The Politics Thread

[Guest MattP]

3 minutes ago, Darkon84 said:

Good God, what an absolute train wreck. If you're going to make outrageous claims about hate speech, and then agree to go on national television, you should damn well be able to explain yourself, not sit there, looking like a chubby JC, mumbling on about absolutely nothing, especially when you've not even seen the speech and only read a DRAFT of it. As usual, with these soft, offense-taking types, he's shot down by facts. I'd hope such a respected establishment as Oxford would be ashamed and take him to one side, but given how Universities are now, they'll probably give him a raise and a plaque!

It's the students who you expect to be the complete nutters in these places, not the old professors. It's shame they couldn't have kept him on a bit longer, I would have loved to have seen him get his spade out for the Theresa May claims he had.

 

His Twitter timeline is worth a read as well, naturally, he think all leave voters are Nazi's. (Come to think of it, is that hate speech? I might call the police)

[Nick]

4 minutes ago, Darkon84 said:

 

Good God, what an absolute train wreck. If you're going to make outrageous claims about hate speech, and then agree to go on national television, you should damn well be able to explain yourself, not sit there, looking like a chubby JC, mumbling on about absolutely nothing, especially when you've not even seen the speech and only read a DRAFT of it. As usual, with these soft, offense-taking types, he's shot down by facts. I'd hope such a respected establishment as Oxford would be ashamed and take him to one side, but given how Universities are now, they'll probably give him a raise and a plaque!

No.

 

They'll be as embarrassed as fuck.

 

They'll be asking why a Physics Professor with clearly limited ability to articulate, judge, research and express Socio-Political discourse used his title of 'Professor' whilst appearing on National Television to represent his thoughts on matters in a fashion more akin to a hobby, rather than a field of academia for which his title is bestowed upon him.

 

Seriously.

[Darkon84]

 

9 minutes ago, MattP said:

It's the students who you expect to be the complete nutters in these places, not the old professors. It's shame they couldn't have kept him on a bit longer, I would have loved to have seen him get his spade out for the Theresa May claims he had.

 

His Twitter timeline is worth a read as well, naturally, he think all leave voters are Nazi's. (Come to think of it, is that hate speech? I might call the police)

Generally speaking it does tend to be the students, but the growing trend seems to be that a lot of these professors are accommodating them by either coming out with their old 70's style communist views, or changing their views to be in line and then encourage such behaviours.

That certainly sounds like hate speech to me! I hope your feelings haven't been hurt  

 

 

6 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

No.

 

They'll be as embarrassed as fuck.

 

They'll be asking why a Physics Professor with clearly limited ability to articulate, judge, research and express Socio-Political discourse used his title of 'Professor' whilst appearing on National Television to represent his thoughts on matters in a fashion more akin to a hobby, rather than a field of academia for which his title is bestowed upon him.

 

Seriously.

Of course, I wasn't being totally serious, but I still doubt he'll get the dressing down he should. If they were as embarrassed as that, I'm sure they would have found a way to prevent this episode from

a) Getting out in the first place, &

b) Allowing him to parade on TV and muddy their name.

[Nick]

1 minute ago, Darkon84 said:

 

Generally speaking it does tend to be the students, but the growing trend seems to be that a lot of these professors are accommodating them by either coming out with their old 70's style communist views, or changing their views to be in line and then encourage such behaviours.

That certainly sounds like hate speech to me! I hope your feelings haven't been hurt  

 

 

Of course, I wasn't being totally serious, but I still doubt he'll get the dressing down he should. If they were as embarrassed as that, I'm sure they would have found a way to prevent this episode from

a) Getting out in the first place, &

b) Allowing him to parade on TV and muddy their name.

 

They'll prevent future episodes but they just probably would have not known he was going on tv nor particularly had the contractual power to prevent him doing so. I'm pretty sure he'll have been in a Vice Chancellors office at some point following that interview for a discussion of some kind. Once the University have worked out that he probably hasn't done anything wrong in terms of his contractual employment they'll be writing new policy and reviewing professorial roles, responsibilities and conditions. 

 

 

 

[Darkon84]

7 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

 

They'll prevent future episodes but they just probably would have not known he was going on tv nor particularly had the contractual power to prevent him doing so. I'm pretty sure he'll have been in a Vice Chancellors office at some point following that interview for a discussion of some kind. Once the University have worked out that he probably hasn't done anything wrong in terms of his contractual employment they'll be writing new policy and reviewing professorial roles, responsibilities and conditions. 

 

 

 

 

Well I'd imagine there's usually a contract clause regarding bringing your employer in to disrepute, which this would fall under (in my opinion anyway), so I still think they should have been alerted and responded to something like a TV interview happening. Anyway, that's all just rubbish anyway and doesn't really matter. The main thing I hope we can all agree on is that he's a bit of a plonker and should keep his daft views to himself and away from the students.

[Nick]

1 minute ago, Darkon84 said:

 

Well I'd imagine there's usually a contract clause regarding bringing your employer in to disrepute, which this would fall under (in my opinion anyway), so I still think they should have been alerted and responded to something like a TV interview happening. Anyway, that's all just rubbish anyway and doesn't really matter. The main thing I hope we can all agree on is that he's a bit of a plonker and should keep his daft views to himself and away from the students.

Yeah there is but this wouldn't qualify as gross misconduct... (Lets say I'm quite familiar with academia, contracts, employment law, media appearances & training etc)

 

The fella is very well respected in his field of physics, I'm just not quite sure why he took the interview! 

 

His hobby in relation to his remarks around Xenophobic comments, Nationalism, Immigration and EU stuff arguably have a degree of validity worthy of discussion when framed in the right context but certainly not in the fashion and using the instances which he attempted to represent these concerns.

[Darkon84]

7 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

Yeah there is but this wouldn't qualify as gross misconduct... (Lets say I'm quite familiar with academia, contracts, employment law, media appearances & training etc)

 

The fella is very well respected in his field of physics, I'm just not quite sure why he took the interview! 

 

His hobby in relation to his remarks around Xenophobic comments, Nationalism, Immigration and EU stuff arguably have a degree of validity worthy of discussion when framed in the right context but certainly not in the fashion and using the instances which he attempted to represent these concerns.

 

Haha I shall bow down to your superior knowledge on the subject then (toned jokingly rather than pisstaking btw).

 

Exactly, which makes things even more odd that he took the interview and turned up seemingly totally unprepared.

 

Everyone's opinion is worth of discussion, but if that's what he takes an interest in, and if he's going to make such claims, he had best be prepared to back himself up, which he couldn't even come close to doing. Ah well. It was a bit of a laugh to watch the clip and he rightly got put in his place. It'll all be forgotten by tomorrow no doubt anyway

[Webbo]

3 hours ago, MattP said:

The guy who reported it was on the Daily Politics an hour ago, absolutely hilarious trying to hear him defend it, he ended up admitting he hadn't even heard the speech and then went onto claim that Theresa May was going to expel all foreign doctors.

 

Actually a professor at Oxford as well

 

 

And he's an Oxford professor? Ffs.

[Nick]

2 minutes ago, Webbo said:

And he's an Oxford professor? Ffs.

In Physics - not politics

[Nick]

4 hours ago, Line-X said:

Excellent post.

 

The notion of privatisation involves the relentless and remorseless pursuit of profit but in an idealised sense, it is also instituted with the intention of engendering competition and supposedly assure enhanced quality and efficiency all in the interest of the consumer. The rail network is a farce whereby vast tracts of the network have been tendered out to monopolised interests which are neither adequately coordinated or operationally acceptable. Whilst in many cases the rift between union and franchise continues to grow, the commuter is the ultimate victim. Since privatisation rail fares have risen by 25% on average with some walk on tarrifs on selected routes disproportionately hiked by 245%. Despite this, the funding model of privatised rail is complete fiction. The costs of running a public rail network is not covered by the fares alone - so the government subsidises the operating companies which is not sustainable. also, when it comes to 'subsidies' what goes in one end often comes straight out of the other. I read that on the West Coast Mainline - which is considerably cheaper than East Midlands trains, since the start of the millennia Virgin Trains paid out a total of £500m in dividends having received £25m in subsidies. The sustainable alternative is to reunify the system, standardise the fares - as each franchise expires return it to the public.

 

'Revolting' on BBC2 is the best satire I've seen on TV since Brass Eye or Monkey Dust. It savages Southern Rail and brilliantly lampoons the usual obligatory clowns lining up in the Public Services private bidding processes such as G4s.

Good post.

 

Downloading Revolting on catch up now!

 

Thanks for that - I also liked Brass Eye and The Thick Of It especially - looking forward to watching it.

[Guest MattP]

It doesn't matter though, you expect someone who works at a place like that to be able to debate a current affairs issue without bungling through a sentence, making stuff up or making themselves look so ridiculous they embarrass their employer.

 

I imagine university professors to be clinical thinkers, engaging in exciting debate whatever they teach, not calling the police because a politician say something they think is cruel.

 

I'm starting to wonder if the students are the ones to blame for the safe spaces. 

[Guest MattP]

Revolting is brilliant as well, same guys who did The revolution will be televised, which is also well worth a watch.

 

It's just a shame one of them went on This Week and made a tit of themselves.

[Barky]

Professors are basically students anyway aren't they? The only difference between the average professor and a student is that the professor has read the old text book so many times he can stand and regurgitate it at the front of a classroom.

[Nick]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

It doesn't matter though, you expect someone who works at a place like that to be able to debate a current affairs issue without bungling through a sentence, making stuff up or making themselves look so ridiculous they embarrass their employer.

 

I imagine university professors to be clinical thinkers, engaging in exciting debate whatever they teach, not calling the police because a politician say something they think is cruel.

 

I'm starting to wonder if the students are the ones to blame for the safe spaces. 

 

And in the main they are. But lets not pass this example off as somehow representative eh?

 

1 hour ago, Barky said:

Professors are basically students anyway aren't they? The only difference between the average professor and a student is that the professor has read the old text book so many times he can stand and regurgitate it at the front of a classroom.

 

Well no, not really that's pretty much ignorance on a stick.

[Webbo]

Tristram Hunt resigns his seat.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/13/tristram-hunt-quits-labour-mp-triggering-by-election-brexit/

[Innovindil]

8 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Tristram Hunt resigns his seat.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/13/tristram-hunt-quits-labour-mp-triggering-by-election-brexit/

Going to be interesting to see who gets this seat in all honesty.

[Alf Bentley]

42 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Tristram Hunt resigns his seat.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/13/tristram-hunt-quits-labour-mp-triggering-by-election-brexit/

 

He might be a bit of a toff, but that's a big loss for Labour.

 

Can't blame him, though - Director of the Victoria & Albert Museum must be a lot more appealing to a historian (or anyone, frankly) than toiling away under an incompetent leader you don't believe in.

 

I'm sure UKIP will be licking their lips at this one. I wonder if Paul Nuttall might stand himself? Not too far from his Liverpool roots...

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

Tristram Hunt resigns his seat.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/13/tristram-hunt-quits-labour-mp-triggering-by-election-brexit/

Big loss, potential future leader gone from the party ranks. The longer Corbyn remains as leader the more talent Labour loses, it's at the point now where it will better for them long term if they lose by-elections like this and Copeland.

 

The Tory and UKIP vote combined in this seat would have beaten Labour's, they'll need that vote to split again to hold here, if Tories defect to UKIP to give Labour a kicking they could lose this.

[Webbo]

7 minutes ago, MattP said:

Big loss, potential future leader gone from the party ranks. The longer Corbyn remains as leader the more talent Labour loses, it's at the point now where it will better for them long term if they lose by-elections like this and Copeland.

 

The Tory and UKIP vote combined in this seat would have beaten Labour's, they'll need that vote to split again to hold here, if Tories defect to UKIP to give Labour a kicking they could lose this.

There were only 33 votes between UKIP and the conservatives last time. Which side would you tactically vote for? Both sides could be hoping for other side to vote for them

[Guest MattP]

8 minutes ago, Webbo said:

There were only 33 votes between UKIP and the conservatives last time. Which side would you tactically vote for? Both sides could be hoping for other side to vote for them

In Stoke you have to go UKIP, it's not a seat the Tories can win, working class voters who a lot will still never vote Conservative.

[ousefox]

18 hours ago, Barky said:

Professors are basically students anyway aren't they? The only difference between the average professor and a student is that the professor has read the old text book so many times he can stand and regurgitate it at the front of a classroom.

I've read some shite on this forum and this is up there with some of the worst. 

[Alf Bentley]

9 minutes ago, Webbo said:

There were only 33 votes between UKIP and the conservatives last time. Which side would you tactically vote for? Both sides could be hoping for other side to vote for them

 

That could be what saves Labour here, it being a 3-horse race with 2 of the horses on the right (the problem that the left often faces in 3-way Lab/Lib Dem/Tory seats).

 

I'd have thought that UKIP stand more chance of winning than the Tories. Their support will have ebbed a bit since the general election, but they'll be much more likely to attract defectors from Labour if they run a strong campaign, based on Brexit & government failures on living standards, the NHS or whatever.

 

I suppose the Tories could pull off a shock win if a lot of Labour voters stay at home or defect to UKIP, but not enough for UKIP to win after the recent decline in its support after the Brexit vote & UKIP leadership fiascos. 

[Nick]

It depends who stands for it - it'll remain a Labour seat I'd of thought.

 

 

[Guest MattP]

Bookies have it as we predict really.

 

Labour 4/7

UKIP 3/1

Liberals 10/1

Tories 14/1

 

They think the Tories come fourth, no reason for any Conservative in this seat to be voting for them, their vote may collapse in the same way Labour's did in Richmond Park, expect this to be as tactical as that one.

[Strokes]

16 minutes ago, MattP said:

Bookies have it as we predict really.

 

Labour 4/7

UKIP 3/1

Liberals 10/1

Tories 14/1

 

They think the Tories come fourth, no reason for any Conservative in this seat to be voting for them, their vote may collapse in the same way Labour's did in Richmond Park, expect this to be as tactical as that one.

The lib dems got 21% in 2010, if they have been forgiven for cosying up to the tories, they could be dark horses for this.