Momentum are getting stronger

Threads wander, Primrose. It's now a critique of the person who wrote it.

Of course it is Primrose.

I'm lost. I thought you were critiquing the old Telegraph article from a few years ago. How this became an analysis of his voting record is unclear.

I expect most people realised that your JRM4PM was a joke Baggs, but the rest - where you say Rees-Mogg shouldn't be be blamed for his upbringing - wasn't. I don't think he should be "blamed" for his privileged upbringing. What he is responsible for is his voting record which, amongst many other things, shows his absolute willingness to penalise less well of people while making all sorts of concessions to the wealthier sections of society.

I'm not sure what you mean about "personal" decency. There are many relatively recent historical examples of people who treated those close to them -their family, friends and colleagues/valued employees properly but who most definitely didn't extend the same care and compassion to people they perceived to be outside their milieu.

I don't think there should be two separate personalities - one personal and one political. I would imagine that most people's political beliefs, and their values in general, are to a fair extent reflected in their behaviour.

Rees-mogg definitely has an appeal - to old school Tories who still look up to their 'betters'. That he is also unashamedly a Brexitier makes him even more appealing to these, often older, less educated, voters. His message is simple, even simplistic and that appeals to some, without doubt. He sees the deficit as the fault of Labour not a global crisis followed by Tory governments and some want that to be true. He sees that this means those with little who may have had state support from time to time have to be the ones to pay.

This simplistic point of view may make him leader of his party - but leader of the government, I sincerely doubt there are enough who will accept the wool being pulled over their eyes to that extent.

I'm afraid I have a sense of humour bypass when it comes to MP's with a voting record like Ress Moggs ...

Oh, I think my post containing JRM4PM was a v successful poke, gg, judging by the posts that immediately followed it! Still chuckling . You can have the rest of the thread as not about me or my posts.

Just remember Buggs, it's not always all about you or even about just your posts

'loves his nanny'—another clue

I was talking about his decency on a personal level. The word nanny is the clue. And the rest was a jokey wind-up. A very successful one, it would seem

= JOKE, ffs!

And then those who think they are just a bit better than the 'lower echelons' vote for people like Mog. Please, someone, tell me why you would do that and support the highly capitalised while attacking those who have little or none?

He shows no sign of helping or even understanding people not in his privileged position but it's OK to let him run a country apparently. It really doesn't make you a clever and good person to inherit wealth and privilege and grow your increased wealth and privilege from that.

Likes to keep the lower echelons of society in their place, doesn't he....

Looking at Jacob Rees-Mogg's voting record there is a noticeable pattern:

Proposals that primarily relate to people on average to low incomes -

Consistently voted for reducing housing benefit;
Consistently voted against paying higher disability benefits;
Almost always voted to increase VAT;
Consistently voted to raise student tuition fees;
Consistently voted for ending financial support for some 16-19 year olds in training and FE;
Consistently voted for reducing local government funding;
Almost always voted against the slowing of rises in rail fares;
Consistently voted against restriction of fees charged to tenants by letting agencies;
Almost always voted to restrict scope of Legal Aid.

Proposals that primarily relate to the better off and more powerful sections of society -

Consistently voted against increasing the tax rate applied to income over 150,000;
Almost always voted against bankers' bonus tax;
Consistently voted for reducing Capital Gains Tax;
Almost always voted for reducing Corporation Tax;
Almost always voted against restricing provision of services to private patients by the NHS;
Consistently voted against regulation of gambling;
Consistently voted against restriction of fees charged to tenants by letting agencies;

Additionally, he:

Generally voted against measures to prevent climate change;
Consistently voted for selling England's state-owned forests;
Almost always voted against the right to remain for EU nationals already living in the UK;
Consistently votes against removing hereditary peers from the House of Lords.

You may feel this reflects "decency" - I don't.

Totally agree baggs. I read the article too and I thought it showed how much he cared for his nanny. Presumably as she is now nanny to his children she must be happy to still be with the family or she would have left by now. Yes he comes from money and is wealthy but he doesn't hide what he is. No one could mistake him for anything other than what he is. I find him amusing and self deprecating.

Even though he votes in favour of restricting pay rises for public sector workers? How can that make him a good man#notinmybook ...

From what I've read of the quoted article by JRM, it sounds as if he loves his nanny and she him. He can't be blamed for the way he was brought up any more than someone brought up in severe poverty can be.

He seems like a decent man even if one doesn't like his politics and his eccentricity. Think I'll join the JRM4PM society

Your DIL is lucky to have a cleaner, but that £10 an hour is a gross figure too and not a national average. The national average hourly pay for a cleaner is £7.27 an hour.

So comparing average nanny to average cleaner is £10.84 to £7.27. Everyone agrees with you that nannies have more responsibility than cleaners and they pay for that.

www.payscale.com/research/UK/Job=Cleaner/Hourly_Rate

I wonder who calculates the 50 hour week, having done some childminding/nannying in the past I can tell you that the parents are unlikely to stick to 50 hours even if the nanny is supposed to work that many. They will be held up in important meetings, miss trains, have emergencies and generally manage to turn up late or rush off early knowing that nanny won't abandon her charges. It's amazing how the time mounts up with 10 mins here and 15 there.

The figure of £542 quoted is for a live-in nanny, so presumably boaard and lodging included - which makes the pay even better.

It's gross pay Primrose65 so less than £10 in real terms after deductions. I don't consider that well paid for the responsibility for someone's children My DIL pays her cleaner £10 an hour.

trisher Those figures are based on a 50 hour week though. You can't change part of the calculation then complain about that result! I'm just sharing factual information. It's not a badly paid job. Things change for the better sometimes, and I'm pleased that they do.

So he writes what the nanny does for the family, no mention of what the family does for the nanny , perhaps little, perhaps much

Primrose65 Gross wage for nanny quoted as £542 per week. If she/he works a 12hour day, 5 days a week, with probably some night work for a baby, that works out as less than £9 an hour- not well paid then.

Has anyone been watching the nanny in the latest series of Ripper Street, by the way ?