Rees-Mogg: Traitor, Hero or Muppet?

JRM 1/ Traitor, 2/ Hero, 3/ Muppet

  • 1. Traitor

    Votes: 21 6.7%
  • 2. Hero

    Votes: 50 16.0%
  • 3. Muppet

    Votes: 88 28.1%
  • 4. A very nice chap doing his best for the country

    Votes: 154 49.2%

  • Total voters
    313

skid2

LE
Book Reviewer
I can't make up my mind about him, he comes across as a gentleman, but then I see he has £100,000,000. A couple of million is fine, but a hundred million? That's embarrassingly rich and goes beyond impressive to excessively vulgar. If Mr Mogg really does have high moral and Christian principles then how can he possibly justify having that much wonga? You would have thought that a man of supposedly high intellect would spot the glaring hypocrisy.

On the other hand, I love the way he deals with the bureaucrats in the EU, the way he makes them squirm in debates with their double standards is like watching a car crash in slow motion. I couldn't think of a better man to deal with Brexit, he has panache and style.

Then another thing troubles me, if he has moral principles then why is he deciding to stab the PM in the back at such a glaringly obvious and delicate moment? Was he not aware of the finer parts of the deal? If he did have moral virtue he'd be going about things in a fairer manner and raising issues as they come, not when the agreement is due. There hasn't been this much back-stabbing since Julius upset his mates.

I used to think the same about BoJo, I used to think he was an intelligent chap. Then he did a complete reverse over his stance on Brexit and I concluded he was just another yes man looking for votes. It must be difficult to have a vision and a bedrock of principles in the dirty world of politics. I can't say I agree with the behaviour of government at this point though, when the country needs them most the rest of the cabinet is behaving disgracefully. Now is not the time for self-interest or party politics.
Ah seen @Sixty has beaten me to it.

But yes apart from a shared interest in Latin I don’t remember him having much dealing with Eurocrats. There’s never been a problem with rich people in the One true Church. They probably encourage it if they’ve any sense.
 
Telling things ‘like they are’ seem to be an unacceptable way/view to have in modern society- a by-product of social media/snowflakes/enter another reason you feel ‘comfortable’ to do so it doesn’t offend anyone etc etc.
I tend to find those who like to bill themselves as plain speakers who call a spade a spade etc. are by and large the kind of people I want to punt squarely in the plums.
 
And while they navel gaze for another ten years, lumbered by the most unelectable leader they've had since Kinnock, the Conervatives will take the country further to the right.

Thank god.
Kinnock was unelectable because he was right wing and the original Blairite. Corbyn is not making that mistake. He is making others, maybe, but not that one.

Thatcher once said of Kinnock: He never let me down. Not once.

He was seen as a weak waffling windbag. His policy on the poll tax showed he had no idea or intention of opposing Thatcherism.
 
Last edited:

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
And while they navel gaze for another ten years, lumbered by the most unelectable leader they've had since Kinnock, the Conervatives will take the country further to the right.

Thank god.
That'll put them about dead centre.
 
And while they navel gaze for another ten years, lumbered by the most unelectable leader they've had since Kinnock, the Conervatives will take the country further to the right.

Thank god.
You mean the Conservatives might actually return themselves to the right hand side of the centreline?
One thing they're at present assuredly not, is in any way a right of centre political party, unless you have failed to note exactly how far leftward the so-called centre has shifted over the past 30 years.
 
Last edited:
I tend to find those who like to bill themselves as plain speakers who call a spade a spade etc. are by and large the kind of people I want to punt squarely in the plums.
What have you got against Yorkshiremen then?
 
Kinnock was unelectable because he was right wing and the original Blairite. Corbyn is not making that mistake. He is making others, maybe, but not that one.

Thatcher once said of Kinnock: He never let me down. Not once.

He was seen as a weak waffling windbag. His policy on the poll tax showed he had no idea or intention of opposing Thatcherism.
It wasn't Kinnock who was unelectable..it was Labour, hence the re-branding to new Labour.
 
It wasn't Kinnock who was unelectable..it was Labour, hence the re-branding to new Labour.
No you're wrong. Change was in the air back in those days. Kinnock was the man who had chased the hard left out of the Labour Party. He was often accused by many who said, "why are you kicking socialists out of the Labour Party?" The answer was because they are really members of another party and we don't want them here.

Kinnock's mistake was to behave as if the election was a slam dunk. To be fair to him, nobody advised him to tone it down and so he paraded around as the leader in waiting. There were massed rally's with Kinnock behaving like a rock superstar waiting for the day of the gig.

The resulting publicity was a big turn off to the electorate. The voting public don't like to be taken for granted. John Major on the other hand came up with a rather old fashioned idea. He would walk off the campaign bus wherever he happened to be scheduled to appear and also sometimes on an unscheduled basis if they chanced across a reasonably busy high street crowd, jump up on his "soapbox" and start addressing everybody there.

The current Prime Minister of the United Kingdom behaved like the little man and it worked. The voting public swung behind what they perceived to be the underdog. John Major to the surprise of many managed to win the election.

When Kinnock stepped down after what was seen by many as an embarrassing defeat, Blair after a tussle with Brown which ended in a deal between them, took the leadership and then took Kinnock's achievements in revamping the Labour Party several stages further, one of them being to bring on the New Labour image.

Labour's massive victory in 1997 which led over several years to an unprecedented consecutive third general election victory for the Labour Party was based on the groundwork originally set in place by Kinnock.
 
Last edited:

Fang_Farrier

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Iirc even snp no mhari black respects him for the way he puts his view across, even if not his actual view.

he also never seems to come across as snobbish. Posh, yes. Snobbish no. That doesn't preclude him from having the ability to eviscerate a fool. (Going back to @Dark_Nit's mate, whom we don't know what he was like in uni either).

He reminds me of a Col (late GH) I once knew. Posh but not snobby. Only used his tank when he needed to, but by f*co did you know it when he did. I personally never felt the wrath. Tended to be limited to staff officers.
Rees Mogg and the SNP are interesting, his first foray into politics as a candidate in a General Election was in Fife in 1997, against the then SLAB leader.
But it was this wee speech that won him plenty praise from North of the Border

It's probably because he is so diametrically opposite what the SNP stand for and that he debates it well that they are respectful of each other.

PS studied Latin at school 1979-83. Proud holder of a Latin O-Grade, sadly dropped for Higher to make way for all the sciences!
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
Kinnock stepped down after what was seen by many as an embarrassing defeat,
Though in true socialist fashion he'd already spotted opportunities for himself, and his entire family, to milk a far richer cow than just his own country.
 
Rees Mogg and the SNP are interesting, his first foray into politics as a candidate in a General Election was in Fife in 1997, against the then SLAB leader.
But it was this wee speech that won him plenty praise from North of the Border

It's probably because he is so diametrically opposite what the SNP stand for and that he debates it well that they are respectful of each other.

PS studied Latin at school 1979-83. Proud holder of a Latin O-Grade, sadly dropped for Higher to make way for all the sciences!
A few subtle digs in there :)
 
Though in true socialist fashion he'd already spotted opportunities for himself, and his entire family, to milk a far richer cow than just his own country.
As do many of them from all the major political parties. Some of them in true capitalist fashion.....
 
There are many ways to look at that.
While the average 'argument winning' politician is likely to have never had a proper job JRM is a successful businessman and has used guile to make the money he has.

Maybe he would also be the kind of subbie who wins arguments but would have advocated WW1 trench raids to have been done at night and crawling rather than walking upright in daylight.
He'd have been the type of subbie safely ensconced at Army HQ due to his network connections and never anywhere near the frontlines, if his performance in parliament is to be analysed.

No deal is the equivalent of charging over the top on July 1st into the teeth of MGs.

It's not plan at all.

To carry the analogy further he's sending the 'Tommys' over the top while he sits safely out of the line of fire.
He then profits personally, with his profits increasing in proportion to the number lad killed and wounded. Ops like Somme, 3rd Ypre and the hundred days would have seen him make a killing....

I can't make it any clearer, he Redwood, Fox and their mates seek to profit from damaging their country. If this sin't treachery, I don't know what is
 
I can't make up my mind about him, he comes across as a gentleman, but then I see he has £100,000,000. A couple of million is fine, but a hundred million? That's embarrassingly rich and goes beyond impressive to excessively vulgar. If Mr Mogg really does have high moral and Christian principles then how can he possibly justify having that much wonga? You would have thought that a man of supposedly high intellect would spot the glaring hypocrisy.

On the other hand, I love the way he deals with the bureaucrats in the EU, the way he makes them squirm in debates with their double standards is like watching a car crash in slow motion. I couldn't think of a better man to deal with Brexit, he has panache and style.

Then another thing troubles me, if he has moral principles then why is he deciding to stab the PM in the back at such a glaringly obvious and delicate moment? Was he not aware of the finer parts of the deal? If he did have moral virtue he'd be going about things in a fairer manner and raising issues as they come, not when the agreement is due. There hasn't been this much back-stabbing since Julius upset his mates.

I used to think the same about BoJo, I used to think he was an intelligent chap. Then he did a complete reverse over his stance on Brexit and I concluded he was just another yes man looking for votes. It must be difficult to have a vision and a bedrock of principles in the dirty world of politics. I can't say I agree with the behaviour of government at this point though, when the country needs them most the rest of the cabinet are behaving disgracefully. Now is not the time for self-interest or party politics.
There is no moral requirement to give all your wealth away, having nothing or a Billion in the bank has no bearing on your morals...unless you are a socialist...which is is most certainly not.

That old chestnut of hating everyone who is richer than you is a funny one.
 
Last edited:
There is moral requirement to give all your wealth away, having nothing or a Billion in the bank has no bearing on your morals...unless you are a socialist...which is is most certainly not.

That old chestnut of hating everyone who is richer than you is a funny one.
I’m just curious as to where this magical line is between having enough wealth due to your own efforts and having too much?
 
He'd have been the type of subbie safely ensconced at Army HQ due to his network connections and never anywhere near the frontlines, if his performance in parliament is to be analysed.

No deal is the equivalent of charging over the top on July 1st into the teeth of MGs.

It's not plan at all.

To carry the analogy further he's sending the 'Tommys' over the top while he sits safely out of the line of fire.
He then profits personally, with his profits increasing in proportion to the number lad killed and wounded. Ops like Somme, 3rd Ypre and the hundred days would have seen him make a killing....

I can't make it any clearer, he Redwood, Fox and their mates seek to profit from damaging their country. If this sin't treachery, I don't know what is
Baglock's daily spewage of ill-educated bile and spite continues unchecked.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top