Exactly, I've just watched it, she's the same as the rest. However people like Andrew Marr are the reason for this. He did nothing but interupt her and he seemed determined to get her to apologise for calling the election above the real issues of today. The media are so keen to pounce on any historical comment if it turns out to differ from an eventual outcome, it's no wonder politicians clam up when asked questions.
I'm sure he said lots of things which I didn't quote him on! Personally I believe the majority of people in the UK feel it is a womans right to chose. If that is the case it could impact Moggs chances. Similarly his position on gay marriage.
I agree that his views might affect his electability but Rees-Mogg wasn't proposing that a woman should lose her right to choose, nor a gay person the right to marry, which in the latter case he made expressly clear. He was merely expressing his personal beliefs. The difference might be subtle but its enormous. If the majority cannot understand that distinction they truly will get the politicians they deserve. Its just a pity the rest of us who don't have the brains of sheep should be saddled with them as well.
Rees Moggs voting record proves he is against these rights being granted. On 5 Feb 2013: Rees-Mogg voted against allowing same sex couples to marry. On 21 May 2013: Rees-Mogg voted against allowing same sex couples to marry. On 5 Mar 2014: Rees-Mogg voted against enabling the courts to deal with proceedings for the divorce of, or annulment of the marriage of, a same sex couple. On 5 Mar 2014: Rees-Mogg voted against making same sex marriage available to armed forces personnel outside the UK. On 7 September 2011: Rees-Mogg voted for Nadine Dorries’s amendment to the Health and Social Care Bill. This amendment would have stopped BPAS and Marie Stopes from providing counselling for women with unwanted pregnancies and allowed ‘independent’ counselling including that provided by faith-based organisations
I'm not sure what your point is here? All you've done is posted is what is well known that he is a man of conviction certainly in regards to rights of the unborn child and gay marriage, he's never sought to be anything else, he is not a flip flop social media intimidated politician. He has also made it as clear as day that these are his personal beliefs, you seem to be adopting the usual tactic of the poorly informed in that you hope that if you throw enough mud that some will stick. No where has he said, anywhere, that it is his wish to overturn any law on abortion or gay marriage, nowhere. Unless you can show differently? As we are talking about voting though, this might interest you, quite some peachy reading should you have the time or inclination to look without blinkers http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpn=Jeremy_Corbyn&mpc=Islington_North&house=commons what you will find in many of the links you provided is that others voted the same way as mogg Take your example of On 5 Mar 2014: Rees-Mogg voted against enabling the courts to deal with proceedings for the divorce of, or annulment of the marriage of, a same sex couple. The following also voted the same way as Mogg Graham AllenNottingham NorthLab (minister)noJoe BentonBootleLab (minister)noRonnie CampbellBlyth ValleyLabnoDavid CrausbyBolton North EastLab (minister)noAlex CunninghamStockton NorthLab (minister)noJim DobbinHeywood and MiddletonLabnoBrian H DonohoeCentral AyrshireLabnoMary GlindonNorth TynesideLab (minister)noJim McGovernDundee WestLab (minister)noGeorge MudieLeeds EastLab (minister)noJim SheridanPaisley and Renfrewshire NorthLab (minister)noJon TrickettHemsworthLab (minister)noGordon BirtwistleBurnleyLDemno
Hey, she's my MP. This is only the 2nd time in 2 years I've heard her name. The other was when I got a leaflet through my door in May asking me to give her my vote for all the marvelous things she does for the community.
Now you are being disingenuous?. My point is and always has been that Moggs beliefs on abortion and gay marriage may negatively affect his election chances. I include Moggs voting record so that it is clear where his sympathies lie, in the interest of fairness. Whats the relevance of listing all those others MPs votes? We were all discussing Mogg.
Precisely as Noobie says, how else would you expect him to vote? Should he state his personal beliefs in public one moment and vote the opposite in Parliament the next for reasons of political expedience knowing that Hansard is looking over his shoulder? I have no difficulty supporting politicians who hold different views to me on some matters. If you want an MP whose views correspond precisely with your own you need to stand for election yourself because you won't get one any other way. I have a powerful dislike of the Catholic Church and Rees-Mogg is a devout Catholic but I don't hold that against him and would vote for him nonetheless because fundamentally his is a democrat. He states his beliefs, he votes consistently with his conscience but he accepts the result and the rule of law when it goes against him. The people who worry me and should worry all of us when it comes to electing our representatives are those authoritarian moral imperialists (and they are legion - in politics, the media and especially social media) who believe there can only ever be one answer to all these question and that the "correct" view should be adopted by all, the debate closed down and no democratic vote held at all. They are the dangerous reactionaries and the bigots, not the Rees-Moggs of this world. We need fewer of them in politics and more people like him, whichever side of the debate they are on.
I don't think it will at all, in fact, I think the opposite will happen. Obviously the Labour party and media will constantly bang on about it, but people will admire his honesty. He's not hiding anything or sidestepping the issue. He's not seeking to change the law to suit his beliefs.
Like you I don't hold anything against the man. I don't vote for people who oppose things I consider important.
Honesty is undoubtedly a good quality which I hope most people appreciate. It will be interesting to see whether his party will elect him with such views, and if they do, how the public reacts. Democracy will be the decider. I'm going to put a tenner on him to lose (at the bookies).
Should anyone wish to see how their or any mp has voted and on what, this is the tool to do so http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/ Anyone can find some reason why a person may not be their cup of tea and sure some may have their views looked at for office but often having a line in the sand can bolster support also. Without going into that topic too much, how many knew that there were in England and Wales last year, 185,824 abortions last year? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/17/abortion-rate-england-and-wales-five-year-high The reason I mentioned those Labour and Lib dem mp's voting the exact same way in the bill you mentioned is that it the becomes like the N word. It's not so much what is said but who says it for some people with an agenda
As above, when you have to assume that every conversation you've ever had, every e-mail or text will be made public, every position, vote or soundbite you've ever taken or uttered will be dragged back up at some point to hit you with, it's no wonder politicians are harder to nail down than a jellyfish. That being said, some are just dishonest slime balls who won't nail their colours to something they support but which could cost them votes. This is why I find politicians like Jacob refreshing, you may not agree about his position, but at least you know what it is. (Apart from not stating that he will run to be the next leader of the Conservative party for fear of upsetting the apple cart. He's dodging this one )
Yes the war of measures and counter measures between politician and interviewer moves on all the time. The politicians are currently on the the "I'll keep on talking and make my prepared points whilst not giving you the opportunity to get a word back in" and the interviewers are "this is some statement of yours from the past or hypothetical situation, please put your foot in your mouth for me".
Fair enough it gives some perspective. For the record the gay marriage vote was carried 400 to 175 and the Abortion/ Nadine Dorries Amendment failed 368 to 118.
It's a dilemma, isn't it? How can we possibly expect our politicians to share every value that we ourselves have? Taken to a logical conclusion, we would need one MP for each voter. If we accept reality, we have to accept that our MPs will not share every important value we ourselves hold. With that as a given, what are the most important qualities an MP can have? Transparency - we need to know where an MP stands on issues. Integrity - not the integrity that demands that the MP acts only on his own conscience but the integrity to act on behalf of his constituents, even if that is contrary to his own beliefs. That second point is fraught with problems. How can that square be circled? Unfortunately, it would appear that most voters want MPs who think exactly the same as themselves. They will favour MPs who dissemble and disguise their true feelings, appearing to be what people want, over an MP who states his own (unpopular) position on issues. How can we respect an MP who believes in something we oppose, or vice versa? The answer lies in trust and thus there can be no answer (as we don't trust politicians!).
I won't start feeling safe until Hammond is a 1000/1 outsider. And even then, I won't feel safe. Is there some way of getting Hammond off-planet?
And Rudd. She's as bad as Hammond. Get either of them and watch the loathsome George Osborne slide back into public office.
There was one good point Hammond made on his speech. Labour have targeted the youth vote because most of them will never have known nationalisation and the last time they tried the marxist lefty loon trick. Taking companies away from from companies and making them state owned sounds all super lovely and cool but none of the kids they are targeting never grew up with a nationalised British rail service, British leyland etc etc where the unions thought it was state supported so could never go bust whilst they emptied the government coffers and held the government to ransom. That is why they target the young and not the older ones who have seen the damage a marxist socialism can do to a country
