Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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!
    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.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Which is why your initial point, that he's not elitist, rings rather hollow.
    What on earth do you mean?
    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!
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    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?
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    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.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    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.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    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

    17
    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
    Online

    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.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    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

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Beautiful
    Offline

    18
    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.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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