even worse than IDS did in the polls.
Which is why he will not be chosen. No woman should be forced into having a child as a result of rape..
And I highly doubt any party would want to be getting into a debate on that point, and probably JRM would not want his party to be entangled in that as a debate, even if hypothetically as leader he stated he had no plans to change the law in that regard.
Of course he's not very pro-life when it comes to capital punishment. He seems to pick and choose which of the Holy Father's pronouncements to adhere to. He's an idiot and the fact that he's being discussed at all shows the state of the modern Tory party and the loopiness of its members.
I may have misheard but I'm sure JRM said he opposed capital punishment on last night's QT?
He said he opposed the indiscriminate use of the death penalty.
(Five points for who can identify which politician did actually say that.)
I am invariably diametrically opposed to the moral positions that JRM takes, but I appreciate that he is a man that has religious conviction - and can be relied upon to put the opposing case with great clarity that at least makes me think about the alternative opinion.
I don't see him being PM. I do though see him, in time, being widely recognised as one of the finest holders of one of the great offices of state of the current generation of politicians.
While I enjoy the clarity of JRM's thinking, is there any evidence that he has the managerial strengths to take on one of the great offices of state?
My hunch is that he's an ideas person, rather than an execution one.
What was his role at Somerset? Did Dominic handle all the managerial stuff?
I don't buy JRMs argument that it's ok to hold any personal beliefs just so long as you don't let them influence government policy.
Why not? It is actions not thoughts or beliefs that are most important. And of course people should feel free to try to argue that government policy should be different - it would be odd if as leader the policy was something they obviously did not support but had no power to change, but in practice I would bet all PMs have some policy they didn’t back but couldn’t afford to change, albeit in less contentious areas than would be the case with JRM.
I think that's wrong. To use an extreme to prove the point. Would you be happy with a PM who said that he was personally ok with murder, but promised that he would not try to change the law?
What people believe matters. Unless they lack integrity it guides what they do.
Judge any politician on what they have done in their life and what it proves about what that they value most and least of all what they say they might do.
Anyway, there's not a snowflake's chance in hell of JRM becoming party leader, so it's all rather academic.
That just reminds me of the comments about Brexit and Trump from last year. I can actually see the path for him as rather easier than for the 2 above. Brexit is fudged and he's the natural recipient of the betrayal narrative. Boris and co are tarnished by all the compromises and he ends up sent to the membership alongside Amber Rudd. And as for previous comments about not wanting it, please - totally irrelevant when it comes to it.
There is an authenticity about him that is hard not to admire, and I suspect there will be enough people who support at least one of his controversial positions (or recognise that he won't be able to unpick them) that they can live with the rest.
I was being a little flippant (who'd a thunk it?). I agree with you that it is possible to envisage a plausible path, but I still think it's a very unlikely path. He'd first have to negotiate the MPs' section of the obstacle race. It's hard to see MPs going for him, but, even if they did, I don't think members would do so; he's regarded as admirable in some ways, and certainly amusing, but I don't think he's seen as serious PM material.
Edit: Still, if it were JRM vs Boris, I'd go for JRM (and then probably resign from the party).
What a choice that would be. Trump or Trump harder?
I don't see him having a cat in hells chance of winning the leadership. For all that I like some of the things he stands for constitutionally, like Gove he would be electoral poison. If the Tories chose him he will perform even worse than IDS did in the polls.
Which is why he will not be chosen. No woman should be forced into having a child as a result of rape..
A few days ago I had lunch with some of my older family members. My elderly grandad, a life-long Labour voter, was singing the praises of JRM... Other family members (more Conservative leaning) find him quite impressive too. I was the only person at the table who dislikes him... but I kept quiet. I've learned that family is the one arena it's best not to hold a political debate in.
Standing - the degree of personal stake in the issue. All citizens have a stake in Brexit or Sindy. What standing do I have to claim a personal stake in some stranger's abortion?
Or in her wish to commit infanticide on her new-born baby?
What about her viewpoint? Having to feel the child of her rapist moving within her every day? A reminder 24/7 for months of what was done to her. The impact on her career as she is forced to have time off for a pregnancy she does not want. The danger of medical complications that may stay with her for life - pregnancy is not risk free and women still die from childbirth.
To be sure, the child is innocent but the child is a life-long reminder of a vicious, life-changing assault and with the world these days, the father might even claim visitation rights and another whole legal battle ensues.
This is a highly complex and life changing issue. In some instances, your life is in ruins for years afterwards.
All true of course, but if you start from the premise that abortion is morally indistinguishable from infanticide, because you think the foetus has its own independent right to life, then all those disagreeable things are not sufficient justification for killing it, any more than they would be justifications for infanticide.
For the avoidance of doubt, this isn't my view - what I'm saying is that it is completely unsurprising, indeed uncontroversial, that those who do start from that premise believe that the circumstances of the conception, however horrible, are necessarily irrelevant.
Standing - the degree of personal stake in the issue. All citizens have a stake in Brexit or Sindy. What standing do I have to claim a personal stake in some stranger's abortion?
Or in her wish to commit infanticide on her new-born baby?
What about her viewpoint? Having to feel the child of her rapist moving within her every day? A reminder 24/7 for months of what was done to her. The impact on her career as she is forced to have time off for a pregnancy she does not want. The danger of medical complications that may stay with her for life - pregnancy is not risk free and women still die from childbirth.
To be sure, the child is innocent but the child is a life-long reminder of a vicious, life-changing assault and with the world these days, the father might even claim visitation rights and another whole legal battle ensues.
This is a highly complex and life changing issue. In some instances, your life is in ruins for years afterwards - as well as recovering from the rape and the mental damage and trauma that causes.
If you believe an unborn child is a soul-endowed moral being in the full sense of the term, it's understandable why you'd oppose abortion across the board, even while having sympathy for the plight of the mother.
If you believe it's just biological matter that is not yet a person in any meaningful sense, then abortion isn't a moral question regardless of the reasons the mother seeks one.
I find it more difficult to understand those who are against abortion except in cases like rape, than those who are consistent on this point tbh.
I don't buy JRMs argument that it's ok to hold any personal beliefs just so long as you don't let them influence government policy.
Why not? It is actions not thoughts or beliefs that are most important. And of course people should feel free to try to argue that government policy should be different - it would be odd if as leader the policy was something they obviously did not support but had no power to change, but in practice I would bet all PMs have some policy they didn’t back but couldn’t afford to change, albeit in less contentious areas than would be the case with JRM.
I think that's wrong. To use an extreme to prove the point. Would you be happy with a PM who said that he was personally ok with murder, but promised that he would not try to change the law?
What people believe matters. Unless they lack integrity it guides what they do.
Judge any politician on what they have done in their life and what it proves about what that they value most and least of all what they say they might do.
I take your point on the extreme example, but I think that is the issue, it is only on the very very extreme things that it would make a difference. Maybe this is one of those issues where he should not lead a government which was acting in a way he thought was immoral even if he felt he could support from the backbenches and vote against only on that specifc point, but in general since no one will 100% agree with all policies of a government, which are the points we decide are unacceptable for people to disagree with? It’s complicated.
I don't see him having a cat in hells chance of winning the leadership. For all that I like some of the things he stands for constitutionally, like Gove he would be electoral poison. If the Tories chose him he will perform even worse than IDS did in the polls.
Which is why he will not be chosen. No woman should be forced into having a child as a result of rape..
What about the rights of the child?
This is where the ethics specialist and such like come in. Does a full grown woman who is fully self-aware and building her life have exactly the same rights as a foetus which may not be self-aware (if early in the process) or that cannot support itself outside of her womb?
It is a messy business and there are rarely any good answers
On Topic: The big problem for JRM is getting MPs to put him in the final two. After YES, Corbyn, Trump and Leave MPs will understand it's perfectly plausible even likely that the membership will lump for authentic populist revolt if they put him on the ballot. Given the Tories use a form of preferential voting ( if their are enough candidates ) in the MPs section the electorate can coalesce behind two anti JRM candidates.
If JRM can get on the ballot then why on earth shouldn't he be leader and PM ? Why would it be anymore extraordinary than Corbyn winning the Labour leadership ( twice ) then getting 40% in a general election. The later of which I still can't come to terms with properly 4 months later.
I don't see him having a cat in hells chance of winning the leadership. For all that I like some of the things he stands for constitutionally, like Gove he would be electoral poison. If the Tories chose him he will perform even worse than IDS did in the polls.
Which is why he will not be chosen. No woman should be forced into having a child as a result of rape..
Oh agreed. My view on abortion is very far removed from JRM's. Indeed it is these sorts of extreme religiously based views that mean I could never vote for him.
Standing - the degree of personal stake in the issue. All citizens have a stake in Brexit or Sindy. What standing do I have to claim a personal stake in some stranger's abortion?
Or in her wish to commit infanticide on her new-born baby?
What about her viewpoint? Having to feel the child of her rapist moving within her every day? A reminder 24/7 for months of what was done to her. The impact on her career as she is forced to have time off for a pregnancy she does not want. The danger of medical complications that may stay with her for life - pregnancy is not risk free and women still die from childbirth.
To be sure, the child is innocent but the child is a life-long reminder of a vicious, life-changing assault and with the world these days, the father might even claim visitation rights and another whole legal battle ensues.
This is a highly complex and life changing issue. In some instances, your life is in ruins for years afterwards.
All true of course, but if you start from the premise that abortion is morally indistinguishable from infanticide, because you think the foetus has its own independent right to life, then all those disagreeable things are not sufficient justification for killing it, any more than they would be justifications for infanticide.
For the avoidance of doubt, this isn't my view - what I'm saying is that it is completely unsurprising, indeed uncontroversial, that those who do start from that premise believe that the circumstances of the conception, however horrible, are necessarily irrelevant.
Philip K Dick used a similar argument in "The pre-persons". For some reason, Hollywood has not made a movie of that one yet
I don't buy JRMs argument that it's ok to hold any personal beliefs just so long as you don't let them influence government policy.
Why not? It is actions not thoughts or beliefs that are most important. And of course people should feel free to try to argue that government policy should be different - it would be odd if as leader the policy was something they obviously did not support but had no power to change, but in practice I would bet all PMs have some policy they didn’t back but couldn’t afford to change, albeit in less contentious areas than would be the case with JRM.
I think that's wrong. To use an extreme to prove the point. Would you be happy with a PM who said that he was personally ok with murder, but promised that he would not try to change the law?
What people believe matters. Unless they lack integrity it guides what they do.
Judge any politician on what they have done in their life and what it proves about what that they value most and least of all what they say they might do.
I take your point on the extreme example, but I think that is the issue, it is only on the very very extreme things that it would make a difference. Maybe this is one of those issues where he should not lead a government which was acting in a way he thought was immoral even if he felt he could support from the backbenches and vote against only on that specifc point, but in general since no one will 100% agree with all policies of a government, which are the points we decide are unacceptable for people to disagree with? It’s complicated.
We don't do religious fundamentalism in the UK today. We expect our PM above all to have an open mind to deal with complicated situations.
A few days ago I had lunch with some of my older family members. My elderly grandad, a life-long Labour voter, was singing the praises of JRM... Other family members (more Conservative leaning) find him quite impressive too. I was the only person at the table who dislikes him... but I kept quiet. I've learned that family is the one arena it's best not to hold a political debate in.
My elderly father, who has voted all across the spectrum (including Con, green, OMRLP) has turned unto quite the Corbynista along with his latest wife - she is very much of the ‘hang the Tories’ vibe, so it was quite awkward at their place before the GE and I decided not to reveal I planned to vote Tory for the first time.
This is extremely troubling. It's also very troubling that those on the Brexit right don't think it worthy of comment.
If you get a condemnation, it's of the "of course it's terrible" variety and then five minutes later the same people turn back to heaping odium on Remain supporters.
I don't buy JRMs argument that it's ok to hold any personal beliefs just so long as you don't let them influence government policy.
Why not? It is actions not thoughts or beliefs that are most important. And of course people should feel free to try to argue that government policy should be different - it would be odd if as leader the policy was something they obviously did not support but had no power to change, but in practice I would bet all PMs have some policy they didn’t back but couldn’t afford to change, albeit in less contentious areas than would be the case with JRM.
I think that's wrong. To use an extreme to prove the point. Would you be happy with a PM who said that he was personally ok with murder, but promised that he would not try to change the law?
What people believe matters. Unless they lack integrity it guides what they do.
Judge any politician on what they have done in their life and what it proves about what that they value most and least of all what they say they might do.
I take your point on the extreme example, but I think that is the issue, it is only on the very very extreme things that it would make a difference. Maybe this is one of those issues where he should not lead a government which was acting in a way he thought was immoral even if he felt he could support from the backbenches and vote against only on that specifc point, but in general since no one will 100% agree with all policies of a government, which are the points we decide are unacceptable for people to disagree with? It’s complicated.
We don't do religious fundamentalism in the UK today. We expect our PM above all to have an open mind to deal with complicated situations.
Oh, I’d not back for in part for that reason - I accept that, sometimes, the correct solution can be fairly extreme rather than in the middle, and that conviction to take a decision can be important, but I am instinctively wary and worried by people who are so certain of the way forward in complicated matters. Not that desiciveness is not useful, but when it seems like it has been done without thought, when it is instinct?
I don't see him having a cat in hells chance of winning the leadership. For all that I like some of the things he stands for constitutionally, like Gove he would be electoral poison. If the Tories chose him he will perform even worse than IDS did in the polls.
Even IDS led a few polls and JRM v Corbyn is a rather different proposition to IDS v Blair.
I don't see him having a cat in hells chance of winning the leadership. For all that I like some of the things he stands for constitutionally, like Gove he would be electoral poison. If the Tories chose him he will perform even worse than IDS did in the polls.
Which is why he will not be chosen. No woman should be forced into having a child as a result of rape..
What about the rights of the child?
This is where the ethics specialist and such like come in. Does a full grown woman who is fully self-aware and building her life have exactly the same rights as a foetus which may not be self-aware (if early in the process) or that cannot support itself outside of her womb?
It is a messy business and there are rarely any good answers
I'm not sure whether we will ever reliably know if a foetus is self-aware. But for me viability is the logical place to draw the line (which is where I infer you are). That's probably earlier than 20 weeks, but not much - it should be an entirely objective judgement that is reviewed every few years by an independent body
This is extremely troubling. It's also very troubling that those on the Brexit right don't think it worthy of comment.
If you get a condemnation, it's of the "of course it's terrible" variety and then five minutes later the same people turn back to heaping odium on Remain supporters.
It is indeed extremely troubling, and part of a wider and very worrying trend for MPs (especially women MPs) to be subject to severe abuse, physical harassment, and even violence or death threats.
However, it's odd to relate it to Brexit. It's not new, and has been getting steadily worse for several years.
My elderly father, who has voted all across the spectrum (including Con, green, OMRLP) has turned unto quite the Corbynista along with his latest wife - she is very much of the ‘hang the Tories’ vibe, so it was quite awkward at their place before the GE and I decided not to reveal I planned to vote Tory for the first time.
Yes, as a Lib Dem I don't have any natural allies in my family. They are all Conservative or Labour - and mostly pro-Brexit too (except for my brother).
@juliamacfarlane: Votes for independence surpass the 68 needed to be carried. Tim Willcox says that a firework was fired outside Parliament the moment 68 "si"s were counted #Catalexit
I don't see him having a cat in hells chance of winning the leadership. For all that I like some of the things he stands for constitutionally, like Gove he would be electoral poison. If the Tories chose him he will perform even worse than IDS did in the polls.
Which is why he will not be chosen. No woman should be forced into having a child as a result of rape..
What about the rights of the child?
This is where the ethics specialist and such like come in. Does a full grown woman who is fully self-aware and building her life have exactly the same rights as a foetus which may not be self-aware (if early in the process) or that cannot support itself outside of her womb?
It is a messy business and there are rarely any good answers
I'm not sure whether we will ever reliably know if a foetus is self-aware. But for me viability is the logical place to draw the line (which is where I infer you are). That's probably earlier than 20 weeks, but not much - it should be an entirely objective judgement that is reviewed every few years by an independent body
A foetus at 20 weeks is 'viable' only with massive medical interventions, and babies born so early often have lifelong health problems and disabilities.
A few days ago I had lunch with some of my older family members. My elderly grandad, a life-long Labour voter, was singing the praises of JRM... Other family members (more Conservative leaning) find him quite impressive too. I was the only person at the table who dislikes him... but I kept quiet. I've learned that family is the one arena it's best not to hold a political debate in.
My elderly father, who has voted all across the spectrum (including Con, green, OMRLP) has turned unto quite the Corbynista along with his latest wife - she is very much of the ‘hang the Tories’ vibe, so it was quite awkward at their place before the GE and I decided not to reveal I planned to vote Tory for the first time.
Standing - the degree of personal stake in the issue. All citizens have a stake in Brexit or Sindy. What standing do I have to claim a personal stake in some stranger's abortion?
Or in her wish to commit infanticide on her new-born baby?
What about her viewpoint? Having to feel the child of her rapist moving within her every day? A reminder 24/7 for months of what was done to her. The impact on her career as she is forced to have time off for a pregnancy she does not want. The danger of medical complications that may stay with her for life - pregnancy is not risk free and women still die from childbirth.
To be sure, the child is innocent but the child is a life-long reminder of a vicious, life-changing assault and with the world these days, the father might even claim visitation rights and another whole legal battle ensues.
This is a highly complex and life changing issue. In some instances, your life is in ruins for years afterwards - as well as recovering from the rape and the mental damage and trauma that causes.
If you believe an unborn child is a soul-endowed moral being in the full sense of the term, it's understandable why you'd oppose abortion across the board, even while having sympathy for the plight of the mother.
If you believe it's just biological matter that is not yet a person in any meaningful sense, then abortion isn't a moral question regardless of the reasons the mother seeks one.
I find it more difficult to understand those who are against abortion except in cases like rape, than those who are consistent on this point tbh.
How a religious woman who experiences this can cope is beyond my understanding.
However, not everyone is religious or believes in souls. Having "... sympathy for the plight of the mother" butters no parsnips no matter how many times the religious say it. They can wring their hands in their pews and pulpits but that does not undo a life turned to torment and ruin by a vicious assault.
A few days ago I had lunch with some of my older family members. My elderly grandad, a life-long Labour voter, was singing the praises of JRM... Other family members (more Conservative leaning) find him quite impressive too. I was the only person at the table who dislikes him... but I kept quiet. I've learned that family is the one arena it's best not to hold a political debate in.
My elderly father, who has voted all across the spectrum (including Con, green, OMRLP) has turned unto quite the Corbynista along with his latest wife - she is very much of the ‘hang the Tories’ vibe, so it was quite awkward at their place before the GE and I decided not to reveal I planned to vote Tory for the first time.
I don't see him having a cat in hells chance of winning the leadership. For all that I like some of the things he stands for constitutionally, like Gove he would be electoral poison. If the Tories chose him he will perform even worse than IDS did in the polls.
Which is why he will not be chosen. No woman should be forced into having a child as a result of rape..
What about the rights of the child?
This is where the ethics specialist and such like come in. Does a full grown woman who is fully self-aware and building her life have exactly the same rights as a foetus which may not be self-aware (if early in the process) or that cannot support itself outside of her womb?
It is a messy business and there are rarely any good answers
I'm not sure whether we will ever reliably know if a foetus is self-aware. But for me viability is the logical place to draw the line (which is where I infer you are). That's probably earlier than 20 weeks, but not much - it should be an entirely objective judgement that is reviewed every few years by an independent body
A foetus at 20 weeks is 'viable' only with massive medical interventions, and babies born so early often have lifelong health problems and disabilities.
Yes - but the point is it is viable without the support of the mother, which is why it should have equal rights at that point as a human life
Comments
Not sure why everyone's knickers are in a twist.
For one there is no chance of an abortion ban law passing in the house.
And why was the shooting so encumbered with silly terms.
http://mondediplo.com/2015/05/12piketty was a good critique of Picketty by a Marxist.
A surprising number of people think that humans in Britain didn’t have rights before 2007, and that if we repeal the HRA they’ll no longer have any!
I am opposed to adultery, I would not make it illegal etc.
I don't claim this is a simple issue. But that is precisely why absolutes are not very helpful.
Both have been debunked furiously.
I have used the word, although not recently. Maybe it's a West Country thing.
etc
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/923890241928351744
But when you are making laws - it's different.
The basic question is why would we want to remove ourselves from oversight on our government's respect for human rights when we are promoting human rights as an objective good. It's partly because of a small number of decisions from ECtHR that irritate us and mainly because of a misunderstanding deliberately promoted by parts of our media and the Conservative Party about what the ECtHR actually does.
CON 41 (+1)
LAB 43 (+1)
LD 7 (-1)
UKIP 3 (-1)
GRN 2 (=)
SNP 3 (-1)
23rd-24th Oct
N=1,637
Tabs d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_upload…
If you're referring particularly to the transformation problem, Bohm-Bawerk, the Okishio theorem and all that though, there are quite interesting debunkings of that debunking recently by the likes of Alan Freeman, Paul Cockshott, and Andrew Kliman. Worth reading even if you're not convinced.
Still, to the original point: what makes you say Corbyn is a believer in Marxist economics and Picketty? Given that the two are mutually exclusive, and Corbyn's shown no sign of being interested in Marxist political economy.
There is an authenticity about him that is hard not to admire, and I suspect there will be enough people who support at least one of his controversial positions (or recognise that he won't be able to unpick them) that they can live with the rest.
With a second reading on the principle, and only then going into the detail of committees and amendments at third reading? And of course the whole thing can then be voted down at the end for those unhappy with the details that have been finalised?
In some ways that is a far more British way of working than what is being done with Brexit, and would be entirely consistent with a second referendum, if the 2016 vote was based on principle?
Edit: Still, if it were JRM vs Boris, I'd go for JRM (and then probably resign from the party).
My hunch is that he's an ideas person, rather than an execution one.
news/2017/oct/27/alleged-neo-nazi-appears-in-court-charged-with-plotting-to-kill-labour-mp-rosie-cooper
To be sure, the child is innocent but the child is a life-long reminder of a vicious, life-changing assault and with the world these days, the father might even claim visitation rights and another whole legal battle ensues.
This is a highly complex and life changing issue. In some instances, your life is in ruins for years afterwards - as well as recovering from the rape and the mental damage and trauma that causes.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/27/alleged-neo-nazi-appears-in-court-charged-with-plotting-to-kill-labour-mp-rosie-cooper
(Five points for who can identify which politician did actually say that.)
What people believe matters. Unless they lack integrity it guides what they do.
Judge any politician on what they have done in their life and what it proves about what that they value most and least of all what they say they might do.
For the avoidance of doubt, this isn't my view - what I'm saying is that it is completely unsurprising, indeed uncontroversial, that those who do start from that premise believe that the circumstances of the conception, however horrible, are necessarily irrelevant.
If you believe it's just biological matter that is not yet a person in any meaningful sense, then abortion isn't a moral question regardless of the reasons the mother seeks one.
I find it more difficult to understand those who are against abortion except in cases like rape, than those who are consistent on this point tbh.
It is a messy business and there are rarely any good answers
If JRM can get on the ballot then why on earth shouldn't he be leader and PM ? Why would it be anymore extraordinary than Corbyn winning the Labour leadership ( twice ) then getting 40% in a general election. The later of which I still can't come to terms with properly 4 months later.
He assumes returns on capital employed are constant, and do not diminish as the amount of capital employed increases.
If you get a condemnation, it's of the "of course it's terrible" variety and then five minutes later the same people turn back to heaping odium on Remain supporters.
However, it's odd to relate it to Brexit. It's not new, and has been getting steadily worse for several years.
However, not everyone is religious or believes in souls. Having "... sympathy for the plight of the mother" butters no parsnips no matter how many times the religious say it. They can wring their hands in their pews and pulpits but that does not undo a life turned to torment and ruin by a vicious assault.