My not all that interested in politics friend mentioned Rees-Mogg unprompted to me today, likes his style.
I get a feeling a lot of younger people feel/felt that politicians are/were simply full of empty slogans and unable to answer simple questions, more interested in projecting image than anything else.
Probably annoys many older people as well. Maybe a reason for Mogg's popularity as well as other things we've seen over the last few years...
lol. JRM is known for only one thing: to be able to waffle eloquently. Aside from that, he is an empty vessel.
I think a lot of people are missing the point on JRM, mainly because his views on Brexit are anathema to half this Board so they just want to dismiss his chances to make themselves sleep at night!
However, I think that we will find that the more exposure JRM gets, the better he does, at least in the short term. The thing is - he can actually (a) explain his point of view (b) clearly believes what he is saying and (c) is not unafraid to tell people the truth about choices that need to be made and explains the consequences to the public like they are grown ups, not children.
Now, what other senior Tory MP actually looks like they have any other political philosophy other than gaining themselves more power? Hammond - he was a Eurosceptic. Boris was a remainer. Rudd, Hunt - what do they honestly believe? Gove is the only one, and he killed his own chances by undermining his reputation for honesty by knifing Boris.
JRM is a very talented politician - probably the best on offer at the moment in terms of his ability to communicate his worldview. And I think normal people who do not engage with politics much are attracted to that sort of person REGARDLESS of whether they agree with their views - that is the lesson from Corbyn, not that the nation suddenly became socialist revolutionaries. The real question is whether JRM really wants to be leader.
And what would most voters do? They will face the choice of Corbyn or Mogg.
They are both fucked in the head but Corbyn will have a superior campaigning organisation around him.
Though I imagine there would be an increase in Tory membership under JRM from hard Brexiteers
Which would bring with it its own problems. Quite apart from bringing in ready made personal feuds from UKIP days, laying on extra loos for the ones with prostate problems and having to print off internal memos in large print for those with poor eyesight. Nightmare.
I really don't know where you got the 'poor response' idea from, Mr Smithson. It is true that the BBC trundled out Ken Clarke and Chukka Umunna to slap him down, but these three (the BBC, Clarke and Umunna) were his enemies anyway. Elsewhere, comment has been pretty good. Amongst common folk Johnson's star is riding as high as ever. People take notice when he speaks, and they don't really do that with many prominent politicians in either of the two main parties.
Times today... "Can any of us believe a word Boris says ?" .... (questions expecting the answer you've got to be joking).
I'm not a Times man but it looks as if the Establishment has decided Boris is persona non grata at the top table, so would have reacted the same way whatever the speech. Boris has charisma, is an entertaining speaker and people listen. It is true that Boris told us almost nothing but you could say the same of any Cabinet minister talking about Brexit.
On succession betting, my view has long been that his only chance is for Labour to open a big poll lead, as this would maximise Boris's USP as someone who wins elections against the odds (as Mayor of London and the EU referendum). In normal circumstances, Boris's well-founded reputation for fudging details -- as in yesterday's speech -- will mean he is unlikely to reach the last two.
The older generation of Democrats don't seem to be ready to step back just yet (Biden is also particularly active at the moment).
If Sanders does not run I think his support will go to Warren and she will be the 2020 Democratic nominee
I think Biden also has a genuine shot if he goes for it (which seems likely barring health problems). It does leave less room for a next generation candidate to emerge.
The older generation of Democrats don't seem to be ready to step back just yet (Biden is also particularly active at the moment).
If Sanders does not run I think his support will go to Warren and she will be the 2020 Democratic nominee
I think Biden also has a genuine shot if he goes for it (which seems likely barring health problems). It does leave less room for a next generation candidate to emerge.
Warren plus someone from the West Coast or a Flyover state. Don't THINK it'll be two women though.
His biggest negative is that he talks nonsense, however fluently he does so and however much he may believe it. Just as with Johnson, he is fluent - but there is no substance there.
We are barely a year away from March 2019 and the government is still unable to talk in any level of detail or practicality about what will happen post our departure. It is an appalling dereliction of duty which will cause real harm to real businesses and people. This is what the government has to deal with - properly - and urgently. And people like Johnson and JRM are doing everything they can to make that task as difficult as possible.
Contempt is the very minimum they deserve.
Being Catholic is not a negative, in the same way being Muslim is not a negative (or being a Jew, or even an atheist).
Its perfectly possible to be a Catholic (or CofE, or Muslim, or Jew, etc) and be a good, moral and kind person. It's also possible to use the faith as an excuse to be bigoted, blind and immoral. To make matters worse, good moral followers of a faith can excuse the bigoted and blind followers because they are of the faith: witness all the church scandals we have seen.
As an example, a very religious (CofE) acquaintance once met a family whose child was dying. He made a connection between the child's illness and the fact the parents were not Christians, and added an extra shitness in saying: "They are not Christians. Pray for them."
Problems occur when people use their faith (or lack of) to treat others unfairly, usually because they see themselves as being morally superior: they are superior because they are of their beliefs, and others should submit to the dictats of that faith, even when they are not. Sadly, this pervades some followers of all religions.
Fortunately, most people of faith are not like that.
Mr. Pete, I do love that headline. Disagreeing with a scientific theory isn't inherently being anti-science. Indeed, competing theories are commonplace. Mindless groupthink is the antithesis of scepticism, the founding point of scientific thought, and led to ossification of light theories for two centuries after Newton died because nobody was allowed to contradict the great man.
Also, even the most Warmist of warmers and Sceptical of sceptics [using terms like 'denier', which naturally bring to mind Holocaust deniers, is using pejorative language to try and stifle scientific debate] would agree on a large number of things. The good of geothermal energy, the benefits of technology being more energy efficient, the need for an increase application of trebuchets in the justice system, etc.
I really don't know where you got the 'poor response' idea from, Mr Smithson. It is true that the BBC trundled out Ken Clarke and Chukka Umunna to slap him down, but these three (the BBC, Clarke and Umunna) were his enemies anyway. Elsewhere, comment has been pretty good. Amongst common folk Johnson's star is riding as high as ever. People take notice when he speaks, and they don't really do that with many prominent politicians in either of the two main parties.
Times today... "Can any of us believe a word Boris says ?" .... (questions expecting the answer you've got to be joking).
I'm not a Times man but it looks as if the Establishment has decided Boris is persona non grata at the top table, so would have reacted the same way whatever the speech. Boris has charisma, is an entertaining speaker and people listen. It is true that Boris told us almost nothing but you could say the same of any Cabinet minister talking about Brexit.
On succession betting, my view has long been that his only chance is for Labour to open a big poll lead, as this would maximise Boris's USP as someone who wins elections against the odds (as Mayor of London and the EU referendum). In normal circumstances, Boris's well-founded reputation for fudging details -- as in yesterday's speech -- will mean he is unlikely to reach the last two.
I don't think it's a case of Boris being persona non grata. It's a case of where the story is. Before the referendum, Euroscpeticism was the outsider, and the story was its challenge of the establishment. Brexit (and Boris) is now the establishment, and the story is the challenge to it.
Newspapers often sell on being against something, getting their readers annoyed or angry. "Everything's sh*t" sells. "Everything is great!" isn't necessarily a seller.
I think a lot of people are missing the point on JRM, mainly because his views on Brexit are anathema to half this Board so they just want to dismiss his chances to make themselves sleep at night!
However, I think that we will find that the more exposure JRM gets, the better he does, at least in the short term. The thing is - he can actually (a) explain his point of view (b) clearly believes what he is saying and (c) is not unafraid to tell people the truth about choices that need to be made and explains the consequences to the public like they are grown ups, not children.
Now, what other senior Tory MP actually looks like they have any other political philosophy other than gaining themselves more power? Hammond - he was a Eurosceptic. Boris was a remainer. Rudd, Hunt - what do they honestly believe? Gove is the only one, and he killed his own chances by undermining his reputation for honesty by knifing Boris.
JRM is a very talented politician - probably the best on offer at the moment in terms of his ability to communicate his worldview. And I think normal people who do not engage with politics much are attracted to that sort of person REGARDLESS of whether they agree with their views - that is the lesson from Corbyn, not that the nation suddenly became socialist revolutionaries. The real question is whether JRM really wants to be leader.
That's a very good summary.
JRM should be consigned to the same dustbin of history as Loathsome Leadsom...
The idea that JRM appeals to anyone outside right-wing Europhobic circles is frankly based on hope rather than experience. He's been a joke in the past, someone to be laughed at rather than listened to.
Boris had the same problem, and to his credit he has used that jokey image in the past to deflect criticism. I see little to assume that JRM would have that skill. Worse, Boris has honed his image over many years in the public's eye, including eight as London Mayor. JRM has f'all time to do it.
A week or so ago I posted that I could never vote for a Conservative Party led by JRM. What should worry the JRM rampers is that several Conservative-inclined voters agreed. And not all were remainers...
Again you are letting your prejudices colour your analysis. JRM has not been seen as a joke in the past.
Thoughtful, analytical, unconventional, eccentric, not suitable for - or desiring of - ministerial office yes. A joke, no. He wants to be Speaker and there are very many who disagree with him on policy that think he would do a very good job of that. Heedoesnt want to be PM or LOTO
Mr. 43, the Pope, in responding to the Charlie Hebdo murders, said that if someone insulted his mother he'd punch them in the face.
If the head of the Catholic Church can come out with bullshit like that, then Mogg not being a zealot is a pro, not a con.
[I don't think he'll become leader (Mogg, not Pope Francis). It's too big a leap from the backbenches to PM].
The Pope was making a far more sophisticated point than that! Just because speech is free doesn't mean it's acceptable. Personally, I would tend more to the free speech end of the spectrum and think you're on shaky ground once you qualify it. Nevertheless, the Pope's point is a reasonable one IMO.
Incidentally, I should note your unfailing courtesy and respect for others' opinions on this board. An example to the rest of us.
The Pope has said that Europe's biggest political failing is the lack of solidarity and that its treatment of refugees is a stain on the continent. Rees Mogg will have known that teaching when he was the ONLY MP to vote to close a child refugee centre.
My not all that interested in politics friend mentioned Rees-Mogg unprompted to me today, likes his style.
I get a feeling a lot of younger people feel/felt that politicians are/were simply full of empty slogans and unable to answer simple questions, more interested in projecting image than anything else.
Probably annoys many older people as well. Maybe a reason for Mogg's popularity as well as other things we've seen over the last few years...
lol. JRM is known for only one thing: to be able to waffle eloquently. Aside from that, he is an empty vessel.
I think a lot of people are missing the point on JRM, mainly because his views on Brexit are anathema to half this Board so they just want to dismiss his chances to make themselves sleep at night!
However, I think that we will find that the more exposure JRM gets, the better he does, at least in the short term. The thing is - he can actually (a) explain his point of view (b) clearly believes what he is saying and (c) is not unafraid to tell people the truth about choices that need to be made and explains the consequences to the public like they are grown ups, not children.
Now, what other senior Tory MP actually looks like they have any other political philosophy other than gaining themselves more power? Hammond - he was a Eurosceptic. Boris was a remainer. Rudd, Hunt - what do they honestly believe? Gove is the only one, and he killed his own chances by undermining his reputation for honesty by knifing Boris.
JRM is a very talented politician - probably the best on offer at the moment in terms of his ability to communicate his worldview. And I think normal people who do not engage with politics much are attracted to that sort of person REGARDLESS of whether they agree with their views - that is the lesson from Corbyn, not that the nation suddenly became socialist revolutionaries. The real question is whether JRM really wants to be leader.
That's a very good summary.
Jacob Rees-Mogg would be the Conservative party pissing itself. It would get a nice warm feeling initially, while everyone else looked on in pity and contempt.
I am interested in understanding the basis of his appeal, and the betting opportunities. You will note I have not expressed a personal preference for him to be leader.
Nevertheless, I can see a very similar mistake being made as was to Corbyn - which perversely enough helps me to understand Corbyn's appeal better - which is that centrists hurling insults at him whilst doing nothing to enhance the appeal of their own platform is likely to do nothing more than drive up his vote.
We may have reached a stage in our politics (like the US) where any Conservative leader gets their party to 40%, and any Labour leader gets their party to 40%. If so, JRM might well win an election.
My not all that interested in politics friend mentioned Rees-Mogg unprompted to me today, likes his style.
I get a feeling a lot of younger people feel/felt that politicians are/were simply full of empty slogans and unable to answer simple questions, more interested in projecting image than anything else.
Probably annoys many older people as well. Maybe a reason for Mogg's popularity as well as other things we've seen over the last few years...
lol. JRM is known for only one thing: to be able to waffle eloquently. Aside from that, he is an empty vessel.
That’s unfair. He’s a very talented emerging market investor
I believe Smithson Jnr. called him competent but not brilliant ? In any event, that hardly supports the elevation of a backbencher to PM.
Somerset has done well over the years, but @rcs1000 will have better visibility on individual contributions than I will
(And I never said it was a qualification for PM - just that he wasn’t an empty vessel)
Again, you assume that an Etonian being able to make money in any way fills the vessel. It doesn't.
It was your other comment - that he was known for one think only - I was disagreeing with
As an aside, I never mentioned his schooling, but you seem obsessed by classifying people rather than judging them as individuals
I really don't know where you got the 'poor response' idea from, Mr Smithson. It is true that the BBC trundled out Ken Clarke and Chukka Umunna to slap him down, but these three (the BBC, Clarke and Umunna) were his enemies anyway. Elsewhere, comment has been pretty good. Amongst common folk Johnson's star is riding as high as ever. People take notice when he speaks, and they don't really do that with many prominent politicians in either of the two main parties.
I take no notice when the empty vessel speaks , so not all people.
My not all that interested in politics friend mentioned Rees-Mogg unprompted to me today, likes his style.
I get a feeling a lot of younger people feel/felt that politicians are/were simply full of empty slogans and unable to answer simple questions, more interested in projecting image than anything else.
Probably annoys many older people as well. Maybe a reason for Mogg's popularity as well as other things we've seen over the last few years...
lol. JRM is known for only one thing: to be able to waffle eloquently. Aside from that, he is an empty vessel.
I think
However, I think that we will find that the more exposure JRM gets, the better he does, at least in the short term. The thing is - he can actually (a) explain his point of view (b) clearly believes what he is saying and (c) is not unafraid to tell people the truth about choices that need to be made and explains the consequences to the public like they are grown ups, not children.
Now, what other senior Tory MP actually looks like they have any other political philosophy other than gaining themselves more power? Hammond - he was a Eurosceptic. Boris was a remainer. Rudd, Hunt - what do they honestly believe? Gove is the only one, and he killed his own chances by undermining his reputation for honesty by knifing Boris.
JRM is a very talented politician - probably the best on offer at the moment in terms of his ability to communicate his worldview. And I think normal people who do not engage with politics much are attracted to that sort of person REGARDLESS of whether they agree with their views - that is the lesson from Corbyn, not that the nation suddenly became socialist revolutionaries. The real question is whether JRM really wants to be leader.
That's a very good summary.
Ken Clarke has considerably more talent than JRM as he's demonstrated for 50 years in public life. Anne Widdecombe MP had more charisma even if her views were and are disturbingly similar to JRM's. A list of 'genuine' politicians who are good communicators and say what they think could go on: Chris Mullin, Tony Benn, etc, etc. It doesn't mean that anyone sane would have wanted Widdecombe or Benn to become PM.
And yet, none are cutting through in the way JRM does. Focus groups have shown he's one of the very few Tories who is spontaneously named.
As an aside, it might be an interesting historical counterfactual to consider how much better the likes of Clarke and Heseltine might have done in the Tory leadership stakes had they treated their eurosceptic opponents with respect, rather than being very rude about them.
Again you are letting your prejudices colour your analysis. JRM has not been seen as a joke in the past.
Thoughtful, analytical, unconventional, eccentric, not suitable for - or desiring of - ministerial office yes. A joke, no. He wants to be Speaker and there are very many who disagree with him on policy that think he would do a very good job of that. Heedoesnt want to be PM or LOTO
'My prejudices' ?
LOL. No. Unless it's against useless people who think being born into money and going to Eton makes them superior...
He has been seen a joke: ISTR a picture of him was on HIGNFY with his son canvassing. I see no evidence he is 'thoughtful', or 'analytical'. He is certainly endearingly eccentric, and that's about all he has going for him. Sadly, that same quality hasn't proved enough for Boris so far.
"We say: it’s just a few bad apples, don’t play into the hands of aid sceptics. This won’t wash. It’s this sort of thinking that creates the culture of cover-up inside a charity: we’re basically good so why rock the boat? This is the thinking that lets abusive aid workers slide safely from agency to agency though everyone knows what they’ve done, just as public schools and parishes once passed perverts quietly on. Moral licence is a dreadful thing. Woe betide any organisation that thinks of itself as especially good. It’ll give itself leeway to behave in a terrible way."
We may have reached a stage in our politics (like the US) where any Conservative leader gets their party to 40%, and any Labour leader gets their party to 40%. If so, JRM might well win an election.
And in a 40-40 scenario the Tories do better
Which was the situation in the late 40's and 50's.. Resulted in the Ulster Unionists putting the Tories in power for 13 years.
We may have reached a stage in our politics (like the US) where any Conservative leader gets their party to 40%, and any Labour leader gets their party to 40%. If so, JRM might well win an election.
And in a 40-40 scenario the Tories do better
Yes, the Republicans too have twice won the Electoral College and once won Congress in the last 20 years despite losing the popular vote. Winning huge margins in big cities does not mean you win if you lose the suburbs and rural areas
His biggest negative is that he talks nonsense, however fluently he does so and however much he may believe it. Just as with Johnson, he is fluent - but there is no substance there.
We are barely a year away from March 2019 and the government is still unable to talk in any level of detail or practicality about what will happen post our departure. It is an appalling dereliction of duty which will cause real harm to real businesses and people. This is what the government has to deal with - properly - and urgently. And people like Johnson and JRM are doing everything they can to make that task as difficult as possible.
Contempt is the very minimum they deserve.
Being Catholic is not a negative, in the same way being Muslim is not a negative (or being a Jew, or even an atheist).
Its perfectly possible to be a Catholic (or CofE, or Muslim, or Jew, etc) and be a good, moral and kind person. It's also possible to use the faith as an excuse to be bigoted, blind and immoral. To make matters worse, good moral followers of a faith can excuse the bigoted and blind followers because they are of the faith: witness all the church scandals we have seen.
As an example, a very religious (CofE) acquaintance once met a family whose child was dying. He made a connection between the child's illness and the fact the parents were not Christians, and added an extra shitness in saying: "They are not Christians. Pray for them."
Problems occur when people use their faith (or lack of) to treat others unfairly, usually because they see themselves as being morally superior: they are superior because they are of their beliefs, and others should submit to the dictats of that faith, even when they are not. Sadly, this pervades some followers of all religions.
Fortunately, most people of faith are not like that.
In some parts of the country, I think there's still secretarian bigotry about Catholicism: working class areas of Liverpool, Glasgow and Belfast, for example.
In England more broadly, there is a lot of history there and Catholicism can be viewed by some as being politically suspect, implying potential split loyalties and even slightly unpatriotic, particularly for a leader who makes a big thing of it. Tony Blair kept it quiet until he left office for a reason. And the Succession Act also didn't change that in 2013-14 for a similar reason.
Of course, you can argue that in itself is bigoted. But I think it'd be foolish to deny it exists in certain quarters.
In general, "doing God" offers few electoral rewards regardless of what it is.
Mr. 43, the Pope, in responding to the Charlie Hebdo murders, said that if someone insulted his mother he'd punch them in the face.
If the head of the Catholic Church can come out with bullshit like that, then Mogg not being a zealot is a pro, not a con.
[I don't think he'll become leader (Mogg, not Pope Francis). It's too big a leap from the backbenches to PM].
The Pope was making a far more sophisticated point than that! Just because speech is free doesn't mean it's acceptable. Personally, I would tend more to the free speech end of the spectrum and think you're on shaky ground once you qualify it. Nevertheless, the Pope's point is a reasonable one IMO.
Incidentally, I should note your unfailing courtesy and respect for others' opinions on this board. An example to the rest of us.
The Pope has said that Europe's biggest political failing is the lack of solidarity and that its treatment of refugees is a stain on the continent. Rees Mogg will have known that teaching when he was the ONLY MP to vote to close a child refugee centre.
The Pope was making a silly point. Insulting a person is one thing and if your mother was insulted by another you might well react on a personal and, possibly, violent level. But a belief system, an opinion, a point of view is not the same as a person - and insulting that is quite different. A person is perfectly entitled to say that Islam or Catholicism is a load of old baloney worth of no more respect than a rotting banana.
I'm afraid that Pope Francis was siding with another religion because, au fond, he would like religion to be somehow protected from inquiry or challenge. Catholic though I am, I fundamentally disagree with him on this point. If a religion cannot withstand vigorous - even insulting - challenge then it does not deserve to survive and a religion which seeks to shield itself from such challenge is not worthy of respect, but contempt.
On the refugees the Pope has a good point. It would be stronger if he had spoken for Christians who are facing appalling persecution in the Middle East, the land of the religion's birth, and if placed some pressure on governments in the West to let in Christian refugees who face genocide in their home countries. On that he has been somewhat silent - much like the Pope during WW2 with his elliptical references to Jewish suffering - and it is to his shame, I'm afraid.
The older generation of Democrats don't seem to be ready to step back just yet (Biden is also particularly active at the moment).
If Sanders does not run I think his support will go to Warren and she will be the 2020 Democratic nominee
I think Biden also has a genuine shot if he goes for it (which seems likely barring health problems). It does leave less room for a next generation candidate to emerge.
Biden has a shot but Sanders + Warren combined are currently polling more than Biden in early 2020 polls of Democratic primary voters
My not all that interested in politics friend mentioned Rees-Mogg unprompted to me today, likes his style.
I get a feeling a lot of younger people feel/felt that politicians are/were simply full of empty slogans and unable to answer simple questions, more interested in projecting image than anything else.
Probably annoys many older people as well. Maybe a reason for Mogg's popularity as well as other things we've seen over the last few years...
lol. JRM is known for only one thing: to be able to waffle eloquently. Aside from that, he is an empty vessel.
That’s unfair. He’s a very talented emerging market investor
I believe Smithson Jnr. called him competent but not brilliant ? In any event, that hardly supports the elevation of a backbencher to PM.
Somerset has done well over the years, but @rcs1000 will have better visibility on individual contributions than I will
(And I never said it was a qualification for PM - just that he wasn’t an empty vessel)
Again, you assume that an Etonian being able to make money in any way fills the vessel. It doesn't.
It was your other comment - that he was known for one think only - I was disagreeing with
As an aside, I never mentioned his schooling, but you seem obsessed by classifying people rather than judging them as individuals
LOL. No. Really, no. I mean, I was a Cameron fan (an Etonian), and therein lies the point. I don't care if someone went to Eton or Bridlington Comp. What matters is if they can expand themselves out of that zone.
You cannot blame someone for the school they were sent to, whether state, grammar or public. You can blame them if they let their schooling define them, and treat others who went to other schools as lesser in some way (as do some public school people with state, and state school with public schools). That's what JRM evidently does with his 'potted plants' comment.
Cameron handed his Etonian past well, and tried to expand himself outside of it - not always successfully. I see no indication that JRM wants to do the same.
(For avoidance of doubt, I'd expect a politician who went to Bridlington Comp to expand out of their comfort zone, and see that people who went to grammar or public schools are not lesser or objects of ridicule).
The older generation of Democrats don't seem to be ready to step back just yet (Biden is also particularly active at the moment).
If Sanders does not run I think his support will go to Warren and she will be the 2020 Democratic nominee
I think Biden also has a genuine shot if he goes for it (which seems likely barring health problems). It does leave less room for a next generation candidate to emerge.
Biden has a shot but Sanders + Warren combined are currently polling more than Biden in early 2020 polls of Democratic primary voters
If its Warren/Sanders then Trump will be re-elected imho.
We may have reached a stage in our politics (like the US) where any Conservative leader gets their party to 40%, and any Labour leader gets their party to 40%. If so, JRM might well win an election.
And in a 40-40 scenario the Tories do better
I think Rees Mogg would neutralise Corbyn's weakness by being similar to him. I am far from convinced the British public would share Rees Mogg's enthusiasm for leaping over the Brexit precipice. Corbyn may be a natural Leaver, but I don't think he would be as reckless in that respect. The problem for the rest of us is that Rees Mogg would have caused a huge amount of damage before the next election, assuming it takes place in 2022.
The older generation of Democrats don't seem to be ready to step back just yet (Biden is also particularly active at the moment).
If Sanders does not run I think his support will go to Warren and she will be the 2020 Democratic nominee
I think Biden also has a genuine shot if he goes for it (which seems likely barring health problems). It does leave less room for a next generation candidate to emerge.
The older generation of Democrats don't seem to be ready to step back just yet (Biden is also particularly active at the moment).
If Sanders does not run I think his support will go to Warren and she will be the 2020 Democratic nominee
I think Biden also has a genuine shot if he goes for it (which seems likely barring health problems). It does leave less room for a next generation candidate to emerge.
Warren plus someone from the West Coast or a Flyover state. Don't THINK it'll be two women though.
Warren is in with a shout, but I still think Biden has a better chance of uniting the radical and establishment sides of the party - and appealing to the middle America states.
My not all that interested in politics friend mentioned Rees-Mogg unprompted to me today, likes his style.
I get a feeling a lot of younger people feel/felt that politicians are/were simply full of empty slogans and unable to answer simple questions, more interested in projecting image than anything else.
Probably annoys many older people as well. Maybe a reason for Mogg's popularity as well as other things we've seen over the last few years...
lol. JRM is known for only one thing: to be able to waffle eloquently. Aside from that, he is an empty vessel.
I think
snip
Now, what other senior Tory MP actually looks like they have any other political philosophy other than gaining themselves more power? Hammond - he was a Eurosceptic. Boris was a remainer. Rudd, Hunt - what do they honestly believe? Gove is the only one, and he killed his own chances by undermining his reputation for honesty by knifing Boris.
JRM is a very talented politician - probably the best on offer at the moment in terms of his ability to communicate his worldview. And I think normal people who do not engage with politics much are attracted to that sort of person REGARDLESS of whether they agree with their views - that is the lesson from Corbyn, not that the nation suddenly became socialist revolutionaries. The real question is whether JRM really wants to be leader.
That's a very good summary.
Ken Clarke has considerably more talent than JRM as he's demonstrated for 50 years in public life. Anne Widdecombe MP had more charisma even if her views were and are disturbingly similar to JRM's. A list of 'genuine' politicians who are good communicators and say what they think could go on: Chris Mullin, Tony Benn, etc, etc. It doesn't mean that anyone sane would have wanted Widdecombe or Benn to become PM.
And yet, none are cutting through in the way JRM does. Focus groups have shown he's one of the very few Tories who is spontaneously named.
As an aside, it might be an interesting historical counterfactual to consider how much better the likes of Clarke and Heseltine might have done in the Tory leadership stakes had they treated their eurosceptic opponents with respect, rather than being very rude about them.
Of course JRM cuts through. He's virtually a cartoon character. People remember characters.
We may have reached a stage in our politics (like the US) where any Conservative leader gets their party to 40%, and any Labour leader gets their party to 40%. If so, JRM might well win an election.
And in a 40-40 scenario the Tories do better
Yes, the Republicans too have twice won the Electoral College and once won Congress in the last 20 years despite losing the popular vote. Winning huge margins in big cities does not mean you win if you lose the suburbs and rural areas
The Congress result has rather more to do with some blatant gerrymandering, though.
Again you are letting your prejudices colour your analysis. JRM has not been seen as a joke in the past.
Thoughtful, analytical, unconventional, eccentric, not suitable for - or desiring of - ministerial office yes. A joke, no. He wants to be Speaker and there are very many who disagree with him on policy that think he would do a very good job of that. Heedoesnt want to be PM or LOTO
I think a joke is harsh, but the Mogg has definitely been seen as a novelty act. I have conservative voting family in his constituency, he has ben the source of much gentle amusement.
"We say: it’s just a few bad apples, don’t play into the hands of aid sceptics. This won’t wash. It’s this sort of thinking that creates the culture of cover-up inside a charity: we’re basically good so why rock the boat? This is the thinking that lets abusive aid workers slide safely from agency to agency though everyone knows what they’ve done, just as public schools and parishes once passed perverts quietly on. Moral licence is a dreadful thing. Woe betide any organisation that thinks of itself as especially good. It’ll give itself leeway to behave in a terrible way."
Again you are letting your prejudices colour your analysis. JRM has not been seen as a joke in the past.
Thoughtful, analytical, unconventional, eccentric, not suitable for - or desiring of - ministerial office yes. A joke, no. He wants to be Speaker and there are very many who disagree with him on policy that think he would do a very good job of that. Heedoesnt want to be PM or LOTO
I think a joke is harsh, but the Mogg has definitely been seen as a novelty act. I have conservative voting family in his constituency, he has ben the source of much gentle amusement.
Because we had been in an age when spin was king, we are now in an age when telling it like it is gets you three-quarters of the way to office.
lol. JRM is known for only one thing: to be able to waffle eloquently. Aside from that, he is an empty vessel.
That’s unfair. He’s a very talented emerging market investor
I believe Smithson Jnr. called him competent but not brilliant ? In any event, that hardly supports the elevation of a backbencher to PM.
Somerset has done well over the years, but @rcs1000 will have better visibility on individual contributions than I will
(And I never said it was a qualification for PM - just that he wasn’t an empty vessel)
Again, you assume that an Etonian being able to make money in any way fills the vessel. It doesn't.
It was your other comment - that he was known for one think only - I was disagreeing with
As an aside, I never mentioned his schooling, but you seem obsessed by classifying people rather than judging them as individuals
LOL. No. Really, no. I mean, I was a Cameron fan (an Etonian), and therein lies the point. I don't care if someone went to Eton or Bridlington Comp. What matters is if they can expand themselves out of that zone.
You cannot blame someone for the school they were sent to, whether state, grammar or public. You can blame them if they let their schooling define them, and treat others who went to other schools as lesser in some way (as do some public school people with state, and state school with public schools). That's what JRM evidently does with his 'potted plants' comment.
Cameron handed his Etonian past well, and tried to expand himself outside of it - not always successfully. I see no indication that JRM wants to do the same.
(For avoidance of doubt, I'd expect a politician who went to Bridlington Comp to expand out of their comfort zone, and see that people who went to grammar or public schools are not lesser or objects of ridicule).
That's very well put. What I liked about Cameron was that he was a very good communicator, and I think that was the result of understanding other's view points. JRM is a terrible communicator. He simply trots out his own belief system. If you share it I suppose it is comforting to hear it put clearly, but it doesn't remotely win over people who don't.
We may have reached a stage in our politics (like the US) where any Conservative leader gets their party to 40%, and any Labour leader gets their party to 40%. If so, JRM might well win an election.
And in a 40-40 scenario the Tories do better
Yes, the Republicans too have twice won the Electoral College and once won Congress in the last 20 years despite losing the popular vote. Winning huge margins in big cities does not mean you win if you lose the suburbs and rural areas
The Congress result has rather more to do with some blatant gerrymandering, though.
That is overrated, the Electoral College is immune to gerrymandering as votes are awarded by state and the Democrats have lost the presidency twice in the last two decades while winning the popular vote but only lost the House once while winning the popular vote over the same period and then they only won it by about 1%.
Over reliance by left liberals on big urban centres rather than the provinces is more significant and was also seen here in the EU referendum where Leave won the popular vote by just 4% but 2/3 of UK constituencies
It's quite amazing. The the British Right we're forever vilifying Dave and Ozzy as out-of-touch elitist posh boys ('price of milk' etc.), but are poised to embrace a man whose very being was formed within the highest echelons of the British establishment. The British Right are a mystery.
"We say: it’s just a few bad apples, don’t play into the hands of aid sceptics. This won’t wash. It’s this sort of thinking that creates the culture of cover-up inside a charity: we’re basically good so why rock the boat? This is the thinking that lets abusive aid workers slide safely from agency to agency though everyone knows what they’ve done, just as public schools and parishes once passed perverts quietly on. Moral licence is a dreadful thing. Woe betide any organisation that thinks of itself as especially good. It’ll give itself leeway to behave in a terrible way."
So far this morning on this thread we've had JRM is a cartoon, a joke, mad, a dinosaur, an idiot and a charlatan.
We've had precious little in the way of objective analysis aimed at understanding his appeal.
We've seen where dismissiveness and insults, without engaging with the arguments, has led before: voters think they are the ones being insulted, not the politician, who, in any event, if savvy, will refuse to lower himself to the level of his detractors.
Far too many Conservative politicians have simply lost the art of patiently and respectfully arguing their case from first principles, assuming all those battles are won, and all they need to do is follow public opinion and focus on building their careers.
That tells me there may be more in JRM's odds than initially meets the eye.
We may have reached a stage in our politics (like the US) where any Conservative leader gets their party to 40%, and any Labour leader gets their party to 40%. If so, JRM might well win an election.
And in a 40-40 scenario the Tories do better
Yes, the Republicans too have twice won the Electoral College and once won Congress in the last 20 years despite losing the popular vote. Winning huge margins in big cities does not mean you win if you lose the suburbs and rural areas
The Congress result has rather more to do with some blatant gerrymandering, though.
The US is also de facto a strict two party system. Ours is not. The Tories are friendless outwith the DUP in parliament right now.
The older generation of Democrats don't seem to be ready to step back just yet (Biden is also particularly active at the moment).
If Sanders does not run I think his support will go to Warren and she will be the 2020 Democratic nominee
I think Biden also has a genuine shot if he goes for it (which seems likely barring health problems). It does leave less room for a next generation candidate to emerge.
The older generation of Democrats don't seem to be ready to step back just yet (Biden is also particularly active at the moment).
If Sanders does not run I think his support will go to Warren and she will be the 2020 Democratic nominee
I think Biden also has a genuine shot if he goes for it (which seems likely barring health problems). It does leave less room for a next generation candidate to emerge.
Warren plus someone from the West Coast or a Flyover state. Don't THINK it'll be two women though.
Warren is in with a shout, but I still think Biden has a better chance of uniting the radical and establishment sides of the party - and appealing to the middle America states.
Again you are letting your prejudices colour your analysis. JRM has not been seen as a joke in the past.
Thoughtful, analytical, unconventional, eccentric, not suitable for - or desiring of - ministerial office yes. A joke, no. He wants to be Speaker and there are very many who disagree with him on policy that think he would do a very good job of that. Heedoesnt want to be PM or LOTO
I think a joke is harsh, but the Mogg has definitely been seen as a novelty act. I have conservative voting family in his constituency, he has ben the source of much gentle amusement.
You have your anecdotes, and I have mine.
My wife (centrist and conservative leaning) gushes about JRM. And she isn't the only one.
I suspect it isn't unusual for Conservatives to go along with criticism of JRM from friends and family from the Left, in an effort to pursue civil discourse, whilst secretly admiring the cut of his jib.
"We say: it’s just a few bad apples, don’t play into the hands of aid sceptics. This won’t wash. It’s this sort of thinking that creates the culture of cover-up inside a charity: we’re basically good so why rock the boat? This is the thinking that lets abusive aid workers slide safely from agency to agency though everyone knows what they’ve done, just as public schools and parishes once passed perverts quietly on. Moral licence is a dreadful thing. Woe betide any organisation that thinks of itself as especially good. It’ll give itself leeway to behave in a terrible way."
The older generation of Democrats don't seem to be ready to step back just yet (Biden is also particularly active at the moment).
If Sanders does not run I think his support will go to Warren and she will be the 2020 Democratic nominee
I think Biden also has a genuine shot if he goes for it (which seems likely barring health problems). It does leave less room for a next generation candidate to emerge.
Biden has a shot but Sanders + Warren combined are currently polling more than Biden in early 2020 polls of Democratic primary voters
If its Warren/Sanders then Trump will be re-elected imho.
I think Trump probably beats Warren, Sanders could win the rustbelt though
The older generation of Democrats don't seem to be ready to step back just yet (Biden is also particularly active at the moment).
If Sanders does not run I think his support will go to Warren and she will be the 2020 Democratic nominee
I think Biden also has a genuine shot if he goes for it (which seems likely barring health problems). It does leave less room for a next generation candidate to emerge.
The older generation of Democrats don't seem to be ready to step back just yet (Biden is also particularly active at the moment).
If Sanders does not run I think his support will go to Warren and she will be the 2020 Democratic nominee
I think Biden also has a genuine shot if he goes for it (which seems likely barring health problems). It does leave less room for a next generation candidate to emerge.
Warren plus someone from the West Coast or a Flyover state. Don't THINK it'll be two women though.
Warren is in with a shout, but I still think Biden has a better chance of uniting the radical and establishment sides of the party - and appealing to the middle America states.
The Pope was making a far more sophisticated point than that! Just because speech is free doesn't mean it's acceptable. Personally, I would tend more to the free speech end of the spectrum and think you're on shaky ground once you qualify it. Nevertheless, the Pope's point is a reasonable one IMO.
Incidentally, I should note your unfailing courtesy and respect for others' opinions on this board. An example to the rest of us.
The Pope has said that Europe's biggest political failing is the lack of solidarity and that its treatment of refugees is a stain on the continent. Rees Mogg will have known that teaching when he was the ONLY MP to vote to close a child refugee centre.
The Pope was making a silly point. Insulting a person is one thing and if your mother was insulted by another you might well react on a personal and, possibly, violent level. But a belief system, an opinion, a point of view is not the same as a person - and insulting that is quite different. A person is perfectly entitled to say that Islam or Catholicism is a load of old baloney worth of no more respect than a rotting banana.
I'm afraid that Pope Francis was siding with another religion because, au fond, he would like religion to be somehow protected from inquiry or challenge. Catholic though I am, I fundamentally disagree with him on this point. If a religion cannot withstand vigorous - even insulting - challenge then it does not deserve to survive and a religion which seeks to shield itself from such challenge is not worthy of respect, but contempt.
On the refugees the Pope has a good point. It would be stronger if he had spoken for Christians who are facing appalling persecution in the Middle East, the land of the religion's birth, and if placed some pressure on governments in the West to let in Christian refugees who face genocide in their home countries. On that he has been somewhat silent - much like the Pope during WW2 with his elliptical references to Jewish suffering - and it is to his shame, I'm afraid.
It seems you share the same intolerance you accuse the Pope of. Why shouldn't your beliefs be as important to you, or more so, as respect for your mother? I am not a religious person but have friends who are pious and any insult of their beliefs is an attack on themselves and who they are and is deeply hurtful. It doesn't mean they will kill people of course. You, Morris and myself agree on free speech, but if you say more or less all speech is ALLOWED, what is ACCEPTABLE falls on the responsibility of individuals. The principle doesn't change because of murderous morons.
So far this morning on this thread we've had JRM is a cartoon, a joke, mad, a dinosaur, an idiot and a charlatan.
We've had precious little in the way of objective analysis aimed at understanding his appeal.
We've seen where dismissiveness and insults, without engaging with the arguments, has led before: voters think they are the ones being insulted, not the politician, who, in any event, if savvy, will refuse to lower himself to the level of his detractors.
Far too many Conservative politicians have simply lost the art of patiently and respectfully arguing their case from first principles, assuming all those battles are won, and all they need to do is follow public opinion and focus on building their careers.
That tells me there may be more in JRM's odds than initially meets the eye.
Several moons ago I outlined why I didn't think he would be the worst candidate to be leader of the Cons and PM. And yet...and yet...I have an issue: I find it disconcerting that he should be so fundamentally religious.
Nothing wrong with any religion providing a PM. Indeed I would rather someone followed a strong moral code, but I view JRM's Catholicism as more than that. From what I understand (whenever I have met him we did not discuss religion) he is motivated by a pure, shall we say anachronistic version of Catholicism which I find unsettling.
Why do I find it unsettling? Because, not believing in god myself, I am unnerved when someone takes so literally the word of something that I believe springs from myth.
"BMG’s latest voting intention poll finds Labour and Conservatives neck and neck on 40% of the vote. Conducted between 6th and 9th February, the exclusive survey on behalf of the Independent represents a three-point increase for the Conservatives from our last publicly reported poll in December, with no change to Labour’s figures – all changes within the margin of error."
Jacob Rees Mogg seems to make Tories feel good about themselves, just as Corbyn makes many Labour members feel good about themselves. For that reason, he - like Corbyn - is also going to be a very polarising figure.
Rees Mogg is a Tory who would force me into voting Labour in my marginal Labour constituency, just as I am sure there are many centrists who lean a little further to the right than me who will always vote Tory to keep Corbyn away from power.
My guess is that JRM v Corbyn would be a score draw, as would Johnson v Corbyn. If the Tories skip a generation and find a leader not too closely associated with their right flank and Brexit, the next election is theirs for the taking.
lol. JRM is known for only one thing: to be able to waffle eloquently. Aside from that, he is an empty vessel.
That’s unfair. He’s a very talented emerging market investor
I believe Smithson Jnr. called him competent but not brilliant ? In any event, that hardly supports the elevation of a backbencher to PM.
Somerset has done well over the years, but @rcs1000 will have better visibility on individual contributions than I will
(And I never said it was a qualification for PM - just that he wasn’t an empty vessel)
Again, you assume that an Etonian being able to make money in any way fills the vessel. It doesn't.
It was your other comment - that he was known for one think only - I was disagreeing with
As an aside, I never mentioned his schooling, but you seem obsessed by classifying people rather than judging them as individuals
LOL. No. Really, no. I mean, I was a Cameron fan (an Etonian), and therein lies the point. I don't care if someone went to Eton or Bridlington Comp. What matters is if they can expand themselves out of that zone.
You cannot blame someone for the school they were sent to, whether state, grammar or public. You can blame them if they let their schooling define them, and treat others who went to other schools as lesser in some way (as do some public school people with state, and state school with public schools). That's what JRM evidently does with his 'potted plants' comment.
Cameron handed his Etonian past well, and tried to expand himself outside of it - not always successfully. I see no indication that JRM wants to do the same.
(For avoidance of doubt, I'd expect a politician who went to Bridlington Comp to expand out of their comfort zone, and see that people who went to grammar or public schools are not lesser or objects of ridicule).
That's very well put. What I liked about Cameron was that he was a very good communicator, and I think that was the result of understanding other's view points. JRM is a terrible communicator. He simply trots out his own belief system. If you share it I suppose it is comforting to hear it put clearly, but it doesn't remotely win over people who don't.
I would gently suggest drawing a distinction between being a very good communicator and liking or not objecting to what is being communicated.
JRM cuts through to focus groups, on Question Time, and in TV interviews. People listen to him respectfully, even if they disagree.
So far this morning on this thread we've had JRM is a cartoon, a joke, mad, a dinosaur, an idiot and a charlatan.
We've had precious little in the way of objective analysis aimed at understanding his appeal.
We've seen where dismissiveness and insults, without engaging with the arguments, has led before: voters think they are the ones being insulted, not the politician, who, in any event, if savvy, will refuse to lower himself to the level of his detractors.
Far too many Conservative politicians have simply lost the art of patiently and respectfully arguing their case from first principles, assuming all those battles are won, and all they need to do is follow public opinion and focus on building their careers.
That tells me there may be more in JRM's odds than initially meets the eye.
My 'cartoon' comment was not meant as depreciation. JRM is a character, who stands out, because of stuff like accent, dress, manners etc etc, which are to some extent rather cartoonish. He is an exaggerated version of a Tory.
In the age of social media and TV talent voting shows, it is no surprise he is mentioned in focus groups.
None of this doesn't mean I don't take him seriously. Far from it. I'm increasingly of the view that he is the next leader.
My not all that interested in politics friend mentioned Rees-Mogg unprompted to me today, likes his style.
I get a feeling a lot of younger people feel/felt that politicians are/were simply full of empty slogans and unable to answer simple questions, more interested in projecting image than anything else.
Probably annoys many older people as well. Maybe a reason for Mogg's popularity as well as other things we've seen over the last few years...
lol. JRM is known for only one thing: to be able to waffle eloquently. Aside from that, he is an empty vessel.
That’s unfair. He’s a very talented emerging market investor
I believe Smithson Jnr. called him competent but not brilliant ? In any event, that hardly supports the elevation of a backbencher to PM.
Somerset has done well over the years, but @rcs1000 will have better visibility on individual contributions than I will
(And I never said it was a qualification for PM - just that he wasn’t an empty vessel)
Again, you assume that an Etonian being able to make money in any way fills the vessel. It doesn't.
It was your other comment - that he was known for one think only - I was disagreeing with
As an aside, I never mentioned his schooling, but you seem obsessed by classifying people rather than judging them as individuals
LOL. No. Really, no. I mean, I was a Cameron fan (an Etonian), and therein lies the point. I don't care if someone went to Eton or Bridlington Comp. What matters is if they can expand themselves out of that zone.
You cannot blame someone for the school they were sent to, whether state, grammar or public. You can blame them if they let their schooling define them, and treat others who went to other schools as lesser in some way (as do some public school people with state, and state school with public schools). That's what JRM evidently does with his 'potted plants' comment.
Cameron handed his Etonian past well, and tried to expand himself outside of it - not always successfully. I see no indication that JRM wants to do the same.
(For avoidance of doubt, I'd expect a politician who went to Bridlington Comp to expand out of their comfort zone, and see that people who went to grammar or public schools are not lesser or objects of ridicule).
Ironically enough, Cameron tried to stop JRM becoming an MP because he felt he was too posh, and wanted his sister to change her campaigning name.
The older generation of Democrats don't seem to be ready to step back just yet (Biden is also particularly active at the moment).
If Sanders does not run I think his support will go to Warren and she will be the 2020 Democratic nominee
I think Biden also has a genuine shot if he goes for it (which seems likely barring health problems). It does leave less room for a next generation candidate to emerge.
Biden has a shot but Sanders + Warren combined are currently polling more than Biden in early 2020 polls of Democratic primary voters
If its Warren/Sanders then Trump will be re-elected imho.
I think Trump probably beats Warren, Sanders could win the rustbelt though
Could he? Only if the Trumpsters have become disillusioned by the lack of results.
Mr. Pete, I do love that headline. Disagreeing with a scientific theory isn't inherently being anti-science. Indeed, competing theories are commonplace. Mindless groupthink is the antithesis of scepticism, the founding point of scientific thought, and led to ossification of light theories for two centuries after Newton died because nobody was allowed to contradict the great man.
Also, even the most Warmist of warmers and Sceptical of sceptics [using terms like 'denier', which naturally bring to mind Holocaust deniers, is using pejorative language to try and stifle scientific debate] would agree on a large number of things. The good of geothermal energy, the benefits of technology being more energy efficient, the need for an increase application of trebuchets in the justice system, etc.
Jacob Rees Mogg seems to make Tories feel good about themselves, just as Corbyn makes many Labour members feel good about themselves. For that reason, he - like Corbyn - is also going to be a very polarising figure.
Rees Mogg is a Tory who would force me into voting Labour in my marginal Labour constituency, just as I am sure there are many centrists who lean a little further to the right than me who will always vote Tory to keep Corbyn away from power.
My guess is that JRM v Corbyn would be a score draw, as would Johnson v Corbyn. If the Tories skip a generation and find a leader not too closely associated with their right flank and Brexit, the next election is theirs for the taking.
JRM certainly doesn't make me feel good about being a Tory.
Mr. 43, a religious belief is just an idea. Mocking an idea and mocking a living person are wildly different things. Furthermore, the concept an idea should be beyond question or satire because it's religious is to impose blasphemy laws on non-believers.
The right to free expression must always trump the right to never be offended or disagreed with.
We may have reached a stage in our politics (like the US) where any Conservative leader gets their party to 40%, and any Labour leader gets their party to 40%. If so, JRM might well win an election.
And in a 40-40 scenario the Tories do better
Yes, the Republicans too have twice won the Electoral College and once won Congress in the last 20 years despite losing the popular vote. Winning huge margins in big cities does not mean you win if you lose the suburbs and rural areas
The Congress result has rather more to do with some blatant gerrymandering, though.
The US is also de facto a strict two party system. Ours is not. The Tories are friendless outwith the DUP in parliament right now.
82% voted Labour or Tory in 2017, 94% Hillary or Trump in 2016, not so different
So far this morning on this thread we've had JRM is a cartoon, a joke, mad, a dinosaur, an idiot and a charlatan.
We've had precious little in the way of objective analysis aimed at understanding his appeal.
We've seen where dismissiveness and insults, without engaging with the arguments, has led before: voters think they are the ones being insulted, not the politician, who, in any event, if savvy, will refuse to lower himself to the level of his detractors.
Far too many Conservative politicians have simply lost the art of patiently and respectfully arguing their case from first principles, assuming all those battles are won, and all they need to do is follow public opinion and focus on building their careers.
That tells me there may be more in JRM's odds than initially meets the eye.
I take the charlatan very seriously, as he does himself.
So far this morning on this thread we've had JRM is a cartoon, a joke, mad, a dinosaur, an idiot and a charlatan.
We've had precious little in the way of objective analysis aimed at understanding his appeal.
We've seen where dismissiveness and insults, without engaging with the arguments, has led before: voters think they are the ones being insulted, not the politician, who, in any event, if savvy, will refuse to lower himself to the level of his detractors.
Far too many Conservative politicians have simply lost the art of patiently and respectfully arguing their case from first principles, assuming all those battles are won, and all they need to do is follow public opinion and focus on building their careers.
That tells me there may be more in JRM's odds than initially meets the eye.
Several moons ago I outlined why I didn't think he would be the worst candidate to be leader of the Cons and PM. And yet...and yet...I have an issue: I find it disconcerting that he should be so fundamentally religious.
Nothing wrong with any religion providing a PM. Indeed I would rather someone followed a strong moral code, but I view JRM's Catholicism as more than that. From what I understand (whenever I have met him we did not discuss religion) he is motivated by a pure, shall we say anachronistic version of Catholicism which I find unsettling.
Why do I find it unsettling? Because, not believing in god myself, I am unnerved when someone takes so literally the word of something that I believe springs from myth.
lol. JRM is known for only one thing: to be able to waffle eloquently. Aside from that, he is an empty vessel.
That’s unfair. He’s a very talented emerging market investor
I believe Smithson Jnr. called him competent but not brilliant ? In any event, that hardly supports the elevation of a backbencher to PM.
Somerset has done well over the years, but @rcs1000 will have better visibility on individual contributions than I will
(And I never said it was a qualification for PM - just that he wasn’t an empty vessel)
Again, you assume that an Etonian being able to make money in any way fills the vessel. It doesn't.
It was your other comment - that he was known for one think only - I was disagreeing with
As an aside, I never mentioned his schooling, but you seem obsessed by classifying people rather than judging them as individuals
LOL. No. Really, no. I mean, I was a Cameron fan (an Etonian), and therein lies the point. I don't care if someone went to Eton or Bridlington Comp. What matters is if they can expand themselves out of that zone.
You cannot blame someone for the school they were sent to, whether state, grammar or public. You can blame them if they let their schooling define them, and treat others who went to other schools as lesser in some way (as do some public school people with state, and state school with public schools). That's what JRM evidently does with his 'potted plants' comment.
Cameron handed his Etonian past well, and tried to expand himself outside of it - not always successfully. I see no indication that JRM wants to do the same.
(For avoidance of doubt, I'd expect a politician who went to Bridlington Comp to expand out of their comfort zone, and see that people who went to grammar or public schools are not lesser or objects of ridicule).
That's very well put. What I liked about Cameron was that he was a very good communicator, and I think that was the result of understanding other's view points. JRM is a terrible communicator. He simply trots out his own belief system. If you share it I suppose it is comforting to hear it put clearly, but it doesn't remotely win over people who don't.
Quite. And his belief system is socially illiberal and economically Ayn Rand. That's a niche position in the UK today. Once you get beyond his novelty act, there isn't a broad appeal. WRMWNBPM.
Bet on Mogg as next prime minister/Tory leader and you will lose your money.
As the article states correctly, the Tories have a different (and better) way of electing a leader and MPs decide who makes the final two. Conservative MPs will make sure that Mogg is not in the final two. They know that Mogg would be electoral suicide.
So far this morning on this thread we've had JRM is a cartoon, a joke, mad, a dinosaur, an idiot and a charlatan.
We've had precious little in the way of objective analysis aimed at understanding his appeal.
We've seen where dismissiveness and insults, without engaging with the arguments, has led before: voters think they are the ones being insulted, not the politician, who, in any event, if savvy, will refuse to lower himself to the level of his detractors.
Far too many Conservative politicians have simply lost the art of patiently and respectfully arguing their case from first principles, assuming all those battles are won, and all they need to do is follow public opinion and focus on building their careers.
That tells me there may be more in JRM's odds than initially meets the eye.
Several moons ago I outlined why I didn't think he would be the worst candidate to be leader of the Cons and PM. And yet...and yet...I have an issue: I find it disconcerting that he should be so fundamentally religious.
Nothing wrong with any religion providing a PM. Indeed I would rather someone followed a strong moral code, but I view JRM's Catholicism as more than that. From what I understand (whenever I have met him we did not discuss religion) he is motivated by a pure, shall we say anachronistic version of Catholicism which I find unsettling.
Why do I find it unsettling? Because, not believing in god myself, I am unnerved when someone takes so literally the word of something that I believe springs from myth.
That only bothers me for converts. If someone has been brought up in a particular faith it is just part of who they are.
Rees-Mogg will prove to be the Tories' Corbyn - hanging around with the likes of Farage, Bannon and pro-repatriation dining clubs. The Left will have no end of rocks to chuck, and the Tories will just have to hunker down and keep saying 'But isn't he clever and polite?' But a long spell out of power and on the political fringe might do the Tories some good. They appear to have become smug with power and consumed by a sense of invulnerability. Perhaps it will do us all good if they were brought back to earth with a bang.
We may have reached a stage in our politics (like the US) where any Conservative leader gets their party to 40%, and any Labour leader gets their party to 40%. If so, JRM might well win an election.
And in a 40-40 scenario the Tories do better
Yes, the Republicans too have twice won the Electoral College and once won Congress in the last 20 years despite losing the popular vote. Winning huge margins in big cities does not mean you win if you lose the suburbs and rural areas
The Congress result has rather more to do with some blatant gerrymandering, though.
The US is also de facto a strict two party system. Ours is not. The Tories are friendless outwith the DUP in parliament right now.
82% voted Labour or Tory in 2017, 94% Hillary or Trump in 2016, not so different
71 non Tory, non Lab seats in the parliament. Zero non GOP, non Dem ECVs in the electoral college. Quite a big difference.
Mr. 43, the Pope, in responding to the Charlie Hebdo murders, said that if someone insulted his mother he'd punch them in the face.
If the head of the Catholic Church can come out with bullshit like that, then Mogg not being a zealot is a pro, not a con.
[I don't think he'll become leader (Mogg, not Pope Francis). It's too big a leap from the backbenches to PM].
The Pope's point is a reasonable one IMO.
Incidentally, I should note your unfailing courtesy and respect for others' opinions on this board. An example to the rest of us.
The centre.
The Pope was making a silly point. Insulting a person is one thing and if your mother was insulted by another you might well react on a personal and, possibly, violent level. But a belief system, an opinion, a point of view is not the same as a person - and insulting that is quite different. A person is perfectly entitled to say that Islam or Catholicism is a load of old baloney worth of no more respect than a rotting banana.
I'm afraid that Pope Francis was siding with another religion because, au fond, he would like religion to be somehow protected from inquiry or challenge. Catholic though I am, I fundamentally disagree with him on this point. If a religion cannot withstand vigorous - even insulting - challenge then it does not deserve to survive and a religion which seeks to shield itself from such challenge is not worthy of respect, but contempt.
On the refugees the Pope has a good point. It would be stronger if he had spoken for Christians who are facing appalling persecution in the Middle East, the land of the religion's birth, and if placed some pressure on governments in the West to let in Christian refugees who face genocide in their home countries. On that he has been somewhat silent - much like the Pope during WW2 with his elliptical references to Jewish suffering - and it is to his shame, I'm afraid.
The Pope can only speak out and that is what he has done. if his words are not reported on in the UK or acted on more generally then that is not his fault.
So far this morning on this thread we've had JRM is a cartoon, a joke, mad, a dinosaur, an idiot and a charlatan.
We've had precious little in the way of objective analysis aimed at understanding his appeal.
We've seen where dismissiveness and insults, without engaging with the arguments, has led before: voters think they are the ones being insulted, not the politician, who, in any event, if savvy, will refuse to lower himself to the level of his detractors.
Far too many Conservative politicians have simply lost the art of patiently and respectfully arguing their case from first principles, assuming all those battles are won, and all they need to do is follow public opinion and focus on building their careers.
That tells me there may be more in JRM's odds than initially meets the eye.
Several moons ago I outlined why I didn't think he would be the worst candidate to be leader of the Cons and PM. And yet...and yet...I have an issue: I find it disconcerting that he should be so fundamentally religious.
Nothing wrong with any religion providing a PM. Indeed I would rather someone followed a strong moral code, but I view JRM's Catholicism as more than that. From what I understand (whenever I have met him we did not discuss religion) he is motivated by a pure, shall we say anachronistic version of Catholicism which I find unsettling.
Why do I find it unsettling? Because, not believing in god myself, I am unnerved when someone takes so literally the word of something that I believe springs from myth.
That only bothers me for converts. If someone has been brought up in a particular faith it is just part of who they are.
Hmm - not entirely sure that makes some of the more out there beliefs ok, imo.
Mr. 43, a religious belief is just an idea. Mocking an idea and mocking a living person are wildly different things. Furthermore, the concept an idea should be beyond question or satire because it's religious is to impose blasphemy laws on non-believers.
The right to free expression must always trump the right to never be offended or disagreed with.
Ultimately we agree. As I said before, I don't think you can make such a clear distinction between an attack on a person and an attack on what they believe. For many people what they believe is who they are. Nevertheless, a right to free speech must be unqualified.
Mr. 43, the Pope, in responding to the Charlie Hebdo murders, said that if someone insulted his mother he'd punch them in the face.
If the head of the Catholic Church can come out with bullshit like that, then Mogg not being a zealot is a pro, not a con.
[I don't think he'll become leader (Mogg, not Pope Francis). It's too big a leap from the backbenches to PM].
The Pope's point is a reasonable one IMO.
Incidentally, I should note your unfailing courtesy and respect for others' opinions on this board. An example to the rest of us.
The centre.
The Pope was making a silly point. Insulting a person is one thing and if your mother was insulted by another you might well react on a personal and, possibly, violent level. But a belief system, an opinion, a point of view is not the same as a person - and insulting that is quite different. A person is perfectly entitled to say that Islam or Catholicism is a load of old baloney worth of no more respect than a rotting banana.
I'm afraid that Pope Francis was siding with another religion because, au fond, he would like religion to be somehow protected from inquiry or challenge. Catholic though I am, I fundamentally disagree with him on this point. If a religion cannot withstand vigorous - even insulting - challenge then it does not deserve to survive and a religion which seeks to shield itself from such challenge is not worthy of respect, but contempt.
On the refugees the Pope has a good point. It would be stronger if he had spoken for Christians who are facing appalling persecution in the Middle East, the land of the religion's birth, and if placed some pressure on governments in the West to let in Christian refugees who face genocide in their home countries. On that he has been somewhat silent - much like the Pope during WW2 with his elliptical references to Jewish suffering - and it is to his shame, I'm afraid.
The Pope can only speak out and that is what he has done. if his words are not reported on in the UK or acted on more generally then that is not his fault.
Thank you. I was not aware. Very little of this has been said - even in the church I attend. Odd. But good that he has spoken out.
So far this morning on this thread we've had JRM is a cartoon, a joke, mad, a dinosaur, an idiot and a charlatan.
We've had precious little in the way of objective analysis aimed at understanding his appeal.
We've seen where dismissiveness and insults, without engaging with the arguments, has led before: voters think they are the ones being insulted, not the politician, who, in any event, if savvy, will refuse to lower himself to the level of his detractors.
Far too many Conservative politicians have simply lost the art of patiently and respectfully arguing their case from first principles, assuming all those battles are won, and all they need to do is follow public opinion and focus on building their careers.
That tells me there may be more in JRM's odds than initially meets the eye.
I'm not a Conservative by any means but I do respect Rees-Mogg for his intelligence and his ability to form an argument and no doubt I would enjoy his company and over coffee (or whatever), we could argue long into the evening about the key issues of the day.
Erudite, he certainly is, and no closed book either. I suspect he would listen to the other side and argue his point and we might agree to disagree but he would be receptive to a well-constructed contrary point of view.
I can see why he might make an excellent Speaker - being a Minister. let alone Prime Minister, demands other qualities and I'm less sure Rees-Mogg has those to the same quality. Until he's tested, we won't know.
Jacob Rees Mogg seems to make Tories feel good about themselves, just as Corbyn makes many Labour members feel good about themselves. For that reason, he - like Corbyn - is also going to be a very polarising figure.
Rees Mogg is a Tory who would force me into voting Labour in my marginal Labour constituency, just as I am sure there are many centrists who lean a little further to the right than me who will always vote Tory to keep Corbyn away from power.
My guess is that JRM v Corbyn would be a score draw, as would Johnson v Corbyn. If the Tories skip a generation and find a leader not too closely associated with their right flank and Brexit, the next election is theirs for the taking.
Skip the current generation and go for Ken Clarke?
As regards JRM's religious belief, poor Tim Farron was taken to the cleaners by the press over his, and it unquestionably cost the LD's some votes. While most of the Tory press will give JRM a much easier ride than they did TF, that won't be universal.
So far this morning on this thread we've had JRM is a cartoon, a joke, mad, a dinosaur, an idiot and a charlatan.
We've had precious little in the way of objective analysis aimed at understanding his appeal.
We've seen where dismissiveness and insults, without engaging with the arguments, has led before: voters think they are the ones being insulted, not the politician, who, in any event, if savvy, will refuse to lower himself to the level of his detractors.
Far too many Conservative politicians have simply lost the art of patiently and respectfully arguing their case from first principles, assuming all those battles are won, and all they need to do is follow public opinion and focus on building their careers.
That tells me there may be more in JRM's odds than initially meets the eye.
I quite like JRM for the reasons you cite, and think that PMQs between him and Corbyn would be a spectacular improvement in tone on anything for a generation - we'd get serious exchanges without snide comments either way.
Whether JRM would be a good leader or PM is another matter, but he's undeniably a fresh wind, which quite a few of the potential May successors really are not.
The Pope was making a far more sophisticated point than that! Just because speech is free doesn't mean it's acceptable. Personally, I would tend more to the free speech end of the spectrum and think you're on shaky ground once you qualify it. Nevertheless, the Pope's point is a reasonable one IMO.
The Pope was making a silly point. Insulting a person is one thing and if your mother was insulted by another you might well react on a personal and, possibly, violent level. But a belief system, an opinion, a point of view is not the same as a person - and insulting that is quite different. A person is perfectly entitled to say that Islam or Catholicism is a load of old baloney worth of no more respect than a rotting banana.
I'm afraid that Pope Francis was siding with another religion because, au fond, he would like religion to be somehow protected from inquiry or challenge. Catholic though I am, I fundamentally disagree with him on this point. If a religion cannot withstand vigorous - even insulting - challenge then it does not deserve to survive and a religion which seeks to shield itself from such challenge is not worthy of respect, but contempt.
It seems you share the same intolerance you accuse the Pope of. Why shouldn't your beliefs be as important to you, or more so, as respect for your mother? I am not a religious person but have friends who are pious and any insult of their beliefs is an attack on themselves and who they are and is deeply hurtful. It doesn't mean they will kill people of course. You, Morris and myself agree on free speech, but if you say more or less all speech is ALLOWED, what is ACCEPTABLE falls on the responsibility of individuals. The principle doesn't change because of murderous morons.
Your beliefs can be as important to you as you like. But what you cannot do is insist that they should be as important to me as they are to you nor that I should be punished, let alone attacked or killed because I don't take them seriously. Those who want to protect their religious belief from mockery or attack because it is part of who they are are telling me what I should think and say.
And I say no to that. I will form my own view of your beliefs and say it how I like. And provided I don't incite violence I am and should be free to do so.
On the whole I think one should be try to be polite. But politeness is something freely given not demanded with threats and menaces. And if a religion demands that I be polite about it or else..... well my reaction is to be as rude about it as possible until it realises that it cannot threaten me. Only then will I be polite. I am damned if I'm going to be threatened into politeness.
Mr. 43, a religious belief is just an idea. Mocking an idea and mocking a living person are wildly different things. Furthermore, the concept an idea should be beyond question or satire because it's religious is to impose blasphemy laws on non-believers.
The right to free expression must always trump the right to never be offended or disagreed with.
Well said (and to Ms @Cyclefree as ever, on the same subject).
It’s why, as a Catholic, I wasn’t offended by Tim Minchin’s rude song about the Pope (now the Pope Emeritus). Sometimes extreme language needs to be used about practices like covering up sexual abuse, and of course it’s fair comment and free speech to mock someone for what they’ve done. I was more offended by the fact that my church had engaged in a coverup, than a comedian writing a rude song.
I wonder how many of those criticising the Church a decade ago are now standing up for Oxfam ‘because of all the good works they do’? Not acceptable then, and not acceptable now.
Mr. 43, a religious belief is just an idea. Mocking an idea and mocking a living person are wildly different things. Furthermore, the concept an idea should be beyond question or satire because it's religious is to impose blasphemy laws on non-believers.
The right to free expression must always trump the right to never be offended or disagreed with.
Ultimately we agree. As I said before, I don't think you can make such a clear distinction between an attack on a person and an attack on what they believe. For many people what they believe is who they are. Nevertheless, a right to free speech must be unqualified.
I'd give my 2 cents on religion, but Chris Hitchens has said it all already.
Really quite a moving PPB in my opinion, though probably too long for most viewers. Whether and how to link these issues to politics is a difficult question, but when the causes seem to be politicial somho you have to.
As regards JRM's religious belief, poor Tim Farron was taken to the cleaners by the press over his, and it unquestionably cost the LD's some votes. While most of the Tory press will give JRM a much easier ride than they did TF, that won't be universal.
If Tim Farron has answered the question in the same way as JRM it wouldn’t have been a story. It’s that he was so evasive that made it into a story, and he subsequently got the same questioning from every journalist.
Mr. 43, a religious belief is just an idea. Mocking an idea and mocking a living person are wildly different things. Furthermore, the concept an idea should be beyond question or satire because it's religious is to impose blasphemy laws on non-believers.
The right to free expression must always trump the right to never be offended or disagreed with.
Ultimately we agree. As I said before, I don't think you can make such a clear distinction between an attack on a person and an attack on what they believe. For many people what they believe is who they are. Nevertheless, a right to free speech must be unqualified.
Free speech great, plus the freedom to be able to chose not to listen. .
As regards JRM's religious belief, poor Tim Farron was taken to the cleaners by the press over his, and it unquestionably cost the LD's some votes. While most of the Tory press will give JRM a much easier ride than they did TF, that won't be universal.
If Tim Farron has answered the question in the same way as JRM it wouldn’t have been a story. It’s that he was so evasive that made it into a story, and he subsequently got the same questioning from every journalist.
I think it would have been a story, but not as powerful a one. Farron's ambiguity only highlighted his disconnect with his party and its members.
Really quite a moving PPB in my opinion, though probably too long for most viewers. Whether and how to link these issues to politics is a difficult question, but when the causes seem to be politicial somho you have to.
Mr. 43, a religious belief is just an idea. Mocking an idea and mocking a living person are wildly different things. Furthermore, the concept an idea should be beyond question or satire because it's religious is to impose blasphemy laws on non-believers.
The right to free expression must always trump the right to never be offended or disagreed with.
Well said (and to Ms @Cyclefree as ever, on the same subject).
It’s why, as a Catholic, I wasn’t offended by Tim Minchin’s rude song about the Pope (now the Pope Emeritus). Sometimes extreme language needs to be used about practices like covering up sexual abuse, and of course it’s fair comment and free speech to mock someone for what they’ve done. I was more offended by the fact that my church had engaged in a coverup, than a comedian writing a rude song.
I wonder how many of those criticising the Church a decade ago are now standing up for Oxfam ‘because of all the good works they do’? Not acceptable then, and not acceptable now.
Well, I was criticising churches for the abuse and their cover-ups a decade ago, and still am today as stories continue to emerge. I also criticise Oxfam and other organisations whose processes have been (ahem) somewhat lax. Generally well-intentioned people have made big mistakes.
On the other hand, there are those who defend the churches and criticise Oxfam, which is equally wrong.
In the case of the churches, clergy and others saw children nominally in their care as 'lesser', and therefore open to abuse. Their seniors, in many cases non-abusers and thinking themselves good, moral people, saw the abusers as 'one of the family', and the abused as lessers. Criticism of abusive priests was criticism of the church, and that was a bad thing and to be prevented.
It appears that a similar thing went on within Oxfam. The abused were not the important people, and it mattered more to protect the organisation.
Fortunately nowadays it is becoming harder and harder to cover things up. Sadly, situations such as McAlpine or 'Nick' and the paedophile politicians story act as a negative counter.
Really quite a moving PPB in my opinion, though probably too long for most viewers. Whether and how to link these issues to politics is a difficult question, but when the causes seem to be politicial somho you have to.
With all due respect, Nick, this may be a problem with the PPB. It moves you and probably a lot of other Labour people. But in doing that, I wonder if it is speaking to the voters that Labour needs to reach out to in order to win. There are many victims of government policy and they need to be helped, but in order for that to happen Labour has to be in power. That means reaching beyond its comfort zone and talking to those with aspirations, too. How will Labour help them and their families?
Really quite a moving PPB in my opinion, though probably too long for most viewers. Whether and how to link these issues to politics is a difficult question, but when the causes seem to be politicial somho you have to.
Nick are the Tories more to blame for austerity, or for not cutting the deficit?
And is the increase in violent crime in London and Manchester anything to do with the moped mugging gangs that the police have decided it’s too dangerous to chase in case the poor young muggers might get injured? Questions for Mr Khan and Mr Burnham.
My main difficulty with JRM is that he is very good at saying what he is against - "no vassal state" for instance - but I have seen no evidence that he has come up with practical policies which work in the real world for what he wants to do.
So if Britain is not going to be a vassal state how exactly - and let's have some real practical answers - is it going to trade with the EU and what will that mean for supply chains in the food and car industry, for instance? And so on.
It is easy to say what one is against. Coming up with positive answers and policies is much harder.
For all of JRM's politeness and debating skills I have seen nothing to suggest that he has the first clue how to answer these questions. And if he can't he really has nothing - beyond his politeness and somewhat eccentric persona - to offer. And that simply is not good enough.
Really quite a moving PPB in my opinion, though probably too long for most viewers. Whether and how to link these issues to politics is a difficult question, but when the causes seem to be politicial somho you have to.
With all due respect, Nick, this may be a problem with the PPB. It moves you and probably a lot of other Labour people. But in doing that, I wonder if it is speaking to the voters that Labour needs to reach out to in order to win. There are many victims of government policy and they need to be helped, but in order for that to happen Labour has to be in power. That means reaching beyond its comfort zone and talking to those with aspirations, too. How will Labour help them and their families?
Presumably the thinking is (if thinking is the sort of thing they do at Lab HQ) that whereas previously, people accepted that Tories were nasty, but at least they knew how to run the economy, what with all this Brexit shenanigans, they don't appear to be able to run the economy any more so the focus can be solely on their nastiness.
Jacob Rees Mogg seems to make Tories feel good about themselves, just as Corbyn makes many Labour members feel good about themselves. For that reason, he - like Corbyn - is also going to be a very polarising figure.
Rees Mogg is a Tory who would force me into voting Labour in my marginal Labour constituency, just as I am sure there are many centrists who lean a little further to the right than me who will always vote Tory to keep Corbyn away from power.
My guess is that JRM v Corbyn would be a score draw, as would Johnson v Corbyn. If the Tories skip a generation and find a leader not too closely associated with their right flank and Brexit, the next election is theirs for the taking.
Skip the current generation and go for Ken Clarke?
I'd say give Johnny Mercer a couple of years in a government job and see if he can put some solid achievement next to his extraordinary back story. If he can, then you are looking at a very big majority. However, there are two obstacles: 1. May's sole focus is on ensuring her own position. 2. The Tory membership seems to be getting as fundamental as the Labour one.
Mr. 43, a religious belief is just an idea. Mocking an idea and mocking a living person are wildly different things. Furthermore, the concept an idea should be beyond question or satire because it's religious is to impose blasphemy laws on non-believers.
The right to free expression must always trump the right to never be offended or disagreed with.
Well said (and to Ms @Cyclefree as ever, on the same subject).
It’s why, as a Catholic, I wasn’t offended by Tim Minchin’s rude song about the Pope (now the Pope Emeritus). Sometimes extreme language needs to be used about practices like covering up sexual abuse, and of course it’s fair comment and free speech to mock someone for what they’ve done. I was more offended by the fact that my church had engaged in a coverup, than a comedian writing a rude song.
I wonder how many of those criticising the Church a decade ago are now standing up for Oxfam ‘because of all the good works they do’? Not acceptable then, and not acceptable now.
Well, I was criticising churches for the abuse and their cover-ups a decade ago, and still am today as stories continue to emerge. I also criticise Oxfam and other organisations whose processes have been (ahem) somewhat lax. Generally well-intentioned people have made big mistakes.
On the other hand, there are those who defend the churches and criticise Oxfam, which is equally wrong.
In the case of the churches, clergy and others saw children nominally in their care as 'lesser', and therefore open to abuse. Their seniors, in many cases non-abusers and thinking themselves good, moral people, saw the abusers as 'one of the family', and the abused as lessers. Criticism of abusive priests was criticism of the church, and that was a bad thing and to be prevented.
It appears that a similar thing went on within Oxfam. The abused were not the important people, and it mattered more to protect the organisation.
Fortunately nowadays it is becoming harder and harder to cover things up. Sadly, situations such as McAlpine or 'Nick' and the paedophile politicians story act as a negative counter.
I agree. People in the church and, it would appear, aid agencies were more concerned for the reputation of the organisation than dealing with crimes by their staff.
What I find even more shocking than the stories of abuse overseas are the allegations of abuse in Oxfam shops here in the UK. How on earth - if true - can this have been allowed to happen given all we have learnt about abuse in churches over the last decade or more? And how can reports about it have been ignored?
Is there a single policy area where JRM's views are against right wing orthodoxy? That to me is the sign of real intellectual ability - being willing to come to conclusions outside your own comfort zone.
Really quite a moving PPB in my opinion, though probably too long for most viewers. Whether and how to link these issues to politics is a difficult question, but when the causes seem to be politicial somho you have to.
With all due respect, Nick, this may be a problem with the PPB. It moves you and probably a lot of other Labour people. But in doing that, I wonder if it is speaking to the voters that Labour needs to reach out to in order to win. There are many victims of government policy and they need to be helped, but in order for that to happen Labour has to be in power. That means reaching beyond its comfort zone and talking to those with aspirations, too. How will Labour help them and their families?
Yes, there's a lot in that. I suppose my problem with the latter years of Tony and Gordon was that we focused so exclusively on winning that we rather forgot why we were trying to win, and one reason I like the current approach is that it redresses that balance.
Also, I think we too easily categorise people as sturdy strivers or suffering underclass or other broad groups and assume they lack interest in other groups. I know quite a few people who are very successful but still worry that society around them is crumbling and who would be moved by some of the conversations in the video. As IIRC Sean Fear has observed, even at a selfish level people who are well off don't want society to be so divided as to drive revolutionary change - and most people aren't only selfish either. The belief that a period of focus on the losers from the current system would be healthy is IMO quite widely shared, and some Conservatives who wouldn't want 15 years of Labour government wouldn't mind 5 years of it while the Tories sort themselves out.
Really quite a moving PPB in my opinion, though probably too long for most viewers. Whether and how to link these issues to politics is a difficult question, but when the causes seem to be politicial somho you have to.
You can't have lots of good things on the cheap, Nick. I agree.
But your Shadow Chancellor is promising all sorts of improvements and claiming that all of these can be paid for by taxing a few rich people. And this is simply not credible. If we want these good things all of us are going to have to pay more. Labour would gain more respect if it was honest on this point rather than pretending otherwise.
Mr. 43, a religious belief is just an idea. Mocking an idea and mocking a living person are wildly different things. Furthermore, the concept an idea should be beyond question or satire because it's religious is to impose blasphemy laws on non-believers.
The right to free expression must always trump the right to never be offended or disagreed with.
Well said (and to Ms @Cyclefree as ever, on the same subject).
It’s why, as a Catholic, I wasn’t offended by Tim Minchin’s rude song about the Pope (now the Pope Emeritus). Sometimes extreme language needs to be used about practices like covering up sexual abuse, and of course it’s fair comment and free speech to mock someone for what they’ve done. I was more offended by the fact that my church had engaged in a coverup, than a comedian writing a rude song.
I wonder how many of those criticising the Church a decade ago are now standing up for Oxfam ‘because of all the good works they do’? Not acceptable then, and not acceptable now.
Well, I was criticising churches for the abuse and their cover-ups a decade ago, and still am today as stories continue to emerge. I also criticise Oxfam and other organisations whose processes have been (ahem) somewhat lax. Generally well-intentioned people have made big mistakes.
On the other hand, there are those who defend the churches and criticise Oxfam, which is equally wrong.
In the case of the churches, clergy and others saw children nominally in their care as 'lesser', and therefore open to abuse. Their seniors, in many cases non-abusers and thinking themselves good, moral people, saw the abusers as 'one of the family', and the abused as lessers. Criticism of abusive priests was criticism of the church, and that was a bad thing and to be prevented.
It appears that a similar thing went on within Oxfam. The abused were not the important people, and it mattered more to protect the organisation.
Fortunately nowadays it is becoming harder and harder to cover things up. Sadly, situations such as McAlpine or 'Nick' and the paedophile politicians story act as a negative counter.
I think we are agreed that covering up abuse is wrong, all organisations now need to make it very public and clear that they will immediately report to police any allegations against individuals and let due process take its course - and not try and deal with these things internally.
It’s always the cover-up that gets you, surely we learned that with President Nixon?
Really quite a moving PPB in my opinion, though probably too long for most viewers. Whether and how to link these issues to politics is a difficult question, but when the causes seem to be politicial somho you have to.
With all due respect, Nick, this may be a problem with the PPB. It moves you and probably a lot of other Labour people. But in doing that, I wonder if it is speaking to the voters that Labour needs to reach out to in order to win. There are many victims of government policy and they need to be helped, but in order for that to happen Labour has to be in power. That means reaching beyond its comfort zone and talking to those with aspirations, too. How will Labour help them and their families?
Yes, there's a lot in that. I suppose my problem with the latter years of Tony and Gordon was that we focused so exclusively on winning that we rather forgot why we were trying to win, and one reason I like the current approach is that it redresses that balance.
Also, I think we too easily categorise people as sturdy strivers or suffering underclass or other broad groups and assume they lack interest in other groups. I know quite a few people who are very successful but still worry that society around them is crumbling and who would be moved by some of the conversations in the video. As IIRC Sean Fear has observed, even at a selfish level people who are well off don't want society to be so divided as to drive revolutionary change - and most people aren't only selfish either. The belief that a period of focus on the losers from the current system would be healthy is IMO quite widely shared, and some Conservatives who wouldn't want 15 years of Labour government wouldn't mind 5 years of it while the Tories sort themselves out.
Focusing on the losers is perfectly honourable. But see my previous comment.
Also one criticism of Labour that it needs to deal with is that its policies may not help the losers. Indeed, may make things worse for them. It would do Labour good if it actually tried to address these criticisms rather than waving them away.
Mr. 43, a religious belief is just an idea. Mocking an idea and mocking a living person are wildly different things. Furthermore, the concept an idea should be beyond question or satire because it's religious is to impose blasphemy laws on non-believers.
The right to free expression must always trump the right to never be offended or disagreed with.
Well said (and to Ms @Cyclefree as ever, on the same subject).
It’s why, as a Catholic, I wasn’t offended by Tim Minchin’s rude song about the Pope (now the Pope Emeritus). Sometimes extreme language needs to be used about practices like covering up sexual abuse, and of course it’s fair comment and free speech to mock someone for what they’ve done. I was more offended by the fact that my church had engaged in a coverup, than a comedian writing a rude song.
I wonder how many of those criticising the Church a decade ago are now standing up for Oxfam ‘because of all the good works they do’? Not acceptable then, and not acceptable now.
Well, I was criticising churches for the abuse and their cover-ups a decade ago, and still am today as stories continue to emerge. I also criticise Oxfam and other organisations whose processes have been (ahem) somewhat lax. Generally well-intentioned people have made big mistakes.
On the other hand, there are those who defend the churches and criticise Oxfam, which is equally wrong.
In the case of the churches, clergy and others saw children nominally in their care as 'lesser', and therefore open to abuse. Their seniors, in many cases non-abusers and thinking themselves good, moral people, saw the abusers as 'one of the family', and the abused as lessers. Criticism of abusive priests was criticism of the church, and that was a bad thing and to be prevented.
It appears that a similar thing went on within Oxfam. The abused were not the important people, and it mattered more to protect the organisation.
Fortunately nowadays it is becoming harder and harder to cover things up. Sadly, situations such as McAlpine or 'Nick' and the paedophile politicians story act as a negative counter.
I think we are agreed that covering up abuse is wrong, all organisations now need to make it very public and clear that they will immediately report to police any allegations against individuals and let due process take its course - and not try and deal with these things internally.
It’s always the cover-up that gets you, surely we learned that with President Nixon?
We learnt it. And immediately forgot it. Which is why it has had to be relearnt in every single scandal since.
Comments
On succession betting, my view has long been that his only chance is for Labour to open a big poll lead, as this would maximise Boris's USP as someone who wins elections against the odds (as Mayor of London and the EU referendum). In normal circumstances, Boris's well-founded reputation for fudging details -- as in yesterday's speech -- will mean he is unlikely to reach the last two.
Its perfectly possible to be a Catholic (or CofE, or Muslim, or Jew, etc) and be a good, moral and kind person. It's also possible to use the faith as an excuse to be bigoted, blind and immoral. To make matters worse, good moral followers of a faith can excuse the bigoted and blind followers because they are of the faith: witness all the church scandals we have seen.
As an example, a very religious (CofE) acquaintance once met a family whose child was dying. He made a connection between the child's illness and the fact the parents were not Christians, and added an extra shitness in saying: "They are not Christians. Pray for them."
Problems occur when people use their faith (or lack of) to treat others unfairly, usually because they see themselves as being morally superior: they are superior because they are of their beliefs, and others should submit to the dictats of that faith, even when they are not. Sadly, this pervades some followers of all religions.
Fortunately, most people of faith are not like that.
The Mogg article cited in that story is quite sufficient evidence of his doctrinaire position;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/10398635/Climate-change-alarmism-caused-our-high-energy-prices.html
Newspapers often sell on being against something, getting their readers annoyed or angry. "Everything's sh*t" sells. "Everything is great!" isn't necessarily a seller.
Thoughtful, analytical, unconventional, eccentric, not suitable for - or desiring of - ministerial office yes. A joke, no. He wants to be Speaker and there are very many who disagree with him on policy that think he would do a very good job of that. Heedoesnt want to be PM or LOTO
Incidentally, I should note your unfailing courtesy and respect for others' opinions on this board. An example to the rest of us.
The Pope has said that Europe's biggest political failing is the lack of solidarity and that its treatment of refugees is a stain on the continent. Rees Mogg will have known that teaching when he was the ONLY MP to vote to close a child refugee centre.
Nevertheless, I can see a very similar mistake being made as was to Corbyn - which perversely enough helps me to understand Corbyn's appeal better - which is that centrists hurling insults at him whilst doing nothing to enhance the appeal of their own platform is likely to do nothing more than drive up his vote.
As an aside, I never mentioned his schooling, but you seem obsessed by classifying people rather than judging them as individuals
As an aside, it might be an interesting historical counterfactual to consider how much better the likes of Clarke and Heseltine might have done in the Tory leadership stakes had they treated their eurosceptic opponents with respect, rather than being very rude about them.
LOL. No. Unless it's against useless people who think being born into money and going to Eton makes them superior...
He has been seen a joke: ISTR a picture of him was on HIGNFY with his son canvassing. I see no evidence he is 'thoughtful', or 'analytical'. He is certainly endearingly eccentric, and that's about all he has going for him. Sadly, that same quality hasn't proved enough for Boris so far.
"We say: it’s just a few bad apples, don’t play into the hands of aid sceptics. This won’t wash. It’s this sort of thinking that creates the culture of cover-up inside a charity: we’re basically good so why rock the boat? This is the thinking that lets abusive aid workers slide safely from agency to agency though everyone knows what they’ve done, just as public schools and parishes once passed perverts quietly on. Moral licence is a dreadful thing. Woe betide any organisation that thinks of itself as especially good. It’ll give itself leeway to behave in a terrible way."
Some on here might ponder on that. Worth reading the whole article - https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/02/why-we-keep-ignoring-ngo-sex-scandals/?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_content=170218_Weekly_Highlights_07_NONSUBS&utm_campaign=Weekly_Highlights
Mr. Smithson, just be careful if you ask for a harskarinna in Sweden.
In England more broadly, there is a lot of history there and Catholicism can be viewed by some as being politically suspect, implying potential split loyalties and even slightly unpatriotic, particularly for a leader who makes a big thing of it. Tony Blair kept it quiet until he left office for a reason. And the Succession Act also didn't change that in 2013-14 for a similar reason.
Of course, you can argue that in itself is bigoted. But I think it'd be foolish to deny it exists in certain quarters.
In general, "doing God" offers few electoral rewards regardless of what it is.
I'm afraid that Pope Francis was siding with another religion because, au fond, he would like religion to be somehow protected from inquiry or challenge. Catholic though I am, I fundamentally disagree with him on this point. If a religion cannot withstand vigorous - even insulting - challenge then it does not deserve to survive and a religion which seeks to shield itself from such challenge is not worthy of respect, but contempt.
On the refugees the Pope has a good point. It would be stronger if he had spoken for Christians who are facing appalling persecution in the Middle East, the land of the religion's birth, and if placed some pressure on governments in the West to let in Christian refugees who face genocide in their home countries. On that he has been somewhat silent - much like the Pope during WW2 with his elliptical references to Jewish suffering - and it is to his shame, I'm afraid.
You cannot blame someone for the school they were sent to, whether state, grammar or public. You can blame them if they let their schooling define them, and treat others who went to other schools as lesser in some way (as do some public school people with state, and state
school with public schools). That's what JRM evidently does with his 'potted plants' comment.
Cameron handed his Etonian past well, and tried to expand himself outside of it - not always successfully. I see no indication that JRM wants to do the same.
(For avoidance of doubt, I'd expect a politician who went to Bridlington Comp to expand out of their comfort zone, and see that people who went to grammar or public schools are not lesser or objects of ridicule).
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/cgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=40&LAB=40&LIB=9&UKIP=2&Green=2&NewLAB=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVUKIP=&TVGreen=&SCOTCON=28&SCOTLAB=28&SCOTLIB=7&SCOTUKIP=.2&SCOTGreen=.2&SCOTNAT=36&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2017
Corbyn PM.
It is notable that Biden is very much in demand for the midterm elections. For example...
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/07/biden-democrats-house-midterms-397632
Over reliance by left liberals on big urban centres rather than the provinces is more significant and was also seen here in the EU referendum where Leave won the popular vote by just 4% but 2/3 of UK constituencies
We've had precious little in the way of objective analysis aimed at understanding his appeal.
We've seen where dismissiveness and insults, without engaging with the arguments, has led before: voters think they are the ones being insulted, not the politician, who, in any event, if savvy, will refuse to lower himself to the level of his detractors.
Far too many Conservative politicians have simply lost the art of patiently and respectfully arguing their case from first principles, assuming all those battles are won, and all they need to do is follow public opinion and focus on building their careers.
That tells me there may be more in JRM's odds than initially meets the eye.
My wife (centrist and conservative leaning) gushes about JRM. And she isn't the only one.
I suspect it isn't unusual for Conservatives to go along with criticism of JRM from friends and family from the Left, in an effort to pursue civil discourse, whilst secretly admiring the cut of his jib.
Nothing wrong with any religion providing a PM. Indeed I would rather someone followed a strong moral code, but I view JRM's Catholicism as more than that. From what I understand (whenever I have met him we did not discuss religion) he is motivated by a pure, shall we say anachronistic version of Catholicism which I find unsettling.
Why do I find it unsettling? Because, not believing in god myself, I am unnerved when someone takes so literally the word of something that I believe springs from myth.
"BMG’s latest voting intention poll finds Labour and Conservatives neck and neck on 40% of the vote. Conducted between 6th and 9th February, the exclusive survey on behalf of the Independent represents a three-point increase for the Conservatives from our last publicly reported poll in December, with no change to Labour’s figures – all changes within the margin of error."
http://www.bmgresearch.co.uk/bmg-independent-conservatives-labour-neck-neck-latest-voting-intention-poll/
Rees Mogg is a Tory who would force me into voting Labour in my marginal Labour constituency, just as I am sure there are many centrists who lean a little further to the right than me who will always vote Tory to keep Corbyn away from power.
My guess is that JRM v Corbyn would be a score draw, as would Johnson v Corbyn. If the Tories skip a generation and find a leader not too closely associated with their right flank and Brexit, the next election is theirs for the taking.
JRM cuts through to focus groups, on Question Time, and in TV interviews. People listen to him respectfully, even if they disagree.
You should ask yourself why.
In the age of social media and TV talent voting shows, it is no surprise he is mentioned in focus groups.
None of this doesn't mean I don't take him seriously. Far from it. I'm increasingly of the view that he is the next leader.
The right to free expression must always trump the right to never be offended or disagreed with.
As the article states correctly, the Tories have a different (and better) way of electing a leader and MPs decide who makes the final two. Conservative MPs will make sure that Mogg is not in the final two. They know that Mogg would be electoral suicide.
Quite a big difference.
https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2018/02/13/pope-patriarch-says-mass-persecuted-christians-middle-east/
http://www.jpost.com/Christian-News/Pope-Francis-demands-end-to-genocide-of-Middle-East-Christians-408585
http://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/catholic/articles/pope-francis-and-mid-east-persecution.aspx
The Pope can only speak out and that is what he has done. if his words are not reported on in the UK or acted on more generally then that is not his fault.
Erudite, he certainly is, and no closed book either. I suspect he would listen to the other side and argue his point and we might agree to disagree but he would be receptive to a well-constructed contrary point of view.
I can see why he might make an excellent Speaker - being a Minister. let alone Prime Minister, demands other qualities and I'm less sure Rees-Mogg has those to the same quality. Until he's tested, we won't know.
While most of the Tory press will give JRM a much easier ride than they did TF, that won't be universal.
Whether JRM would be a good leader or PM is another matter, but he's undeniably a fresh wind, which quite a few of the potential May successors really are not.
And I say no to that. I will form my own view of your beliefs and say it how I like. And provided I don't incite violence I am and should be free to do so.
On the whole I think one should be try to be polite. But politeness is something freely given not demanded with threats and menaces. And if a religion demands that I be polite about it or else..... well my reaction is to be as rude about it as possible until it realises that it cannot threaten me. Only then will I be polite. I am damned if I'm going to be threatened into politeness.
It’s why, as a Catholic, I wasn’t offended by Tim Minchin’s rude song about the Pope (now the Pope Emeritus). Sometimes extreme language needs to be used about practices like covering up sexual abuse, and of course it’s fair comment and free speech to mock someone for what they’ve done. I was more offended by the fact that my church had engaged in a coverup, than a comedian writing a rude song.
I wonder how many of those criticising the Church a decade ago are now standing up for Oxfam ‘because of all the good works they do’? Not acceptable then, and not acceptable now.
https://labourlist.org/2018/02/watch-you-cant-have-community-safety-on-the-cheap-labours-new-party-political-broadcast/
On the other hand, there are those who defend the churches and criticise Oxfam, which is equally wrong.
In the case of the churches, clergy and others saw children nominally in their care as 'lesser', and therefore open to abuse. Their seniors, in many cases non-abusers and thinking themselves good, moral people, saw the abusers as 'one of the family', and the abused as lessers. Criticism of abusive priests was criticism of the church, and that was a bad thing and to be prevented.
It appears that a similar thing went on within Oxfam. The abused were not the important people, and it mattered more to protect the organisation.
Fortunately nowadays it is becoming harder and harder to cover things up. Sadly, situations such as McAlpine or 'Nick' and the paedophile politicians story act as a negative counter.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43062112
So if Britain is not going to be a vassal state how exactly - and let's have some real practical answers - is it going to trade with the EU and what will that mean for supply chains in the food and car industry, for instance? And so on.
It is easy to say what one is against. Coming up with positive answers and policies is much harder.
For all of JRM's politeness and debating skills I have seen nothing to suggest that he has the first clue how to answer these questions. And if he can't he really has nothing - beyond his politeness and somewhat eccentric persona - to offer. And that simply is not good enough.
1. May's sole focus is on ensuring her own position.
2. The Tory membership seems to be getting as fundamental as the Labour one.
What I find even more shocking than the stories of abuse overseas are the allegations of abuse in Oxfam shops here in the UK. How on earth - if true - can this have been allowed to happen given all we have learnt about abuse in churches over the last decade or more? And how can reports about it have been ignored?
Also, I think we too easily categorise people as sturdy strivers or suffering underclass or other broad groups and assume they lack interest in other groups. I know quite a few people who are very successful but still worry that society around them is crumbling and who would be moved by some of the conversations in the video. As IIRC Sean Fear has observed, even at a selfish level people who are well off don't want society to be so divided as to drive revolutionary change - and most people aren't only selfish either. The belief that a period of focus on the losers from the current system would be healthy is IMO quite widely shared, and some Conservatives who wouldn't want 15 years of Labour government wouldn't mind 5 years of it while the Tories sort themselves out.
You can't have lots of good things on the cheap, Nick. I agree.
But your Shadow Chancellor is promising all sorts of improvements and claiming that all of these can be paid for by taxing a few rich people. And this is simply not credible. If we want these good things all of us are going to have to pay more. Labour would gain more respect if it was honest on this point rather than pretending otherwise.
It’s always the cover-up that gets you, surely we learned that with President Nixon?
Focusing on the losers is perfectly honourable. But see my previous comment.
Also one criticism of Labour that it needs to deal with is that its policies may not help the losers. Indeed, may make things worse for them. It would do Labour good if it actually tried to address these criticisms rather than waving them away.