In 1521 at the Diet of Worms, Martin Luther stood before an authoritarian and institutionally corrupt Catholic Church and declared, ‘Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God. Amen.’

On Wednesday a faithful son of a reformed Catholic Church stood before the authoritarian mainstream media and declared, ‘I am a loyal son of the Catholic Church, a loyal conservative, and a loyal subject of her Majesty.’


Jacob Rees-Mogg MP was led to believe he would be speaking about Brexit on ITV’s Good Morning Britain. Instead Piers Morgan and Susanna Reid interrogated him on his views on gay marriage and abortion. Unlike previous politicians, Rees-Mogg did not dodge the tough questions. He answered them from the heart; he walked towards the fire.

Jacob Rees-Mogg believes in the sacrament of marriage, which under the catechism of the Roman Catholic Church must be between one man and one woman, for life, to the exclusion of all others, and open to life.
His views on abortion also caused a storm when he explained, ‘I am completely opposed to abortion. Life is sacrosanct and begins at the point of conception . . . abortion is morally indefensible.’

When he was pushed, he said this included cases of rape and incest, which is wholly consistent with his view that life is sacred. Those who believe life is sacred do not believe babies conceived through rape should be executed for the crime of an adult. Rees-Mogg is against the intentional killing of innocent human life. Some people are Catholic – get over it.

Predictably, the witch hunt got into full swing, the Guardian calling for his exclusion from public life, and indeed for all Catholics to be excluded from public life.



But Jacob Rees-Mogg is a man for all seasons. He promptly tweeted in Latin, from the creed, One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, with a link to the interview. There was no mealy-mouthed apology from him.

What all this demonstrates is that Rees-Mogg is the ‘real deal’. He is a man of honesty, integrity and principles. Think how difficult it must be to discuss these challenging issues on breakfast TV without notice. He did not flinch – he is unspun and I think in the long run the British public will admire him for it.

This was a brave stance by Mogg. He knows there are absolutely no votes for him in this – it is not even a party political issue and such votes are matters of conscience in Parliament. He will have known that this will hit any leadership hopes, although I sincerely do not believe he has any.

The public often say they are sick of politicians not answering the questions, bowing to political correctness and being evasive. Rees-Mogg is the antithesis to all the cynical, shallow, empty political spin. He is a decent, moral man of sincerely held beliefs. He, like Luther (who felt in good conscience he must abandon the mother church), said, ‘Here I stand, I can do no other.’

So the Leftist bullies and their friends in the media can rain down all the vitriol and hate upon his head that they wish. And Jacob Rees-Mogg will stand his ground. He can do no other.

So of course he will never become leader of the party. They will find some snake, some well-spun woman or man, who will continue to kow-tow to the Left, run the party into the ground and cause the young to abandon them in their droves. They will move to the Left, trashing the country in the process.

The point is not that Jacob Rees-Mogg is not good enough for the party; the point is that the party is not good enough for him.

174 COMMENTS

  1. The media isn’t really asking for what he or anyone else believes, but for whether or not he agrees with them.

    Progressivism is like a long line of lobster traps feeding into one another. Once we’ve entered the first one, we hear the cry of “onwards” and anyone suggesting we go back is pilloried under the pretense that going backwards will harm us in some way.

    Better to be swimming in the whole ocean, as Rees-Mogg does.

  2. I cannot get my head around the fact that someone is howled down for being honest, consistent and moral.
    The ‘liberal’ left are becoming increasingly aggressive in their efforts to bully everyone into their groupthink.

    • Which is why they must be resisted. They are not liberal. They are thuggish bullies motivated by hatred envy and free stuff who have been appeased by Cameron, May and the Tory modernisers. Enough.

      • I agree. The Aussies are finding this out at the moment as they are going to vote on same sex marriage. The name calling, bullying, lying and vitriol coming from the Yes side is really making people think. Anyone attempting to publicise opposition is attacked – it’s doctors at the moment.

    • As Corporal Jones would say “they don’t like it up them”,when the left and their ideaology are stood up to,questioned and attacked all they can do is shout,rant,squeal and bully the man. They cannot stand anybody that answers back. In so doing they show the bankruptcy of their being,if more had stood up against them we would not have their stupid Politically Correct thinking foisted on us.

  3. Nail on head with this summary:
    “The point is not that Jacob Rees-Mogg is not good enough for the party; the point is that the party is not good enough for him.”

  4. Future generations will look back on the abortion industry with the same abhorrence as we now look back with upon the slave industry. Why is being a social conservative something to keep secret in intolerant modern Britain? I am against abortion except in the difficult cases where the mother’s life is in danger. I simply cannot understand why this view is reviled? JRM gets my vote in part because of his catholic views.

    • White western woman are the only ones who abort their children because of their human right to control their body. No other religion or peoples think of this act as anything other than murder. It has been a constant push by feminists and lobbyists and one has to ask why these people wish to destroy the white population?

      • Two questions masquerading as one. I’m sure collectivists intention is to destroy the white population-but then, by choice, we can choose who we will mate with and who we will have children with, there is nothing particularly important about retaining a white population as long as people have their eyes open and can make rational choices.

    • You have pretty much advocated for abortion at that point. The point being that there are two lives and not one. The mother is an existent life which she should be free to pursue in whatever way she wants and not tied to a ‘potential’ child that is not yet capable of life outside the womb.

      Life is about more than simply being alive, it’s about living that life to the fullest and making responsible choices towards living it. Man is mind as well as body. Putting the responsibility on a woman by force to have a child is morally indefensible if she believes that having that child will ruin her life. It takes away her freedom to choose when she has that option. Freedom is the key word here.

        • The husband and wife are both existent, if she fears for her life then she would need to defend herself and the jury would have make up its mind about her actions through the legal system.

          • It is not a child, it is a potential child. The foetus, or the early collection of cells are an existent. I don’t need to deny it, the scientists, doctors and lawmakers already made that determination which is why abortions are legal in the UK. They are stupidly illegal in Ireland as a result of Catholicism and that has created hardships for mothers who are forced to travel to private clinics abroad in order to get help. Shame on Catholics.

          • If it’s a ‘potential’ child, again, why are their organs being sold? ‘Potential’ human beings don’t have organs, actual human beings do.
            We are all a collection of cells, each and ever one of us.
            No, scientists did not define when a child exists, members of parliament did. Even if scientists etc did have you now heard on Mengali? Do you not realise that the breadth of our knowledge has exceeded since the 1960s?
            You dare to say shame on Catholics when you suppprt the murder of innocent children. You’re a vile, evil person who has convinced themselves of their own morality. May God have mercy on your soul, you have only fake mercy.

          • Context ? At what age are these organs being harvested ? You are giving me a story devoid of any facts. I cannot comment if you fail to supply those facts and the evidence. For all I know you just made that up.

            We are not simply a collection of cells, that’s the materialist view. We are a precise collection of cells integrated in a specific way which illicits consciousness. A corpse is a collection of cells but it isn’t a human being, though it maintains that outward form it is devoid of consciousness, even when many of the the cells may still be alive at the moment of death.

            As I said, I don’t support the murder of innocent children. I support the rights of women to make a choice about their own lives regarding the negative impact a child may have on that existing life.

            This existing life of the woman appears to be something irrelevant to Catholics concerns because dogma has replaced reason. Without reason there is only force. With force comes the end of freedom. Without freedom there is only death.

        • No. No-one has the right to kill someone because they are being ‘abused’.
          I believe however, that I have the right to kill someone who is actually attempting to murder me.

        • Eating isn’t compulsory either. Sex is a fact of life. Some sex is forced, others are mistaken fumbles, others are unplanned failures of birth control.

          Christians seem to have an unhealthy attitude to sex. It really isn’t just for procreation, its a normal, healthy activity. Even better in a respectful loving relationship, but still a lot of fun outside it.

      • No he hasn’t. Where the mother’s life is in danger – the criterion being that she has more social relations than the child.

        Potentiality has nothing to do with it: the child has life inside and outside the womb.

        • It’s in danger merely by carrying the child and giving birth. It’s in danger having the responsibility of a child to care for and the child might equally be in danger from a mother who is incapable of supporting it.

          Potentiality has everything to do with it. The woman already has her own life to live and a child adds a burden, particularly if she does not want it, then two lives are ruined.

          We already had all this years ago. Women using coat hangers, poison, back street butchers and being put in workhouses -along with the children. Today the children can end up in the hands of local authorities staffed by the kind of people attracted to such haunts. Let’s not go back to those unenlightened times, today’s system is bad enough.

          • Christians are dogmatic cultists, I don’t expect it would be easy to convince you of anything. Luckily our lawmakers took a different view.

      • Don’t smear me by putting your words in to my comment. I have not advocated for abortion. There will be many people living fulfilled lives who were themselves the result of a pregnancy from rape. Rape was legal within marriage until quite recently. Similarly there will be many lovely people whose existence depended on having a mother who was prepared to undergo pregnancy rather than abortion. We need a free debate on this issue and it is very hard because at such high abortion rates the amount of collective guilt of so many men and women is colossal. JRM is brave and clever enough to leave such very difficult and morally impossible questions to an unknown and nebulous God. Some issues are so awesome and imponderable that it is best to let nature decide the thing. No amount of foetal tests will tell you the personality of the child that you might destroy. We have reached the point where the BMA voted to support a woman’s right to abortion up to term and I have heard reasoning like yours that this is because the term foetus is no different to any of her organs. This is how evil begins. It is evil and some are brave enough to say so.

        • The evil begins when you deny the mother the right to decide what she does with her body and her life. Interestingly, I decided to look up the number of post natal suicides relating to women who had children. So, even when women do want the children we can’t be certain the effect it will have on them, I suspect that this number will greatly increase for those women denied abortion.

          http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/post-natal-depression-psychosis-new-mothers-disorders-four-times-more-likely-die-1548223

          One lady here is insisting it’s just 9 months out of life and then the child can be adopted. Now I haven’t looked up the suicide, mental health issues, health issues, crime rate amongst adopted children, but it should be looked into.

          I’m not for full term pregnancy abortion for healthy babies because the mother, in most cases is well aware of the pregnancy and as such should have made the decision to terminate at a much earlier stage. That’s open to debate, it just happens to be my opinion that once a child is capable of fully conscious life outside of a woman’s body, then it’s a human being.

          • Post natal depression is a very specific form of the illness and it is treatable. I have looked after such a patient in hospital with her baby. Even women who want their baby desperately can suffer from post natal depression. Suicide can be a part of treatable depression if not picked up in time. Suicide as an active choice is a different matter. The foetus as a ball of cells talk is completely unworthy common cant. Differentiated tissues, such as bits of bone and liver are easily recognizable on 12 week and less ‘choice’ abortions. That is why I say that the issue is so big it is best we acknowledge that we cannot impose our morality on to it even as part of a democracy. I feel nothing but sympathy and concern for any woman or man who has suffered an abortion and I do not judge them in any way. I just believe that society took a wrong turn and it is right that we should say so and to say why.

          • You are free to say what you want. Freedom is at the root of you being able to say those things, don’t forget that.

    • Future generations will look back on the abortion industry with the same
      abhorrence as that with which we now look back upon the slave industry.

      Astonishing certainty – on what basis? Perhaps they’ll look back to the disgusting practice of backstreet abortions that were rife before David Steel’s PMB became the Abortion Act, and see it as an albeit civilising moment. Rather the sterility of a clinic with trained staff, than a housewife with a length of rubber hose, bottle of cheap gin and a hot bath.

      Religious views are one thing, all religions are used as a justifying basis for what passes as ‘unacceptable’ in these “enlightened times”, e.g. homosexuality / same sex marriage, but this is 2017, isn’t it time to ‘catch up’?

  5. “He knows there are absolutely no votes for him in this”

    I’m of a different view. His very unsusceptibility to brow-beating political correctness will ensure there are many votes for him in this. It doesn’t matter what his views are; it matters that he refuses to back down.

    Compare and contrast Mr Mogg with Mr Farron. I know who I admire.

    • Absolutely. This has nothing to do with his career. It has everything to do with his principles and his Conservative values. Sadly lacking in the majority of politicians today. It is exactly his strength of character and honesty that will draw the country around him. Unfortunately the Conservative Party are so left wing and Labour lite, they are not seeing the wood for the trees. I doubt they will win power again in the foreseeable future.

    • Correct. There are far more votes in this than the mainstream political parties are willing to admit, both in principled integrity and in opposition to the gender-bending zeitgeist.

  6. Jacob Rees-Mogg may not lead the Conservative Party in the very near future. But he will lead the country. Politics is Changing fast. Many people of all ages and hues are genuinely fed up with the empty rhetoric of politicians. That includes Jeremy Corbyn. Look at Mr Corbyn numerous u-turns and his silence over the latest debacle regarding the EU. Then look at Mrs May and her continuing empty rhetoric of ‘enough is enough’ on terrorism without doing anything about it.

    The media is slowly losing ground and indeed the narrative. More people are looking to the sincerity of people like Jacob and buy into integrity and honesty. They do not necessarily agree with all he stands for but they agree with the most important issues.

    Talking of abortion I think there are probably more people who agree in principle with Jacob than actually follow the media line. It is time we changed our conversation on abortion and respected the unborn child. If a woman can think of herself, her body and her carnal wishes above the inception and nurturing of a child, she needs to be re educated in the importance of self respect, responsibility and consequences.

  7. If you missed this disgraceful interview by fellow ‘I’m a Catholic but I don’t agree…’ Piers Morgan you can listen to the magisterial Rees Mogg here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6BJeJAQSQQ – he will NEVER become leader, I’m sure – but he exercises leadership neverthless. His distinction between same sex marriage and abortion was brilliant and his response about a woman’s ‘right’ to have an abortion was equallly brilliant – should have shut the venerable Morgan up…but it didn’t.

    • I watched a small part of this on Guido video. As ever Morgan was a snake and Reid should have been ashamed of herself. I do disagree with you in that Jacob will never become leader. I think he will become the Leader of this country maybe not as a Conservative because the Conservatives are a hollow nest. But he will lead and change this country by his very standing and principles. He will eventually do more good outside politics than probably inside politics.

      Tony Benn famously said that more change is created by those who are on the outside of Westminster than those on the inside. It was why he decided to retire from politics. Certainly UKiP have changed politics in this country and will probably go on to change many other complexions in this country. Jacob may choose the same path in the end.

      • JRM could become leader if his name were on the ballot paper put to Tory party members (see the latest Conservative Home poll on the next party leader) but he would probably not get enough support from MPs to be one of the top two (needed to go forward to the party member ballot). It just goes to show that there are conservatives in the Conservative Party but not very many in the House of Commons.

    • Never say never… I agree with comments below that politics is changing and there’s no reason why there cannot be a swing away from all this wretched PC liberalism, and that JRM could become a Conservative PM.

      I also agree with him that life is sacred even though I’m not a Catholic.

  8. Corbyn would `never become leader’ and neither would Trump.

    Rees-Mogg is the Tory’s Corbyn – says The Times correctly.

    I think we are going to see some more very surprising things, to say the least, including Corbyn becoming prime minister.

    Amazingly, and catastrophically, that, I strongly suspect, will soon happen.

  9. Great article! ” …such votes are matters of conscience in Parliament.” – but for how long? Why don’t we just ban the Guardian from everything; do us all a favour – this response, to JR-M, has made it show its true colours, a real making-the-devil-break-cover moment.

    • No need to ban the Guardian. It’s busily bankrupting itself, so we’ll be rid of the rag inside fifteen years – maybe even inside ten years. I doubt anyone will miss it.

    • Public sector jobs could be advertised on an official website to avoid subsidising the Guardian. Then, if fewer Guardian readers were recruited we would have fewer Rotherhams.

  10. I still can’t get my head round why some stating they are ‘pro-life’ is somehow a bad thing. Their not imposing their views on others. They are defending the right of those that have no rights. The minority of one. It’s a complex subject but beating someone for stating they are pro life seems a tad odd…

    • It is considered by the Gramscian left that if you are pro-life then you are against women’s rights (which depend, fundamentally, on the right to life). And if you are against women’s rights, and women are part of the proletariat (the bearers of the Marxian thesis of Truth) then you are also against blacks, disabled and the working-class.

  11. These are just the facts. A party that, as such, wanted to ban abortion or to repeal same-sex marriage could not win any parliamentary seat in Great Britain. If you doubt that, then tell me which seat that it could win.

    Some years after the death of Charles Kennedy, and long years after the death of John Smith, a party whose Leader wanted to ban abortion or to repeal same-sex marriage (which latter would not have been Kennedy’s view, and possibly not Smith’s) could not now win any parliamentary seat in Great Britain. If you doubt that, then tell me which seat that it could win.

    By the time of the next General Election in 2019 or later, then even an individual candidate who was not the incumbent and who wanted to repeal same sex-marriage would stand no realistic chance of election in Great Britain. If you doubt that, then tell me which parliamentary seat that such a candidate could win. The same would be true of Northern Ireland if same-sex marriage were already in place there, as it very soon will be.

    These are just the facts. Ho, hum. Jesus told us to expect a lot worse than merely not being allowed to become Prime Minister, or even a Member of Parliament. Catholics were banned from Parliament for quite a while, and we are arguably still banned from the Premiership. We seem to have survived.

      • David Lindsay is just spouting evidence free nonsense on all available conservative forums. When I challenged him on Guido to provide any evidence that MPs who voted against abortion or SSM lost votes (remember more Tory MPs voted against SSM than for it) he just said I didn’t understand his argument and repeated it.

        There is no evidence that being against abortion or SSM loses politicians votes as the public understand these are non party political matters on which individual MPs may have opinions different from their own. In this, the British public shows itself to be more politically sophisticated and tolerant than the average liberal lefty.

    • I disagree. A party that wishes to ban abortion or to repeal same-sex marriage could win a parliamentary seat here in Great Britain, but such a party would need to be prepared to argue its position, not only with conviction and determination, but also with eloquence and elegance. Eloquence and elegance are sadly missing from the contemporary milieu, principally because staying ‘on message’ is deemed more important than the actual content of the message. Any candidate of sufficient stature, calibre and wit to promote social conservatism with an authentic voice would be failed by his political party, who would refuse to allow him to stand as a candidate.

    • Same sex “marriage” and abortion are two completely different things. You think that most people would oppose a very restrictive (as opposed to a somewhat tighter) law on abortion and seek to reinforce the case for imitation marriage by linking it to a complete ban on abortion.

      If Reed-Mogg did become Conservative leader he would almost certainly allow MPs to vote on these issues in accordance with their conscionces, unlike Labour and the ilLibDems.

  12. JRM is a rich little kid from Somerset who never matured and joined the real world.

    A lot of muddled thinking is going on along the lines of “the labour party have a complete joke and a parody for a leader, and it seems to be working out well for them, so lets give it a try ourselves”

    The easily impressed and gullible might get overwhelmed that he used the word floccinaucinihilipilification, but frankly that’s the kind of thing first year students do for a bet in a lecture to win beer money and the fact that JRM did is is not a demonstration of his intelligence, it is a demonstration of his immaturity.

    Now I know a lot of Colonel Blimps get er3ctions every time JRM is mentioned, but you don’t win majorities at general elections by only having Colonel Blimps vote for you. A fact that the Colonel Blimps don’t get.

    • I fear you may be right. I don’t like the worship of youth, but JRM won’t cut the mustard with the 20-40s as leader. He would on the other hand be very good in government, or as deputy.

      • If you mean “The Life and Death Of …” it seemed to me to be basically about someone hopelessly stuck in the past and resistant to change.

          • You may be in good company – Churchill banned it – he didn’t ‘understand’ it either.

          • The film-makers could do a remake in which a roman catholic MP becomes best friends with a radical muslim cleric due their similarly medieval views on 21st century life.

          • But it would basically be the same as the original version of the film, yes? In which case, maybe you could point out the differences. I’m with Churchill on this one.

          • It is clear that you don’t understand the current version. A remake would not assist you: in order to think outside of the box, you must understand the box in the first place.

          • It is clear you don’t understand that you think that you are the only one who ‘understands’. In the same way that a flat-earther thinks that they are the only one who understands that the earth is flat.

          • Judging by your posts here, it’s obvious that you have no real argument to offer. The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp was one of the greatest British films of the 1940s. It’s a pity your ideological blinkers prevent you from appreciating it, and indeed, prevent you from appreciating the fine qualities of JRM..

          • Judging by your post here, it’s obvious that you have no real ability not to jump to conclusions. The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp was (and still is) an enjoyable film but Churchill was right to ban it. It’s a pity your ideological blinkers prevent you from siding with the greatest Prime Minister this country has ever known.

          • Churchill banned it, I suppose, because, IIRC, at one point in the film, General Wynne-Candy, (fictional) Commandant of the Home Guard, is to give an address on the BBC, and is told he has been cancelled, since his advance copy reached No. 10 and was called “defeatist.” One imagines Winston got a bug up his bum at that point and said, “Oh? I’m some sort of censor, am I? Well, I’m censoring THIS! Try THAT on for size!”

            Seriously, the underlying message that “After this War is over, likely we will dust ourselves off, and make friends with the Germans, as Wynne-Candy did with his foes of the Boer and 1914-18 Wars” was not what most would call a “morale builder” to win the 1939-45 War.

          • That’s an intelligent comment. I don’t think Churchill wanted ethics and principles to interfere – he was going to fight just as dirty as the Germans.

            In my opinion, at one level, the ‘conclusion’ of the movie confronts the reader with the dilemma: is might right or is right might. At a deeper level, unlike now, many would have had some knowledge of Christian ethics. I think it points to the idea that, in the longrun, the universe is on the side of the Good; the Bad cannot exist without the Good; the Good can exist without the Bad.

            Blimp represents transcendental values; the victor of the wargame in the last few scenes represents situational ethics – local, temporary and doomed.

          • The young officer taking Wynne-Candy prisoner in advance of the war game, with the rationale that “Jerry doesn’t ‘play by the rules,’ so why should I?” was probably well-received by some, but for others, it must have seemed a cautionary note of an impending moral Pyrrhic victory– yes, we disposed of “Jerry,” yet we turned into him in the bargain.

      • I don’t normally reveal my personal voting intentions or history but this is a n anonymous board so : in the past I’ve voted both Conservative and UKIP.

        Wild horses wouldn’t get me to vote for that dangerous clown Corbyn, the Limp Dems are a bunch of non-events and UKIP without Nigel Farage is like Top Gear without Jeremy Clarkson.

        The conservative party at the moment holds as much promising vision for the future as a sink full of old dishwater, but I really don’t see JRM as being the man who will get the country to vote for him in enough volume and lurching off to a gay-hating-brown-people-hating-religious-fundamentalist alt-right is not something I support.

        • I too have voted for several differing parties over the years’ and even communicated with the Old Liberal Party with whom I share some views; yes it still exists but not in my area, which is why I did not put my vote their way. The problem is that two largest parties do not really inspire. This is why someone like JRM stands out. I’m sure that as a man of Catholic Christian principles he doesn’t accept hatred of others just because they are different as being right either. One can support or be against something and yet still not hate those who are of the opposite view. That is too binary a view but acknowledging and accepting that the Far Left are as full of hatred as the Far Right is a step forward and should be recognised by all right-minded people.

  13. I just wish that our Bishops would defend their Anglican beliefs in the same manner that Mr Rees-Mogg affirmed his Roman Catholic beliefs. Unfortunately there is now talk about gay marriages in church and even re-baptismal services for those who who change their gender. This leaves one feeling that the CofE is more like a political party changing its views with the latest opinion poll rather than a religion based on biblical teachings.

  14. “He did not flinch – he is unspun and I think in the long run the British public will admire him for it.”
    And yet they will still howl with delight at his public burning.

  15. Moggmania is an interesting phenomenon, and this article a love letter to the sainted Jacob. That he is being mentioned as leader at all speaks volumes about the dearth of charisma or personality in the Conservative party. He is undoubtedly charming and polite, and a competent debater. If you think that his personal beliefs will not be subject to a lot of scrutiny then you are naive beyond measure. His religion will be a problem. I think that British people really don’t care for too much religiosity in their leaders. His extreme social conservatism will equally be a problem – it is at odds with the way that most people, and particularly young people, think. For example, he can be presented as a charming upper class eccentric, but for many that charm disappears when he opposes abortion for victims of rape or incest. There is a weird parallel with Corbyn, who was subject to incredible vilification in the print media for his alleged pacifism, lack of patriotism, unilateralism, republicanism … In the end it was so over the top it ceased to have any effect at all. Mogg I suppose could ride out that negativity too. But I don’t think so.

  16. When Jacob Rees-Mogg laid down his political life in defence of those most marginalised and despised human beings – the children of rapists – he imitated Christ in a way quite unparalleled in my lifetime.

    • It might spur a sea-change in those people lost in the current political system who no longer have a voice. The two party system has condemned us to vote for the least worst option closest to our own views. I would probably vote Old Liberal if there were a candidate to support; but a choice between two left of centre parties and a far left party doesn’t leave much wriggle room.

    • ”When Jacob Rees-Mogg laid down his political life
      for the lives of those most marginalised, irrelevant and despised of human
      beings – the children of rapists – he imitated Christ in a way quite
      unparalleled in my lifetime”

      What a load of un-Christian rubbish! Like JRM you are another man who has not got
      one shred of compassion for the woman or girl who is the victim of rape or incest
      because you want her to continue to suffer and to bear the child of a rapist
      that should never have been conceived in the first place! You don’t have the comprehension to understand that or to understand why JRM has attracted so much adverse publicity because his views are indeed un-Christian because they totally ignore the victim, the woman or girl concerned who was the victim of such a heinous
      crime.

      Presumably if the health of an expectant mother was threatened during pregnancy the right course for you would be to sacrifice the mother and save the unborn child.

  17. By suddenly putting JRM on trial for his personal beliefs, no doubt Good Morning Britain was seeking its own “Tim Farron” moment. Fair enough: the show exists for ratings and publicity and no-one is compelled to appear on it. But Laura is spot on: quizzed unexpectedly on matters of personal belief, few other politicians would have had the courage and self-confidence to answer head-on, to unequivocally state their position on what are politically toxic subjects, rather than attempt to blandly obfuscate their way to the next commercial break.

    Being an admirer of JRM, and someone who would very much like to see him ascend to high office, I was initially concerned that the interview – or more accurately, an orchestrated response of confected outrage – might prove to be his Rivers of Blood moment. But though Laura rightly notes the initial outcry from the usual suspects, overall I’ve been mildly encouraged by much of the reaction. Of course there was the predictable kneejerk response by those in the media and political classes who seek to howl down any remotely conservative viewpoint. But on this occasion I sense that, even amongst those strongly holding opposing views, there is a sizeable fair-minded element impressed by JRM’s candour, of his willingness to directly answer and calmly state with the utmost clarity his principled beliefs, all the while emphasising that he has no intention of seeking to impose his personal morality on others.

    Certainly, it appears that those who immediately sought to castigate JRM and turn him into a pariah have gained little traction. To take one random example, immediately after the interview The Mirror’s Kevin Maguire gleefully tweeted, “what a car crash”, and joyfully proclaimed, “Rees-Mogg was found out”. Quite how restating his previously-expressed views meant JRM had suddenly been “found out”, is something Kev failed to explain. And while “car crash” is now routinely used to deride an interview performance, it surely only applies when the interviewee is exposed as ignorant of facts or of lacking the intellectual capacity and confidence to argue a coherent case – none of which can ever be said of Jacob Rees-Mogg, and certainly not in this instance.

    Of course many on the left will continue to attack, ridicule and demonise him. But if Suzanne Moore firing the word “bigot” from a scattergun is the best that The Guardian and its fellow travellers can launch at him, Jacob has little to worry him.

    A future leader and Prime Minister? This has always been unlikely – more’s the pity – not least because too many in his party will not countenance being led by an actual conservative. But I sense that not only has JRM survived this week’s ambush, he has actually emerged more widely respected and acknowledged as a man of principle and fibre. As Laura says, the real deal.

  18. Miss

    It’s interesting that in these troubled times where we no longer know what is left nor right, up nor down; that politics presents a man unafraid of erecting moral boundaries.

    I was expecting some bishop to stand up and say, ‘Enough, is enough!’

    Mind you, the Muslims must’ve calmed down by now. The last thing they want is for a Christian to set strong moral boundaries with supporting ethical arguments: for that sows seeds of doubt in their own hearts, as to the veracity of their religion.

    Islam has gained confidence – only because Christianity has stumbled in the streets and there is no one to help her up.

  19. the correct interpretation of that tweet is jrm showing two fingers to all anglicans, who don’t form part of the roman church

    • Nonsense. Clearly not the intention of the statement.

      Moreover, this is word for word identical to the corresponding part of the Anglican creed!

  20. An excellent piece, although (and I assume LP is also a Catholic?) I don’t agree either with some of that church’s teaching or how reformed it is in practice. Money and power attract the wrong kinds of people, and corrupt some of the right kinds. I am also not so sure that it doesn’t represent some kind of vote-winner for him.
    However we also need to be very careful about putting the guy on a pedestal. This simply makes him a bigger target to knock down and raises his clay feet (which we all have) into full view, and may turn his mind a bit. Just like American Prosperity Preachers and ministers in Major’s “back to basics” government, the left would love to be able to prove that he is just as much of a hypocrite and power-freak as other politicians.

    • There is nothing wrong with money (and power) – it’s when a man loves it that he risks corruption of his soul.

      • I didn’t say there was. I was referencing shenanigans in the Vatican, but wasn’t very clear – I’ll edit it.

    • Frankly I have no idea if Laura is, its irrelevant. What she writes here is the historic teaching of Christianity, Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, and all the others reaching right back to Christ Himself, transmitted through the Apostles.

      And yes, the love of money and power is the root of all evil. Look around and see who loves power, and there you will find evil.

      • LP’s personal church background is not irrelevant, although nor is it fundamentally germane – hence the parenthesis. One’s views of someone’s integrity and willingness to laud their lack of compromise in expressing their opinions is definitely coloured by being in agreement with those opinions.

        • Yes, maybe. Her background if it is Christian (I don’t know that, for a fact, either) could make it more likely that she agrees with him, although it is not a given, these days. The particular church is of little account, none speak especially clearly as a whole these days, not even Rome. A fair size chunk of the CofE agrees with Rees-Mogg, as does a proportion of the Lutheran church, and the same with evangelicals, in general. Many others disagree.

          One’s view of approbation of someone clearly articulating their views has more to do with their personal integrity than anything else. As I said earlier, I admired George McGovern for his integrity, but found him mistaken in almost everything.

          • I get all that. However, just because you are able to admire someone with whom you often disagree, does not mean that everyone else can. Having said which, I strongly suspect that LP would – although can’t recall any actual written proof of that.
            Both JRM and LP referenced the Catholic Church – not Christ, not the Bible. I have no idea what they think of the latter two, but it is the Church that they claim as their lodestar.

  21. With respect to abortion I used to have a ‘women’s choice’ view.

    Then I read about Kermit Gosnell and his house of horrors, now I am pro-life.

    JRM has had me thinking again about abortion/rape and the conclusion I have come up with is at the end of the day its not the babies fault.

    Compare and contrast JRM with the fellow who interviewed him, Piers Morgan. The thing I will always remember about Morgan is when he was editor of the Daily Mirror and the story published about UK soldiers torturing Iraqs.

    Why do you close your comments so quickly please?

    • Surely expecting a woman to carry a child of rape t full-term, against her will, is a most cruel and awful thing unworthy of anybody who possesses a scintilla of compassion. The funny thing about many pro-lifers, like Moggy, is that they seem to care more about the unborn than the born – mothers and children aiike – whose health and welfare they appear to be content to put at risk insofar as swingeing benefit cuts are concerned and an absolute refusal to invest sufficient monies in social and similar accommodation.

      Instead of touring the television studios doing a Bertram Wilberforce “Bertie” Wooster impersonation it would do Moggy much more credit if he helped raise some money for good causes and achieve some good in the world.

      • Yes as I said its something that needs thinking about. However reading about Gosnell and his team snipping the spinal cord of live babies makes me physically sick.

        Perhaps I am pro-life after a certain point in the pregnacy?

        • I am and always will be pro-choice as far as pregnancy is concerned and believe wholeheartedly that women should have sovereignty over their own bodies and everything that goes on inside them.

          Having seen fragile. desperate and tortured women going into clinics seeking counselling, advice and help in respect to pregnancy, terrified by raucous hate-filled verbal and sometimes even physical abuse meted out by so-called Christian pro-lifer protesters disgusted me so much that siding with such loathsome people in any way, shape or form is impossible as far as I am concerned.

          • So I did a whole blog on this. There are actually a lot of limitation on what we can do with our bodies, aside from abortion. Will dig out.

          • ‘women should have sovereignty over their own bodies’

            Yes – for most of the time. Sometimes the sovereignty needs to be surrendered.

          • Not when the women concerned are of sound mind and exercising any freedom guaranteed to them by British law. People like you have no peculiar right to try to impose your views on others outside of the law. Even the foppish man-child Jacob Rees-Mogg would agree with that and the empty head sitting atop his shoulders would have been circumcised had he have been born Jewish.

          • ‘I am and always will be pro-slavery as far as that institution is concerned and believe wholeheartedly that slave owners should have sovereignty over their own slaves and everything that goes on within them.’

          • What has slavery got to do with abortion?

            Slavery is forced servitude coupled with the complete loss of human rights and freedom while abortion is a medical choice made by a woman, permitted within the compass of secular law, exercising a right and freedom available to her within the law of the land.

            By definition slavery and abortion are diametric opposites and not comparable. In fact if voluntary terminations were made illegal and women forced to give birth against their will that, by definition, would be a slavery unworthy of any progressive and humane society – a dystopia in fact vary reminiscent of Margaret Atwood’s horrific “The Handmaid’s Tale”.

            I think you poor souls are confused not to say a little touched, to be honest, since you continually try to draw comparisons between completely different things in order to make a case for your beliefs and end up making no sense to anybody other than yourselves.

            Silly verging on nutty really.

          • “What has slavery got to do with abortion?”

            The notion of ownership of another human being.

            It isn’t unreasonable to hold that parents own their children and can do what they like with them. It is the way the world has worked for thousands of years. Slavery is no more unreasonable and is also the way the world has worked for thousands of years.

          • If you compel a woman to take a pregnancy to full-term, against her will, what is that other than an invidious form of sexual slavery?

          • I am pro-choice but I do think that choice should be exercised after the birth of the child. Give the ladies a couple of weeks to make up their minds, and provide them with the means of terminating the child in a humane fashion.

      • I thought that a child having to pay for the sin of his father, died out 2,000 years ago.

        • A clump of human cells with no developed brain or nervous system is NOT a child legally or biologically.

          • Obviously not. Organs are harvested from those with beating heats but certified brain-dead in hospitals, usually after turning off life-support, kind of like severing the connection between a foetus and placenta.

    • I recall the phrase ‘every child a wanted child’ during the fight for legal abortion, a phrase which tacitly admits that what is being destroyed is a child. How many dewy-eyed expectant mums announce they are expecting a foetus! How many mourn the loss of a baby when they miscarry, even at an early stage of pregnancy. Scans of unborn children are shared online by happy expectant mothers. The nature of an unborn child does not go chang

  22. I recall an old Kenneth More Father Brown episode, with some old bat asking our good padre if he is C of E, and he replies, “No, ma’am, RC– next best thing.” One wonders if Rees-Mogg’s affiliation is thought of as being in the nature of, “Well, he’s RC, not exactly what you expect in a posh man-out-of-his-time like him, but maybe it’s the next best thing. Better that he believe in SOMETHING, at any rate.”

  23. I have always found it strange that those in favour of abortion are often against capital punishment. Killing the innocent is alright, killing the guilty is not.

    • Here we go again with the usual silly conflations. Give one instance of a foetus which was found guilty of a capital crime and executed in respect to same. All these fish and foul comparisons undermine the pro-life case such as it is.

      • By definition, each aborted foetus has been found guilty of the crime of “inconvenient existence” and thus sentenced to capital punishment.
        I agree, noix, the cognitive dissonance is striking.

        • Do you not see any difference between a child conceived as a result of rape or incest which is one that should not have been conceived in the first place and a child conceived as matter of mutual love between a man and woman?
          Why should a victim of rape or incest be made to give birth to their rapist’s child? What could be a worse form of abuse than that to add to the rape itself?

          • I do see a difference and I understand there is a point to argue re victims of rape and incest. I am simply commenting on the ongoing silliness and inconsistency of TheMockingTurtle.

          • I really cannot understand why people like you find it so
            hard to understand that the only innocent party is the mother or girl concerned who was raped and that you could not be more cruel and less Christian towards her, the unwilling victim of a criminal rape bear her rapist’s child, a pregnancy that should never, ever have happened in the first place. You are supporting the rapist in his crime as making a victim pregnant is often part of his perverse wish! You could not therefore be more heartless or less compassionate by opposing abortion in the case of rape or abortion. That is why JRM has rightfully attracted so much opposition from so many for his wholehearted support of totally heartless Catholic doctrine.

            There have been numerous examples of mass rape being used as
            a weapon of war where the intention is make the victims pregnant and to make them bear their child. By opposing abortion in cases of rape JRM is, in effect, aiding and abetting those rapists in the commitment of war crimes as he would want those made pregnant to give birth to their rapist’s child.

        • That’s silly. My point is that a foetus is not a child at all and cannot be considered in the same terms as a cognizant self-aware human being. To compare one with the other isn’t valid.

      • I think you are the person confused. A foetus is another word to describe a baby but one you wish to kill so call it another name. If there is no case of pro life then there is no pro humanity because that is what pro life means. There is an excellent case for pro life, explain one case against humanity?

  24. I am not a Catholic and I am not really sure where I stand on abortion; but I do recognise a man of principle when I see one and Jacob Rees-Mogg is such a man. I admire him for his honesty and resistance to pander to fashionable leftist views just for the sake of courting popularity. I will always this man because he has principles and does not abandon them to win votes. We are a poorer Nation for having lost people like him in public life. I would class my political views as Gladstonian Liberal. Perhaps now is the time for a Christian Democratic Party in the UK.

    • I like your remark about Gladstone whom I greatly admired. WEG was a committed Anglican – a Christian of both tradition and conviction. Nowadays i believe he would find much in common with Rees-Mogg and the Catholic church….

  25. In America, because of our system, many of us can vote for the man, not the party, my understanding that it is much more difficult in Britain. That is what my parents taught us to do, and it has led me down some strange paths, I seriously considered voting for McGovern rather than Nixon, because he was an honest man, although misguided on almost everything, he believed in what he believed, and said so. Rees-Mogg would do very well here, with Christians yes, but also with sincere leftists.

    And the juxtaposition with Luther is very apt, although perhaps not in exactly the way Laura intended, for Luther’s ambition was not to found his own church or break the Catholic Church, but to reform it. There comes a time in all our lives when we must say, “Hier ich stehe, ich kann nicht anders.” If we do so honorably as Rees-Moggs did this week, we will be better people for it.

  26. By suddenly putting JRM on trial for his personal beliefs, no doubt Good Morning Britain was seeking its own “Tim Farron” moment. Fair enough: the show exists for ratings and publicity and no-one is compelled to appear on it. But Laura is spot on: quizzed unexpectedly on matters of personal belief, few other politicians would have had the courage and self-confidence to answer head-on, to unequivocally state their position on what are politically toxic subjects, rather than attempt to blandly obfuscate their way to the next commercial break.

    Being an admirer of JRM, and someone who would very much like to see him ascend to high office, I was initially concerned that the interview – or more accurately, an orchestrated response of confected outrage – might prove to be his Rivers of Blood moment. But though Laura rightly notes the initial outcry from the usual suspects, overall I’ve been mildly encouraged by much of the reaction. Of course there was the predictable kneejerk response by those in the media and political classes who seek to howl down any remotely conservative viewpoint. But on this occasion I sense that, even amongst those strongly holding opposing views, there is a sizeable fair-minded element impressed by JRM’s candour, of his willingness to directly answer and calmly state with the utmost clarity his principled beliefs, all the while emphasising that he has no intention of seeking to impose his personal morality on others.

    Certainly, it appears that those who immediately sought to castigate JRM and turn him into a pariah have gained little traction. To take one random example, immediately after the interview The Mirror’s Kevin Maguire gleefully tweeted, “what a car crash”, and joyfully proclaimed, “Rees-Mogg was found out”. Quite how restating his previously-expressed views meant JRM had suddenly been “found out”, is something Kev failed to explain. And while “car crash” is now routinely used to deride an interview performance, it surely only applies when the interviewee is exposed as ignorant of facts or of lacking the intellectual capacity and confidence to argue a coherent case – none of which can ever be said of Jacob Rees-Mogg, and certainly not in this instance.

    Of course many on the left will continue to attack, ridicule and demonise him. But if Suzanne Moore firing from a scattergun the word “bigot” is the best that The Guardian and its fellow travellers can launch at him, there is little to worry Jacob.

    A future leader and Prime Minister? This has always been unlikely – more’s the pity – not least because too many in his party will not countenance being led by an actual conservative. But I sense that not only has JRM survived this week’s ambush, he has actually emerged more widely respected and acknowledged as a man of principle and fibre. As Laura says, the real deal.

  27. The party is definitely not good enough for him, but what the man is doing transcends party politics anyway. He is the standard-bearer for those who are sick of the dreary, unquestioning servitude to the moral death encroaching on this country. While the cowardly will recoil at his honesty and integrity, many will be inspired by it. The Tory Party is in decline, infested with the pox of cultural marxism. JRM will survive its decline because his beliefs are not rooted in twitter trends and the demented hysteria of snowflake-dom. I pray for this man because he is standing fearlessly against the goliath of the mass media.

    • I agree the party does not deserve JRM, but on the other hand he could be, hopefully will be its saviour. If his fellow MP’s have enough about them to put him forward for a leadership challenge he can bring the Conservative party back from the doldrums.

  28. There’s clearly a concerted campaign going on to discredit Mogg and it’s because of his views on Brexit rather than his personal views on abortion or leaving changing nappies to nanny.

    The problem for them though is the main tactic they use is shaming and while it works on weak willed individuals like Tim Farron who cared more about how he’d look publically than being straight forward and honest.

    The next step seems to be, if they haven’t learned anything from Trump, is they’ll be implying or outright stating he and his supporters are bigots.

  29. Honest and principled…..that’s certainly an interesting spin on a man who calls for lower taxes yet votes for higher ones….

    • He campaigned to lower income tax and increase VAT. This is to ensure that you have more disposable income, and can be spent where you see fit.

      • Raising VAT is raising taxes….VAT is a massively regressive tax…. …still try and defend a man who wants taxes like APD raised as well.

        • You still don`t get it.! More disposable income that you can spend how you wish to. You don`t have to spend it on taxable items, there are other things to spend money on.

          • I think I must have phrased it badly Gunner, that I mean to say is that instead of having that money taken out of your pocket BEFORE you spend it, you get the money and it`s YOUR choice on where and what you spend it on because you were going to spend it on a vatable item,.

            If you are buying it anyway, you no longer have to pay income tax first on the money and then VAT on your purchase, you only pay one lot of tax instead of two,income tax AND then VAT !

            I hope you grasp my meaning this time.

          • Air Passenger Duty – the taxe that JR-M wants to drive up to put flying beyond the reach of plebs like me so he can have the airport to himself and his well heeled chums… 🙂

Comments are closed.