Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Lord Kinnock for starters. Despite being a lifetime critic of the lords he happily accepted a peerage after his time as an EU commissioner. So of course he’s going to shill for the EU. I’m sure his pensions depend on it.

That is just your supposition. Do you have any actual evidence that;

1. Kinnock actually opposes the EU in secret.
2. Kinnock's pension depends on not criticising the EU.

Kinnock doesn't even need an EU pension. He's got an MP's pension and a £200 a day attendance allowance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
UK voters furious after turned away from the polling station under new trial Voter ID laws.

This is going to be the next gak storm to hit the government.

Sorry, I broke the swear filter again.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That is just your supposition. Do you have any actual evidence that;

1. Kinnock actually opposes the EU in secret.
2. Kinnock's pension depends on not criticising the EU.

Kinnock doesn't even need an EU pension. He's got an MP's pension and a £200 a day attendance allowance.

1. He’s definitely against Brexit.
2. Mandelson’s depends on his loyality. I’m sure it’s the same for the others.

And you’re forgetting that for politicians, there’s never enough money for them. Ever. There’s a reason why they’re depicted as pigs at the trough.

Mandelson may have a conflict of interest but your link isn't clear about what he can do.

Even assuming you're right on those 2, what about the other 399 Lords to get you to "most"?

Christ I give up. I’m not going to go through 399 members of the house.

UK to lobby for tougher action against Russia

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/03/revealed-uk-push-to-strengthen-anti-russia-alliance

And once gain, the UK conducts foreign policy on the back of a beermat. This is horsegak, kamikaze. I do not understand the rational behind this.

We don't trade with Russia. We don't border with Russia. And we don't have any ex-colonial disputes with Russia.

The Cold War is over. Or am I wrong?

The rational behind this is Russian involvement in Ukraine and Syria. I am no Putin fan, the man is a tyrant, but Ukraine borders with Russia, and Syria is a long term ally of Russia.

Putin's involvement in these two nations makes perfect sense.

What territorial interest the UK has in Ukraine in beyond me. It's not a NATO ally, and we certainly don't have any EU links with them (putting Brexit aside here for a moment)

I cannot understand why we invite Russia's problems into London and stick our noses into nations that are not in our sphere of interest.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That is just your supposition. Do you have any actual evidence that;

1. Kinnock actually opposes the EU in secret.
2. Kinnock's pension depends on not criticising the EU.

Kinnock doesn't even need an EU pension. He's got an MP's pension and a £200 a day attendance allowance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
UK voters furious after turned away from the polling station under new trial Voter ID laws.

This is going to be the next gak storm to hit the government.

Sorry, I broke the swear filter again.

The whole Kinnock family is up to their necks in EU cash.

I feel ashamed for ever having voted for Labour whilst he was party leader.

Utter hypocrite of a man.

The Cold War never ended. Not for the West. We needed to hang on to the bogeyman of Russia.

"We are going to do a terrible thing to you--we are going to deprive you of an enemy."-Georgi Arbatov

That's fair enough. You weren't the one to claim that most Lords worked for the EU and were forced to support them for their pensions. But that was obvious nonsense from DINLT.

This article reckons that "over 20" Lords have worked for the EU in some capacity, thus might have some conflict related to pensions (which is about right given a £550k individual pension pot and a £10m total). Assuming they genuinely can't vote against the EU, which doesn't seem the case. It sounds like they just aren't allowed to slag off the EU using their position to add weight to it.

So we've got maybe 20 Lords out of 800 (or 754 depending on the source), which is 2% (or 2.6%) of the Lords with a conflict of interest. That's barely any.

Herzlos wrote:
That's fair enough. You weren't the one to claim that most Lords worked for the EU and were forced to support them for their pensions. But that was obvious nonsense from DINLT.

This article reckons that "over 20" Lords have worked for the EU in some capacity, thus might have some conflict related to pensions (which is about right given a £550k individual pension pot and a £10m total). Assuming they genuinely can't vote against the EU, which doesn't seem the case. It sounds like they just aren't allowed to slag off the EU using their position to add weight to it.

So we've got maybe 20 Lords out of 800 (or 754 depending on the source), which is 2% (or 2.6%) of the Lords with a conflict of interest. That's barely any.

That's still a 5th column in my book, 2% or not.

The Lords should have been chased out of London decades ago with a horse whip

Herzlos wrote:
That's fair enough. You weren't the one to claim that most Lords worked for the EU and were forced to support them for their pensions. But that was obvious nonsense from DINLT.

This article reckons that "over 20" Lords have worked for the EU in some capacity, thus might have some conflict related to pensions (which is about right given a £550k individual pension pot and a £10m total). Assuming they genuinely can't vote against the EU, which doesn't seem the case. It sounds like they just aren't allowed to slag off the EU using their position to add weight to it.

Exactly. They're entitled to criticise the EU as much as they like, and their pension is safe.

There are plenty of instances of former commissioners criticising EU decisions and structure. Kroes for example has been extremely critical of the Apple ruling, and Durao Barroso didn't take very well criticism from his former colleagues from taking a cushy job at Goldman Sachs (the ethics document for commissioners was updated precisely because of him).

All the rules say is this:

After ceasing to hold office, former Members shall continue to be bound by their duty of integrity and discretion pursuant to Article 245 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. They shall continue to be bound by the duties of collegiality and discretion, as laid down in Article 5, with respect to the Commission's decisions and activities during their term of office.

Which for the most part means that they shouldn't be too overt in their lobbying efforts once they land that high-paying job at a major bank, pharma or big energy company.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

That's still a 5th column in my book, 2% or not.

But there isn't, and even if there was, at 2% they are swaying nothing,

The Lords should have been chased out of London decades ago with a horse whip

Because they keep getting in the way of your beloved Brexit?

Fom my perspective, whilst I don't like how they are selected, they seem to be doing a pretty good job of stopping the government doing anything too stupid or damaging to individuals rights.

Was the Voter ID thing made law with an Act of Parliament? If not is it not illegal to deny the franchise to voters? Are records being kept (which will obviously be made public) of how many people are turned away and exactly who they are so we can properly measure the impact? (If this is a trial, surely that is the point?)

There is a vanishingly tiny amount of electoral fraud in the UK. It seems obvious this policy is designed to disenfranchise the young and the poor, and therefore benefit the Tories.

If there is not a scandal over this, there bloody well should be.

Edit: Also, I always found it very rich to hear British people complaining about the democratic deficit in the EU when you have this gigantic unelected second house, an unelected head of state and a Prime Minister who is chosen by his/her party after only being voted in by people in his/her constituency by merit of being the leader of the biggest party in the Commons (ie. almost the same way Junker was selected).

 Da Boss wrote:
Was the Voter ID thing made law with an Act of Parliament? If not is it not illegal to deny the franchise to voters? Are records being kept (which will obviously be made public) of how many people are turned away and exactly who they are so we can properly measure the impact? (If this is a trial, surely that is the point?)

There is a vanishingly tiny amount of electoral fraud in the UK. It seems obvious this policy is designed to disenfranchise the young and the poor, and therefore benefit the Tories.

If there is not a scandal over this, there bloody well should be.

This has been gone one for some time with the Tories. They previously changed how people were registered (effectively to rely on self registration) which was shown to vastly affect the younger generation as they are more mobile. They are then proposing to use only the registered voters as the basis for new electoral boundaries. All of a sudden a lot of city centralised residents suddenly disappear off the system when choosing boundaries and putting more weight on those rural areas where voter registration is higher (and also tends to be more Torycentric).

The number of cases of electoral fraud are actually tiny. Yet we have a quote saying a small percent of people got turned away. If we assume 2.5% then that equates to, across the country, 1 million people being denied a vote at a GE. It's staggering that they could introduce such a system when the number of fraud cases is in the hundreds.

Edit: Also, I always found it very rich to hear British people complaining about the democratic deficit in the EU when you have this gigantic unelected second house, an unelected head of state and a Prime Minister who is chosen by his/her party after only being voted in by people in his/her constituency by merit of being the leader of the biggest party in the Commons (ie. almost the same way Junker was selected).

You will find that. I've also heard people complaining that they might have to pay for Visa's in the future to go to Europe and they are losing their freedom to move around as they wish, whilst at the same time complaining that they don't want other people in the EU to have that freedom...

 Da Boss wrote:
Was the Voter ID thing made law with an Act of Parliament? If not is it not illegal to deny the franchise to voters? Are records being kept (which will obviously be made public) of how many people are turned away and exactly who they are so we can properly measure the impact? (If this is a trial, surely that is the point?)

There is a vanishingly tiny amount of electoral fraud in the UK. It seems obvious this policy is designed to disenfranchise the young and the poor, and therefore benefit the Tories.

If there is not a scandal over this, there bloody well should be...

I couldn't agree more. It's a blatant attempt to dissuade the poor and young from voting. Those least likely to have ID. Where is the evidence that election fraud has been committed on such a scale that this is seen to be necessary?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
That's fair enough. You weren't the one to claim that most Lords worked for the EU and were forced to support them for their pensions. But that was obvious nonsense from DINLT.

This article reckons that "over 20" Lords have worked for the EU in some capacity, thus might have some conflict related to pensions (which is about right given a £550k individual pension pot and a £10m total). Assuming they genuinely can't vote against the EU, which doesn't seem the case. It sounds like they just aren't allowed to slag off the EU using their position to add weight to it.

So we've got maybe 20 Lords out of 800 (or 754 depending on the source), which is 2% (or 2.6%) of the Lords with a conflict of interest. That's barely any.

That's still a 5th column in my book, 2% or not.

The Lords should have been chased out of London decades ago with a horse whip

What do you call the ERG then?
Almost the very definition of a shadowy, unaccountable and insidious organisation within attemoting to undermine and overthrow the government.

Are statistics being recorded of the numbers of people who are being turned away and thus unable to vote?

That is a good question. I hope the answer is yes, because what the hell sort of "trial" is it otherwise!

 Da Boss wrote:
That is a good question. I hope the answer is yes, because what the hell sort of "trial" is it otherwise!

A trial with a politically motivated goal and where the numbers are so broad it is effectively meaningless but can be put across as a success.

I’m sure many will claim it’s a Con victory having gained seats, but I can’t help seeing the huge losses for UKIP not going to the Tory’s as a big Tory loss. Lab and Lib have both made huge gains. Surely these huge UKIP losses against a background of claims we are looking at Brexit in name only from the right can only be taken as a sign of people questioning our leaving the EU?

I dunno. I think if Labour can't take more seats off of a clearly incompetent and scandal wracked conservative party who are damaging the country, they have a serious problem. And I say that as someone who has defended Corbyn here before.

Did most of UKIP’s vote go to Tories? Could be tactical voting. As gak as she is, if you want brexit then I imagine that May is your only real option.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5684887/Minister-bans-student-trend-censoring-controversial-speakers.html

And with one fell swoop, Sam Gyimah has saved academics and our universities' integrity. And to those who see the daily mail as the font of all evil, this is a report, not an opinion piece, so don't get your knickers in a twist clicking the link.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5684887/Minister-bans-student-trend-censoring-controversial-speakers.html

And with one fell swoop, Sam Gyimah has saved academics and our universities' integrity. And to those who see the daily mail as the font of all evil, this is a report, not an opinion piece, so don't get your knickers in a twist clicking the link.

Finally, some balls.

There's really bigger problems at UK universities than students getting overexcited about speakers.
VC wages skyrocketing, tuition fees going through the rough, ongoing marketisation, casualisation of the academic workforce...
But sure, good that the minister is dealing with the important issues.

We'll see whether the daily mail feels the same way when a university hosts someone with extreme islamic views.

 Da Boss wrote:
There's really bigger problems at UK universities than students getting overexcited about speakers.
VC wages skyrocketing, tuition fees going through the rough, ongoing marketisation, casualisation of the academic workforce...
But sure, good that the minister is dealing with the important issues.

I think it really is an important issue. Why bother having universities if they don't facilitate debate and the sharing and development of ideas? They may as well be propaganda outlets otherwise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
We'll see whether the daily mail feels the same way when a university hosts someone with extreme islamic views.

It's a report. Zero opinion in the article, if you'd bothered to read it. And of course I'd be fine with that personally, what's the point of free speech if it's not actually free?

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
We'll see whether the daily mail feels the same way when a university hosts someone with extreme islamic views.

It's a report. Zero opinion in the article, if you'd bothered to read it. And of course I'd be fine with that personally, what's the point of free speech if it's not actually free?

The Daily Mail doesn't do zero opinion reporting. That you think otherwise is worrying.

Contrast the wording in the BBC report on this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-43989236

with that used in the Daily Mail article. Notice how the BBC doesn't call anyone a zealot? Nor declare a "Victory for Free Speech"?

The Daily Mail article also fails to point out that a parliamentary committee examining free speech in Universities found that there was no systematic or pervasive issue, but rather a small number of incidents being widely shared.

Funny that.

Professor Sir John Curtice's analysis of the local election results.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43976539

Extreme views need to be heard, so they can be be understood, deconstructed and publicly discredited. If you don't understand your enemy, how can you ever hope to defeat them?

I agree with you, I just think this is a manufactured outrage and there are far bigger problems in third level education in the UK.

OK, so there's the title, which isn't that much opinion, the government has taken the side of free speech, and reading through the article again, all I see is statements of events, not judgments.
And had I seen the BBC article first, as it does provide more information, I would have shared it. It just so happens I saw the daily mail one first.
Additionally, just because it is a small number of incidents, not pervasive, does not mean it is not a problem. Nor does it mean it should be allowed to continue. Mr Gyimah is entirely right to clear up the university rules regarding this in order to protect free speech.