Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I don't like Corbyn, and I certainly don't like Mogg, but like I said, if such a contest ever happened, the British public would have a clear ideological choice for the first time in 30 years, instead of this New Labour horsegak, which has poisoned politics in this country.

There's a reason that 3rd way politics became so successful. It's because people aren't generally ideological. They don't want to have to make a choice between Left and Right, socialism and whatever toxicity Mogg is vomiting today. Most people like the comfortable middle ground.

Having choice is great, but if the choice is between two positions that you hate is that really choice? Why celebrate a choice that is no better than picking the poison that kills you?

 Henry wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I don't like Corbyn, and I certainly don't like Mogg, but like I said, if such a contest ever happened, the British public would have a clear ideological choice for the first time in 30 years, instead of this New Labour horsegak, which has poisoned politics in this country.

There's a reason that 3rd way politics became so successful. It's because people aren't generally ideological. They don't want to have to make a choice between Left and Right, socialism and whatever toxicity Mogg is vomiting today. Most people like the comfortable middle ground.

Having choice is great, but if the choice is between two positions that you hate is that really choice? Why celebrate a choice that is no better than picking the poison that kills you?

We have this wonderful NHS, because long ago, the British people were happy to be ideological and vote for a true party of the Left.

If you build it, they will come. Give the people a genuine choice, and British history shows they will sign up for it.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Henry wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I don't like Corbyn, and I certainly don't like Mogg, but like I said, if such a contest ever happened, the British public would have a clear ideological choice for the first time in 30 years, instead of this New Labour horsegak, which has poisoned politics in this country.

There's a reason that 3rd way politics became so successful. It's because people aren't generally ideological. They don't want to have to make a choice between Left and Right, socialism and whatever toxicity Mogg is vomiting today. Most people like the comfortable middle ground.

Having choice is great, but if the choice is between two positions that you hate is that really choice? Why celebrate a choice that is no better than picking the poison that kills you?

We have this wonderful NHS, because long ago, the British people were happy to be ideological and vote for a true party of the Left.

If you build it, they will come. Give the people a genuine choice, and British history shows they will sign up for it.

Not when you've got individuals like this...

http://metro.co.uk/2017/08/01/guy-gets-tattoo-to-show-how-much-he-loves-jacob-rees-mogg-6822197/

It's the equivalent of a cow branding itself.

I hate to be that guy, but I do wonder that if Jacob Rees-Mogg didn't have a quaint old-fashioned upper class name, but say "Mohammed Al-Haraj" *, whether the public reaction would be quite the same to the exact same public statements?

* made up name is obviously made up, no offence intended.

 Jadenim wrote:
I hate to be that guy, but I do wonder that if Jacob Rees-Mogg didn't have a quaint old-fashioned upper class name, but say "Mohammed Al-Haraj" *, whether the public reaction would be quite the same to the exact same public statements?

* made up name is obviously made up, no offence intended.

Sadly I think we all know the answer to that one.

I remember when Rees-Mogg went on HIGNFY and Hislop turned to him and said, 'So Jacob, do you think your accent has ever held you back?'

I like and respect the fact that Rees-Mogg is honest. In the same way that I can respect a homophobe who actually lives by the full word of Leviticus (avoids shellfish, mixed fabrics, etc). I might disagree intensively with them, I might think they're bloody stupid, I might even think they're total bastards and hate their guts. But I do have a grudging respect for people who consistently follow their beliefs. Too few do.

That being said, I'd take to the streets before I saw Moggy as PM. I'd take Corbyn over Moggy any day. I might respect his integrity, and I like the way he has a habit of making lots of politicians uncomfortable, but the man should never actually be in charge.

Big day today for British politics. Great repeal Bill Debate, and the EU have published its position papers for Brexit.

It would be an understatement to say things are hotting up on social media


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:
I remember when Rees-Mogg went on HIGNFY and Hislop turned to him and said, 'So Jacob, do you think your accent has ever held you back?'

I like and respect the fact that Rees-Mogg is honest. In the same way that I can respect a homophobe who actually lives by the full word of Leviticus (avoids shellfish, mixed fabrics, etc). I might disagree intensively with them, I might think they're bloody stupid, I might even think they're total bastards and hate their guts. But I do have a grudging respect for people who consistently follow their beliefs. Too few do.

That being said, I'd take to the streets before I saw Moggy as PM. I'd take Corbyn over Moggy any day. I might respect his integrity, and I like the way he has a habit of making lots of politicians uncomfortable, but the man should never actually be in charge.

I don't think Mogg has ambitions beyond a cabinet post. I think he's happy to snipe away from the back benches and make a nuisance of himself from time to time.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I don't think Mogg has ambitions beyond a cabinet post. I think he's happy to snipe away from the back benches and make a nuisance of himself from time to time.

If that is where he is most effective, I'd help keep him there.
He may have a big mouth, wide enough for the Boris-sized words, and he seems to go after the unpopular MPs and policies when they step out if line.

 Jadenim wrote:
I hate to be that guy, but I do wonder that if Jacob Rees-Mogg didn't have a quaint old-fashioned upper class name, but say "Mohammed Al-Haraj" *, whether the public reaction would be quite the same to the exact same public statements?

* made up name is obviously made up, no offence intended.

In that example, any negative public reaction would probably be dismissed as Islamophobia. You can also bet the media would hesitate to ask Mr Al-Haraj any awkward questions about it. They save those sorts of questions for people with names like Tim Farron.

Here we go, here we go . Opening shots in another Tory party civil war?

40 Tory MPs sign letter saying Britain should withdraw from the single market during Brexit transition.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41187051

It's Maastricht and John Major's "bastards" all over again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Skinnereal wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I don't think Mogg has ambitions beyond a cabinet post. I think he's happy to snipe away from the back benches and make a nuisance of himself from time to time.

If that is where he is most effective, I'd help keep him there.
He may have a big mouth, wide enough for the Boris-sized words, and he seems to go after the unpopular MPs and policies when they step out if line.

I think he's a lot smarter than Bojo, but that isn't really saying much!

@ DINLT

They need to save all their infighting until after Brexit. They cannot feth this up. Also the last time they started infighting we ended up with new labour in charge. Need I say more?

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Jadenim wrote:
I hate to be that guy, but I do wonder that if Jacob Rees-Mogg didn't have a quaint old-fashioned upper class name, but say "Mohammed Al-Haraj" *, whether the public reaction would be quite the same to the exact same public statements?

* made up name is obviously made up, no offence intended.

In that example, any negative public reaction would probably be dismissed as Islamophobia. You can also bet the media would hesitate to ask Mr Al-Haraj any awkward questions about it. They save those sorts of questions for people with names like Tim Farron.

In that example they wouldn't be any issue because the muslim sky fairy tells their devout followers that up until 4 months a foetus doesn't have a soul yet so it's ok to terminate.

I expect any muslim politician that says it's his personal belief that it's ok to slap your wife occasionally would very likely have to resign.

 Jadenim wrote:
I hate to be that guy, but I do wonder that if Jacob Rees-Mogg didn't have a quaint old-fashioned upper class name, but say "Mohammed Al-Haraj" *, whether the public reaction would be quite the same to the exact same public statements?

* made up name is obviously made up, no offence intended.

Would he still be a ruling, snooty tax dodging exploiters with an appalling voting record?

I couldn't give a single gak that he's got a posh name, the guy's a walking example of why the establishment is so hated by anyone who isn't part of it.

Sure, he's honest snout being a bag of gak, but he's still a bag of gak.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Here we go, here we go . Opening shots in another Tory party civil war?

40 Tory MPs sign letter saying Britain should withdraw from the single market during Brexit transition.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41187051

It's Maastricht and John Major's "bastards" all over again.

This goes back to the core issue of the Brexit vote, there was no gameplan behind "leave" except "leave". Beyond that, there was no unified plan or coherent concept of where people wanted a post EU Britain to go, and those divisions are in some cases as deep as those between "remain" and "leave", and thats going to entail a large number of issues for both the government and EU negotiations.

Quite.

I mean, from last year ..

https://www.buzzfeed.com/emilyashton/andrea-leadsom-interview?utm_term=.yqx1ll8mEL#.hj9oyy0Eeq

Brexit Would Have No Impact On UK Economy, Says Andrea Leadsom
"My best expectation, with my 30 years of financial experience, is that there will not be an economic impact," the Tory minister told BuzzFeed News.

......

She doesn’t believe that either Osborne or David Cameron will have to stand down in the event of Brexit, despite calls from some Tory MPs. "The prime minister has made it clear that in a referendum you are asking for instructions from the people – it’s not like a general election," she says. "And when the people vote Leave, I genuinely believe that the prime minister and the chancellor will then, with all of their energies, fight to deliver what the people have instructed them to do."

That interview aged well eh ?

And yet up she pops in the HoC ..yammering on about Big Ben ...

We all know just how imaginary Andrea Leadsom's 'financial experience' was, with her vastly exaggerated CV.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Here we go, here we go . Opening shots in another Tory party civil war?

40 Tory MPs sign letter saying Britain should withdraw from the single market during Brexit transition.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41187051

It's Maastricht and John Major's "bastards" all over again.

This goes back to the core issue of the Brexit vote, there was no gameplan behind "leave" except "leave". Beyond that, there was no unified plan or coherent concept of where people wanted a post EU Britain to go, and those divisions are in some cases as deep as those between "remain" and "leave", and thats going to entail a large number of issues for both the government and EU negotiations.

The Leave camp deserves some blame for not having a plan, but our former Prime Minister, David Cameron, deserves a lot of the blame as well. So convinced was he that Remain would win, he didn't even bother to tell the Civil Service to draw up contingency plans for a Leave victory

David Cameron has to be one of the worst PMs Britain has ever had. Lord North is generally considered the worst for losing America, but in his defence, he was up against a badass called Washington.

Cameron had no such opponent. The man was a disgrace as PM!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 reds8n wrote:

Quite.

I mean, from last year ..

https://www.buzzfeed.com/emilyashton/andrea-leadsom-interview?utm_term=.yqx1ll8mEL#.hj9oyy0Eeq

Brexit Would Have No Impact On UK Economy, Says Andrea Leadsom
"My best expectation, with my 30 years of financial experience, is that there will not be an economic impact," the Tory minister told BuzzFeed News.

......

She doesn’t believe that either Osborne or David Cameron will have to stand down in the event of Brexit, despite calls from some Tory MPs. "The prime minister has made it clear that in a referendum you are asking for instructions from the people – it’s not like a general election," she says. "And when the people vote Leave, I genuinely believe that the prime minister and the chancellor will then, with all of their energies, fight to deliver what the people have instructed them to do."

That interview aged well eh ?

And yet up she pops in the HoC ..yammering on about Big Ben ...

It's Leadsom. If she said that grass was green, I'd be out on my front lawn having a closer look. Completely out of her depth in any leadership capacity, and it was probably a blessing for the nation the she withdrew from the leadership contest, and that's saying something when you consider how bad Bojo and May are.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Here we go, here we go . Opening shots in another Tory party civil war?

40 Tory MPs sign letter saying Britain should withdraw from the single market during Brexit transition.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41187051

It's Maastricht and John Major's "bastards" all over again.

This goes back to the core issue of the Brexit vote, there was no gameplan behind "leave" except "leave". Beyond that, there was no unified plan or coherent concept of where people wanted a post EU Britain to go, and those divisions are in some cases as deep as those between "remain" and "leave", and thats going to entail a large number of issues for both the government and EU negotiations.

The Leave camp deserves some blame for not having a plan, but our former Prime Minister, David Cameron, deserves a lot of the blame as well. So convinced was he that Remain would win, he didn't even bother to tell the Civil Service to draw up contingency plans for a Leave victory

David Cameron has to be one of the worst PMs Britain has ever had. Lord North is generally considered the worst for losing America, but in his defence, he was up against a badass called Washington.

Cameron had no such opponent. The man was a disgrace as PM!

thats also fair, Cameron really was something of a monstrously vacuous idiot playing a brinksmanship game for political reasons and wasnt at all prepared for it not to go his way.

If drawing and quartering were still a thing, that kind of rank idiocy should qualify, no matter what side of the brexit debate you're on

@Vaktathi.

Cameron ought to have his picture in the dictionary under incompetence. He makes Trump look like FDR.

You may or may not know this, but in January 2016, a few months before the referendum, Cameron went to EU HQ to get a deal for the UK, some new powers.

The hope was that these new powers would buy off anti-EU opponents in the UK and end the calls for a referendum.

It was a fething disaster!

Before the talks started, he said he would support the EU in the referendum regardless of what happened in the talks, thus shooting himself in the foot, because the EU knew he didn't have the bluff option of threatning to walk away from the talks if he didn't get some powers.

He arrived on the Thursday, and said he wanted the talks to end on the Sunday, so all the EU had to do was sit it out until Sunday and not offer anything!

Shooting yourself in the foot? He sawed both feet off before the talks even started!

And that was a man who had his finger on the red button.

Utterly hopeless...

 Ketara wrote:


I like and respect the fact that Rees-Mogg is honest. In the same way that I can respect a homophobe who actually lives by the full word of Leviticus (avoids shellfish, mixed fabrics, etc). I might disagree intensively with them, I might think they're bloody stupid, I might even think they're total bastards and hate their guts. But I do have a grudging respect for people who consistently follow their beliefs. Too few do.

So we are saying that we should respect people because they form an opinion and then never change it, regardless of the research, how the world changes and develops? It's not something to be proud of to hold a belief regardless, if anything if everyone took this approach we would not be far past the stone age. Perhaps though instead of Mogg you should also be highly regarding others, perhaps those that believe that their own wealth is the primary concern and nothing else. Is that not being honest with the world? It might mean they lie and cheat to get there, but strictly speaking they are holding to their belief that they should get all the money?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ DINLT

They need to save all their infighting until after Brexit. They cannot feth this up. Also the last time they started infighting we ended up with new labour in charge. Need I say more?

And most said thank you to whatever higher power is up there....

However I think we are missing the point today about how much power the Wrexit bill is going to give Government. Keir Starmer did a very good job of taking it apart and you can find a summary here:-

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/keir-starmer-brexit-bill_uk_59b1435ce4b0b5e531041cdc?2n9&utm_hp_ref=uk

For example to quote:-

Clause 9(1) as to enable regulations to be made by Ministers “for the purposes of implementing the withdrawal agreement”. The agreement is defined by Clause 14 as an agreement “whether or not ratified” agreed with the European Union under Article 50(2) TEU

Schedule 7, paragraph 1(3) provides that any other regulations to correct deficiencies shall, by default, be subject to the negative procedure, unless it has been determined that the affirmative procedure shall apply.

Clause 17(1) contains a power to make consequential provisions “as the minister considers appropriate in consequence of this Act”.

clause 8(3) the power cannot be used to modify primary legislation “passed or made” after the end of the Session in which the Bill is passed. Assuming the Bill is passed in this session, which began in June 2017 and is expected to last until May 2019, Acts made after its end could not be amended under clause 17

Regardless of which side of the fence you sit on this is a terrifying thing to behold. In essence it gives Government the power to make any amendments to any legislation it sees fit (apart from taxation, create a criminal offence, change anything to the humans rights act or anything retrospectively) that may have an impact on the UK leaving the EU. No challenge, no parliamentary debate. In effect everyone can just go home and let ministers put into place anything they wish. This is not taking back control at all, it's more akin to losing all control. The MPs we voted for will get minimal voice who are meant to our representatives. If this goes through this isn't really democracy in action it's akin to a soft form of taking over and ignoring the electorate in the same way as Edrogan (but a lot more subtle).

 Whirlwind wrote:

So we are saying that we should respect people because they form an opinion and then never change it, regardless of the research, how the world changes and develops? It's not something to be proud of to hold a belief regardless, if anything if everyone took this approach we would not be far past the stone age. Perhaps though instead of Mogg you should also be highly regarding others, perhaps those that believe that their own wealth is the primary concern and nothing else. Is that not being honest with the world? It might mean they lie and cheat to get there, but strictly speaking they are holding to their belief that they should get all the money?

People hold 'beliefs' about everything. What is admirable in Rees-Mogg's case is a) Courage. Namely being willing to stand up and say something you believe even when you know it will only hurt you, and b) Honesty. It would be easier to simply lie and then hold your beliefs privately, as indeed, most politicians do.

Positive traits like bravery and honesty aren't exclusively the purview of those who sit precisely in a middle center left political place, and they're no less respectable in and of themselves because they become attached to a misguided or abhorrent viewpoint. For example, one could easily respect the intelligence of a very smart Japanese scientist who was a member of Unit 731, or the loyalty of a soldier who held his position outside the Fuhrerbunker to the bitter end.The minute you begin to insist that people who hold different world views to yourself are devoid of all positive traits or somehow 'unworthy' of them is the minute you've effectively become somebody who respects nobody but themselves.

Respect is not an endorsement of a view. Respect does not mean that you like somebody. Respect does not mean that you give credence to what somebody says. It is simply due regard for the manifestation of a positive trait, irregardless of whatever other things it might be located next to.

I always got the impression he was outspoken because he felt untouchable, rather than bravely sticking to opinions that may hurt him.

I agree with the rest of your post though; it's possible to approve of traits in people you dislike.

Herzlos wrote:
I always got the impression he was outspoken because he felt untouchable, rather than bravely sticking to opinions that may hurt him.

That may well be the case, a positive trait can often be a negative one in disguise. A hard working person might in actuality be an unhealthy workaholic, a brave person might be reckless, and so forth. All we can ever do is pass a judgement from our own limited empirical perspective.

 Ketara wrote:

People hold 'beliefs' about everything. What is admirable in Rees-Mogg's case is a) Courage. Namely being willing to stand up and say something you believe even when you know it will only hurt you, and b) Honesty. It would be easier to simply lie and then hold your beliefs privately, as indeed, most politicians do.

That's not really what I was saying or meant. There's a view here that having a long standing belief is a 'good thing', that it shows character etc. Those that change their mind are liars, deceiving etc. However no consideration is given to that they may have changed their mind, been presented with new evidence and hence believe something different from what they did before that evidence is presented to them. Which characteristic is better? The inflexible one that maintains the same position regardless of the evidence as suggested here with Moggy or the one that has an open mind to changing their approach to the world as other evidence presents itself? The latter might however be perceived as corrupted in some way?

Are we not also at risk that views of people are biased by are out internal views at the time? Moggy is lauded as holding to his principles, yet how many stated how heinous Gina Miller was when she stuck to her principles? Could people portray Moggy as 'just a rich out of touch person' because they align with views on other issues (e.g. Brexit). Yet when such people hold to their views on issues we disagree with then these should be condemned which has happened even on these boards (not specifically you Ketara). Or perhaps is it more insidious than this, could it be that a white male making such comments is considered in a better light than a non-white female showing deep-rooted, low level sexism and/or racism? If Gina Miller had come out and said the same things as Moggy how likely is that we would be having a debate on how 'fine' that character trait was? Highly unlikely I would suspect.

Ress-mogg's catholic inspired manifesto is gonna be an eye opener for the tory masses eh ?


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/08/boris-johnson-says-eu-has-legal-duty-to-discuss-future-trade-relations?CMP=share_btn_tw

In a potentially provocative move, he also explained to reporters before a meeting with his EU counterparts in Tallinn, Estonia, that the EU had a legal duty to discuss trade relations.

.... so which court are you going to take them to then.... ?



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

I’m at Nigel Farage’s speech to Germany’s far-right AfD party. He just seems utterly astounded that Brexit isn’t a German election issue.

He devoted a good chunk of time to this bewilderment. Audience is quite receptive to anti-EU talk, but not so enthusiastic re: helping UK

That'd be the same Farage who railed against foreign types "interfering" by offering opinions, thoughts and so forth with regards to the referendum and so on yes ?



Bloody foreign nationalists, eh It's like they have no solidarity with their foreign brothers!

 Whirlwind wrote:

That's not really what I was saying or meant. There's a view here that having a long standing belief is a 'good thing', that it shows character etc.

Is there? Far as I can see, people in here who've commented are more mentioning their respect towards someone for publicly and honestly sticking to their beliefs in the face of potential hardship or adversity. Which, in the case of a politician advocating no abortion even for rape victims, is practically guaranteed, it's virtually begging for negative headlines and general disgust (with good reason). If Moggy stood up and said 'I used to think abortion was bad, but now I believe it's intolerable' and explained his reasoning in depth, my respect of him as an openminded moral human being would certainly go up. I wouldn't be able to respect his preaching a (horrible) belief in the face of adversity anymore though, on account of the fact he wouldn't be doing it.

I'm not really seeing anyone in here lauding him on account of the fact that he stamped the ten year box on his Catholic scorecard, or slating people who change their opinions on matters.

Ketara wrote:People hold 'beliefs' about everything. What is admirable in Rees-Mogg's case is a) Courage. Namely being willing to stand up and say something you believe even when you know it will only hurt you, and b) Honesty. It would be easier to simply lie and then hold your beliefs privately, as indeed, most politicians do.

He sounds like those people who say that they always tell the truth but then use this as an excuse to be rude to everyone. It's not courage just because they don't care how what they do or say affects other people. They are just donkey-caves or really, really dumb.

I can't say I've ever heard of Rees-Mogg being particularly rude to anyone. He's smarmy, self-important, and likes to hear himself talk, but as a proper toff, he doesn't really go in much for the whole 'tell it like it is' thing. He'd probably consider it gauche, in that stereotypical upper-class gentleman sort of way. Certainly, he's no George Galloway.

I'd vote Brown back in before Moggy got a chance at my vote, but I have no real issue with him holding personal views consistent with his religion. I'm just amazed his constituents send him in, I could never vote for someone with such publically proclaimed archaic beliefs.

 Ketara wrote:
I could never vote for someone with such publically proclaimed archaic beliefs.

Could it be a case of 'better the devil you know'? Open and forthcoming; At least his voters will know where their disagreements lie with him before instead of after voting for him. Plus I imagine some might not even disagree or see these opinions as important or relevant.

nareik wrote:
Plus I imagine some might not even disagree or see these opinions as important or relevant.

Indeed, theres no realistic chance of his views influencing Government policy, tampering with abortion rights would be electoral suicide and he knows it; so all this moral outrage over his homophobic views (whilst justified and I too disagree with his views) is little more than navel gazing. There are more important issues to nail him on than his outdated views on abortion which he himself admits will never become Government policy.