Talk:Nicky Morgan

Edit request from 80.235.236.131, 18 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

The section under this profile of 'student fees' has been added by a student, someone for whom this issue is of high importance, but the detail is excessive for the page of one politician, this info should be in its own 'Sutdent fees' page. Nicky Morgan MP campaigns and is involved with hundreds of community issues, not just one student fees campaign. Why is Lucy Hopkins quoted on this page, and the Lougbhorough Students Union - again these should have their own pages.

This info needs to be reduced substantially to one or two sentences, and then there should be additions - changed to wider community issues that Mrs Morgan has been involved with:

Therefore, please change: "Student Fees: On 7th November 2010, Morgan appeared on the Politics Show with Lucy Hopkins, Loughborough Students' Union President to continue an earlier on-campus debate on the tripling of student tuition fees. Morgan agreed that the fees could be “pretty daunting prospect” but said it was fair to ask people to invest in their own education and that the numbers wanting to attend was unsustainable under current financing given the deficit. It was up to each university to decide what to charge and some who know their markets might decide not charge the full amount. The reforms were not just about money they were also about putting students in the driving seat and although they would choose a university for reasons which suited them, they should ask a lot more questions about how courses would improve employment prospects. The Government and universities should work together to show why education was worthwhile and what financial help was available including a National Scholarship program. Higher earners would pay a greater rate of interest.

Hopkins agreed the Government had tried to find fairer options but charges remained unfair as it meant 18 year olds would still be paying off up to £40k of debt when their own children went to university. Whilst the government blamed the economic crisis on excessive debts this was exactly what students were now expected to take on and, contrary to what the Government said, there was no guarantee of a better job -or even a job. It was very naive of the Government to think poor students would not be deterred, future business leaders should go to the best universities but first generation students would either chose an affordable university or not attend. People were very emotional and passionate about higher education.

Morgan said she took 8 years to pay her debts though fees were much smaller. People would have to think very carefully but have up to 30 years to pay off debts and pay nothing until their salary reaches £21k. University has become a rite of passage but there are lots of vocational options and other ways of continuing education. The Coalition was listening and she would advise the Government on points from the debate.[7]

On 17th November 2010 around 100 Loughborough students joint 50,000 other students to protest about the increases, the first time Loughborough had taken part in a National protest, though they condemned the rioting which caused damage to Conservative offices in Milbank.[8]"

TO:

"Nicky Morgan addressed the large student population of her Loughborough constituency about their concerns of the student finance issues, taking part in live debates at Loughborough university. Mrs Morgan is PPS to David Willetts Minister for Universities and often attends the Unviersity for campus visits as she takes a strong interest in Research & Development and other University issues" - see http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Loughborough_Students%27_Union, and http://www.lboro.ac.uk/service/publicity/news-releases/2011/13_Dialog-Devices.html

"Nicky Morgan has campaigned for harsher penalties and better support for victims of anti-social behaviour, stating that Loughborough 'will not tolerate persecutors of ASB" - http://www.nickymorgan.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=99:press-release-16-feb-2011-taking-action-to-reduce-anti-social-behaviour-and-support-victims-in-loughborough&Itemid=12

"Nicky Morgan has encouraged support for the Big Society and volunteering, often found praising the efforts of local volunteering institute 'Volunteer Action Charnwood' in her constituency in the House of Commons" see http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110215/debtext/110215-0001.htm#11021556001108, and see article http://issuu.com/buildermagazines/docs/february_2011_shepshed_eye_magazine?mode=embed&layout=http://skin.issuu.com/v/light/layout.xml

""Nicky Morgan has shown an interest in elderly in her constiteuncy - holding an 'information and advice' drop-in session in Loughborough on Monday 14th february where she had arranged representatives from Pension Service, AgeUK, E-ON, Turn2Us, the Charnwood Borough Council, and Citizens advice Bureau, and invited all local elderly to attend to 'make sure they were receiving all the support and financial assistance they were entitled to' "" - see http://www.voluntaryactioncharnwood.org.uk/news.html

"Nicky Morgan has contributed regular columns to the Leicester Mercury newspaper, discussing issues raised by constituents, as well as issues she has a personal interest in, including topics such as forestry ownership, and the independant parliamentary standards authority" - see http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/news/Insert-letters-make-hard-wood-trees/article-3192703-detail/article.html

Nicky Morgan has listed an array of policy and constiteuncy issues of importance to her on her website, and on her page at www.whistle.co.uk.

Mrs Morgans voting decisions in the House can be found at http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/nicky_morgan/loughborough

[the page just needs to cover more than one single policy issue, and more community issues that give more light to Mrs Morgan as a politician]

80.235.236.131 (talk) 09:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, I welcome any expansion of this page -or that of any other UK politician in accordance with WP:BLP. I'll put some hopefully helpful guidelines on your page shortly.

Re the student article, I wrote it. I'm not a student and it is a fair and accurate summary of the the Politics show which was cited. As there are around 18,000 students are in her constituency, Nicky is the PPS responsible and she was willing to discuss the issue, it was wp:notable and I feel it entirely right that it well covered. For the record -as someone who has been on the program twice - she handled a very difficult issue well.

I requested the edit protect after defamatory material was added. We also had a lot of problems with Nicky's predecessor Andy Reed who was subjected to factually incorrect and defamatory material eminating from a blog in Hathern -totally unacceptable in an encyclopedia.

Any additional material must meet wp:source requirements. Its is also important to switch off political allegiance to ensure articles remains a useful source of neutral point of view information about politicians and their views and don't become WP:FLUFFYBUNNIES or a WP:ATTACKPAGE.

its also important to discuss changes on the talk page and thank you for doing that. JRPG (talk) 13:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the show can't be pulled up to be watched again, so it doesn't meet the verifiability criteria. That doesn't leave much in the Student Fees section. I rewrote what I could using the only source left. Most of what you posted, 80.235.236.131, is really not applicable to a Student Fees section. We can't really user Nicky Morgan's website as a source -- people can say anything they want to on their own website -- you need other sources. Banaticus (talk) 14:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Banaticus, please take it as read that I don't knowingly use anything that doesn't meet the rules. The program was available for a week after recording, I do have a non-copyright audio recording for my own purposes and it is possible for anyone to get a copy from the studios. My understanding is, that however unsatisfactory it is, an off line source is still valid, c.f. a dead link. I'll get this checked and let you know the result. If acceptable feel free to email me for the recording which is 1.6Mb.

Re 80.235.236.131, we welcome any good source provided and the Politics show -if valid had appeared to be the best. JRPG (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Since this is being discussed, I'm untranscluding the edit request. However, I wil note that Banaticus is wrong in saying that since the show can't be pulled up to be watched again, it doesn't meet WP:V. There is no such requirement, for the same reason that we can add sources to news shows, to old newspapers that only reside in special archives, or to sources that sit behind a paywall. All that matters is that it is possible to verify the source, not that you personally have the ability to do so. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Mercury column

The Mercury column on forestry is notable and presumably subject to editorial control as per wp:source. Also her membership of the Mental health bill though it needs a better reference. I've previously seen comments about expenses but still don't think its important. Another source is adjournment debates and private members bills. I've been looking out for these but I haven't seen her initiate any. Unless there is any objection, I'll try and update in the next few days -or I can paste something in for 80.235.236.131.
JRPG (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Use of the Politics show as a valid source.

I put a question on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard and received this response :-

There is no requirement that a source be online or easily accessed. If a DVD is available on request from the BBC, then it meets our policy of verification. See WP:SOURCEACCESS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Now its verification capability is established, this article is appropriate given its importance to Loughborough and to its MP and I will therefore restore it. Proof of program date and time is here and I can email a good audio to anyone wanting to verify it.

I'll have a look at shortening it tomorrow but I don't want to omit any of NM's right of reply. She has been given a very hard task as it is. JRPG (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

As it is difficult for ordinary members of the public to get accesss, and this is a common problem, they've asked me to produce a transcript on the talk page which can then be authenticated.

I've also shortened the section. JRPG (talk) 17:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Transcript of East Midlands Politics Show, BBC1 7th November 2010

John Hess The decision to triple tuition fees to university students has sent shockwaves through families. This weekend Conservative MP, Nicky Morgan, entered the lion’s den when she took up a challenge from students at Loughborough University to justify the increase. Well, she and the students union president, Lucy Hopkins are with me now for a return match. Nicky Morgan first of all we’re constantly being told by this government that we shouldn't allow future generations to shoulder the national debt crisis so why is the coalition in effect doing this with the next generation of students?
Nicky Morgan Well I think what we're saying is we are asking people to invest in their education and ..research shows that graduates earn a lot more than non-graduates and therefore if people want to go to university -and there are unprecedented numbers of people wanting to go to University -and therefore the way we currently finance universities is just unsustainable given the level of that deficit.
John Hess Is it fair?
Nicky Morgan Well I think it is fair to ask people to invest in their education and unfortunately that does mean that tuition fees are going up and they’re going to have to pay more.
John Hess But the universities are saying they'll have no option but to double, in some cases even triple, tuition fees because the government, your government, in effect has chopped funding directly by up to 40% according to the Russell group of universities.
Nicky Morgan Well obviously each universities got to do its own calculations and work out what it can have to charge. I think you talk about tripling, I mean obviously we’re starting from, it could be from 6,000 to 9000, and there’ll be some universities who know their markets and know the value they offer and the courses and therefore they'll want to charge less than that.
John Hess OK. Lucy, how do you respond to what Nicky Morgan has had to say on this issue?
Lucy Hopkins Yes, well now surely more than ever we should be investing in the future of higher education, especially in this current climate. We’re asking 18-year-olds whether they're willing to be in £40,000 worth of debt. They'll actually be paying off that debt when they'll be sending their own children to university. And -here we got ourselves into this situation already, because we've been living in debt and we’re asking 18-year-olds to start their careers in debt and you're saying ..you're definitely get a better job when you come out of University. Well ask last year's university students -when one in 69 of them actually got a job. I'd like to ask the government what actually students are getting out of university and if you're tripling the fees...
John Hess Well let's put that to Nicky Morgan, because Nicky Morgan has the ear of the universities minister David Willetts as Parliamentary Private Secretary. I mean that's a pretty daunting prospect for many university students isn't it?
Nicky Morgan It is, I mean employability is one of the questions and actually what we're saying in the reforms is that it's all about student choices, it's not just a question ..it is a question ..of money but it's not just about that, it's also about saying students should be in the driving seat. They're going to choose their universities for reasons that suit them. Employability is one of those issues I think students are going to be asking a lot more about. How is this degree going to help me get a job and raise my income and therefore enable me to pay off the fees which I've invested in my education?
John Hess The universities minister, David Willetts has said, actually this is a more progressive reform than was picked up by the previous government and the government's package, he says, is fairer than the old system because students won't start paying back until they start earning -what £21,000 a year compared with what -£15,000 at the moment. Surely that's a better deal?
Lucy Hopkins Well we appreciate ..that the government has tried to find options as to how to make it fair, but its actually completely unfair, because £21,000 -you're offering a lot of support to poorer students. Richer students will be able to pay it off quicker which means richer students will be getting education cheapest because they're not going to have their interest or anything. It's the middle-income students who will actually pay the most. It's completely unfair that richer students actually pay the least for their education.
John Hess This is the squeeze middle that Milliband has been talking so much about isn't it?
Nicky Morgan Well it's very interesting that Ed Milliband has discovered the squeeze middle, obviously after the election and since you've mentioned him what is the Labour Party policy..
John Hess Well what about the squeeze middle? That's a problem for the coalition isn't it? All those middle-class aspiration parents that voted for the coalition are going to think it's going to be too expensive for my Johnny or Sarah to go to university.
Nicky Morgan But that's exactly why the universities and the government have got to work together to be showing people why it is worth investing in their education, what help there is going to be available. There is going to be this national scholarship program and the idea is -actually there’ll be some form of levy -if people do repay early so that the richest can't buy themselves out of debt and they will be paying ..those who are higher earning ..will be paying a greater rate of interest.
John Hess Lucy how many students do you reckon are likely to be put off from going to university because of the increase in tuition fees?
Lucy Hopkins I think it's very naive of the government to think that it's not going to affect students ..
John Hess ..Naive?....
Lucy Hopkins Yes very naive for the government to think it's not going to put students off going to university. If you've come from a family where people have gone from university before, perhaps they would see the benefits that if you come from a poorer background where perhaps your family haven't gone to university, the idea of £40,000 worth of debt makes University completely not an option for them and no matter what the government says they will think that and they will not go to university. Or they will choose the university they can afford rather than one which will make them reach their academic potential. And surely in the future of this country we need people to be ..the future business leaders to be ..going to the best business universities and make our universities the best universities ...
John Hess .. Let's put that to Nicky. Nicky would you have gone to university if you knew you would be saddled with so much tuition fee debt?
Nicky Morgan Well I was in the first generation, I went in the early 1990s and it was the first time I was able to take out loans, and it took me eight years to pay off the debts that I had and it was a very much smaller amount than it is now -and it will be. And I think people will think very carefully, obviously about going, but one of the points that was made in the debate on Friday is that it's not just -university hasn’t become -a rite of passage and somebody in the questions was asking about vocational education, going to colleges, different courses, part-time ..there are lots of different ways of people getting education ..people will think very carefully about going and they will look at employment prospects..
John Hess Especially if it's being repaid over 30 years.
Nicky Morgan Well they've got up to got 30 years to pay off. After that it's written off but as you pointed out nobody pays anything until their earnings reach £21(k).
John Hess Very quickly Lucy, what are you hoping to achieve from this lobby of Parliament on Wednesday?
Lucy Hopkins Yes well on Wednesday, institutions across the country are going down to march past Westminster and ..we want the government to listen to students. As you can see from our debate on Friday, people are very emotional and passionate about what's happening at the moment to higher education. At the very least we want the government to listen and if we can in some way influence the decision then that's been a success.
John Hess Nicky Morgan is the coalition going to listen?
Nicky Morgan It is very much listening. Obviously I will be feeding back to the government the results of Friday night and we will also all be there hopefully watching as the march goes past and listening to our students.
John Hess OK Nicky Morgan and Lucy, thank you very much indeed...

Why is this posted here? It's arguably a copyright violation, because you're copying the show verbatim. Is this something you think should be added in summary to the article in some way? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Qwyrxian. This is my own transcript of a private digital audio recording and follows discussions at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Politics Show and subsequent request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Politics show -short transcription, methodology advice and help needed. Given the problems of accessability, Betty Logan made what I thought was an excellent suggestion that I provided a transcript and asked a couple of volunteers at WP:RSN to verify. The BBC say they don't provide non-contributors with copies because of the cost. I'd like as much discussion as possible and hope that the technique can be used for other short programs. With hindsight, I would have replaced some of text with dots ..to show dialogue correction. User talk:FormerIP also suggested putting it forward at WP:VPR -which I will do. Any comments welcome. JRPG (talk) 09:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Student fees debate.

Qwyrxian, I'm about to reduced and update this section -and hope that you agree that it's the better article we both want. This source has extensively discussed on the talk page -where you said it met WP:V and raised at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Morgan's position as a PPS to the universities minister and also MP for a large university constituency makes the section WP:notable. Please feel free to operate WP:BRD. Regards JRPG (talk) 20:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

It's definitely better at that length. Here's a question, though--2 years later, does this still seem important (i.e., WP:DUE)? Is this one particular conversation on a TV show really important to the overall biography of this politician? I don't know anything about the surrounding circumstances, or whether or not this matter continued to be an important news issue, or if it had lasting impact on her career, so if you say it is of lasting importance I'll trust you. But my experience is that very rarely is any single television appearance of such a great importance to a politician that it's worth getting a full paragraph of info all by itself. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Qwyrxian, a valid point but I think the answer is yes. Speaking as a member of the DES, the real audience was her many student constituents -and students and parents in the UK. She emphasised the importance of choosing a decent vocational course and I note no other party is prepared to abolish or reduce fees. Regards JRPG (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

2014 promotion

I suggest that the second paragraph of the section 'Minister for Women' and the section 'Secretary of State for Education' could be combined along the following lines: -

Secretary of State for Education

On 15 July 2014, Morgan was appointed Secretary of State for Education in Prime Minister David Cameron's reshuffle, replacing Michael Gove. On her promotion, she retained her post as Minister for Women and also added the equalities brief to it, thus also becoming Minister for Women and Equalities. However, Downing Street announced that responsibility for implementing the rest of the changes to same-sex marriage would be driven by Nick Boles, a new education minister who is himself gay and is in a civil partnership. Alekksandr (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

This section seems to be a muddle ..reflecting perhaps what's going on in the Department of Education & Women & equality. I hope its better now but would appreciate improvements. Regards JRPG (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

References

Cube root of 125

Whilst I hope any self respecting engineer would give the answer instantly, mental arithmetic isn't a skill that many politicians boast about -perhaps that's the reason for the expenses scandal :) That said, I don't think the BBC article could really be said to be more than trivia & trivia sections are discouraged. JRPG (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the expenses scandal was that politicians were all TOO good at totting up how much they were 'owed' by the public purse! I would hope that she is suitably embarrassed by her ignorance re the cube root of 125, but I agree it isn't a fact that belongs here.JezGrove (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I've followed JRPG and reverted the addition of this matter again. I really feel this isn’t notable enough for inclusion here – she simply didn’t answer the question. George Osborne did the same (on an earlier episode of the same show) on the basis that once you start answering questions like these it’s a slippery slope and people will forever be trying to trip you up with them, and I'm sympathetic to his point of view (now THERE'S something I never imagined myself saying!) Had Morgan (or Osborne) attempted to answer the simple question put to them and got it wrong - or worse done a Dan Quayle and ‘corrected’ a child’s already correct answer - then it would, of course, have been notable. JezGrove (talk) 09:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Following WP:NOTE, the question is not whether Wikipedia editors think this is notable, but whether the subject has "received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability". The cube root of 125 has been featured in reliable international news sources including http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-30429884, http://news.sky.com/story/1389753/pupils-give-education-secretary-a-tough-time, http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/education/article4295071.ece . With substantial coverage in reliable international news sources the topic is therefore notable and should be included in the article.Dingowasher (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Dingowasher. Agreed its very well sourced. All media like to highlight young people challenging politicians, usually for use when the brat grows up. I'm certain I've done more maths than Morgan but I would have been one of many not recognizing the cube of 12. In short, this may tell us something about her inquisitor but not very much about the subject. The most we could say is that she said she couldn't answer it immediately. So what? Not really worth including. If you don't agree, we can ask for informal advice from someone like Sam Blacketer (also a cat admirer) who edits this page & many other politicians. Regards JRPG (talk) 00:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Fundraising event

@Dtellett: Firstly greetings. The February fundraising event appeared in Times, Telegraph, Guardian &BBC with Nicky specifically mentioned as involved in some sort of raffle prize. All papers thought the timing and scale of the event and the known tax affairs of the guests were worthy of note. Did you intentionally miss this out or was it a reorganization casualty?
Regards JRPG (talk) 21:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm with JRPG on this one - it should be reinstated. The event was also covered by the Financial Times (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/678bc932-b084-11e4-9b8e-00144feab7de.html) and Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2947292/Feeling-adventurous-Tories-auction-Iron-Man-challenge-Iain-Duncan-Smith-shoe-shopping-Theresa-roast-chicken-dinner-Michael-Gove.html) JezGrove (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Nah, this was intentionally removed, for the same reason the fact donors can win dinner with them doesn't warrant a mention on the Barack Obama or Mitt Romney pages, and for that matter various non-political celebrities' pages don't mention that meeting them was once an auction prize for a charity, even where that was at a high profile event covered extensively by media at the time. The only way I could see it warranting inclusion is if she'd organised the whole thing, eloped with the lucky winner or had rarely had media attention for anything else. If it belongs anywhere it's on the Conservative Party page; the connection with Morgan is trivia, and not particularly interesting trivia at that Dtellett (talk) 09:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dtellett. If you haven’t done so already, I think you should read the wp:rs on this. The fundraising was criticised in all papers as collecting far more money than needed & from allegedly dodgy donors. Morgan actively supported it. Interesting or not, it isn’t trivia, it’s not wp:undue and it shouldn’t have been removed. I’m hoping you’ll agree but if not I can ask another editor from the UK politics board for a view.

Regards JRPG (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I've read the sources thanks, and none of them suggest that Morgan had any involvement with allegedly dodgy donors beyond mentioning in passing that she attended and was a "prize", along with the majority of the rest of the Cabinet. Using an article on Nicky Morgan to list controversial things about people that attended the same Conservative Party event as her is pretty much the paradigm example of wp:coatrack. The expensive tables and bids for VIP company are pretty much Fundraising 101, and the jogging bit - the only aspect personal to Morgan - is just trivia. It might be news today, but *nobody* that didn't pay £15k+ to attend the event will remember Morgan's connection with it in a couple of week's time, never mind it being such a defining aspect of her varied and not-uncontroversial ministerial career that it warrants including in a biography

Feel free to raise it with the politics board if you think a consensus view would help but I really don't see any case for inclusion whatsoever based on the listed articlesDtellett (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@Sam Blacketer, Dtellett, and JezGrove: Greetings Sam. You’ve edited this page before and as a former arbitrations board member I wonder if you could give your expert views on the para removed in the 19:27, 1 April 2015 remove non-notable party fundraising event edit? I’ve seen a lot of Dtellett’s edits, normally we agree and I’m sure we just want a better article.

Thanks in advance. JRPG (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

My view on that para is that it's not appropriately written - it's only natural that a Cabinet minister would be at a major fundraising event, Morgan didn't set the cost of the tickets, and the mention of Stanley Fink's views on tax are simply gratuitous. The raffle prize might be worth mention, but should be set within the context that several of the other raffle prizes involved events with senior Conservative Party members, and if mentioned should be more closely related to the actual text which doesn't mention "jogging" - see [1]. Here's a better source than the Guardian article. It perhaps more naturally fits in the 'Personal life' section, to accompany Morgan's own declaration of her interest in running: "A raffle prize of joining Morgan on a 5k run and for breakfast was offered at the Conservative Party's 'Black and White Ball' fundraiser in February 2015."

Just for the avoidance of doubt I'm giving views in accordance with WP:NPOV and disregarding my own political perspective. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks Sam. I will shortly add a new version -based on what you said -which is unlikely to cause anyone any problem. Regards JRPG (talk) 11:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Guardian story "Cabinet minister accepted donation from corporate spy"

This is a significant story not least as Mercer is very active in the constituency, running Southfields radio. I've added it, hopefully impartially but I welcome constructive changes. FWIW I live near the constituency and I'm aware that the BBC asked unsuccessfully for comments yesterday.JRPG (talk) 13:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Daily Mail

Phil, I don't think either of us does edit wars, my purpose is to show she & others are on the receiving end of a nasty & personal tabloid campaign. Feel free to apply wp:BRD. Regards JRPG (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

That might be your purpose but it is not the purpose of Wikipedia. The edit was really about the treatment of politicians by the press, not directly about Morgan. Ask yourself what more we have learned about her by the addition of this material? Philafrenzy (talk) 13:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Obviously I regard it as relevant and justifying its solitary sentence but you do not. HMT, BBC, CBI, & the trade unions -all non-politicians are also vilified but Morgan & Soubry who Dacre clearly still regards as influential are subject to an offensive attack without the right of reply. Its reasonable for the article to say that & I'm still unclear re your objections. If you like me you are reluctant to repeat Dacre's exact words, I can omit them. JRPG (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2018

Change link on this statement - "In 2013, Morgan voted against the introduction of same-sex marriage in England and Wales, arguing that marriage could only be between a man and a woman.[12]"

- at time of writing, reference 12 - this currently links to http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Loughborough-MP-Nicky-Morgan-explains-voted/story-18148357-detail/story.html

this link doesn't work.

The article is archived at - https://web.archive.org/web/20150321085634/http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Loughborough-MP-Nicky-Morgan-explains-voted/story-18148357-detail/story.html - so I suggest using this link instead. Boiledspaghetti (talk) 11:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done  Ivecos (t) 11:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Question on grammar

I have no formal qualification in EN language other than a thirty-year-old "O" level, but something tells me that the sentence "The BBC noting that 64% achieved expected results in all subjects tested suggests Morgan had both misunderstood official literacy level definitions and confused literacy results with expected overall attainment levels" is not grammatically correct. Please could somebody check it? My feeling is (and I don't know the rule that might support this) that it should read: "The BBC's noting.......". Theeurocrat (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

The sentence is a bit clunky, but it's not incorrect. Your version would also be correct, but it wouldn't be any more correct. See the article on gerund for more description of this area of English grammar. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Is this sort of insinuation really fair? What can be done? Advice appreciated!

"The separation of the equalities portfolio was seen by some as a response to Morgan's vote against the government's proposal to introduce legislation allowing same-sex marriages. This led to accusations that Morgan was merely "minister for straight women""

It seems to be a direct quote from a reliable source? JezGrove (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)