I see that my Oxford Contemporary Jacob Rees Mogg is under intense fire from the liberal left, notably for his views on homosexuality, abortion and because he has never changed a nappie. A woman who once campaigned to lower the age of consent to 14, that is to say the niece of Lord Longford, woman of the people Harriet Harman reckons the nappie offence makes Jacob a deadbeat dad.
Jacob's views on the gays and abortion are driven by his Catholic beliefs. On abortion he believes, as does the Pope, that life begins at conception and all who have life have rights. So even if a woman is a victim of rape no abortion is permissable as the murder of one soul is never justified whatever the evil inflicted on another. It is a logical position. It is far more logical than those who say that some foetuses have a right to life while others of the same age do not.
Jacob is logical but, in my view inhumane. He would regard me as a murderer. Before my daughter Olaf was born weighing 1lb 4 oz at 26 weeks, 16 years ago my then wife was pregnant with what would been our son. Sadly we were told that he had stopped growing and was alive but would never be viable. Jacob would argue in his logical way that we should have gone to term or whenever, say 34 weeks, and given birth to a dead baby. Instead we opted to put a neede in it and my wife suffered a dead birth at 26 weeks.
I know that that loss still haunts her and me. I know when our son's "birthday" is and each July 16 I think of that awful day in UCL. But I do not regret curtailing both the suffering of my ex wife Big Nose or of our son. Jacob views what we did as murder. But I understand his logical approach to abortion as I understand his logical belief based position on homosexuality. I note that he says he would not try to change the laws to ban either which I regard as a positive since I disagree with him on both counts.
There are howls from the left that Jacob's views make him unsuitable to hold high office. I can think of other reasons for that but find it rather pleasant to see a man stand by his principles as opposed to, say, Tim Farron who caved into a liberal media wolf pack, sacrificing principles for electoral gain. Or not in the case of Mr Farron. Perhaps rather than just a small number of very rich metropolitan elitists deciding whether Rees Mogg should be elected to high office why not let the people, the electorate, decide if his principles disqualify him. Or is the idea of democracy one that the liberal elitists find just too terrifying after the Brexit vote?
Ms Harman's objection to poor Jacob was driven by her innate belief that folks like her know how other people should live their lives, that Nanny State and its operatives can intrude into the family unit. Mr Rees Mogg seems to have an agreement with his good Mrs that she bears the kids and - with a nanny - looks after them. Mr Rees Mogg does his bit by inheriting vast amounts of cash and making a good whack himself.
In the Harman household, Harriet had the carreer in politics while her hubbie had to wait until the great feminist got him a seat which had previously been reserved for a women only short list. Mr Harman, aka Jack Dromey, presumably changed lots of nappies in the early years but in later life kept himself busy favouriting gay porn tweets. Jacob would not lecture the Harmans on how to make their marriage work or how to live as man and wife becuase he accepts that is decision for individuals not the nanny state.
There are many deadbeat dads in Britain. Those who fail to provide for their offspring leaving it to the welfare state and who, in many cases, provide no male role model cause real problems for society in a way that - as a father - Mr Rees Mogg clearly does not. Surely even Ms Harman recognises that?