Turn on thread page Beta

What do you think of Jacob Rees-Mogg? watch

    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Which is why your initial point, that he's not elitist, rings rather hollow.
    He's obviously right though.

    Here's how the exchange has proceeded.

    You: JRM is elitist!
    Him: I don't think he is. Why is he elitist?
    You: He's just obviously elitist! He's elitist!
    Him: Certainly he's elite, but does that necessarily mean he's elitist? Why exactly is he elitist?
    You: He's elitist, of course he's elitist!
    Him: But exactly why is he elitist?
    You: JRM is an elitist! He is elitist! He is an elitist!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    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.
    The impact of the 2008 crash is starting to catch up with people and there has definitely been a shift away from support for free-market capitalism towards economic populism among the populace. It's why Corbyn did better than expected, it's why Trump was able to win over rust belt voters and even why Brexit got the support of a lot of Labour voters.

    Left wing policies like nationalisation of key industries are increasingly popular:https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/19...n-public-view/ and there is a real desire for more spending and investment. Choosing someone like Mogg who is going to argue for essentially the status quo, at a time when people want anything other than the status quo, seems barmy.
    The only Tories who seem to 'get it' and to have their finger on the pulse are the likes of Davidson.

    Mogg seems more style over substance. How for example, would he greatly differ from Cameron in terms of governing?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    He's obviously right though.

    Here's how the exchange has proceeded.

    You: JRM is elitist!
    Him: I don't think he is. Why is he elitist?
    You: He's just obviously elitist! He's elitist!
    Him: Certainly he's elite, but does that necessarily mean he's elitist? Why exactly is he elitist?
    You: He's elitist, of course he's elitist!
    Him: But exactly why is he elitist?
    You: JRM is an elitist! He is elitist! He is an elitist!

    I mean take one look at him. Take a look at his background. Take a look at his political views. All of them geared towards keeping the societal and economic structure he so benefited from, in place.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Notorious_B.I.G.)
    What on earth do you mean?
    What's your evidence that he's not elitist?

    That he's sincere and principled? Elitist people can be sincere and principled. I'm sure he sincerely does hold his views, why does that make him not elitist?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    He is a Tory right winger and any government of his would probably push more people into poverty, make the environment worse, and be only good for the top 1% or so.

    His views on abortion whilst held by very few people have little bearing as the House of Commons is very unlikely to restrict abortion on a free vote.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    The impact of the 2008 crash is starting to catch up with people and there has definitely been a shift away from support for free-market capitalism towards economic populism among the populace. It's why Corbyn did better than expected, it's why Trump was able to win over rust belt voters and even why Brexit got the support of a lot of Labour voters.

    Left wing policies like nationalisation of key industries are increasingly popular:https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/19...n-public-view/ and there is a real desire for more spending and investment. Choosing someone like Mogg who is going to argue for essentially the status quo, at a time when people want anything other than the status quo, seems barmy.
    The only Tories who seem to 'get it' and to have their finger on the pulse are the likes of Davidson.

    Mogg seems more style over substance. How for example, would he greatly differ from Cameron in terms of governing?
    Well, for a start, if we can get him into power soon, through a leadership election, we might be able to keep him away from the electorate for a good while and allow him to build up a record in government.

    Beyond that, there are plenty of points on which he'd do very well in an election, especially against Corbyn. The last election went so badly because Theresa May is ridiculously incompetent and lacking in speaking ability. JRM is a competent man and excellent speaker. The proposition is entirely different. As for having his 'finger on the pulse', I think it's fair to say that many of us aren't really fans of 'the pulse' as it stands and would quite like to change 'the pulse'.

    It's also a very limited sense in which JRM would be a status quo candidate if he were to go forward now. Right wing, free market conservatism is not the political status quo.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Well, for a start, if we can get him into power soon, through a leadership election, we might be able to keep him away from the electorate for a good while and allow him to build up a record in government.

    Beyond that, there are plenty of points on which he'd do very well in an election, especially against Corbyn. The last election went so badly because Theresa May is ridiculously incompetent and lacking in speaking ability. JRM is a competent man and excellent speaker. The proposition is entirely different. As for having his 'finger on the pulse', I think it's fair to say that many of us aren't really fans of 'the pulse' as it stands and would quite like to change 'the pulse'.

    It's also a very limited sense in which JRM would be a status quo candidate if he were to go forward now. Right wing, free market conservatism is not the political status quo.
    The Tories don't understand why the last election went badly and underestimate Corbyn. Left wing policies are popular, increasingly so. And that's not because May's a bad speaker, it's because they see their wages staganating, public services being stretched and the cost of living rising. Labour has a lead among 35-44 year olds, that should terrify the tories. Sure May was a bad speaker but it wasn't exactly a case of 'great message, bad messenger'.

    Cameron was a free-market conservative. He supported privatisation, cutting taxes, lowering spending etc. I'm not even saying such things are necessarily bad, but how would JRM differ from that really?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by generallee)
    It is not a crime, but it is narrow minded and intolerant, bigoted even.

    I believe in same sex marriage and abortion myself, but respect the right of Catholics to disagree with me on religious grounds. That makes them profoundly wrong in my eyes but not pieces of ****.

    She conflates holding a view she doesn't share with a character flaw. She isn't alone in that, but it is very depressing.
    I don't know why I'm still wasting my time replying to you but I am nowhere near narrow minded, thanks
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    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.
    His primary message though was on law and order and cutting immigration.


    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.
    No but his economic position was not the main focus of his campaign. His nationalism was.

    [/quote]p
    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.[/QUOTE]

    Again it’s authenticity. Mogg is more trusted to deliver.

    Mogg has said on QT that he would instead spend foreign aid on housing, as well as cutting immigration. This would go down very well with traditional labour voters.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    His primary message though was on law and order and cutting immigration.




    No but his economic position was not the main focus of his campaign. His nationalism was.

    While Trump certainly led a campaign based on nationalism, law and order, it was his economic populism that won the key rust belt states.

    The Tories are doing appallingly with young people, who tend to be more liberal. Promising to cut foreign aid is not going to go down well nor would it be anywhere near sufficient to fund a huge housebuilding programme.

    Mogg is not going to win over traditional labour voters. Although the media likes to paint traditional labour voters as backwards, they're not a bunch of nationalists. They do support high levels of spending and unions, they oppose austerity and they hate the Tories
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I mean take one look at him. Take a look at his background. Take a look at his political views. All of them geared towards keeping the societal and economic structure he so benefited from, in place.
    Repost because this was moved for some reason.

    I don't think you have a clear idea of what you mean by 'elitism' or why you think JRM fits that definition, so I'm not going to get into it.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Beautiful
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Amazing.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Nothing wrong with being elitist. But there is a particular leftist ideology which now permeates the upper-echelons of society, who regard it as unquestionable. Rees-Mogg is one of those who does dare to question, and I think that gains much more traction in the wider country than many would like to admit.

    And the lesson I drew from the 2017 election is that May and her advisors are hubristic idiots who betrayed their base and should never have been left in charge of anything.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    While Trump certainly led a campaign based on nationalism, law and order, it was his economic populism that won the key rust belt states.
    Proof?

    The Tories are doing appallingly with young people, who tend to be more liberal. Promising to cut foreign aid is not going to go down well nor would it be anywhere near sufficient to fund a huge housebuilding programme.
    No, but it would be a start.


    Mogg is not going to win over traditional labour voters. Although the media likes to paint traditional labour voters as backwards, they're not a bunch of nationalists. They do support high levels of spending and unions, they oppose austerity and they hate the Tories
    That doesn’t preclude them from being nationalists eg

    http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbo...-by-j-a-smith/
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rinsed)
    Nothing wrong with being elitist. But there is a particular leftist ideology which now permeates the upper-echelons of society, who regard it as unquestionable. Rees-Mogg is one of those who does dare to question, and I think that gains much more traction in the wider country than many would like to admit.

    And the lesson I drew from the 2017 election is that May and her advisors are hubristic idiots who betrayed their base and should never have been left in charge of anything.
    The notion that Jacob Rees Mogg, an Etonian Thatcherite, is this plucky little figure taking on the establishment in favour of the ordinary man, is pretty absurd, even by current standards of political discourse.

    As for this 'left wing conspiracy'. Well the Tories have been in power for the last seven years, and for the last 30-40 years, the dominant ideology has been Thatcherism and anyone who's dared to question unrestrained free-market capitalism as the ruling ideology, has not been given a hearing by the press.

    Indeed the terms of the debate have been closed shut for several decades. Unions are bad, privatisation is good, the public sector is bad, big corporations are good, tax avoidance is good, people on benefits are bad, investing is bad, etc etc. In fact the one opening up the debate again, is Corbyn, not Rees Mogg.

    Hardly seems like that's the left wing dominating the upper echelons of society, but maybe that's just me.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    The notion that Jacob Rees Mogg, an Etonian Thatcherite, is this plucky little figure taking on the establishment in favour of the ordinary man, is pretty absurd, even by current standards of political discourse.
    Why is politics being about values rather than backgrounds such a difficult concept for you?

    As for this 'left wing conspiracy'. Well the Tories have been in power for the last seven years, and for the last 30-40 years, the dominant ideology has been Thatcherism and anyone who's dared to question unrestrained free-market capitalism as the ruling ideology, has not been given a hearing by the press.

    Indeed the terms of the debate have been closed shut for several decades. Unions are bad, privatisation is good, the public sector is bad, big corporations are good, tax avoidance is good, people on benefits are bad, investing is bad, etc etc. In fact the one opening up the debate again, is Corbyn, not Rees Mogg.

    Hardly seems like that's the left wing dominating the upper echelons of society, but maybe that's just me.
    I don't understand why you have inserted words in 'quote marks' which I never said.

    The dominant economic philosophy amongst the 'elites' has been vaguely right for a while now, no doubt. But on social issues they definitely swing way left of the rest of the country, and I don't see how you can really dispute this...

    I am not saying Rees-Mogg is some plucky champion of the underdog. I'm saying he is saying things which, though they piss off a lot of a certain type of people, are not without support in this country.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Proof?
    My opinion on this is based on how he went to the Rust Belt states, areas which have been left behind by globalisation and told business owners that if they moved their jobs and factories to Mexico, that he'd slap a 35% tariff on any imports back into the USA. To people who've seen their jobs go and states turned into barren lands, this was music to their ears.

    There was also a program on a while back with Sanders and Trump voters and quite a few of them said that they would have voted for Sanders if he stood. Sure, Trump's hardline law and order and even outright sexism/bigotry appealed to some. However, a lot of his voters were not racist/sexist/bigoted, they were attracted by his economic populism.

    That's just my opinion of course, but I think he won the left behind rust belt states because of economic populism, rather than law and order.


    No, but it would be a start.
    It wouldn't. Young professionals and graduates (the class which Tories need to do much better with) support foreign aid in general. They don't want to see a reduction in it.

    Foreign aid is becoming the new 'EU' to the hard right. Just blame all our problems on it. The money we spend on foreign aid is pittance compared to what we need to spend on house-building.


    That doesn’t preclude them from being nationalists eg

    http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbo...-by-j-a-smith/
    They're not Tories though. Many people in the north were very avid Brexiteers but they'd rather boil in oil than vote for the Tories.

    Economic populism will resonate more with these people than nationalism.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rinsed)
    Why is politics being about values rather than backgrounds such a difficult concept for you?
    Because Rees Mogg most certainly is part of the establishment. You don't get much more 'establishment' than being an Etonian Oxbridge Tory MP who previously worked for the Rothschild Investment Bank.

    His values are rather establishment too. He's a free-market capitalist, which has been the dominant ideology for decades, as discussed.

    The dominant economic philosophy amongst the 'elites' has been vaguely right for a while now, no doubt. But on social issues they definitely swing way left of the rest of the country, and I don't see how you can really dispute this...

    I am not saying Rees-Mogg is some plucky champion of the underdog. I'm saying he is saying things which, though they piss off a lot of a certain type of people, are not without support in this country.
    On social issues they haven't 'swung left' particularly, unless you think it was left wing to invade Iraq, or that it was left wing to join in Bush's 'war on terror'.

    What would actually change with Rees Mogg on social issues that would be so wonderful? Enlighten me.

    People aren't opposed to gay marriage in the main. They aren't yearning for social conservatism. Rees Mogg is a dry Thatcherite who's economic views go hand in hand with the prevailing views since the 70s.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Because Rees Mogg most certainly is part of the establishment. You don't get much more 'establishment' than being an Etonian Oxbridge Tory MP who previously worked for the Rothschild Investment Bank.

    His values are rather establishment too. He's a free-market capitalist, which has been the dominant ideology for decades, as discussed.

    On social issues they haven't 'swung left' particularly, unless you think it was left wing to invade Iraq, or that it was left wing to join in Bush's 'war on terror'.

    What would actually change with Rees Mogg on social issues that would be so wonderful? Enlighten me.

    People aren't opposed to gay marriage in the main. They aren't yearning for social conservatism. Rees Mogg is a dry Thatcherite who's economic views go hand in hand with the prevailing views since the 70s.
    God, you really love your straw men don't you?

    His views on gay marriage or abortion, say, may not be held by the majority of the country. But the proportion who do agree or at least have sympathy is far from insignificant.

    On issues like immigration, sovereignty, the EU, et cetera, I'd say he's more in tune with the country than most MPs.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.