Jacob Rees-Mogg says government should no longer ‘deliver certain functions’ as Brexit prize

The dismantling of the British state, from a man who doesn't contribute to it. At all. HOW is he allowed to have this much influence?????

Jacob Rees-Mogg is a partner in Somerset Capital Management, a $6.8 billion hedge fund (over £5 Billion) managed by a Limited company in the Cayman Islands – the most notorious tax haven on earth – with 40% of its current investment in Chinese stocks. Unlike the LLP that he uses to avoid taxation in the UK, the Caymans Limited company should pay UK Corporation Tax at 19% but it is ‘technically’ located in an offshore tax haven.

The Cayman Islands imposes no direct taxes whatsoever on companies registered there: No corporation tax and no income tax, no property taxes, no capital gains taxes, no payroll taxes, and no withholding tax. This and the fact it is an LLP mean that Jacob Rees-Mogg avoids all UK taxes on his profit from this company that does not contribute to British society in any way.

from a man who doesn't contribute to it. At all.

Small point, but presumably he pays income tax on his MP salary so you can't say he doesn't contribute to the UK at all. He contributes in the same way as nearly everybody else.

And he is saying what one would expect a true Conservative to say, no? Limited government and low taxation are core beliefs as I understand it.

We haven't actually had a truly Conservative government for quite some time. Cameron was more of a Blairite.

I was hoping that we would see the back of Rees-Smug very soon but it's not to be. I am very afraid indeed as to what will happen when Liz Truss becomes our PM, it is going to be an absolute disaster and there is nothing we can do about it as we have no say unless there is a general election. In the meantime what further damage will be inflicted on this country? I'm 77 and seen a lot of PMs come and go but nothing as bad as this. I cannot watch the hustings any more, they are risible. God help us.

Someone who is only committed to lining his own pockets should have no say how British taxes are handled. Despicable man!

Two questions

First to baggs when did we last have a true conservative government. And what would you define as a true conservative government?

Second - what is Mogg considering unnecessary? Health provision, social care, education, flood defence , pensions, benefits, social housing? Etc

How are the poor going to pay for what the state will no longer provide. Any cut in tax will be irrelevant as far as they are concerned.

Baggs

And he is saying what one would expect a true Conservative to say, no? Limited government and low taxation are core beliefs as I understand it.

We haven't actually had a truly Conservative government for quite some time. Cameron was more of a Blairite.

Looking forward to it, are you, Baggs?

Mr Rees-Mogg argued tearing back the state’s role would allow the next government to help people with rocketing energy bills, which the leadership race favourite has said she will do through tax cuts.

If Jacob Rees-Mogg cannot see the complete contradiction in what he says above 'cut back the states role and then reinstate it by helping people with fuel bills. He is even more cerebally challenged than I thought he was.

He either cuts back the states role, including help with fuel bills or he accepts the importance of the role the state plays in ensuring an effective and compassionate society - and helps with fuel bills. He cannot have it both ways. He is either very stupid or thinks we are.

He doesn't care if we are stupid or not. We can't stop them and it'll be a disaster whoever gets in as PM.

Going to Eton doesn't necessarily mean that one is intelligent. Clever, maybe and good at passing exams, but intelligent? No.

I wonder what he would do if everybody decided to turn themselves into LLPs and register with the Cayman Islands. Very little by way of tax to pay for the services that we need, such as rubbish collection. Fly tip perhaps?

A right wing government wanting to reduce the size of the state: there should be no surprise there. People who have wealth want a small state so they can decide what to spend their money on. People with little money want the state to help them.
I prefer the Scandanavian model of higher direct taxation and more state services.

Jane71

A right wing government wanting to reduce the size of the state: there should be no surprise there. People who have wealth want a small state so they can decide what to spend their money on. People with little money want the state to help them.
I prefer the Scandanavian model of higher direct taxation and more state services.

I would say that people with wealth want a small state so that they can make as much money as possible out of providing services which are currently provided by the state. And provide those services at minimal cost with no regulation of workers' pay and conditions, or restraints on the safety of the services they are providing.

It's like we're travelling back through time to the 19th century and earlier. They are completely devoid of any humanity whatsoever and obsessed only by the acquisition of wealth.

Jane71

A right wing government wanting to reduce the size of the state: there should be no surprise there. People who have wealth want a small state so they can decide what to spend their money on. People with little money want the state to help them.
I prefer the Scandanavian model of higher direct taxation and more state services.

Spot on, Jane71.

The Tories don't care about ordinary people. It is time Rees-Mogg got into his time travel machine and returned to 18th century. His slash and burn attitude to public services and the civil service is disgraceful.

Let's look at the line up that has been foisted on us.......
Johnson, Truss, Coffey, Dorries, Shapps, Williamson, Rees-Smugg, Frost, Bravermann, Patel etc etc. If their brain cells were combined into one giant blob we are still doomed. I'm not convinced by Sunak either, he makes lots of gaffes but at least he did support businesses and people with furlough and knows how to run an economy. I see that Coffey and Dorries are in line for the "big posts" in the Cabinet. All we can do is pray.

Grantanow

The Tories don't care about ordinary people. It is time Rees-Mogg got into his time travel machine and returned to 18th century. His slash and burn attitude to public services and the civil service is disgraceful.

I'm not sure this is true, grantanow. I think JRM and other actual conservatives think that Conservatism with a large C is better for ordinary people than the alternatives. Many people disagree with this view, obviously, but I don't think it is an essentially malicious principle from which they work. For a start, where capitalism has been allowed to work (the US and many European countries, for example) ordinary people on the whole actually are better off than in places where it hasn't.

The US??????

Seriously? I've lived there (in 2 different sides of the country) and the poverty is astounding. In Virginia, I saw people living on the side of the road in shacks. I've only ever seen that poverty in 3rd world countries before.

I knew a girl who had to go to A&E for an injury to her hand. No health insurance, so she faced a $560 bill for an A&E visit to have a few stitches put in and for some antibiotics.

That doesn't sound like a functioning country for 'ordinary' people to me. Fine for the wealthy.

Baggs

Grantanow

The Tories don't care about ordinary people. It is time Rees-Mogg got into his time travel machine and returned to 18th century. His slash and burn attitude to public services and the civil service is disgraceful.

I'm not sure this is true, grantanow. I think JRM and other actual conservatives think that Conservatism with a large C is better for ordinary people than the alternatives. Many people disagree with this view, obviously, but I don't think it is an essentially malicious principle from which they work. For a start, where capitalism has been allowed to work (the US and many European countries, for example) ordinary people on the whole actually are better off than in places where it hasn't.

'Capitalism' worked in the 19th century, Baggs . A number of people made a lot of money from it and, from the middle classes upwards life was very comfortable for them. The state did virtually nothing in the form of state services. Only, in the 19thC it gradually dawned on people that there was immense poverty, squalor and ignorance among 'the poor' and they worked to improve their conditions. This continued through a greater part of the 20thC. It didn't make the wealthy any poorer, but it improved life for a large section of the population and worked towards a healthy and educated workforce; even allowing an improvement in the use of the talents and abilities of those who would previously have no opportunity to fulfil their potential. This benefitted the state as well as the individual.

Now you seem to think that it should all be taken away and that we should revert to 19th C conditions. Because that's what the removal of state intervention would do.

I am amazed that you think that the US is a good example of capitalism in action. It's appalling. There is abject poverty, huge health inequalities, poor education for many and lower life expectancy than in the UK.

I don't think we're talking about whether capitalism works or not. I'm sure most of us on this thread want a form of capitalism; the issue is how much it is regulated. The current Tories want less regulation - look where that got us in the banking crash - and a smaller state.
The US system seems to work to advance the successful, leaving the less successful or unsuccessful to flounder. I can't understand why people would want that.

To quote your first sentence GagaJo
‘Jacob Rees-Mogg has urged the next prime minister to slash back the government’s role as a prize of Brexit, suggesting it should not “deliver certain functions at all”.’
He’s right, he should make himself redundant immediately, there’s no requirement for chocolate teapots, in fact there never was.

Baggs

Grantanow

The Tories don't care about ordinary people. It is time Rees-Mogg got into his time travel machine and returned to 18th century. His slash and burn attitude to public services and the civil service is disgraceful.

I'm not sure this is true, grantanow. I think JRM and other actual conservatives think that Conservatism with a large C is better for ordinary people than the alternatives. Many people disagree with this view, obviously, but I don't think it is an essentially malicious principle from which they work. For a start, where capitalism has been allowed to work (the US and many European countries, for example) ordinary people on the whole actually are better off than in places where it hasn't.

In what way do you think he thinks Conservatism is best for ordinary people? I have seen no evidence at for that claim.

Maybe he wants to turn the UK into a state such as Somalia.

I can think of no country in the world which doesn't have a mixed economy to some degree.

Now you seem to think that it should all be taken away and that we should revert to 19th C conditions. Because that's what the removal of state intervention would do. I am amazed that you think that the US is a good example of capitalism in action. It's appalling. There is abject poverty, huge health inequalities, poor education for many and lower life expectancy than in the UK.

First of all, I haven't said anything about what I think should happen so the first two sentences of what I have quoted above can be discounted. I was not talking about what I think should happen, just pointing out what is recognised conservative thinking. At least do yourself the favour of not distorting what I actually say or reading in what isn't there.

There is abject poverty in the US, yes, but your average person is orders of magnitude better off than your average person from before capitalism took off. The same is true here and in fact all over the world. It may not all be due to capitalism but it is capitalism that provided the funds for state intervention on a massive scale – think, for example, about Victorian philanthropists (capitalists mostly) building schools for ordinary people, and hospitals, and parks, and politicians (Gladstone, Disraeli et al) trying to improve working conditions for ordinary people. It's capitalism that's improving things for ordinary people in China for all their communistic pretences.