Jump to content

UK Politics - Not a Special Relationship


Werthead

Recommended Posts

I was actually a subscriber to Prospect when Goodhart founded it, so I am very familiar with his writing and the development of his thoughts on immigration, cultural diversity, and the welfare state. That would include the egregious weaknesses in his arguments and his tendency to use race as a proxy for culture, to ignore cultural diversity within the 'native' UK population as irrelevant, and to make tendentious claims without evidence. There are a number of detailed critiques of his work going around that, to be frank, quite destroy his main arguments: I would suggest it's more pertinent for anyone wanting to dismiss out of hand the idea that he is a racist to read those, rather than asking me to read yet more of his writing.

ETA - I'd note also that whatever one makes of his writings, the fact remains that Goodhart has been handed this job solely because they happen to agree with government policy. He is not an expert or an academic or a professional in the field. He has no qualifications or experience in the area of equalities and human rights. His personal experience of inequality, even, is nil. He just happens to agree with senior Tory politicians that immigration is bad, that the hostile environment is good, and that otherwise the UK doesn't have a particular problem with racism.

To appoint someone to a role on the EHRC on that basis is surely indefensible to anyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Heartofice said:
1 hour ago, mormont said:

 

It's worth actually just reading the article before making these declarations I think. Also Goodhart doesn't make these statements without evidence, he actually tends to provide plenty to evidence to back up what he says. Go read his books. The interchangable claim is something I'm not sure where you are getting that so you'd want to back that up.

Reading his article doesn’t make his defense of “white self-interest” not blatant evidence of him being racist.

I don’t need to pay to read all his books anymore than I need to pay to read David Duke’s to decipher if he’s a racist, and what he’s written is quite frankly no more salient than most of the stuff I’d find on Duke’s website. 

White people who fear immigration due to fears of brown people making their country less white are racist.

And Goodhart is racist.

Are you going give a reasoning for the actual thesis of the article in question is reasonable?

 

39 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Ok lets say liberal then, I basically mean not conservative or right wing. I think you are splitting hairs here. If you just want to count 'socialist worker' as a left wing newspaper.

Eh. Liberals can and often do fall on more on the right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't help noticing that's we've been distracted again.

Ultimately I don't give a damn of Goodhart is technically racist, or just a supporter of racism and racist policies.

 

He's an avowed fan of the hostile environment policy, and has been appointed to the committee that decides whether the hostile environment was a good thing or not.

If this were a trial, he wouldn't be allowed on the jury. He is clearly biased and not objective. He's there explicitly to brush it under the carpet - no veneer of decency required.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

I can't help noticing that's we've been distracted again.

Ultimately I don't give a damn of Goodhart is technically racist, or just a supporter of racism and racist policies.

 

He's an avowed fan of the hostile environment policy, and has been appointed to the committee that decides whether the hostile environment was a good thing or not.

If this were a trial, he wouldn't be allowed on the jury. He is clearly biased and not objective. He's there explicitly to brush it under the carpet - no veneer of decency required.

Eh I guess so. Having an argument on a guy who basically screeched the main talking points of white-nationalists is racist is unnecessary here. 

He’s still unfit for the position he’s been appointed to. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

He's an avowed fan of the hostile environment policy, and has been appointed to the committee that decides whether the hostile environment was a good thing or not.

If this were a trial, he wouldn't be allowed on the jury. He is clearly biased and not objective. He's there explicitly to brush it under the carpet - no veneer of decency required.

Again, do you believe that the only people who can decide on the 'hostile environment' are those who were against it? If so what is the point of such a committee?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Again, do you believe that the only people who can decide on the 'hostile environment' are those who were against it? If so what is the point of such a committee?

No.
As well you know.

Before I respond further could you confirm whether you intend to discuss in good faith this time or not?
Your posts so far strongly suggests "not" but...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

No.
As well you know.

Before I respond further could you confirm whether you intend to discuss in good faith this time or not?
Your posts so far strongly suggests "not" but...

Well what is your point then?

I am arguing in good faith. You appear to be contradicting yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, surely this inquiry is just business as usual for any recent UK government?

When there is pressure on them over something they announce an inquiry. They then delay as long as possible, to let the spotlight dim. Assuming the inquiry still needs to go ahead then they carefully chose its remit, select a safe pair of hands to run it, and make sure it lasts as long as possible. The main risk is overdoing that to the extent that the final report is too widely considered laughable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HOI

You're only discussing in good faith if you actually believe your own inventions.

Just for example, I used the phrase "unbiased observer" you interpret that as "highly biased observers who agree with WT"

That's what's known as discussing in bad faith..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

HOI

You're only discussing in good faith if you actually believe your own inventions.

Just for example, I used the phrase "unbiased observer" you interpret that as "highly biased observers who agree with WT"

That's what's known as discussing in bad faith.

Well, firstly you are assuming that a committee acts like a jury. It doesn't.

It also assumed there is such a thing as an unbiased observer in this issue. I don't think there is. 

I'm really not arguing in bad faith here, I just don't see what point you are trying to make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Is just more bad faith

2. I disagree

3. Is a lie, pure and simple - actually, two of them.
You know full-well that you're discussing in bad faith, and you know full-well what point I made.
I know this because you possess reading comprehension above that of my 6 year old nephew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Which Tyler said:

1. Is just more bad faith

2. I disagree

3. Is a lie, pure and simple - actually, two of them.
You know full-well that you're discussing in bad faith, and you know full-well what point I made.

How is it bad faith? Honestly here I don't understand what point you are attempting to make here.

That someone who has supported the HE in the past cannot be on a committee about it? Why not? What if everyone else on the committee is absolutely against the HE? Should they also not be allowed on the committee?

If I am misinterpreting what you are saying then correct me rather than crowing about about bad faith.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

1. Is just more bad faith

Why?

2 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

2. I disagree

What are your reasons?

2 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

3. Is a lie, pure and simple - actually, two of them.
You know full-well that you're discussing in bad faith, and you know full-well what point I made.
I know this because you possess reading comprehension above that of my 6 year old nephew.

You have provided zero evidence to back any of this up.

HoI is making a simple point and you could just answer it. It is, if David G can't sit on the committee because he has effectively prejudged the point as issue, namely whether the hostile environment policy was good or bad, why can someone who does think the hostile environment policy was bad sit on the committee, as they have also prejudged the issue, just in the other direction? Following this logic then only people with no opinions on the hostile environment policy, or perhaps no strong opinions , or those who have opinions but never wrote them down, or something, can be appointed and that seems a bit silly. 

I'm not saying there aren't answers to this argument which you could give. I 'm just saying you could address this point before you leap to the assumption someone is arguing in bad faith. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

It is, if David G can't sit on the committee because he has effectively prejudged the point as issue, namely whether the hostile environment policy was good or bad, why can someone who does think the hostile environment policy was bad sit on the committee, as they have also prejudged the issue, just in the other direction? Following this logic then only people with no opinions on the hostile environment policy, or perhaps no strong opinions , or those who have opinions but never wrote them down, or something, can be appointed and that seems a bit silly. 

I'm not saying there aren't answers to this argument which you could give. I 'm just saying you could address this point before you leap to the assumption someone is arguing in bad faith. 

Oh, this is an easy one.

As detailed above, the objection isn't that Goodhart agrees with the government on the hostile environment. The issue is that that is the sole reason he has been appointed. He has no relevant expertise, experience or qualifications, only a viewpoint.

If a person was appointed solely because they thought the hostile environment was bad, that would also be a bad thing. Similarly, if a qualified person was appointed who thought the hostile environment was good, that would be OK - though that is not what's happening here, and we all know it's not likely to happen ever, since such people are in such short supply as to mean they effectively don't exist. And that is not a coincidence. It's because anyone with expertise, experience or qualifications in equality and human rights understands that the hostile environment is bad for equalities and human rights, and that in turn is because it is designed to be so. It is what it is, which is an intentional attack on equality and human rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4425

Quote

When good science is suppressed by the medical-political complex, people die

 


Politicians and governments are suppressing science. They do so in the public interest, they say, to accelerate availability of diagnostics and treatments. They do so to support innovation, to bring products to market at unprecedented speed. Both of these reasons are partly plausible; the greatest deceptions are founded in a grain of truth. But the underlying behaviour is troubling.

 

Science is being suppressed for political and financial gain. Covid-19 has unleashed state corruption on a grand scale, and it is harmful to public health.1 Politicians and industry are responsible for this opportunistic embezzlement. So too are scientists and health experts. The pandemic has revealed how the medical-political complex can be manipulated in an emergency—a time when it is even more important to safeguard science.

...

The incident relates to research published this week by The BMJ, which finds that the government procured an antibody test that in real world tests falls well short of performance claims made by its manufacturers.1213 Researchers from Public Health England and collaborating institutions sensibly pushed to publish their study findings before the government committed to buying a million of these tests but were blocked by the health department and the prime minister’s office.14 Why was it important to procure this product without due scrutiny? Prior publication of research on a preprint server or a government website is compatible with The BMJ’s publication policy. As if to prove a point, Public Health England then unsuccessfully attempted to block The BMJ’s press release about the research paper.

ARTICLE CONTINUES...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Several newspapers have reported that part of the reason Boris was angry at Cummings and Cain was that they had been referring to Carrie Symonds as 'Princess Nut Nuts' which if true adds a new level of absurdity to the whole thing. It's a good thing there's no major political events going on at the moment in this country so they've got time to spend squabbling about childish nicknames.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...