Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

Tromking

Arklight wrote: »

Can you help me understand how you will go out and vote for Brexit on one day as a protest against the establishment and then vote Tory the next, hoping for a government that is basically the politicised wing of corporate billionaires?


Nothing about Brexit makes any sense. It's a patchwork of ill thought through grievances and bogey men in the closet. One minute it's foreigners, the next it's American billionaires, following that it's leftie Guardian readers.


What do you lot actually want and how do you think you will get it?

I’m a Labour voting person who voted leave. Plenty of us about.

posh*spice

Tromking wrote: »

I’m a Labour voting person who voted leave. Plenty of us about.

Five threads, thousands of posts and links and Arklight still doesn't know what Brexiters want or how they think they can get it

*facepalm*

Thrugelmir

posh*spice wrote: »

Five threads, thousands of posts and links and Arklight still doesn't know what Brexiters want or how they think they can get it

Nor is the issue purely political. Circumstances create unlikely allegiences.

Herzlos

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

If not compliance, then there is no need to speak out that they believe he is trying to silence them is there?

If they're freely able to choose to comply or not, then there is no censorship, right?

No one said it was outright censorship, it's more subtle than that, I think a point you're doing your best to miss.

The universities can also refuse to comply, but that doesn't mean he's not expecting a reply and he certainly asked it with as much authority as he could abuse.

He's very specifically for a list of namesand content, with the inference that the request is from the government and not an individual.

Turns out, via 3rd party reports, that it was research that "might" become a book. So he's not even going to have to pretend to write a book to get out of this one:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41747035

TrickyTree83

Herzlos wrote: »

No one said it was outright censorship, it's more subtle than that, I think a point you're doing your best to miss.

The universities can also refuse to comply, but that doesn't mean he's not expecting a reply and he certainly asked it with as much authority as he could abuse.

He's very specifically for a list of namesand content, with the inference that the request is from the government and not an individual.

Turns out, via 3rd party reports, that it was research that "might" become a book. So he's not even going to have to pretend to write a book to get out of this one:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41747035

No, it seems to me that there's inference on your part all over the place on this one.

Inference that he has bad intentions based on... well nothing.

Inference that he's acted as the government because he sent his request on paper with a letterhead that he's entitled to use as a sitting MP whether he was in government or not.

Inference that asking for information from specific people about specific content somehow now means it's from government and not from the individual.

The claims you make are more astonishing than his, being research for a book. You're extrapolating something from this that simply isn't there, so were the academics and so were some sections of the media which is why this has all gone quiet so quickly. It's a faux pas for sure, but not by the Conservative MP who wrote the letter to begin with.

And yet... none of it is inference, as I said before it's all circumstantial conjecture. Yourself and others have condemned this man on no evidence whatsoever, I sincerely hope none of you ever have to serve on a jury, I would worry for the outcome should the defendant hold differing political views.

mrginge

ilovehouses wrote: »

The Daily Mail have stolen his book idea.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5018251/Remainer-universities-Anti-Brexit-bias-laid-bare.html

This whole issue prompts one question - should academics bring their personal views into their teaching?

What do you think ilovehouses?

Herzlos

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

No, it seems to me that there's inference on your part all over the place on this one.

I don't know; I'm basing it on the letter and the letter only.

Inference that he's acted as the government because he sent his request on paper with a letterhead that he's entitled to use as a sitting MP whether he was in government or not.

Does he use House of Commons letterheaded paper when dealing with any other personal business? Does he write to his phone company or his mum using HoC paper?

I'd get my behind kicked if I used company letterheaded paper for anything that wasn't work related.

Inference that asking for information from specific people about specific content somehow now means it's from government and not from the individual.

The fact it comes on government letterhead, with someone acting as a government representative, means it looks like it's from the government and not an individual.

The claims you make are more astonishing than his, being research for a book. You're extrapolating something from this that simply isn't there, so were the academics and so were some sections of the media which is why this has all gone quiet so quickly. It's a faux pas for sure, but not by the Conservative MP who wrote the letter to begin with.

I'm basing it on what's on the paper and what it looks like, and the fact that there's no mention of a book in it or what capacity, so the assumption is it's come on behalf of the House of Commons, as the letterhead indicates. It's only after the outrage we hear that's it's research for a possible book which just keeps opening up questions:

1. Why not say so? He'd get a better reply?
2. Why do it now? He'll get better information if he does it after we know what a Brexit is.
3. Why ask specifically about Brexit if he's interested in views on Europe?
4. Is he doing this on his own time or does he have better things to be getting on with?

I haven't said anything about his motives, other than the book story sounds like it was made up after the fact. I don't care what his motives are for, it doesn't mean this letter doesn't look as dodgy as those implicitly threatened take it to be.

Before you say "there's nothing threatening in the letter" you need to appreciate that (a) these "give me a list of people who disagree with the government and their material" never start threatening, and academics know that, and (b) there's nothing threatening about the phrase "give me your wallet" either, but it's still possible to make people feel threatened.

I really doubt he was doing it to threaten universities either; he can't be that stupid. But you have to admit that it looks bad.

So it boils down to: Is he just incompetent, arrogant or stupid?
Did he think the letter would be OK or did he genuinely not think about any fall out?

mrginge

ilovehouses wrote: »

I'd assume teachers and lecturers are bound by quality standards which require impartiality. I'd also hazard a guess that if students, parents or even MP's thought this wasn't the case there's a procedure for seeking redress.

Not that the Daily Mail have any concerns - they keep making a habit of placing mugshots of traitors on the front page.

Let's keep pretending you were prompted to ask that question by your concerns about teaching standards though.

You can pretend all you want. I don’t give a stuff about what the daily mail say.

So since you believe that quality standards should be adhered to and MPs have the right to test that, presumably you would be happy for this MP to get his list and rigorously investigate whether any such breaches had occurred?

I would rather the MP went to the appropriate regulator rather than direct, but whatever floats your boat matey.

Filo25

ilovehouses wrote: »

He's playing Brexiteers and Remoaners. His mind is already made up and he's gathering information to confirm his bias (for his book).

Lord knows how we ended up talking about quality standards in teaching - he couldn't give a jot. It's just part of the pretend narrative being used to create a smokescreen.

It's a conspiracy by the elites I tell you.

Thankfully we have normal down to earth people like Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage and Rees-Mogg to look after the interests of normal decent folk

The whole debate on bias is tiresome anyway, it has got to the stage now where any institution allowing someone to speak and hold a view different to what someone else likes is biased, apparently both left and right are utterly convinced the BBC is biased against them these days, people have become so set in their views that they find it impossible to countenance that others could have a different view for valid reasons, we are all guilty of it.

I bite myself from time to time, I still find it bizarre why anyone cares what Lord Lawson's views on climate change are, he is probably less qualified to hold meaningful views on the subject than even I am.

System

ilovehouses wrote: »

It's just part of the pretend narrative being used to create a smokescreen.

This is what I can't stand.

If the same letter had come from a pro-remain (or Staunch Remainer, to use the articles language) MP, the people defending this one to the death would be salivating on themselves in desperation to make it into a national scandal.

Bias doesn't belong in politics. It just stop politics from working.