Tories in chaos
#46

I've only seen him debate once or twice and if i'm honest I liked him. He came across really well. Posh yes but thats not a crime. he was sensible, grounded and made some decent points. As I say though, I have only seen him speak the once. My mother who's into politics likes him though....

It's a sad statement on how incoherent and stupid so many of our "leaders" appear to be, that Moggy can impress on that basis alone.
#47
Lost in BE Cyberspace










Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,053












Personally, I think that being impressed by someone's ability to speak coherently, impressed enough to what to put them in power because of it, is setting the bar a bit low 
It's a sad statement on how incoherent and stupid so many of our "leaders" appear to be, that Moggy can impress on that basis alone.

It's a sad statement on how incoherent and stupid so many of our "leaders" appear to be, that Moggy can impress on that basis alone.
In the actual survey he got 142 votes, David Davis 240.
I would imagine after the recent interview Rees-Mogg would get far less!
https://www.conservativehome.com/the...eneration.html
Tory MPs line up to disagree with Jacob Rees-Mogg's 'utterly abhorrent' views on abortion
#48

Most of it is press sensationalism! "Tipped for leader" etc.
In the actual survey he got 142 votes, David Davis 240.
I would imagine after the recent interview Rees-Mogg would get far less!
https://www.conservativehome.com/the...eneration.html
Tory MPs line up to disagree with Jacob Rees-Mogg's 'utterly abhorrent' views on abortion
In the actual survey he got 142 votes, David Davis 240.
I would imagine after the recent interview Rees-Mogg would get far less!
https://www.conservativehome.com/the...eneration.html
Tory MPs line up to disagree with Jacob Rees-Mogg's 'utterly abhorrent' views on abortion
But Davis

#49

Personally, I think that being impressed by someone's ability to speak coherently, impressed enough to what to put them in power because of it, is setting the bar a bit low 
It's a sad statement on how incoherent and stupid so many of our "leaders" appear to be, that Moggy can impress on that basis alone.

It's a sad statement on how incoherent and stupid so many of our "leaders" appear to be, that Moggy can impress on that basis alone.
#50

"Setting the bar low" is what the Tories have to do, given the dearth of talent in their ranks. However, as a practicing RC he would put to the test the discussion as to whether there is a bar to a Catholic becoming PM (Blair ducked the issue until he resigned). There's no specific bar in law, but it depends how you interpret the Roman Catholic Relief Act (1829), Section 18: "It shall not be lawful for any person professing the Roman Catholic religion directly or indirectly to advise his Majesty, or any person or persons holding or exercising the office of guardians of the United Kingdom".
#51

"Setting the bar low" is what the Tories have to do, given the dearth of talent in their ranks. However, as a practicing RC he would put to the test the discussion as to whether there is a bar to a Catholic becoming PM (Blair ducked the issue until he resigned). There's no specific bar in law, but it depends how you interpret the Roman Catholic Relief Act (1829), Section 18: "It shall not be lawful for any person professing the Roman Catholic religion directly or indirectly to advise his Majesty, or any person or persons holding or exercising the office of guardians of the United Kingdom".

Funny as it would be, it wouldn't be worth having a batshit theocrat at the helm though. The UK doesn't need to become US-lite.
#52


Having said which, apart from the obvious, the Moggster would seem to have the same reactionary views as "our friends in the North" ...... anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage and I'm sure a lot else too!
#53

Poetic justice, or dramatic irony, or some such nonsense.
#54



A great definition of Unionism from Frankie Boyle:
"The belief that two similar countries might fare better together. Unless they're both part of Ireland."
#55


That's quite a good one, actually.
#56

"Setting the bar low" is what the Tories have to do, given the dearth of talent in their ranks. However, as a practicing RC he would put to the test the discussion as to whether there is a bar to a Catholic becoming PM (Blair ducked the issue until he resigned). There's no specific bar in law, but it depends how you interpret the Roman Catholic Relief Act (1829), Section 18: "It shall not be lawful for any person professing the Roman Catholic religion directly or indirectly to advise his Majesty, or any person or persons holding or exercising the office of guardians of the United Kingdom".
His views on the matter as a devoutly Catholic father-of-six are hardly surprising. It won't have won over anyone who already disliked him but then I would be surprised if he has alienated any of his previous admirers. He has also avoided falling into the Farron trap by clearly setting out his stall.
Farron's problem was that he clearly does, as evangelical Christian tend to, believe that homosexual acts are sinful but he could never quite say so. This meant that ever interview he ever gave, regardless of topic, would end up on the same subject with the interviewer trying to nail the leader of the Liberal Democrats as a homophobe.
JRM won't have this problem because he has clearly articulated what his views are, that they are his personal moral position and that he does not think that this should inform government policy. You may not like them but he can't now be forever hounded on the subject.
#57

However, he and Boris are doing well so far as the Laurel and Hardy of politics. Let's hope it stays that way.
#58
#59

I left it out because it is obvious and therefore irrelevant. It does not detract from the statement as quoted. Were he to become party leader and prospective PM he would be the first ever practicing catholic in that position....... because constitutionally it is unclear.
No Roman Catholic to advise the Crown in the appointment to offices in the established church.
It shall not be lawful for any person professing the Roman Catholic religion directly or indirectly to advise his Majesty, or any person or persons holding or exercising the office of guardians of the United Kingdom, or of regent of the United Kingdom, under whatever name, style, or title such office may be constituted, or the lord lieutenant of Ireland, touching or concerning the appointment to or disposal of any office or preferment in the Church of England, or in the Church of Scotland; and if any such person shall offend in the premises he shall, being thereof convicted by due course of law, be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and disabled for ever from holding any office, civil or military, under the Crown.
It shall not be lawful for any person professing the Roman Catholic religion directly or indirectly to advise his Majesty, or any person or persons holding or exercising the office of guardians of the United Kingdom, or of regent of the United Kingdom, under whatever name, style, or title such office may be constituted, or the lord lieutenant of Ireland, touching or concerning the appointment to or disposal of any office or preferment in the Church of England, or in the Church of Scotland; and if any such person shall offend in the premises he shall, being thereof convicted by due course of law, be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and disabled for ever from holding any office, civil or military, under the Crown.
Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829
#60

You missed out the rest of that section which talks about appointments to the Church of England. JRM might not be able to advise on the appointment of the next Archbishop of Canterbury but it doesn't prevent him from becoming PM.
His views on the matter as a devoutly Catholic father-of-six are hardly surprising. It won't have won over anyone who already disliked him but then I would be surprised if he has alienated any of his previous admirers. He has also avoided falling into the Farron trap by clearly setting out his stall.
Farron's problem was that he clearly does, as evangelical Christian tend to, believe that homosexual acts are sinful but he could never quite say so. This meant that ever interview he ever gave, regardless of topic, would end up on the same subject with the interviewer trying to nail the leader of the Liberal Democrats as a homophobe.
JRM won't have this problem because he has clearly articulated what his views are, that they are his personal moral position and that he does not think that this should inform government policy. You may not like them but he can't now be forever hounded on the subject.
His views on the matter as a devoutly Catholic father-of-six are hardly surprising. It won't have won over anyone who already disliked him but then I would be surprised if he has alienated any of his previous admirers. He has also avoided falling into the Farron trap by clearly setting out his stall.
Farron's problem was that he clearly does, as evangelical Christian tend to, believe that homosexual acts are sinful but he could never quite say so. This meant that ever interview he ever gave, regardless of topic, would end up on the same subject with the interviewer trying to nail the leader of the Liberal Democrats as a homophobe.
JRM won't have this problem because he has clearly articulated what his views are, that they are his personal moral position and that he does not think that this should inform government policy. You may not like them but he can't now be forever hounded on the subject.
Last edited by Lion in Winter; Sep 8th 2017 at 1:14 am.