Please consider this video clip of UK MP Jacob William Rees-Mogg. He slammed Theresa May with a letter of no confidence then fielded questions from the public.
Rees-Mogg was clear, articulate, and accurate. Like Ron Paul he is a free trade advocate. And he clearly supports the rule of law.
Unlike Ron Paul, he was not boring, nor did he drone on endlessly in a whiny voice.
He was ready for every question and not once did he over-react.
I would vote for Rees-Mogg for President or Prime Minister.
Alas. Neither can happen.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
“We” have exactly the politicians we deserve. Even with ‘full spectrum dominance’ voter fraud. After all, we legitimized the process with our sacred votes. Ron Paul saw how much good that did. So “we” are to blame. I’m working toward the day that the voiceless anti-voters and nonvoters who won the last election (and so many others) get the legitimacy they deserve. Perhaps when only voters are taxed?!?
Rees-Mogg opposed same sex marriage, so he’s out for me. He’s a social conservative, and would fit in well with today’s GOP. I’d oppose him with every breath in my body.
Sorry.
A politician (a succesful one ) has been evolved over the decades to be hypocritic, intellectually DISHONEST and his/her integrity for sale for the highest bidder with very, very few exceptions in history!
Politics has become a LUCRATIVE career feeding off of Taxpayers. Those who finesse in articulation ( Obama) can charm the sheeple. there is NO such thing as a honest politician!
Even if you were a UK voter, Mish, you would be very unlikely to get a vote on who should be the UK Prime Minister. That choice is an internal Party matter, mainly driven by the Members of Parliament.
A wise person once said — we keep voting for politicians thinking we are going to get princes, and they almost always turn out to be frogs. The solution would be to constrain the power of politicians much more strictly than the Political Class (those in power and their hangers-on) would ever allow.
NIgel Farage was even better, but the root problem is short term-limits. Without them the power goes to their head and the perks are too hard to give up.
Bill Clinton is considered a very skillful politician, and he is also a very skillful con man and a pathological lier. Be careful what you wish for, Mish!
Crooks are always skillful and charming!
Mr Rees Mogg is about to crash and burn. It is taking an awful lot of time for him to muster 48 conservative MPs to request a vote of no confidence in Teresa May. The most probable result is that Rees Mogg will be revealed as an isolated and reprehensible infant who is throwing a tantrum.
In the press conference above, Rees Mogg did not appear as if he was an infant throwing a temper tantrum.
That was then, this is now. It appears that there are only 25 Tory MPS who wish to remove Mrs May.Of course politicians lie so there may be enough to force a vote but don’t hold your breath. If these extreme Brexit lunatics fail then stand clear of prams,baby-walkers and any toddler running towards you.
First of all the US Desperately Needs wise Americans . A half doesn’t care what happening in their neighborhood and country and 1/4 picks up neo-Marxists .
The “back-benchers” are always the better politicians, in a parliamentary system they are a potential obstacle to the corruption and clientelism that is rife in say US politics. That’s because they don’t yet live under the spot light, draw less interest from the lobbyists and have less to lose. They are therefore free to practice a little more honesty and say it like it is.
Nevertheless, upon elevation in political rank, the media industry and related political-owners quickly get involved. Such new leaders immediately lose their freedom to think and speak anything but fence-sitting rhetoric.
The problem therefore isn’t the people it’s the current political systems that suffer more and more interference from the worlds elite and corporate controllers.
Sure hope the Tories don’t go with blowhard Boris.
Keep searching, Mish. Rees Mogg’s first job out of Oxford was as a banker at the Rothschild Group. His whole career outside politics has been in investment banking. Are we really claiming we’re facing a troubling shortage of fabulously wealthy bankers, that their views are underrepresented in politics?
He’s not all bad, like his criticism of the effort to oust Assad in Syria, but he’s still a banker and maintains close ties there. Where’s his criticism of the BoE or artificially low interest rates? If we’re going this route, just hand the keys to 10 Downing to Mark Carney and be done with it.
Many highly intelligent people have ended up as bankers since that is the easiest way to get really wealthy.
Rees-Mogg has a house worth several millions near the Prime Minister’s official residence.
In my opinion independently wealthy people are less likely to be corrupted in politics and I believe being a banker should NOT be a disqualification on holding elected office.
The issue is what are their policy positions and what are the policies they believe in and what they want to achieve.
Some bankers clearly would make awful politicians but in my opinion Rees-Mogg has hope of being a great politician based on his clear and facts based way of handling most issues and his stance on Brexit.
You’ve just repackaged the Trump argument for a UK edition. The idea with Trump was that his wealth would make him invulnerable to pressure and give him carte blanche to carry out his policies. In reality, Trump is very sensitive to the value of his holdings and is beholden to the swamp he promised to drain. His status as a billionaire made him more vulnerable, not less.
The opposite argument works better, that the only person who could clean up the horrific mess of modern politics is someone with nothing to lose, someone willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to make headway. Elites have way too much to lose, even if they pretend to represent their opposites on the wealth spectrum.
Rees Mogg has criticized Carney, but to my knowledge only for his Brexit opinion. The many years of near ZIRP don’t seem to bother him at all, and that’s a huge problem.
The ZIRP problem is impossible for one country to fix since if BOE raised rates when ECB and FED run ZIRP this would crash UK economy so the most sure way to stop Brexit would have been for BOE to raise rates and then blame the crash on Brexit uncertainty and businesses fearing Brexit.
When everyone is blowing bubbles it is almost impossible to be the one to stop the bubble blowing because even though that would be the best policy for long-term in the short term that would lead to Brexit baing cancelled and crazy socialist Corbyn becoming UK Prime Minister.
Trump’s problem is that he is surrounded by Koch Brothers stooges like VP Mike Pence and Mick Mulvaney (Pence and Mulvaney were the idiots who told Trump to sign the massive Omnibus with NO wall funding) that give him stupid advice and that Republicans were run by Ayn-Randian Ryan who never had a clue about anything other but pleasing donors and whose idea of a winning politics is a promise to cut social security and Sessions was also clueless as Attorney General and did not tighten the policies enough (AG can stop accepting asylum claims according to US law but Sessions never made that decision) but instead Sessions started stupid and inhumane policies like separating even small kids from their parents and that was part of the reason Democrats won so many House seats at mid-terms.
Also Homeland Security leader Kirstjen Nielsen is totally incompetent since she had USA pay for local radio ads in Guatemala, Honduras etc. to ONLY come to USA if they are asking for asylum and stated in Congressional testimony that if people are fleeing they can always come to ask for asylum in USA.
These local radio ads and Nielsen’s incompetent statements led to the huge increase in asylum claims on USA border.
Nielsen is an example of a clueless bureaucrat trying to fix something but creating even bigger problems.
Nielsen should have been fired on the spot after she admitted USA was running local radio ads in Guatemala and Honduras since it is clear the rush of migrants was created by these since they put the idea of going to USA in people’s minds and the rush started after the radio ads.
Also Trump’s new trade agreement with Mexico is stupid since it should have included a promise by Mexico to STOP people from going through Mexico to USA and give them either a choice of going back home or asking for asylum from Mexico.
I agree that the ZIRP/central banker bubble problem is enormous and would be exceedingly difficult to fix. However, if it is indeed beyond repair, to me that makes the political game uninteresting, just deck chairs shuffled on the Titanic. At that point we’re whiling away time waiting for an inevitable financial collapse.
If it is fixable, I’d like to try. If it’s not, one of these days it’ll be time for all of us to hunker down and wish each other luck while we can still send ones and zeros back and forth.
Of course ZIRP is fixable. ZIRP does not create any value whatsoever. All it does is redistribute it. From competent, intelligent and productive people, to abject deadweights who the world as a whole would literally benefit if straight up starved to death in the streets.
The world would, of course, benefit even more, if they instead took the hint and started doing something productive, once being a zero value add deadweight leech on Fed welfare were no longer THE road to personal enrichment. And, this, rather than mass starvation in London and New York, would be the practical result of ZIRP coming to an abrupt halt an hour from now. Hence, for the naively squeamish, no need to panic and worry about heartless economists not doing a good enough job of pretending to “care” about people…..
Ending ZIRP won’t cause any more systemic hardship than ending a burglary wave. As one would think people would realize by the time they reached adulthood at the latest, all hobgoblins are imaginary. The one named “collapsed system” being no different. “The System will collapse” only sounds scary. Until one grows up, and realizes that a simple burglary ring is all “The System” is. Hence a simple burglary ring is all that will collapse by ending support for it.
ZIRP needs to be ended but the country doing that will have their government replaced by even more incompetent politicians.
Swapping May for crazy socialist and anti-semitic Labour leader Corbyn would lead to an even worse outcome.
Corbyn thinks Venezuela is a success…
The only choice is for Tories to get rid of May internally and vote a Brexiteer as new PM and do a proper Brexit.
This is wildly optimistic. System failure isn’t a hobgoblin, if it fails globally it means the hollowed out shells we call banks and corporations collapse. If it isn’t global, meaning we stand up to end the Fed but other central banks remain, then it would mean massive, overwhelming capital flight.
The big lesson from the 2008 crisis was to make fraud integral to the structure of the banks. I think we would have suffered a major depression without TARP, but I still wish we’d gone that route. Now things are even more precariously balanced, since we never attempted to fix anything from the last crisis and blew even bigger QE bubbles.
If you’re arguing that economic collapse is a state of mind, we’re going to have to disagree. The whole world is structured around endless debt and artificially low interest rates, ending that results in a hard reset.
The “hard reset” is almost entirely one of valuations and ownership. Both of which have become so lopsidedly concentrated and unrealistic, as a direct result of Fed policy and Fed policy only, that very few will suffer all that badly because of it. Ted Turner having to dump a few million acres at “firesale” (more like realistic) prices, isn’t exactly going to cause the world of hurt. Neither is some hedge fund blowing up over less pumped up asset prices.
There will be little in the way of a “hard reset” of productive processes. Oil won’t stop flowing. wheat won’t stop growing. Roads and houses won’t fall down…
The reset is almost entirely financial. Which could be a problem if “everyone” had a huge stake in the current “System.”
Or if the existing ownership and control structures, had been arrived at by some form of meritocratic means. Such that rocking them too badly, would result in control over productive assets being handed to meaningfully less competent people than what is currently the case. This is the traditional conservative critique of radical change: That things are the way they are for good reasons. Joe Owns a factory and Jill don’t, because Joe is better at running a factory than Jill. But traditional conservatives never faced a Fed…
In a world where 1% owns everything, and that 1% owns it all not on account how having done anything worth vile nor useful, but simply because the Fed handed it to them by way of no-strings-attached welfare; none of those objections apply: What the 1% loses, ends up available for the 99%. Noe of whom are any less competent, a priori, at managing it than current owners.
Even a reset on the scale of a financial big bang: Complete randomization of ownership of everything overnight, couldn’t really be any less optimal than what we have today. It may be a bit worse, it may be a bit better. There’s no way to know, since ownership structures existing today, are arrived by completely arbitrary, hence random, Fed interference as well.
You’d still have the same number of houses, the same factories, power plants and roads. And the same population, with the same skills. Nothing lost. Just different owners of everything. Who are, again, no better, no worse…
The only prerequisite, is efficient bankruptcy processes.
I’d love this to be true but I don’t see any 1789 France scenario here. In the event of a reset, Boomers would lose their retirements and it would be too late for them to start over. There would be a period of relative chaos as we transition to a totally different system where the Fed doesn’t get to anoint winners. What happens to the current political system? This state of flux also opens the door for the military to pursue their own goals. Your assessment seems to assume a lengthy series of best case scenarios.
The USSR had a society where the Party elite ran everything. As we saw, the transition away from that system was anything but smooth. Corrupt oligarchs stepped in and their new “western” politicians were quick to sell out their people. I would also posit that Soviet Russia was a less divided country than we are today. Can we get along at all in the event of a reset?
Even if all the factories, houses, power plants, etc are still standing and there’s no internal war, who gets to run them? Who owns them? These questions are much more difficult than we’re allowing here. We’re not going into a Kumbaya society where everything is shared, so somebody has to emerge on top. People who get to claim experience in owning/running major enterprises are likely part of the current corrupt system. It’s way too simplistic to say the 1% won’t own everything anymore.
If your scenario were true, I’d hope for collapse tomorrow. I doubt we’ll see anything orderly when it happens, plus we’ll finally get to see the fruits of the divide-and-conquer PR campaign when things get dicey.
“relative chaos” is why efficient bankruptcy procedures are essential. But any change can obviously be deemed chaotic, for some definition of such.
Slave revolts, even successful ones, are chaotic. There’s really no way around it. Still beats the heck out of remaining a slave indefinitely.
The Russians never had proper bankruptcy processes in place. Instead, all the party elites did, was transfer control of resources from themselves under cover of a nominal Party, to themselves personally. Not much in he way of change at all. And, Russians were also a comparatively poor country to begin with. Hence, less tolerant of temporary variance (chaos) before they would be carried from the table by outright starvation. As in Poker, a bigger bankroll affords one the opportunity to pursue higher variance (risk), hence higher reward, strategies profitably. Americans, despite being robbed for decades still have, compared to Russians, a bigger bankroll.
The French Revolution wasn’t exactly free from a bit of chaos, either… But you don’t have to go that far back nor away, to see benefits of shakeups. Even rather non directed, essentially random, ones. The comparative growth and “harmony” in the decades following WW2, another somewhat chaotic event, is an example much closer. And, neither the arrangements following the The French Revolution, nor Post WW2 America, were particularly well informed economically. Instead, they demonstrate that when things are as bad as they can possibly get, simply sticking it all in a mixer and randomizing it, even without direction at all, STILL results in improvements.
Ending The Fed, is in another ballpark than either of those rather arbitrary randomizations. As it is most certainly a change for the better in the underlying economic environment. Rather than just a reset of currently unsustainable built up imbalances, while leaving the underlying economic environment unchanged.
So, by ending the Fed, one gets to kill two birds with one stone: One will see a massive rising tide resulting from the improved economic environment. In addition to the benefits of unwinding decades of built up, and accelerating, theft. Making it extremely unlikely one could ever manage to end up in a position that was even worse, than the default one of continuing to stick ones head in the sand while accelerating down the road of Fed sponsored crony socialism and systemic theft, which is all that currently remains of the West.
“When everyone is blowing bubbles it is almost impossible to be the one to stop the bubble blowing”
Nope. West Germany prospered, and is still riding coattails, of a Bundesbank that kept (comparatively, at least) tight reins, despite Germany’s neighbors inflating and devaluing like crazy.
Doing the wrong thing never magically becomes right. Abandoning free market principles is never necessary, nor desirable, in order “to save free markets.” Bailing out banks are never good, in any situation whatsoever in any even theoretically possible universe, for anyone but banksters. Nor does creating a “temporary” dictatorship help set workers free in the long run. When one is doing something wrong, the right course of action is simply to cease doing it. Starting right this minute. Just walk on out of there, as Ron Paul said about ending the idiocy that is US Iraqi involvement.
Regarding the specific case corralling popular support for Brexit, you may well be right. But a population falling for that one, will never cease falling for dimbulb caudillos, even post brexit. Hence are fundamentally screwed beyond all hope of redemption anyway. The best thing one can do, is still to do the right thing. Not the wrong thing for what one claims are the “right” reasons.
Brexit is a game-changer if it happens and it will lead to many other EU countries following UK out of EU within the next 10-20 years after they see UK prospering so Brexit needs to happen as a NO deal Brexit or a Brexit deal that gives UK back all the control.
EU tries to tie UK to EU forever because the EU bureaucrats are afraid of what will happen if UK does a proper Brexit.
The goal of Germany, France and EU is to cripple UK and tie it to EU so that EU controls UK’s destiny and after 10 years of EU induced pain they can tell other EU countries that Brexit was a mistake and tell everyone that leaving EU leads to misery.
Germany and France want UK to do all the stupid decisions they have agreed to complete so the incompetency or Merkel and Macron does not show too clearly.
Prime Minister May and her ex-communist advisor Olly Robbins that negotiated May’s BrexNOT with EU’s Barnier are either incompetent enough to believe that is the only choice or intentionally trying to cripple UK.
I believe May is just an incompetent doofus and Olly Robbins is either incompetent like communists usually are or he is intentionally trying to cripple UK from his May advisor and brexit negotiator position to advance communist/Socialist rubbish in the UK in the future.
When it comes to Germany they have used Euro to devalue their currency massively compared to where it would be as a DeutchMark and Germany also got a captive marketplace in the Euro area where all Euro countries are less efficient than German manufacturing therefore removing the currency buffer from those countries via Euro and then getting German exports and German economy humming all the while Germany let ECB essentially finance a huge debt spending orgy in Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and all other Euro countries have continually increased their debt levels both for government and consumers and companies.
Euro has created a huge debt bubble at every level and led to massive mal-investment and huge false demand.
JL, anyone… do you know the answer to this:
Are there two “vote of no confidence” procedures? One by the entire parliament and one from within like threatened now or does only the party in power get to request one? Is there a case where the entire parliament votes? Some of the wording I have seen is so conflicting. I am not sure I understand the rules.
This too is confusing
So is this
The last time a sitting Prime Minister lost a vote of no confidence was in 1979 when Labour leader James Callaghan lost by one vote. This was a different kind of no confidence motion because it was a Commons vote on the Government rather than just a party vote on its leader.
How does a “Commons Vote happen”? Could DUP leaving the coalition trigger one?
Tories can have an internal vote of NO confidence in May among Tory MP’s and that would lead to a leadership election inside Tories where they would pick two or more candidates from among them and then vote on who will be the new leader and this new leader would become the new Prime Minister.
The Tory vote on May’s confidence will be triggered when 48 Tory MP’s have submitted letters of no confidence to the Chair of the 1922 Committee Sir Graham Brady.
Then once the vote of confidence happens more than 50% of all Tory MP’s need to vote that they have NO confidence in May for her to be removed.
If more than 50% vote they still have confidence in May she gets immunity from another vote of no confidence procedure for a year and stays as Prime Minister and Conservative leader.
If more than 50% Tory MP’s vote that they have no confidence in May the membership will pick candidates to be the new leader and then there will be a vote and the winner will become the new leader and will also become the Prime Minister.
Most likely there will be two candidates since May ended up the Prime minister before because Brexit supporters had so many candidates the last time they sabotaged each other so if Brexiteers have any sense they will have just one candidate and another will be a more moderate May type person.
May is ineligible to take part in this election.
The Commons aka UK Parliament vote of no confidence is a separate procedure and that is about whether the government has confidence of parliament.
In a parliament vote of no confidence DUP essentially controls whether Tories stay in government or not since May called early elections some time ago because polls were favorable and she wanted a bigger majority but May lost the majority Tories had in parliament because May ran a dreadful and incompetent campaign because her then advisors were incompetent and Tory election program promised cutbacks so Labour ended up winning more seats and Tories were made a minority and can only get a majority with the help of DUP.
If government loses vote of confidence in parliament there will be new elections.
Then there is also a vote on the May Brexit deal and on this DUP have promised to vote against, Tory Brexiteers will vote against and Scottish nationalists have told they will vote against and Labour will also vote against despite some waffling from Corbyn who just revealed he actually voted to Remain despite his brother earlier claiming he voted for Brexit.
As JL1 says, there are 2 types of no confidence vote: a vote by MPs of the current government saying they no longer have confidence in the Prime Minister personally, and want to choose another person; and a vote of no confidence by all MPs saying they no longer have confidence in the government, and want a new general election.
What’s going on now is an attempt by Tory (Conservative Party) MPs to replace Teresa May with another Tory MP, who would be a better negotiator. It’s dangerous because a failed no confidence vote would give her immunity from another vote for 12 months, which is beyond the BREXIT date. It would also make it easier for all MPs to try for a no confidence vote against the government, which the Tories might well lose, making the self-described socialist leader of the opposition party (Labour) the new prime minister.
Unfortunately, Jacob Rees-Mogg doesn’t want to be prime minister, let alone president. It does appear that politicians who seek executive roles not only face libel, fraud and personal threats, but so do their families – and JRM has six children.
He is also a very productive family man since he has 6 kids.
Only minus Rees-Mogg has is that he is completely against abortion since he is a catholic and for the same reason of being a catholic he is a bit iffy when it comes to LGBT rights.
However he has said he would not try to change abortion legistlation in the UK because he thinks most people support abortion legistlation as is.
When it comes to politicians knowing what they are talking about the crazy socialist Labour leader Corbyn just admitted he has NOT read the whole 585 page monstrosity that is the May Brexit deal and the UK press is slamming Corbyn for that.
Maybe UK Press should ask Prime Minister May whether she has read the 585 page deal?
I am 100% sure that May herself has NOT even read the Brexit deal she let ex-communist Olly Robbins negotiate with EU bureaucrat Barnier.
Previous Brexit minister Raab that resigned at disgust toward the May Brexit deal has also told UK Media that even though he was involved in negotiations many things just appeared in the drafts that he opposed and he did not know who added them.
May needs to resign or be voted out internally by Tories and replaced with someone more competent.
Rees-Mogg is NOT against “LBTT rights.” And why is it a bad thing to be against murdering babies? Most people do not support murdering babies no matter how you pretend otherwise. Clearly most Americans now are pro-life, so get over it. Maybe you can go join a satanic group and sacrifice some babies. You’d have to join the demonrat party first.
May’s agenda the whole time was to pull a fast one. She tried and it did not work because England still has some politicians with intergrity.
Rees-Mogg opposes gay marriage in principle due to being a catholic and for many gay people the ability to get married is quite a big deal.
Rees-Mogg says it is part of religious freedom to be opposed to gay marriage if one is a catholic but has stated this opinion of his should not be a block on him holding a high office.