so does that mean exiting in march with a deal is possible? I'd written it off as not enough time for bills to pass etc. might need to cover some positions with 9/1 leave on time with a deal.
I think it's a question of all the other legislation that would need to be passed after the meaningful vote.
The way Theresa May is managing this process is incredibly damaging (and wholly tone deaf). And the awfulness of Corbyn is almost certainly camouflaging the corrosive nature of this.
She has effectively appointed herself the sole arbiter of understanding what Brexit "means" in practice - and is holding the country ransom to that effect, whatever the consequences.
I am almost beyond the point of where I was before (in the sense of never voting Tory again if they engineer a no deal Brexit). I am thinking that I don't want to vote for clowns almost irrespective now. Clearly I won't vote for Corbyn either. And I suspect I won't be alone.....
So it's interesting that we've been seeing quite a few people here with this sentiment, but Tory support in the polling is stubbornly high. I wonder if this is a high-information vs low-information difference, or whether despite the apparent stability in the topline figures there's actually a lot of churn with competence-motivated Tories deserting them while (some group not on pb much) comes in to replace them.
I think Tottenham is absolutely right that it is only the prospect of a Corbyn Government that is staving of a Tory collapse. I think if almost anyone else was leading Labour they would have a 10 or 15 point lead.
That sounds plausible to me but the other dog that hasn't barked is that I don't think we're seeing polling saying, "If Labour was led by [Cooper / Starmer / Benn] they would be x% ahead". I mean, I haven't seen polling to the contrary, but if the support was there you'd think somebody would pay for the polling to prove it.
True. I am surprised no one is asking that question.
so does that mean exiting in march with a deal is possible? I'd written it off as not enough time for bills to pass etc. might need to cover some positions with 9/1 leave on time with a deal.
I think it's a question of all the other legislation that would need to be passed after the meaningful vote.
thanks, that was my thinking. so/but what are they saying can now be rushed through so we exit on time then?
Mrs May is clearly going to engineer a last gasp Deal or No Deal decision for MPs.
Labour have made their 'compromise offer' knowing that she cannot and will not go for it. This gives them a solid alibi for No Deal. If she takes us over the cliff there will be little ambiguity as to where the blame lies - the Tories. It could also collapse the government as the Grieve types defect.
If she squeaks the Deal through, fine, because this too could collapse the government courtesy of the DUP.
If she fails to get the deal through but chickens out of No Deal (as she almost certainly will) what then? Revocation? Great, rips the Tories apart, probably collapses the government. Second Referendum? Ditto if it has Remain on it, which it will probably have to in order to get approved.
And if she does what I think her true fallback plan is - calls a 'back me or sack me' snap election - absolutely fantastic. Offer Re-neg + Ref2 in the Labour manifesto and a good chance of sweeping to power.
Yes, Labour are in a fantastic place. About the only thing they could do to pluck defeat from the jaws of victory is give in to the pressure to back a Ref2 now. They need to make sure that the ONLY way a Ref (and thus Remain) can happen is via the election of a Labour government.
You have to be a truely loyal party supporter to deem labour are in a 'fantastic place' in view of all the evidence including sustained polling collapse with 3 of the last 4 polls on 34%, a leader who is blanking a large part of his mps and members desire for a second referendum, supports Maduro against most everybody apart from Russia and China, and is deeply implicated in his party's antisemitism
But loyalty is to be admired to be fair, no matter the cause
But it is all relative is it not? I am no Corbynite but am quite clear that his polling position is nothing like as dire as in the February - April 2017 period. May,however, is so much weaker and vulnerable.
You rely too much on the events in 2017 when so much has changed and his polling is falling day by day
As far as TM is concerned if she gets a deal through (and I still expect she will ) the relief across the country should give her a boost and give her the opportunity to invite a leadership contest over the summer with a new leader in place for September.
Events may disrupt this but I believe that post a deal she needs to move on if for nothing else than her own health and peace of mind. I cannot even start to understand how she has stood against so much opposition but pursued a course she believed in, right or wrong
It seems the academic in Liverpool lost his job for the following.
His former employer, the University of Liverpool told the Jewish Chronicle that “Dr. Alex Scott-Samuel is no longer employed by the University.” This is following his appearance on the Richie Allen Show in February 2017, Dr Scott-Samuel was introduced as a senior lecturer at the University of Liverpool.* He told the audience that “The Rothschild family are behind a lot of the neo-liberal influence in the UK and the US. You only have to google them to look at this.”
I am not sure I am particularly comfortable with people being sacked if this is the full extent of what he said.
I would disagree strongly with his views and his politics but to be sacked for them is outrageous. I don't know what, if anything, this says about our universities in general but the University of Liverpool specifically should be ashamed and I hope he takes them to the cleaners.
Richard - people who express views like that very rarely do so once.
But such views, even though thoroughly distasteful, should not result in him losing his job.
In general I agree.
In this particular instance he hasn't presented himself as a private individual with personal views, but as a university academic, to gain more credence for his personal views on the basis of the employment he holds. In that circumstance I don't think it's unreasonable for the University to refuse to associate with him by terminating his employment, as by presenting himself in such a way he is also representing his employer.
The distinction I am drawing is quite fine and I'm not entirely comfortable with it, but I think it is there.
The way Theresa May is managing this process is incredibly damaging (and wholly tone deaf). And the awfulness of Corbyn is almost certainly camouflaging the corrosive nature of this.
She has effectively appointed herself the sole arbiter of understanding what Brexit "means" in practice - and is holding the country ransom to that effect, whatever the consequences.
I am almost beyond the point of where I was before (in the sense of never voting Tory again if they engineer a no deal Brexit). I am thinking that I don't want to vote for clowns almost irrespective now. Clearly I won't vote for Corbyn either. And I suspect I won't be alone.....
So it's interesting that we've been seeing quite a few people here with this sentiment, but Tory support in the polling is stubbornly high. I wonder if this is a high-information vs low-information difference, or whether despite the apparent stability in the topline figures there's actually a lot of churn with competence-motivated Tories deserting them while (some group not on pb much) comes in to replace them.
I think Tottenham is absolutely right that it is only the prospect of a Corbyn Government that is staving of a Tory collapse. I think if almost anyone else was leading Labour they would have a 10 or 15 point lead.
That sounds plausible to me but the other dog that hasn't barked is that I don't think we're seeing polling saying, "If Labour was led by [Cooper / Starmer / Benn] they would be x% ahead". I mean, I haven't seen polling to the contrary, but if the support was there you'd think somebody would pay for the polling to prove it.
You're sounding too much like @HYUFD! The fatal flaw in polling about hypothetical leaders is that the electoral appeal of a party is based on a complex combination of the personal image of the leader, the team he or she appoints, whether or not he or she can inspire unity in the party, the general political positioning, the specific policies, the organisational skills of the core team, and the sheer political effectiveness in putting across the whole platform and stuffing the other side. All of that depends crucially on the party leader, but the hypothetical polling only really measures the first of those, and that unreliably.
Sure, I'm not saying you should bet the ranch on hypotheticals, but if there's really an avalanche of voters appauled by the Tories who can't wait to swing but for Corbyn that sounds like the kind of thing that should show up.
It seems the academic in Liverpool lost his job for the following.
His former employer, the University of Liverpool told the Jewish Chronicle that “Dr. Alex Scott-Samuel is no longer employed by the University.” This is following his appearance on the Richie Allen Show in February 2017, Dr Scott-Samuel was introduced as a senior lecturer at the University of Liverpool.* He told the audience that “The Rothschild family are behind a lot of the neo-liberal influence in the UK and the US. You only have to google them to look at this.”
I am not sure I am particularly comfortable with people being sacked if this is the full extent of what he said.
I would disagree strongly with his views and his politics but to be sacked for them is outrageous. I don't know what, if anything, this says about our universities in general but the University of Liverpool specifically should be ashamed and I hope he takes them to the cleaners.
Richard - people who express views like that very rarely do so once.
But such views, even though thoroughly distasteful, should not result in him losing his job.
In general I agree.
In this particular instance he hasn't presented himself as a private individual with personal views, but as a university academic, to gain more credence for his personal views on the basis of the employment he holds. In that circumstance I don't think it's unreasonable for the University to refuse to associate with him by terminating his employment, as by presenting himself in such a way he is also representing his employer.
The distinction I am drawing is quite fine and I'm not entirely comfortable with it, but I think it is there.
I suppose it is these sorts of cases that tribunals were designed for...
That sounds plausible to me but the other dog that hasn't barked is that I don't think we're seeing polling saying, "If Labour was led by [Cooper / Starmer / Benn] they would be x% ahead". I mean, I haven't seen polling to the contrary, but if the support was there you'd think somebody would pay for the polling to prove it.
You're sounding too much like @HYUFD! The fatal flaw in polling about hypothetical leaders is that the electoral appeal of a party is based on a complex combination of the personal image of the leader, the team he or she appoints, whether or not he or she can inspire unity in the party, the general political positioning, the specific policies, the organisational skills of the core team, and the sheer political effectiveness in putting across the whole platform and stuffing the other side. All of that depends crucially on the party leader, but the hypothetical polling only really measures the first of those, and that unreliably.
I think EiT's point was more about why more Labour leadership contenders aren't on manoeuvres, rather than any belief in hypothetical polling as a construct.
It's an interesting idea. Starmer in particular should be making much more of his time in the limelight, if he harboured genuine leadership ambition. Possibly they all feel too nervous of upsetting the members by perceived disloyalty, and are in a holding pattern until there's a vacancy.
It seems the academic in Liverpool lost his job for the following.
His former employer, the University of Liverpool told the Jewish Chronicle that “Dr. Alex Scott-Samuel is no longer employed by the University.” This is following his appearance on the Richie Allen Show in February 2017, Dr Scott-Samuel was introduced as a senior lecturer at the University of Liverpool.* He told the audience that “The Rothschild family are behind a lot of the neo-liberal influence in the UK and the US. You only have to google them to look at this.”
I am not sure I am particularly comfortable with people being sacked if this is the full extent of what he said.
I would disagree strongly with his views and his politics but to be sacked for them is outrageous. I don't know what, if anything, this says about our universities in general but the University of Liverpool specifically should be ashamed and I hope he takes them to the cleaners.
Richard - people who express views like that very rarely do so once.
But such views, even though thoroughly distasteful, should not result in him losing his job.
In general I agree.
In this particular instance he hasn't presented himself as a private individual with personal views, but as a university academic, to gain more credence for his personal views on the basis of the employment he holds. In that circumstance I don't think it's unreasonable for the University to refuse to associate with him by terminating his employment, as by presenting himself in such a way he is also representing his employer.
The distinction I am drawing is quite fine and I'm not entirely comfortable with it, but I think it is there.
I suppose it is these sorts of cases that tribunals were designed for...
It seems the academic in Liverpool lost his job for the following.
His former employer, the University of Liverpool told the Jewish Chronicle that “Dr. Alex Scott-Samuel is no longer employed by the University.” This is following his appearance on the Richie Allen Show in February 2017, Dr Scott-Samuel was introduced as a senior lecturer at the University of Liverpool.* He told the audience that “The Rothschild family are behind a lot of the neo-liberal influence in the UK and the US. You only have to google them to look at this.”
I am not sure I am particularly comfortable with people being sacked if this is the full extent of what he said.
I would disagree strongly with his views and his politics but to be sacked for them is outrageous. I don't know what, if anything, this says about our universities in general but the University of Liverpool specifically should be ashamed and I hope he takes them to the cleaners.
Richard - people who express views like that very rarely do so once.
But such views, even though thoroughly distasteful, should not result in him losing his job.
In general I agree.
In this particular instance he hasn't presented himself as a private individual with personal views, but as a university academic, to gain more credence for his personal views on the basis of the employment he holds. In that circumstance I don't think it's unreasonable for the University to refuse to associate with him by terminating his employment, as by presenting himself in such a way he is also representing his employer.
The distinction I am drawing is quite fine and I'm not entirely comfortable with it, but I think it is there.
I suppose it is these sorts of cases that tribunals were designed for...
The question really becomes whether or not he has brought his employer into disrepute. The case being openly discussed on internet forums provides some (fairly weak) evidence in favour.
Mrs May is clearly going to engineer a last gasp Deal or No Deal decision for MPs.
Labour have made their 'compromise offer' knowing that she cannot and will not go for it. This gives them a solid alibi for No Deal. If she takes us over the cliff there will be little ambiguity as to where the blame lies - the Tories. It could also collapse the government as the Grieve types defect.
Yes, Labour are in a fantastic place. About the only thing they could do to pluck defeat from the jaws of victory is give in to the pressure to back a Ref2 now. They need to make sure that the ONLY way a Ref (and thus Remain) can happen is via the election of a Labour government.
But it is all relative is it not? I am no Corbynite but am quite clear that his polling position is nothing like as dire as in the February - April 2017 period. May,however, is so much weaker and vulnerable.
You rely too much on the events in 2017 when so much has changed and his polling is falling day by day
As far as TM is concerned if she gets a deal through (and I still expect she will ) the relief across the country should give her a boost and give her the opportunity to invite a leadership contest over the summer with a new leader in place for September.
Events may disrupt this but I believe that post a deal she needs to move on if for nothing else than her own health and peace of mind. I cannot even start to understand how she has stood against so much opposition but pursued a course she believed in, right or wrong
I don't share your judgement on this at all and sense that Kinabalu is much closer to the mark. Labour's polling has weakened a bit recently but is far from being in freefall - indeed for reasons I mention elsewhere the polls are quite likely to be flattering the Tories given the current political environment. Back in April 2017 Yougov had Labour on 23% and there were confident predictions from some Tory supporters on this site that Labour was doomed to fall below 20% in the election campaign then beginning with every prospect of being overtaken by the LibDems as Remain voters flocked to their banner. I suggest we are nowhere near such a scenario today. I also remain firm in my view that if an election does come about this year - and I am not sure that it will - it will not prove to be a Brexit election - any more than was the case in 2017.
re the University of Liverpool losing his job thing.
It is analagous to a CEO at a shareholders' meeting giving a rundown of forecast growth, together with anticipated acquisitions and then mentioning, apropos of nothing, that he hated blacks because they were lazy, before moving onto AOB.
Not a sackable offence? Not 100% sure, regardless of the legality although I'm sure it's one flavour or another of offensive behaviour although IANAL.
re the University of Liverpool losing his job thing.
It is analagous to a CEO at a shareholders' meeting giving a rundown of forecast growth, together with anticipated acquisitions and then mentioning, apropos of nothing, that he hated blacks because they were lazy, before moving onto AOB.
Not a sackable offence? Not 100% sure, regardless of the legality although I'm sure it's one flavour or another of offensive behaviour although IANAL.
Won't the University have consulted their lawyers before doing anything drastic?
Indeed and I am complimenting Kinabalu on his loyalty
Compliments are rare so I take them where I can! And indeed I am a Labour supporter although with reservations about the current leader.
However TBF my post was to describe objectively the strength of Labour's position in the upcoming Brexit end game not the great merit of their policies. I would need a much longer one for that.
It seems the academic in Liverpool lost his job for the following.
His former employer, the University of Liverpool told the Jewish Chronicle that “Dr. Alex Scott-Samuel is no longer employed by the University.” This is following his appearance on the Richie Allen Show in February 2017, Dr Scott-Samuel was introduced as a senior lecturer at the University of Liverpool.* He told the audience that “The Rothschild family are behind a lot of the neo-liberal influence in the UK and the US. You only have to google them to look at this.”
I am not sure I am particularly comfortable with people being sacked if this is the full extent of what he said.
I'm not sure I am particularly comfortable with lecturers preaching antisemitic slurs about the "Rothschilds"
"I disagree with what you say, and therefore you should lose your job"?
In general no, absolutely not.
If what you say is your job? That's different.
If a BBC New host goes on an antisemitic rant live on the 6:00 News then would you say "well it's only something they're saying"?
OK, if what you're really saying is you think he was in breach of his contract of employment. But that's different from making people feel uncomfortable.
Indeed it is. I only used the word comfortable because that is the word FrancisUrquhart used.
He wasn't speaking as a layman he was from my understanding speaking as a Professor is a professional capacity representing the University. Most employers have terms about not bringing the employer into disrepute.
re the University of Liverpool losing his job thing.
It is analagous to a CEO at a shareholders' meeting giving a rundown of forecast growth, together with anticipated acquisitions and then mentioning, apropos of nothing, that he hated blacks because they were lazy, before moving onto AOB.
Not a sackable offence? Not 100% sure, regardless of the legality although I'm sure it's one flavour or another of offensive behaviour although IANAL.
Well not really, because the academic in question didn't make his comments during a lecture to students, or otherwise during the conduct of his job.
That sounds plausible to me but the other dog that hasn't barked is that I don't think we're seeing polling saying, "If Labour was led by [Cooper / Starmer / Benn] they would be x% ahead". I mean, I haven't seen polling to the contrary, but if the support was there you'd think somebody would pay for the polling to prove it.
You're sounding too much like @HYUFD! The fatal flaw in polling about hypothetical leaders is that the electoral appeal of a party is based on a complex combination of the personal image of the leader, the team he or she appoints, whether or not he or she can inspire unity in the party, the general political positioning, the specific policies, the organisational skills of the core team, and the sheer political effectiveness in putting across the whole platform and stuffing the other side. All of that depends crucially on the party leader, but the hypothetical polling only really measures the first of those, and that unreliably.
I think EiT's point was more about why more Labour leadership contenders aren't on manoeuvres, rather than any belief in hypothetical polling as a construct.
It's an interesting idea. Starmer in particular should be making much more of his time in the limelight, if he harboured genuine leadership ambition. Possibly they all feel too nervous of upsetting the members by perceived disloyalty, and are in a holding pattern until there's a vacancy.
It seems the academic in Liverpool lost his job for the following.
His former employer, the University of Liverpool told the Jewish Chronicle that “Dr. Alex Scott-Samuel is no longer employed by the University.” This is following his appearance on the Richie Allen Show in February 2017, Dr Scott-Samuel was introduced as a senior lecturer at the University of Liverpool.* He told the audience that “The Rothschild family are behind a lot of the neo-liberal influence in the UK and the US. You only have to google them to look at this.”
I am not sure I am particularly comfortable with people being sacked if this is the full extent of what he said.
I would disagree strongly with his views and his politics but to be sacked for them is outrageous. I don't know what, if anything, this says about our universities in general but the University of Liverpool specifically should be ashamed and I hope he takes them to the cleaners.
Richard - people who express views like that very rarely do so once.
But such views, even though thoroughly distasteful, should not result in him losing his job.
Of course they should. An employer has the right not to have it's name tainted by people with repulsive racist views, it brings them into disrepute if they tolerate it. This guy was referring to the so-called Jewish conspiracy. Anti-Semitism and other forms of racism are repulsive. It doesn't matter whether they are expressed by someone from Momentum or BNP/UKIP, it needs to be called out for what it is. As a UKIP voter I guess you will say it is "political correctness gone mad!" and make excuses for it.
re the University of Liverpool losing his job thing.
It is analagous to a CEO at a shareholders' meeting giving a rundown of forecast growth, together with anticipated acquisitions and then mentioning, apropos of nothing, that he hated blacks because they were lazy, before moving onto AOB.
Not a sackable offence? Not 100% sure, regardless of the legality although I'm sure it's one flavour or another of offensive behaviour although IANAL.
Well not really, because the academic in question didn't make his comments during a lecture to students, or otherwise during the conduct of his job.
So like the CEO being interviewed on the Today programme?
It seems the academic in Liverpool lost his job for the following.
His former employer, the University of Liverpool told the Jewish Chronicle that “Dr. Alex Scott-Samuel is no longer employed by the University.” This is following his appearance on the Richie Allen Show in February 2017, Dr Scott-Samuel was introduced as a senior lecturer at the University of Liverpool.* He told the audience that “The Rothschild family are behind a lot of the neo-liberal influence in the UK and the US. You only have to google them to look at this.”
I am not sure I am particularly comfortable with people being sacked if this is the full extent of what he said.
I would disagree strongly with his views and his politics but to be sacked for them is outrageous. I don't know what, if anything, this says about our universities in general but the University of Liverpool specifically should be ashamed and I hope he takes them to the cleaners.
Richard - people who express views like that very rarely do so once.
But such views, even though thoroughly distasteful, should not result in him losing his job.
Of course they should. An employer has the right not to have it's name tainted by people with repulsive racist views, it brings them into disrepute if they tolerate it. This guy was referring to the so-called Jewish conspiracy. Anti-Semitism and other forms of racism are repulsive. It doesn't matter whether they are expressed by someone from Momentum or BNP/UKIP, it needs to be called out for what it is. As a UKIP voter I guess you will say it is "political correctness gone mad!" and make excuses for it.
It seems the academic in Liverpool lost his job for the following.
His former employer, the University of Liverpool told the Jewish Chronicle that “Dr. Alex Scott-Samuel is no longer employed by the University.” This is following his appearance on the Richie Allen Show in February 2017, Dr Scott-Samuel was introduced as a senior lecturer at the University of Liverpool.* He told the audience that “The Rothschild family are behind a lot of the neo-liberal influence in the UK and the US. You only have to google them to look at this.”
I am not sure I am particularly comfortable with people being sacked if this is the full extent of what he said.
I would disagree strongly with his views and his politics but to be sacked for them is outrageous. I don't know what, if anything, this says about our universities in general but the University of Liverpool specifically should be ashamed and I hope he takes them to the cleaners.
Richard - people who express views like that very rarely do so once.
But such views, even though thoroughly distasteful, should not result in him losing his job.
He might have been on a final warning though. He might have gone on the programme despite being told in advance it would result in his dismissal if he did.
But so much more fun to speculate without knowledge of underlying facts.
re the University of Liverpool losing his job thing.
It is analagous to a CEO at a shareholders' meeting giving a rundown of forecast growth, together with anticipated acquisitions and then mentioning, apropos of nothing, that he hated blacks because they were lazy, before moving onto AOB.
Not a sackable offence? Not 100% sure, regardless of the legality although I'm sure it's one flavour or another of offensive behaviour although IANAL.
Well not really, because the academic in question didn't make his comments during a lecture to students, or otherwise during the conduct of his job.
So like the CEO being interviewed on the Today programme?
re the University of Liverpool losing his job thing.
It is analagous to a CEO at a shareholders' meeting giving a rundown of forecast growth, together with anticipated acquisitions and then mentioning, apropos of nothing, that he hated blacks because they were lazy, before moving onto AOB.
Not a sackable offence? Not 100% sure, regardless of the legality although I'm sure it's one flavour or another of offensive behaviour although IANAL.
Well not really, because the academic in question didn't make his comments during a lecture to students, or otherwise during the conduct of his job.
But he was using the universities name as he introduced himself as a professor there. He chose to drag the university into it when he made the appeal to authority associating himself with them on the show.
PS its also worth remembering he also left the University in 2015 and made the comments in 2017.
It seems the academic in Liverpool lost his job for the following.
His former employer, the University of Liverpool told the Jewish Chronicle that “Dr. Alex Scott-Samuel is no longer employed by the University.” This is following his appearance on the Richie Allen Show in February 2017, Dr Scott-Samuel was introduced as a senior lecturer at the University of Liverpool.* He told the audience that “The Rothschild family are behind a lot of the neo-liberal influence in the UK and the US. You only have to google them to look at this.”
I am not sure I am particularly comfortable with people being sacked if this is the full extent of what he said.
I would disagree strongly with his views and his politics but to be sacked for them is outrageous. I don't know what, if anything, this says about our universities in general but the University of Liverpool specifically should be ashamed and I hope he takes them to the cleaners.
Richard - people who express views like that very rarely do so once.
But such views, even though thoroughly distasteful, should not result in him losing his job.
Of course they should. An employer has the right not to have it's name tainted by people with repulsive racist views, it brings them into disrepute if they tolerate it. This guy was referring to the so-called Jewish conspiracy. Anti-Semitism and other forms of racism are repulsive. It doesn't matter whether they are expressed by someone from Momentum or BNP/UKIP, it needs to be called out for what it is. As a UKIP voter I guess you will say it is "political correctness gone mad!" and make excuses for it.
You can take the boy out of UKIP....
Indeed. Wait for the torrent of abuse and thuggish insults, just to prove what we always knew; that there is no difference in essence between a UKIP supporter and a follower of the BNP.
Good. No more of MPs hiding from the consequences of their vote.
Vote against, you are specifically voting for a no-deal crash exit.
Isn't one of the problems we have is that there are plenty of blocs/MPs 'happy enough' with hard Brexit for a whole smorgasbord of reasons
i) ERG - Want a hard hard Brexit ii) DUP - Hard Brexit is fine, May's deal is not for them. iii) Corbyn & Labour tribalists - Tories own hard Brexit iv) The SNP - 2nd ref here we come v) Kate Hoey vi) Labour people's voters - "I told you so" card...
Which means Tory remainers might come round, but they might not be enough...
If the Deal fails again the 318 MPs who voted against a No Deal Brexit, ie 17 Tory Remainer rebels plus Labour, LD, SNP, Plaid and Green MPs would be enough for permanent Customs Union for GB to pass the Commons, something the EU have also said they could renegotiate on. 301 MPs voted to stay in a permanent Customs Union last year and that was excluding most of the Tory rebels who voted against No Deal so how they vote will be decisive if the Deal fails again.
The Yougov poll today while encouraging for May does not change the fact she would still only get 3 extra MPs and not even a clear overall majority (except excluding Sinn Fein) when she really needs a 1997 style Blair landslide and over 400 Tory MPs and a majority of nearly 200 to ensure her Deal would pass given only 202 MPs voted for it last time and a third of Tory MPs voted against it
In these polls perhaps, we will see how that develops, but regarding the politics of the current crisis Labour are in dreamland.
Mrs May is clearly going to engineer a last gasp Deal or No Deal decision for MPs.
Labour have made their 'compromise offer' knowing that she cannot and will not go for it. This gives them a solid alibi for No Deal. If she takes us over the cliff there will be little ambiguity as to where the blame lies - the Tories. It could also collapse the government as the Grieve types defect.
If she squeaks the Deal through, fine, because this too could collapse the government courtesy of the DUP.
If she fails to get the deal through but chickens out of No Deal (as she almost certainly will) what then? Revocation? Great, rips the Tories apart, probably collapses the government. Second Referendum? Ditto if it has Remain on it, which it will probably have to in order to get approved.
And if she does what I think her true fallback plan is - calls a 'back me or sack me' snap election - absolutely fantastic. Offer Re-neg + Ref2 in the Labour manifesto and a good chance of sweeping to power.
Yes, Labour are in a fantastic place. About the only thing they could do to pluck defeat from the jaws of victory is give in to the pressure to back a Ref2 now. They need to make sure that the ONLY way a Ref (and thus Remain) can happen is via the election of a Labour government.
You have to be a truely loyal party supporter to deem labour are in a 'fantastic place' in view of all the evidence including sustained polling collapse with 3 of the last 4 polls on 34%, a leader who is blanking a large part of his mps and members desire for a second referendum, supports Maduro against most everybody apart from Russia and China, and is deeply implicated in his party's antisemitism
But loyalty is to be admired to be fair, no matter the cause
re the University of Liverpool losing his job thing.
It is analagous to a CEO at a shareholders' meeting giving a rundown of forecast growth, together with anticipated acquisitions and then mentioning, apropos of nothing, that he hated blacks because they were lazy, before moving onto AOB.
Not a sackable offence? Not 100% sure, regardless of the legality although I'm sure it's one flavour or another of offensive behaviour although IANAL.
Well not really, because the academic in question didn't make his comments during a lecture to students, or otherwise during the conduct of his job.
So like the CEO being interviewed on the Today programme?
Yes, that analogy would hold.
I'm pretty sure that would, by any contract of employment drawn up in the last 50 years (OK, 20 perhaps), be a sackable offence. Might even be illegal - inciting racial hatred or some flavour thereof?
Mrs May is clearly going to engineer a last gasp Deal or No Deal decision for MPs.
Labour have made their 'compromise offer' knowing that she cannot and will not go for it. This gives them a solid alibi for No Deal. If she takes us over the cliff there will be little ambiguity as to where the blame lies - the Tories. It could also collapse the government as the Grieve types defect.
Yes, Labour are in a fantastic place. About the only thing they could do to pluck defeat from the jaws of victory is give in to the pressure to back a Ref2 now. They need to make sure that the ONLY way a Ref (and thus Remain) can happen is via the election of a Labour government.
But it is all relative is it not? I am no Corbynite but am quite clear that his polling position is nothing like as dire as in the February - April 2017 period. May,however, is so much weaker and vulnerable.
You rely too much on the events in 2017 when so much has changed and his polling is falling day by day
As far as TM is concerned if she gets a deal through (and I still expect she will ) the relief across the country should give her a boost and give her the opportunity to invite a leadership contest over the summer with a new leader in place for September.
Events may disrupt this but I believe that post a deal she needs to move on if for nothing else than her own health and peace of mind. I cannot even start to understand how she has stood against so much opposition but pursued a course she believed in, right or wrong
I don't share your judgement on this at all and sense that Kinabalu is much closer to the mark. Labour's polling has weakened a bit recently but is far from being in freefall - indeed for reasons I mention elsewhere the polls are quite likely to be flattering the Tories given the current political environment. Back in April 2017 Yougov had Labour on 23% and there were confident predictions from some Tory supporters on this site that Labour was doomed to fall below 20% in the election campaign then beginning with every prospect of being overtaken by the LibDems as Remain voters flocked to their banner. I suggest we are nowhere near such a scenario today. I also remain firm in my view that if an election does come about this year - and I am not sure that it will - it will not prove to be a Brexit election - any more than was the case in 2017.
You are consistent in your view but I think you overestimate labour and most certainly in Scotland
However, I do not expect an election this year or until TM has been succeeded
Good. No more of MPs hiding from the consequences of their vote.
Vote against, you are specifically voting for a no-deal crash exit.
Isn't one of the problems we have is that there are plenty of blocs/MPs 'happy enough' with hard Brexit for a whole smorgasbord of reasons
i) ERG - Want a hard hard Brexit ii) DUP - Hard Brexit is fine, May's deal is not for them. iii) Corbyn & Labour tribalists - Tories own hard Brexit iv) The SNP - 2nd ref here we come v) Kate Hoey vi) Labour people's voters - "I told you so" card...
Which means Tory remainers might come round, but they might not be enough...
If the Deal fails again the 318 MPs who voted against a No Deal Brexit, ie 17 Tory Remainer rebels plus Labour, LD, SNP, Plaid and Green MPs would be enough for permanent Customs Union for GB to pass the Commons, something the EU have also said they could renegotiate on.
The Yougov poll today while encouraging for May does not change the fact she would still only get 3 extra MPs and not even a clear overall majority (except excluding Sinn Fein) when she really needs a 1997 style Blair landslide and over 400 Tory MPs and a majority of nearly 200 to ensure her Deal would pass given only 202 MPs voted for it last time and a third of Tory MPs voted against it
No chance that the government is going to enact legislation backed by 17 of its own MPs.
If it happens then it will happen with the government switching to back it officially and having the payroll back it, not simply backed into it by 17 MPs.
It seems the academic in Liverpool lost his job for the following.
His former employer, the University of Liverpool told the Jewish Chronicle that “Dr. Alex Scott-Samuel is no longer employed by the University.” This is following his appearance on the Richie Allen Show in February 2017, Dr Scott-Samuel was introduced as a senior lecturer at the University of Liverpool.* He told the audience that “The Rothschild family are behind a lot of the neo-liberal influence in the UK and the US. You only have to google them to look at this.”
I am not sure I am particularly comfortable with people being sacked if this is the full extent of what he said.
I would disagree strongly with his views and his politics but to be sacked for them is outrageous. I don't know what, if anything, this says about our universities in general but the University of Liverpool specifically should be ashamed and I hope he takes them to the cleaners.
Richard - people who express views like that very rarely do so once.
But such views, even though thoroughly distasteful, should not result in him losing his job.
Of course they should. An employer has the right not to have it's name tainted by people with repulsive racist views, it brings them into disrepute if they tolerate it. This guy was referring to the so-called Jewish conspiracy. Anti-Semitism and other forms of racism are repulsive. It doesn't matter whether they are expressed by someone from Momentum or BNP/UKIP, it needs to be called out for what it is. As a UKIP voter I guess you will say it is "political correctness gone mad!" and make excuses for it.
I think it's different for membership of political parties because one doesn't need to be a member of a political party to pay your rent, so you can have a different bar of what is acceptable because the consequence of being expelled from a political party is not so severe.
So one could reasonably argue that certain public statements should lead to expulsion from a political party, but not to termination of employment.
Indeed and I am complimenting Kinabalu on his loyalty
Compliments are rare so I take them where I can! And indeed I am a Labour supporter although with reservations about the current leader.
However TBF my post was to describe objectively the strength of Labour's position in the upcoming Brexit end game not the great merit of their policies. I would need a much longer one for that.
He needs to go to be honest but I do not see a pathway for that other than health or a defeat in a GE
It seems the academic in Liverpool lost his job for the following.
His former employer, the University of Liverpool told the Jewish Chronicle that “Dr. Alex Scott-Samuel is no longer employed by the University.” This is following his appearance on the Richie Allen Show in February 2017, Dr Scott-Samuel was introduced as a senior lecturer at the University of Liverpool.* He told the audience that “The Rothschild family are behind a lot of the neo-liberal influence in the UK and the US. You only have to google them to look at this.”
I am not sure I am particularly comfortable with people being sacked if this is the full extent of what he said.
I would disagree strongly with his views and his politics but to be sacked for them is outrageous. I don't know what, if anything, this says about our universities in general but the University of Liverpool specifically should be ashamed and I hope he takes them to the cleaners.
Richard - people who express views like that very rarely do so once.
But such views, even though thoroughly distasteful, should not result in him losing his job.
Of course they should. An employer has the right not to have it's name tainted by people with repulsive racist views, it brings them into disrepute if they tolerate it. This guy was referring to the so-called Jewish conspiracy. Anti-Semitism and other forms of racism are repulsive. It doesn't matter whether they are expressed by someone from Momentum or BNP/UKIP, it needs to be called out for what it is. As a UKIP voter I guess you will say it is "political correctness gone mad!" and make excuses for it.
I think it's different for membership of political parties because one doesn't need to be a member of a political party to pay your rent, so you can have a different bar of what is acceptable because the consequence of being expelled from a political party is not so severe.
So one could reasonably argue that certain public statements should lead to expulsion from a political party, but not to termination of employment.
I think there is a huge difference between statements made in a personal capacity and statements made as a representative of your employer. And he invoked the university and presented himself as a representative of it, which drags them into the debate.
re the University of Liverpool losing his job thing.
It is analagous to a CEO at a shareholders' meeting giving a rundown of forecast growth, together with anticipated acquisitions and then mentioning, apropos of nothing, that he hated blacks because they were lazy, before moving onto AOB.
Not a sackable offence? Not 100% sure, regardless of the legality although I'm sure it's one flavour or another of offensive behaviour although IANAL.
Well not really, because the academic in question didn't make his comments during a lecture to students, or otherwise during the conduct of his job.
But he was using the universities name as he introduced himself as a professor there. He chose to drag the university into it when he made the appeal to authority associating himself with them on the show.
PS its also worth remembering he also left the University in 2015 and made the comments in 2017.
Yes, I made that point too in a reply to Richard Tyndall.
The way Theresa May is managing this process is incredibly damaging (and wholly tone deaf). And the awfulness of Corbyn is almost certainly camouflaging the corrosive nature of this.
She has effectively appointed herself the sole arbiter of understanding what Brexit "means" in practice - and is holding the country ransom to that effect, whatever the consequences.
I am almost beyond the point of where I was before (in the sense of never voting Tory again if they engineer a no deal Brexit). I am thinking that I don't want to vote for clowns almost irrespective now. Clearly I won't vote for Corbyn either. And I suspect I won't be alone.....
So it's interesting that we've been seeing quite a few people here with this sentiment, but Tory support in the polling is stubbornly high. I wonder if this is a high-information vs low-information difference, or whether despite the apparent stability in the topline figures there's actually a lot of churn with competence-motivated Tories deserting them while (some group not on pb much) comes in to replace them.
I think Tottenham is absolutely right that it is only the prospect of a Corbyn Government that is staving of a Tory collapse. I think if almost anyone else was leading Labour they would have a 10 or 15 point lead.
Look at Labour's candidates and that "almost anyone" is doing some heavy lifting!
re the University of Liverpool losing his job thing.
It is analagous to a CEO at a shareholders' meeting giving a rundown of forecast growth, together with anticipated acquisitions and then mentioning, apropos of nothing, that he hated blacks because they were lazy, before moving onto AOB.
Not a sackable offence? Not 100% sure, regardless of the legality although I'm sure it's one flavour or another of offensive behaviour although IANAL.
Well not really, because the academic in question didn't make his comments during a lecture to students, or otherwise during the conduct of his job.
So like the CEO being interviewed on the Today programme?
Yes, that analogy would hold.
I'm pretty sure that would, by any contract of employment drawn up in the last 50 years (OK, 20 perhaps), be a sackable offence. Might even be illegal - inciting racial hatred or some flavour thereof?
It seems the academic in Liverpool lost his job for the following.
His former employer, the University of Liverpool told the Jewish Chronicle that “Dr. Alex Scott-Samuel is no longer employed by the University.” This is following his appearance on the Richie Allen Show in February 2017, Dr Scott-Samuel was introduced as a senior lecturer at the University of Liverpool.* He told the audience that “The Rothschild family are behind a lot of the neo-liberal influence in the UK and the US. You only have to google them to look at this.”
I am not sure I am particularly comfortable with people being sacked if this is the full extent of what he said.
I would disagree strongly with his views and his politics but to be sacked for them is outrageous. I don't know what, if anything, this says about our universities in general but the University of Liverpool specifically should be ashamed and I hope he takes them to the cleaners.
Richard - people who express views like that very rarely do so once.
But such views, even though thoroughly distasteful, should not result in him losing his job.
Of course they should. An employer has the right not to have it's name tainted by people with repulsive racist views, it brings them into disrepute if they tolerate it. This guy was referring to the so-called Jewish conspiracy. Anti-Semitism and other forms of racism are repulsive. It doesn't matter whether they are expressed by someone from Momentum or BNP/UKIP, it needs to be called out for what it is. As a UKIP voter I guess you will say it is "political correctness gone mad!" and make excuses for it.
I think it's different for membership of political parties because one doesn't need to be a member of a political party to pay your rent, so you can have a different bar of what is acceptable because the consequence of being expelled from a political party is not so severe.
So one could reasonably argue that certain public statements should lead to expulsion from a political party, but not to termination of employment.
I think there is a huge difference between statements made in a personal capacity and statements made as a representative of your employer. And he invoked the university and presented himself as a representative of it, which drags them into the debate.
Good. No more of MPs hiding from the consequences of their vote.
Vote against, you are specifically voting for a no-deal crash exit.
Isn't one of the problems we have is that there are plenty of blocs/MPs 'happy enough' with hard Brexit for a whole smorgasbord of reasons
i) ERG - Want a hard hard Brexit ii) DUP - Hard Brexit is fine, May's deal is not for them. iii) Corbyn & Labour tribalists - Tories own hard Brexit iv) The SNP - 2nd ref here we come v) Kate Hoey vi) Labour people's voters - "I told you so" card...
Which means Tory remainers might come round, but they might not be enough...
If the Deal fails again the 318 MPs who voted against a No Deal Brexit, ie eally needs a 1997 style Blair landslide and over 400 Tory MPs and a majority of nearly 200 to ensure her Deal would pass given only 202 MPs voted for it last time and a third of Tory MPs voted against it
No chance that the government is going to enact legislation backed by 17 of its own MPs.
If it happens then it will happen with the government switching to back it officially and having the payroll back it, not simply backed into it by 17 MPs.
It would be backed by 318 MPs actually, the 17 Tory MPs would just ensure it has a Commons majority (maybe more if the likes of Rudd and Hammond and Clark resign to vote for permanent Customs Union to avoid No Deal).
Given Parliament is sovereign May would then either have to reluctantly accept the will of Parliament or create the biggest constitutional crisis and clash between the executive and legislature in decades.
Of course if she is shrewd May could say she will give her Deal one more go and if it fails again she will have to accept the will of Parliament for a permanent Customs Union, that would really give the ERG something to think about
I think there is a huge difference between statements made in a personal capacity and statements made as a representative of your employer. And he invoked the university and presented himself as a representative of it, which drags them into the debate.
3:48PM
I hadn't read that but yes I 100% agree with you.
People have a right to their views. Employers have a right not to be associated with that.
re the University of Liverpool losing his job thing.
It is analagous to a CEO at a shareholders' meeting giving a rundown of forecast growth, together with anticipated acquisitions and then mentioning, apropos of nothing, that he hated blacks because they were lazy, before moving onto AOB.
Not a sackable offence? Not 100% sure, regardless of the legality although I'm sure it's one flavour or another of offensive behaviour although IANAL.
Well not really, because the academic in question didn't make his comments during a lecture to students, or otherwise during the conduct of his job.
But he was using the universities name as he introduced himself as a professor there. He chose to drag the university into it when he made the appeal to authority associating himself with them on the show.
PS its also worth remembering he also left the University in 2015 and made the comments in 2017.
Hmm. So in fact the story that he was sacked after appearing on the show was actually an error by the Jewish Chronicle (now corrected).
We've been discussing the pros and cons of something that never happened. ROTFL.
It seems the academic in Liverpool lost his job for the following.
His former employer, the University of Liverpool told the Jewish Chronicle that “Dr. Alex Scott-Samuel is no longer employed by the University.” This is following his appearance on the Richie Allen Show in February 2017, Dr Scott-Samuel was introduced as a senior lecturer at the University of Liverpool.* He told the audience that “The Rothschild family are behind a lot of the neo-liberal influence in the UK and the US. You only have to google them to look at this.”
I am not sure I am particularly comfortable with people being sacked if this is the full extent of what he said.
I would disagree strongly with his views and his politics but to be sacked for them is outrageous. I don't know what, if anything, this says about our universities in general but the University of Liverpool specifically should be ashamed and I hope he takes them to the cleaners.
Richard - people who express views like that very rarely do so once.
But such views, even though thoroughly distasteful, should not result in him losing his job.
Of course they should. An employer has the right not to have it's name tainted by people with repulsive racist views, it brings them into disrepute if they tolerate it. This guy was referring to the so-called Jewish conspiracy. Anti-Semitism and other forms of racism are repulsive. It doesn't matter whether they are expressed by someone from Momentum or BNP/UKIP, it needs to be called out for what it is. As a UKIP voter I guess you will say it is "political correctness gone mad!" and make excuses for it.
You can take the boy out of UKIP....
Indeed. Wait for the torrent of abuse and thuggish insults, just to prove what we always knew; that there is no difference in essence between a UKIP supporter and a follower of the BNP.
Question: how many seats do you estimate UKIP will stand in at the next election if the polling indicates they will lose most/nearly all deposits? (Basically, how much money do they have to burn?) And how many of those councillors standing for re-election do you think UKIP will retain after the 2018 locals?
Good. No more of MPs hiding from the consequences of their vote.
Vote against, you are specifically voting for a no-deal crash exit.
Isn't one of the problems we have is that there are plenty of blocs/MPs 'happy enough' with hard Brexit for a whole smorgasbord of reasons
i) ERG - Want a hard hard Brexit ii) DUP - Hard Brexit is fine, May's deal is not for them. iii) Corbyn & Labour tribalists - Tories own hard Brexit iv) The SNP - 2nd ref here we come v) Kate Hoey vi) Labour people's voters - "I told you so" card...
Which means Tory remainers might come round, but they might not be enough...
If the Deal fails again the 318 MPs who voted against a No Deal Brexit, ie eally needs a 1997 style Blair landslide and over 400 Tory MPs and a majority of nearly 200 to ensure her Deal would pass given only 202 MPs voted for it last time and a third of Tory MPs voted against it
No chance that the government is going to enact legislation backed by 17 of its own MPs.
If it happens then it will happen with the government switching to back it officially and having the payroll back it, not simply backed into it by 17 MPs.
It would be backed by 318 MPs actually, the 17 Tory MPs would just ensure it has a Commons majority (maybe more if the likes of Rudd and Hammond and Clark resign to vote for permanent Customs Union to avoid No Deal).
Given Parliament is sovereign May would then either have to reluctantly accept the will of Parliament or create the biggest constitutional crisis and clash between the executive and legislature in decades.
Of course if she is shrewd May could say she will give her Deal one more go and if it fails again she will have to accept the will of Parliament for a permanent Customs Union, that would really give the ERG something to think about
Legislation doesn't happen by the opposition for a reason. Certainly not on something this critical.
Whatever solution happens it will need more than the backing of 17 government MPs, even if it has the backing of the rest of Parliament.
I feel it's all a bit countdown at the moment, the following letters are up on the board : "Trimbyaxe" and MPs are furiously trying to decipher it to get the nine letter word out !
Of course everyone at home realises the answer is "May Brexit", but will our erstwhile MPs get the right answer in time ! The clock ticks down...
It seems the academic in Liverpool lost his job for the following.
His former employer, the University of Liverpool told the Jewish Chronicle that “Dr. Alex Scott-Samuel is no longer employed by the University.” This is following his appearance on the Richie Allen Show in February 2017, Dr Scott-Samuel was introduced as a senior lecturer at the University of Liverpool.* He told the audience that “The Rothschild family are behind a lot of the neo-liberal influence in the UK and the US. You only have to google them to look at this.”
I am not sure I am particularly comfortable with people being sacked if this is the full extent of what he said.
I'm not sure I am particularly comfortable with lecturers preaching antisemitic slurs about the "Rothschilds"
How do you get to that, these are rich people who obviously influence the neo-liberal viewpoints. Nothing anti-semetic there or even a mention of it , if it had been a coloured person would you have said he was racist. Get a grip.
Good. No more of MPs hiding from the consequences of their vote.
Vote against, you are specifically voting for a no-deal crash exit.
Isn't one of the problems we have is that there are plenty of blocs/MPs 'happy enough' with hard Brexit for a whole smorgasbord of reasons
i) ERG - Want a hard hard Brexit ii) DUP - Hard Brexit is fine, May's deal is not for them. iii) Corbyn & Labour tribalists - Tories own hard Brexit iv) The SNP - 2nd ref here we come v) Kate Hoey vi) Labour people's voters - "I told you so" card...
Which means Tory remainers might come round, but they might not be enough...
If the Deal fails again the 318 MPs who voted against a No Deal Brexit, ie eally needs a 1997 style Blair landslide and over 400 Tory MPs and a majority of nearly 200 to ensure her Deal would pass given only 202 MPs voted for it last time and a third of Tory MPs voted against it
No chance that the government is going to enact legislation backed by 17 of its own MPs.
If it happens then it will happen with the government switching to back it officially and having the payroll back it, not simply backed into it by 17 MPs.
It would be backed by 318 MPs actually, the 17 Tory MPs would just ensure it has a Commons majority (maybe more if the likes of Rudd and Hammond and Clark resign to vote for permanent Customs Union to avoid No Deal).
Given Parliament is sovereign May would then either have to reluctantly accept the will of Parliament or create the biggest constitutional crisis and clash between the executive and legislature in decades.
Of course if she is shrewd May could say she will give her Deal one more go and if it fails again she will have to accept the will of Parliament for a permanent Customs Union, that would really give the ERG something to think about
Legislation doesn't happen by the opposition for a reason. Certainly not on something this critical.
Whatever solution happens it will need more than the backing of 17 government MPs, even if it has the backing of the rest of Parliament.
Would the SNP even play ball with such an amendment put forward by Corbyn ?
re the University of Liverpool losing his job thing.
It is analagous to a CEO at a shareholders' meeting giving a rundown of forecast growth, together with anticipated acquisitions and then mentioning, apropos of nothing, that he hated blacks because they were lazy, before moving onto AOB.
Not a sackable offence? Not 100% sure, regardless of the legality although I'm sure it's one flavour or another of offensive behaviour although IANAL.
Well not really, because the academic in question didn't make his comments during a lecture to students, or otherwise during the conduct of his job.
But he was using the universities name as he introduced himself as a professor there. He chose to drag the university into it when he made the appeal to authority associating himself with them on the show.
PS its also worth remembering he also left the University in 2015 and made the comments in 2017.
Hmm. So in fact the story that he was sacked after appearing on the show was actually an error by the Jewish Chronicle (now corrected).
We've been discussing the pros and cons of something that never happened. ROTFL.
It seems the academic in Liverpool lost his job for the following.
His former employer, the University of Liverpool told the Jewish Chronicle that “Dr. Alex Scott-Samuel is no longer employed by the University.” This is following his appearance on the Richie Allen Show in February 2017, Dr Scott-Samuel was introduced as a senior lecturer at the University of Liverpool.* He told the audience that “The Rothschild family are behind a lot of the neo-liberal influence in the UK and the US. You only have to google them to look at this.”
I am not sure I am particularly comfortable with people being sacked if this is the full extent of what he said.
I'm not sure I am particularly comfortable with lecturers preaching antisemitic slurs about the "Rothschilds"
"I disagree with what you say, and therefore you should lose your job"?
Exactly shows what a half witted statement that was, these people are off their rockers, finding fault with everything , good luck when they are on the receiving end for having an opinion.
It seems the academic in Liverpool lost his job for the following.
His former employer, the University of Liverpool told the Jewish Chronicle that “Dr. Alex Scott-Samuel is no longer employed by the University.” This is following his appearance on the Richie Allen Show in February 2017, Dr Scott-Samuel was introduced as a senior lecturer at the University of Liverpool.* He told the audience that “The Rothschild family are behind a lot of the neo-liberal influence in the UK and the US. You only have to google them to look at this.”
I am not sure I am particularly comfortable with people being sacked if this is the full extent of what he said.
I would disagree strongly with his views and his politics but to be sacked for them is outrageous. I don't know what, if anything, this says about our universities in general but the University of Liverpool specifically should be ashamed and I hope he takes them to the cleaners.
Richard - people who express views like that very rarely do so once.
But such views, even though thoroughly distasteful, should not result in him losing his job.
In general I agree.
In this particular instance he hasn't presented himself as a private individual with personal views, but as a university academic, to gain more credence for his personal views on the basis of the employment he holds. In that circumstance I don't think it's unreasonable for the University to refuse to associate with him by terminating his employment, as by presenting himself in such a way he is also representing his employer.
The distinction I am drawing is quite fine and I'm not entirely comfortable with it, but I think it is there.
I suppose it is these sorts of cases that tribunals were designed for...
That sounds plausible to me but the other dog that hasn't barked is that I don't think we're seeing polling saying, "If Labour was led by [Cooper / Starmer / Benn] they would be x% ahead". I mean, I haven't seen polling to the contrary, but if the support was there you'd think somebody would pay for the polling to prove it.
You're sounding too much like @HYUFD! The fatal flaw in polling about hypothetical leaders is that the electoral appeal of a party is based on a complex combination of the personal image of the leader, the team he or she appoints, whether or not he or she can inspire unity in the party, the general political positioning, the specific policies, the organisational skills of the core team, and the sheer political effectiveness in putting across the whole platform and stuffing the other side. All of that depends crucially on the party leader, but the hypothetical polling only really measures the first of those, and that unreliably.
I think EiT's point was more about why more Labour leadership contenders aren't on manoeuvres, rather than any belief in hypothetical polling as a construct.
It's an interesting idea. Starmer in particular should be making much more of his time in the limelight, if he harboured genuine leadership ambition. Possibly they all feel too nervous of upsetting the members by perceived disloyalty, and are in a holding pattern until there's a vacancy.
FWIW we've seen polling that suggests that Labour would be further behind with other leaders, although as Richard says that ignores the dynamics of any change. I think it's just factual that a challenge to Corbyn would not succeed (and if it did through some sort of insurgency, it would lose more voters than it gained). Most of us who support Corbyn will (when it eventually arises) view quite favourably people like Starmer who really haven't gone on manoeuvres and simply tried to do their job well.
It's really very similar to views of Gove on the Tory side - he absolutely hasn't tried to overthrow May, but he's quietly done a good job which makes Tories feel he might be rather good as a successor. More ostentatious challengers like Boris who evinced limited interest in the day job do not command unbridled enthusiasm.
Of course, one could say the same of May, who was seen as a competent HO Minister, but...
It seems the academic in Liverpool lost his job for the following.
His former employer, the University of Liverpool told the Jewish Chronicle that “Dr. Alex Scott-Samuel is no longer employed by the University.” This is following his appearance on the Richie Allen Show in February 2017, Dr Scott-Samuel was introduced as a senior lecturer at the University of Liverpool.* He told the audience that “The Rothschild family are behind a lot of the neo-liberal influence in the UK and the US. You only have to google them to look at this.”
I am not sure I am particularly comfortable with people being sacked if this is the full extent of what he said.
I'm not sure I am particularly comfortable with lecturers preaching antisemitic slurs about the "Rothschilds"
How do you get to that, these are rich people who obviously influence the neo-liberal viewpoints. Nothing anti-semetic there or even a mention of it , if it had been a coloured person would you have said he was racist. Get a grip.
The fact that you refer to " coloured person" tells me all I need to know about your views on race. Tell you what, find a black person and ask them if they are OK being called "coloured"
It seems the academic in Liverpool lost his job for the following.
His former employer, the University of Liverpool told the Jewish Chronicle that “Dr. Alex Scott-Samuel is no longer employed by the University.” This is following his appearance on the Richie Allen Show in February 2017, Dr Scott-Samuel was introduced as a senior lecturer at the University of Liverpool.* He told the audience that “The Rothschild family are behind a lot of the neo-liberal influence in the UK and the US. You only have to google them to look at this.”
I am not sure I am particularly comfortable with people being sacked if this is the full extent of what he said.
I would disagree strongly with his views and his politics but to be sacked for them is outrageous. I don't know what, if anything, this says about our universities in general but the University of Liverpool specifically should be ashamed and I hope he takes them to the cleaners.
Richard - people who express views like that very rarely do so once.
But such views, even though thoroughly distasteful, should not result in him losing his job.
If he expresses them as Prof XX of Liverpool University, as opposed to Prof XX, there is a difference. If the views are expressed and give the impression that they are endorsed by or the policy of the University (when they are his own) there is a very grey area over his future employment.
It seems the academic in Liverpool lost his job for the following.
His former employer, the University of Liverpool told the Jewish Chronicle that “Dr. Alex Scott-Samuel is no longer employed by the University.” This is following his appearance on the Richie Allen Show in February 2017, Dr Scott-Samuel was introduced as a senior lecturer at the University of Liverpool.* He told the audience that “The Rothschild family are behind a lot of the neo-liberal influence in the UK and the US. You only have to google them to look at this.”
I am not sure I am particularly comfortable with people being sacked if this is the full extent of what he said.
I would disagree strongly with his views and his politics but to be sacked for them is outrageous. I don't know what, if anything, this says about our universities in general but the University of Liverpool specifically should be ashamed and I hope he takes them to the cleaners.
Richard - people who express views like that very rarely do so once.
But such views, even though thoroughly distasteful, should not result in him losing his job.
Of course they should. An employer has the right not to have it's name tainted by people with repulsive racist views, it brings them into disrepute if they tolerate it. This guy was referring to the so-called Jewish conspiracy. Anti-Semitism and other forms of racism are repulsive. It doesn't matter whether they are expressed by someone from Momentum or BNP/UKIP, it needs to be called out for what it is. As a UKIP voter I guess you will say it is "political correctness gone mad!" and make excuses for it.
It seems the academic in Liverpool lost his job for the following.
His former employer, the University of Liverpool told the Jewish Chronicle that “Dr. Alex Scott-Samuel is no longer employed by the University.” This is following his appearance on the Richie Allen Show in February 2017, Dr Scott-Samuel was introduced as a senior lecturer at the University of Liverpool.* He told the audience that “The Rothschild family are behind a lot of the neo-liberal influence in the UK and the US. You only have to google them to look at this.”
I am not sure I am particularly comfortable with people being sacked if this is the full extent of what he said.
I'm not sure I am particularly comfortable with lecturers preaching antisemitic slurs about the "Rothschilds"
How do you get to that, these are rich people who obviously influence the neo-liberal viewpoints. Nothing anti-semetic there or even a mention of it , if it had been a coloured person would you have said he was racist. Get a grip.
The fact that you refer to " coloured person" tells me all I need to know about your views on race. Tell you what, find a black person and ask them if they are OK being called "coloured"
I have to say I always feel a bit suspicious when Jewish people are accused of anti-semitism. I suppose it's possible in theory, but my first reaction would be to ask "Are you sure you haven't misunderstood?"
It seems the academic in Liverpool lost his job for the following.
His former employer, the University of Liverpool told the Jewish Chronicle that “Dr. Alex Scott-Samuel is no longer employed by the University.” This is following his appearance on the Richie Allen Show in February 2017, Dr Scott-Samuel was introduced as a senior lecturer at the University of Liverpool.* He told the audience that “The Rothschild family are behind a lot of the neo-liberal influence in the UK and the US. You only have to google them to look at this.”
I am not sure I am particularly comfortable with people being sacked if this is the full extent of what he said.
I'm not sure I am particularly comfortable with lecturers preaching antisemitic slurs about the "Rothschilds"
How do you get to that, these are rich people who obviously influence the neo-liberal viewpoints. Nothing anti-semetic there or even a mention of it , if it had been a coloured person would you have said he was racist. Get a grip.
The fact that you refer to " coloured person" tells me all I need to know about your views on race. Tell you what, find a black person and ask them if they are OK being called "coloured"
I think he was being a bit ironic there.
Apologies that was meant for that nutjob Foremain, the clown has no clue.
It seems the academic in Liverpool lost his job for the following.
His former employer, the University of Liverpool told the Jewish Chronicle that “Dr. Alex Scott-Samuel is no longer employed by the University.” This is following his appearance on the Richie Allen Show in February 2017, Dr Scott-Samuel was introduced as a senior lecturer at the University of Liverpool.* He told the audience that “The Rothschild family are behind a lot of the neo-liberal influence in the UK and the US. You only have to google them to look at this.”
I am not sure I am particularly comfortable with people being sacked if this is the full extent of what he said.
I would disagree strongly with his views and his politics but to be sacked for them is outrageous. I don't know what, if anything, this says about our universities in general but the University of Liverpool specifically should be ashamed and I hope he takes them to the cleaners.
Richard - people who express views like that very rarely do so once.
But such views, even though thoroughly distasteful, should not result in him losing his job.
Of course they should. An employer has the right not to have it's name tainted by people with repulsive racist views, it brings them into disrepute if they tolerate it. This guy was referring to the so-called Jewish conspiracy. Anti-Semitism and other forms of racism are repulsive. It doesn't matter whether they are expressed by someone from Momentum or BNP/UKIP, it needs to be called out for what it is. As a UKIP voter I guess you will say it is "political correctness gone mad!" and make excuses for it.
I think it's different for membership of political parties because one doesn't need to be a member of a political party to pay your rent, so you can have a different bar of what is acceptable because the consequence of being expelled from a political party is not so severe.
So one could reasonably argue that certain public statements should lead to expulsion from a political party, but not to termination of employment.
Bringing the name of your employer into disrepute is grounds for dismissal for gross misconduct, particularly around matters related to protected groups. Anyone who thinks that they can say what they want in public, however offensive, is taking a big risk
It seems the academic in Liverpool lost his job for the following.
His former employer, the University of Liverpool told the Jewish Chronicle that “Dr. Alex Scott-Samuel is no longer employed by the University.” This is following his appearance on the Richie Allen Show in February 2017, Dr Scott-Samuel was introduced as a senior lecturer at the University of Liverpool.* He told the audience that “The Rothschild family are behind a lot of the neo-liberal influence in the UK and the US. You only have to google them to look at this.”
I am not sure I am particularly comfortable with people being sacked if this is the full extent of what he said.
I'm not sure I am particularly comfortable with lecturers preaching antisemitic slurs about the "Rothschilds"
How do you get to that, these are rich people who obviously influence the neo-liberal viewpoints. Nothing anti-semetic there or even a mention of it , if it had been a coloured person would you have said he was racist. Get a grip.
The fact that you refer to " coloured person" tells me all I need to know about your views on race. Tell you what, find a black person and ask them if they are OK being called "coloured"
He needs to go to be honest but I do not see a pathway for that other than health or a defeat in a GE
Me neither. And seeing as I cannot root for either Labour losing elections or for other people's health to fail (Donald Trump excepted) it follows that I am content for him to stay in post.
Now then - 'loyalty' - yes I'm a Labour loyalist, have never voted any other way in a GE, but I pride myself on objectivity when it comes to this PB malarky.
Let me demonstrate this with a couple of IMOs:
I doubt that any other PM, Con or Lab, could have done a materially better exit deal with the EU than TM has managed. They held (and hold) all the cards.
In using time pressure to try to bully through her deal she is not 'blackmailing' MPs, she is forcing them to confront reality. It is absolutely the right strategy. Go, girl, go.
And I think it will work. I think she will get the deal through eventually and this will represent a considerable personal and political achievement.
But if it doesn't work, if MPs insist on ultimately blocking it, she is not the sort of reprobate to allow us to crash out into no deal chaos. Neither is she the sort of yellow belly who will renege on the referendum either by revoking or offering another one. No, she will step up to the plate and call a 'back me or sack me' General Election.
Which, if she does, and even if Labour do pivot to Ref2 in their manifesto, she has every chance of winning.
It seems the academic in Liverpool lost his job for the following.
His former employer, the University of Liverpool told the Jewish Chronicle that “Dr. Alex Scott-Samuel is no longer employed by the University.” This is following his appearance on the Richie Allen Show in February 2017, Dr Scott-Samuel was introduced as a senior lecturer at the University of Liverpool.* He told the audience that “The Rothschild family are behind a lot of the neo-liberal influence in the UK and the US. You only have to google them to look at this.”
I am not sure I am particularly comfortable with people being sacked if this is the full extent of what he said.
I'm not sure I am particularly comfortable with lecturers preaching antisemitic slurs about the "Rothschilds"
How do you get to that, these are rich people who obviously influence the neo-liberal viewpoints. Nothing anti-semetic there or even a mention of it , if it had been a coloured person would you have said he was racist. Get a grip.
The fact that you refer to " coloured person" tells me all I need to know about your views on race. Tell you what, find a black person and ask them if they are OK being called "coloured"
I think he was being a bit ironic there.
Get lost fruitcake, get offended elsewhere you jessie boy.
Ah, here comes the abuse from the nationalist, who refrs to black people as "coloured". Nationalism, whether Scottish, British or English; a pathetic proxy for hatred and intolerance dressed up in faux patriotism. Go on, prove it with your abusive response.
It seems the academic in Liverpool lost his job for the following.
His former employer, the University of Liverpool told the Jewish Chronicle that “Dr. Alex Scott-Samuel is no longer employed by the University.” This is following his appearance on the Richie Allen Show in February 2017, Dr Scott-Samuel was introduced as a senior lecturer at the University of Liverpool.* He told the audience that “The Rothschild family are behind a lot of the neo-liberal influence in the UK and the US. You only have to google them to look at this.”
I am not sure I am particularly comfortable with people being sacked if this is the full extent of what he said.
I'm not sure I am particularly comfortable with lecturers preaching antisemitic slurs about the "Rothschilds"
How do you get to that, these are rich people who obviously influence the neo-liberal viewpoints. Nothing anti-semetic there or even a mention of it , if it had been a coloured person would you have said he was racist. Get a grip.
The fact that you refer to " coloured person" tells me all I need to know about your views on race. Tell you what, find a black person and ask them if they are OK being called "coloured"
I think he was being a bit ironic there.
Get lost fruitcake, get offended elsewhere you jessie boy.
Ah, here comes the abuse from the nationalist, who refrs to black people as "coloured". Nationalism, whether Scottish, British or English; a pathetic proxy for hatred and intolerance dressed up in faux patriotism. Go on, prove it with your abusive response.
Oh Dear , he is off on his usual mince, what a nutter. Go polish your forehead loser.
Employment lawyer here. Very few dismissals are automatically unfair. Those that are fall into special categories such as whistleblowing, maternity etc. Additionally some dismissals are unlawful if they are on the grounds of one of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act. So long as the university can show that it fell within one of the potentially fair reasons for dismissal (conduct in this case), that it followed a fair procedure (disciplinary hearing) and acted reasonably in treating the reason as a sufficient reason for dismissal then it is a fair dismissal. It may not be able to do any of that, but it's impossible to say without knowing more whether this dismissal was in any way unlawful.
Misconduct need not be confined to the workplace. It may be potentially fair to dismiss an employee for conduct outside of the workplace "so long as in some respect or other it affects the employee, or could be thought to affect the employee, when he is doing his work" - in this case the Liverpool's reputation could be thought to have been damaged. Doesn't really matter whether you consider what he said to be correct or otherwise.
It seems the academic in Liverpool lost his job for the following.
His former employer, the University of Liverpool told the Jewish Chronicle that “Dr. Alex Scott-Samuel is no longer employed by the University.” This is following his appearance on the Richie Allen Show in February 2017, Dr Scott-Samuel was introduced as a senior lecturer at the University of Liverpool.* He told the audience that “The Rothschild family are behind a lot of the neo-liberal influence in the UK and the US. You only have to google them to look at this.”
I am not sure I am particularly comfortable with people being sacked if this is the full extent of what he said.
I'm not sure I am particularly comfortable with lecturers preaching antisemitic slurs about the "Rothschilds"
How do you get to that, these are rich people who obviously influence the neo-liberal viewpoints. Nothing anti-semetic there or even a mention of it , if it had been a coloured person would you have said he was racist. Get a grip.
The fact that you refer to " coloured person" tells me all I need to know about your views on race. Tell you what, find a black person and ask them if they are OK being called "coloured"
Another nutjob snowflake jessie boy, get stuffed.
The average intellect of a prejudiced nationalist exposed by his limited vocabulary and retarded powers of argument.
re the University of Liverpool losing his job thing.
It is analagous to a CEO at a shareholders' meeting giving a rundown of forecast growth, together with anticipated acquisitions and then mentioning, apropos of nothing, that he hated blacks because they were lazy, before moving onto AOB.
Not a sackable offence? Not 100% sure, regardless of the legality although I'm sure it's one flavour or another of offensive behaviour although IANAL.
Well not really, because the academic in question didn't make his comments during a lecture to students, or otherwise during the conduct of his job.
But he was using the universities name as he introduced himself as a professor there. He chose to drag the university into it when he made the appeal to authority associating himself with them on the show.
PS its also worth remembering he also left the University in 2015 and made the comments in 2017.
Hmm. So in fact the story that he was sacked after appearing on the show was actually an error by the Jewish Chronicle (now corrected).
We've been discussing the pros and cons of something that never happened. ROTFL.
Good. No more of MPs hiding from the consequences of their vote.
Vote against, you are specifically voting for a no-deal crash exit.
Isn't one of the problems we have is that there are plenty of blocs/MPs 'happy enough' with hard Brexit for a whole smorgasbord of reasons
i) ERG - Want a hard hard Brexit ii) DUP - Hard Brexit is fine, May's deal is not for them. iii) Corbyn & Labour tribalists - Tories own hard Brexit iv) The SNP - 2nd ref here we come v) Kate Hoey vi) Labour people's voters - "I told you so" card...
Which means Tory remainers might come round, but they might not be enough...
If the Deal fails again the 318 MPs who voted against a No Deal Brexit, ie eally needs a 1997 style Blair landslide and over 400 Tory MPs and a majority of nearly 200 to ensure her Deal would pass given only 202 MPs voted for it last time and a third of Tory MPs voted against it
No chance that the government is going to enact legislation backed by 17 of its own MPs.
If it happens then it will happen with the government switching to back it officially and having the payroll back it, not simply backed into it by 17 MPs.
It would be backed by 318 MPs actually, the 17 Tory MPs would just ensure it has a Commons majority (maybe more if the likes of Rudd and Hammond and Clark resign to vote for permanent Customs Union to avoid No Deal).
Given Parliament is sovereign May would then either have to reluctantly accept the will of Parliament or create the biggest constitutional crisis and clash between the executive and legislature in decades.
Of course if she is shrewd May could say she will give her Deal one more go and if it fails again she will have to accept the will of Parliament for a permanent Customs Union, that would really give the ERG something to think about
Legislation doesn't happen by the opposition for a reason. Certainly not on something this critical.
Whatever solution happens it will need more than the backing of 17 government MPs, even if it has the backing of the rest of Parliament.
We know that Corbyn backs permanent Customs Union as does the SNP as do the LDs as now do Tory MPs like Oliver Letwin, if the Deal fails again the Grieve amendment will likely pass this time, then Letwin and a Labour MP will put forward a permanent Customs Union amendment which would likely pass.
Once Parliament votes for it if the executive does not accept it we are in constitutional crisis territory
It seems the academic in Liverpool lost his job for the following.
His former employer, the University of Liverpool told the Jewish Chronicle that “Dr. Alex Scott-Samuel is no longer employed by the University.” This is following his appearance on the Richie Allen Show in February 2017, Dr Scott-Samuel was introduced as a senior lecturer at the University of Liverpool.* He told the audience that “The Rothschild family are behind a lot of the neo-liberal influence in the UK and the US. You only have to google them to look at this.”
I am not sure I am particularly comfortable with people being sacked if this is the full extent of what he said.
I'm not sure I am particularly comfortable with lecturers preaching antisemitic slurs about the "Rothschilds"
How do you get to that, these are rich people who obviously influence the neo-liberal viewpoints. Nothing anti-semetic there or even a mention of it , if it had been a coloured person would you have said he was racist. Get a grip.
The fact that you refer to " coloured person" tells me all I need to know about your views on race. Tell you what, find a black person and ask them if they are OK being called "coloured"
I think he was being a bit ironic there.
Get lost fruitcake, get offended elsewhere you jessie boy.
Ah, here comes the abuse from the nationalist, who refrs to black people as "coloured". Nationalism, whether Scottish, British or English; a pathetic proxy for hatred and intolerance dressed up in faux patriotism. Go on, prove it with your abusive response.
In perhaps the biggest surprise of the day Malcolm is all good with someone making an anti-semitic slur.
It seems the academic in Liverpool lost his job for the following.
His former employer, the University of Liverpool told the Jewish Chronicle that “Dr. Alex Scott-Samuel is no longer employed by the University.” This is following his appearance on the Richie Allen Show in February 2017, Dr Scott-Samuel was introduced as a senior lecturer at the University of Liverpool.* He told the audience that “The Rothschild family are behind a lot of the neo-liberal influence in the UK and the US. You only have to google them to look at this.”
I am not sure I am particularly comfortable with people being sacked if this is the full extent of what he said.
I'm not sure I am particularly comfortable with lecturers preaching antisemitic slurs about the "Rothschilds"
How do you get to that, these are rich people who obviously influence the neo-liberal viewpoints. Nothing anti-semetic there or even a mention of it , if it had been a coloured person would you have said he was racist. Get a grip.
The fact that you refer to " coloured person" tells me all I need to know about your views on race. Tell you what, find a black person and ask them if they are OK being called "coloured"
I think he was being a bit ironic there.
Apologies that was meant for that nutjob Foremain, the clown has no clue.
Haha, what a relief, I thought you had just taken to abusing all people on here, and there it was, it was just you lashing out in anger. You don't even need someone to tease you to prove how dumb you are, because you do it so well yourself.
It seems the academic in Liverpool lost his job for the following.
His former employer, the University of Liverpool told the Jewish Chronicle that “Dr. Alex Scott-Samuel is no longer employed by the University.” This is following his appearance on the Richie Allen Show in February 2017, Dr Scott-Samuel was introduced as a senior lecturer at the University of Liverpool.* He told the audience that “The Rothschild family are behind a lot of the neo-liberal influence in the UK and the US. You only have to google them to look at this.”
I am not sure I am particularly comfortable with people being sacked if this is the full extent of what he said.
I'm not sure I am particularly comfortable with lecturers preaching antisemitic slurs about the "Rothschilds"
How do you get to that, these are rich people who obviously influence the neo-liberal viewpoints. Nothing anti-semetic there or even a mention of it , if it had been a coloured person would you have said he was racist. Get a grip.
The fact that you refer to " coloured person" tells me all I need to know about your views on race. Tell you what, find a black person and ask them if they are OK being called "coloured"
Another nutjob snowflake jessie boy, get stuffed.
The average intellect of a prejudiced nationalist exposed by his limited vocabulary and retarded powers of argument.
Employment lawyer here. Very few dismissals are automatically unfair. Those that are fall into special categories such as whistleblowing, maternity etc. Additionally some dismissals are unlawful if they are on the grounds of one of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act. So long as the university can show that it fell within one of the potentially fair reasons for dismissal (conduct in this case), that it followed a fair procedure (disciplinary hearing) and acted reasonably in treating the reason as a sufficient reason for dismissal then it is a fair dismissal. It may not be able to do any of that, but it's impossible to say without knowing more whether this dismissal was in any way unlawful.
Misconduct need not be confined to the workplace. It may be potentially fair to dismiss an employee for conduct outside of the workplace "so long as in some respect or other it affects the employee, or could be thought to affect the employee, when he is doing his work" - in this case the Liverpool's reputation could be thought to have been damaged. Doesn't really matter whether you consider what he said to be correct or otherwise.
Really, I don't think there's any reason to think he was dismissed. Judging by his biographical details it looks as though he retired four years ago when he reached 65 and held only an honorary position after that.
We know that Corbyn backs permanent Customs Union as does the SNP as now do Tory MPs like Oliver Letwin, if the Deal fails again the Grieve amendment will likely pass this time, then Letwin and a Labour MP will put forward a permanent Customs Union amendment which would likely pass.
Once Parliament votes for it if the executive does not accept it we are in constitutional crisis territory
The Deal is looking unlikely to be voted on again until late March, with "negotiations" continuing until the EU Council meeting which I think is on the 21st. This provides plenty of excuse for nervous would-be rebels to sit on their hands and wait to see what May brings back from Brussels. And then it will be too late.
It seems the academic in Liverpool lost his job for the following.
His former employer, the University of Liverpool told the Jewish Chronicle that “Dr. Alex Scott-Samuel is no longer employed by the University.” This is following his appearance on the Richie Allen Show in February 2017, Dr Scott-Samuel was introduced as a senior lecturer at the University of Liverpool.* He told the audience that “The Rothschild family are behind a lot of the neo-liberal influence in the UK and the US. You only have to google them to look at this.”
I am not sure I am particularly comfortable with people being sacked if this is the full extent of what he said.
I'm not sure I am particularly comfortable with lecturers preaching antisemitic slurs about the "Rothschilds"
How do you get to that, these are rich people who obviously influence the neo-liberal viewpoints. Nothing anti-semetic there or even a mention of it , if it had been a coloured person would you have said he was racist. Get a grip.
The fact that you refer to " coloured person" tells me all I need to know about your views on race. Tell you what, find a black person and ask them if they are OK being called "coloured"
I think he was being a bit ironic there.
Get lost fruitcake, get offended elsewhere you jessie boy.
Ah, here comes the abuse from the nationalist, who refrs to black people as "coloured". Nationalism, whether Scottish, British or English; a pathetic proxy for hatred and intolerance dressed up in faux patriotism. Go on, prove it with your abusive response.
In perhaps the biggest surprise of the day Malcolm is all good with someone making an anti-semitic slur.
Now we have Tweedledum joining his thick counterpart
It seems the academic in Liverpool lost his job for the following.
His former employer, the University of Liverpool told the Jewish Chronicle that “Dr. Alex Scott-Samuel is no longer employed by the University.” This is following his appearance on the Richie Allen Show in February 2017, Dr Scott-Samuel was introduced as a senior lecturer at the University of Liverpool.* He told the audience that “The Rothschild family are behind a lot of the neo-liberal influence in the UK and the US. You only have to google them to look at this.”
I am not sure I am particularly comfortable with people being sacked if this is the full extent of what he said.
I'm not sure I am particularly comfortable with lecturers preaching antisemitic slurs about the "Rothschilds"
How do you get to that, these are rich people who obviously influence the neo-liberal viewpoints. Nothing anti-semetic there or even a mention of it , if it had been a coloured person would you have said he was racist. Get a grip.
The fact that you refer to " coloured person" tells me all I need to know about your views on race. Tell you what, find a black person and ask them if they are OK being called "coloured"
I think he was being a bit ironic there.
Get lost fruitcake, get offended elsewhere you jessie boy.
Ah, here comes the abuse from the nationalist, who refrs to black people as "coloured". Nationalism, whether Scottish, British or English; a pathetic proxy for hatred and intolerance dressed up in faux patriotism. Go on, prove it with your abusive response.
In perhaps the biggest surprise of the day Malcolm is all good with someone making an anti-semitic slur.
..and that he refers to black people as "coloureds". He clearly has much more in common with that other nationalist Eugène Terre'Blanche than he likes to let on. Nationalists of the world unite!
We know that Corbyn backs permanent Customs Union as does the SNP as now do Tory MPs like Oliver Letwin, if the Deal fails again the Grieve amendment will likely pass this time, then Letwin and a Labour MP will put forward a permanent Customs Union amendment which would likely pass.
Once Parliament votes for it if the executive does not accept it we are in constitutional crisis territory
The Deal is looking unlikely to be voted on again until late March, with "negotiations" continuing until the EU Council meeting which I think is on the 21st. This provides plenty of excuse for nervous would-be rebels to sit on their hands and wait to see what May brings back from Brussels. And then it will be too late.
But MPs can see the blatant running down of the clock, surely they won't be taken by surprise?
It seems the academic in Liverpool lost his job for the following.
His former employer, the University of Liverpool told the Jewish Chronicle that “Dr. Alex Scott-Samuel is no longer employed by the University.” This is following his appearance on the Richie Allen Show in February 2017, Dr Scott-Samuel was introduced as a senior lecturer at the University of Liverpool.* He told the audience that “The Rothschild family are behind a lot of the neo-liberal influence in the UK and the US. You only have to google them to look at this.”
I am not sure I am particularly comfortable with people being sacked if this is the full extent of what he said.
I'm not sure I am particularly comfortable with lecturers preaching antisemitic slurs about the "Rothschilds"
How do you get to that, these are rich people who obviously influence the neo-liberal viewpoints. Nothing anti-semetic there or even a mention of it , if it had been a coloured person would you have said he was racist. Get a grip.
The fact that you refer to " coloured person" tells me all I need to know about your views on race. Tell you what, find a black person and ask them if they are OK being called "coloured"
I think he was being a bit ironic there.
Get lost fruitcake, get offended elsewhere you jessie boy.
Ah, here comes the abuse from the nationalist, who refrs to black people as "coloured". Nationalism, whether Scottish, British or English; a pathetic proxy for hatred and intolerance dressed up in faux patriotism. Go on, prove it with your abusive response.
In perhaps the biggest surprise of the day Malcolm is all good with someone making an anti-semitic slur.
Now we have Tweedledum joining his thick counterpart
I am sure he is equally overwhelmed by your powers of argument. Have you calmed down now? It must be all that martial music you listen to, it really is not good for you.
He needs to go to be honest but I do not see a pathway for that other than health or a defeat in a GE
Me neither. And seeing as I cannot root for either Labour losing elections or for other people's health to fail (Donald Trump excepted) it follows that I am content for him to stay in post.
Now then - 'loyalty' - yes I'm a Labour loyalist, have never voted any other way in a GE, but I pride myself on objectivity when it comes to this PB malarky.
Let me demonstrate this with a couple of IMOs:
I doubt that any other PM, Con or Lab, could have done a materially better exit deal with the EU than TM has managed. They held (and hold) all the cards.
In using time pressure to try to bully through her deal she is not 'blackmailing' MPs, she is forcing them to confront reality. It is absolutely the right strategy. Go, girl, go.
And I think it will work. I think she will get the deal through eventually and this will represent a considerable personal and political achievement.
But if it doesn't work, if MPs insist on ultimately blocking it, she is not the sort of reprobate to allow us to crash out into no deal chaos. Neither is she the sort of yellow belly who will renege on the referendum either by revoking or offering another one. No, she will step up to the plate and call a 'back me or sack me' General Election.
Which, if she does, and even if Labour do pivot to Ref2 in their manifesto, she has every chance of winning.
Not much I disagree with to be honest but not sure how her party will let her have a GE and she needs 434 mps to vote for one
We know that Corbyn backs permanent Customs Union as does the SNP as now do Tory MPs like Oliver Letwin, if the Deal fails again the Grieve amendment will likely pass this time, then Letwin and a Labour MP will put forward a permanent Customs Union amendment which would likely pass.
Once Parliament votes for it if the executive does not accept it we are in constitutional crisis territory
The Deal is looking unlikely to be voted on again until late March, with "negotiations" continuing until the EU Council meeting which I think is on the 21st. This provides plenty of excuse for nervous would-be rebels to sit on their hands and wait to see what May brings back from Brussels. And then it will be too late.
It is already clear the EU will give no concessions on the backstop.
Even at the 11th hour if the Deal fails again I could certainly see Cooper extension passing swiftly followed by permanent Customs Union passing and of course even if we Brexit with No Deal that only means the Deal fails and there can be no EUref2 with a Remain option without the risk of the Euro.
Parliament could vote to renegotiate on the basis of returning to a permanent Customs Union in April if it wants and the EU have already said they will renegotiate on that basis
It seems the academic in Liverpool lost his job for the following.
His former employer, the University of Liverpool told the Jewish Chronicle that “Dr. Alex Scott-Samuel is no longer employed by the University.” This is following his appearance on the Richie Allen Show in February 2017, Dr Scott-Samuel was introduced as a senior lecturer at the University of Liverpool.* He told the audience that “The Rothschild family are behind a lot of the neo-liberal influence in the UK and the US. You only have to google them to look at this.”
I am not sure I am particularly comfortable with people being sacked if this is the full extent of what he said.
I'm not sure I am particularly comfortable with lecturers preaching antisemitic slurs about the "Rothschilds"
How do you get to that, these are rich people who obviously influence the neo-liberal viewpoints. Nothing anti-semetic there or even a mention of it , if it had been a coloured person would you have said he was racist. Get a grip.
The fact that you refer to " coloured person" tells me all I need to know about your views on race. Tell you what, find a black person and ask them if they are OK being called "coloured"
re the University of Liverpool losing his job thing.
It is analagous to a CEO at a shareholders' meeting giving a rundown of forecast growth, together with anticipated acquisitions and then mentioning, apropos of nothing, that he hated blacks because they were lazy, before moving onto AOB.
Not a sackable offence? Not 100% sure, regardless of the legality although I'm sure it's one flavour or another of offensive behaviour although IANAL.
Won't the University have consulted their lawyers before doing anything drastic?
re the University of Liverpool losing his job thing.
It is analagous to a CEO at a shareholders' meeting giving a rundown of forecast growth, together with anticipated acquisitions and then mentioning, apropos of nothing, that he hated blacks because they were lazy, before moving onto AOB.
Not a sackable offence? Not 100% sure, regardless of the legality although I'm sure it's one flavour or another of offensive behaviour although IANAL.
Won't the University have consulted their lawyers before doing anything drastic?
Good evening, everyone.
You'd be amazed how often employers don't take professional advice before disciplining/firing members of staff.
An employer can get into very hot water by trying to discipline a member of staff for non-work-related behaviour.
We know that Corbyn backs permanent Customs Union as does the SNP as now do Tory MPs like Oliver Letwin, if the Deal fails again the Grieve amendment will likely pass this time, then Letwin and a Labour MP will put forward a permanent Customs Union amendment which would likely pass.
Once Parliament votes for it if the executive does not accept it we are in constitutional crisis territory
The Deal is looking unlikely to be voted on again until late March, with "negotiations" continuing until the EU Council meeting which I think is on the 21st. This provides plenty of excuse for nervous would-be rebels to sit on their hands and wait to see what May brings back from Brussels. And then it will be too late.
It is already clear the EU will give no concessions on the backstop.
Even at the 11th hour if the Deal fails again I could certainly see Cooper extension passing swiftly followed by permanent Customs Union passing and of course even if we Brexit with No Deal that only means the Deal fails and there can be no EUref2 with a Remain option without the risk of the Euro.
Parliament could vote to renegotiate on the basis of returning to a permanent Customs Union in April if it wants and the EU have already said they will renegotiate on that basis
Lord Trimble launched his legal challenge against the backstop today. If he wins the UK and the EU would be in default of the law
Now that would be interesting. And by the way, it is not clear if concessions will be granted. You may be right but you could be wrong
We know that Corbyn backs permanent Customs Union as does the SNP as now do Tory MPs like Oliver Letwin, if the Deal fails again the Grieve amendment will likely pass this time, then Letwin and a Labour MP will put forward a permanent Customs Union amendment which would likely pass.
Once Parliament votes for it if the executive does not accept it we are in constitutional crisis territory
The Deal is looking unlikely to be voted on again until late March, with "negotiations" continuing until the EU Council meeting which I think is on the 21st. This provides plenty of excuse for nervous would-be rebels to sit on their hands and wait to see what May brings back from Brussels. And then it will be too late.
In those circumstances, isn't it quite likely that May will present parliament not only with the EU's final offer, but also with a clear statement by the EU of their conditions for an extension?
It seems the academic in Liverpool lost his job for the following.
His former employer, the University of Liverpool told the Jewish Chronicle that “Dr. Alex Scott-Samuel is no longer employed by the University.” This is following his appearance on the Richie Allen Show in February 2017, Dr Scott-Samuel was introduced as a senior lecturer at the University of Liverpool.* He told the audience that “The Rothschild family are behind a lot of the neo-liberal influence in the UK and the US. You only have to google them to look at this.”
I am not sure I am particularly comfortable with people being sacked if this is the full extent of what he said.
I'm not sure I am particularly comfortable with lecturers preaching antisemitic slurs about the "Rothschilds"
How do you get to that, these are rich people who obviously influence the neo-liberal viewpoints. Nothing anti-semetic there or even a mention of it , if it had been a coloured person would you have said he was racist. Get a grip.
The fact that you refer to " coloured person" tells me all I need to know about your views on race. Tell you what, find a black person and ask them if they are OK being called "coloured"
It seems the academic in Liverpool lost his job for the following.
His former employer, the University of Liverpool told the Jewish Chronicle that “Dr. Alex Scott-Samuel is no longer employed by the University.” This is following his appearance on the Richie Allen Show in February 2017, Dr Scott-Samuel was introduced as a senior lecturer at the University of Liverpool.* He told the audience that “The Rothschild family are behind a lot of the neo-liberal influence in the UK and the US. You only have to google them to look at this.”
I am not sure I am particularly comfortable with people being sacked if this is the full extent of what he said.
I'm not sure I am particularly comfortable with lecturers preaching antisemitic slurs about the "Rothschilds"
How do you get to that, these are rich people who obviously influence the neo-liberal viewpoints. Nothing anti-semetic there or even a mention of it , if it had been a coloured person would you have said he was racist. Get a grip.
The fact that you refer to " coloured person" tells me all I need to know about your views on race. Tell you what, find a black person and ask them if they are OK being called "coloured"
Employment lawyer here. Very few dismissals are automatically unfair. Those that are fall into special categories such as whistleblowing, maternity etc. Additionally some dismissals are unlawful if they are on the grounds of one of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act. So long as the university can show that it fell within one of the potentially fair reasons for dismissal (conduct in this case), that it followed a fair procedure (disciplinary hearing) and acted reasonably in treating the reason as a sufficient reason for dismissal then it is a fair dismissal. It may not be able to do any of that, but it's impossible to say without knowing more whether this dismissal was in any way unlawful.
Misconduct need not be confined to the workplace. It may be potentially fair to dismiss an employee for conduct outside of the workplace "so long as in some respect or other it affects the employee, or could be thought to affect the employee, when he is doing his work" - in this case the Liverpool's reputation could be thought to have been damaged. Doesn't really matter whether you consider what he said to be correct or otherwise.
Cambridge University (or more particularly Trinity College) sacked Bertrand Russell for expressing pacifist views/divorce.
Cambridge University dismissed J.B.S. Haldane (later reinstated after his battle with the Sex Viri) for Communism/divorce.
Swansea University sacked Saunders Lewis (founder of Plaid Cymru) for nationalism/political agitation.
In each instance, the University claimed its reputation was being damaged by the individual.
In fact, with the benefit of hindsight, we can see that it is those urging sacking or dismissal who have damaged the reputation of the universities.
The use of “reputational damage” to fire someone is always the last refuge of a scoundrel.
If there are anti-semitic incidents that took place on campus while he was teaching, that is a different matter. Then and only then should he be dismissed by Liverpool University.
I have to say I always feel a bit suspicious when Jewish people are accused of anti-semitism. I suppose it's possible in theory, but my first reaction would be to ask "Are you sure you haven't misunderstood?"
Yes, I agree.
Is it possible -
- for a Jew to harbour prejudice against Jews? - for a woman to be misogynist? - for a homosexual to be homophobic? - for a muslim to be islamophobic?
YES in all cases, but I think they are owed a presumption otherwise unless the evidence is compelling.
I can't believe parliament is allowing May to get away with her perpetual flimflam and wibble.
The tin can must be completely battered from all the kicking it has received.
But May is playing with fire - if she is bluffing on No Deal it could destroy the Tory party when she is forced to revoke with an hour to spare before Brexit o'clock.
Employment lawyer here. Very few dismissals are automatically unfair. Those that are fall into special categories such as whistleblowing, maternity etc. Additionally some dismissals are unlawful if they are on the grounds of one of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act. So long as the university can show that it fell within one of the potentially fair reasons for dismissal (conduct in this case), that it followed a fair procedure (disciplinary hearing) and acted reasonably in treating the reason as a sufficient reason for dismissal then it is a fair dismissal. It may not be able to do any of that, but it's impossible to say without knowing more whether this dismissal was in any way unlawful.
Misconduct need not be confined to the workplace. It may be potentially fair to dismiss an employee for conduct outside of the workplace "so long as in some respect or other it affects the employee, or could be thought to affect the employee, when he is doing his work" - in this case the Liverpool's reputation could be thought to have been damaged. Doesn't really matter whether you consider what he said to be correct or otherwise.
Cambridge University (or more particularly Trinity College) sacked Bertrand Russell for expressing pacifist views/divorce.
Cambridge University dismissed J.B.S. Haldane (later reinstated after his battle with the Sex Viri) for Communism/divorce.
Swansea University sacked Saunders Lewis (founder of Plaid Cymru) for nationalism/political agitation.
In each instance, the University claimed its reputation was being damaged by the individual.
In fact, with the benefit of hindsight, we can see that it is those urging sacking or dismissal who have damaged the reputation of the universities.
The use of “reputational damage” to fire someone is always the last refuge of a scoundrel.
If there are anti-semitic incidents that took place on campus while he was teaching, that is a different matter. Then and only then should he be dismissed by Liverpool University.
That's a pretty selective set of cases, isn't it? To take a more recent example (albeit not in the realm of academia), the Labour party just kicked out one of its MPs after she was convicted of perverting the course of justice. I don't think it's really in dispute that she caused reputational damage to the party, and that they were therefore justified in acting?
It seems the academic in Liverpool lost his job for the following.
His former employer, the University of Liverpool told the Jewish Chronicle that “Dr. Alex Scott-Samuel is no longer employed by the University.” This is following his appearance on the Richie Allen Show in February 2017, Dr Scott-Samuel was introduced as a senior lecturer at the University of Liverpool.* He told the audience that “The Rothschild family are behind a lot of the neo-liberal influence in the UK and the US. You only have to google them to look at this.”
I am not sure I am particularly comfortable with people being sacked if this is the full extent of what he said.
I would disagree strongly with his views and his politics but to be sacked for them is outrageous. I don't know what, if anything, this says about our universities in general but the University of Liverpool specifically should be ashamed and I hope he takes them to the cleaners.
Richard - people who express views like that very rarely do so once.
But such views, even though thoroughly distasteful, should not result in him losing his job.
Of course they should. An employer has the right not to have it's name tainted by people with repulsive racist views, it brings them into disrepute if they tolerate it. This guy was referring to the so-called Jewish conspiracy. Anti-Semitism and other forms of racism are repulsive. It doesn't matter whether they are expressed by someone from Momentum or BNP/UKIP, it needs to be called out for what it is. As a UKIP voter I guess you will say it is "political correctness gone mad!" and make excuses for it.
You can take the boy out of UKIP....
Indeed. Wait for the torrent of abuse and thuggish insults, just to prove what we always knew; that there is no difference in essence between a UKIP supporter and a follower of the BNP.
Dear me Nigel, a little early to have been at the bottle isn't it? I would suggest you might need some professional help there.
I can't believe parliament is allowing May to get away with her perpetual flimflam and wibble.
The tin can must be completely battered from all the kicking it has received.
But May is playing with fire - if she is bluffing on No Deal it could destroy the Tory party when she is forced to revoke with an hour to spare before Brexit o'clock.
I agree with your last sentence, I would like to see some polling of Tory voters that are sticking with May because she keeps saying she will no deal.
It seems the academic in Liverpool lost his job for the following.
His former employer, the University of Liverpool told the Jewish Chronicle that “Dr. Alex Scott-Samuel is no longer employed by the University.” This is following his appearance on the Richie Allen Show in February 2017, Dr Scott-Samuel was introduced as a senior lecturer at the University of Liverpool.* He told the audience that “The Rothschild family are behind a lot of the neo-liberal influence in the UK and the US. You only have to google them to look at this.”
I am not sure I am particularly comfortable with people being sacked if this is the full extent of what he said.
I'm not sure I am particularly comfortable with lecturers preaching antisemitic slurs about the "Rothschilds"
How do you get to that, these are rich people who obviously influence the neo-liberal viewpoints. Nothing anti-semetic there or even a mention of it , if it had been a coloured person would you have said he was racist. Get a grip.
The fact that you refer to " coloured person" tells me all I need to know about your views on race. Tell you what, find a black person and ask them if they are OK being called "coloured"
I think he was being a bit ironic there.
Get lost fruitcake, get offended elsewhere you jessie boy.
Ah, here comes the abuse from the nationalist, who refrs to black people as "coloured". Nationalism, whether Scottish, British or English; a pathetic proxy for hatred and intolerance dressed up in faux patriotism. Go on, prove it with your abusive response.
In perhaps the biggest surprise of the day Malcolm is all good with someone making an anti-semitic slur.
..and that he refers to black people as "coloureds". He clearly has much more in common with that other nationalist Eugène Terre'Blanche than he likes to let on. Nationalists of the world unite!
To be fair on Eugene White Earth, Cape Coloured is a neutral term for a distinct South African ethnic group:
And it is linguistically bizare that "Coloured people" is considered offensive, and "people of Colour" highly PC. Though having done my diversity training, I know which to use!
Employment lawyer here. Very few dismissals are automatically unfair. Those that are fall into special categories such as whistleblowing, maternity etc. Additionally some dismissals are unlawful if they are on the grounds of one of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act. So long as the university can show that it fell within one of the potentially fair reasons for dismissal (conduct in this case), that it followed a fair procedure (disciplinary hearing) and acted reasonably in treating the reason as a sufficient reason for dismissal then it is a fair dismissal. It may not be able to do any of that, but it's impossible to say without knowing more whether this dismissal was in any way unlawful.
Misconduct need not be confined to the workplace. It may be potentially fair to dismiss an employee for conduct outside of the workplace "so long as in some respect or other it affects the employee, or could be thought to affect the employee, when he is doing his work" - in this case the Liverpool's reputation could be thought to have been damaged. Doesn't really matter whether you consider what he said to be correct or otherwise.
Cambridge University (or more particularly Trinity College) sacked Bertrand Russell for expressing pacifist views/divorce.
Cambridge University dismissed J.B.S. Haldane (later reinstated after his battle with the Sex Viri) for Communism/divorce.
Swansea University sacked Saunders Lewis (founder of Plaid Cymru) for nationalism/political agitation.
In each instance, the University claimed its reputation was being damaged by the individual.
In fact, with the benefit of hindsight, we can see that it is those urging sacking or dismissal who have damaged the reputation of the universities.
The use of “reputational damage” to fire someone is always the last refuge of a scoundrel.
If there are anti-semitic incidents that took place on campus while he was teaching, that is a different matter. Then and only then should he be dismissed by Liverpool University.
There are cases where it would be entirely reasonable to fire an employee for expressing opinions that his employer finds objectionable, eg if a clergyman said that he was an atheist. But, those will be unusual.
Generally, it 's reasonable to discipline an employee for bad-mouthing his employer, libel, breach of confidence, serious criminal conduct, or for falsely claiming to speak for his employer, but not for expressing objectionable opinions outside of work.
I can't believe parliament is allowing May to get away with her perpetual flimflam and wibble.
The tin can must be completely battered from all the kicking it has received.
But May is playing with fire - if she is bluffing on No Deal it could destroy the Tory party when she is forced to revoke with an hour to spare before Brexit o'clock.
I am not sure what they can do about it at the moment. Certainly the way in which the whole thing has developed has shown some serious deficiencies in our Parliamentary system. I think it has made a strong case for stripping away the last vestiges of Royal Prerogative and making sure it is Parliament alone which has the right to make these decisions. I might not like what decisions they make but at least it would be a better system for democracy.
Comments
As far as TM is concerned if she gets a deal through (and I still expect she will ) the relief across the country should give her a boost and give her the opportunity to invite a leadership contest over the summer with a new leader in place for September.
Events may disrupt this but I believe that post a deal she needs to move on if for nothing else than her own health and peace of mind. I cannot even start to understand how she has stood against so much opposition but pursued a course she believed in, right or wrong
In this particular instance he hasn't presented himself as a private individual with personal views, but as a university academic, to gain more credence for his personal views on the basis of the employment he holds. In that circumstance I don't think it's unreasonable for the University to refuse to associate with him by terminating his employment, as by presenting himself in such a way he is also representing his employer.
The distinction I am drawing is quite fine and I'm not entirely comfortable with it, but I think it is there.
It's an interesting idea. Starmer in particular should be making much more of his time in the limelight, if he harboured genuine leadership ambition. Possibly they all feel too nervous of upsetting the members by perceived disloyalty, and are in a holding pattern until there's a vacancy.
I also remain firm in my view that if an election does come about this year - and I am not sure that it will - it will not prove to be a Brexit election - any more than was the case in 2017.
It is analagous to a CEO at a shareholders' meeting giving a rundown of forecast growth, together with anticipated acquisitions and then mentioning, apropos of nothing, that he hated blacks because they were lazy, before moving onto AOB.
Not a sackable offence? Not 100% sure, regardless of the legality although I'm sure it's one flavour or another of offensive behaviour although IANAL.
Whoever has bought any of those monstrosities for flats in the Neo Bankside development needs their head checking.
Good evening, everyone.
However TBF my post was to describe objectively the strength of Labour's position in the upcoming Brexit end game not the great merit of their policies. I would need a much longer one for that.
He wasn't speaking as a layman he was from my understanding speaking as a Professor is a professional capacity representing the University. Most employers have terms about not bringing the employer into disrepute.
But so much more fun to speculate without knowledge of underlying facts.
PS its also worth remembering he also left the University in 2015 and made the comments in 2017.
The Yougov poll today while encouraging for May does not change the fact she would still only get 3 extra MPs and not even a clear overall majority (except excluding Sinn Fein) when she really needs a 1997 style Blair landslide and over 400 Tory MPs and a majority of nearly 200 to ensure her Deal would pass given only 202 MPs voted for it last time and a third of Tory MPs voted against it
However, I do not expect an election this year or until TM has been succeeded
If it happens then it will happen with the government switching to back it officially and having the payroll back it, not simply backed into it by 17 MPs.
So one could reasonably argue that certain public statements should lead to expulsion from a political party, but not to termination of employment.
Given Parliament is sovereign May would then either have to reluctantly accept the will of Parliament or create the biggest constitutional crisis and clash between the executive and legislature in decades.
Of course if she is shrewd May could say she will give her Deal one more go and if it fails again she will have to accept the will of Parliament for a permanent Customs Union, that would really give the ERG something to think about
People have a right to their views.
Employers have a right not to be associated with that.
We've been discussing the pros and cons of something that never happened. ROTFL.
Whatever solution happens it will need more than the backing of 17 government MPs, even if it has the backing of the rest of Parliament.
"Trimbyaxe"
and MPs are furiously trying to decipher it to get the nine letter word out !
Of course everyone at home realises the answer is "May Brexit", but will our erstwhile MPs get the right answer in time
The clock ticks down...
It's really very similar to views of Gove on the Tory side - he absolutely hasn't tried to overthrow May, but he's quietly done a good job which makes Tories feel he might be rather good as a successor. More ostentatious challengers like Boris who evinced limited interest in the day job do not command unbridled enthusiasm.
Of course, one could say the same of May, who was seen as a competent HO Minister, but...
If the views are expressed and give the impression that they are endorsed by or the policy of the University (when they are his own) there is a very grey area over his future employment.
Now then - 'loyalty' - yes I'm a Labour loyalist, have never voted any other way in a GE, but I pride myself on objectivity when it comes to this PB malarky.
Let me demonstrate this with a couple of IMOs:
I doubt that any other PM, Con or Lab, could have done a materially better exit deal with the EU than TM has managed. They held (and hold) all the cards.
In using time pressure to try to bully through her deal she is not 'blackmailing' MPs, she is forcing them to confront reality. It is absolutely the right strategy. Go, girl, go.
And I think it will work. I think she will get the deal through eventually and this will represent a considerable personal and political achievement.
But if it doesn't work, if MPs insist on ultimately blocking it, she is not the sort of reprobate to allow us to crash out into no deal chaos. Neither is she the sort of yellow belly who will renege on the referendum either by revoking or offering another one. No, she will step up to the plate and call a 'back me or sack me' General Election.
Which, if she does, and even if Labour do pivot to Ref2 in their manifesto, she has every chance of winning.
Misconduct need not be confined to the workplace. It may be potentially fair to dismiss an employee for conduct outside of the workplace "so long as in some respect or other it affects the employee, or could be thought to affect the employee, when he is doing his work" - in this case the Liverpool's reputation could be thought to have been damaged. Doesn't really matter whether you consider what he said to be correct or otherwise.
Once Parliament votes for it if the executive does not accept it we are in constitutional crisis territory
Even at the 11th hour if the Deal fails again I could certainly see Cooper extension passing swiftly followed by permanent Customs Union passing and of course even if we Brexit with No Deal that only means the Deal fails and there can be no EUref2 with a Remain option without the risk of the Euro.
Parliament could vote to renegotiate on the basis of returning to a permanent Customs Union in April if it wants and the EU have already said they will renegotiate on that basis
Malcy "The Turnip Masher" G
versus
Nigel_ForEverEngland-main
for the Super-heavy(-but-even-more-dense) Weight Buckfast Belt.
An employer can get into very hot water by trying to discipline a member of staff for non-work-related behaviour.
Now that would be interesting. And by the way, it is not clear if concessions will be granted. You may be right but you could be wrong
https://www.naacp.org/
https://theguardian.com/culture/2015/jan/26/benedict-cumberbatch-apologises-after-calling-black-actors-coloured
Cambridge University dismissed J.B.S. Haldane (later reinstated after his battle with the Sex Viri) for Communism/divorce.
Swansea University sacked Saunders Lewis (founder of Plaid Cymru) for nationalism/political agitation.
In each instance, the University claimed its reputation was being damaged by the individual.
In fact, with the benefit of hindsight, we can see that it is those urging sacking or dismissal who have damaged the reputation of the universities.
The use of “reputational damage” to fire someone is always the last refuge of a scoundrel.
If there are anti-semitic incidents that took place on campus while he was teaching, that is a different matter. Then and only then should he be dismissed by Liverpool University.
Is it possible -
- for a Jew to harbour prejudice against Jews?
- for a woman to be misogynist?
- for a homosexual to be homophobic?
- for a muslim to be islamophobic?
YES in all cases, but I think they are owed a presumption otherwise unless the evidence is compelling.
The tin can must be completely battered from all the kicking it has received.
But May is playing with fire - if she is bluffing on No Deal it could destroy the Tory party when she is forced to revoke with an hour to spare before Brexit o'clock.
Dear me Nigel, a little early to have been at the bottle isn't it? I would suggest you might need some professional help there.
Edit: and betrayal is a very strong emotion.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Coloureds
And it is linguistically bizare that "Coloured people" is considered offensive, and "people of Colour" highly PC. Though having done my diversity training, I know which to use!
Off topic, Falange holding their show trial...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-4721
Generally, it 's reasonable to discipline an employee for bad-mouthing his employer, libel, breach of confidence, serious criminal conduct, or for falsely claiming to speak for his employer, but not for expressing objectionable opinions outside of work.