/ Brave new world

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.
john arran - on 14 Nov 2017
Jacob Rees-Mogg: hard Brexit would boost UK by £135bn over five years

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/14/jacob-rees-mogg-hard-brexit-would-boost-uk-by-135bn...

National tax haven status.
Encouraging London's property bubble.
Threatening to default on EU debts.

I can't see a problem, myself. Sounds like a well thought out strategy.

It isn't April 1st already, is it?
Pursued by a bear - on 14 Nov 2017
In reply to john arran:

I'm a fan of TLAs, so JRM can FRO.

T.
wercat on 14 Nov 2017
In reply to john arran:

As the news is mostly Sexcrime and we have a lot of Newspeak I think 1984 rather than BNW
Jon Stewart - on 14 Nov 2017
In reply to john arran:

The only functions of regulation and taxes are to ruin the economy. I have no idea why anyone invented these stupid things in the first place. Why is it that only the greatest economic intellects - like Donald Trump for example - can see this?
Ron Rees Davies - on 14 Nov 2017
In reply to wercat:

> .... I think 1984

Hmmmm.... Trump friends with Russia but starting a fight with NK....... Of course. We've ALWAYS been at war with Eastasia.

Shani - on 14 Nov 2017
In reply to john arran:

"Rees-Mogg said this would only be possible if the government pursued a policy of free trade, reduced regulation and lower taxes."

Aha, he means selling off of all national assets, a bonfire of employment law and other fundamental legal rights, and tax changes that will mostly benefit the already wealth, to secure their grip on assets, and to ensure the rest of us are in the grip of debt from cuts to, ahem, 'unaffordable' benefits and services.

I'm actually with him; if people are so stupid as to be born outside of wealth and privilege, then it is God's will they should jolly well pull their socks up and work hard in class-appropriate roles, regardless of aptitude or merit.

Hopefully UKC's resident Brexiteers will shortly drop by to give me a high-five with the 'likes'.
john arran - on 15 Nov 2017
In reply to Shani:

Well no attempts so far to support JRM's statements or position, only a couple of unexplained dislikes to the OP. I wonder if such a prominent Leaver now coming out with his personal vision of what a post-Brexit UK should look like will be a uniting or a divisive influence for Leavers in general?
Shani - on 15 Nov 2017
In reply to john arran:
David Davis is now in FAVOUR of freedom of movement....but only for bankers. Unbelievable.

https://amp.ft.com/content/9e637940-c95a-11e7-ab18-7a9fb7d6163e
Post edited at 14:46
pasbury on 15 Nov 2017
In reply to john arran:
While I can understand Jacob Rees-Mogg's appeal to retired gin-sodden colonels and home counties ladies in ill fitting floral frocks, it's still shocking that he has such a prominent platform to air his odious views.
He's like a bastard hybrid of Alf Garnett and Brian Sewell.
Post edited at 14:53
captain paranoia - on 15 Nov 2017
In reply to pasbury:

Mind your language, or he'll set Nanny on you...
Pete Pozman - on 15 Nov 2017
In reply to pasbury:

I think Brian Sewell was a left winger politically although uncompromisingly elitist where fine arts was concerned.
Pete Pozman - on 15 Nov 2017
In reply to john arran:

Jacob Rees Mogg has a special place in Purgatory reserved for him because as a Catholic he knows better. Somehow he imagines he has managed to squeeze through the eye of the needle; he's deluding himself and, unfortunately, a whole lot of other people too.
eroica64 - on 15 Nov 2017
In reply to john arran:

Hmmm. Think your summary is a tad harsh.
National tax haven status - if we have lower taxes than other countries then good for us.
Encouraging London's property bubble - a stamp duty cut would affect the whole country and not just London.
Threatening to default on EU debts - discontinuing a regular payment is not, AFAIK, defaulting on a debt.

Also seems like a good negotiating tactic to me.

eroica64 - on 15 Nov 2017
In reply to pasbury:

It takes all sorts Pasbury and you might be showing a little prejudice here; "retired gin-sodden colonels and home counties ladies in ill fitting floral frocks." What about the ones in well-fitting frocks, and what's with this sexist sh*t anyway?
Bob Kemp - on 15 Nov 2017
In reply to eroica64:

> Hmmm. Think your summary is a tad harsh.
Maybe, but some of your points raise their own questions...

> National tax haven status - if we have lower taxes than other countries then good for us
Not exactly - have a look at this... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/22/tax-haven-theresa-may-bad-news-britain-brexit E.g. lower taxes in tax havens are lower on wealth, not necessarily income and purchases. They tend to be highly regressive for locals.

> Encouraging London's property bubble - a stamp duty cut would affect the whole country and not just London.

> Threatening to default on EU debts - discontinuing a regular payment is not, AFAIK, defaulting on a debt.
Not as simple as that. It depends on which part of the UK's commitment you're talking about, but it seems to be clouded with uncertainty and may end up in court. https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/eu-divorce-bill

> Also seems like a good negotiating tactic to me.
This shower wouldn't know a good negotiating tactic if it got up and bit them. (Sorry, no reference...)
Big Ger - on 15 Nov 2017
In reply to pasbury:

> While I can understand Jacob Rees-Mogg's appeal to retired gin-sodden colonels and home counties ladies in ill fitting floral frocks, it's still shocking that he has such a prominent platform to air his odious views.

> He's like a bastard hybrid of Alf Garnett and Brian Sewell.

What I cannot understand how some remainers still haven't worked out that insulting people whose views are different lost them the vote, and still is working against them. They must be thick, Britain hating, traitors.
Big Ger - on 15 Nov 2017
In reply to eroica64:

> What about the ones in well-fitting frocks, and what's with this sexist sh*t anyway?

It's ok if remainers/left wing voters do it.

pasbury on 15 Nov 2017
In reply to eroica64:
> It takes all sorts Pasbury and you might be showing a little prejudice here; "retired gin-sodden colonels and home counties ladies in ill fitting floral frocks." What about the ones in well-fitting frocks, and what's with this sexist sh*t anyway?

Gin sodden Home Counties ladies and retired colonels in ill fitting floral frocks.

There is that any better.
Post edited at 23:24
pasbury on 15 Nov 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

Rees-Mogg has said that abortion should be illegal even if it is the result of rape, that the rise in food bank use is ‘uplifting’. He appears to be opposed to same sex marriage.
Now from his position of privilege and entitlement he believes that this country should relax employment law and reduce corporate tax. He will never be negatively affected by such changes.
I reserve the right to insult someone I find abhorrent. Or am I not allowed to because I voted remain and am politically left of centre?
Big Ger - on 16 Nov 2017
In reply to pasbury:

Please carry on showing your hate, bitterness, lack of debating skills, and childishness, your efforts for our cause is a credit to you.

Keep up the good work!

captain paranoia - on 16 Nov 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

It seemed a pretty well reasoned argument as to why JRM is abhorrent. I didn't see anything hateful or childish. Well, not in pasbury's post.
Big Ger - on 16 Nov 2017
In reply to captain paranoia:

> It seemed a pretty well reasoned argument as to why JRM is abhorrent. I didn't see anything hateful or childish. Well, not in pasbury's post.

LOL!!! Well that just goes to show how narrow and constricted your views are. If you do not find this;

> While I can understand Jacob Rees-Mogg's appeal to retired gin-sodden colonels and home counties ladies in ill fitting floral frocks, it's still shocking that he has such a prominent platform to air his odious views.
> He's like a bastard hybrid of Alf Garnett and Brian Sewell.

as I described, then how would you find it? Rational and well argued debate? A wonderful erudite excoriation of Mogg's views? An insightful repudiation of Tory philosophy?
Pete Pozman - on 16 Nov 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> What I cannot understand how some remainers still haven't worked out that insulting people whose views are different lost them the vote, and still is working against them. They must be thick, Britain hating, traitors.

... or "collaborators"
planetmarshall on 16 Nov 2017
In reply to Shani:

> "Rees-Mogg said this would only be possible if the government pursued a policy of free trade, reduced regulation and lower taxes."

Presumably by that he also includes a reduction in regulation of border control and the free movement of people. For some reason that particular tenet of free market capitalism always seems to get left out...
pasbury on 16 Nov 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> What I cannot understand how some remainers still haven't worked out that insulting people whose views are different lost them the vote, and still is working against them. They must be thick, Britain hating, traitors.

A little later:

> Please carry on showing your hate, bitterness, lack of debating skills, and childishness, your efforts for our cause is a credit to you.

Sigh
Bob Kemp - on 16 Nov 2017
In reply to pasbury:

> I reserve the right to insult someone I find abhorrent. Or am I not allowed to because I voted remain and am politically left of centre?

I can understand that, and am not above making derogatory comments about people I find abhorrent in everyday conversation, but I find it usually works better in discussion to insult the abhorrent idea, not the person. However, this is UKC...

wercat on 16 Nov 2017
In reply to Pete Pozman:
as a member of western alliances and community from where I sit Brexit is treason and Brexiteers traitors, a wedge driven into Europe by those who would favour us least and benefit most


[heh heh, as I sit here chewing raw garlic for the sinuses]
Post edited at 10:49
captain paranoia - on 16 Nov 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

You replied to his post of 23:40, saying "Please carry on showing your hate, bitterness, lack of debating skills, and childishness...".

I replied to your comment, referring to the 23:40 post, which I thought showed none of the characteristics you suggested. I did find your reply childish.

All clear now?
pasbury on 16 Nov 2017
In reply to Bob Kemp:

Where do abhorrent ideas come from; thin air?
thomasadixon - on 16 Nov 2017
In reply to captain paranoia:

His post is saying I don't like what this guy thinks - without reasoning, just a statement - and therefore I'm going to insult him. Fair enough, people are free to do as they wish, but plain insults are childish, surely? That's true whatever side of the political world you're on.
Dave Garnett - on 16 Nov 2017
In reply to pasbury:

> Rees-Mogg has said that abortion should be illegal even if it is the result of rape, that the rise in food bank use is ‘uplifting’. He appears to be opposed to same sex marriage.

> Now from his position of privilege and entitlement he believes that this country should relax employment law and reduce corporate tax.

Which is say he's a practising catholic and a devout conservative. At least he's consistent.

pasbury on 16 Nov 2017
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> Which is say he's a practising catholic and a devout conservative. At least he's consistent.

He is indeed consistent, not necessarily a 'quality' on it's own.

However the outlawing of abortion or same sex marriage will have a direct, harmful and previously observed effect on individual human beings, in contravention to, for example, the teachings of Jesus that are also held in regard by the catholic church. His views, and those of the catholic church are therefore not self consistent.

Additionally he will not be personally affected by the two policy examples I use but would impose them for religious and ideological reasons.

So I find the man as abhorrent as the ideas.
jkarran - on 16 Nov 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> What I cannot understand how some remainers still haven't worked out that insulting people whose views are different lost them the vote, and still is working against them. They must be thick, Britain hating, traitors.

So it's insults that brought us to this? Not a toxic mix of deeply inadequate 'leadership' by entitled game-playing pricks living in consequence free bubbles of privilege and wealth, a decade of painful ideologically driven austerity and demonisation of the poor, a narrowly owned press serving the owners' interests and with tendrils extending far too far into government, official tolerance of blatant lies and now it seems perhaps Kremlin mischief making all combined with the inevitable difficulty encountered when selling the functioning status quo against change as the answer to a smorgasbord of disparate issues whether it's the right change or not... nope... insults! Pull the other one.
jk
Post edited at 12:30
jkarran - on 16 Nov 2017
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> Which is say he's a practising catholic and a devout conservative. At least he's consistent.

...and straightforwardly open about his views which is good and for that he deserves some respect. Personally I think those views should consign him to the dustbin of history and the very fringes of our politics but sadly the world I want to live in seems a very long way off at the moment. The future looks very bleak indeed.
jk
captain paranoia - on 16 Nov 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> His post is saying I don't like what this guy thinks - without reasoning, just a statement

His 23:40 post didn't do that, IMHO. Just to be clear, here it is again:

Rees-Mogg has said that abortion should be illegal even if it is the result of rape, that the rise in food bank use is ‘uplifting’. He appears to be opposed to same sex marriage.
Now from his position of privilege and entitlement he believes that this country should relax employment law and reduce corporate tax. He will never be negatively affected by such changes.
I reserve the right to insult someone I find abhorrent. Or am I not allowed to because I voted remain and am politically left of centre?


Personally, I don't think that much reasoning is needed against making abortion or same-sex marriage illegal, or that the rise in the use of food banks is 'uplifting'. They are well argued elsewhere. Even Bigger seems to think that same-sex marriage is a good idea:

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=674324
Dave Garnett - on 16 Nov 2017
In reply to jkarran:

I agree. I saw him interviewed by Peston about his views on abortion. He seemed to me a bit conflicted, to the extent that he could empathise to some extent with the women affected... but then just stuck with his (consistent, if illogical) position that life began at conception according to catholic teaching any taking of a human life was therefore wrong.

So, dogmatism wins out over empathy and rules are rules. He really does seem to live in the 19th century.
thomasadixon - on 16 Nov 2017
In reply to captain paranoia:

> His 23:40 post didn't do that, IMHO. Just to be clear, here it is again:
> Personally, I don't think that much reasoning is needed against making abortion or same-sex marriage illegal, or that the rise in the use of food banks is 'uplifting'. They are well argued elsewhere. Even Bigger seems to think that same-sex marriage is a good idea:

You're not disagreeing with me... He said a bunch of stuff that you agree with - not supporting those ideas at all - and you agree with him that the stuff he said doesn't need supporting. On the basis of those opinions he doesn't like he said JRM is abhorrent. That's a plain insult - I don't like what he thinks therefore he is a dick.
Bob Kemp - on 16 Nov 2017
In reply to pasbury:
> Where do abhorrent ideas come from; thin air?

As 'abhorrent' is a subjective concept you could say the abhorrence comes from inside your head.
Post edited at 13:21
pasbury on 16 Nov 2017
In reply to Bob Kemp:

yes for sure but my point was that ideas only gain traction when espoused by people. Especially when it's people with power or a platform to use. That's when I feel it is OK to judge the person and not just the idea.

<He said while desperately avoiding Godwins Law>
Bob Kemp - on 16 Nov 2017
In reply to pasbury:

> yes for sure but my point was that ideas only gain traction when espoused by people. Especially when it's people with power or a platform to use. That's when I feel it is OK to judge the person and not just the idea.

> <He said while desperately avoiding Godwins Law>

I see what you mean. I'm okay with judging people as well as ideas when I feel qualified to. It's a matter of conversational approach and etiquette really - I just find that being directly judgemental of people and insulting them, online or face to face, is rather counter-productive if the object of the conversation is to illuminate or persuade.
Big Ger - on 16 Nov 2017
In reply to jkarran:

> So it's insults that brought us to this? Not a toxic mix of deeply inadequate 'leadership' by entitled game-playing pricks living in consequence free bubbles of privilege and wealth, a decade of painful ideologically driven austerity and demonisation of the poor, a narrowly owned press serving the owners' interests and with tendrils extending far too far into government, official tolerance of blatant lies and now it seems perhaps Kremlin mischief making all combined with the inevitable difficulty encountered when selling the functioning status quo against change as the answer to a smorgasbord of disparate issues whether it's the right change or not... nope... insults! Pull the other one.

Well if that's who got you to vote remain, you're welcome to blame them then mate.

summo on 16 Nov 2017
In reply to pasbury:

Didn't merkel vote against same sex marriage and the remainers here won't hear a bad word about her?
pasbury on 16 Nov 2017
In reply to summo:

Not quite sure what the venn diagram of ‘remainers’, Merkel fans and same sex marriage supporters looks like but I have the feeling that it’s totally irrelevant anyway.
summo on 16 Nov 2017
In reply to pasbury:

> Not quite sure what the venn diagram of ‘remainers’, Merkel fans and same sex marriage supporters looks like but I have the feeling that it’s totally irrelevant anyway.

Possibly, but it's strange how tolerant the UKC can be depending who says something. Conservative MP against gay marriage is a Victorian dinosaur.. .but Merkel still the great eu leader..
pasbury on 16 Nov 2017
In reply to summo:

What are his other achievements?
Big Ger - on 16 Nov 2017
In reply to summo:

> Possibly, but it's strange how tolerant the UKC can be depending who says something. Conservative MP against gay marriage is a Victorian dinosaur.. .but Merkel still the great eu leader..

It's ok if remainers/leftists say it.
Big Ger - on 16 Nov 2017
In reply to pasbury:

> What are his other achievements?

He studied History at Trinity College, Oxford, and was president of the Oxford University Conservative Association.

After leaving Oxford in 1991 Rees-Mogg worked for the Rothschild investment bank under Nils Taube before moving to Hong Kong in 1993 to join Lloyd George Management. Three years later he returned to London and was put in charge of some of the firm’s emerging markets funds and by 2003 was managing a newly established Lloyd George Emerging Markets Fund.In 2007 he left the company with a number of colleagues to setup their own fund management firm, Somerset Capital Management.

Rees-Mogg first entered politics during the 1997 general election when he was nominated as the Conservative Party candidate for Central Fife, a traditional Labour seat in Scotland.

Gordon Stainforth - on 16 Nov 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

So you think the Remainers are leftists ? I thought many on the left (e.g the Corbynites and a lot of labour supporters) were rather anti-EU.
Bob Kemp - on 16 Nov 2017
In reply to summo:

> Possibly, but it's strange how tolerant the UKC can be depending who says something. Conservative MP against gay marriage is a Victorian dinosaur.. .but Merkel still the great eu leader..

Who are these UKC Merkel fans? I can't remember anything where anyone has made great claims about how wonderful a leader she is. Looks like a straw man...

Big Ger - on 16 Nov 2017
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> So you think the Remainers are leftists ? I thought many on the left (e.g the Corbynites and a lot of labour supporters) were rather anti-EU.

Ermmm ... no.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Leave
pasbury on 17 Nov 2017
In reply to pasbury:
> What are his other achievements?

He’s also got a brawny climber to lick his arse.
Post edited at 00:00
pasbury on 17 Nov 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> Ermmm ... no.


Disingenuous comment.
Big Ger - on 17 Nov 2017
In reply to pasbury:

Ok, I'll bite, in what way is it disingenuous?
Dauphin on 17 Nov 2017
In reply to Dave Garnett:

Dull tweed wearing kunt needs to be retroactively terminated from the U.K.s political process along with others of his ilk. I include Corbyn in this circle. Heads and tails of the same Westminster snake consuming itself / circle jerk.


The gambit is that Brexit will take us to that point in our political evolution. Even if Brexit doesn't happen they all seem desperately easy to troll into demonstrating their total lack of Zeitgeist and ineptitude.

Praise KEK.

D
Jim C - on 17 Nov 2017
In reply to pasbury:

More fun than with that VD than Venn diagrams of orchestras with musicians who could play both wind and string instruments .

I think political Ideology Venn diagrams should be used in the curriculum, it would certainly make interesting viewing, and might throw up glaring inconsistencies in political parties positions, and individual politicians views as well.
summo on 17 Nov 2017
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> Who are these UKC Merkel fans? I can't remember anything where anyone has made great claims about how wonderful a leader she is. Looks like a straw man...

No, it's the very selective left leaning trend of many commentators here. Oh the evil tax dodging corporations they cry as they head home to watch Netflix or shop on Amazon.. they scream about a right wing politician x who says this and that, whilst ignoring a left wing politician who shares exactly the same views.
john arran - on 17 Nov 2017
In reply to summo:

> No, it's the very selective left leaning trend of many commentators here. Oh the evil tax dodging corporations they cry as they head home to watch Netflix or shop on Amazon.. they scream about a right wing politician x who says this and that, whilst ignoring a left wing politician who shares exactly the same views.

Just because some may be selective in their vilification doesn't mean that the vilification itself isn't entirely justified. I would hope that those with objectionable views would be criticised in all cases, but certainly not stifled simply on account of the existence of other people, with different political leanings, holding similar objectionable views.

Feel free to point out left wing politicians who hold similar objectionable views to JRM, and I suspect you may find many on here will agree that those views are indeed objectionable. When someone has a whole catalogue of objectionable views to their name, it starts to look reasonable to describe that person as objectionable rather than just the views held.
summo on 17 Nov 2017
In reply to john arran:

There was a Labour mp this week or last suggesting that a coloured Tory mp was their token etc... if it had been the other way around many on here would be shouting for a resignation and by election. Instead silence.
john arran - on 17 Nov 2017
In reply to summo:

> There was a Labour mp this week or last suggesting that a coloured Tory mp was their token etc... if it had been the other way around many on here would be shouting for a resignation and by election. Instead silence.

You may be right; I didn't clock that story so I can't comment.

But people will call out wrongs when they see them. If you see one that isn't being called out, and you feel strongly about it, by all means point it out.

Nobody on here has a BBC-type responsibility to paint a balanced picture; that would go against human nature anyway. The balance comes from the variety of opinions expressed. Unlike the BBC, people here are free to present only one side of a story, knowing that others will be able to express other opinions on the same platform with the same prominence. It's self-balancing, to the extent that people on here have a representative range of opinions and present convincing arguments.

So if you feel that one side of any argument is not being represented fairly, then argue it! Don't just complain that others aren't doing so.
cb294 - on 17 Nov 2017
In reply to summo:
Indeed, but the legislation has nevertheless been introduced under her current government. The initiative was started by the state of Rhineland-Palatinate in the second chamber, but Merkel put the initiative on the agenda and removed the whip for the vote in the first chamber (Bundestag). While she personally voted against and was in favour of maintaining the existing equivalent civil partnership, a vast majority in her party voted for the rebranding as marriage. How much her personal vote was tactical I do not know, but my suspicion is that she saw some personal advantage in appeasing the hard conservative wing, without endangering the overall change. She is all tactics, no strategy.

CB


edit: I am no great fan of Merkel, but when I have political discussions with my colleagues, only a third of which are German, they ususally offer to swap. After thinking for a few seconds I would almost always decline. May? Rajoy? Kurz? Kaczinsky? Putin? Babis? Orban? A few years ago it was even more obvious: Berlusconi, Sarkozy, ...

Post edited at 07:25
BnB - on 17 Nov 2017
In reply to john arran:

> You may be right; I didn't clock that story so I can't comment.

> But people will call out wrongs when they see them. If you see one that isn't being called out, and you feel strongly about it, by all means point it out.

> Nobody on here has a BBC-type responsibility to paint a balanced picture; that would go against human nature anyway. The balance comes from the variety of opinions expressed. Unlike the BBC, people here are free to present only one side of a story, knowing that others will be able to express other opinions on the same platform with the same prominence. It's self-balancing, to the extent that people on here have a representative range of opinions and present convincing arguments.

> So if you feel that one side of any argument is not being represented fairly, then argue it! Don't just complain that others aren't doing so.

I agree with your point entirely . However, the issue with UKC isn't that anyone is obliged to offer a balanced view. It's that, on threads with a political aspect, the preponderance of left-leaning and pro-remain (not the same thing) voters creates a swell of discourse, reinforced by aggressive use of the like/dislike buttons, which combine to dismiss alternative philosophies. I regularly see the most basic and well-reasoned common sense drowned by a tide of dislikes and ironically contemptuous claims to the moral high ground.

Elsewhere in the foraverse, the opposite pertains. Try motoring interest groups for a very different experience.
summo on 17 Nov 2017
In reply to cb294:

Of course. You can say the same about mogg, he has his views but thankfully they aren't Tory policy. Despite May being a happy clapper too. My point is more the double standards on many threads.

Ps. I think merkel is on borrowed time, she won't quite be free for the panto season, but she might be able to take a long summer holiday next year.
Ian W - on 17 Nov 2017
In reply to john arran:

Just watched the Beeb news on the tellybox, and i've jut heard David Davis warn the EU not to "put politics above prosperity".......
There also some other comedy gems in this report.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42020008

Also, from Auntie Beebs fine website "Britain would use an independent trade policy to lead a "race to the top on quality and standards" rather than engage in a "race to the bottom" that would mean lower standards, he told the audience."

So thats the USA out then......

I'd be embarrassed to have to give a speech like that.


cb294 - on 17 Nov 2017
In reply to summo:
Guess not, I assume we will be stuck with her for another full term. There is no one yet in the CDU who would be a credible chancellor candidate, and the party knows better than shooting themselves in the foot with an ill prepared election. They are much too professional for such amateur mistakes. Fukushima was just bad timing from their perspective, and cost them their core state off Baden Württemberg.

As far as JRM is concerned, I am not so sure that he resembles Merkel at all. Yes, he is obviously playing an act, but he does so in part to conceal (or make appealing) some anachronistic and unpleasant core beliefs. Celebrating the rise of food bank use as a proof of increasing Christian charity, FFS. Merkel on the other hand has, I assume, no beliefs at all, she is opportunism and tactics personified.

CB

edit: I am not he disliker, I prefer spelling out the points on which I disagree!
Post edited at 08:17
Bogwalloper - on 17 Nov 2017
In reply to Ian W:



> I'd be embarrassed to have to give a speech like that.

What kind of person can stand in front of a live audience and a tv audience of millions and come out with stuff like that? It is so far removed from the way I was brought up. What is their real motivation?

W
Ian W - on 17 Nov 2017
In reply to summo:

> Of course. You can say the same about mogg, he has his views but thankfully they aren't Tory policy. Despite May being a happy clapper too. My point is more the double standards on many threads.

> Ps. I think merkel is on borrowed time, she won't quite be free for the panto season, but she might be able to take a long summer holiday next year.

She's bypassed Panto's , and has proven herself a skilled, and popular TV personality, starring alongside that nice Tracey Ullman in her comedy sketch show. Fancy that, a German with such comedy timing, and self deprecating humour. Who'da thunk it?
Ian W - on 17 Nov 2017
In reply to Bogwalloper:

Dont forget this is the same person who turned up to the first meeting to start off the discussions on the most important set of negotiations in the last 40 years without any paperwork or proposals............

And he's the best we've got........

In answer to your question, I think the real reason is that he has the metaphorical gun to his head, held by the vested interests and Tory party donors on the leave side.............
Flinticus - on 17 Nov 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

That's not much: to rephrase: his privilege took him into the same schools as befits his class and wealth. Anything less would be unusual and remarkable. Then, like many of his peers, he worked in markets / finance. Nothing to make him eligible for high office apart from being high in the elite / establishment so beloved of...
Bogwalloper - on 17 Nov 2017
In reply to Ian W:



> In answer to your question, I think the real reason is that he has the metaphorical gun to his head, held by the vested interests and Tory party donors on the leave side.............

Party before prosperity then.

W
Ian W - on 17 Nov 2017
In reply to Bogwalloper:

> Party before prosperity then.

> W

No! How could you say that? Its the will of the people............
Lord of Starkness - on 17 Nov 2017
In reply to Big Ger:
JRM's 'achievements' just about say it all about where his loyalties and sentiments lie.

Big Money
Big Money
Big Money

He's essentially been fairly successful at gambling with other peoples money, without having to worry about where his own money was coming from.

Perfect qualifications for a Tory Politician.
Post edited at 09:35
Shani - on 17 Nov 2017
In reply to summo:
> There was a Labour mp this week or last suggesting that a coloured Tory mp was their token etc... if it had been the other way around many on here would be shouting for a resignation and by election. Instead silence.

That is a testable claim. You could start up a new post and ask people to:

- LIKE if they are APPALLED by the Labour MP in question 'suggesting that a coloured Tory mp was their token etc...'
- DISLIKE if they are not bothered with the Labour MP in question 'suggesting that a coloured Tory mp was their token etc...'

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
Post edited at 09:42
summo on 17 Nov 2017
In reply to Ian W:
> Dont forget this is the same person who turned up to the first meeting to start off the discussions on the most important set of negotiations in the last 40 years without any paperwork or proposals............

Do you really believe that was the actual negotiation and not a press show? It's like the staged shot of a politician sat at their tidy desk with one piece of paper, pen poised as though they are about to sign it.

Perhaps given the number MPs caught carrying folders open showing documents by press photographers, giving him no papers was a wise move!
Post edited at 09:42
summo on 17 Nov 2017
In reply to cb294:
.

> . Merkel on the other hand has, I assume, no beliefs at all,

She is leader of their Christian party and against gay marriage etc.. hardly no beliefs. I wasn't comparing mogg to her, only selective criticism.

Look at the abortion trade from Ireland to the UK, because it's illegal there. There are governments closer to home who share the same hard live medieval beliefs. But because mogg is a Tory he's more of a target.
Post edited at 09:48
Ian W - on 17 Nov 2017
In reply to summo:

> Do you really believe that was the actual negotiation and not a press show? It's like the staged shot of a politician sat at their tidy desk with one piece of paper, pen poised as though they are about to sign it.

Of course it was a press show, but note the EU negotiators turned up with great wodges of papers, demonstrating that even though they hadnt started the whole thing, and didnt really have to prove / ask for anything, they had done some preparation.

> Perhaps given the number MPs caught carrying folders open showing documents by press photographers, giving him no papers was a wise move!

Given what has become evident about Mr Davis' general levels of competence, this was indeed a wise move. Wouldnt have mattered anyway, as the position presented yesterday is completely different to that presented a few months ago.

Sir Chasm - on 17 Nov 2017
In reply to summo:

> Do you really believe that was the actual negotiation and not a press show? It's like the staged shot of a politician sat at their tidy desk with one piece of paper, pen poised as though they are about to sign it.

Except there isn't anything to sign.

> Perhaps given the number MPs caught carrying folders open showing documents by press photographers, giving him no papers was a wise move!

You're saying he's not even competent enough to keep a folder closed? You may be right.
wercat on 17 Nov 2017
In reply to summo:

> Didn't merkel vote against same sex marriage and the remainers here won't hear a bad word about her?


so she has no freedom to vote except in your approved way?
Bob Kemp - on 17 Nov 2017
In reply to summo:
> No, it's the very selective left leaning trend of many commentators here. Oh the evil tax dodging corporations they cry as they head home to watch Netflix or shop on Amazon..
It's incredibly hard to live in a capitalist society and economy without consuming from companies whose ethics you don't share. Now that essential utilities are privatised and Virgincare and the like have got their hooks into the NHS I'd say it's impossible. Accusations of hypocrisy don't wash.

"they scream about a right wing politician x who says this and that, whilst ignoring a left wing politician who shares exactly the same views."
As before, examples would help. You can find them in the wider world - the argument that the extreme left's views often merge with those of the extreme right is quite convincing in some cases - but here on UKC?
Post edited at 10:07
jkarran - on 17 Nov 2017
In reply to Ian W:

> Just watched the Beeb news on the tellybox, and i've jut heard David Davis warn the EU not to "put politics above prosperity".......
> Also, from Auntie Beebs fine website "Britain would use an independent trade policy to lead a "race to the top on quality and standards" rather than engage in a "race to the bottom" that would mean lower standards, he told the audience."
> I'd be embarrassed to have to give a speech like that.

I caught some of this on the radio this morning, it's at least as good as May's Orwelian nonsense about the strength of our democracy and our alliances. It raises hope this might all be just a hugely elaborate performance art project or a Brasseye-cake style prank on an epic scale
jk
andyfallsoff - on 17 Nov 2017
In reply to summo:

> Do you really believe that was the actual negotiation and not a press show? It's like the staged shot of a politician sat at their tidy desk with one piece of paper, pen poised as though they are about to sign it.

That argument would be more convincing if they'd made any substantive progress, or if they weren't currently in a position of rowing back on having said they have 58 sectoral analyses which they now can't possibly publish.

> Perhaps given the number MPs caught carrying folders open showing documents by press photographers, giving him no papers was a wise move!

I'm more inclined to think that those pictures are intentional leaks - it really isn't difficult to think and close books / hold a plain think in front of the key points! If our politicians aren't even capable of that small amount of sense, god help us...
jkarran - on 17 Nov 2017
In reply to summo:
> No, it's the very selective left leaning trend of many commentators here. Oh the evil tax dodging corporations they cry as they head home to watch Netflix or shop on Amazon.. they scream about a right wing politician x who says this and that, whilst ignoring a left wing politician who shares exactly the same views.

You trot this out every few days in an attempt to undermine someone's credibility.

I always wonder, do you genuinely believe you live a life totally free of the hypocrisy and human inconsistencies you accuse others of?

Genuine question because if the answer is no, why do you repeat this so often and if the answer is yes, how have you achieved that in a world where it seems to me almost nobody else can?
jk
Post edited at 10:31
summo on 17 Nov 2017
In reply to wercat:

> so she has no freedom to vote except in your approved way?

No, she made it an open vote and voted against gay marriage because of her personal beliefs.
andyfallsoff - on 17 Nov 2017
In reply to Bob Kemp:

I agree completely - I really despise this hypocrisy argument, because it is used (almost exclusively by the right) to attempt to undermine arguments on principles. Boycotting Amazon is a milder example, but you also see it on buy to let, educational choices of labour politicians, etc...

What I think most people want is a system which does what it can to be fair in the first place, so that people can then maximise their opportunities within that. The alternative is that unfair opportunities are only available to those who support and unfair society! Isn't it better that people campaign for as level a playing field as possible, then play their best on it?
cb294 - on 17 Nov 2017
In reply to summo:

I stand by my claim of no beliefs. Even though she grew up in a church manse, she could not care less about dogmatic Christian positions, and neither does the majority of her party. Opposing the law against gay marriage cost her nothing, as it was guaranteed to go through due to massive crossbench support. It was therefore an easy way to gain street cred with the ever shrinking Christian/hard conservative wing of her party, which she found necessary to shore up support from that wing, having alienated it by taking the CDU towards centre ground in all other aspects. Again, I very much doubt that she has a heartfelt conviction that this is morally or philosophically the right thing to do. Instead, she has a keen sense for the undercurrents and general trends in society, and she is certainly correct in that this realignement would cost her votes on the right, but in the long run damage the social democrats even more. Elections are won in the centre, especially if you are able to define where that centre is supposed to lie!

CB
summo on 17 Nov 2017
In reply to jkarran:

> You trot this out every couple of days in an attempt to undermine someone's credibility.
> I always wonder, do you believe you live a life totally free of the hypocrisy and human inconsistencies you accuse others of?

No I don't, but certainly try. I don't touch Amazon, Netflix, Starbucks, sky etc.. I'm prepared to buy less, when I buy more local produce etc.. I'll buy in person if I can. Sometimes I need to wait a week or so as the nearest large town is 40km away and won't drive there for a single purpose. But that's the way it goes, for consumables things that wear out or break, I try to have one in reserve at home so I don't need to wait or shop online and pay expensive rapid delivery costs.

> Genuine question ...

Because the hypocrisy of many baffle me, how can they pick fault in other people, mps, corporations, but some how their own actions aren't considered part of the same problem.

When someone picks fault with Labour, or others on the extreme left, it's the typical reaction of the them that others are far worse (usual a more right wing person or mp), as that some how justifies their slightly less bad actions. It some how makes them think they dont need to address their own imperfections.

Us, here, we are all hypocrites. With the odd exception we all believe in climate change yet some how balance this and still travel huge distances annually for the sake of mountaineering, or other sports. No one is perfect.

summo on 17 Nov 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> I agree completely - I really despise this hypocrisy argument, because it is used (almost exclusively by the right) to attempt to undermine arguments on principles. Boycotting Amazon is a milder example, but you also see it on buy to let, educational choices of labour politicians, etc...

But I think if politicians on the left and centre, lived by the very values they try to preach, rather than the current do as I say not as I do. Their support might increase?

The current left wing of UK politics is just further entrenching the view that people can have what they want and another part of society will pay. I.e. the evil rich. It's not helping anyone in the long run. It's a country in denial.

summo on 17 Nov 2017
In reply to cb294:

So merkel voted against gay marriage to preserve her political career, how very honourable.
andyfallsoff - on 17 Nov 2017
In reply to summo:
> But I think if politicians on the left and centre, lived by the very values they try to preach, rather than the current do as I say not as I do. Their support might increase?

That might be true, but it would benefit the right who would then be entitled to be greedier because that aligns more with their policies! Is that fair? Isn't it better to accept that human nature is fallible but then to appreciate those who campaign for policies that might work to remove some of their advantages, even against their interests?

I also think you're ignoring the hypocrisy on the right, which is just as prevalent - e.g. a "why should we have to support people so much" argument, often made by people who themselves have had a fairly (or excessively) privileged start in life.

> The current left wing of UK politics is just further entrenching the view that people can have what they want and another part of society will pay. I.e. the evil rich. It's not helping anyone in the long run. It's a country in denial.

I do agree with that, although I think both sides are doing the same thing albeit with different targets. The right has been using divisive language to shift blame onto those not in work or claiming benefits, whilst protecting pensioners (recent flirtation with the dementia tax a notable exception), and where that fails they've blamed the EU...

One area where I think we both agree is that only the Lib Dems accept that we all need to contribute.
Post edited at 10:59
cb294 - on 17 Nov 2017
In reply to summo:

Honour does not come into it, she is an arch pragmatist interested in preserving her power first and foremost. Anything else will be subordinated to that holy grail. If it also happens to be ethically correct thing to do, so much the better, but if not, bad luck. She is also the undisputed queen of identfying a trend going somewhere in a promising way, and then jumping in the lead. I am not surprised that the current coalition negotiations take so long. IMO this is not because tehy are complicated (they are, but this is not essential) but that Merkel avoids to take leadership (which risks getting it wrong), but rather waits for a consensus to emerge, and to then offer that consensus as her position!


Don't get me wrong, though, I am not trying to defend her, I have never voted and will never vote CDU/CSU in my life. However, there appear to be clear misconceptions about the role Merkel would be able or even willing to play in the EU and Brexit context, so I am trying to offer an inside-ish view from Germany (as I have several politicians in my family and the family of my wife).

CB
jkarran - on 17 Nov 2017
In reply to summo:
> No I don't, but certainly try. I don't touch Amazon, Netflix, Starbucks, sky etc.. I'm prepared to buy less, when I buy more local produce etc.. I'll buy in person if I can. Sometimes I need to wait a week or so as the nearest large town is 40km away and won't drive there for a single purpose. But that's the way it goes, for consumables things that wear out or break, I try to have one in reserve at home so I don't need to wait or shop online and pay expensive rapid delivery costs.

Very good but in truth how much of that is because you aren't interested in the services they provide? I have Sky broadband and we get Amazon movies because my partner enjoys those and need the internet for work. Personally I'd ditch both not for moral reasons though I'm no fan of how either company is run but to save money because I value them less but compromise makes the world work. I don't like the product or ambiance in any of the chain coffee stores so that's an easy one to avoid.

> Because the hypocrisy of many baffle me, how can they pick fault in other people, mps, corporations, but some how their own actions aren't considered part of the same problem.

We're human, we live in an imperfect world where compromise is often essential.

> When someone picks fault with Labour, or others on the extreme left, it's the typical reaction of the them that others are far worse (usual a more right wing person or mp), as that some how justifies their slightly less bad actions. It some how makes them think they dont need to address their own imperfections.

So on a Jacob Rees Mogg thread where brexit and its consequences for workers (you're a supporter and a voter, right, despite it not affecting your rights or opportunities?) is being criticised how do you think your 6:19 post this morning looks even dressed up as it is.

> Us, here, we are all hypocrites. With the odd exception we all believe in climate change yet some how balance this and still travel huge distances annually for the sake of mountaineering, or other sports. No one is perfect.

True.
Post edited at 11:15
Ian W - on 17 Nov 2017
In reply to summo:
> But I think if politicians on the left and centre, lived by the very values they try to preach, rather than the current do as I say not as I do. Their support might increase?

> The current left wing of UK politics is just further entrenching the view that people can have what they want and another part of society will pay. I.e. the evil rich. It's not helping anyone in the long run. It's a country in denial.

Replace the word left with right in your post, and remove the evil rich bit , and it makes exactly the same point, and exactly the same amount of sense. You are not wrong, and the ease with which the emphasis can be changed from one end of the political spectrum to the other says a lot about the state of party politics in this country.
Post edited at 12:17
Ian W - on 17 Nov 2017
In reply to summo:

> .

> She is leader of their Christian party and against gay marriage etc.. hardly no beliefs. I wasn't comparing mogg to her, only selective criticism.

> Look at the abortion trade from Ireland to the UK, because it's illegal there. There are governments closer to home who share the same hard live medieval beliefs. But because mogg is a Tory he's more of a target.

No, he's more of a target because he is a British politician, with considerably more potential influence on British life than Angela Merkel.
summo on 17 Nov 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> One area where I think we both agree is that only the Lib Dems accept that we all need to contribute.

And the other 99% of voters are happy for the Labour and Tory party to keep blowing smoke up their... as long as it keeps their MPs in office. I see no long term solution.
summo on 17 Nov 2017
In reply to Ian W:

> Replace the word left with right in your post, and remove the evil rich bit , and it makes exactly the same point, and exactly the same amount of sense. You are not wrong, and the ease with which the emphasis can be changed from one end of the political spectrum to the other says a lot about the state of party politics in this country.

Not suggesting the Tories are better, by any means. Only that Labour are not exactly angelic either. Power corrupts as the saying goes.
Ian W - on 17 Nov 2017
In reply to summo:

Interesting but welcome comment - my impression of you thus far is that you are a far right loony who can see no wrong in anything the tories or brexiteers do or say, and no right in anything anyone not supporting the tories or brexit says or does.....
Welcome back to the middle ground!
summo on 17 Nov 2017
In reply to Ian W:

> Interesting but welcome comment - my impression of you thus far is that you are a far right loony who can see no wrong in anything the tories or brexiteers do or say, and no right in anything anyone not supporting the tories or brexit says or does.....

> Welcome back to the middle ground!

Never left it. Never voted Tory ever, but I've also never voted Labour under any of their guises. Just because I'm anti eu, doesn't mean I'm Tory!!
Ian W - on 17 Nov 2017
In reply to summo:

Knew it! Snowflake liberal wet pretending to be hardline tory!
DubyaJamesDubya - on 17 Nov 2017
In reply to summo:

> Didn't merkel vote against same sex marriage and the remainers here won't hear a bad word about her?

Tell me something bad about her I'll listen.
Bob Kemp - on 17 Nov 2017
In reply to Ian W:

> Replace the word left with right in your post, and remove the evil rich bit , and it makes exactly the same point, and exactly the same amount of sense. You are not wrong, and the ease with which the emphasis can be changed from one end of the political spectrum to the other says a lot about the state of party politics in this country.

The difference is that if you replace left with right, you're not just talking about a view, you're talking about current reality, so you could modify the initial statement to say:
"The current right wing of UK politics is just further entrenching the reality that the rich can have what they want and another part of society will pay. I.e. the evil poor."
Big Ger - on 17 Nov 2017
In reply to Dauphin:

> Dull tweed wearing kunt needs to be retroactively terminated from the U.K.s political process along with others of his ilk. I include Corbyn in this circle. Heads and tails of the same Westminster snake consuming itself / circle jerk.

Aww.. you're only saying that to make people like you...





Big Ger - on 17 Nov 2017
In reply to Flinticus:

> That's not much: to rephrase: his privilege took him into the same schools as befits his class and wealth. Anything less would be unusual and remarkable. Then, like many of his peers, he worked in markets / finance. Nothing to make him eligible for high office apart from being high in the elite / establishment so beloved of...

We are all trapped by fate of birth to some degree, so who can blame him?

Larkin's "this be the verse" springs to mind.
andyfallsoff - on 17 Nov 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> We are all trapped by fate of birth to some degree, so who can blame him?

I don't think many blame him for it. It just detracts from the credit he deserves from what he's done as a result, so his qualifications for making decisions should be judged accordingly.

> Larkin's "this be the verse" springs to mind.

Big Ger - on 17 Nov 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:
Fair comment.
Post edited at 22:44

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.