Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Bubbles on July 04, 2016, 09:31:30 AM
-
Perhaps you know.
Why did Michael Gove stab Boris Johnson in the back because he put himself forward for leadership? ( newspapers)
Ok I can see Boris wouldn't be supported by him, but why did Boris then stop his bid for leadership?
Couldn't they both have run for it?
I keep thinking I've missed something because the papers keep on about Michael Gove's treachery and I'm not totally sure why it caused Boris to resign his bid.
Perhaps someone here can explain it.
Because I've asked people around me, and actually they don't really know either.
So what has Michael Gove actually done, that is so awful?
The papers are strong in condemnation but don't explain.
Everyone seems against him, but no one seems to be able to explain it rationally when pushed.
I would have thought any MP who thought he could do the job would be entitled to put himself forward.
I don't get it.
-
Perhaps you know.
Why did Michael Gove stab Boris Johnson in the back because he put himself forward for leadership?
Ok I can see Boris wouldn't be supported by him, but why did Boris then stop his bid for leadership?
Couldn't they both have run for it?
I keep thinking I've missed something because the papers keep on about Michael Gove's treachery and I'm not totally sure why it caused Boris to resign his bid.
Perhaps someone here can explain it.
Because I've asked people around me, and actually they don't really know either.
So what has Michael Gove actually done, that is so awful?
Everyone seems against him, but no one seems to be able to explain it rationally when pushed.
I would have thought any MP who thought he could do the job would be entitled to put himself forward.
I guess the point was that the 'plan' was for Johnson to stand and Gove not too. Gove then knifed Johnson, but at that point there was still no indication that Gove was going to stand - so effectively Gove's actions appeared to be one of 'saving' the country from appointing a PM who wasn't up to the job, rather than removing a rival.
Then he surprisingly announced he was standing. I think that is the crux of it.
-
So what has Michael Gove actually done, that is so awful?
Exist?
-
Ok thanks Prof, although I'm not sure that explains the hatred the papers are whipping up about him.
I was reading one where Boris Johnsons sister said some really awful things about Gove.(either the mail or the sun ).
It got me wondering about what he had really done, and was it deserving of the stuff being dumped on his head.
It's the same with Jeremy Corbyn, he's too left wing for me, but I don't see him as awful either, other than his stubbornness is a bit of a fiasco and it's not in the countries best interest right now. Any other time it would just be funny.
The media seems to be demonising individuals again, I am starting to feel some sympathy for the underdog.
Can't help it.
If I can't totally see what someone has done or a very good reason, I start feeling sorry for them.
I feel the media have an agenda sometimes, and I don't trust them.
Bringing Boris Johnsons sister in on it, to pour more nastiness on Mr Gove's head was OTT IMO.
-
Exist?
That's the problem.
I feel I am being told to hate him by the media and I can't see it's justified.
But then before this I hadn't heard much about him.
-
That's the problem.
I feel I am being told to hate him by the media and I can't see it's justified.
But then before this I hadn't heard much about him.
Personally, I have always found him fairly loathsome, but over recent days and weeks he has excelled himself. I would quite like never to hear the name again.
-
I saw a recent speech of his, and found him fairly scary, as he seemed quite zealous, talking about a burning desire to transform Britain, and so on. No.
-
The media seems to be demonising individuals again, I am starting to feel some sympathy for the underdog.
Can't help it.
If I can't totally see what someone has done or a very good reason, I start feeling sorry for them.
I feel the media have an agenda sometimes, and I don't trust them.
Bringing Boris Johnsons sister in on it, to pour more nastiness on Mr Gove's head was OTT IMO.
Character assassination seems part of the game in politics,especially when it's about leadership. Do you vote for an 'underdog' or a 'top dog' for leader?
-
That's the problem.
I feel I am being told to hate him by the media and I can't see it's justified.
But then before this I hadn't heard much about him.
All you need to do is ask a teacher (or even a reasonably well informed student) and you'll begin to understand why there is such animosity towards him.
I think what we are seeing now is a case of 'gloves off' - he effectively destroyed Johnson's leadership bid, presumably by being prepared to reveal behind closed doors details that indicted him not to be fit for the job. Having done this it is hardly surprising that others, particularly Johnson supporters, are likely to do the same in return. Hence the relegations about Gove being unable to keep his mouth shut after he has had a few drinks.
-
Character assassination seems part of the game in politics,especially when it's about leadership. Do you vote for an 'underdog' or a 'top dog' for leader?
If Boris and Gove annihilate each other in a blast of hot air, to me that would be a good outcome.
-
I saw a recent speech of his, and found him fairly scary, as he seemed quite zealous, talking about a burning desire to transform Britain, and so on. No.
I think that is at the heart of the problem.
He is dogmatic and a zealot - he doesn't really seem to understand pragmatism nor the need to take advice (hence his views on 'experts').
So at education he effectively steamrolled the profession into the most significant changes in decades, but without the support of either the teaching profession, nor educational experts. His endless tinkering at at whim has just been exhausting, particularly when you need to gradually bring in changes to the curriculum over years, or you end up with kids lurching from the 'old world' to the 'new world' but without appropriate preparation (not their fault).
Sadly I've got kids who are the guinea pigs for the Gove revolution, and it ain't pretty. A couple of years ago my eldest was making decisions about GCSE options and the school, quite reasonably, wanted to ensure we had the most up to date information. So with so many changes they delayed sending out the info until 5 days before the parents' choices meeting. At the meeting the teachers announced that in the last 5 days there had been 3 major changes in the proposed curriculum, including one that very morning. The teachers were very professional, but clearly exasperated, wanting the best for the kids, but dealing with constantly moving goal-posts.
And a week later one of the main changes was then scrapped.
One of the big changes I think is absolute non-sense is getting rid of AS levels - effectively forcing kids to sit all their A-level exam (that count) at the end of the whole 2 year course. Why?!? It is nonsense and certainly doesn't prepare them for University where (at most) exams are at the end of each year, indeed many universities examine a module at the end of that semester.
-
If Boris and Gove annihilate each other in a blast of hot air, to me that would be a good outcome.
Encouraging this could well be a ploy of those who support an alternative leader. In 'Games people play' it's called .... let you and him fight.
-
Gove is a backstabbing piece of slime. Why didn't he stand without pretending to Boris he was supporting his bid for the leadership?
-
Oh seriously, it looks to me as though Boris backed out easily enough. I'm sure he realised he wasn't up to being the leader. Being Mayor of London is one thing, he could carry that off, but potentially PM? Never. I would think Boris is quite relieved.
I don't like Gove one bit but can't see that he is doing anything wrong by putting himself up for leader. I doubt he'll get the job.
-
Of course he did something wrong by pretending to support Boris, then hanging him out to dry!
-
Once again you have only scanned the post above yours.
What makes you think he "pretended" to support Boris?
He did support Boris. Boris is no longer standing so what's the problem? You can't tell me Boris did not want to get out of it.
-
Once again you have only scanned the post above yours.
What makes you think he "pretended" to support Boris?
He did support Boris. Boris is no longer standing so what's the problem? You can't tell me Boris did not want to get out of it.
Hadn't you heard many posters on this forum know exactly what motivates others, if you don't agree you are "insane".
We have "Sass facts" and "Floo facts".
-
I think that is at the heart of the problem.
He is dogmatic and a zealot - he doesn't really seem to understand pragmatism nor the need to take advice (hence his views on 'experts').
Gah I hate defending Tories but when the spin, lies and dog whistles start I have to step in.
He didn't feel the need to listen to expert with regards to Brexit, because these "experts" had been so wrong in the past. That doesn't mean he would never listen to an expert.
Not sure on his record on education there are other views:-
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/03/the-teachers-who-quietly-miss-michael-gove/
-
Hadn't you heard many posters on this forum know exactly what motivates others, if you don't agree you are "insane".
We have "Sass facts" and "Floo facts".
Well, Sass is on gardening leave at present so cannot speak up for herself. Floo might think differently or at least consider there is another pov, if she read others' posts properly.
I don't like Gove and I know he messed up as Secretary of State for Education, which some still hold against him and is fair enough, but I don't think he either stabbed Mr Johnson in the back or is wrong to stand for party leadership now, with not much chance of being elected. If that makes me insane, so what.
-
Gah I hate defending Tories but when the spin, lies and dog whistles start I have to step in.
He didn't feel the need to listen to expert with regards to Brexit, because these "experts" had been so wrong in the past. That doesn't mean he would never listen to an expert.
He didn't feel that we needed to listen to the experts because, almost to a person they were telling us that Brexit would be a disaster. Let's not pretend there is any other reason.
Experts don't always get it right but they are more likely to be correct than the Vote Leave shower, another of whom, I note, has just run away from the mess he helped create.
Not sure on his record on education there are other views:-
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/03/the-teachers-who-quietly-miss-michael-gove/
My mother, an ex-teacher and school governor seems to think he did OK except that he managed to attract the hatred of nearly everybody in the teaching profession.
-
He didn't feel that we needed to listen to the experts because, almost to a person they were telling us that Brexit would be a disaster. Let's not pretend there is any other reason.
He explained why he didn't listen to these experts in this case but Jeremy with his mind reading skills has corrected us all.
-
He explained why he didn't listen to these experts in this case but Jeremy with his mind reading skills has corrected us all.
He said it was because they had been wrong in the past, but it seems fairly obviously the real reason was because the answers that they were giving didn't suit his plan.
-
He explained why he didn't listen to these experts in this case but Jeremy with his mind reading skills has corrected us all.
Oh come on, that was just his excuse for ignoring people who actually know what they are talking about.
Doctors don't always get it right but when you are ill do you go to a doctor or Nigel Farage? Scientists don't always get it right but would you trust Deepak Chopra or Brian Cox on quantum mechanics?
-
From what I've read (mostly in the Times) Johnson effectively knifed himself by not concentrating on the job in hand.
Gove had arranged a deal whereby Leadson was to back Johnson and have a senior cabinet post if he won, but Johnson did not manage to give her the confirmation she wanted in time. She decided to stand herself. This caused Gove to rethink his support of Johnson.
Essentially, Gove was working on getting backing for Johnson to win against May, but Johnson was useless at communicating with this "team", offering the same jobs to multiple people and so on. Gove decided that he would not be competent at managing them as leader. When he decided to stand most of those he had recruited switched to back him, leaving Johnson without enough support to continue.
-
Exist?
exactly! I gather his wife is a writer of unpleasant articles in the Daily Mail, and gossip has it that Gove gossips , etc. Actually, I cannot think of a single redeeming feature of the ghastly gove! :)
-
From what I've read (mostly in the Times) Johnson effectively knifed himself by not concentrating on the job in hand.
Gove had arranged a deal whereby Leadson was to back Johnson and have a senior cabinet post if he won, but Johnson did not manage to give her the confirmation she wanted in time. She decided to stand herself. This caused Gove to rethink his support of Johnson.
Essentially, Gove was working on getting backing for Johnson to win against May, but Johnson was useless at communicating with this "team", offering the same jobs to multiple people and so on. Gove decided that he would not be competent at managing them as leader. When he decided to stand most of those he had recruited switched to back him, leaving Johnson without enough support to continue.
There is something quite poetic in that description :)
P.S. Rather reminiscent of:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66cxc9emQgY
http://www.metrolyrics.com/paddys-sick-note-lyrics-dubliners.html
-
Oh come on, that was just his excuse for ignoring people who actually know what they are talking about.
Doctors don't always get it right but when you are ill do you go to a doctor or Nigel Farage? Scientists don't always get it right but would you trust Deepak Chopra or Brian Cox on quantum mechanics?
Economics isn't a science. Experts said Belgium would beat Wales but what do you know they didn't.
These experts were wrong on the ERM, the Euro, a track record of being wrong, perfectly rational to discount their views.
-
Economics isn't a science. Experts said Belgium would beat Wales but what do you know they didn't.
These experts were wrong on the ERM, the Euro, a track record of being wrong, perfectly rational to discount their views.
Then why does Andrea make such a deal about being an expert Banker?.....and why should we trust her.
Gordon Brown was right on the Euro. Vote leave said lots of things and were proved wrong.
I never thought anyone would take Spike Milligan when he said
don't have a plan that way nothing can go wrong but what did Brextwit go and do?
-
Economics isn't a science. Experts said Belgium would beat Wales but what do you know they didn't.
These experts were wrong on the ERM, the Euro, a track record of being wrong, perfectly rational to discount their views.
And of course, all the experts turned out to be quite wrong about effect of Brexit on the Pound and Stock Market didn't they . . . . . . ::)
-
Stock market is doing good
-
Economics isn't a science. Experts said Belgium would beat Wales but what do you know they didn't.
These experts were wrong on the ERM, the Euro, a track record of being wrong, perfectly rational to discount their views.
bookmaking isn't a science. I take it you think you can there is no expertise there?
-
Economics isn't a science.
Nobody said it was. Neither is medicine as it happens.
Experts said Belgium would beat Wales but what do you know they didn't.
This is not a game of football.
These experts were wrong on the ERM, the Euro, a track record of being wrong, perfectly rational to discount their views.
All of them? I hardly think so.
-
Nobody said it was. Neither is medicine as it happens.
This is not a game of football.
All of them? I hardly think so.
Mind-reading isn't a science either, I'm telling you why I discounted their views, for much the same reasons as Gove, your mind reading skills tell me we did it for different reasons.
-
There is something quite poetic in that description :)
P.S. Rather reminiscent of:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66cxc9emQgY
http://www.metrolyrics.com/paddys-sick-note-lyrics-dubliners.html
See that Boris is now trying to climb up again - on Leadsom's back ;D
-
Mind-reading isn't a science either, I'm telling you why I discounted their views, for much the same reasons as Gove, your mind reading skills tell me we did it for different reasons.
so medicine and mind reading are equivalents for you? The approach you are taking is very reminiscent of Hope's use of relativism. If experts are to bee ignored in non scientific fields like medicine and economics , what is your methodology for working out what is correct?
-
so medicine and mind reading are equivalents for you? The approach you are taking is very reminiscent of Hope's use of relativism. If experts are to bee ignored in non scientific fields like medicine and economics , what is your methodology for working out what is correct?
Track record, if they made wrong predictions about negative effects of the ERM / Euro then we can be more skeptical of the predictions of about leaving the EU.
Not that this is really what is debated, Gove states he discounted a view from some organisations on an issue because of their track record. Davey asserts Gove didn't discount their view for reasons stated but for other reasons, he can't possibly know that unless he is able to read minds.
-
Track record, if they made wrong predictions about negative effects of the ERM / Euro then we can be more skeptical of the predictions of about leaving the EU.
Not that this is really what is debated, Gove states he discounted a view from some organisations on an issue because of their track record. Davey asserts Gove didn't discount their view for reasons stated but for other reasons, he can't possibly know that unless he is able to read minds.
So you had analysed the track record of all the experts quoted over a large number of predictions looking at whether they were better than average, and therefore aren't saying as Gove did that we don't need experts but that we need better experts? And having done that analysis you will be able to say who these better experts.
-
Track record, if they made wrong predictions about negative effects of the ERM / Euro then we can be more skeptical of the predictions of about leaving the EU.
Not that this is really what is debated, Gove states he discounted a view from some organisations on an issue because of their track record. Davey asserts Gove didn't discount their view for reasons stated but for other reasons, he can't possibly know that unless he is able to read minds.
Wrong Gove said we've had enough of experts - not just organisations that might have made some wrong calls in the past, but experts in general.
And you are wrong certainly on the Euro - don't forget that one of the key reasons why we didn't proceed with joining the Euro was opposition from the Treasury. So if joining the Euro would, with hindsight, have been the wrong decision then the Treasury called this absolutely right. So why was Gove dismissing the Treasury's view on Brexit then if he was only pointing to organisations that got it wrong in the past.
The reality is that the experts were pretty well unanimous, and opposed to Gove's view - hence he tried to make the case that we should dismiss experts.
But anyhow we are now in a period where we can see whether the experts or Gove (it will be all sunny and lovely) is right. So far looks like the experts have it. Indeed all of the predictions of what would happen immediately post-brexit are indeed happening. They were right all along.
-
Wrong Gove said we've had enough of experts - not just organisations that might have made some wrong calls in the past, but experts in general.
Citation? I don't think this is correct.
And you are wrong certainly on the Euro - don't forget that one of the key reasons why we didn't proceed with joining the Euro was opposition from the Treasury. So if joining the Euro would, with hindsight, have been the wrong decision then the Treasury called this absolutely right. So why was Gove dismissing the Treasury's view on Brexit then if he was only pointing to organisations that got it wrong in the past.
I think he discounted the views in a Sky interview and did not mention the treasury.
The reality is that the experts were pretty well unanimous, and opposed to Gove's view - hence he tried to make the case that we should dismiss experts.
Not really e.g. Digby Jones is an expert.
But anyhow we are now in a period where we can see whether the experts or Gove (it will be all sunny and lovely) is right. So far looks like the experts have it. Indeed all of the predictions of what would happen immediately post-brexit are indeed happening. They were right all along.
Too early to tell, don't forget all your experts stated that by 2030 we would be better off than we re now if we left the EU.
-
So you had analysed the track record of all the experts quoted over a large number of predictions looking at whether they were better than average, and therefore aren't saying as Gove did that we don't need experts but that we need better experts? And having done that analysis you will be able to say who these better experts.
You can use analysis I'll use mine I'm sure we would disagree. What would be incorrect would be for me to claim you didn't do any analysis but discounted their views for other reasons other than your analysis.
-
You can use analysis I'll use mine I'm sure we would disagree. What would be incorrect would be for me to claim you didn't do any analysis but discounted their views for other reasons other than your analysis.
Why would we disagree if the analysis was done well? Again is this how you approach medicine?
-
Citation? I don't think this is correct.
The direct quote on an question and answer session was:
“the people of this country have had enough of experts”
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2016/jun/08/experts-eu-referendum-michael-gove
No indication that some but not all organisations might have got things wrong in the past, but that we shouldn't be listening to experts.
Not really e.g. Digby Jones is an expert.
Please read what I said, which was that 'the reality is that the experts were pretty well unanimous' - I didn't say they were unanimous, therefore you will get the occasional dissenting voice, just like you get climate change deniers. That Digby Jones is in a tiny minority does not negate the fact that the vast, vast majority of economic experts and independent economic organisations agree with each other - that Brexit would be bad in both the short term and in the longer term - the difference being the magnitude of that hit to the economy. And we are of course seeing there predictions coming true right before our very eyes.
Too early to tell, don't forget all your experts stated that by 2030 we would be better off than we re now if we left the EU.
Oh no - back onto your irrelevant mantra - the issue is whether we will be better off remaining compared to leaving. And we are already becoming pretty clear about the short term answer to that as the economy is nosediving, with Carney doing everything he can to prevent a full on crash.
-
I'm telling you why I discounted their views, for much the same reasons as Gove
Which were totally irrational.
-
The direct quote on an question and answer session was:
“the people of this country have had enough of experts”
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2016/jun/08/experts-eu-referendum-michael-gove
No indication that some but not all organisations might have got things wrong in the past, but that we shouldn't be listening to experts.
All cite the same debate:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43G0Hou_CKw
Clearly he is not saying 'we should ignore experts in every field every-time' which is what your posts suggest.
Please read what I said, which was that 'the reality is that the experts were pretty well unanimous' - I didn't say they were unanimous, therefore you will get the occasional dissenting voice, just like you get climate change deniers. That Digby Jones is in a tiny minority does not negate the fact that the vast, vast majority of economic experts and independent economic organisations agree with each other - that Brexit would be bad in both the short term and in the longer term - the difference being the magnitude of that hit to the economy. And we are of course seeing there predictions coming true right before our very eyes.
Yes lets not go over it again.
Oh no - back onto your irrelevant mantra - the issue is whether we will be better off remaining compared to leaving. And we are already becoming pretty clear about the short term answer to that as the economy is nosediving, with Carney doing everything he can to prevent a full on crash.
Its not irrelevant, I'm discounting the views of the experts not dismissing them. If all the experts had said we would be worse off than we are now by 2030 if we had left the EU then I might have changed my view.
-
Why would we disagree if the analysis was done well? Again is this how you approach medicine?
Its impossible to do analysis in economics as well as we can do it in other disciplines. All of these organisations you cite have a neo-liberal agenda are you a neo-liberal?
-
Citation? I don't think this is correct.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3be49734-29cb-11e6-83e4-abc22d5d108c.html#axzz4DXRkQtTC
Not really e.g. Digby Jones is an expert.
What at?
Too early to tell, don't forget all your experts stated that by 2030 we would be better off than we re now if we left the EU.
But not as well off as we would have been if we had stayed in.
However, right now, our economy looks to be in for a brutal shock (just as the experts predicted) and people living now will suffer. If you can't feed your family today, the sunny uplands of 2030 look a very long way away.
-
Its impossible to do analysis in economics as well as we can do it in other disciplines. All of these organisations you cite have a neo-liberal agenda are you a neo-liberal?
Depends on the discipline but so what? Given that you think there are experts and they need not be ignored a la Gove, why are you so unwilling to tell me your analysis of who to trust?
What organisations did I cite?
-
But anyhow we are now in a period where we can see whether the experts or Gove (it will be all sunny and lovely) is right. So far looks like the experts have it. Indeed all of the predictions of what would happen immediately post-brexit are indeed happening. They were right all along.
Agree, as usual. I have already written to my MP asking what he, personally, is going to do and received a rather bland response, but I shall be writing again asking him for a link to any plan that he and other outers think they should follow.
-
I guess the point was that the 'plan' was for Johnson to stand and Gove not too. Gove then knifed Johnson, but at that point there was still no indication that Gove was going to stand - so effectively Gove's actions appeared to be one of 'saving' the country from appointing a PM who wasn't up to the job, rather than removing a rival.
Then he surprisingly announced he was standing. I think that is the crux of it.
Except that the announcement of his standing was what is referred to as the knifing, PD. As for the thread title, what he did wrong was to indicate what an incredibly untrustworthy and therefore inappropriate person he is for the job. I'm hoping that the result of the Tory Party vote will have him with the fewest votes this first time round.
-
Depends on the discipline but so what? Given that you think there are experts and they need not be ignored a la Gove, why are you so unwilling to tell me your analysis of who to trust?
What organisations did I cite?
Never said experts need to be ignored, I discount their evidence for reasons already given, the predictions on previous issues similar to Brexit.
Never claimed you mentioned organisations I presumed you meant what Davey has previously cited.
-
Never said experts need to be ignored, I discount their evidence for reasons already given, the predictions on previous issues similar to Brexit.
The FT polled over a hundred economic experts. Mor than 70% said leaving the EU would damage the economy and only 7% said that we would be better off by leaving the EU.
Do you discount the evidence of more than 70 economic experts? In your answer bear in mind that their predictions seem to be coming true right now.
-
Never said experts need to be ignored, I discount their evidence for reasons already given, the predictions on previous issues similar to Brexit.
Never claimed you mentioned organisations I presumed you meant what Davey has previously cited.
My post doesn't state you did say experts could be ignored. Indeed it specifically contrasts up your position to Gove's.
As to the second part here is post in reply to me.
'Its impossible to do analysis in economics as well as we can do it in other disciplines. All of these organisations you cite have a neo-liberal agenda are you a neo-liberal?'
So which organisations did I cite?
-
My post doesn't state you did say experts could be ignored. Indeed it specifically contrasts up your position to Gove's.
As to the second part here is post in reply to me.
'Its impossible to do analysis in economics as well as we can do it in other disciplines. All of these organisations you cite have a neo-liberal agenda are you a neo-liberal?'
So which organisations did I cite?
I'm lost, Davey claimed that Gove didn't discount various studies based on his own analysis but based on dogma. He also posted in such a way that suggested that Gove has a position in which all experts should be ignored which misrepresents Gove's position.
-
I'm lost, Davey claimed that Gove didn't discount various studies based on his own analysis but based on dogma. He also posted in such a way that suggested that Gove has a position in which all experts should be ignored which misrepresents Gove's position.
Why are you talking about Prof Davey's posts when it was in reply t me you talked about the organisations I had cited?
-
He also posted in such a way that suggested that Gove has a position in which all experts should be ignored which misrepresents Gove's position.
Gove said that the British public had had enough of experts. Can you explain to me how that is not implying that all experts should be ignored?
-
Gove said that the British public had had enough of experts. Can you explain to me how that is not implying that all experts should be ignored?
You seriously think he was suggesting that all experts should be ignored all of the time?
-
You seriously think he was suggesting that all experts should be ignored all of the time?
He was, to my mind, clearly indicating that experts on economic matters making their opinions known on the likely effect of brexit on the economy should be ignored. And of course the reason being that he didn't like what they were saying and the predictions they were making, which, by the way are already looking pretty accurate.
But his dismissal is also, in my view, dangerous as it provides a kind of take it or leave it view to experts, evidence and data - accept if it backs up your opinion, reject if it doesn't. As a scientist that deeply worries me, expert opinion, evidence and data should be used to inform decisions, not to justify decisions already taken.
-
You seriously think he was suggesting that all experts should be ignored all of the time?
What do you think he was suggesting?
-
You seriously think he was suggesting that all experts should be ignored all of the time?
I think it was a sound-bite that served his purpose at the time.
-
He was, to my mind, clearly indicating that experts on economic matters making their opinions known on the likely effect of brexit on the economy should be ignored.
Yep make sure you let Jeremy know.
And of course the reason being that he didn't like what they were saying and the predictions they were making, which, by the way are already looking pretty accurate.
So you know his reasons over than his stated reasons, mind reading still?
But his dismissal is also, in my view, dangerous as it provides a kind of take it or leave it view to experts, evidence and data - accept if it backs up your opinion, reject if it doesn't. As a scientist that deeply worries me, expert opinion, evidence and data should be used to inform decisions, not to justify decisions already taken.
I think people should be free to make their own minds, he stated why he discounted their views in this case, Galileo did much the same.
-
So you know his reasons over than his stated reasons, mind reading still?
Do you seriously think that were it that case that pretty well all economics experts had said that brexit would be great for the economy that he'd have been claiming that we've had enough of experts Jakswan?
Come on sometimes you really do need to get into the real world.
-
Do you seriously think that were it that case that pretty well all economics experts had said that brexit would be great for the economy that he'd have been claiming that we've had enough of experts Jakswan?
Come on sometimes you really do need to get into the real world.
I do not know, do you seriously think if most econdmic experts were preciting Brexit Cameron, you, most Bremainers would be claiming he had enough of experts?
-
I do not know, do you seriously think if most econdmic experts were preciting Brexit Cameron, you, most Bremainers would be claiming he had enough of experts?
That, of course, assumes that most Remainers wanted to remain for the sake of remaining, jaks. On the other hand, I was open to persuasion, even though I would have to say that I have been on the Remain side of centre ever since the idea of a referendum was mooted. I have long felt that the EU is seriously flawed, but I have also long felt that change is more likely with the UK in the club; but had the experts come out in enough force to explain what the benefits of an exit would be, I'd have been happy to voted the other way to what I did.
-
You seriously think he was suggesting that all experts should be ignored all of the time?
No I don't. I seriously think he was suggesting that we should ignore the experts that were telling us he was wrong all of the time.
I'm sure, if he could find an expert that agreed with him, he would be extolling that expert's virtues no matter what their record on the ERM or the banking collapse was.
-
I do not know, do you seriously think if most econdmic experts were preciting Brexit Cameron, you, most Bremainers would be claiming he had enough of experts?
I think, if the experts had been predicting that Britain's economy would benefit from leaving the EU, there would have been far fewer Bremainers.
-
No I don't. I seriously think he was suggesting that we should ignore the experts that were telling us he was wrong all of the time.
I'm sure, if he could find an expert that agreed with him, he would be extolling that expert's virtues no matter what their record on the ERM or the banking collapse was.
As I pointed out in #58 it was just a short snappy way of discarding the obvious truth - i.e.' a sound bite'