Moggmentum is getting stronger

Maizie said HIS politics are deeply unpleasant. They are.
Have you looked at his voting record?

'Courteous and charming he might be but he comes over as more 'entitled' than intelligent and his politics are deeply unpleasant.'

MaizieD His personal and religious beliefs might be unpleasant - his politics aren't necessarily.

Just because you support Corbyn doesn't mean that everyone who thinks differently is 'deeply unpleasant'. It's a left wing smear campaign which brands anyone with political affiliations other than left wing ones, as 'nasty'.

Left wingers DO NOT have the monopoly on compassion.

Many are crude, loud, aggressive and violent as we saw in Manchester with their despicable "Hang the Tories" banner with effigies hanging by their necks from a bridge.

Give me the quaint, polite, witty, well-mannered Mogg any day. I do not share his personal beliefs but he is proving himself to be a politician streets ahead of the opposition in terms of dealing wonderfully with unnecessary vile and disturbing aggression - a recent and worrying phenomenon of UK politics.

Exactly, whitewave.
Lots more where those came from.

I agree with this statement as well.

"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."

If you think that makes me seem virtuous, Baggs, then I'll accept that. I always thought that being virtuous was seen to be a good thing, not a criticism, as you seem to put it.

He voted against EU nationals having the right to live and work in the UK.
Vindictive.
www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/24926/jacob_rees-mogg/north_east_somerset/divisions?policy=6764

He voted against laws to promote equality and human rights.

Petty and vindictive.
www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/24926/jacob_rees-mogg/north_east_somerset/divisions?policy=6703

He is my worst nightmare looking at his voting record.

I don't think I've ever used the word virtuous, have I , Baggs?
I have no idea what you mean.

Rees-Mogg's voting record.

www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/24926/jacob_rees-mogg/north_east_somerset/votes

Well said Baggs

I really don't get the impression that JRM is a petty or vindictive man. I've only been aware of him for a short time, admittedly, but I get the impression his politics is principled based in his beliefs about what is good for the country (and possibly for humanity in general). Whether I would agree with any or all of those principles is a separate issue but I don't think a person is automatically bad or petty or vindictive just because I disagree with their world outlook. I can accept that they are as principled as I am but that their principles are different. I think some people can't or won't do that. They can't cope without a high degree of conformity.

If abortion is legal in India, what's the problem? JRM has said more than once that he doesn't seek to impose his beliefs on others. When asked what he believed on the subject of abortion he said he was against it in all circumstances. He didn't say he thought everyone else should be against it.

OK the difference is subtle but it is a difference.

He has also said, on the current stomach ulcer pill subject that he doesn't make investment decisions for the family company and that he hasn't been directly involved since he became an MP. I don't know how long the stomach ulcer/abortion drug has been on the market but it might be relevant.

And the lovely Donald Dewer

I like JRM, great sense of humour, not aggressive, not a camera grabber, the house has always had members who could be classed rather eccentric.

Who remembers Leo Abse? MP for thirty years , wore very unusual clothes

I just had to look up the word "strident" which the Mirror article used of JRM, saying he is a strident opponent of abortion. Strident is something JRM is definitely not. Small detail, I know, but amusing. And it makes me wonder about the accuracy of some of the rest of the Mirror reporting.

I think quite a few people find logic weaselly. I think another name for weaselly logic might be Jesuitical. Don't quote me. I'm dredging back of the brain drawers for that.

I am going to read all the articles again. If I find something to condemn I'll condemn it.

Your virtue is not in question, jd. You tell us about it often enough. But it does not follow from that that others are unvirtuous or stupid.

And someone also says his voting record is petty and vindictive.
I agree with that.

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2017/09/07/jacob-rees-mogg/

There's a limerick halfway down this link.

Weasel words - that's the phrase I was looking for.

It's nothing to do with nappies and nannies and everything to do with his hypocrical stance on abortion, on the poor. And he didn't drop his investments when he found out, he defended them until he realised he was on a hiding to nothing. A person with principles who found out what was happening would have been so shocked they wouldn't have had time to craft such a carefully worded explanation for why it was actually all right.

He went on: “This company does not procure the abortion of babies. It’s not my money in these investments and I profit from the total amount of client money we hold, not the investments we make.”

Weasel words from the Independent link.

He has also said that his company never invests without doing copious research. Did they forget for this company?
He had worked with his two partners since 1999. I am sure they knew his thoughts on abortion.

Just read your link maryeliza54 so he did know then.
His explanation was a bit convoluted.

I find the concept of somebody who is so anti-abortion as he is owning a company that buys shares in a company that sells pills for abortion.
Sad that you don't, but hey-ho, not surprised.

I know what shares my pension is invested in, and I don't pretend to know anything about share dealing.
It's quite easy to find out.
Somerset Asset Holdings is a family firm, set up by Jacob and other members of his family. It was remiss of him to not find out about where the shares were, after he said what he did about abortion, and even women who were raped being made to have the babies.
He should have realised that investigators would be investigating his company.

Neither do I Baggs, but I don't have a problem with anyone who employs a nanny or is honest and said he hadn't change the nappy on his baby, it really trouble some

www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/pro-life-jacob-rees-mogg-595961

Also, the drugs are (or were) primarily for treatment of stomach ulcers. To drop shares when it is found that the same drug can cause abortion seems a reasonable thing to do. I would do the same if I had money invested in s stomach ulcer drug and discovered it did something else that I objected to.

He is quoted in the Indie article as not having any of his own money in the pill company. Doesn't that mean he doesn't have shares in it?

I get the impression from the Indie article that his job before he was an MP was to tell potential investors about where they can invest their money and that it's against the rules to apply his own personal beliefs to his advice to investors.

I don't find this a difficult concept to understand.