Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Strange Rise of Jacob Rees-Mogg

SystemSystem Posts: 11,006
edited September 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Strange Rise of Jacob Rees-Mogg

Of all the odd stories to have infected the Silly Season, none has been odder than the promotion of Jacob Rees-Mogg to be the next Leader of the Conservatives and, quite possibly along with it, Prime Minister. The oddness is not so much the story itself but the crossover into the betting markets. He is widely quoted at about 8/1 for the premiership, with only Paddy Power out on a limb at 18/1. Several firms have him as third favourite behind only Jeremy Corbyn and David Davis.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,961
    I thought it was the ultimate summer story.. far more suited to be Speaker than PM, IMO.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,187
    If he made it to the final two, I reckon the membership would vote for Mogg. But I can't see him making it unless another candidate (wrongly) calculated that they'd rather face him than someone else.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited September 2017
    The rise of Mogg is not unrelated to his strength and unshakeable belief in Brexit. This may come from the same roots as his political Catholicism.

    Mogg is a true believer who is intelligent and articulate as well as charming enough to argue his case. He is one of the few Brexiteers willing to appear in the media and defend it, without come across as ill informed or bigoted on the issues.

    Others either dodge the limelight, are tainted by the campaign (BoJo and his bus) or descend into a pit of alt.right hatefulness. Mogg is that rarity, a Brexiteer with positive vision willing to argue politely with opponents, even when holding unpopular views.

    I put some money on Mogg for next leader at 28/1 when my uncle on the Isle of Wight came out for him.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,187
    Excellent piece btw, thank you David. One other thing I'd add is that Mogg is a very accomplished TV performer. I always think there's a tendency to look for someone who is the antithesis of the current leader in some respects. May was very much a change from the posh boy and Mogg would very much be a change from the wooden May.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    It's a question for psychiatrists why the Tories have this penchant for looking for leaders among the 'upper class twits of the year'. Earlier on it was the even more qualified Graham Brady. Few of them make it but it tells us a lot about the psyche of Tory members and the way they see their voters that despite some heroic attempts at modernising they're still at it.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSqkdcT25ss
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    The rise of Mogg is not unrelated to his strength and unshakeable belief in Brexit. This may come from the same roots as his political Catholicism.

    Both are articles of faith. Both promise a future paradise. Both are devoid of any physical evidence or proof. Both cause pain and suffering for millions.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,961
    edited September 2017
    Scott_P said:

    The rise of Mogg is not unrelated to his strength and unshakeable belief in Brexit. This may come from the same roots as his political Catholicism.

    Both are articles of faith. Both promise a future paradise. Both are devoid of any physical evidence or proof. Both cause pain and suffering for millions.
    Pain and suffering? Not even the treasury went that far...
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,754
    Scott_P said:

    The rise of Mogg is not unrelated to his strength and unshakeable belief in Brexit. This may come from the same roots as his political Catholicism.

    Both are articles of faith. Both promise a future paradise. Both are devoid of any physical evidence or proof. Both cause pain and suffering for millions.
    now youve got it in for catholics ?
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Roger said:

    It's a question for psychiatrists why the Tories have this penchant for looking for leaders among the 'upper class twits of the year'. Earlier on it was the even more qualified Graham Brady. Few of them make it but it tells us a lot about the psyche of Tory members and the way they see their voters that despite some heroic attempts at modernising they're still at it.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSqkdcT25ss

    Well done roger, I hadn't seen that in years. One thing about British life that I find depressing is the persistance of such privilege. In the Seventies the aristocracy were rightly mocked and seen as curious historical relics. It dismays me that far from fading into well deserved obscurity, such folk keep their wealth.

    A taxation policy that made Aristocratic tax dodging a target, as well as the tax dodging of our new digital elite, would be a great improvement to the country. Bryant's new book looks to be of interest, concerning how the upper class twits shapeshift into new ways.

    https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/sep/07/how-the-aristocracy-preserved-their-power?CMP=share_btn_tw

    I like this 18th Century quote that he cites:

    "What is’t to us, if taxes rise or fall,
    Thanks to our fortune, we pay none at all."
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,961
    Scott_P said:

    twitter.com/petermannionmp/status/906392619181334528

    Interesting is the right word.
  • Options
    Jacob Rees-Mogg stole Boris's act. He is on telly a lot, charismatic and funny, and until last week appeared to hold no firm views on any subject at all. He is like Boris used to be when the blond bombshell amused the nation on HIGNFY and other programmes. Indeed, JRM seems to have inherited much of Boris's support now the Foreign Secretary is a busted flush. He will not be leader.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited September 2017
    Scott_P said:

    The rise of Mogg is not unrelated to his strength and unshakeable belief in Brexit. This may come from the same roots as his political Catholicism.

    Both are articles of faith. Both promise a future paradise. Both are devoid of any physical evidence or proof. Both cause pain and suffering for millions.
    I wouldn't go that far, at least not on Catholicism...

    The same unquestioning faith underlies his zealotry for both, and his willingness to defend them. Any devout person is shaped by their faith in the way they interact. It is perhaps ironic that he insists on Sovereignty for Britain, yet believes in a single Apostalic Catholic Church, which is perhaps the world's oldest surviving transnational organisation to impinge on our sovereignty. I suppose the internationalism of the Catholic Church is over ridden by its defence of privilege and the established order.

  • Options
    Good morning, everyone.

    He's certainly an interesting figure. I do wonder what the PCP wants, though.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,961

    Good morning, everyone.

    He's certainly an interesting figure. I do wonder what the PCP wants, though.

    Margaret :p
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Scott_P said:
    Yes, he seems to have swallowed the whole "Brideshead Revisited" schtick in the eighties, and modelled himself consciously on the Flytes.

    We have heard his comments on abortion and same sex marriage, but his views on Protestant heresies, let alone other religionsmay well prove even more controversial.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,843
    edited September 2017
    Morning all, and disappointed to have missed the excellent previous thread on the zombie apocalypse!

    On topic, JRM is the product of wishful thinking, he’s not remotely interested in leading his party. Would make a good Speaker though. As always with next Con leader and PM markets, the best strategy is to lay whoever is in the news this week.

    I disagree with Mr Herdson that this was the oddest of the silly season stories though, surely that was the extraordinary emotional breakdown of James Champan? Is his protest still on today, or are they all going to end up at Lord’s instead?
  • Options
    What is a squit anyway? I suppose the Guardian will enlighten us.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,153

    Roger said:

    One thing about British life that I find depressing is the persistance of such privilege. In the Seventies the aristocracy were rightly mocked and seen as curious historical relics. It dismays me that far from fading into well deserved obscurity, such folk keep their wealth.

    A taxation policy that made Aristocratic tax dodging a target, as well as the tax dodging of our new digital elite, would be a great improvement to the country. Bryant's new book looks to be of interest, concerning how the upper class twits shapeshift into new ways.

    JRM is not an aristocrat. I've no idea whether he is a twit or not. He is polite and comes across well on television in that he does not lose his cool and speaks in sentences. That is probably a reflection on the fact that so many other politicians seem both incoherent of speech and incapable of thought. His political views are of an old-fashioned Conservatism but not so far out of the mainstream of Conservatism as those frothing about him seem to think. He seems decent enough, as far as one can tell.

    I do not see him as a future leader for the reasons David has suggested.

    The main reason people appear to dislike him is because he is so obviously old-fashioned - his clothes/nanny etc - and verges on the eccentric in being so. He is unapologetic about this, which makes a refreshing change. I prefer someone who glories in always wearing suits and not changing a nappy and who is authentic about this than someone pretending to like football and go to pubs when they clearly don't. There is nothing wrong with him being happily married and having a large family nor with being a devout Catholic. This last point should not need saying but apparently does. This says more about Britain and a level of intolerance it has to anyone not sharing received opinion than it does about JRM.

    His views about abortion and about marriage being a sacrament between a man and a woman are standard Catholic doctrine. He is entitled to believe this and, since he has said that such matters should be subject to a free vote like all matters of morality and should not be changed other than as the majority of the country want, this is perfectly consistent with being a democrat.

    Otherwise we come perilously close to saying that Catholics (and members of other religions sharing similar views) should have no role in public life. Not very tolerant or liberal and far more dangerous to our polity and society than anything JRM has said.

  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,153
    FWIW I am a Catholic. I am fine with gay marriage. I think my church has got it wrong on this. Gay people are made in the image of God just like everyone else and their love is no less sacred and worthy than the love between men and women. I hope in time the church will realise this. I could not have an abortion myself but sometimes it is the lesser of two evils: rape and incest are the obvious examples so I disagree with JRM on this. What other women do is for them. Abortion should be legal, safe and, ideally, rare i.e. not in the sense of making it harder but that it should not be necessary because of the availability of alternatives.

  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,811
    Roger said:

    It's a question for psychiatrists why the Tories have this penchant for looking for leaders among the 'upper class twits of the year'. Earlier on it was the even more qualified Graham Brady. Few of them make it but it tells us a lot about the psyche of Tory members and the way they see their voters that despite some heroic attempts at modernising they're still at it.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSqkdcT25ss

    It is impossible to work out the mindset of Tories, they seem hellbent on doffing their caps and picking useless thick toffs to be their leader.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    edited September 2017
    malcolmg said:

    It is impossible to work out the mindset of Tories, they seem hellbent on doffing their caps and picking useless thick toffs to be their leader.

    Like Jeremy Corbyn...
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,811
    Scott_P said:

    malcolmg said:

    It is impossible to work out the mindset of Tories, they seem hellbent on doffing their caps and picking useless thick toffs to be their leader.

    Like Jeremy Corbyn...
    Is Corbyn leading the Tory party as well nowadays
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    malcolmg said:

    Is Corbyn leading the Tory party as well nowadays

    No. That was my point.
  • Options
    Rees-Mogg's guiding principles are clear: people like him deserve the wealth and privileges they were born with, and nothing should be done to put them in peril.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,153

    Scott_P said:

    The rise of Mogg is not unrelated to his strength and unshakeable belief in Brexit. This may come from the same roots as his political Catholicism.

    Both are articles of faith. Both promise a future paradise. Both are devoid of any physical evidence or proof. Both cause pain and suffering for millions.
    I wouldn't go that far, at least not on Catholicism...

    The same unquestioning faith underlies his zealotry for both, and his willingness to defend them. Any devout person is shaped by their faith in the way they interact. It is perhaps ironic that he insists on Sovereignty for Britain, yet believes in a single Apostalic Catholic Church, which is perhaps the world's oldest surviving transnational organisation to impinge on our sovereignty. I suppose the internationalism of the Catholic Church is over ridden by its defence of privilege and the established order.

    In what way, exactly, does the Catholic Church impinge on the sovereignty of Britain?

    Indeed, in what way does it defend the established order in Britain? Catholics are - uniquely - the only ones among the established order's subjects legally incapable of being the sovereign. Catholicism in this country has been seen as the "Italian mission to the Irish" and has largely found its adherents amongst immigrant communities and the marginalised. Brideshead was a novel. It does not reflect the reality of Catholicism today - let alone when it was written.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,153

    Rees-Mogg's guiding principles are clear: people like him deserve the wealth and privileges they were born with, and nothing should be done to put them in peril.

    He's not the only one to think like that. Pretty much everyone with a house thinks that they deserve what they've got and nothing should be done to put their assets in peril.

    See the reaction to the "dementia tax" for instance.
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    RobD said:

    Scott_P said:

    The rise of Mogg is not unrelated to his strength and unshakeable belief in Brexit. This may come from the same roots as his political Catholicism.

    Both are articles of faith. Both promise a future paradise. Both are devoid of any physical evidence or proof. Both cause pain and suffering for millions.
    Pain and suffering? Not even the treasury went that far...
    Against condoms in AIDs ridden countries for example. Hoarding of wealth in the Vatican whilst the poor starve. They've been running this scam for centuries.

    Papery is a thinly veiled mafia racket - with a peadophile ring as a side business.

    It's followers should rightly be mocked.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,843
    edited September 2017
    Cyclefree said:

    There is nothing wrong with him being happily married and having a large family nor with being a devout Catholic. This last point should not need saying but apparently does. This says more about Britain and a level of intolerance it has to anyone not sharing received opinion than it does about JRM.

    His views about abortion and about marriage being a sacrament between a man and a woman are standard Catholic doctrine. He is entitled to believe this and, since he has said that such matters should be subject to a free vote like all matters of morality and should not be changed other than as the majority of the country want, this is perfectly consistent with being a democrat.

    Otherwise we come perilously close to saying that Catholics (and members of other religions sharing similar views) should have no role in public life. Not very tolerant or liberal and far more dangerous to our polity and society than anything JRM has said.

    Very well said.

    Perhaps the worst example of this intolerance was the forced closure of the Catholic adoption agencies, who cared for some of the most vulnerable women and children in society, finding good homes for children who would otherwise have spend their formative years as a burden on the state.

    Dare I suggest that if they had been run by a different religion they wouldn’t have been shut down.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited September 2017
    Cyclefree said:

    FWIW I am a Catholic. I am fine with gay marriage. I think my church has got it wrong on this. Gay people are made in the image of God just like everyone else and their love is no less sacred and worthy than the love between men and women. I hope in time the church will realise this. I could not have an abortion myself but sometimes it is the lesser of two evils: rape and incest are the obvious examples so I disagree with JRM on this. What other women do is for them. Abortion should be legal, safe and, ideally, rare i.e. not in the sense of making it harder but that it should not be necessary because of the availability of alternatives.

    I am not opposed to religious people of any faith being active in political life, but the cross that we religious people have to bear is that many of these values are out of sync with the mainstream of British politics. The treatment of Fallon in the election is good evidence of that. My own religious views on the iniquity of usury* and opposition to war and the arms trade would make me unelectable.

    Many believers are out of line with the formal teachings of their church, perhaps even a majority of Catholics on some of the issues that you mention, and of course contraception. We should be quite tolerant of that, including the Muslims amongst us. They are like Catholics certainly not unified. The organisational structure and political history of Catholicism, including contemporary times is one of organised misogyny, and supportive of entrenched privilege. Political Catholicism is like political Islamism something that I oppose. I believe in seperation of Church and State.

    I do not object to Mogg because of his Catholicism, but rather to his politics. I imagine that a conversation with him would be very agreeable, as he seems to marshall arguments well and is unfailingly polite.

    *usury is something that was once opposed by the Christian Church, and still has relavence today. It needs to be revisited.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,811
    Scott_P said:

    malcolmg said:

    Is Corbyn leading the Tory party as well nowadays

    No. That was my point.
    Bit early for deep thinking Scott, went right over my head
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,811
    Sandpit said:

    Cyclefree said:

    There is nothing wrong with him being happily married and having a large family nor with being a devout Catholic. This last point should not need saying but apparently does. This says more about Britain and a level of intolerance it has to anyone not sharing received opinion than it does about JRM.

    His views about abortion and about marriage being a sacrament between a man and a woman are standard Catholic doctrine. He is entitled to believe this and, since he has said that such matters should be subject to a free vote like all matters of morality and should not be changed other than as the majority of the country want, this is perfectly consistent with being a democrat.

    Otherwise we come perilously close to saying that Catholics (and members of other religions sharing similar views) should have no role in public life. Not very tolerant or liberal and far more dangerous to our polity and society than anything JRM has said.

    Very well said.

    Perhaps the worst example of this intolerance was the forced closure of the Catholic adoption agencies, who cared for some of the most vulnerable women and children in society, finding good homes for children who would otherwise have spend their formative years as a burden on the state.

    Dare I suggest that if they had been run by a different religion they wouldn’t have been shut down.
    Hmmm , from what I remember they shut themselves down because they did not want to follow government rules as they think they are above any local laws etc.
  • Options
    Mr. G, but who benefited? There were no more children for gay couples wishing to adopt. There were fewer opportunities for straight couples to adopt. There were fewer children who found their way to loving families.

    Nothing was gained and much good was lost. That is not the sign of a well-considered law working as it should.
  • Options

    What is a squit anyway? I suppose the Guardian will enlighten us.

    No -- apparently the Guardian thinks its readers are already familiar with public school slang.

    The article is poor, neither enlightening nor amusing.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,754

    Cyclefree said:

    FWIW I am a Catholic. I am fine with gay marriage. I think my church has got it wrong on this. Gay people are made in the image of God just like everyone else and their love is no less sacred and worthy than the love between men and women. I hope in time the church will realise this. I could not have an abortion myself but sometimes it is the lesser of two evils: rape and incest are the obvious examples so I disagree with JRM on this. What other women do is for them. Abortion should be legal, safe and, ideally, rare i.e. not in the sense of making it harder but that it should not be necessary because of the availability of alternatives.

    I am not opposed to religious people of any faith being active in political life, but the cross that we religious people have to bear is that many of these values are out of sync with the mainstream of British politics. The treatment of Fallon in the election is good evidence of that. My own religious views on the iniquity of usury* and opposition to war and the arms trade would make me unelectable.

    Many believers are out of line with the formal teachings of their church, perhaps even a majority of Catholics on some of the issues that you mention, and of course contraception. We should be quite tolerant of that, including the Muslims amongst us. They are like Catholics certainly not unified. The organisational structure and political history of Catholicism, including contemporary times is one of organised misogyny, and supportive of entrenched privilege. Political Catholicism is like political Islamism something that I oppose. I believe in seperation of Church and State.

    I do not object to Mogg because of his Catholicism, but rather to his politics. I imagine that a conversation with him would be very agreeable, as he seems to marshall arguments well and is unfailingly polite.

    *usury is something that was once opposed by the Christian Church, and still has relavence today. It needs to be revisited.
    My own religious views on the iniquity of usury* and opposition to war and the arms trade would make me unelectable.

    youre just in the wrong party
  • Options
    Protectionism under the guise of national security means Americans must stop using Russian software, and vice versa.
    https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/09/08/best_buy_yanks_kaspersky_software/
  • Options
    PeterCPeterC Posts: 1,274

    Scott_P said:
    Yes, he seems to have swallowed the whole "Brideshead Revisited" schtick in the eighties, and modelled himself consciously on the Flytes.

    We have heard his comments on abortion and same sex marriage, but his views on Protestant heresies, let alone other religionsmay well prove even more controversial.
    Not Sebastian, surely. Bridey, definitely.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_P said:

    The rise of Mogg is not unrelated to his strength and unshakeable belief in Brexit. This may come from the same roots as his political Catholicism.

    Both are articles of faith. Both promise a future paradise. Both are devoid of any physical evidence or proof. Both cause pain and suffering for millions.
    I wouldn't go that far, at least not on Catholicism...

    The same unquestioning faith underlies his zealotry for both, and his willingness to defend them. Any devout person is shaped by their faith in the way they interact. It is perhaps ironic that he insists on Sovereignty for Britain, yet believes in a single Apostalic Catholic Church, which is perhaps the world's oldest surviving transnational organisation to impinge on our sovereignty. I suppose the internationalism of the Catholic Church is over ridden by its defence of privilege and the established order.

    In what way, exactly, does the Catholic Church impinge on the sovereignty of Britain?

    Indeed, in what way does it defend the established order in Britain? Catholics are - uniquely - the only ones among the established order's subjects legally incapable of being the sovereign. Catholicism in this country has been seen as the "Italian mission to the Irish" and has largely found its adherents amongst immigrant communities and the marginalised. Brideshead was a novel. It does not reflect the reality of Catholicism today - let alone when it was written.
    We broke with Rome in the reformation over the soveignty of British laws, and for British interpretation of Christian teaching. This was the Brexit of the 16th Century. I am not suggesting that the Catholic Church is now impinging on our sovereignty, nor would I want it to.

    Moggs Catholicism is of an older strand of English recusantism than the nineteenth and twentieth century Irish migration. The more recent oppressed Catholics here and perhaps the most active churchgoers are of course the 21th Century migrants from Eastern and Southern Europe.

    Broadly, High Anglicanism and Catholicism are the religions of the establishment, as far as the Establishment has any religion over its own belief in its right to rule. I agree that most active Catholics, like most Nonconformist Protestants sit outside that inner circle.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    PeterC said:

    Scott_P said:
    Yes, he seems to have swallowed the whole "Brideshead Revisited" schtick in the eighties, and modelled himself consciously on the Flytes.

    We have heard his comments on abortion and same sex marriage, but his views on Protestant heresies, let alone other religionsmay well prove even more controversial.
    Not Sebastian, surely. Bridey, definitely.
    I agree.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,843
    edited September 2017
    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cyclefree said:

    There is nothing wrong with him being happily married and having a large family nor with being a devout Catholic. This last point should not need saying but apparently does. This says more about Britain and a level of intolerance it has to anyone not sharing received opinion than it does about JRM.

    His views about abortion and about marriage being a sacrament between a man and a woman are standard Catholic doctrine. He is entitled to believe this and, since he has said that such matters should be subject to a free vote like all matters of morality and should not be changed other than as the majority of the country want, this is perfectly consistent with being a democrat.

    Otherwise we come perilously close to saying that Catholics (and members of other religions sharing similar views) should have no role in public life. Not very tolerant or liberal and far more dangerous to our polity and society than anything JRM has said.

    Very well said.

    Perhaps the worst example of this intolerance was the forced closure of the Catholic adoption agencies, who cared for some of the most vulnerable women and children in society, finding good homes for children who would otherwise have spend their formative years as a burden on the state.

    Dare I suggest that if they had been run by a different religion they wouldn’t have been shut down.
    Hmmm , from what I remember they shut themselves down because they did not want to follow government rules as they think they are above any local laws etc.
    Some closed themselves, some severed links with the Catholic Church and became basically state funded, while others fought on and were eventually shut down by the Charity Commission.
    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/apr/26/catholic-adoption-agency-gay-lesbian

    Personally I think the intolerance of people who were trying to do good in society went too far, a good friend of mine used to volunteer for one and they gave huge amounts of support to a lot of teenage girls, who for whatever reason had been abandoned by their families in their greatest hour of need.
  • Options
    Cyclefree said:

    Rees-Mogg's guiding principles are clear: people like him deserve the wealth and privileges they were born with, and nothing should be done to put them in peril.

    He's not the only one to think like that. Pretty much everyone with a house thinks that they deserve what they've got and nothing should be done to put their assets in peril.

    See the reaction to the "dementia tax" for instance.

    Yep, I agree. Rees-Mogg's authenticity lies in the fact that he happily makes clear that his guiding philosophy is all about preserving wealth and privilege. The one jarring note is his strange insistence he is not a member of the establishment elite.

  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,153

    Cyclefree said:



    I am not opposed to religious people of any faith being active in political life, but the cross that we religious people have to bear is that many of these values are out of sync with the mainstream of British politics. The treatment of Fallon in the election is good evidence of that. My own religious views on the iniquity of usury* and opposition to war and the arms trade would make me unelectable.

    Many believers are out of line with the formal teachings of their church, perhaps even a majority of Catholics on some of the issues that you mention, and of course contraception. We should be quite tolerant of that, including the Muslims amongst us. They are like Catholics certainly not unified. The organisational structure and political history of Catholicism, including contemporary times is one of organised misogyny, and supportive of entrenched privilege. Political Catholicism is like political Islamism something that I oppose. I believe in seperation of Church and State.

    I do not object to Mogg because of his Catholicism, but rather to his politics. I imagine that a conversation with him would be very agreeable, as he seems to marshall arguments well and is unfailingly polite.

    *usury is something that was once opposed by the Christian Church, and still has relavence today. It needs to be revisited.
    I would not vote for JRM's politics. But he is not being criticised for that but for his style and for his religion. The treatment of Farron was a disgrace. There was nothing remotely liberal about it.

    There is not and should not be one "received opinion" in a country. I too believe in separation of church and state. We do not have an issue with political Catholicism in this country. Islam is more of a risk to our secular society because it does not recognise separation of religion from political life (no "render unto Caesar"). But as you say there is a variety of opinion amongst Muslims and they too are entitled to believe what they want and play a role in public life, as many do. And so it should be in a liberal society.

    But I dislike intensely this hounding of anyone who does not share majority opinion. We would do well to remember that majority opinion changes - look at what majority opinion was 40 years ago - and can change again from what we think is right now. What is the majority now might become a minority in future. We'll want some tolerance then. So best extend it to minority/unpopular views now.
  • Options
    F1: still no McLaren announcement. It was expected Monday or Tuesday and the deal may well have been signed. This suggests Honda may end up being forced out of F1 because nobody (specifically, Toro Rosso) wants their engines. Not a good look.
  • Options

    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_P said:

    The rise of Mogg is not unrelated to his strength and unshakeable belief in Brexit. This may come from the same roots as his political Catholicism.

    Both are articles of faith. Both promise a future paradise. Both are devoid of any physical evidence or proof. Both cause pain and suffering for millions.
    I wouldn't go that far, at least not on Catholicism...

    The same unquestioning faith underlies his zealotry for both, and his willingness to defend them. Any devout person is shaped by their faith in the way they interact. It is perhaps ironic that he insists on Sovereignty for Britain, yet believes in a single Apostalic Catholic Church, which is perhaps the world's oldest surviving transnational organisation to impinge on our sovereignty. I suppose the internationalism of the Catholic Church is over ridden by its defence of privilege and the established order.

    In what way, exactly, does the Catholic Church impinge on the sovereignty of Britain?

    Indeed, in what way does it defend the established order in Britain? Catholics are - uniquely - the only ones among the established order's subjects legally incapable of being the sovereign. Catholicism in this country has been seen as the "Italian mission to the Irish" and has largely found its adherents amongst immigrant communities and the marginalised. Brideshead was a novel. It does not reflect the reality of Catholicism today - let alone when it was written.
    We broke with Rome in the reformation over the soveignty of British laws, and for British interpretation of Christian teaching. This was the Brexit of the 16th Century. I am not suggesting that the Catholic Church is now impinging on our sovereignty, nor would I want it to.

    Moggs Catholicism is of an older strand of English recusantism than the nineteenth and twentieth century Irish migration. The more recent oppressed Catholics here and perhaps the most active churchgoers are of course the 21th Century migrants from Eastern and Southern Europe.

    Broadly, High Anglicanism and Catholicism are the religions of the establishment, as far as the Establishment has any religion over its own belief in its right to rule. I agree that most active Catholics, like most Nonconformist Protestants sit outside that inner circle.

    Yep, there has long been a part of the English elite that looks to Rome. They tend to send their boys to Ampleforth, so Rees-Mogg is slightly unusual in being an Old Etonian.

  • Options
    MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,936
    I thoroughly agree with you about Raab, David. And the fact that a known left-leaning eeyore of this parish doesn't like the idea of him makes him all the better choice, in my mind....
  • Options

    What is a squit anyway? I suppose the Guardian will enlighten us.

    No -- apparently the Guardian thinks its readers are already familiar with public school slang.

    The article is poor, neither enlightening nor amusing.
    I'm inclined to agree. I like Marina Hyde. She can be devastatingly funny, but this was not one of her better efforts.
  • Options
    MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,936
    edited September 2017

    Rees-Mogg's guiding principles are clear: people like him deserve the wealth and privileges they were born with, and nothing should be done to put them in peril.

    Very irresponsible of people to disparage the wealthy who go into public service.

    Be careful what you wish for.

  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,153
    Sandpit said:

    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cyclefree said:

    There is nothing wrong with him being happily married and having a large family nor with being a devout Catholic. This last point should not need saying but apparently does. This says more about Britain and a level of intolerance it has to anyone not sharing received opinion than it does about JRM.

    His views about abortion and about marriage being a sacrament between a man and a woman are standard Catholic doctrine. He is entitled to believe this and, since he has said that such matters should be subject to a free vote like all matters of morality and should not be changed other than as the majority of the country want, this is perfectly consistent with being a democrat.

    Otherwise we come perilously close to saying that Catholics (and members of other religions sharing similar views) should have no role in public life. Not very tolerant or liberal and far more dangerous to our polity and society than anything JRM has said.

    Very well said.

    Perhaps the worst example of this intolerance was the forced closure of the Catholic adoption agencies, who cared for some of the most vulnerable women and children in society, finding good homes for children who would otherwise have spend their formative years as a burden on the state.

    Dare I suggest that if they had been run by a different religion they wouldn’t have been shut down.
    Hmmm , from what I remember they shut themselves down because they did not want to follow government rules as they think they are above any local laws etc.
    Some closed themselves, some severed links with the Catholic Church and became basically state funded, while others fought on and were eventually shut down by the Charity Commission.

    Personally I think the intolerance of people who were trying to do good in society went too far, a good friend of mine used to volunteer for one and they gave huge amounts of support to a lot of teenage girls, who for whatever reason had been abandoned by their families in their greatest hour of need.
    There was an obvious compromise: to allow them to continue doing their work but require them to refer any gay couples to other adoption agencies. Why that wasn't adopted I don't know. We permitted exceptions to the laws on motorcycle helmets for Sikhs and do not require Catholic doctors or nurses to perform abortions and, when conscription was in place, pacifists were also granted exemptions.

    There is a worrying tendency in recent years to insist not just that people must tolerate what they don't like or approve of (fair enough) but must positively approve of what they don't like or must think in the same way. This is not tolerance. It is illiberal and potentially oppressive.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,843

    F1: still no McLaren announcement. It was expected Monday or Tuesday and the deal may well have been signed. This suggests Honda may end up being forced out of F1 because nobody (specifically, Toro Rosso) wants their engines. Not a good look.

    F1 journo Joe Saward also makes the point that Honda are a publically traded company, so need to make formal announcements to the Tokyo stock exchange in short order where there is a material change in their business - such as pulling out of F1.

    I noted that Ross Brawn was in the McLrean-Renault meeting at Monza last week, so my guess would be that he is working behind the scenes to get a Honda-STR deal together to avoid the loss of face (and bad signals it would give to other potential manufacturers) Honda would suffer by pulling out of F1.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    I really don't understand what people mean by saying he is 'authenic'. He chose a persona probably at Eton and has honed it as a performance art ever since This isn't uncommon at public schools where conformity is demanded. For exhibitionists like JRM or Boris it's often he only way to get noticed without any recognisable talent as a sportsman or thespian. In the exhibitionist stakes I've got more respect for the authenticity of Jade goody.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,754
    Roger said:

    I really don't understand what people mean by saying he is 'authenic'. He chose a persona probably at Eton and has honed it as a performance art ever since This isn't uncommon at public schools where conformity is demanded. For exhibitionists like JRM or Boris it's often he only way to get noticed without any recognisable talent as a sportsman or thespian. In the exhibitionist stakes I've got more respect for the authenticity of Jade goody.

    so where do you put Grayson Perry ?
  • Options
    Miss Cyclefree, much easier to bash Christianity than other religions. They never got around to inventing a phobia for people who question or ridicule their faith.

    Mr. Sandpit, agree entirely. But the fact nothing's been said when there was a lot of trailing for an announcement during the week indicates a sticky situation.
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Sandpit said:

    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cyclefree said:

    There is nothing wrong with him being happily married and having a large family nor with being a devout Catholic. This last point should not need saying but apparently does. This says more about Britain and a level of intolerance it has to anyone not sharing received opinion than it does about JRM.

    His views about abortion and about marriage being a sacrament between a man and a woman are standard Catholic doctrine. He is entitled to believe this and, since he has said that such matters should be subject to a free vote like all matters of morality and should not be changed other than as the majority of the country want, this is perfectly consistent with being a democrat.

    Otherwise we come perilously close to saying that Catholics (and members of other religions sharing similar views) should have no role in public life. Not very tolerant or liberal and far more dangerous to our polity and society than anything JRM has said.

    Very well said.

    Perhaps the worst example of this intolerance was the forced closure of the Catholic adoption agencies, who cared for some of the most vulnerable women and children in society, finding good homes for children who would otherwise have spend their formative years as a burden on the state.

    Dare I suggest that if they had been run by a different religion they wouldn’t have been shut down.
    Hmmm , from what I remember they shut themselves down because they did not want to follow government rules as they think they are above any local laws etc.
    Some closed themselves, some severed links with the Catholic Church and became basically state funded, while others fought on and were eventually shut down by the Charity Commission.
    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/apr/26/catholic-adoption-agency-gay-lesbian

    Personally I think the intolerance of people who were trying to do good in society went too far, a good friend of mine used to volunteer for one and they gave huge amounts of support to a lot of teenage girls, who for whatever reason had been abandoned by their families in their greatest hour of need.
    Yes, curse those gay couples wanting to give a child a family.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,795
    Cyclefree said:

    Sandpit said:

    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cyclefree said:

    There is nothing wrong with him being happily married and having a large family nor with being a devout Catholic. This last point should not need saying but apparently does. This says more about Britain and a level of intolerance it has to anyone not sharing received opinion than it does about JRM.

    Otherwise we come perilously close to saying that Catholics (and members of other religions sharing similar views) should have no role in public life. Not very tolerant or liberal and far more dangerous to our polity and society than anything JRM has said.

    Very well said.

    Perhaps the worst example of this intolerance was the forced closure of the Catholic adoption agencies, who cared for some of the most vulnerable women and children in society, finding good homes for children who would otherwise have spend their formative years as a burden on the state.

    Dare I suggest that if they had been run by a different religion they wouldn’t have been shut down.
    Hmmm , from what I remember they shut themselves down because they did not want to follow government rules as they think they are above any local laws etc.
    Some closed themselves, some severed links with the Catholic Church and became basically state funded, while others fought on and were eventually shut down by the Charity Commission.

    Personally I think the intolerance of people who were trying to do good in society went too far, a good friend of mine used to volunteer for one and they gave huge amounts of support to a lot of teenage girls, who for whatever reason had been abandoned by their families in their greatest hour of need.
    There was an obvious compromise: to allow them to continue doing their work but require them to refer any gay couples to other adoption agencies. Why that wasn't adopted I don't know. We permitted exceptions to the laws on motorcycle helmets for Sikhs and do not require Catholic doctors or nurses to perform abortions and, when conscription was in place, pacifists were also granted exemptions.

    There is a worrying tendency in recent years to insist not just that people must tolerate what they don't like or approve of (fair enough) but must positively approve of what they don't like or must think in the same way. This is not tolerance. It is illiberal and potentially oppressive.
    It was very much a case of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. People performing a useful piece of charitable work, at the expense of Catholic donors, were prevented from doing so, for no pressing reason.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,153

    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_P said:

    I wouldn't go that far, at least not on Catholicism...

    The same unquestioning faith underlies his zealotry for both, and his willingness to defend them. Any devout person is shaped by their faith in the way they interact. It is perhaps ironic that he insists on Sovereignty for Britain, yet believes in a single Apostalic Catholic Church, which is perhaps the world's oldest surviving transnational organisation to impinge on our sovereignty. I suppose the internationalism of the Catholic Church is over ridden by its defence of privilege and the established order.

    In what way, exactly, does the Catholic Church impinge on the sovereignty of Britain?

    Indeed, in what way does it defend the established order in Britain? Catholics are - uniquely - the only ones among the established order's subjects legally incapable of being the sovereign. Catholicism in this country has been seen as the "Italian mission to the Irish" and has largely found its adherents amongst immigrant communities and the marginalised. Brideshead was a novel. It does not reflect the reality of Catholicism today - let alone when it was written.
    We broke with Rome in the reformation over the soveignty of British laws, and for British interpretation of Christian teaching. This was the Brexit of the 16th Century. I am not suggesting that the Catholic Church is now impinging on our sovereignty, nor would I want it to.

    Moggs Catholicism is of an older strand of English recusantism than the nineteenth and twentieth century Irish migration. The more recent oppressed Catholics here and perhaps the most active churchgoers are of course the 21th Century migrants from Eastern and Southern Europe.

    Broadly, High Anglicanism and Catholicism are the religions of the establishment, as far as the Establishment has any religion over its own belief in its right to rule. I agree that most active Catholics, like most Nonconformist Protestants sit outside that inner circle.

    Yep, there has long been a part of the English elite that looks to Rome. They tend to send their boys to Ampleforth, so Rees-Mogg is slightly unusual in being an Old Etonian.

    569 children in total in the whole school, some of them from abroad. Statistically insignificant, even amongst the English elite, I'd have thought.

    Odd that those who are keen on Europe in general seem to get conniptions when it comes to Catholicism. That makes JRM's views on the EU more in line with a Protestant way of thinking.

    Anyway, I have to finish packing. Am off to the Canadian Rockies tomorrow.

    Have a good day all.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    JRM is articulate and speaks more direcly than some machine politicians. He is also arrogant and profoundly wrong on key issues.

    As such he appeals to some Tories.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,153
    Alistair said:

    Sandpit said:

    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Very well said.

    Perhaps the worst example of this intolerance was the forced closure of the Catholic adoption agencies, who cared for some of the most vulnerable women and children in society, finding good homes for children who would otherwise have spend their formative years as a burden on the state.

    Dare I suggest that if they had been run by a different religion they wouldn’t have been shut down.
    Hmmm , from what I remember they shut themselves down because they did not want to follow government rules as they think they are above any local laws etc.
    Some closed themselves, some severed links with the Catholic Church and became basically state funded, while others fought on and were eventually shut down by the Charity Commission.
    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/apr/26/catholic-adoption-agency-gay-lesbian

    Personally I think the intolerance of people who were trying to do good in society went too far, a good friend of mine used to volunteer for one and they gave huge amounts of support to a lot of teenage girls, who for whatever reason had been abandoned by their families in their greatest hour of need.
    Yes, curse those gay couples wanting to give a child a family.
    No - you have it the wrong way round. It isn't the potential parents who are the clients. But the children. It is the children who need a family. Adoption is not primarily for the benefit of adults. It is for the benefit of children.

    Children are not like cakes - to be handed out to anyone who wants them.

    What was wrong with saying: if you won't place a child with a gay family, you must refer any gay couple to another agency who will consider them as potential adoptive parents? A pragmatic solution that would have resulted in both parties getting what they wanted. Anyway, the issue has been resolved now so little point arguing.
  • Options
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_P said:

    I wouldn't go that far, at least not on Catholicism...

    The same unquestioning faith underlies his zealotry for both, and his willingness to defend them. Any devout person is shaped by their faith in the way they interact. It is perhaps ironic that he insists on Sovereignty for Britain, yet believes in a single Apostalic Catholic Church, which is perhaps the world's oldest surviving transnational organisation to impinge on our sovereignty. I suppose the internationalism of the Catholic Church is over ridden by its defence of privilege and the established order.

    In what way, exactly, does the Catholic Church impinge on the sovereignty of Britain?

    Indeed, in what way does it today - let alone when it was written.
    We broke with Rome in the reformation over the soveignty of British laws, and for British interpretation of Christian teaching. This was the Brexit of the 16th Century. I am not suggesting that the Catholic Church is now impinging on our sovereignty, nor would I want it to.

    Moggs Catholicism is of an older strand of English recusantism than the nineteenth and twentieth century Irish migration. The more recent oppressed Catholics here and perhaps the most active churchgoers are of course the 21th Century migrants from Eastern and Southern Europe.

    Broadly, High Anglicanism and Catholicism are the religions of the establishment, as far as the Establishment has any religion over its own belief in its right to rule. I agree that most active Catholics, like most Nonconformist Protestants sit outside that inner circle.

    Yep, there has long been a part of the English elite that looks to Rome. They tend to send their boys to Ampleforth, so Rees-Mogg is slightly unusual in being an Old Etonian.

    569 children in total in the whole school, some of them from abroad. Statistically insignificant, even amongst the English elite, I'd have thought.

    Odd that those who are keen on Europe in general seem to get conniptions when it comes to Catholicism. That makes JRM's views on the EU more in line with a Protestant way of thinking.

    Anyway, I have to finish packing. Am off to the Canadian Rockies tomorrow.

    Have a good day all.

    I have no problem with Catholics. I married one in a Catholic church and my three children were brought up in the faith, though they have since lapsed - as all good Catholics do, of course.

  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,843
    Cyclefree said:

    Sandpit said:

    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Very well said.

    Perhaps the worst example of this intolerance was the forced closure of the Catholic adoption agencies, who cared for some of the most vulnerable women and children in society, finding good homes for children who would otherwise have spend their formative years as a burden on the state.

    Dare I suggest that if they had been run by a different religion they wouldn’t have been shut down.
    Hmmm , from what I remember they shut themselves down because they did not want to follow government rules as they think they are above any local laws etc.
    Some closed themselves, some severed links with the Catholic Church and became basically state funded, while others fought on and were eventually shut down by the Charity Commission.

    Personally I think the intolerance of people who were trying to do good in society went too far, a good friend of mine used to volunteer for one and they gave huge amounts of support to a lot of teenage girls, who for whatever reason had been abandoned by their families in their greatest hour of need.
    There was an obvious compromise: to allow them to continue doing their work but require them to refer any gay couples to other adoption agencies. Why that wasn't adopted I don't know. We permitted exceptions to the laws on motorcycle helmets for Sikhs and do not require Catholic doctors or nurses to perform abortions and, when conscription was in place, pacifists were also granted exemptions.

    There is a worrying tendency in recent years to insist not just that people must tolerate what they don't like or approve of (fair enough) but must positively approve of what they don't like or must think in the same way. This is not tolerance. It is illiberal and potentially oppressive.
    Indeed so, and I still don’t understand why that compromise wasn’t acceptable to the authorities, given the huge public service done by these agencies.

    The intolerance of differing opinions is a very slippery slope, and leads to things like we see at universities where debating societies ban people from debating each other. We forget that the start of the downfall of Nick Griffin was when the BBC gave him a platform and allowed his views to be heard.
  • Options
    Sandpit said:

    Morning all, and disappointed to have missed the excellent previous thread on the zombie apocalypse!

    On topic, JRM is the product of wishful thinking, he’s not remotely interested in leading his party. Would make a good Speaker though. As always with next Con leader and PM markets, the best strategy is to lay whoever is in the news this week.

    I disagree with Mr Herdson that this was the oddest of the silly season stories though, surely that was the extraordinary emotional breakdown of James Champan? Is his protest still on today, or are they all going to end up at Lord’s instead?

    What makes this oddest is the extent to which people are taking it seriously.
  • Options
    CD13CD13 Posts: 6,351
    Being Catholic myself, I find JRM quaint rather than dangerous.

    The Church advice on contraception went awry in the sixties and few Catholics take any notice. The former priest in our parish was a quiet advocate for women priests and married priests. Many Catholics look upon this as internal housekeeping, considering we had married priests for longer than we've had celibate ones.

    Abortion is trickier. You can see circumstances where there's a good case for it, and many Catholics would agree, but mission creep suggests it may end up as a form of contraception.

    BTW, I'm not suggesting that I represent all Catholics or even know what others believe. It's my impression only.
  • Options
    619619 Posts: 1,784
    Cyclefree said:

    Sandpit said:

    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cyclefree said:

    There is nothing wrong with him being happily married and having a large family nor with being a devout Catholic. This last point should not need saying but apparently does. This says more about Britain and a level of intolerance it has to anyone not sharing received opinion than it does about JRM.

    His views about abortion and about marriage being a sacrament between a man and a woman are

    Otherwise we come perilously close to saying that Catholics

    Very well said.

    Perhaps the worst example of this intolerance was the forced closure of the Catholic adoption agencies, who cared for some of the most vulnerable women and children in society, finding good homes for children who would otherwise have spend their formative years as a burden on the state.

    Dare I suggest that if they had been run by a different religion they wouldn’t have been shut down.
    Hmmm , from what I remember they shut themselves down because they did not want to follow government rules as they think they are above any local laws etc.
    Some closed themselves, some severed links with the Catholic Church and became basically state funded, while others fought on and were eventually shut down by the Charity Commission.

    Personally I think the intolerance of people who were trying to do good in society went too far, a good friend of mine used to volunteer for one and they gave huge amounts of support to a lot of teenage girls, who for whatever reason had been abandoned by their families in their greatest hour of need.
    There was an obvious compromise: to allow them to continue doing their work but require them to refer any gay couples to other adoption agencies. Why that wasn't adopted I don't know. We permitted exceptions to the laws on motorcycle helmets for Sikhs and do not require Catholic doctors or nurses to perform abortions and, when conscription was in place, pacifists were also granted exemptions.

    There is a worrying tendency in recent years to insist not just that people must tolerate what they don't like or approve of (fair enough) but must positively approve of what they don't like or must think in the same way. This is not tolerance. It is illiberal and potentially oppressive.
    The helmets and abortion issues are different: gay couples have the same rights under law as straight couples. Denying them these rights are discriminatory. For the Sikhs and helmets, and abortuon carried out by non-catholics, there is no third party involved whose rights being prevented
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,795
    I have a lot of time for JRM, but don't see him as a leader.
  • Options
    619619 Posts: 1,784
    CD13 said:

    Being Catholic myself, I find JRM quaint rather than dangerous.

    The Church advice on contraception went awry in the sixties and few Catholics take any notice. The former priest in our parish was a quiet advocate for women priests and married priests. Many Catholics look upon this as internal housekeeping, considering we had married priests for longer than we've had celibate ones.

    Abortion is trickier. You can see circumstances where there's a good case for it, and many Catholics would agree, but mission creep suggests it may end up as a form of contraception.

    BTW, I'm not suggesting that I represent all Catholics or even know what others believe. It's my impression only.

    He thinks abortion shouldnt be allowed in cases of rape or abuse. Thats very much a hardline view on the issue
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,891

    Roger said:

    I really don't understand what people mean by saying he is 'authenic'. He chose a persona probably at Eton and has honed it as a performance art ever since This isn't uncommon at public schools where conformity is demanded. For exhibitionists like JRM or Boris it's often he only way to get noticed without any recognisable talent as a sportsman or thespian. In the exhibitionist stakes I've got more respect for the authenticity of Jade goody.

    so where do you put Grayson Perry ?
    A performance artist and a talented one. If you are asking if he's an authentic performance artist then yes. He's chosen a persona and it works for him. But backing it up is his talent as an artist. Without that he would be just one of hundreds of identikits walking around Old Compron St
  • Options
    Jonathan said:

    JRM is articulate and speaks more direcly than some machine politicians. He is also arrogant and profoundly wrong on key issues.

    As such he appeals to some Tories.

    Confusing well-spoken and articulate with deep intelligence is a perennial English disease. Rees-Mogg is a standard, unexceptional product and defender of his class. His Catholicism is by the by.

  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,843
    edited September 2017
    Cyclefree said:

    Alistair said:

    Sandpit said:

    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Very well said.

    Perhaps the worst example of this intolerance was the forced closure of the Catholic adoption agencies, who cared for some of the most vulnerable women and children in society, finding good homes for children who would otherwise have spend their formative years as a burden on the state.

    Dare I suggest that if they had been run by a different religion they wouldn’t have been shut down.
    Hmmm , from what I remember they shut themselves down because they did not want to follow government rules as they think they are above any local laws etc.
    Some closed themselves, some severed links with the Catholic Church and became basically state funded, while others fought on and were eventually shut down by the Charity Commission.
    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/apr/26/catholic-adoption-agency-gay-lesbian

    Personally I think the intolerance of people who were trying to do good in society went too far, a good friend of mine used to volunteer for one and they gave huge amounts of support to a lot of teenage girls, who for whatever reason had been abandoned by their families in their greatest hour of need.
    Yes, curse those gay couples wanting to give a child a family.
    No - you have it the wrong way round. It isn't the potential parents who are the clients. But the children. It is the children who need a family. Adoption is not primarily for the benefit of adults. It is for the benefit of children.

    Children are not like cakes - to be handed out to anyone who wants them.

    What was wrong with saying: if you won't place a child with a gay family, you must refer any gay couple to another agency who will consider them as potential adoptive parents? A pragmatic solution that would have resulted in both parties getting what they wanted. Anyway, the issue has been resolved now so little point arguing.
    Thinking back, was the issue not that these Catholic adoption agencies were too successful, having a large share of the market for what most people wanted to adopt - a baby rather than a troubled child? The huge increase in abortions and state welfare given to single mums having reduced exponentially the number of babies given up for adoption in the first place.
  • Options
    PeterCPeterC Posts: 1,274

    Sandpit said:

    Morning all, and disappointed to have missed the excellent previous thread on the zombie apocalypse!

    On topic, JRM is the product of wishful thinking, he’s not remotely interested in leading his party. Would make a good Speaker though. As always with next Con leader and PM markets, the best strategy is to lay whoever is in the news this week.

    I disagree with Mr Herdson that this was the oddest of the silly season stories though, surely that was the extraordinary emotional breakdown of James Champan? Is his protest still on today, or are they all going to end up at Lord’s instead?

    What makes this oddest is the extent to which people are taking it seriously.
    A very odd summer indeed. Some were even taking the James Chapman business seriously for a while! A symptom of political and news exhaustion after three years of frenetic events, imo.
  • Options
    CD13 said:

    Being Catholic myself, I find JRM quaint rather than dangerous.

    The Church advice on contraception went awry in the sixties and few Catholics take any notice. The former priest in our parish was a quiet advocate for women priests and married priests. Many Catholics look upon this as internal housekeeping, considering we had married priests for longer than we've had celibate ones.

    Abortion is trickier. You can see circumstances where there's a good case for it, and many Catholics would agree, but mission creep suggests it may end up as a form of contraception.

    BTW, I'm not suggesting that I represent all Catholics or even know what others believe. It's my impression only.

    Evidence for America points the other way: Obamacare-funded contraception led to falling abortion rates.

    Technically, that does support your mission creep argument but only in the absence of contraception. Since people will insist on having sex (which, if I've correctly understood SeanT's pb posts, can be a moderately enjoyable pastime) the way to cut abortion is to provide contraception. Ironically, this is opposed by many anti-abortionists in America and the Vatican.
  • Options
    Jacob Cream Crackers' popularity is a function of Boris Johnson's decline. He's an attempt at filling the niche in the Tory ecosystem of amusing posho recently vacated. Since he lacks discernible talent and has views more suited to the Edwardian era, this is surely just a passing moment.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,843
    edited September 2017
    619 said:

    CD13 said:

    Being Catholic myself, I find JRM quaint rather than dangerous.

    The Church advice on contraception went awry in the sixties and few Catholics take any notice. The former priest in our parish was a quiet advocate for women priests and married priests. Many Catholics look upon this as internal housekeeping, considering we had married priests for longer than we've had celibate ones.

    Abortion is trickier. You can see circumstances where there's a good case for it, and many Catholics would agree, but mission creep suggests it may end up as a form of contraception.

    BTW, I'm not suggesting that I represent all Catholics or even know what others believe. It's my impression only.

    He thinks abortion shouldnt be allowed in cases of rape or abuse. Thats very much a hardline view on the issue
    If your belief is that an unborn child has the right to life, why should the nature of conception (an event that happened weeks or months previously) determine whether the child can be killed in the womb or not? A right to life is a right to life, in the view of the Catholic Church.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Jonathan said:

    JRM is articulate and speaks more direcly than some machine politicians. He is also arrogant and profoundly wrong on key issues.

    As such he appeals to some Tories.

    Confusing well-spoken and articulate with deep intelligence is a perennial English disease. Rees-Mogg is a standard, unexceptional product and defender of his class. His Catholicism is by the by.

    No evidence of deep intelligence.
  • Options
    YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    I agree with David Herdson regarding Dominic Raab.I thought he had a good referendum campaign and was also good during the last GE when in the firing line with quite hostile TV audiences.Having said all that I have no idea how conservative MPs and members perceive him.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 24,932
    edited September 2017

    Mr. Sandpit, agree entirely. But the fact nothing's been said when there was a lot of trailing for an announcement during the week indicates a sticky situation.

    Something is definitely going on and I suspect Alonso's freshly changed social media profile -now sans all Mclaren photos is a bit of a clue.

    Isn't it the case that unless Mclaren can find someone to take the Honda engine their only choice would be to continue using it - I suspect contractually they won't even be able to walk away..
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
  • Options
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    JRM is articulate and speaks more direcly than some machine politicians. He is also arrogant and profoundly wrong on key issues.

    As such he appeals to some Tories.

    Confusing well-spoken and articulate with deep intelligence is a perennial English disease. Rees-Mogg is a standard, unexceptional product and defender of his class. His Catholicism is by the by.

    No evidence of deep intelligence.

    Yep - a perusal of his Parliamentary record reveals unquestioning support for all the standard right wing causes, down to the "mistake" of attending events hosted by patriots who advocate the repatriation of non-whites.

  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    @Cyclefree

    There is a strong Protestant and Orthodox tradition in Europe too!

    I would expect our Hokey Cokey approach to Europe to continue, The reformation was one aspect, with perhaps the Glorious Revolution being the time where we seriously started being reinvolved with our continental family.

    In the reformation times most political debate was expressed in religious terms, while now we tend to use other cultural and economic values to define ourselves. Our semi detached relationship gets defined in terms appropriate to the times.

    I can highly recommend this book on religion and politics in the 16th century. The values that underline religious schisms are often political. Who has the authority to interpret the teachings of God, is a political question.


    https://www.amazon.co.uk/World-Turned-Upside-Down-Revolution/dp/0140137327
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Seems relevant to the rise of Rees-Mogg...

    The US president is not making America great again, but he is making the 1930s current again. Perhaps, then, and in a way he would not want, Trump is providing the anti-Brexiteers with the one thing they always lacked: an emotional heart to their argument. Trump and the fascist contagion is reminding us why the EU exists: to ensure that the neighbourhood we live in is never again consumed by the flames of tyranny and hatred.

    On that fateful day in June 2016, it’s possible that some of those who voted leave did so because they believed that democracy and peace were now safe and secure in Europe. In the short time that has passed since, we have seen that those things are, in fact, fragile. As the head of Nato warns that the world is at its most dangerous point in a generation, Britain’s duty, to use a word that might make Smiley wince, is surely to defend the body that helped lead Europe out of its darkness. Instead, we are turning our backs and walking away.


    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/08/trump-brexit-fascist-european-union-eu
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,843
    eek said:

    Mr. Sandpit, agree entirely. But the fact nothing's been said when there was a lot of trailing for an announcement during the week indicates a sticky situation.

    Something is definitely going on and I suspect Alonso's freshly changed social media profile -now sans all Mclaren photos is a bit of a clue.

    Isn't it the case that unless Mclaren can find someone to take the Honda engine their only choices would be to continue using it - I suspect they won't even be able to walk away..
    Indeed, and don’t forget that Honda are believed to be paying McLaren around $100m a year at the moment. They have the best paid driver on the grid and a car almost completely devoid of sponsorship. I still think their best option is just to carry on and hope things improve while looking to make their own engine supply in the future.

    McLaren’s road car engines come from Ricardo, also Ilmor, Cosworth and Prodrive are potential suppliers for ‘spec’ F1 engines to privateer teams from the 2021 rule changes.
  • Options
    Poor, old Nige, a scat fetishist at a wee wee weekend.

    https://twitter.com/edmundheaphy/status/906173294432399360
  • Options
    Mr. Eek, not sure but I'm given to understand McLaren can go to Renault regardless of whether Honda is forced out of the sport. Might be wrong.
  • Options

    Poor, old Nige, a scat fetishist at a wee wee weekend.

    https://twitter.com/edmundheaphy/status/906173294432399360

    Ein volk, ein Reich, ein Nigel.

  • Options
    CD13CD13 Posts: 6,351
    Mr 619,

    I'm a sinner anyway. The Catholic Church wants its people to strive for perfection, knowing they will probably fail.

    This 'turn the other cheek' is a tricky one. Were Kim Jong Un to incinerate London or Paris, I might succeed in turning the other cheek, with a little effort. but if it were somewhere important like Liverpool or Boston ... nuke the bastard!
  • Options
    619619 Posts: 1,784
    Sandpit said:

    619 said:

    CD13 said:

    Being Catholic myself, I find JRM quaint rather than dangerous.

    The Church advice on contraception went awry in the sixties and few Catholics take any notice. The former priest in our parish was a quiet advocate for women priests and married priests. Many Catholics look upon this as internal housekeeping, considering we had married priests for longer than we've had celibate ones.

    Abortion is trickier. You can see circumstances where there's a good case for it, and many Catholics would agree, but mission creep suggests it may end up as a form of contraception.

    BTW, I'm not suggesting that I represent all Catholics or even know what others believe. It's my impression only.

    He thinks abortion shouldnt be allowed in cases of rape or abuse. Thats very much a hardline view on the issue
    If your belief is that an unborn child has the right to life, why should the nature of conception (an event that happened weeks or months previously) determine whether the child can be killed in the womb or not? A right to life is a right to life, in the view of the Catholic Church.
    well, around 3-4 months previously as a maximum.

    Its the hardline catholics who refuse abortions for cases of rape/abuse/medical reasons e.t.c, which JRM is aligned with. Its ok to be a little wary of someone like that having power
  • Options
    619619 Posts: 1,784
    CD13 said:

    Mr 619,

    I'm a sinner anyway. The Catholic Church wants its people to strive for perfection, knowing they will probably fail.

    This 'turn the other cheek' is a tricky one. Were Kim Jong Un to incinerate London or Paris, I might succeed in turning the other cheek, with a little effort. but if it were somewhere important like Liverpool or Boston ... nuke the bastard!

    Ha hence the concept of catholic guilt!
  • Options
    619619 Posts: 1,784
    Scott_P said:
    America wanta be careful. Once weve soon johnny foreigner in Europe whose boss, we may go after our former colony...
  • Options
    EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,956
    Scott_P said:

    Seems relevant to the rise of Rees-Mogg...

    The US president is not making America great again, but he is making the 1930s current again. Perhaps, then, and in a way he would not want, Trump is providing the anti-Brexiteers with the one thing they always lacked: an emotional heart to their argument. Trump and the fascist contagion is reminding us why the EU exists: to ensure that the neighbourhood we live in is never again consumed by the flames of tyranny and hatred.

    On that fateful day in June 2016, it’s possible that some of those who voted leave did so because they believed that democracy and peace were now safe and secure in Europe. In the short time that has passed since, we have seen that those things are, in fact, fragile. As the head of Nato warns that the world is at its most dangerous point in a generation, Britain’s duty, to use a word that might make Smiley wince, is surely to defend the body that helped lead Europe out of its darkness. Instead, we are turning our backs and walking away.


    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/08/trump-brexit-fascist-european-union-eu

    Yes, Guardian journalists screeching and calling Trump a Nazi is sure to make us wicked Brexiteers repent. It's not like they've ever misjudged public opinion before.
  • Options
    619619 Posts: 1,784
    Essexit said:

    Scott_P said:

    Seems relevant to the rise of Rees-Mogg...

    The US president is not making America great again, but he is making the 1930s current again. Perhaps, then, and in a way he would not want, Trump is providing the anti-Brexiteers with the one thing they always lacked: an emotional heart to their argument. Trump and the fascist contagion is reminding us why the EU exists: to ensure that the neighbourhood we live in is never again consumed by the flames of tyranny and hatred.

    On that fateful day in June 2016, it’s possible that some of those who voted leave did so because they believed that democracy and peace were now safe and secure in Europe. In the short time that has passed since, we have seen that those things are, in fact, fragile. As the head of Nato warns that the world is at its most dangerous point in a generation, Britain’s duty, to use a word that might make Smiley wince, is surely to defend the body that helped lead Europe out of its darkness. Instead, we are turning our backs and walking away.


    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/08/trump-brexit-fascist-european-union-eu

    Yes, Guardian journalists screeching and calling Trump a Nazi is sure to make us wicked Brexiteers repent. It's not like they've ever misjudged public opinion before.
    I think its fair to say Trump isnt popular in the UK
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,843

    Mr. Eek, not sure but I'm given to understand McLaren can go to Renault regardless of whether Honda is forced out of the sport. Might be wrong.

    McLaren can do what they want with Honda, subject to whatever’s written in their contract.

    For an engine supplier to supply more than three teams does require approval from all the other teams though, which is why the Sauber-Honda deal falling through was a big deal for McLaren. That approval would probably not be too much of an issue though, everyone wants to see McLaren on the grid next year.

    The bigger issue is that F1 themselves want to keep Honda around, to avoid the impression that their sport can get rid of someone as a failure who invested over a billion dollars. It’s these political considerations that need resolving before anything gets announced.
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Cyclefree said:

    Alistair said:

    Sandpit said:

    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Very well said.

    Perhaps the worst example of this intolerance was the forced closure of the Catholic adoption agencies, who cared for some of the most vulnerable women and children in society, finding good homes for children who would otherwise have spend their formative years as a burden on the state.

    Dare I suggest that if they had been run by a different religion they wouldn’t have been shut down.
    Hmmm , from what I remember they shut themselves down because they did not want to follow government rules as they think they are above any local laws etc.
    Some closed themselves, some severed links with the Catholic Church and became basically state funded, while others fought on and were eventually shut down by the Charity Commission.
    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/apr/26/catholic-adoption-agency-gay-lesbian

    Personally I think the intolerance of people who were trying to do good in society went too far, a good friend of mine used to volunteer for one and they gave huge amounts of support to a lot of teenage girls, who for whatever reason had been abandoned by their families in their greatest hour of need.
    Yes, curse those gay couples wanting to give a child a family.
    No - you have it the wrong way round. It isn't the potential parents who are the clients. But the children. It is the children who need a family. Adoption is not primarily for the benefit of adults. It is for the benefit of children.

    Children are not like cakes - to be handed out to anyone who wants them.

    What was wrong with saying: if you won't place a child with a gay family, you must refer any gay couple to another agency who will consider them as potential adoptive parents? A pragmatic solution that would have resulted in both parties getting what they wanted. Anyway, the issue has been resolved now so little point arguing.
    And for reasons of bigotry they refuse to let the children under their care go to loving families where the parents are gay.

    Thus denying the child a family life.

    Harming the child.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    I was having a coffee and a man waked in. The proprietor introduced me and said 'you've got to congratulate him he's just got married'. 'Congratulations!' I said

    Later as I walked out I said good bye to the proprietor and to the recently married 'Good luck to you and your bride'

    Was that a serious faux-pas? I have no idea whether he'd married a woman or man.





  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,940
    edited September 2017
    I still think Boris is the man to beat, he has the charisma, populist appeal and commitment to Brexit as de facto leader of the Leave campaign in the referendum which May lacks.

    If you are looking to outsiders Tom Tugenhadt, incidentally backed by JRM last week and chairman of the Foreign Affairs committee, would be a better bet than Raab in my view especially if May promotes him to ministerial office in the reshuffle
  • Options
    GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,793
    Scott_P said:
    As long as they do the same for REMAIN's lies it'll be fine...
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Cyclefree said:

    FWIW I am a Catholic. I am fine with gay marriage. I think my church has got it wrong on this. Gay people are made in the image of God just like everyone else and their love is no less sacred and worthy than the love between men and women. I hope in time the church will realise this. I could not have an abortion myself but sometimes it is the lesser of two evils: rape and incest are the obvious examples so I disagree with JRM on this. What other women do is for them. Abortion should be legal, safe and, ideally, rare i.e. not in the sense of making it harder but that it should not be necessary because of the availability of alternatives.

    I'm an Anglican but could have written that post myself... are you sure your not crossing the Tiber?
  • Options
    Mr. Alistair, whereas closing down entirely, reducing the number of children finding adoptive parents, is better?
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,821
    Charles said:
    Bur nothing like as bad as Jezza has to put up with every single day from the MMS
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,961
    Roger said:

    I was having a coffee and a man waked in. The proprietor introduced me and said 'you've got to congratulate him he's just got married'. 'Congratulations!' I said

    Later as I walked out I said good bye to the proprietor and to the recently married 'Good luck to you and your bride'

    Was that a serious faux-pas? I have no idea whether he'd married a woman or man.





    I'm more shocked about how the proprietor assumed their gender.
  • Options
    GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,793
    OK, it's 09-09-17 - Who is going to James Chapmans Brexit protest? :open_mouth:
This discussion has been closed.