I see that Steve Baker is being attacked for saying something which he didn't say, and for making an attack on the civil service which he did not make.
What he actually said, according to the irreproachable source of the Guardian, was:
At the time I considered it implausible because my direct experience is that civil servants are extraordinarily careful to uphold the impartiality of the civil service. I think we must proceed with great caution in this matter but I heard [Grant] raise this issue. I think we need to be very careful not to take this forward in an inappropriate way. But he has reminded me of something which I heard. I think it would be quite extraordinary if it turned out that such a thing had happened.
Steve Baker was agreeing with Jacob Rees-Mogg's description of a conversation that Baker had with Charles Grant from the Centre for European Research. Baker had presumably related the incident to Rees-Mogg and the latter was retelling for public consumption. Rees-Mogg clearly thought Grant's alleged description of civil servants' motives was accurate.
Given how quick Baker was to answer that the account was accurate it does make it look as though the exchange had been coordinated between the two of them beforehand.
I see that Steve Baker is being attacked for saying something which he didn't say, and for making an attack on the civil service which he did not make.
What he actually said, according to the irreproachable source of the Guardian, was:
At the time I considered it implausible because my direct experience is that civil servants are extraordinarily careful to uphold the impartiality of the civil service. I think we must proceed with great caution in this matter but I heard [Grant] raise this issue. I think we need to be very careful not to take this forward in an inappropriate way. But he has reminded me of something which I heard. I think it would be quite extraordinary if it turned out that such a thing had happened.
Steve Baker was agreeing with Jacob Rees-Mogg's description of a conversation that Baker had with Charles Grant from the Centre for European Research. Baker had presumably related the incident to Rees-Mogg and the latter was retelling the allegation for public consumption. Rees-Mogg clearly thought Grant's alleged description of civil servants' motives was accurate.
Grant denies he ever claimed that civil servants were deliberately modelling to show all non-Customs Union options were bad. Steve Baker disingenuously pretended that if someone presumably with the authority of Grant made that claim he would have to take it seriously. If libel laws applied in this case, both Grant and an individual implicated civil servant would have a case against Baker.
Or alternatively, and more plausibly, it was a misunderstanding, since Charles Grant has confirmed that the conversation took place, and that he had said that the Treasury had done modelling showing that we'd be worse off in the various scenarios.
This is not even arguing about the number of angels on a pinhead, it's arguing about a conversation about the number of angels on a pinhead. Why on earth is anyone in the least bit surprised that an economic model done three months ago would produce similar results to all the other economic models everyone other than Patrick Minford has produced? It's not exactly news.
I see that Steve Baker is being attacked for saying something which he didn't say, and for making an attack on the civil service which he did not make.
What he actually said, according to the irreproachable source of the Guardian, was:
At the time I considered it implausible because my direct experience is that civil servants are extraordinarily careful to uphold the impartiality of the civil service. I think we must proceed with great caution in this matter but I heard [Grant] raise this issue. I think we need to be very careful not to take this forward in an inappropriate way. But he has reminded me of something which I heard. I think it would be quite extraordinary if it turned out that such a thing had happened.
It's bizarre to suggest civil servants are under pressure to produce politically *in*convenient forecasts.
It would suit the government far better to have a report which said leaving the EU and/or the customs union will be excellent for economic growth since that's what the government's policy is.
Some people last week were equating a bawdy gentlemen’s dinner with mass rape in Rotherham. (Snip)
I made that comparison, and do not withdraw it. Yes, the scales are different, but the causes of the abuse sadly all too similar and familiar. Also add in abuse by Catholic and CofE priests.
There's more commonality than some seem to want to admit. The stories coming out of Hollywood can also be added to the list. Different crimes, different scales, but very similar causes, including the abuse of a power differential.
I'd have a lot more time for the people who screech about Rotherham et al (and there is much to screech about there) if they did not gloss over other abuses. It does make it appear that their anger is more about the identity of the perpetrator than the actual crime.
By way of analogy, slapping someone in the face and murder are both examples of violence, but I'd say the difference between the two is more than one of scale.
If there were examples of white men engaging in the mass rape of Muslim girls, then a charge of hypocrisy would stand against a person who made excuses for it, while condemning the reverse.
IMO, it is perfectly reasonable to say that there are very different degrees of badness and to condemn the worst acts more than the less bad ones.
But that is not what we are seeing. We are seeing rightful condemnation in one case, and excuses and even victim blaming on the other. It's not that one situation is more serious than another (which it is); it's that some think one isn't really serious at all.
I'd argue the root causes of both are the same, and it wont get tackled if we see one type of incident as inconsequential. It's about a perceived power differential being used as an excuse to do what they want:
"That girl is not of my religion, so she is less worthy and I can do what I want to her." (*) "That naughty boy is less faithful than me, so I can abuse him." "That waitress earns less than me, and so I can touch her up."
It's about seeing others as less for bogus reasons.
To anyone who treats what happened at that event lightly: how would you feel if your daughter was treated in such a manner against her will? If you would not accept it for her, why should you accept it for others?
(*) Rotherham was much more complex than that, as I believe the report indicates.
Steve Baker was agreeing with Jacob Rees-Mogg's description of a conversation that Baker had with Charles Grant from the Centre for European Research. Baker had presumably related the incident to Rees-Mogg and the latter was retelling the allegation for public consumption. Rees-Mogg clearly thought Grant's alleged description of civil servants' motives was accurate.
Grant denies he ever claimed that civil servants were deliberately modelling to show all non-Customs Union options were bad. Steve Baker disingenuously pretended that if someone presumably with the authority of Grant made that claim he would have to take it seriously. If libel laws applied in this case, both Grant and an individual implicated civil servant would have a case against Baker.
Or alternatively, and more plausibly, it was a misunderstanding, since Charles Grant has confirmed that the conversation took place, and that he had said that the Treasury had done modelling showing that we'd be worse off in the various scenarios.
This is not even arguing about the number of angels on a pinhead, it's arguing about a conversation about the number of angels on a pinhead. Why on earth is anyone in the least bit surprised that an economic model done three months ago would produce similar results to all the other economic models everyone other than Patrick Minford has produced? It's not exactly news.
Charles Grant comes across to me as somewhat naive. Nevertheless Baker is implying civil servants are concocting data to suit a policy direction that they want, based on Charles Grant having made that claim to him. Charles Grant made no such claim according to his own and other people's reports. The cynical amongst us might say that's the civil servants' job (we did watch Yes Minister) but Baker himself called it an "extraordinary allegation" and said this called into question the "impartiality of the civil service", which is maybe not quite the same thing.
But that is not what we are seeing. We are seeing rightful condemnation in one case, and excuses and even victim blaming on the other. It's not that one situation is more serious than another (which it is); it's that some think one isn't really serious at all.
I'd argue the root causes of both are the same, and it wont get tackled if we see one type of incident as inconsequential. It's about a perceived power differential being used as an excuse to do what they want:
"That girl is not of my religion, so she is less worthy and I can do what I want to her." (*) "That naughty boy is less faithful than me, so I can abuse him." "That waitress earns less than me, and so I can touch her up."
It's about seeing others as less for bogus reasons.
To anyone who treats what happened at that event lightly: how would you feel if your daughter was treated in such a manner against her will? If you would not accept it for her, why should you accept it for others?
(*) Rotherham was much more complex than that, as I believe the report indicates.
Bang on.
Nobody reasonable, when hearing of someone breaking their leg after a nasty fall, would say in earnest "Well, some people get tortured to death, so by comparison it's not that bad".
The point is that if you let people get away with breaking windows, soon enough you will have more robbery because it gives the appearance that crime goes unpunished.
Similarly if lower-scale offences relating to sexism go uncorrected (not necessarily by law and order I might add) it emboldens people to go further.
Comments
This is not even arguing about the number of angels on a pinhead, it's arguing about a conversation about the number of angels on a pinhead. Why on earth is anyone in the least bit surprised that an economic model done three months ago would produce similar results to all the other economic models everyone other than Patrick Minford has produced? It's not exactly news.
It would suit the government far better to have a report which said leaving the EU and/or the customs union will be excellent for economic growth since that's what the government's policy is.
I'd argue the root causes of both are the same, and it wont get tackled if we see one type of incident as inconsequential. It's about a perceived power differential being used as an excuse to do what they want:
"That girl is not of my religion, so she is less worthy and I can do what I want to her." (*)
"That naughty boy is less faithful than me, so I can abuse him."
"That waitress earns less than me, and so I can touch her up."
It's about seeing others as less for bogus reasons.
To anyone who treats what happened at that event lightly: how would you feel if your daughter was treated in such a manner against her will? If you would not accept it for her, why should you accept it for others?
(*) Rotherham was much more complex than that, as I believe the report indicates.
Nobody reasonable, when hearing of someone breaking their leg after a nasty fall, would say in earnest "Well, some people get tortured to death, so by comparison it's not that bad".
The point is that if you let people get away with breaking windows, soon enough you will have more robbery because it gives the appearance that crime goes unpunished.
Similarly if lower-scale offences relating to sexism go uncorrected (not necessarily by law and order I might add) it emboldens people to go further.