What do you think of Jacob Rees-Mogg?

Original post by cranbrook_aspie

Rees-Mogg's views are utterly despicable and out of touch with modern Britain. This is why, as a Labour supporter, I will be encouraging all my Tory friends to sign up and vote for him whenever strong and stable crashes out of No 10. He's the best way of getting a Labour government apart from Theresa May herself.

Indeed. It makes me rather happy to see Tories want JRM as their next leader, if for no other reason it shows that they have given up on winning the next election and have instead decided to wrap themselves up in a hard right comfort blanket.

They are a party without any ideas.

Lad.

I always enjoy it when people just asset that a political opponent is 'out of touch'.

A decent chuck of the population agrees with him on a lot of stuff. He's not unpopular. The 'metropolitan elite' (I dislike the term but it does describe who I'm talking about) despises him and his values, but who's really out of touch? If the referendum showed anything it's that London-dwelling centrists aren't as universally admired in most of the country as they like to imagine themselves to be.

Reply 45

Davij038

13

Original post by Bornblue

Yes, you were one of those people!

The reason people vote for Corbyn is because he talks about issues that are actually important to them like health, housing, job security, public services etc. While you were obsessed with non-issues, such as making out he would leave NATO, others were looking at a failed housing market. While Tories were going on and on about the IRA, young graduates and even middle class professionals were seeing their costs of living rise while their wages were stagnating. The Tories and the media just don't get Corbyn or his appeal, and they still think they can counter it by going on about the IRA.

Quite how you think Mogg will sweep up those votes by talking about same sex marriage and abortion, I'm really not sure. Why on earth would anyone under 40 who voted Corbyn, change to Rees Mogg?

Just as you've done consistently over the last couple of years, you underestimate Corbyn and simply don't understand why people vote for him. When Tories support Rees Moog, it shows more than anything that they have totally run out of ideas.

Why would Obama voters vote for Trump in 2016?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/amp.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article147475484.html

Mogg would presumably fight an election based on things that DO concern the public- national security, immigration, housing and the Economy. I think people would be less bothered about his own personal beliefs than you think. He has already said he wouldn’t change existing laws.

He would not be campaigning to overturn gay marriage and abortion just as Corbyn did not on leaving Nato or abolish the monarchy.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 46

Original post by Davij038

Why would Obama voters vote for Trump in 2016?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/amp.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article147475484.html

The reason why some Obama voters voted for Trump was because of Trump's perceived economic populism/leftism. In the rust belt states where Trump won, he spoke out against free trade and in favour of protectionism. He promised to slap tariffs on foreign goods if American factory owners relocated. He promised to withdraw from NAFTA and not to sign up to TPP. He spoke about the 'left behind' and promised huge levels of investment.

Of course he didn't mean any of that, just as the leave campaign didn't actually mean that they wanted to spend £350 million a week on the NHS but that was a major reason for Trump's success. Quite a lot of voters who would have voted Sanders, instead chose Trump. Trump didn't win because his voters wanted more cut throat free-market capitalism.

Mogg would presumably fight an election based on things that DO concern the public- national security, immigration, housing and the Economy. I think people would be less bothered about his own personal beliefs than you think. He has already said he wouldn’t change existing laws.

He would not be campaigning to overturn gay marriage and abortion just as Corbyn did not on leaving Nato or abolish the monarchy

The Tories are weak on all four of those and i'm not really sure why you think Mogg will make much headway. As for housing, whatever he offers will be less than Corbyn. Plus Mogg is a dry Thatcherite, he's not going to start spending tens of billions on much needed investment.

The Tories are particularly weak on the economy and finally the public is starting to see it. We have the slowest growth of the top 10 largest EU economies, stagnating wages, rising living costs etc. Heck even at PMQs this week Corbyn was getting the better of the Tories on the economy.

Again, the Tories seem to have given up winning the next election and have decided to wrap themselves up in a Mogg comfort blanket. Rather than go for someone modern, young and liberal who could resonate with young voters like Davidson, they've decided to go for a 'piss off the left' candidate.

The difference between Mogg and Corbyn is that Corbyn's populist beliefs are rather popular, Mogg's are not, bar immigration on which he is no different from his party.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 47

Original post by Rinsed

I always enjoy it when people just asset that a political opponent is 'out of touch'.

A decent chuck of the population agrees with him on a lot of stuff. He's not unpopular. The 'metropolitan elite' (I dislike the term but it does describe who I'm talking about) despises him and his values, but who's really out of touch? If the referendum showed anything it's that London-dwelling centrists aren't as universally admired in most of the country as they like to imagine themselves to be.

Describing Mogg as anything other than 'elitist' seems really rather peculiar.

The Tories seem to have learnt nothing from the 2017 election.

Reply 48

TimmonaPortella

21

Original post by Bornblue

Rather than go for someone modern, young and liberal who could resonate with young voters like Davidson, they've decided to go for a 'piss off the left' candidate.

We don't want modern or liberal and we're not particularly enamoured with young. It's nothing to do with pissing off the left.

Reply 49

Original post by Bornblue

Describing Mogg as anything other than 'elitist' seems really rather peculiar.

The Tories seem to have learnt nothing from the 2017 election.

This is curious. He is the elite, but does that mean he is automatically elitist? Do you think, if suitably qualified, he would not favour those from working-class backgrounds into the political class? It is like Gracchus says in Gladiator: "I don't pretend to be a man of the people. But I do try to be a man for the people."

And as to his being the elite, I think I want the best and brightest at the forefront of British politics. There is nothing shameful in that.

Reply 50

Original post by TimmonaPortella

We don't want modern or liberal and we're not particularly enamoured with young. It's nothing to do with pissing off the left.

When I say liberal, I mean genuinely socially liberal, not SJW 'you assumed my gender' liberal. Why would you not want your leader to be socially liberal and laissez faire with what people do with their own bodies/relationships?

Ruth Davidson is the real star in your party. Instead a good chunk of your party wants to turn inwards to a sort of angry nativism.

It does seem that the support for JRM is out of desperation.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 51

Original post by Notorious_B.I.G.

This is curious. He is the elite, but does that mean he is automatically elitist? Do you think, if suitably qualified, he would not favour those from working-class backgrounds into the political class? It is like Gracchus says in Gladiator: "I don't pretend to be a man of the people. But I do try to be a man for the people."

And as to his being the elite, I think I want the best and brightest at the forefront of British politics. There is nothing shameful in that.

Oh come on, if Rees Mogg isn't 'elitist' then the term has no meaning. I'm not even saying there's that much wrong with being 'elitist' per se, just that Mogg most definitely is.

He's clearly not a 'man of the people' or even a 'man for the people.'

Reply 52

Original post by Bornblue

Oh come on, if Rees Mogg isn't 'elitist' then the term has no meaning. I'm not even saying there's that much wrong with being 'elitist' per se, just that Mogg most definitely is.

He's clearly not a 'man of the people' or even a 'man for the people.'

I don't think there is a malicious bone in his body. He seems very honest, generous and giving.

You cannot just say "yeah but, he's JRM, he is elitist!" -- how is he elitist? What has he done that is elitist? I think I would agree his success is the product of elitism, in part, but that doesn't mean he wishes to propagate the system that got him to where he is.

Reply 53

LWP99

4

Original post by charliertn

Hi there!

What I would like to know is the student youth's opinion about JRM, and if you think he would be suitable for the top spot in parliament as PM. Feel free to discuss policies, his own views etc. Thanks! :smile:

Personally, I cannot think of anyone better to lead the country. Particularly when there is a danger of a left-wing labour government coming to power. I agree with most of his polices and his views are well thought out and he justifies them eloquently and honestly.

Reply 54

Original post by Notorious_B.I.G.

I don't think there is a malicious bone in his body. He seems very honest, generous and giving.

You cannot just say "yeah but, he's JRM, he is elitist!" -- how is he elitist? What has he done that is elitist? I think I would agree his success is the product of elitism, in part, but that doesn't mean he wishes to propagate the system that got him to where he is.

I don't think he is malicious either. Though he doesn't seem very generous and giving when he votes through rather cruel benefit cuts and cuts to tax credits for instance. However he is totally out of touch with ordinary people. As if he understands what it's like for those who struggle.

He's the definition of elitism. He absolutely wants to propagate that system.

Reply 55

TimmonaPortella

21

Original post by Bornblue

When I say liberal, I mean genuinely socially liberal, not SJW 'you assumed my gender' liberal. Why would you not want your leader to be socially liberal and laissez faire with what people do with their own bodies/relationships?

Ruth Davidson is the real star in your party.

It does seem that the support for JRM is out of desperation.

I do want people to be left to their own devices, just not particularly in the sense the left usually means by that. Personally for instance I'd strongly support a move towards legalisation of drugs. But I can cope with some disagreements on such issues in favour of the whole package, and in purely cultural rather than legal terms I'd be happy with having a traditionalist in power.

The support for JRM is based on the fact that he is a sincere, principled, intelligent man who can make a clear argument. I also can't see many other feasible unabashed free market conservative candidates around, which is what a lot of us want. Personally I'm sick of Theresa May's left wing bent and so is much of the rest of the party, and speaking only for myself I like JRM very much, want to put him in charge, and it's nothing to do with what the left or anyone else thinks about it.

Reply 56

Original post by Bornblue

I don't think he is malicious either. Though he doesn't seem very generous and giving when he votes through rather cruel benefit cuts and cuts to tax credits for instance. However he is totally out of touch with ordinary people. As if he understands what it's like for those who struggle.

He's the definition of elitism. He absolutely wants to propagate that system.

You're the definition of ad nauseam. Simply repeating the same point over and over does not make it true.

Reply 57

Original post by Notorious_B.I.G.

You're the definition of ad nauseam. Simply repeating the same point over and over does not make it true.

Which is why your initial point, that he's not elitist, rings rather hollow.

Reply 58