Jacob Rees-Mogg 1997 etc

JohnC6

JohnC6

Messages
10,371
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
As he's back in the headlines I recall a story about the 27 year old J R-M when he was fighting the 1997 election that Blair won. The Cons had sent him, as their candidate, to the constituency of Leven,Fife..a Labour stronghold.

He took his nanny with him..the one he still has today and it was reported that he drove round in a Bently. He refuted this with the answer. "No, it wasn't a Bently, it was my mother's Mercedes'. He owns two classic Bentlys.

Two slightly different accounts but the Mirror one..the seconds one has the quote I recalled (as the headline) so worth reproducing.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/mogg-off-leven-locals-remember-12563693


This is a great read. Some wonderful photos too.I see his wife is worth £45 million. He is said to be worth 'well over' £100 million.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/98872...britains-best-known-recliner-jacob-rees-mogg/


Re Brexit ...He's moved the company he's a partner in.. SCM (Somerset Capital Management) to....er..Dublin..lol. Rather embarrasing I'd say.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-city-move-eu-withdrawal-dublin-a8398041.html

The Irish Times on the matter.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business...self-fan-of-irish-investment-regime-1.3822113
 
Just another one of our clutch of useless politicians, how do these people get elected?
 
MatBin said:
Just another one of our clutch of useless politicians, how do these people get elected?
Click to expand...

It's down to the nature of the constituency. His is pretty well middle class. ie. below how he sees himself..lol.

2017 election results so whilst there's been a surge in LIb Dem support they're not gopiun g to unseat him
https://electionresults.parliament....lts/Location/Constituency/North East Somerset

He almost has a 10,000 majority. The average house price os £850,000. Lots of lovely villages, Includes parts of Bath and Bristol
https://www.northeastsomersetconservatives.co.uk/about-north-east-somerset

This will give you a better idea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_East_Somerset_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Constituency_profile
 
simon ess said:
Was it Hislop who described him as the political wing of the 19th. century?
Click to expand...


Quoth said:
Probably... He also called the DUP the political wing of the Old Testament :D
Click to expand...


A brilliant description and well deserved.

Take a look at these links and to think these people called the shots for the Cons in this last Parliament

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...ed-to-know-about-dup-politicians-and-science/

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2010/jun/19/creationism-northern-ireland

17 Quotes by DUP members https://www.indy100.com/article/dup...-arlene-foster-lgbt-abortion-religion-7783241

The Finance Minister..Mervyn Storey belongs to this group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism

...and the Caleb Foundation. Scroll down to 'Activities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caleb_Foundation the
 
I half followed this and I heard what he said and my little sum up is...

His comments were careless and perhaps crass but are probably thoughts that have at least fleetingly crossed all our minds, if we're honest, at least until we try to factor in the paralysing fear that must have been present and the advice from authority figures to stay put. However, he should have known better than to voice these thoughts especially to the masses where they'd inevitably genuinely upset those directly affected by the tragedy and also give opportunity to those waiting for anything to vent about.

In my working life I was in situations a couple of times when I had no idea what to do and just stayed put. Thankfully for me that worked.

Anyway, on the subject causing real offence and giving VS the chance to wring their hands I'm reminded of some classic quotes from Winston Churchill, brilliant and funny, and I do wonder what would happen if he hadn't come out with them and instead some politician said them today... actually I know what your happen, the SJW and VS would have a melt down and there'd be calls for his head. Not that JRM is a Churchill, my point is that you can't say anything these days without someone having a meltdown which will only lead to more plastic non human seeming politicians spouting pre approved party speak.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I half followed this and I heard what he said and my little sum up is...

His comments were careless and perhaps crass but are probably thoughts that have at least fleetingly crossed all our minds, if we're honest, at least until we try to factor in the paralysing fear that must have been present and the advice from authority figures to stay put. However, he should have known better than to voice these thoughts especially to the masses where they'd inevitably genuinely upset those directly affected by the tragedy and also give opportunity to those waiting for anything to vent about.

In my working life I was in situations a couple of times when I had no idea what to do and just stayed put. Thankfully for me that worked.

Anyway, on the subject causing real offence and giving VS the chance to wring their hands I'm reminded of some classic quotes from Winston Churchill, brilliant and funny, and I do wonder what would happen if he hadn't come out with them and instead some politician said them today... actually I know what your happen, the SJW and VS would have a melt down and there'd be calls for his head. Not that JRM is a Churchill, my point is that you can't say anything these days without someone having a meltdown which will only lead to more plastic non human seeming politicians spouting pre approved party speak.
Click to expand...

I was thinking this yesterday - while what he said was perhaps insensitive, common sense to me suggests in a fire you get away from it, even if others tell you not to. Your in-built survival instinct.

Cant stand the guy and would love him to lose his seat - but i don't think he was out of order on this one.
 
cambsno said:
but i don't think he was out of order on this one.
Click to expand...
According to reports the stairs were impassible without breathing gear for several levels above the seat of the fire. If you look at a map it's clear that the firemen couldn't get escape ladders close enough to the building to evacuate people from above the smoke filled levels. On the information available to the senior officers the least bad option was to keep people where they were (the national policy in such cases) and get the fire under control before attempting an evacuation. It seems to me the tragedy was that the council had screwed up badly in siting, designing and maintaining the building.
 
A few years ago there was a massive fire in a tunnel in Europe, common sense suggested running away from it, those that did died, those that ran towards and through it survived. Reason was that those that ran away died of asphyxiation as the fire consumed all of the oxygen in the area they were running into, those that ran through the fire ran into an area that was still oxygen rich. So, common sense as opposed to doing what the experts suggested may not always be the correct thing to do.
 
Maybe he had read it but just didn't think before speaking.

I voted for Tony Blair but one thing about that time was the amount of spin and production values, if I can call it all that. I think that Blair and spin and Alister Campbell all that were possibly at the extreme of anything we'd seen then but of their time and a product of their time. I had hoped our political class had stepped back a bit from that and my worry is that if everything our politicians say that's open to unkind interpretation or criticism and/or misrepresentation is pounced on and taken unkindly, criticised and/or misrepresented then we'll end up back in the worst times of spin and polished plastic politicians.

The odd brain fade, cock up and embarrassed apology and the unfortunate and very regrettable offending of a few and giving those who want to be offended the opportunity to fake it and run with it seems to be a price worth paying, maybe, if the alternative is no one saying anything that hasn't been passed by some Alister Campbell type or committee and repeated verbatim.

Some will disagree and want anyone who says anything they don't like crucified on social media and hounded from society especially if they're the wrong political persuasion but there you go. I'm just going to take an alternative view on this one and some others too as I can see where he's (RM) coming from and the point he was trying to make even though he made a hash of it and an arse of himself. Better that now and again than the alternative. IMO.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I half followed this and I heard what he said and my little sum up is...

His comments were careless and perhaps crass but are probably thoughts that have at least fleetingly crossed all our minds, if we're honest, at least until we try to factor in the paralysing fear that must have been present and the advice from authority figures to stay put. However, he should have known better than to voice these thoughts especially to the masses where they'd inevitably genuinely upset those directly affected by the tragedy and also give opportunity to those waiting for anything to vent about.

In my working life I was in situations a couple of times when I had no idea what to do and just stayed put. Thankfully for me that worked.

Anyway, on the subject causing real offence and giving VS the chance to wring their hands I'm reminded of some classic quotes from Winston Churchill, brilliant and funny, and I do wonder what would happen if he hadn't come out with them and instead some politician said them today... actually I know what your happen, the SJW and VS would have a melt down and there'd be calls for his head. Not that JRM is a Churchill, my point is that you can't say anything these days without someone having a meltdown which will only lead to more plastic non human seeming politicians spouting pre approved party speak.
Click to expand...

Churchill would not have lasted these days - While I dont agree with Boris he does seem to like to speak how he finds it which is refreshing and is a very good and entertaining speaker - he will attract voters with that.

My favourite was : When accused by one of them of being 'disgustingly drunk' the Conservative Prime Minister responded: 'My dear, you are ugly, and what’s more, you are disgustingly ugly. But tomorrow I shall be sober and you will still be disgustingly ugly.'

Just imagine Boris saying that to Diane Abbott!
 
Churchill was a nasty piece of work but useful at the time. I haven't seen any evidence that Rees-Mogg has been or ever will be useful. :naughty:
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Churchill was a nasty piece of work but useful at the time. I haven't seen any evidence that Rees-Mogg has been or ever will be useful. :naughty:
Click to expand...
Worms might disagree :)
 
cambsno said:
Churchill would not have lasted these days - While I dont agree with Boris he does seem to like to speak how he finds it which is refreshing and is a very good and entertaining speaker - he will attract voters with that.

My favourite was : When accused by one of them of being 'disgustingly drunk' the Conservative Prime Minister responded: 'My dear, you are ugly, and what’s more, you are disgustingly ugly. But tomorrow I shall be sober and you will still be disgustingly ugly.'

Just imagine Boris saying that to Diane Abbott!
Click to expand...
Actually, "Mr Churchill, you're drunk"
"And you madam are ugly, but in the morning I shall be sober"

Churchill got away with a lot of things, mainly because he was a man of his time and times have changed enormously, but also because he was an extremely high achiever who deserved enormous respect.

JRM has achieved nothing and clearly never will. In my view his stupid comments should have been ignored, but of course his political opponents felt that they had to score points, and in doing so gave his opinions an importance that they don't deserve.

As for the comments themselves, he was clearly unaware that it was impossible for people on the higher floors to leave without FB assistance, that it was impossible for them to know that the FB weren't going to be able to contain the fire, that there's a very real limit on the number of firefighters that, together with the victims, could be accommodated on a staircase at any one time, that there weren't enough firefighters and that they didn't have the machines needed to reach the highest floors. Perhaps he should have made sure that his brain was engaged before opening his mouth and should have read the inquiry report.

Common sense, in this dreadful scenario, surely involved following the advice of the experts.
 
Owen Jones is not my favourite journalist, but he's bang on the nail here:

'Jacob Rees-Mogg’s suggestion that those who perished in Grenfell Tower lacked “common sense” was not a gaffe, as one BBC journalist declared. As Maya Angelou put it: “When people show you who they are, believe them the first time.” Here was a confession, an insight into a worldview steeped in a sense of class privilege and social superiority. We don’t need to read between the lines: the Tory MP Andrew Bridgen has done it for us. When the BBC’s Evan Davis put it to him that Rees-Mogg was effectively saying: “I wouldn’t have died because I would have been cleverer than the people who took the fire brigade’s advice,” Bridgen did not demur, adding – after a sigh-filled pause – “But we want very clever people running the country, don’t we, Evan? … That’s a byproduct of what Jacob is, that’s why he is in a position of authority.”'

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/06/gaffe-jacob-rees-mogg-grenfell-tories-votes
 
Garry Edwards said:
Actually, "Mr Churchill, you're drunk"
"And you madam are ugly, but in the morning I shall be sober"

Churchill got away with a lot of things, mainly because he was a man of his time and times have changed enormously, but also because he was an extremely high achiever who deserved enormous respect.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that he also got away with a lot of things because of the situation the country was in. A peacetime nation of relatively well off people have no time for someone who might make them feel uncomfortable or challenge their perception of the right way to live. In a dark and desperate time you may overlook some personal shortcomings in a leader who can deal with dark & desperate things.

To me, Boris accession to power and the generation of a set of coat-tails upon which JRM is presently riding grew out of the fact that the UK is in a hole as large as any since WW2. Where he might normally be safely ignored, the possibility that he might break the impasse & move us forwards has allowed him to step up.

As for JRM, he's likely blown his chances of ever doing anything significant unless the UK lurches further right.
 
Churchill was successful in the Admiralty and No 10; these successes masked the varied periods of his life and career when he was very unsuccessful, incompetent or just a foolish rich boy. Taken as a whole, yes he can be respected, but not necessarily admired. IMHO
 
ancient_mariner said:
I'm pretty sure that he also got away with a lot of things because of the situation the country was in. A peacetime nation of relatively well off people have no time for someone who might make them feel uncomfortable or challenge their perception of the right way to live. In a dark and desperate time you may overlook some personal shortcomings in a leader who can deal with dark & desperate things.

To me, Boris accession to power and the generation of a set of coat-tails upon which JRM is presently riding grew out of the fact that the UK is in a hole as large as any since WW2. Where he might normally be safely ignored, the possibility that he might break the impasse & move us forwards has allowed him to step up.

As for JRM, he's likely blown his chances of ever doing anything significant unless the UK lurches further right.
Click to expand...
Much of what he did was long before the country recognised the need for him. For example, his parents led a very 'liberal' lifestyle (his father died of syphillis) and he regarded the servant girls as his by right, as well as his well-known alcoholism and incredible rudeness and bullying. But, many years ago I had a long conversation with an elderly lady who had been one of his secretaries at the time he became prime minister. She told me that he could be difficult to work for but that he was extremely charismatic, incredibly hard working and nobody could keep up with either his effort or efficiency.
Lindsay56 said:
Churchill was successful in the Admiralty and No 10; these successes masked the varied periods of his life and career when he was very unsuccessful, incompetent or just a foolish rich boy. Taken as a whole, yes he can be respected, but not necessarily admired. IMHO
Click to expand...
He did a great deal that could be admired, outside of politics. For example he fought on the front line in both the Boer war (captured and escaped) and in the first world war, not the sort of thing that JRM is ever likely to do.
 
Did he not break his parole rather than escape?
 
Two comments from me:

JRM has probably never been [and certainly never lived] in a high-rise tower block with only the one stair well; if it's on fire with smoke and fire fighters in the stair-well, and the recommendation is that one should stay put, then that's the advice one likely takes.

Second, Churchill was voted out of government after WWII for a number of years. He had the ability to back up a good story with actions which succeeded in a time of crisis. BJ has an attitude that works in the Oxford Union; whether it works in the UK as a whole remains to be seen.
 
JRM should have been asking why, in a country that he helps to govern; there are tower blocks, coated with flammable material, that have only one means of escape.
 
Pound Coin said:
JRM should have been asking why, in a country that he helps to govern; there are tower blocks, coated with flammable material, that have only one means of escape.
Click to expand...
^This. Tower blocks are the wrong answer for ‘public’ housing* but cladding them in inflammable material was wrong. All these other points about the fire service or the response of politicians are red herrings.
The procedures, and politics, that allowed the cladding are what need changing, and building more low rise housing which has been shown to be just as efficient use of land.

*I mean housing where people do not choose to live. I’ve lived in a tower block and loved it but most had chosen to live there and were single or couples, very few children.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
It's a pity that Rees-Mogg failed to read the first part of the enquiry report which is available here: https://assets.grenfelltowerinquiry.org.uk/GTI - Phase 1 full report - volume 1.pdf
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link, it answers my question about why the inquiry is back to front where he writes “ it seemed to me that the first step must be to find out as far as possible exactly what happened during the early hours of 14 June 2017. Only when that had been done would it be possible to focus attention on the underlying causes and the decisions that gave rise to them.” (My bold). Note he does not say why “only when” and in my view it’s a device to kick the underlying decisions into the long grass :mad: and divert blame onto the fire service, which has been successful so far so I think JRM’s intervention is useful in drawing the focus back onto the politics of it.
 
Pound Coin said:
JRM should have been asking why, in a country that he helps to govern; there are tower blocks, coated with flammable material, that have only one means of escape.
Click to expand...

But they weren’t built by him? Probably a combination of governments including labour.
 
cambsno said:
But they weren’t built by him? Probably a combination of governments including labour.
Click to expand...
From what I remember, the regulations and certification processes were at fault — firms were being allowed to self-certify some materials etc as safe. JRM is certainly responsible to some extent since he and his ilk believe in self regulation for everything and no reliance on ’experts’ either ;).
 
sphexx said:
From what I remember, the regulations and certification processes were at fault — firms were being allowed to self-certify some materials etc as safe. JRM is certainly responsible to some extent since he and his ilk believe in self regulation for everything and no reliance on ’experts’ either ;).
Click to expand...

Possibly, but then the fault is with the firms. No government can get every bit of legislation right and most of this is created by civil servants.
 
cambsno said:
Possibly, but then the fault is with the firms. No government can get every bit of legislation right and most of this is created by civil servants.
Click to expand...
Responsibility is indeed with the various commercial interests, including of course the landlords and yes, it is the civil servants who draft the regulations - but the civil servants simply follow the instructions of their political masters, so it's the politicians that allow this inherently dangerous but very profitable self regulation who are responsible for its consequences.

Personally, I'm against over regulation and a nanny state, but it's significant that it's always the right ring governments, throughout the world, who opt for self regulation (no regulation) whenever there is a profit to be made from doing so.
 
cambsno said:
Possibly, but then the fault is with the firms. No government can get every bit of legislation right and most of this is created by civil servants.
Click to expand...
Ah, those civil servants, they must be to blame.
 
Garry Edwards said:
Responsibility is indeed with the various commercial interests, including of course the landlords and yes, it is the civil servants who draft the regulations - but the civil servants simply follow the instructions of their political masters, so it's the politicians that allow this inherently dangerous but very profitable self regulation who are responsible for its consequences.

Personally, I'm against over regulation and a nanny state, but it's significant that it's always the right ring governments, throughout the world, who opt for self regulation (no regulation) whenever there is a profit to be made from doing so.
Click to expand...

But politicians are not experts on everything and there are probably millions of laws, rules and guidelines on various things down to cars, buildings and other things.
 
If people had ignored the advice of the FS and died in the corridors and stairwells while further hindering the fire crews I can imagine JRM banging on about how the trouble with the underclasses is their instinctive rejection of authority and they should have followed the expert advice.

He is a comic grotesque. Shearsmith and Pemberton would struggle to invent him.
 
cambsno said:
But politicians are not experts on everything and there are probably millions of laws, rules and guidelines on various things down to cars, buildings and other things.
Click to expand...
True, and neither are the civil servants.
But, there are acknowledged experts on every subject and they all share their expertise with government, in fact acting as consultants to governments is one of their major sources of income. So, politicians have all the expert knowledge they need but it doesn't necessarily suit them to take it on board. The problem is that they can and do make enormous amounts of money by deregulation.
 
Garry Edwards said:
He did a great deal that could be admired, outside of politics. For example he fought on the front line in both the Boer war (captured and escaped) and in the first world war, not the sort of thing that JRM is ever likely to do.
Click to expand...

He did. But that glosses over his less then glorious moments in WW1. Only becoming an officer after resigning his position in government after the disastrous Dardenelles campaign
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top