Skip to content
Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The next PM could be someone who is opposed to women who’ve be

SystemSystem Posts: 12,598
edited October 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The next PM could be someone who is opposed to women who’ve been raped having abortions

Jacob Rees-Mogg says that women who seek abortion after rape are committing a “second wrong” – @zoe_beaty https://t.co/MI1uVvpCUX pic.twitter.com/piinX3n3fN

Read the full story here


«13456

Comments

  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Very non-tendentious way of putting it.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,232
    The next PM?!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,232
    edited October 2017
    It’s an unsurprising thing for him to believe. I very much disagree, but if you are absolutely, fundamentally life begins at conception pro-life, it is the only logical position surely? I recall Rick Santorum saying the same thing, which I doubt is a comparison JRM would appreciate.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,076
    I have days when I think JRM as next PM is now simply a formality, and a question of next year or the one after.

    As things are obviously bonkers in general then this is the logical next step.

    If he gets to the membership I suspect it will be a walk over.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,533
    I am invariably diametrically opposed to the moral positions that JRM takes, but I appreciate that he is a man that has religious conviction - and can be relied upon to put the opposing case with great clarity that at least makes me think about the alternative opinion.

    I don't see him being PM. I do though see him, in time, being widely recognised as one of the finest holders of one of the great offices of state of the current generation of politicians.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,076
    Please let next PM be Hunt. I would win a small fortune.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,275
    Downing Street 'deeply concerned about sexual harassment in Parliament and any allegations will be taken extremely seriously.'

    Expecting revelations this weekend maybe
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,312
    Every so often Mike does a joke thread for our amusement and delectation.
  • Carolus_RexCarolus_Rex Posts: 1,414
    I don't think JRM's views on abortion (or for that matter gay marriage) would be his biggest problem if he decided to run. For one thing everyone knows what they are, so they are priced in already. For another, there is zero chance of them being put into practice.

    His real problem would simply be the fact that he's repeatedly denied he wants the job. If he went for it his campaign would be dogged by that from day one.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,135
    edited October 2017
    The point at which a foetus becomes a person would of course occupy the next ten thousand PB threads, and might even displace this coming weekend's one on AV.

    Do I agree with him? Absolutely not. Is his position consistent? Yes. What will it do to his chances of leading the Cons at some point? Neutral to positive.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,357
    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/09/09/the-strange-rise-of-jacob-rees-mogg/

    I have little to add. No father (never mind a father of six) who won't change a nappy will ever be elected PM.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Carolus_Rex said:

    I don't think JRM's views on abortion (or for that matter gay marriage) would be his biggest problem if he decided to run. For one thing everyone knows what they are, so they are priced in already. For another, there is zero chance of them being put into practice.

    His real problem would simply be the fact that he's repeatedly denied he wants the job. If he went for it his campaign would be dogged by that from day one.

    Nolo episcopari is not a claim to be taken at face value, esp. coming from a Roman Catholic. "When the facts change, I change my mind" can also be a perfectly valid statement.
  • ArtistArtist Posts: 1,893
    I wonder what his polling would be like for how "in touch" he was with the public.
  • Carolus_RexCarolus_Rex Posts: 1,414
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Carolus_Rex said:

    I don't think JRM's views on abortion (or for that matter gay marriage) would be his biggest problem if he decided to run. For one thing everyone knows what they are, so they are priced in already. For another, there is zero chance of them being put into practice.

    His real problem would simply be the fact that he's repeatedly denied he wants the job. If he went for it his campaign would be dogged by that from day one.

    Nolo episcopari is not a claim to be taken at face value, esp. coming from a Roman Catholic. "When the facts change, I change my mind" can also be a perfectly valid statement.
    Oh, you're quite right. However, the problem is his campaign would be distracted by constantly having to explain this to people.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,357
    kle4 said:

    It’s an unsurprising thing for him to believe. I very much disagree, but if you are absolutely, fundamentally life begins at conception pro-life, it is the only logical position surely? I recall Rick Santorum saying the same thing, which I doubt is a comparison JRM would appreciate.

    Such an absolutist stance is not the only logical position. One can argue that in, say, cases where the pregnancy is threatening the mother's life, it's necessary to take one life to save the other, in the same way that a helicopter evacuating a burning building wouldn't try to take more than it can safely lift, even if doing so means leaving some people to burn.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,196
    edited October 2017
    I cannot imagine Rees-Mogg becoming the next PM, most likely MPs put forward Davis and Rudd to the membership if May goes and it ends up being Davis in Number 10. If Labour win the next general election though or Corbyn ends up leading a minority government I expect either Boris or Rees-Mogg would end up leader of the opposition.

    As Corbyn has shown views seen as out of the mainstream are no automatic barrier to progress in that role.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,998
    david_herdson said:

    kle4 said:

    It’s an unsurprising thing for him to believe. I very much disagree, but if you are absolutely, fundamentally life begins at conception pro-life, it is the only logical position surely? I recall Rick Santorum saying the same thing, which I doubt is a comparison JRM would appreciate.

    Such an absolutist stance is not the only logical position. One can argue that in, say, cases where the pregnancy is threatening the mother's life, it's necessary to take one life to save the other, in the same way that a helicopter evacuating a burning building wouldn't try to take more than it can safely lift, even if doing so means leaving some people to burn.
    Has JRM given a view on that scenario?
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    david_herdson said:

    kle4 said:

    It’s an unsurprising thing for him to believe. I very much disagree, but if you are absolutely, fundamentally life begins at conception pro-life, it is the only logical position surely? I recall Rick Santorum saying the same thing, which I doubt is a comparison JRM would appreciate.

    Such an absolutist stance is not the only logical position. One can argue that in, say, cases where the pregnancy is threatening the mother's life, it's necessary to take one life to save the other, in the same way that a helicopter evacuating a burning building wouldn't try to take more than it can safely lift, even if doing so means leaving some people to burn.
    Assume JRM is in a fertility clinic in which there is a fire. JRM is in a room containing one 3 month old baby and 12 test tubes containing 12 week old viable foetuses destined to be implanted into wombs and in due course born. JRM can save one or the other, but not both. What does he do?

    I think I got that from xkcd, but can't immediately track it down.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 22,107
    Jacob Rees-Mogg is not fit to be PM.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,275
    Jonathan said:

    Jacob Rees-Mogg is not fit to be PM.

    Why
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Those whom the Gods wish to destroy they first send mad. If the Conservatives are sent mad, this might be the Gods' weapon of destruction.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,076
    https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/923869622193008641

    Jezza trying to get some credit for Steel's Bill.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,533
    Artist said:

    I wonder what his polling would be like for how "in touch" he was with the public.

    He would certainly score highly for being "genuine". He isn't from the Groucho Marx School of Principles.....

    And he does seem to get on well with people from other political parties - Exhibit A:

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3079359/mhairi-black-britains-youngest-mp-jacob-rees-mogg/

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,232
    david_herdson said:

    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/09/09/the-strange-rise-of-jacob-rees-mogg/

    I have little to add. No father (never mind a father of six) who won't change a nappy will ever be elected PM.

    Won’t change a nappy? That is peculiar. Even if you are happy to pay someone else to do it, you’d presume anyone would be prepared to do it if needed (and not just that the mum will always be on hand to do it either).

    On the other hand the family have excellent choice in baby names.
    david_herdson said:

    kle4 said:

    It’s an unsurprising thing for him to believe. I very much disagree, but if you are absolutely, fundamentally life begins at conception pro-life, it is the only logical position surely? I recall Rick Santorum saying the same thing, which I doubt is a comparison JRM would appreciate.

    Such an absolutist stance is not the only logical position. One can argue that in, say, cases where the pregnancy is threatening the mother's life, it's necessary to take one life to save the other, in the same way that a helicopter evacuating a burning building wouldn't try to take more than it can safely lift, even if doing so means leaving some people to burn.
    Granted, in the event of the mother’s life being threatened, but in the absence of such a life threatening harm scenario I’m not sure if there’s another logical extrapolation from his view?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,076
    Jonathan said:

    Jacob Rees-Mogg is not fit to be PM.

    Afraid that's not a bar to being PM.
  • Chris_AChris_A Posts: 1,237
    Of course he's not very pro-life when it comes to capital punishment. He seems to pick and choose which of the Holy Father's pronouncements to adhere to. He's an idiot and the fact that he's being discussed at all shows the state of the modern Tory party and the loopiness of its members.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,533
    AlastairMeeks said:

    Those whom the Gods wish to destroy they first send mad. If the Conservatives are sent mad, this might be the Gods' weapon of destruction.

    Those whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first make Remainers....
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,232
    Jonathan said:

    Jacob Rees-Mogg is not fit to be PM.

    That would surely depend on what policies he would try to put in place were he in the role - that is, I could not support a policy if he proposed to criminalise abortion, but if he simply disagreed with abortion in all cases but said, as the party and country were opposed, he would not attempt to change the law on it, then his views on that issue would not in themselves be much of a barrier.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,275
    Chris_A said:

    Of course he's not very pro-life when it comes to capital punishment. He seems to pick and choose which of the Holy Father's pronouncements to adhere to. He's an idiot and the fact that he's being discussed at all shows the state of the modern Tory party and the loopiness of its members.

    Same could be said about Corbyn
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,097
    Mr Rees-Mogg has his own views on moral issues, which mirror those of his church, but he is clear that he respects the will of Parliament to disagree with him and doesn’t seek to impose his views on others. He made a much better job of the question that Tim Farron, who tied himself in knots for days on the subject of abortion.

    I also wonder would someone ask the same questions of a Muslim candidate for high office?
  • prh47bridgeprh47bridge Posts: 480
    I agree with JRM that it is odd to say we live in a multi-cultural country and then criticise him for being a Catholic who accepts the views of the Catholic church on matters such as abortion. He has always been clear that he would not attempt to impose his views on the country. He would, undoubtedly, vote against abortion given the chance but would not use the whip to enforce his views on the party. I don't think his views on abortion should be a bar to him becoming PM. I can think of plenty of other reasons he should not be PM but this isn't one of them.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,232
    Chris_A said:

    Of course he's not very pro-life when it comes to capital punishment. He seems to pick and choose which of the Holy Father's pronouncements to adhere to. He's an idiot and the fact that he's being discussed at all shows the state of the modern Tory party and the loopiness of its members.

    I don’t think he’d be a good fit at all, I think it’s just an extension of silly season stuff, but I don’t know that the first sentence is proof of idiocy - that shalt not kill is pretty clear, but that has not exactly been a barrier to wholesale slaughter or, indeed, historical applications of capital punishment. Personally I don’t support him on either of those issues, but neither of them, nor the perceived incompatibility of them, is evidence of idiocy.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,196
    rottenborough said:

    https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/923869622193008641

    Jezza trying to get some credit for Steel's Bill.

    There are a number of Catholic Labour voters who would disagree with Corbyn on abortion as well as a number of Labour voters from other religions too.
  • Chris_AChris_A Posts: 1,237
    prh47bridge said:

    I agree with JRM that it is odd to say we live in a multi-cultural country and then criticise him for being a Catholic who accepts the views of the Catholic church on matters such as abortion. He has always been clear that he would not attempt to impose his views on the country. He would, undoubtedly, vote against abortion given the chance but would not use the whip to enforce his views on the party. I don't think his views on abortion should be a bar to him becoming PM. I can think of plenty of other reasons he should not be PM but this isn't one of them.

    But he doesn't accept the Catholic church's views on capital punishment so he picks and chooses what he wants to support. Hardly a staunch Catholic then.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,180
    "My guess is that it would be an net negative for the Tories in a general election. "

    Nomination for understatement of the Millenium ..so far :)
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    FPT:

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/923857034222690304
  • stodgestodge Posts: 14,984
    HYUFD said:

    rottenborough said:

    https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/923869622193008641

    Jezza trying to get some credit for Steel's Bill.

    There are a number of Catholic Labour voters who would disagree with Corbyn on abortion as well as a number of Labour voters from other religions too.
    While there are a number of Conservative voters who would support Corbyn on abortion and oppose Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    david_herdson said:

    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/09/09/the-strange-rise-of-jacob-rees-mogg/

    I have little to add. No father (never mind a father of six) who won't change a nappy will ever be elected PM.

    No but his Mumsnet webchat would be a hoot!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,196
    edited October 2017
    felix said:

    "My guess is that it would be an net negative for the Tories in a general election. "

    Nomination for understatement of the Millenium ..so far :)

    Rees Mogg and Davis came top of a recent Luntz focus group of Tory leaning swing voters on the Sunday Politics and he was second behind Boris in a recent Survation poll as to who all voters wanted to succeed May.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4847612/Tory-voters-d-better-Boris-leader.html
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,275
    CarlottaVance said:

    FPT:

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/923857034222690304

    52 leave 32 remain would indicate the ultra remainers have lost considerable ground on this poll
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,232
    CarlottaVance said:

    david_herdson said:

    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/09/09/the-strange-rise-of-jacob-rees-mogg/

    I have little to add. No father (never mind a father of six) who won't change a nappy will ever be elected PM.

    No but his Mumsnet webchat would be a hoot!
    It is essentially a part of constitutional requirements now.
  • Carolus_RexCarolus_Rex Posts: 1,414
    Chris_A said:

    prh47bridge said:

    I agree with JRM that it is odd to say we live in a multi-cultural country and then criticise him for being a Catholic who accepts the views of the Catholic church on matters such as abortion. He has always been clear that he would not attempt to impose his views on the country. He would, undoubtedly, vote against abortion given the chance but would not use the whip to enforce his views on the party. I don't think his views on abortion should be a bar to him becoming PM. I can think of plenty of other reasons he should not be PM but this isn't one of them.

    But he doesn't accept the Catholic church's views on capital punishment so he picks and chooses what he wants to support. Hardly a staunch Catholic then.
    I think you may be mistaken about the church's views on capital punishment.

    http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2017/10/15/the-popes-remarks-on-capital-punishment-need-to-be-clarified/
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,275
    HYUFD said:

    felix said:

    "My guess is that it would be an net negative for the Tories in a general election. "

    Nomination for understatement of the Millenium ..so far :)

    Rees Mogg and Davis came top of a recent Luntz focus group of Tory leaning swing voters on the Sunday Politics and he was second behind Boris in a recent Survation poll as to who all voters wanted to succeed May.
    He seemed quite popular on question time
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,357
    Chris_A said:

    Of course he's not very pro-life when it comes to capital punishment. He seems to pick and choose which of the Holy Father's pronouncements to adhere to. He's an idiot and the fact that he's being discussed at all shows the state of the modern Tory party and the loopiness of its members.

    Oh come on. I'm not personally in favour of the death penalty, nor am I opposed to abortion within reason. However, I'm sure you can see as well as I can that there's a clear difference between taking the life of someone as a penalty for a heinous crime, where that person was - or very much should have been - aware of the consequences of his or her actions, and the taking of the life of an innocent.

    Besides, it seems to me that nearly all the talk of JRM as leader is coming from *outside* the Tory party from people who want to think that it, and its members, are loopy.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Very religious political figures need either to:

    a) demonstrate that they can separate their private morality from a public morality that has very different values and credibly embody and shape the public morality; or

    b) explain why they think public morality is wrong, accepting that their very different moral views are a legitimate subject for public debate.

    Jacob Rees-Mogg is entitled to his views. He is not entitled to force them on a nation that does not share them at all.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,364
    david_herdson said:

    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/09/09/the-strange-rise-of-jacob-rees-mogg/

    I have little to add. No father (never mind a father of six) who won't change a nappy will ever be elected PM.

    His reason, apparently, is that he is 'not a modern man', and the nanny does it brilliantly. Also: "The backbencher appeared to think his lack of experience would hinder him in attempting the task."

    LOL. He really is a f'wit. :)

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/21/jacob-rees-mogg-have-six-children-have-never-changed-nappy/
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,357
    kle4 said:

    Chris_A said:

    Of course he's not very pro-life when it comes to capital punishment. He seems to pick and choose which of the Holy Father's pronouncements to adhere to. He's an idiot and the fact that he's being discussed at all shows the state of the modern Tory party and the loopiness of its members.

    I don’t think he’d be a good fit at all, I think it’s just an extension of silly season stuff, but I don’t know that the first sentence is proof of idiocy - that shalt not kill is pretty clear, but that has not exactly been a barrier to wholesale slaughter or, indeed, historical applications of capital punishment. Personally I don’t support him on either of those issues, but neither of them, nor the perceived incompatibility of them, is evidence of idiocy.
    Thou shalt not kill didn't seem to bother God during the Great Flood. As always, it's one rule for the powerful and another for everyone else.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 14,984
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    FPT:

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/923857034222690304

    52 leave 32 remain would indicate the ultra remainers have lost considerable ground on this poll
    OTOH support for a "softer" Brexit or no Brexit at 44, support for current Government line (whatever that is) 40 with 16 DKs suggests we are as divided as ever.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,275
    AlastairMeeks said:

    Very religious political figures need either to:

    a) demonstrate that they can separate their private morality from a public morality that has very different values and credibly embody and shape the public morality; or

    b) explain why they think public morality is wrong, accepting that their very different moral views are a legitimate subject for public debate.

    Jacob Rees-Mogg is entitled to his views. He is not entitled to force them on a nation that does not share them at all.

    He has not given the impression he would force them on the Nation unless of course you have some evidence he has
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,314
    CarlottaVance said:

    FPT:

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/923857034222690304

    The balance from YouGov earlier in the year was:

    68% - Go ahead
    22% - Seek to reverse.

    The trend is your friend.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,249
    CarlottaVance said:

    FPT:

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/923857034222690304

    Voting intention is Con 41, Lab 43, Lib Dem 7.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,196
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    HYUFD said:

    felix said:

    "My guess is that it would be an net negative for the Tories in a general election. "

    Nomination for understatement of the Millenium ..so far :)

    Rees Mogg and Davis came top of a recent Luntz focus group of Tory leaning swing voters on the Sunday Politics and he was second behind Boris in a recent Survation poll as to who all voters wanted to succeed May.
    He seemed quite popular on question time
    He says what he thinks like Corbyn.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    prh47bridge said:

    I agree with JRM that it is odd to say we live in a multi-cultural country and then criticise him for being a Catholic who accepts the views of the Catholic church on matters such as abortion. He has always been clear that he would not attempt to impose his views on the country. He would, undoubtedly, vote against abortion given the chance but would not use the whip to enforce his views on the party. I don't think his views on abortion should be a bar to him becoming PM. I can think of plenty of other reasons he should not be PM but this isn't one of them.

    I have no problem with his views on abortion as long as he respects national opinion on the subject, but like Farron he is likely to be pilloried for it, and indeed for some other religious views.

  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,275
    williamglenn said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    FPT:

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/923857034222690304

    The balance from YouGov earlier in the year was:

    68% - Go ahead
    22% - Seek to reverse.

    The trend is your friend.
    Which poll was that
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,469
    I have found it rather amusing that so many people are trying to avoid mentioning Boris's record of admitted adultery, the joke being that the pictures of him dangling in that harness, waving his flags was the first time his wife could guarantee where the contents of his underwear actually were, when he wasn't with her. Is there a market on when some of the notches on his bedpost will start spilling the beans to one or other of the Sunday tabloids?
    https://youtu.be/ZAxA-9D4X3o
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,196
    david_herdson said:

    kle4 said:

    Chris_A said:

    Of course he's not very pro-life when it comes to capital punishment. He seems to pick and choose which of the Holy Father's pronouncements to adhere to. He's an idiot and the fact that he's being discussed at all shows the state of the modern Tory party and the loopiness of its members.

    I don’t think he’d be a good fit at all, I think it’s just an extension of silly season stuff, but I don’t know that the first sentence is proof of idiocy - that shalt not kill is pretty clear, but that has not exactly been a barrier to wholesale slaughter or, indeed, historical applications of capital punishment. Personally I don’t support him on either of those issues, but neither of them, nor the perceived incompatibility of them, is evidence of idiocy.
    Thou shalt not kill didn't seem to bother God during the Great Flood. As always, it's one rule for the powerful and another for everyone else.
    God killed Pharaoh's son.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,314
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    williamglenn said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    FPT:

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/923857034222690304

    The balance from YouGov earlier in the year was:

    68% - Go ahead
    22% - Seek to reverse.

    The trend is your friend.
    Which poll was that
    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/12/forget-52-rise-re-leavers-mean-pro-brexit-electora/
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Mogg vs Khan could be an interesting GE- battle of the medieval religions..
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 14,665
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jacob Rees-Mogg is not fit to be PM.

    Why
    Specky twat with antediluvian views on important social issues.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,232
    AlastairMeeks said:

    Very religious political figures need either to:

    a) demonstrate that they can separate their private morality from a public morality that has very different values and credibly embody and shape the public morality; or

    b) explain why they think public morality is wrong, accepting that their very different moral views are a legitimate subject for public debate.

    Jacob Rees-Mogg is entitled to his views. He is not entitled to force them on a nation that does not share them at all.

    Certainly not. Do we have any indication he would try to?

    Even as a atheist liberal in such matters I have some sympathy fo the scorn merely for holding such view gets - but it does depend on the circumstances and context.
    FF43 said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/923857034222690304

    I would interpret that as 40% committed to Brexit. The rest either want to negotiate or abandon Brexit or don't know. I suppose it partly depends on how the 12% that want the government to reconsider its Brexit aims would fall out if they don't get the soft Brexit they are after. A remarkable lack of consensus for the most major constitutional change the UK has been through since the independence of Ireland.
    Well we’ve not really ironed out the issues from that one yet, either!
    MTimT said:

    FF43 said:

    You could argue that you can achieve the same thing through the election of representatives.

    Not in all circumstances.

    Major changes to the constitution should, in my view, require the public's ratification. It has much more authority than the majority decision of 650 representative none of whom can honestly state that they have been elected for a particular position on a particular issue. [I don't even think representatives of 'single issue' parties such as UKIP or SNP can claim that, as voters also vote for them for other reasons too].
    You can argue it, and that public ratification needs to be more than just 50% event, but there’s no consensus as to that.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,196
    Carolus_Rex said:

    Chris_A said:

    prh47bridge said:

    I agree with JRM that it is odd to say we live in a multi-cultural country and then criticise him for being a Catholic who accepts the views of the Catholic church on matters such as abortion. He has always been clear that he would not attempt to impose his views on the country. He would, undoubtedly, vote against abortion given the chance but would not use the whip to enforce his views on the party. I don't think his views on abortion should be a bar to him becoming PM. I can think of plenty of other reasons he should not be PM but this isn't one of them.

    But he doesn't accept the Catholic church's views on capital punishment so he picks and chooses what he wants to support. Hardly a staunch Catholic then.
    I think you may be mistaken about the church's views on capital punishment.

    http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2017/10/15/the-popes-remarks-on-capital-punishment-need-to-be-clarified/
    Pope Francis said capital punishment was 'per se' wrong in that article.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,076
    Sunday papers may be interesting this week, to say the least.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    Very religious political figures need either to:

    a) demonstrate that they can separate their private morality from a public morality that has very different values and credibly embody and shape the public morality; or

    b) explain why they think public morality is wrong, accepting that their very different moral views are a legitimate subject for public debate.

    Jacob Rees-Mogg is entitled to his views. He is not entitled to force them on a nation that does not share them at all.

    He has not given the impression he would force them on the Nation unless of course you have some evidence he has
    His past voting record is ample evidence that he is willing to impose his values on the nation.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    david_herdson said:

    kle4 said:

    Chris_A said:

    Of course he's not very pro-life when it comes to capital punishment. He seems to pick and choose which of the Holy Father's pronouncements to adhere to. He's an idiot and the fact that he's being discussed at all shows the state of the modern Tory party and the loopiness of its members.

    I don’t think he’d be a good fit at all, I think it’s just an extension of silly season stuff, but I don’t know that the first sentence is proof of idiocy - that shalt not kill is pretty clear, but that has not exactly been a barrier to wholesale slaughter or, indeed, historical applications of capital punishment. Personally I don’t support him on either of those issues, but neither of them, nor the perceived incompatibility of them, is evidence of idiocy.
    Thou shalt not kill didn't seem to bother God during the Great Flood. As always, it's one rule for the powerful and another for everyone else.
    The book of Genesis is one of an evolving understanding of God. The God at the end is quite different from the tribal deity of the beginning.

    The story of the flood is really a tale of the folly of attempting to wipe out evil by wiping out evil individuals. Barely was the world dry before the same problems reinvented themselves.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,275
    Dura_Ace said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jacob Rees-Mogg is not fit to be PM.

    Why
    Specky twat with antediluvian views on important social issues.
    His views follow his Roman Catholic beliefs which are consistent with many millions of peoples. I do not agree with his views but he is entitled to them and he is consistent.

    Your language lets you down
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,097
    HYUFD said:

    Carolus_Rex said:

    Chris_A said:

    prh47bridge said:

    I agree with JRM that it is odd to say we live in a multi-cultural country and then criticise him for being a Catholic who accepts the views of the Catholic church on matters such as abortion. He has always been clear that he would not attempt to impose his views on the country. He would, undoubtedly, vote against abortion given the chance but would not use the whip to enforce his views on the party. I don't think his views on abortion should be a bar to him becoming PM. I can think of plenty of other reasons he should not be PM but this isn't one of them.

    But he doesn't accept the Catholic church's views on capital punishment so he picks and chooses what he wants to support. Hardly a staunch Catholic then.
    I think you may be mistaken about the church's views on capital punishment.

    http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2017/10/15/the-popes-remarks-on-capital-punishment-need-to-be-clarified/
    Pope Francis said capital punishment was 'per se' wrong in that article.
    Thou shalt not kill. 93% agree with that according to the polling at the top of yesterday’s thread.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,196
    Sean_F said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    FPT:

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/923857034222690304

    Voting intention is Con 41, Lab 43, Lib Dem 7.
    That would give Tories 290 seats and Labour 300 seats on UNS, so SNP and LDs again hold balance of power.

    http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,022
    edited October 2017
    I think I need to do a thread on JRM.

    I’d sooner TPD Mark Reckless led the Tory party than JRM.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,249

    The most recent Yougov poll now has 45% wishing the government to continue with Brexit, 10% preferring a soft Brexit, 17% wanting a second referendum and 14% wanting to abandon Brexit,

    http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/4y1e1sdlwa/InternalResults_171024_VI.pdf
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,097
    OchEye said:

    I have found it rather amusing that so many people are trying to avoid mentioning Boris's record of admitted adultery, the joke being that the pictures of him dangling in that harness, waving his flags was the first time his wife could guarantee where the contents of his underwear actually were, when he wasn't with her. Is there a market on when some of the notches on his bedpost will start spilling the beans to one or other of the Sunday tabloids?
    ttps://youtu.be/ZAxA-9D4X3o

    One of the many reasons he won’t be getting the top job. Way too many skeletons.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 44,498
    edited October 2017
    Chris_A said:

    Of course he's not very pro-life when it comes to capital punishment. He seems to pick and choose which of the Holy Father's pronouncements to adhere to. He's an idiot and the fact that he's being discussed at all shows the state of the modern Tory party and the loopiness of its members.

    I may have misheard but I'm sure JRM said he opposed capital punishment on last night's QT?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,196
    Sandpit said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carolus_Rex said:

    Chris_A said:

    prh47bridge said:

    I agree with JRM that it is odd to say we live in a multi-cultural country and then criticise him for being a Catholic who accepts the views of the Catholic church on matters such as abortion. He has always been clear that he would not attempt to impose his views on the country. He would, undoubtedly, vote against abortion given the chance but would not use the whip to enforce his views on the party. I don't think his views on abortion should be a bar to him becoming PM. I can think of plenty of other reasons he should not be PM but this isn't one of them.

    But he doesn't accept the Catholic church's views on capital punishment so he picks and chooses what he wants to support. Hardly a staunch Catholic then.
    I think you may be mistaken about the church's views on capital punishment.

    http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2017/10/15/the-popes-remarks-on-capital-punishment-need-to-be-clarified/
    Pope Francis said capital punishment was 'per se' wrong in that article.
    Thou shalt not kill. 93% agree with that according to the polling at the top of yesterday’s thread.
    Though other polls also show they agree with the death penalty for murder.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,533
    Has nobody mentioned the concept of set-off?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41774817
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited October 2017
    I think it’s more viable for him to aim for the treasury, which he’s well positioned for.

    Openly joint ticketing with a liberal PM candidate (Ideally Davidson if she’s an MP at the time of the contest) would neutralise both of their negatives with a majority of both mp’s & members.

    He can get to the top from there.



  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,022
    Theuniondivvie said:

    Chris_A said:

    Of course he's not very pro-life when it comes to capital punishment. He seems to pick and choose which of the Holy Father's pronouncements to adhere to. He's an idiot and the fact that he's being discussed at all shows the state of the modern Tory party and the loopiness of its members.

    I may have misheard but I'm sure he said he opposed capital punishment on last night's QT?
    I’m fairly certain in the past JRM has said he takes the unimpeachable view of life, that means no abortion and no death penalty.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,314
    Sean_F said:


    The most recent Yougov poll now has 45% wishing the government to continue with Brexit, 10% preferring a soft Brexit, 17% wanting a second referendum and 14% wanting to abandon Brexit,

    http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/4y1e1sdlwa/InternalResults_171024_VI.pdf

    51% of 2017 Conservative voters think the government is doing a good job negotiating Brexit!
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,249

    IMO JRM is fully entitled to hold and argue for his views, and fully entitled to be criticised for them.

    His views are not shared by the majority of the voters, but frequently, voters will give kudos to people who argue a minority viewpoint with conviction and politely, as he does.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    https://twitter.com/jgforsyth/status/923879568234172416
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carolus_Rex said:

    Chris_A said:

    prh47bridge said:

    I agree with JRM that it is odd to say we live in a multi-cultural country and then criticise him for being a Catholic who accepts the views of the Catholic church on matters such as abortion. He has always been clear that he would not attempt to impose his views on the country. He would, undoubtedly, vote against abortion given the chance but would not use the whip to enforce his views on the party. I don't think his views on abortion should be a bar to him becoming PM. I can think of plenty of other reasons he should not be PM but this isn't one of them.

    But he doesn't accept the Catholic church's views on capital punishment so he picks and chooses what he wants to support. Hardly a staunch Catholic then.
    I think you may be mistaken about the church's views on capital punishment.

    http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2017/10/15/the-popes-remarks-on-capital-punishment-need-to-be-clarified/
    Pope Francis said capital punishment was 'per se' wrong in that article.
    Thou shalt not kill. 93% agree with that according to the polling at the top of yesterday’s thread.
    Though other polls also show they agree with the death penalty for murder.
    And I would be surprised if 93% were absolute pacifists!
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,533
    williamglenn said:

    Sean_F said:


    The most recent Yougov poll now has 45% wishing the government to continue with Brexit, 10% preferring a soft Brexit, 17% wanting a second referendum and 14% wanting to abandon Brexit,

    http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/4y1e1sdlwa/InternalResults_171024_VI.pdf

    51% of 2017 Conservative voters think the government is doing a good job negotiating Brexit!
    A better job than you would!
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,022
    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/jgforsyth/status/923879568234172416

    Hurrah, we’re remaining in the single market.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,196
    foxinsoxuk said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carolus_Rex said:

    Chris_A said:

    prh47bridge said:

    I agree with JRM that it is odd to say we live in a multi-cultural country and then criticise him for being a Catholic who accepts the views of the Catholic church on matters such as abortion. He has always been clear that he would not attempt to impose his views on the country. He would, undoubtedly, vote against abortion given the chance but would not use the whip to enforce his views on the party. I don't think his views on abortion should be a bar to him becoming PM. I can think of plenty of other reasons he should not be PM but this isn't one of them.

    But he doesn't accept the Catholic church's views on capital punishment so he picks and chooses what he wants to support. Hardly a staunch Catholic then.
    I think you may be mistaken about the church's views on capital punishment.

    http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2017/10/15/the-popes-remarks-on-capital-punishment-need-to-be-clarified/
    Pope Francis said capital punishment was 'per se' wrong in that article.
    Thou shalt not kill. 93% agree with that according to the polling at the top of yesterday’s thread.
    Though other polls also show they agree with the death penalty for murder.
    And I would be surprised if 93% were absolute pacifists!
    More like 20% for that.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,533
    Sandpit said:

    OchEye said:

    I have found it rather amusing that so many people are trying to avoid mentioning Boris's record of admitted adultery, the joke being that the pictures of him dangling in that harness, waving his flags was the first time his wife could guarantee where the contents of his underwear actually were, when he wasn't with her. Is there a market on when some of the notches on his bedpost will start spilling the beans to one or other of the Sunday tabloids?
    ttps://youtu.be/ZAxA-9D4X3o

    One of the many reasons he won’t be getting the top job. Way too many skeletons.
    Boris himself thought he wasn't up to the job of being PM in the summer of 2016 - and took his hat out the ring. So how can he now be considered for PM, yet JRM saying he doesn't want the job will mean the question being raised will mean he can't possibly have the job?

    Something doesn't compute....
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,249

    One criticism I don't have much time for is "imposing your opinions on others." Every legislator imposes his or her opinions on people that don't agree with them. All that we are entitled to expect is that they should play by the rules of the game i.e. act peacefully, and uphold the democratic process.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,196
    Pong said:

    I think it’s more viable for him to aim for the treasury, which he’s well positioned for.

    Openly joint ticketing with a liberal PM candidate (Ideally Davidson if she’s an MP at the time of the contest) would neutralise both of their negatives with a majority of both mp’s & members.

    He can get to the top from there.



    Ruth Davidson is not an MP and has no intention of being an MP let alone PM.

    The next Tory leader will also almost certainly be a Leaver.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    We have a Muslim mayor banning bikini adverts on TFL and yet all the handwringing is about the Popish JRM ?

  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/jgforsyth/status/923879568234172416

    Yes, very interesting. I'd like to know who provided the regulatory and political clarifications, though.
  • prh47bridgeprh47bridge Posts: 480
    AlastairMeeks said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    Very religious political figures need either to:

    a) demonstrate that they can separate their private morality from a public morality that has very different values and credibly embody and shape the public morality; or

    b) explain why they think public morality is wrong, accepting that their very different moral views are a legitimate subject for public debate.

    Jacob Rees-Mogg is entitled to his views. He is not entitled to force them on a nation that does not share them at all.

    He has not given the impression he would force them on the Nation unless of course you have some evidence he has
    His past voting record is ample evidence that he is willing to impose his values on the nation.
    Rubbish. Voting against abortion in a free vote when MPs are entitled to vote according to their conscience is very different from whipping your MPs to vote against abortion. The former is expressing your view and will only change the law if the majority of MPs share your values. The latter is imposing your values on the nation.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,357
    kle4 said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    Very religious political figures need either to:

    a) demonstrate that they can separate their private morality from a public morality that has very different values and credibly embody and shape the public morality; or

    b) explain why they think public morality is wrong, accepting that their very different moral views are a legitimate subject for public debate.

    Jacob Rees-Mogg is entitled to his views. He is not entitled to force them on a nation that does not share them at all.

    Certainly not. Do we have any indication he would try to?

    Even as a atheist liberal in such matters I have some sympathy fo the scorn merely for holding such view gets - but it does depend on the circumstances and context.
    FF43 said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/923857034222690304

    I would interpret that as 40% committed to Brexit. The rest either want to negotiate or abandon Brexit or don't know. I suppose it partly depends on how the 12% that want the government to reconsider its Brexit aims would fall out if they don't get the soft Brexit they are after. A remarkable lack of consensus for the most major constitutional change the UK has been through since the independence of Ireland.
    Well we’ve not really ironed out the issues from that one yet, either!
    MTimT said:

    FF43 said:

    You could argue that you can achieve the same thing through the election of representatives.

    Not in all circumstances.

    Major changes to the constitution should, in my view, require the public's ratification. It has much more authority than the majority decision of 650 representative none of whom can honestly state that they have been elected for a particular position on a particular issue. [I don't even think representatives of 'single issue' parties such as UKIP or SNP can claim that, as voters also vote for them for other reasons too].
    You can argue it, and that public ratification needs to be more than just 50% event, but there’s no consensus as to that.
    I disagree. The lack of opposition to the concept of a referendum on either the Scottish independence vote or the UK Brexit vote was indicative of the consensus that does exist that first-order constitutional issues can only be settled by a direct vote of the people.

    There was certainly opposition to whether the vote should be held but not to whether if the question should be put, it should be put in a referendum.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,249
    HYUFD said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carolus_Rex said:

    Chris_A said:

    prh47bridge said:

    I agree with JRM that it is odd to say we live in a multi-cultural country and then criticise him for being a Catholic who accepts the views of the Catholic church on matters such as abortion. He has always been clear that he would not attempt to impose his views on the country. He would, undoubtedly, vote against abortion given the chance but would not use the whip to enforce his views on the party. I don't think his views on abortion should be a bar to him becoming PM. I can think of plenty of other reasons he should not be PM but this isn't one of them.

    But he doesn't accept the Catholic church's views on capital punishment so he picks and chooses what he wants to support. Hardly a staunch Catholic then.
    I think you may be mistaken about the church's views on capital punishment.

    http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2017/10/15/the-popes-remarks-on-capital-punishment-need-to-be-clarified/
    Pope Francis said capital punishment was 'per se' wrong in that article.
    Thou shalt not kill. 93% agree with that according to the polling at the top of yesterday’s thread.
    Though other polls also show they agree with the death penalty for murder.
    And I would be surprised if 93% were absolute pacifists!
    More like 20% for that.
    I think the proportion who think that killing is wrong in every circumstance, including defending yourself from someone who is trying to kill you, would be far lower.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,022
    TGOHF said:

    We have a Muslim mayor banning bikini adverts on TFL and yet all the handwringing is about the Popish JRM ?

    TfL also banned advertising by The Palestinians.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    On topic: I've never understood why people are, or claim to be, so shocked that someone who opposes abortion, on the grounds that the foetus is a human being with its own separate right to existence, does so consistently. Surely it would be more shocking if they did think there should be an exception for conception caused by rape?
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,754
    prh47bridge said:



    Rubbish. Voting against abortion in a free vote when MPs are entitled to vote according to their conscience is very different from whipping your MPs to vote against abortion. The former is expressing your view and will only change the law if the majority of MPs share your values. The latter is imposing your values on the nation.

    If you vote against abortion on the grounds of your personal beliefs, you are trying to impose your conscience on the rest of the nation.

    Whether you are successful or not is neither here nor there.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,533
    prh47bridge said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    Very religious political figures need either to:

    a) demonstrate that they can separate their private morality from a public morality that has very different values and credibly embody and shape the public morality; or

    b) explain why they think public morality is wrong, accepting that their very different moral views are a legitimate subject for public debate.

    Jacob Rees-Mogg is entitled to his views. He is not entitled to force them on a nation that does not share them at all.

    He has not given the impression he would force them on the Nation unless of course you have some evidence he has
    His past voting record is ample evidence that he is willing to impose his values on the nation.
    Rubbish. Voting against abortion in a free vote when MPs are entitled to vote according to their conscience is very different from whipping your MPs to vote against abortion. The former is expressing your view and will only change the law if the majority of MPs share your values. The latter is imposing your values on the nation.
    +1
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,076
    https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/923883145329610753
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 44,498
    TGOHF said:

    We have a Muslim mayor banning bikini adverts on TFL and yet all the handwringing is about the Popish JRM ?

    Our hand wringing over matters Papish correspondent writes.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    Well, I for one would be very happy if a future Labour Chancellor didn't impose his or her opinions on my tax bill.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,754
    Sean_F said:


    One criticism I don't have much time for is "imposing your opinions on others." Every legislator imposes his or her opinions on people that don't agree with them. All that we are entitled to expect is that they should play by the rules of the game i.e. act peacefully, and uphold the democratic process.

    Religious opinions are different.

    Presumably all Catholics, Protestants, Muslims all think we should all be of their religion. But that is not what the British state should be doing.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,000
    Sean_F said:


    One criticism I don't have much time for is "imposing your opinions on others." Every legislator imposes his or her opinions on people that don't agree with them. All that we are entitled to expect is that they should play by the rules of the game i.e. act peacefully, and uphold the democratic process.

    Not sure I agree with that. JRM would be minded, I suspect, to repeal the Abortion Act. If he sought to whip his party to support such a move or even seek to regulate the on demand culture we have at the present time, that would be a deal breaker for me. Ditto the death penalty if he does indeed favour it (he may not).

    I say this despite finding abortion morally abhorrent personally. The reason I say it is because I respect the right of others to have different views, particularly women who carry the child. I am not sure what JRM's position is on that. If his view is entirely personal I really don't have a problem. If it impinges on his public persona and votes that is a problem.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    edited October 2017
    prh47bridge said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    Very religious political figures need either to:

    a) demonstrate that they can separate their private morality from a public morality that has very different values and credibly embody and shape the public morality; or

    b) explain why they think public morality is wrong, accepting that their very different moral views are a legitimate subject for public debate.

    Jacob Rees-Mogg is entitled to his views. He is not entitled to force them on a nation that does not share them at all.

    He has not given the impression he would force them on the Nation unless of course you have some evidence he has
    His past voting record is ample evidence that he is willing to impose his values on the nation.
    Rubbish. Voting against abortion in a free vote when MPs are entitled to vote according to their conscience is very different from whipping your MPs to vote against abortion. The former is expressing your view and will only change the law if the majority of MPs share your values. The latter is imposing your values on the nation.

    It's hardly a one-off. Never mind his implacable hostility to gay rights, he's voted repeatedly to repeal the Human Rights Act. That goes far beyond voting in a free vote.
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025