Talk:Jacob Rees-Mogg

	This British politics related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed. If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Claim

The claim that his company earns 5 million pounds from abortion pills is obviously and grossly misconstrued. The facts are that the investment management fund in which he has got participation but which he doesn't manage since 2010, made, on behalf of their clients, an investment of 5 million pounds on an Indonesian company that legally produces certain pills aimed and used for the treatment of gastric ulcers. As these pills have also the side effect that they can cause miscarriages they are used for that purpose in some illegal abortion clinics. The point is that it is neither his own money, nor his decision, the fund doesn't make 5 million in profits, nor do his clients, and certainly not him, and he hasn't made any personal investments in the company that makes the pills.^{— Unsigned, by: 190.100.197.208 / talk / contribs}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. þe olꝺe Ꞅƿɽyᵹᵹyna (ꞇalc) (conċꞃybs) @ 19:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the claim due to the shitty source. In future, it's better to just remove a claim than to add something saying "this bit isn't true", thanks for explaining yourself on the talk page though. Christopher (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I've re-added this with a proper explanation and better sourcing, including a link to JRM's response. People can judge for themselves if it's hypocritical. --Gospatric (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced tag

The page was tagged as containing unsourced claims. I've tried to add sources. I think the tag can be removed, but wondered if there were other opinions, or particular bits that are insufficiently sourced. (You can use the {{cn}} tag to indicate points sources are needed). --Gospatric (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I’d agree, which is why I’ve just removed it. Thanks for your work. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Category

Does Rees-Mogg fall into the category of 'right wing Tory eccentric'? (This is quite distinct from 'very right wing.') Anna Livia (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me that JR-M is using his eccentricity and extreme poshness as a smoke screen to make his downright regressive views seem charmingly Downton Abbey’ish and thus palatable to a wide slice of British public opinion. Why such (admittedly bold and creative) spin has apparently made his views appealing to the extent that he’s mentioned as a potential Tory leader is just one of the peculiarities of British (or perhaps more specifically, English...) politics that puzzles this outside spectator.

I’d very much call JR-M 'very right wing', the Tories having gradually slithered so far to the right that several post-WWII One Nation Tory PMs (i.e. pre-Thatcherist Toryism) would today be more of a shoe in for a Labour candidature. This means that the Tory right wing, of which JR-M is seen as the standard bearer, is indeed 'very right wing' (though still with some margin to out-and-out racist hate groups like Britain First and a decidedly smaller degree of difference from the UKIP crowd, quite a number of which have switched back and forth between UKIP and the Tories). ScepticWombat (talk) 07:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

But the category does exist - Dennis Thatcher and to some extent Alan Clark were other such.

Can I draw attention to the J R=M and son photographs. Anna Livia (talk) 09:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

He's indisputably a right-wing Tory eccentric. On many issues he's definitely on the right wing of the Tory party. I'm not exactly sure if he's "very right wing" if that means beyond what you'd expect for a Tory, and he's not by American standards: he's pro-free market, pro-home ownership, authoritarian about law and order, pays lip service to the NHS while supporting privatisation, for reducing immigration rather than stopping entirely, in favour of welfare cuts, pro-high speed rail and only occasionally pro-environment; but much of that is following party policy.[1][2] He does exemplify a lot of traditional (pre Butler/Macmillan) Toryism while I'd tend to reserve "very right wing" for extreme privatise-it-all libertarians, out-and-out racists, or those even more fascist than Theresa May. But YMMV. --Gospatric (talk) 14:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Acronym? There is a distinction between the 'inhabitants of the (slightly) eccentric corners of the political spectrum' (who deliberately attempt to entertain in some manner' and the '(perceived as) humourless extremists.' Anna Livia (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

More insanity

He has a style guide for staff banning the words "very", "unacceptable", "got", and "hopefully".[3] --Annanoon (talk) 12:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Not to mention insisting on using solely imperial measurements... ScepticWombat (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

JRM and the anti-vaxxers

As he is known as 'the MP representing the 18th century' is the term 'inverse stopped clock' appropriate for this? Anna Livia (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Round here he's sometimes referred to as the Hon. Member for Salem Witchtrial. Also, if you fiddle with that photo of him with Nanny Astaroth you get something that looks almost, but not quite, like “American Gothic”: https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51464654097_777fef10fc_o.png Mr Larrington (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2022 (UTC)