how ? .. they need to man (including St Teresa of Might Be) up and tell the Euro maxi states and the mini states who were recently under the thumb of the Kremlin that we are leaving the EU on our terms and if they don't like it ? Tough .. and that's the polite/diplomatic version .. as to paying loads of cash as a blackmail/release payment .. what's the polite way to say 'in your dreams, so fuck off' ?
I find it strange that people are so hard on Ken Livingstone over being anti-semetic when he claims he isn't and is instead anti-zionist and so willing to shrug their shoulders when an MP and somebody being touted as a potential leader of this country holds the views he does. I'm not supporting Livingstone here, but making the point that he is fighting the accusation, whilst Mogg openly admits his views.
I don't want people with these outdated views anywhere near power, and I condemn Muslims who hold that view also. There are enough Muslims in parliament of both parties that are pro-equality to show it is not a consequence of religion. TO show this is not a party political point - I will praise Cameron for the introduction of gay marriage. He fought for it despite opposition within his party because he knew it was right!
Isn't that the point of democracy and differing views. I suspect if you asked voters who strongly agree with Mogg's view they probably don't want people who don't hold those views anywhere near power! As always democracy will play out.
When asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed that homosexuality should be legal in Britain, 18% said they agreed compared to 5% among the public at large.
So from the very source it's less than a fifth and not half of the Muslim population, great headline though. Would be interesting to know what percentage of atheists believe it should be illegal.
I might be misunderstanding the quote, but are you saying 18% who voted agreed that homosexuality should be legal in Britain or illegal? It reads as legal but I'm assuming it's illegal?
I think a view that opresses people has to be challenged no matter how many people support it. None of us have any right to judge or dictate to homosexual people what they can or can't do within the constarints that are placed on all people of course. Saying they can't get married when they love each other is opressive full stop. I haven't got the right to tell you you can't marry somebody you love and thank god for that!
What gives you the right to tell people their religious beliefs are wrong? Surely that's being just as oppressive.
It's not about telling anyone that they are wrong. It's establishing a progressive liberal society where people have the freedoms to do what they feel is best for them within the constraints of the rest of the population. Espousing inequality for whatever reason should always be challenged regardless of whether it comes from a religious doctrine or out of hate.
I agree with that entirely, what I don't agree with is banning people from the democratic process as a result of what they believe.
how ? .. they need to man (including St Teresa of Might Be) up and tell the Euro maxi states and the mini states who were recently under the thumb of the Kremlin that we are leaving the EU on our terms and if they don't like it ? Tough .. and that's the polite/diplomatic version .. as to paying loads of cash as a blackmail/release payment .. what's the polite way to say 'in your dreams, so fuck off' ?
I find it strange that people are so hard on Ken Livingstone over being anti-semetic when he claims he isn't and is instead anti-zionist and so willing to shrug their shoulders when an MP and somebody being touted as a potential leader of this country holds the views he does. I'm not supporting Livingstone here, but making the point that he is fighting the accusation, whilst Mogg openly admits his views.
I don't want people with these outdated views anywhere near power, and I condemn Muslims who hold that view also. There are enough Muslims in parliament of both parties that are pro-equality to show it is not a consequence of religion. TO show this is not a party political point - I will praise Cameron for the introduction of gay marriage. He fought for it despite opposition within his party because he knew it was right!
Isn't that the point of democracy and differing views. I suspect if you asked voters who strongly agree with Mogg's view they probably don't want people who don't hold those views anywhere near power! As always democracy will play out.
When asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed that homosexuality should be legal in Britain, 18% said they agreed compared to 5% among the public at large.
So from the very source it's less than a fifth and not half of the Muslim population, great headline though. Would be interesting to know what percentage of atheists believe it should be illegal.
I might be misunderstanding the quote, but are you saying 18% who voted agreed that homosexuality should be legal in Britain or illegal? It reads as legal but I'm assuming it's illegal?
I think a view that opresses people has to be challenged no matter how many people support it. None of us have any right to judge or dictate to homosexual people what they can or can't do within the constarints that are placed on all people of course. Saying they can't get married when they love each other is opressive full stop. I haven't got the right to tell you you can't marry somebody you love and thank god for that!
What gives you the right to tell people their religious beliefs are wrong? Surely that's being just as oppressive.
It's not about telling anyone that they are wrong. It's establishing a progressive liberal society where people have the freedoms to do what they feel is best for them within the constraints of the rest of the population. Espousing inequality for whatever reason should always be challenged regardless of whether it comes from a religious doctrine or out of hate.
I agree with that entirely, what I don't agree with is banning people from the democratic process as a result of what they believe.
Within the constraints of the law I'd say that's reasonable.
It is a vexing issue I admit. But we have to draw the line. So female circumsision has to be ilegal despite many muslims beliefing it is necessary as part if their faith. We shouldn't put them in prison for thinking it should happen, but we should for doing it and religion doesn't excuse it. So if people have anti gay views but don't do anything about them, I am not proposingg we round them up - try to educate them - yes but not do anything to them. But politicians have to meet certain standards, and if you believe homosexuals are not entitled to teh same rights as anybody else, it is the same as being racist in my books - unacceptable.
Seems you want to ban a lot of people from the democratic process, surely that is the whole point of democracy, if society generally follows your logic, people like Mogg would never get elected. Do we ban racists from standing for Parliament? I'm pretty sure we don't, I also hope we don't, when we start deciding who can and can't take part in our democratic process, its a slippery slope, let them stand, if their views are that abhorrent, they won't get voted in as an MP surely.
I don't think he's ever said anything illegal, like we should be stonings gays or anything along those lines, the bloke was asked a question and he answered honestly.
Like others, I think his beliefs are outdated nonsense, but I respect the fact he's honest about what he believes.
I'm not saying he should be prevented from standing - but the Conservatives shouldn't give him the platform. Unless it is ok to be homophobic or racist and be a member of that party, which it clearly seems to be. People could say that it is ok to be ant-semetic and be part of the Labour party, but it is completely missing the point to suggest that a political party imposing standards on its MPs is undemocratic.
The problem is plenty of voters do think what women can or cannot do with their bodies is a matter for Parliament and so whilst JRM's stance on abortion and gay marriage is easily seized upon by progressives on Twitter as a scandal, there will be lots of people, who are largely of a generation who do not use social media, who agree with him and admire his honesty (whereas I imagine a lot of these people share his views but are scared to repeat them in polite company due to being seen as homophobic or out of touch). It is not necessarily Tory voters either who hold such views on religious grounds.
I don't have a problem with prisoners getting a vote, nor racists. I just don't understand why the Conservative party is considering a homophobe as it's next leader. There is the BNP for those sort of people.
Why would theybe scared to be seen for what they are?
Probably due to liberal intolerance of such views.
They hold a position they know a lot of society would be angry against them for holding. It's like how there are actual racists in our society but most of them don't talk about how much they hate people based on their colour of their skin at work because they know they'll get in trouble. I'm sure some of the Lifers on here who have had rather unsavoury things to say about people based on their origin or ethnicity are not brave enough to repeat them in front of their employers.
I don't have a problem with prisoners getting a vote, nor racists. I just don't understand why the Conservative party is considering a homophobe as it's next leader. There is the BNP for those sort of people.
Do you genuinely believe he is homophobic? Personally I would like to hear his views on civil partnerships first. If he is ok with them, based on his faith and the institution of the Catholic Church that he belongs to, I would understand his viewpoint entirely.
If he's against civil partnerships then I would think a lot less of him.
It is a vexing issue I admit. But we have to draw the line. So female circumsision has to be ilegal despite many muslims beliefing it is necessary as part if their faith. We shouldn't put them in prison for thinking it should happen, but we should for doing it and religion doesn't excuse it. So if people have anti gay views but don't do anything about them, I am not proposingg we round them up - try to educate them - yes but not do anything to them. But politicians have to meet certain standards, and if you believe homosexuals are not entitled to teh same rights as anybody else, it is the same as being racist in my books - unacceptable.
Seems you want to ban a lot of people from the democratic process, surely that is the whole point of democracy, if society generally follows your logic, people like Mogg would never get elected. Do we ban racists from standing for Parliament? I'm pretty sure we don't, I also hope we don't, when we start deciding who can and can't take part in our democratic process, its a slippery slope, let them stand, if their views are that abhorrent, they won't get voted in as an MP surely.
I don't think he's ever said anything illegal, like we should be stonings gays or anything along those lines, the bloke was asked a question and he answered honestly.
Like others, I think his beliefs are outdated nonsense, but I respect the fact he's honest about what he believes.
I'm not saying he should be prevented from standing - but the Conservatives shouldn't give him the platform. Unless it is ok to be homophobic or racist and be a member of that party, which it clearly seems to be. People could say that it is ok to be ant-semetic and be part of the Labour party, but it is completely missing the point to suggest that a political party imposing standards on its MPs is undemocratic.
I've not watched his interview and only seen the papers transcripts, but was race even mentioned at all as I'd not seen that ever reported? From what I've read he was talking about marriage (not even gay relationships);
“The teaching of the Catholic church is completely clear. The marriage issue is the important thing. This is not how people arrange their lives. It’s that marriage is a sacrament, and a sacrament is under the authority of the church, not of the state.”
So isn't he simply saying in his belief by his 'teachings' from the Catholic church that marriage is between a man and a woman? Like Huskaris says, his view on civil partnerships is probably more pertinent.
Personally, yes I do. I think there are different reasons for it though and religion does complicate it. There was a bloke that Piers Morgan laid into this week because his church was trying to cure gay people, and this bloke was gay himself and was 'cured'. He was being quite concialiatory but couldn't say that homosexual activity wasn't a sin because of his beliefs. If anybody saw it, he was trying to be as nice about it as possible, but it is the view that is offensive. If you are gay and married, these people are opposing your right to be so, and the validity of that marriage. That is offensive, although they are I am sure not trying to be offensive.
Religion complicates everything and should be a personal thing and play no part in politics, in my opinion. I think I am very tolerant of people's right to be religious, I am much more agnostic than athiest, but when they impose that religion on others, I draw the line! People slag of Farron, but he clearly didn't allow his religion to affect him doing what is right as his voting record testifies to, so to say Mogg is better than him is a bit misguided IMO. You can interpret religion how you like, I think you can be progressive and not take everything in the bible literally - I mean we are in a civilised society, not Islamic state. Or do they have the right to hold teh views they do? I would hope the answer is no to that!
Good idea. Christians, Jews and even Muslims keep on banging on about how charitable and nice they are. This is a perfect opportunity to step up to the plate. Charity shouldn't be a tac payer burden.
No, the two are not related. What having more members gives you is more ground troops, and people with passion stating the case. It also brings in money - The conservatives get massive donations from a small number of very, very rich people where as Labour's average donation is £20. The rich will only donate to a party that looks after their interests - as it did to Balir's New Labour, so the membership is important to fund the party's objectives too. And of course the establishment exists in the Labour party. It needs its members to rend that influence powerless.
Blimey Muttley, theres a first I think we are almost agreeing!! Labour have 5x the number of members so it clearly doesn't correlate to success in elections simply going by 2010, 2015 and 2017 results.
BTW Labour get the most funding of all political parties in the UK, predominantly due to the Unions. I can't find 2016's report but in 2015 year Labour had funding of over £51m Conservatives about £10m less. Unite was £6.5m and the largest giver which equates to about £5 per member. Couldn't find a single group or person giving Conservatives a 7 figure sum in the same period.
Rob gets all his information from his story tree in the garden - I don't doubt he believes it so no problem for me However, moving on, it is obvious members are helpful, but it doesn't matter how many members you have, it is how many people vote for you that is important at the end of the day.
It is a big asset though towards achieving that end and I know the target is 1m, which is challenging but i think it can happen. I do get a sense that possibly some of the media and certainly the opposition, doesn't really know how slick and well organised the party is. I'm not going to keep going on about it anymore, because that lack of knowledge is a positive from Labour's perspective. Not that CL is going to make much difference - but battles have to be won on may fronts.
get a life you lot! Yer, I just make up numbers as I see fit straight out of the reported numbers by the parties declarations;
Labour had an income of £51.153m, Conservative £41.887m
Political party financial accounts 2015
British National Party £376,424 Commonwealth Liberation Party £826,736 Conservative and Unionist Party £41,887,000 Co-operative Party £1,029,424 Democratic Unionist Party £533,682 Green Party £3,048,921 Labour Party £51,153,000 Liberal Democrats £7,881,909 Plaid Cymru £737,768 Scottish Green Party £390,417 Scottish National Party £6,010,002 SDLP £543,704 Sinn Fein £1,162,851 UKIP £5,816,166 Ulster Unionist Party £412,805 Women's Equality Party £640,836
the link you refer to Leuth isn't the full year........
So run by me where I've been telling lies?
Those are figures for head offices only - the Tories route much more of their money through local parties and other accounting units. They also include the impact of all those Corbyn voters paying a premium so they could vote for him.
No, the two are not related. What having more members gives you is more ground troops, and people with passion stating the case. It also brings in money - The conservatives get massive donations from a small number of very, very rich people where as Labour's average donation is £20. The rich will only donate to a party that looks after their interests - as it did to Balir's New Labour, so the membership is important to fund the party's objectives too. And of course the establishment exists in the Labour party. It needs its members to rend that influence powerless.
Blimey Muttley, theres a first I think we are almost agreeing!! Labour have 5x the number of members so it clearly doesn't correlate to success in elections simply going by 2010, 2015 and 2017 results.
BTW Labour get the most funding of all political parties in the UK, predominantly due to the Unions. I can't find 2016's report but in 2015 year Labour had funding of over £51m Conservatives about £10m less. Unite was £6.5m and the largest giver which equates to about £5 per member. Couldn't find a single group or person giving Conservatives a 7 figure sum in the same period.
Rob gets all his information from his story tree in the garden - I don't doubt he believes it so no problem for me However, moving on, it is obvious members are helpful, but it doesn't matter how many members you have, it is how many people vote for you that is important at the end of the day.
It is a big asset though towards achieving that end and I know the target is 1m, which is challenging but i think it can happen. I do get a sense that possibly some of the media and certainly the opposition, doesn't really know how slick and well organised the party is. I'm not going to keep going on about it anymore, because that lack of knowledge is a positive from Labour's perspective. Not that CL is going to make much difference - but battles have to be won on may fronts.
get a life you lot! Yer, I just make up numbers as I see fit straight out of the reported numbers by the parties declarations;
Labour had an income of £51.153m, Conservative £41.887m
Political party financial accounts 2015
British National Party £376,424 Commonwealth Liberation Party £826,736 Conservative and Unionist Party £41,887,000 Co-operative Party £1,029,424 Democratic Unionist Party £533,682 Green Party £3,048,921 Labour Party £51,153,000 Liberal Democrats £7,881,909 Plaid Cymru £737,768 Scottish Green Party £390,417 Scottish National Party £6,010,002 SDLP £543,704 Sinn Fein £1,162,851 UKIP £5,816,166 Ulster Unionist Party £412,805 Women's Equality Party £640,836
the link you refer to Leuth isn't the full year........
So run by me where I've been telling lies?
Those are figures for head offices only - the Tories route much more of their money through local parties and other accounting units. They also include the impact of all those Corbyn voters paying a premium so they could vote for him.
I din't know that @sm , the original figures (above) did fly in the face of everything else I knew about party income
Agreed, but do Tory MPs agree that a single death due to starvation in 21st Britain is remotely acceptable?
That's the problem @Fiiish Rees Mogg hasn't reached the 20th century yet let alone the 21st.
100% this. The massive C said of the EU divorce bill that we don't owe them 'a farthing'??? and called his child Sixtus. What fucking century is he living in? He's probably still got shares in the East India Tea Company, is worried about a return of the black plague and thinks we should be doing all we can to unite Mercia, Wessex and Northumbria to fend off an impending rape and pillage by Norseman.
In all seriousness I can't stand him.
I will say in his defence of the interview, he made his religious beliefs quite clear, but did counteract that his religious beliefs are irrelevant because of the protection of the rule of law.
Again the whole incident has been sensationalised by the media. Rees Mogg won't care, he's in such a position that he's actually unaccountable. His constituency is very safe. That horrible blue colour that the electoral map turns outside of major cities is very much alive and well in Somerset. He's had a obscenely privileged and sheltered upbringing, only mixing with people of his ilk. He will only speak to people in his 'class', he has no concept of the real world apart from what is fed to him through the media and the tory party power people.
They (the tories) know not to put him forward as leader because although there are some out there who see him as the new boris johnson caricature type politican, he has a persona, the moment you give him a serious, accountable role, whether that be cabinet or as tory leader, the wheels would come off very, very quickly
As clever and as well educated as he is, he knows he's actually a bit of joke
Personally, yes I do. I think there are different reasons for it though and religion does complicate it. There was a bloke that Piers Morgan laid into this week because his church was trying to cure gay people, and this bloke was gay himself and was 'cured'. He was being quite concialiatory but couldn't say that homosexual activity wasn't a sin because of his beliefs. If anybody saw it, he was trying to be as nice about it as possible, but it is the view that is offensive. If you are gay and married, these people are opposing your right to be so, and the validity of that marriage. That is offensive, although they are I am sure not trying to be offensive.
Religion complicates everything and should be a personal thing and play no part in politics, in my opinion. I think I am very tolerant of people's right to be religious, I am much more agnostic than athiest, but when they impose that religion on others, I draw the line! People slag of Farron, but he clearly didn't allow his religion to affect him doing what is right as his voting record testifies to, so to say Mogg is better than him is a bit misguided IMO. You can interpret religion how you like, I think you can be progressive and not take everything in the bible literally - I mean we are in a civilised society, not Islamic state. Or do they have the right to hold teh views they do? I would hope the answer is no to that!
Agree with that. A lot of people appear to admire Rees-Mogg for "sticking to his principles". He isn't. He's blindly following his religious beliefs. He's entitled not to think for himself if he chooses, but there's no way I will ever vote for a man who subcontracts his decision-making to the Pope (or the Koran, Karl Marx or any other prescriptive ideology or religion).
I don't have a problem with prisoners getting a vote, nor racists. I just don't understand why the Conservative party is considering a homophobe as it's next leader. There is the BNP for those sort of people.
Do you genuinely believe he is homophobic? Personally I would like to hear his views on civil partnerships first. If he is ok with them, based on his faith and the institution of the Catholic Church that he belongs to, I would understand his viewpoint entirely.
If he's against civil partnerships then I would think a lot less of him.
I think he is homophobic although this is mitigated a little by the fact that he is through his desire to follow the teachings of the church rather than a hatred of homosexual people. But when somebody pointed out to him that the Holy Father was esposing views counter to the policies of his own party, he said that whilst he much respected him, on that issue he was wrong. So he is willing to go against the church line when it involves being shitty to poor and vulnerable people, but not when it involves the rights for gay people as their right to marry is a basic one, irrespective of how recently it was introduced.
I'd love him to be Tory leader - he would be even more of a liability than May is!
As much as clearly the blokes a wally, is it all that different to divorcees getting married in church? I might be wrong but I thought some churches, including the Church of England won't necessarily hold a wedding for a divorcee. Or come to that can a heterosexual couple have a civil partnership? If not why not (on both counts).
He's a wally, but there are plenty of wallies who have the the polar opposite view of him who get plenty of time for their views to be aired. Be it at the Guardian or on here.
He doesn't care about being popular so is willing to say what he actually thinks and what a lot of people (most of whom aren't multimillionaires like him) also think.
As he has said, he is entitled to his opinion, and the democratic majority (not him) are entitled to create the laws of the land. The essence of liberalism if ever it existed. People seem infuriated that someone is expressing an opinion that is dissimilar to their own. I never understand that.
His opinions differ from mine, but at least we know his true opinion. We had a prime minister for 10 years who couldn't even admit he was a Catholic ffs.
It's a shame that someone with such backward opinions is such a breath of fresh air. That's the real issue. That's not his fault.
Comments
Within the constraints of the law I'd say that's reasonable.
For example I don't think serving prisoners should get the vote.
For example I don't think serving prisoners should get the vote.
Spot on, it's insane the EU want to change this.
ECHR =/= EU
They hold a position they know a lot of society would be angry against them for holding. It's like how there are actual racists in our society but most of them don't talk about how much they hate people based on their colour of their skin at work because they know they'll get in trouble. I'm sure some of the Lifers on here who have had rather unsavoury things to say about people based on their origin or ethnicity are not brave enough to repeat them in front of their employers.
If he's against civil partnerships then I would think a lot less of him.
“The teaching of the Catholic church is completely clear. The marriage issue is the important thing. This is not how people arrange their lives. It’s that marriage is a sacrament, and a sacrament is under the authority of the church, not of the state.”
So isn't he simply saying in his belief by his 'teachings' from the Catholic church that marriage is between a man and a woman? Like Huskaris says, his view on civil partnerships is probably more pertinent.
Religion complicates everything and should be a personal thing and play no part in politics, in my opinion. I think I am very tolerant of people's right to be religious, I am much more agnostic than athiest, but when they impose that religion on others, I draw the line! People slag of Farron, but he clearly didn't allow his religion to affect him doing what is right as his voting record testifies to, so to say Mogg is better than him is a bit misguided IMO. You can interpret religion how you like, I think you can be progressive and not take everything in the bible literally - I mean we are in a civilised society, not Islamic state. Or do they have the right to hold teh views they do? I would hope the answer is no to that!
Beggars belief.
Agreed, but do Tory MPs agree that a single death due to starvation in 21st Britain is remotely acceptable?
It worked for Maggie.
This is a perfect opportunity to step up to the plate. Charity shouldn't be a tac payer burden.
In all seriousness I can't stand him.
I will say in his defence of the interview, he made his religious beliefs quite clear, but did counteract that his religious beliefs are irrelevant because of the protection of the rule of law.
Again the whole incident has been sensationalised by the media. Rees Mogg won't care, he's in such a position that he's actually unaccountable. His constituency is very safe. That horrible blue colour that the electoral map turns outside of major cities is very much alive and well in Somerset. He's had a obscenely privileged and sheltered upbringing, only mixing with people of his ilk. He will only speak to people in his 'class', he has no concept of the real world apart from
what is fed to him through the media and the tory party power people.
They (the tories) know not to put him forward as leader because although there are some out there who see him as the new boris johnson caricature type politican, he has a persona, the moment you give him a serious, accountable role, whether that be cabinet or as tory leader, the wheels would come off very, very quickly
As clever and as well educated as he is, he knows he's actually a bit of joke
I'd love him to be Tory leader - he would be even more of a liability than May is!
Edit; see CofE leaflet: https://www.yourchurchwedding.org/article/marriage-after-divorce/
There's a bloody form to complete! https://www.churchofengland.org/media/1162432/leafletforenquirers.pdf
I'd loved to see one completed where it was declined by the vicar and their reasons.
He doesn't care about being popular so is willing to say what he actually thinks and what a lot of people (most of whom aren't multimillionaires like him) also think.
As he has said, he is entitled to his opinion, and the democratic majority (not him) are entitled to create the laws of the land. The essence of liberalism if ever it existed. People seem infuriated that someone is expressing an opinion that is dissimilar to their own. I never understand that.
His opinions differ from mine, but at least we know his true opinion. We had a prime minister for 10 years who couldn't even admit he was a Catholic ffs.
It's a shame that someone with such backward opinions is such a breath of fresh air. That's the real issue. That's not his fault.