Strokes Posted 7 September 2017 Posted 7 September 2017 I don't agree with JRM wholeheartedly, I do think abortion should be more difficult to get funded by NHS, as some people are using it as a preferred method of birth control. Gay marriage, I don't understand the fuss. Obviously they should retain the same legal benifits and acknowledgments, whether a faith should be forced to bless that marriage or not I can't quite be sure. Im glad he has told his beliefs, even if they aren't quite a fit with modern normal thinking, I'm unsure whether it will damage him or not. It's a shame Farron couldn't be as honest.
SMX11 Posted 7 September 2017 Posted 7 September 2017 6 minutes ago, Finnegan said: As expected, though, JRM is now taking a royal butt****ing all over social media. The media and establishment fear him as he is a genuine conservative/old liberal. So the playing up of such social issues of which he wouldn't seek to overturn will be played up for political gains.
Finnegan Posted 7 September 2017 Posted 7 September 2017 Just now, SMX11 said: The media and establishment fear him as he is a genuine conservative/old liberal. So the playing up of such social issues of which he wouldn't seek to overturn will be played up for political gains. Partly for political gains, partly just for likes and shares on social media if we're perfectly honest.
Captain... Posted 7 September 2017 Posted 7 September 2017 (edited) 21 minutes ago, SMX11 said: The media and establishment fear him as he is a genuine conservative/old liberal. So the playing up of such social issues of which he wouldn't seek to overturn will be played up for political gains. I don't think anyone feared him, he was getting some support partly because he is such a throwback old fashioned conservative, but a few memes and charming tv appearances are not enough to make him a credible party leader and I don't think anyone really thought he would hold up to the scrutiny of a leadership campaign. Edited 7 September 2017 by Captain... 1
Jon the Hat Posted 7 September 2017 Posted 7 September 2017 The Moggster I think is an excellent parliamentarian, who much like Corbyn would be a terrible party leader, let alone PM.
Jon the Hat Posted 7 September 2017 Posted 7 September 2017 1 minute ago, Captain... said: I don't think anyone feared him, he was getting some support partly because he is such a throwback old fashioned conservative, but a few memes and charming tv appearances are not enough to make him a credible politician and I don't think anyone really thought he would hold up to the scrutiny of a leadership campaign. He is a credible MP, just not leader IMO.
Captain... Posted 7 September 2017 Posted 7 September 2017 Just now, Jon the Hat said: He is a credible MP, just not leader IMO. Edited, I meant to put leader.
leicsmac Posted 7 September 2017 Posted 7 September 2017 21 minutes ago, SMX11 said: The media and establishment fear him as he is a genuine conservative/old liberal. So the playing up of such social issues of which he wouldn't seek to overturn will be played up for political gains. I don't think that can be known unless the situation arose tbh. As for the whole thing my view is similar to when Farron said similar - people who hold religious views that encourage denying a fundamental right to any demographic shouldn't be anywhere near a part of the political process that might allow them to make it state legislated. That goes for any and all particular names they decide to use for their deity. I'm just glad the UK seems to be a bit more on the ball regarding that than folks are over here.
SMX11 Posted 7 September 2017 Posted 7 September 2017 3 minutes ago, leicsmac said: I don't think that can be known unless the situation arose tbh. As for the whole thing my view is similar to when Farron said similar - people who hold religious views that encourage denying a fundamental right to any demographic shouldn't be anywhere near a part of the political process that might allow them to make it state legislated. That goes for any and all particular names they decide to use for their deity. I'm just glad the UK seems to be a bit more on the ball regarding that than folks are over here. I think he is on the record of saying that marriage shouldn't have anything to do with the state. Nor should the state force religious groups into performing ceremonies or hire their property if they don't want to. Which I think is a very reasonable position.
leicsmac Posted 7 September 2017 Posted 7 September 2017 8 minutes ago, SMX11 said: I think he is on the record of saying that marriage shouldn't have anything to do with the state. Nor should the state force religious groups into performing ceremonies or hire their property if they don't want to. Which I think is a very reasonable position. As Alf said earlier on, if certain parts of those religious groups didn't view certain demographics as an abomination and want to deny them fundamental rights on this matter and influence the state to do likewise, I'd be on board with the idea of the State staying out of it entirely. But they do, so these state protections have to exist. A priest shouldn't have to open his church or an imam his mosque to a gay marriage if it conflicts with their own convictions, but the state should be ensuring that other options remain for gay couples to be married in exactly the same way and with all the same benefits as other demographics. 4
Strokes Posted 7 September 2017 Posted 7 September 2017 17 minutes ago, leicsmac said: A priest shouldn't have to open his church or an imam his mosque to a gay marriage if it conflicts with their own convictions, but the state should be ensuring that other options remain for gay couples to be married in exactly the same way and with all the same benefits as other demographics. Spot on 1
Guest Posted 7 September 2017 Posted 7 September 2017 1 hour ago, Strokes said: I don't agree with JRM wholeheartedly, I do think abortion should be more difficult to get funded by NHS, as some people are using it as a preferred method of birth control. Gay marriage, I don't understand the fuss. Obviously they should retain the same legal benifits and acknowledgments, whether a faith should be forced to bless that marriage or not I can't quite be sure. Im glad he has told his beliefs, even if they aren't quite a fit with modern normal thinking, I'm unsure whether it will damage him or not. It's a shame Farron couldn't be as honest. What evidence is there that anybody uses abortion as a preferred method of birth control?
Strokes Posted 7 September 2017 Posted 7 September 2017 Just now, toddybad said: What evidence is there that anybody uses abortion as a preferred method of birth control? Someone I know who works in the early terminations clinic.
Guest Posted 7 September 2017 Posted 7 September 2017 9 minutes ago, Strokes said: Someone I know who works in the early terminations clinic. Right. I'd hazard a guess we're talking about a very small number of women who are probably vulberable in a number of ways? I don't see any evidence of wholesale issues. I don't think you can base policy on tiny groups. You haven't said the size of the groups but i can imagine somebody in the clinic seeimg maybe 2/3 women regularly and commenting based on that but it isn't going to be big numbers surely?
Guest MattP Posted 7 September 2017 Posted 7 September 2017 5 hours ago, Alf Bentley said: However, it rapidly becomes clear that he is expressing his personal opinions, not suggesting that Parliament should revoke same-sex marriage or ban all abortion. He goes on to say that there's no question of parliament legislating to ban same-sex marriage or abortion (under the implied hypothesis that he was PM) as there isn't the parliamentary support for it. A good question to have asked him, though, would have been: "What if there WAS parliamentary support for such legislation and you were PM - then would you legislate to ban gay marriage or abortion?" His answer would have told us whether his politics is dominated by the conservative thinking of the Catholic Church or the thinking of right-wing liberalism. He voted against gay marriage in register offices. Would he remove that right if he could? 1 hour ago, Captain... said: This won't automatically stop him from being a Tory leader but it will become a central issue in any campaign, like it did for Farron and his views on homosexuals, and will lose him more votes then it will win him. It is refreshing having a politician being open and honest about personal views, just a shame they are so backward. The question Alf posed there would be the one any interviewer should ask, but they won't as they just want the headline, they want the "xxxx disagrees with gay marriage/abortion" and then the press/Twitter etc can go to town on a crusade against the individual who said it. People should be far more concerned at voting in parliament that politicians are whipped on rather than abortion and gay marriage, as neither are being overturned in our society in our lifetimes. The more I think about this the more I don't think we can compare it to Tim Farron, he was criticised because he was trying to duck and dive on the question, Rees-Mogg has confronted the question head on and said exactly why he believes this and it's quite a simple answer, he holds the church as a higher power than parliament in his own mind, it was a great shame that the part that about him saying he would never enforce these beliefs on anyone was omitted from most cuttings, but be assured they were totally deliberate. Farron openly admitted when he resigned that he couldn't do his job because he feared the reaction of an illberal society, he couldn't answer the question in the way that he wanted, to please himself, his church, the public and his party. JRM is totally different here, he was looking to do nothing else except explain his beliefs without a care for any of those things, he doesn't lack confidence in his beliefs, he has worked out why he has them and is comfortable in expressing them in the same way a man like Jeremy Corbyn is. How the public will react to him I have no idea, if recent elections are to go by, controversial honesty can go a long way. We are heading down an extremely depressing road where anyone whose views aren't considered the norm can't represent anyone in public life, this is a really bad move, we already have too many sub-standard politicians in he house without also ruling out anyone who has a different opinion on marriage, said a racist word 15 years ago, shared a sexist meme on Twitter etc etc, the house should be as diverse as the country in terms of it's opinion, we already saw how out of touch the place was on one of the biggest issues of our generation when we got the result of the EU referendum, continue to do this and all we will end up with is 650 MP's who have never said anything, never held a real opinion, never debated a controversial matter and are just part of an ineffective parliament stuck in it's own moral opinion incapable of argument or change. If Jacob Rees-Mogg now becomes a hate figure for what he believes, it won't bother him because he believes deep down they are beliefs worth believing in, which is more you can say for 95% of people these days.
Strokes Posted 7 September 2017 Posted 7 September 2017 12 minutes ago, toddybad said: Right. I'd hazard a guess we're talking about a very small number of women who are probably vulberable in a number of ways? I don't see any evidence of wholesale issues. I don't think you can base policy on tiny groups. You haven't said the size of the groups but i can imagine somebody in the clinic seeimg maybe 2/3 women regularly and commenting based on that but it isn't going to be big numbers surely? I'll reply when I'm home TB, I've just written a long reply but lost it due to signal.
Captain... Posted 7 September 2017 Posted 7 September 2017 (edited) 12 minutes ago, MattP said: Farron openly admitted when he resigned that he couldn't do his job because he feared the reaction of an illberal society, he couldn't answer the question in the way that he wanted, to please himself, his church, the public and his party. JRM is totally different here, he was looking to do nothing else except explain his beliefs without a care for any of those things, he doesn't lack confidence in his beliefs, he has worked out why he has them and is comfortable in expressing them in the same way a man like Jeremy Corbyn is. I edited my post as initially I made a comparison to Corbyn and his personal views on Trident vs the Labour manifesto, the difference is Corbyn's views on Trident are not based in religion and are not wholly repugnant, such as JRM's views on abortion. If it was just about gay marriage he could probably get away with it, but the comments on abortion are completely at odds with the values of modern Britain (not including NI). The fact he would never look to enact them in parliament doesn't detract from the fact he actually believes it. Edited 7 September 2017 by Captain... 1
Guest MattP Posted 7 September 2017 Posted 7 September 2017 Just now, Captain... said: I edited my post as initially I made a comparison to Corbyn and his personal views on Trident vs the Labour manifesto, the difference is Corbyn's views on Trident are not based in religion and are not wholly repugnant, such as JRM's views on abortion. If it was just about gay marriage he could probably get away with it, but the comments on abortion are completely at odds with the values of modern Britain (not including NI). The fact he would never look to enact them in parliament doesn't detract from the fact he actually believes it. I think it is important to have a wide mix of demographics and opinions in a party, and in parliament, but the leader needs to be someone who can bring all that together. I find Corbyn's views on Trident, even more so in today's World, very repugnant and extremely dangerous.
Guest Posted 7 September 2017 Posted 7 September 2017 4 minutes ago, MattP said: I find Corbyn's views on Trident, even more so in today's World, very repugnant and extremely dangerous. I'm sure you'd say the same of me but you don't half talk crap sometimes. 5 minutes ago, Captain... said: I edited my post as initially I made a comparison to Corbyn and his personal views on Trident vs the Labour manifesto, the difference is Corbyn's views on Trident are not based in religion and are not wholly repugnant, such as JRM's views on abortion. If it was just about gay marriage he could probably get away with it, but the comments on abortion are completely at odds with the values of modern Britain (not including NI). The fact he would never look to enact them in parliament doesn't detract from the fact he actually believes it. Trouble is, would he vote in the direction of his views? Presumably so given his voting record on gay marriage. It isn't therefore possible to say he wouldn't look to enact them - he only wouldn't bevause the rest of parliament wouldn't let him.
Captain... Posted 7 September 2017 Posted 7 September 2017 (edited) 9 minutes ago, MattP said: I find Corbyn's views on Trident, even more so in today's World, very repugnant and extremely dangerous. On the same scale as JRM's views on abortion? You may disagree with them, but there is a difference between a reasoned and logical position on nuclear arms, one that he has changed for the good of his party/this country or entrenched religious views, which can't be reasoned with. You can make an argument for scrapping Trident, the cost being a big one, we could equip and protect our troops a lot better with the money being spent on a nuclear deterrent that we will most likely never use, whilst our ill equipped service men and women are needless dying due to lack of equipment. The fact we have more fire power in our non nuclear arsenal than all of our nukes combined, and we can actually use them without destroying the planet. The fact that the major threats to Britain at the moment are terrorists and cyber attacks, neither of which can be fought with nukes. You can't make any logical argument against rape victims having an abortion. Edited 7 September 2017 by Captain... 1
Finnaldo Posted 7 September 2017 Posted 7 September 2017 10 minutes ago, MattP said: I find Corbyn's views on Trident, even more so in today's World, very repugnant and extremely dangerous. Really? I'd understand you'd find them naive and dangerous, that's understandable, but surely nuclear dearmament is never repugnant? Foolishly noble and wishful thinking perhaps, if you're inclined to that thinking.
Lionator Posted 7 September 2017 Posted 7 September 2017 1 hour ago, MattP said: If Jacob Rees-Mogg now becomes a hate figure for what he believes, it won't bother him because he believes deep down they are beliefs worth believing in, which is more you can say for 95% of people these days. I hate this argument, that somehow he should be respected for saying what he believes or having conviction. Harold Shipman had conviction in what he did, it doesn't mean that he was a person worth respecting. John McDonnell has said on numerous occasions what he believes and I'm sure Conservatives don't respect him. I don't respect/dislike Jacob Rees-Mogg because he stands for absolutely nothing that I stand for, his views are archaic, sexist and damn right dangerous. There'll be those (a small minority) who agree with him for whatever reason but those saying that they don't agree with him, but still respect him for being honest anyway need to get a grip. He's not your local dinnerlady or pub landlord, he's a member of parliament and therefore gets a say in the lawmaking of this country, he's backwards. I'm not sure that those right-leaners have the same respect for Ken Clarke for standing up for what he believes in re Brexit. 2
Jon the Hat Posted 7 September 2017 Posted 7 September 2017 56 minutes ago, Finnaldo said: Really? I'd understand you'd find them naive and dangerous, that's understandable, but surely nuclear dearmament is never repugnant? Foolishly noble and wishful thinking perhaps, if you're inclined to that thinking. I struggle to say that someone would be completely wrong to find any abortion repugnant, and to believe life begins at conception. I personally believe in the right to choose, and could never judge someone who decided in the cases mentioned that it was the route for them, but it still makes me very uncomfortable. 1
Stadt Posted 7 September 2017 Posted 7 September 2017 The next Tory leader needs to be a non fundamentalist Christian, progressivism has been monopolised by left wing parties and movements when it's not the case at all. Trump and May have further fuelled the idea that right wing ideology is inherently backwards when a more central than centre-right party would probably clean up at the next election.
SMX11 Posted 7 September 2017 Posted 7 September 2017 4 minutes ago, Wookie said: The next Tory leader needs to be a non fundamentalist Christian, progressivism has been monopolised by left wing parties and movements when it's not the case at all. Trump and May have further fuelled the idea that right wing ideology is inherently backwards when a more central than centre-right party would probably clean up at the next election. I don't understand this at all. Trump and May are both centrists with very little thought or philosophy behind their positions. The Conservative party needs to be what is claims to be and someone at the head of it that can articulate why the left is wrong.
Recommended Posts