I've met Jacob Rees-Mogg a few times, usually when giving evidence to the Treasury Select Committee. I admit I have little regard for him. I strongly suspect that the feeling is mutual from the exchanges we have had.
Frankly what Rees-Mogg thinks of me is neither here or there. I am also sure he is quite indifferent to my opinion. But as a country we cannot ignore Rees-Mogg. He might suggest that stories that a majority of Tory members want him as leader as 'silly season' tittle-tattle but the fact is that the surveys have some credibility. They originate from Conservative Home, which does appear to reasonably accurately reflect such thinking.
Rees-Mogg is, however, not some kind of joke, as Boris Johnson also appeared to be once upon a while. He is an earnestly serious politician intent on advancing his views, which are utterly alien to those of most people in the UK. I respect his right to oppose gay marriage and abortion. I think he is utterly wrong on both counts, as I do think the Roman Catholic faith has called these issues incorrectly. But I do not now think it appropriate (which is something different from a right) for a person holding such views to seek high office, or candidly, ministerial office in the UK, when they are so deeply antagonistic to the human rights of a majority of people in this country.
Politics is about expressing opinion, of course. But political office is different. Political office is about acting in the best interest of all, and not in the interest of a section of society. Those who successfully hold public office show that they are sensitive to the greater demands that responsibility to all requires of them. Rees-Mogg has clearly indicated he is unable to accept that responsibility and as such is not suited to any ministerial office.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Like you I have little regard for Rees-Mogg. Regarding his religious views, all politicians seeking office should be made to declare on oath that no decision that they make will be influenced by their religious beliefs. That includes Presbyterian, C of E, Catholics, Muslims and the sundry other religious groups who all believe that their god is the only one.
I have no problem with religious faith. I have one, although Quakers are amongst religious groups perhaps the most tolerant of diversity. My problem is his intolerance.
I too have no problem with faith Richard. I am happy for people to believe what they like as long as it does not affect the rest of us.
That’s the key to this
If ever you’re needing a snog,
Consider a kiss for Rees-Mogg:
Your gratification
Will brighten the Nation
And turn him back into a frog!
If you were into the dark arts (which I know you’re not) you ought to be cheerleading for Moggie as the best way of ensuring a Labour victory at the next election. The Alec Douglas-Home de nos jours has a somewhat limited appeal to anyone who lives outside the world of the nineteenth century. Most ordinary people regard him as an upper class twit – even more of a joke than Boris.
It’s an interesting analogy
And takes us back to 64
I was around, but admit I missed that one
I recall 66, dimly
And 70, all too well
I met Sir Alec Douglas Home and at he was a Tory of the old school – a gentleman who believed in decency in public affairs unlike the opportunists and self promoters who proliferate today
He is currently topping the poll for next leader.
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2017/09/jacob-rees-mogg-tops-our-next-tory-leader-survey-of-conservative-opinion.html
Personally, as a supporter of an independent Scotland, I think making him PM would guarantee this. It would surely be the last straw.
“What could possibly go wrong?”
The downside risks to this are worrying.
As an analogy, think of Boris as an English Trump, and Jacob Rees-Mogg as Pence – or, more closely, a polished amalgam of Pence and Rubio.
Trump might not last the full five years, but he’s done irreparable damage in the last eight months. His fellow-candidates for the Republican nomination were deeply upset and npleasant and may well have been as bad, albeit less brazenly corrupt, had they won the nomination; certainly, they would last longer than Trump in the White House.
I fear Pence more than I fear Trump; and I may live to regret underestimating Rees-Mogg.
We don’t have America’s problems with ballot fraud, but we do have voter-suppression in play, together with politicised media coverage that is, in its own way, at least as bad as theirs.
We are also refusing to confront online opinion manipulation: Cambridge Analytica are still active and you would do well to ask why the Russian ‘Bot Farms’ and human ‘Trash Poster’ factories that supported Brexit in the referendum and Trump in the US election are now campaigning for Rees-Mogg.
This stuff works, and we should be careful what we wish for.
The relevant question is: could he possibly be worse than May? In terms of internal politics and the cohesion of the Conservative Party, he is likely to be ‘better’ and that might get him into Number 10.
In terms of damage to the economy and society of Britain? That’s a matter of opinion. He *could* be worse and I would warn anyone who says “x can’t possibly be worse than y” to think very carefully about the ways they might be.
On a more serious note: his voting record suggests that he is petty and vindictive.
Such men are very sensitive to ridicule.
Nevertheless, the Limerick about David Cameron’s indiscretions, Rees-Mogg, a hog, and “The press and police were agog” will not be aired in a serious forum for discussion of economics and ethics in taxation.
I think I understand your purpose, but I regret that “political office is about acting in the best interest of all, and not in the interest of a section of society” is not actually how the British political system works, or even represents a fair description of our constitution, based on our form of parliamentary sovereignty. Our system is a parliamentary dictatorship (albeit insecure); may I suggest reading Dicey, who once used the despostism of Czarist Russia as an illustrative analogy for the power of Parliament?
The wisest critic of the British political system was David Hume, who described it as “factionalism” and despaired of our capacity to rise above it. He was right. Our constitution remains unwritten not because it is wise, but because the system could not survive the description of it, or retain the least credibility once exposed to critical statement.
The wisdom of James Madison’s great American Constitution (with all its now uncomfortable flaws, which are not hidden only because they are written), was that before it was completed in 1787 the new US threatened to follow Britian into the same factionalism. Wisely, Madison and Hamilton had read and imbibed Hume. The Constitution was written essentially as a counter-factionalist text (hence, just for illustration, the strange resort to electoral college voting). The Constitution is there to try to ensure there is no dictatorship by (even small) majorities, against everyone else (unfortunately, from a modern perspective there were some minorities that were simply excluded from constitutional consideration altogether).
It is because of Britain’s inherent, chronic factionalism that independence is such a compelling argument for Scotland’s future health and wealth. It is because of factionalism that we are all now in this Brexit mess. The Conservative (Tory), Liberal and Labour (Whig) Parties are wholly factional enterprises. Let the buyer beware.
No government survives for long if it does not broadly reflect the society that elects it, at least in the UK system
That was my point
Rees-Mogg is a million miles from that society
Government uses all kinds of methods, from propaganda to inducements (from ‘office’ to selective spending) to ensure that it remains in office whether or not it ever did, nominally or in reality, “broadly reflect the society that elects it”. Furthermore I am not sure if any Government has ever broadly reflected the society that elects it, or even how anyone would know whether it was the case. Indeed I am not sure who knows what would count as “broadly reflecting” society, how that could be measured, how it could be adduced, or how any broad agreement could be reached on what would count. I think that argument could only be made by bludgeoning the facts.
Well let’s try this
Is society broadly in favour of abortion?
And broadly in favour if equal rights for LGBT people?
If you agree, how do you know?
If you don’t, how do we decide what to do?
And if you think the government is sympathetic to those positions why do you think that is?
Your comment that “no government survives long if it doesn’t broadly reflect the society that elects it ” doesn’t fit with the Tories success. Although they get reelected in England I don’t see their policies really reflecting overall English society.
I wish that was true
I fear for too many who vote (and that’s critical) it does
I do not wish to overcook the debate, or hog it; but I do not think “broadly reflects” can be reduced to single issues. No doubt some single issues can show a marked or overwhelming majority (but there may be complexities within, even there). ‘Broadly’ however, I take to mean ‘across the board’, over the grand sweep of policy; and with each additional issue you add, your ‘reflects society’ criterian will slowly, and inevitably break-down. There are also other complex issues that arise with “reflects”; not least that people may believe incommensuarable things, but that is another story …. ….
I think you have ducked the issue
My questions were fair
No, it is not my inclination to duck issues. I would rather be wrong than duck an issue. I do not believe I am guilty of either. You said this: “No government survives for long if it does not broadly reflect the society that elects it”. Government’s only very rarely fall on the matter of a single issue. I take it that a Government can “for long” survive, is an important, substantive point only if it means that the Government broadly reflects society across a wide range of policy issues. That was – for me – the matter of substance.
CandidIy, I would not have commented if the point made was about a ‘single issue’, for it is too obvious. If you think the point is answered by a single issue I am therefore surprised. I took your point to be more significant (wrong I think, but significant). You now tell me you did not mean that; and I accept your explanation without debate. Respectfully, however, I am therefore not sure why the point was made, for I do not think it adequately addresses Government survival, or who or what in society Governments actually serve. I think the matter is complex.
But you have not answered all the questions I raised…
No I haven’t answered them, because I did not think they actually addressed the issue, which was about how Governments actually survive. At least I think we can often see how that works. There are single issues in which public policy will no doubt reflect the broad opinion of society (where it can even be said there is a broad public opinion); for many issues this will not be the case. We may have intuitive confidence such is the case; we may be able to point to some measures as demonstrating it. I am not sure many would prove accurate if we had to verify them.
A referendum is one apparently objective, clear-cut way to settle such a matter; and lo, we have Brexit – just to illustrate how difficult it is to extract anything worthwhile about what ‘reflects society’, even when you seem to have a decisive answer (if you call 52% decisive). In any case, the result of that wanton exercise has led to a Government surviving, that should have resigned immediately for catastrophically losing the referendum; which Government, unreformed and unapologetic, is now attempting to interpret the result (which it now claims to own outright, and to understands the public better than anyone else), as meaning that leaving the EU ‘means’ leaving the Single Market and Customs Union (which was not on the question paper). I think that is an effective illustration of the scale of the problem. I would have thought such outturns would encourage modesty in interpreting what ‘broadly reflects society’. In any case I am a sceptic; I do not pretend to know.
With respect, I answered wholly reasonable questions and you have ducked them
In that case you’re wasting my time
The death penalty in Britain was rightly abolished in 1965. I am not sure that this “broadly reflected” the views of British society at the time. It is at least arguable that a majority favoured its retention, perhaps for a considerable period thereafter. Governments did not fall over the matter.
That is my point. Wise legislation favouring minorities may be passed even if it is not a majority opinion. It is also my view that there are certain rights (I would categorise them as duties owed to them) that should be protected constitutionally irrespective of whether it “broadly reflects” opinion in society. That is why I favour a written constitution.
Rees-Mogg has recently been quoted as saying that Parliament should not be poking its nose into matters such as marriage and that should only be the concern of the Church (the Pope?). He is quoted as saying that he follows the teachings of the church in these matters.
This is pure arrogance. There can only be one law in a country and one law making body should there not?
Not only is Mogg’s statement obviously treasonable in my view but it shows us once again that we have a Parliament – supposedly an organ of democracy – with people in it who do not believe in how it should work.
How did people like Mogg get there?
What are they really there for?
For goodness’ sake lets get them out! People like Rees-Mogg are of no use to modern democracy.
The last thing we need now is another toffee nosed fool to be taken seriously. We’ve got enough on with Boris.
I am not sure he did quite out it like that
He said the law and church were in conflict (I summarise) but made clear that whilst the law said one thing he followed the teachings of the church, which were different
The fact that he’s even in the running for any high office, let alone PM, says all there is to know about the Conservative Party. It beggars rational belief and bodes ill for the nation.
We are all entitled to our opinions, religious beliefs and how we conduct ourselves in our private lives. Unfortunately some who are elected to represent their constituency have a mentality that they have been selected in the sole purpose of converting everyone to have the same beliefs.
Well that is how I read it Richard. I did say he had been quoted.
He is making a choice to follow the teachings of the church – a form of church that I thought we had long excluded from any law making principles in this land. His view is at odds with the monarch (the head of the C of E) he says he supports.
The man is obviously a fool – but a dangerous one. But if you have loads of money – what does that matter? In many ways, looking at the trends in social mobility and the current growing inequality I would say that Rees-Mogg is the future face of this country if we continue along this path.
I think we gave up anti-Catholicism in 1832….
Indeed, the political pressure behind the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829 was so great, that the PM of the time, the Duke of Wellington, was forced to support it, even though, as a member of the Anglo-Irish gentry in origin, he was as bitterly opposed to the whole idea as Ian Paisley.
I am appalled by your unthinking prejudice. The clear implication of what you say is that all Muslims as well as RC’s are not “appropriate” for “high office”.
That is savagely discriminatory.
Rees-Mogg articulates a moral view that is shared by a significant minority of UK voters. Those voters accept the law of the land on this, as do Muslims and RC’s.
So why should we be deemed inappropriate for high office?
See a comment I made earlier in response to another
I am not saying Catholics and Muslims are unfit for office
But closed mindedness of Rees-Mogg’s type renders public office nigh on impossible in my view
That’s not discriminatory. Such closed mindedness is clearly evident on many other issues too
I am not saying Catholics and Muslims are unfit for office
But closed mindedness of Rees-Mogg’s type renders public office nigh on impossible in my view
That’s not discriminatory. Such closed mindedness is clearly evident on many other issues too
But the vast majority of Catholics and Muslims share JRM’s views on abortion and gay marriage. That doesn’t make them neo-liberal Tories – or “closed minded”.
And immigration + the UK muslim birth rate will make JRM’s views increasingly mainstream here.
Economics isn’t racist or discriminatory. Please don’t make it so.
I think we need to differ on many things, because we clearly do
Hang on a minute folks………………..
I don’t think anyone here is saying that any Muslim or RC or Jew or Protestant is unfit for office. That’s not being said here. Please calm down.
Although the UK is not a purely secular state (as the Monarch is meant to hold up the C of E and we do have religious hierarchy in the Lords for example who are given a vote) I feel that we have become more secular (that is to say that the State appears to be more neutral on matters of religion, faith etc.).
And BTW, you can see the C of E construct in this country as just a ruse to enable a king to choose a new wife or three. I personally do not take the concept of the monarch as head of the church very seriously to be honest. Off with my head!
The increased secularism in our society is as a result of it becoming more complex and diverse and for the State to take a tangible line of thinking that aligns itself with one set of beliefs puts it at odds with others. It is not a good basis for rule.
In my view all these different values and beliefs need to be managed carefully. If Mogg is a RC then good for him. But he has failed to be mindful of his position as an MP – in fact he has disrespected it – by using it as a platform to air his personal views (and he was talking of himself – not on behalf of all Catholics so again the accusation that this blog is saying that those of faith should not be in power is ill founded). Mogg has revealed to me that being Catholic is more important than being an MP (sorry Richard – that is what I see).
This discussion is about Ree-Mogg the MP – not a whole religious community.
Mogg should be censured by the Speaker/Parliament in my view. His voting record seems to confirm that his role as an MP has been compromised by certain personal beliefs he holds. Not good in my view. He is being subjective about issues when in fact the art of good rule (management?) is to take a more balanced, objective view and deal with the realities of rape and sexual politics. The idea is to help people like rape victims and those who wish live together same sex or not. It should not be about being punitive.
To rule is to rule for everyone – including women who have been impregnated against their will and same-sex couples who wish to show their love and commitment to each other (and, why not?).
In giving his personal views (his judgements?) on the above, Mogg has negated these people – he is excluding them – not including them and thus rendering their needs lesser than others.
But is this not the problem with modern politics? That it just seems to fail to rule for all, and tends to rule for far too few people these days?
And isn’t the real reason why we are here on this blog to begin to address this most pressing issue?
Mogg is not in my view the right calibre of person to be Parliament – not because he is Catholic, but because he fails to see the internal fire wall between the public and the private that someone who was capable would – irrespective of if they were Catholic, Muslim, Jewish – whatever.
What a silly response to an intelligent debate.
And “Rees-Mogg articulates a moral view that is shared by a significant minority of UK voters. Those voters accept the law of the land on this, as do Muslims and RC’s.”
Politicians should unequivocally swear that they will accept the law of the land no matter what their religion. If they do then they can legally campaign for changes in the laws that they dispute. If they don’t then they should just not be politicians. People need to choose what is most important to them.
Two aspects behind the drive for Rhys-Mogg
One is he has ’emerged’ by necessity because no-one is evidently suitable or acceptable.
Second point is that not being suitable or acceptable is a requirement. Tory hard-Brexiters have won the internal fight in their party, and they want someone who divides us and fuels more inequality and extreme entrenchment of elite power. So he had to be a wrong ‘un, just that the others have too much bad history or caused too many ructions to be put up for the job.
There are a lot of Muslims in the UK and their religion does not permit homosexuality, let alone abortion. Are you implying that a Muslim should not become an MP? And are you really certain that the majority of the population holds any opinion on gay marriage?
I am saying that if their position is stated as bluntly as Rees-Mogg made his then they do not have he necessary balanced judgement to make informed decisions for the population as a whole.
It is completely naive to think that a person’s actions are not influenced by their belief system – be it Atheist or Zionist. It’s hypocrisy that one should be concerned about. At least Rees Mogg is open about his prejudices.
Spare a thought for us here in Northern Ireland – we’ve been dealing with this (on both sides) for a very long time! There is no separation of (any) church and state here unfortunately.
Whatever Muslims believe, they are expected to respect “British values” (whatever they might be). There are people out there who think that Rees-Mogg’s views should be British values. It seems to me that’s the difference.
Sue are you saying that no one is allowed their own beliefs?
With the greatest of respect, that is very obviously not the case
But I do not think I a person is suited to high office if they do not respect the human rights of those living in the country where they seek to hold that office
That is something quite different.
It is also something quite different from saying they may not have differing opinion. Human rights are very clearly of a higher order. One human right is to disagree. But there is no human right to abuse other human rights.
Actually Sue, didn’t Mr Rees-Mog say:
“This is the accepted practice in society, I disagree with it and will never take part in it, but I will not stop others from doing so.”
So he is rather more tolerant and pluralistic than you seem to be, or indeed our host on this blog
I listened with care to what he said
He made clear the law allowed things he disapproved of
The emphasis was on his disapproval
That is not a position a Minster can hold when tasked with upholding a law
I have not suggested he cannot be an MP
This afternoon (7Aug17) I have had the privelage of witnessing Keir Starmer demolish the government front and back benches with the bonus of an excellent put down of Jacob Rees-Mogg that left Jacob very red faced, his governess (nanny?) will not be pleased. It is very likely that the put down will not appear in the MSM.
Be careful about hoping that Rees-Mogg is the next Tory leader. I seem to remember that lots of Tory voters joined the Labour Party so they could vote for Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party as they felt he was a sure loser. Whilst I know little about the background of Rees-Mogg without doubt we all know what he stands for, which is a lot more than most politicians who simply blow with the wind to keep their parliamentary seat. Give him credit for that and ‘trust the people’ at the voting box.
Have to say that ( although I happen to agree with them) Mogg’s views on abortion and same sex activities will at a stroke preclude him from any kind of ministerial office (down to and including bag carrier) given the certitude well recognised by his Party’ s higher echelons that these are perceived as “wrong headed” by the greater electoral masses. Thus their intimated adoption even peripherally ( via such an appointment) would condemn the Tories from a likely to an almost certain defeat in 2021/22 on current trends.
I don’t think Jacob Rees-Mogg has much chance of becoming Tory leader as I can’t see how he’d make it through to the final two MPs on the ballot paper who are then voted on by Tory party members. I get the feeling he’s seen as an eccentric figure in the PCP.
I doubt Rees-Mogg has read or even tried to understand any of the philosophy behind Elinor Ostrom’s work on managing the Commons. Suggest it to Mogg next time you meet him.
Don’t the views, actions and beliefs of Corbyn and many of his fellow travellers also preclude them from office?
Not in my opinion
I have not noticed them oppressing human rights
And I( am not willing to hear a silly list of accusations so don’t bother to come back with the usual Tory troll nonsense
I don’t agree that JRM is abusing other people’s human rights by saying that he disagrees with a right to abortion but will not actually do anything to prevent it happening.
We have to have free speech.
My concern would be that JRM says he opposes abortion on demand because he is a Roman Catholic. In that case, why do so many of his other beliefs directly contradict doctrine? In the US they recently confronted the repellent Steve Bannon & questioned him on this. His response was as inadequate as he was & essentially stated that he only accepted the Pope’s teaching on theological points not on anything to do with ‘real’ politics. This allowed him to pretend to remain a practising RC while arguing for a truly foul immigration policy that was utterly contradictory to any of Christ’s teachings (as various RC bishops had made clear).
I think I’d like to know whether JRM’s beliefs are, truly, rooted in his Catholic faith. Insofar as they assume the supremacy of the free market they seem, to me, directly contradictory &, I’m glad to say, the pope has commented on this,
Interesting point
Eriugenus
You are quite right that the RC church does not out rightly condone the sort of free market libertarian that Mogg supports. The sentiment ‘And the first shall be last’ is shared by the RC and the C of E .
But I would add is that there is a problem with Christianity and Islam (and even Judaism) about their understanding and ideas about money which is well worth considering. Islam and Christianity according to Professor Michael Hudson take a dim view of interest bearing debt creation for example. But how often do we hear these religious institutions condemning the creation of debt and the use of compound interest?
My argument is that these religions are too silent about debt because it is debt (the debt of the very rich in particular) that is causing us huge problems. And considering that Jesus reportedly kicked over the tables of the money lenders in the temple – I find this silence very puzzling and almost conspiratorial?
I have spoken to local clergy of various denominations about this issue and this is something at a grass roots level (in churches and mosques) that remains unreconciled with the upper hierarchies of all the faiths I have spoken too.
If religion seems deliberately blind say about money, (and other complex social issues) then those with looser values like the Ree-Moggs and Steve Bannons can always find a safe harbour in the church. It signifies to me that something is wrong with the Church.
Having just read Prof. Michael Hudson’s 2015 book ‘Killing the Host’ where he takes a brief look at the history of money creation and debt in human society, he has whetted my appetite to find out more. It seems that society has not always been so balanced in the favour of those who live off debt. Faith of all denominations need to do more about this problem.
There is work on this
See Peter Welby – former Birshop of Worcester – on the subject. He’s good
Thanks – but there is a long history of societies BC who knew about debt and how to deal with it which I feel compelled to explore. It seems that we have chosen to forget some big lessons from the past.
Or should I say that the act of forgetting has been made for us by others with huge vested interests.
Please write about it for here or Progressive Pulse
It is needef
PSR
Not sure how Islam could be any clearer actually. To lend money at interest is haraam end of.
As you say, Christian faith has struggled since a pope decided lending money at interest was no longer a sin in the late medieval period. As I understand it, even after that Papal bull, those who lived simply off investments (usurers & landlords) were pretty ill-considered until fairly modern times. As late as the 1930s Orwell states that there is something vile about the idea of people who do not work & live off dividends. The idea that there is no moral dimension to someone who is fit to work living off the labour of others via investment is, I think, comparatively recent.
I remember the very learned, albeit sometimes almost incomprehensible, Fr Chris Fitzpatrick explaining why Jesus drove out the moneylenders. His explanation was spell-bindingly intelligent & rational & made perfect sense. On Fr Chris’s explanation Jesus was acting against rigged markets & monopoly capitalism.
Which was, of course, exactly what the Temple – as the arbiter of weights and measures in OT times – was meant to stop
This role of the temple – as the upholder of the currency for example – is forgotten