Jacob Ress Mogg - next PM?

System

Amazing.

I'm very sorry for suggesting you might be biased. I don't know where I got the idea.

Fella

Joeskeppi wrote: »

Amazing.

I'm very sorry for suggesting you might be biased. I don't know where I got the idea.

Or if you're not a big enough person, that's fine, we understand.

System

Fortunately, members of the Conservative party are capable of criticizing those views. It's good to see in my opinion. Paints the conservatives in a better light too.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/07/tory-mps-line-disagree-jacob-rees-moggs-utterly-abhorrent-views/

kabayiri

leslieknope wrote: »

i don't think anyone is stating he's not entitled to hold a belief. we're saying that it's a hurtful belief to a large percentage of the population unbecoming of a potential PM.

freedom of speech doesn't bar you from criticism.

So maybe we are asking the wrong question, or addressing the wrong problem?

How do we achieve a secular society, and yet still allow freedom of opinion and critique on religious views.

I personally believe JRM is sincere when he says what his values are and where they come from. I respect the fact that he is open.

I'd like to think we have a political system where we can cope with a potential leaders' views being different to the mass political view.

I'd say the same about a future Muslim leader of the Labour party. They should be allowed to say where they stand on something like Sharia law in the UK. However, we should be guided by the prevailing set of values that we have.

Mee

Ken Clarke was my antidote to JRM - I just wanted to hug Ken Clarke yesterday!

A_Medium_Size_Jock

ilovehouses wrote: »

Unflinching faith? No thanks - I want someone who does their thinking for themselves.

Your opinion of Corbyn is zero so you don't exactly set a high bar when using him as comparison.

And yet you disregard those who think for themselves throughout your responses in these threads.
:whistle:
My opinion counts for little; the facts are what counts - and they're not good, are they?
Would you rather use as comparison Diane Abbott?

Malthusian

kabayiri wrote: »

How do we achieve a secular society, and yet still allow freedom of opinion and critique on religious views.

Don't know why "yet" appears in that sentence. They sound like the same thing to me.

Abolishing the ludicrous law on "religious hatred" would be the first step.

leslieknope

i believe there should be separation of church and state. the biggest 'religion' in the UK is atheism. i don't think religious views should have any place in politics though i'm sure many will disagree.

but back to the title of the thread. instead of arguing what makes JRM unqualified, not one person has answered exactly what makes him qualified? and i'm honestly unsure where all this leadership talk as come from (except for JRM himself?) as none of his own party seem to hold him in particularly high regard. he's a joke character, just like boris - who incidentally i believe to be far more intelligent than JRM, in an insidious way as he has crafted his buffoon persona well in order to hide his motives. not that i would suggest him for leader anyway.

why on earth people are circling people like JRM - or even david davis - when there's someone like ken clarke with character and willingness to actually LISTEN and present himself as a reasonable member of parliament, baffles me.

kabayiri

Malthusian wrote: »

Don't know why "yet" appears in that sentence. They sound like the same thing to me.

Abolishing the ludicrous law on "religious hatred" would be the first step.

A superfluous addition I concede.

We should be free to criticize any religious ideology, as long as we don't target individuals.

Moby

leslieknope wrote: »

i believe there should be separation of church and state. the biggest 'religion' in the UK is atheism. i don't think religious views should have any place in politics though i'm sure many will disagree.

but back to the title of the thread. instead of arguing what makes JRM unqualified, not one person has answered exactly what makes him qualified? and i'm honestly unsure where all this leadership talk as come from (except for JRM himself?) as none of his own party seem to hold him in particularly high regard. he's a joke character, just like boris - who incidentally i believe to be far more intelligent than JRM, in an insidious way as he has crafted his buffoon persona well in order to hide his motives. not that i would suggest him for leader anyway.

why on earth people are circling people like JRM - or even david davis - when there's someone like ken clarke with character and willingness to actually LISTEN and present himself as a reasonable member of parliament, baffles me.

The tory party is in a massive hole over Brexit, finding a position that keeps them unified is a nightmare for them. At such times members look for answers and a cult following developed around JRM exactly because he is a pantomime Lord Snooty as an antidote to Momentum. They are called Activate:- https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/05/tory-momentum-clone-activate-at-war-as-hackers-back-jacob-rees-mogg-for-pm It's all going Pete Tong though:- https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/jacob-reesmoggs-moggmentum-hashtag-is-flooded-with-homoerotica-in-backlash-to-gay-marriage-remarks-a3629006.html