By Kelly Grehan
Hearing Jacob Rees-Mogg this week brought back memories of my youth in the 1990s when Tory MPs often saw fit to take up moralising. There was John Redwood‘s condemnation of “young women [who] have babies with no apparent intention of even trying marriage or a stable relationship with the father of the child,” Peter Lilley‘s description of single mothers as “benefit-driven” and “undeserving” and of course then Prime Minister John Major’s ill fated ‘Back To Basics’ campaign in which he declared the Conservative Party as the Party of morality. Of course, in the years that followed the Major government became synonymous with scandal as Tory MPs, too numerous to mention were outed for affairs and Major himself was revealed to have had a four year affair with Edwina Currie.
So , keeping with Tory tradition, Rees-Mogg, who once wrote an article in The Telegraph in defence of zero-hours contracts, is against foreign aid and who wishes to see the Human Rights Act abolished, this week gave his thoughts on abortion, a right won by women in this country in 1968, saying
“The Catholic Church’s teachings are authoritative. There is a moral absolute on abortion — that it is wrong. To take a life after a rape is not the answer. Life begins at the point of conception. One can only feel compassion for a woman in these situations — which, of course are rare — but it’s hard to see how taking a child’s life makes them better.’
He, having voted against equal marriage, voiced his continued opposition to it. Maybe he has not noticed that the sky has not fallen in since the fight for lgbt rights was won.
Asked whether he would attend a wedding ceremony where both participants were of the same sex he replied ‘ It’s not for me to enforce my morals on others.’ I find this very odd, as if marrying the person you love and want to spend your life with has some sort of moral or immoral connotation. You know what I see as being morally indefensible? Voting for policies that encourage poverty, poor health, social division Rees-Mogg’s voting record shows he has no interest in policies supporting better lives for children or families. For example he has
- consistently voted against against paying higher benefits over longer periods for those unable to work due to illness or disability
- voted for the bedroom tax, against spending public money to create guaranteed jobs for young people who have spent a long time unemployed
- voted against a law to make private vehicles smoke-free if a child is present
- voted against calling on the Government to ensure women and protected groups are not disproportionately impacted by tax and benefit changes and against publication of a gender equality strategy to improve the position of women,
- voted for ending financial support for some 16-19 year olds in training and further education
-I could go on.
Another thing I find immoral is people bringing children into this world and being dis-interested in bringing them up!
Rees-Mogg this week admitted he said he is not a “modern man” and had never changed a nappy, despite being a father of 6. In response, former Deputy Labour Leader Harriet Harman, referred to him as a ‘deadbeat dad.’
Some may see Mogg’s children who attend the same £14,000 a year school Prince Charles attended as very privileged. The nanny they have is the same one who raised Rees-Mogg before he went to Eton. Isn’t it odd that those of lower status who admit to not taking care of their own children, (and I do not mean when they are at work) are held up on various ‘poverty porn’ TV shows for ridicule, but wealthy people who absolve themselves of providing care for their own children are seen as ‘eccentric?’ I can just imagine the view some of the tory MPs would take of a mother of 6, maybe working a low paid job, maybe with rent arrears who had six children and said she could not change their nappies!
Strangely different rules seem to apply to the rich.