Certainly a number of Tory MPs would lose their seats if Mori is correct. Indeed the Conservatives would not have a single seat left in inner London. Though I suspect IDS would stand down beforehand and head to the Lords.
We would also be back to a hung parliament, only this time with the SNP, not the DUP or LDs, as Kingmakers
And you have just made the case why the lords should be abolished
IDS automatically goes to the unelected Lords after he decides to stand down
More sleaze
I don't see why.
He is a former Cabinet Minister and party leader, exactly the type who should be part of the Lords as well as the high flyers from other professions, business, the arts, sport, religious leaders etc
The HOL needs either abolitioning or elected on a fair bases, and not a place for politicians to retire to and earn £300 a day
Another Corbyn policy looking better and better. They're like fine wines.
Appreciated mostly by snobs rich enough to afford the costs?
Leaving aside the current polls, I strongly suspect that Altrincham and Sale West will go red next election unless the Tories win nationally by at least double digits. Demographically it's exactly the sort of young professional gentrifying suburb which is swinging hard away from the Tories for a decade or so, the flip side to the (more numerous) seats with white working class voters they are gaining.
This is a seat I'm planning on doing a thread on.
Is about the Green dynamic, is it places like this where the Green surge damages Labour badly.
The Greens polling figures strike me as being more about the brand recognition rather than the qualities of their largely unknown new co-leaders.
Yes, and the COP26 publicity.
That and the pumping sewage into the rivers story.
The Rivers one was in large measure fake (or at least heavily spun) news. Generate some meaningless big scary numbers and shout through a megaphone to scare people, with no examination whatsoever of practicality or costs, and no context or engagement with reality. Just another Green outrage bus.
No comparisons with similar countries - the same issue is in other countries, and Scotland has twice as many combined sewer outfalls per pop as England. But obvs SNP politics is 90% finger pointing, and 10% doing useful stuff for Scotland. So that was Blackford's speech.
Just how they all roll.
That's an interesting take. Everybody else is dumping raw sewage into their rivers and sea, so why shouldn't we?
Not my take.
My take is tackle it carefully, properly and rationally, rather than populism and scaremongering. Which is what we had on that issue.
That is UK Green Party style, rather than German Green Party style.
Which is why the UK Green Parties are essentially self-marginalised and irrelevant (except a bit of influence propping up the ScotGov), and the German Greens are a major player in Government.
I would say that is mostly a function of the FPTP/PR effect.
I don't buy that. Plenty of other very expensive green arguments have been won in this country in the mainstream whilst we have had a FPTP system in place over the last 2-3 decades.
UK is leading edge for large European countries on green initiatives / delivering results.
My point was rather that, given the German system, the Greens in the UK would be eyeing up a place in government right now on current polling. Whereas, in Westminster, they are an irrelevance of 1, and my money would be on them continuing to be so.
Certainly a number of Tory MPs would lose their seats if Mori is correct. Indeed the Conservatives would not have a single seat left in inner London. Though I suspect IDS would stand down beforehand and head to the Lords.
We would also be back to a hung parliament, only this time with the SNP, not the DUP or LDs, as Kingmakers
And you have just made the case why the lords should be abolished
IDS automatically goes to the unelected Lords after he decides to stand down
More sleaze
I don't see why.
He is a former Cabinet Minister and party leader, exactly the type who should be part of the Lords as well as the high flyers from other professions, business, the arts, sport, religious leaders etc
Yes, I agree
IDS is exactly the kind of person you want in the Lords, if you want senior politicians. Thoughtful, hard working, experienced at a very high level, has done good work on poverty, and he represents a big strand of opinion in British life. Why would he not be an asset in a sensible, law-modifying 2nd chamber?
I would say the same for Jeremy Corbyn. I despise his politics, but he has never broken the law, and he is clearly popular with many, and represents a definite slice of British politics. And he has wisdom (of his own kind) after many years. Put him in the Lords, too. This is not a party political thing. If you have an appointed revising 2nd chamber then these people should be in it
Intelligence is no longer a criterion, then?
I think that is unfair. Both IDS and Corbyn may be highly intelligent - at least more intelligent than any of us on here. But it is the nature of both political conviction and ideology that it often masks intelligence. I agree with Leon that both would benefit the Lords although I suspect in the case of Corbyn he would not choose to accept.
I can’t speak for Corbyn. But twenty four years as a Redbridge councillor entitles me to tell you that IDS is not an intelligent man.
I will have to take your word for it as like most I have only ever seen him from afar.
He has the intelligence of a mid ranking army officer. Which is not nothing, but is not something either.
Quite.
And Corbyn is another who is middling to mediocre.
The most intelligent PM of my lifetime on paper was Gordon Brown. The most intelligent Tory leader of my lifetime was William Hague.
Enough said. High intelligence may make you a brilliant professor, QC or surgeon it does not guarantee success in much else.
Drive and judgement are more important
Depends on your age, but Wilson was most intelligent. Youngest Oxford don.
And if you think Brown didn't have drive, I have a couple of bridges to sell you.
A decade to get a PhD? In the history of Marxism in the Labour Party?
Not sure that Brown was exactly a driven genius...
Jones, who was speaking after England defeated Tonga in the Autumn Nations Series on Saturday, used Raducanu as a cautionary example when discussing the need for Marcus Smith, the talented young England rugby player, to remain focused: “The big thing for good young players is distractions … there’s a reason why the young girl who won the US Open hasn’t done so well afterwards,” said Jones
The comments prompted criticism on social media, the BBC sports presenter Gabby Logan called Jones’s comments “unbelievably unfair and not even remotely comparable … imagine an 18-year-old rugby player winning a World Cup having never played a club game.” Logan’s response was endorsed by the tennis coach Judy Murray.
Jones is bang on the money.
Whether he is or not I don't get the outrage, he's entitled to his opinion.
Just to make sure I am getting this right:
We have a right to an opinion that when an 18 year old tennis player has won 2 matches and lost 2 matches we can say she is not doing well and attribute that to a specific cause.
However we do not have the right to a critical opinion when an experienced sports manager fundamentally misunderstands the career path of a young player in a different sport?
Who is the real snowflake here? If Jones can dish it out, he should be quite happy to receive incoming, especially when he is in the wrong as he was today.
Agreed except he might be right in the ER sacked her coach after the US Open, did a bunch of non-tennis celebrity appearances before Indian Wells and *might* have been seeing granny in Romania (though to my untrained eye she seemed to be puffing a bit so it could just have been missing a coach, in which case Jones was wrong).
To be honest, I think that question goes to the heart of what intelligence might be.
I always did well at school, and seem to have an ability to join the dots and see the big picture in most situations, such that I am able to learn new things quickly and understand the basics of new fields after the minimum of study.
Yet I have always marvelled at those people who seem able to become true experts in subjects at depth, and I have generally failed whenever I have tried to follow them down such a path. I know a little about a lot but a lot about a little. Indeed my life is a story of using my skills as a generalist and avoiding choices that would involve competing with people who have deep understanding of narrow fields.
I should have been one of those eighteenth or nineteenth century gentlemen who quickly got to the limits of knowledge in their fields because not that much was known. But nowadays, it takes a serious degree of application to get to the limits of knowledge in any field, and the effort required has so far eluded me.
Hence I am reduced to debating nighttime on PB with you, wondering whether your wine bottle is as empty as mine.
Adopting von Moltke's dictum, as an intelligent generalist, without having the ability to become an expert in a specifice field, you'd be an ideal commander, because you could see the big picture, but you owuld also know how to delegate. Whereas the more intelligent experts would be the staff officers, who could work up your ideas into detailed plans.
I though the most intelligent went into the railway section of the Imperial German Staff? And went insane trying to create the perfect timetable for war....
Watching the news this evening (something that I do increasingly little nowadays, to the overall benefit of my mental wellbeing,) the next juggernaut coming round the corner after spats about sleaze and over the success/failure of the Glasgow summit, is this migrant situation brewing in Eastern Europe. There are now substantial numbers of people - several thousand, and increasing all the time - sat in Belarus on the border with Poland, the Poles are refusing to let them in, temperatures in that part of the world are hovering around freezing, and will presumably get significantly worse before too much longer. How that all ends is anyone's guess, but it looks pretty grim.
Certainly a number of Tory MPs would lose their seats if Mori is correct. Indeed the Conservatives would not have a single seat left in inner London. Though I suspect IDS would stand down beforehand and head to the Lords.
We would also be back to a hung parliament, only this time with the SNP, not the DUP or LDs, as Kingmakers
And you have just made the case why the lords should be abolished
IDS automatically goes to the unelected Lords after he decides to stand down
More sleaze
I don't see why.
He is a former Cabinet Minister and party leader, exactly the type who should be part of the Lords as well as the high flyers from other professions, business, the arts, sport, religious leaders etc
Yes, I agree
IDS is exactly the kind of person you want in the Lords, if you want senior politicians. Thoughtful, hard working, experienced at a very high level, has done good work on poverty, and he represents a big strand of opinion in British life. Why would he not be an asset in a sensible, law-modifying 2nd chamber?
I would say the same for Jeremy Corbyn. I despise his politics, but he has never broken the law, and he is clearly popular with many, and represents a definite slice of British politics. And he has wisdom (of his own kind) after many years. Put him in the Lords, too. This is not a party political thing. If you have an appointed revising 2nd chamber then these people should be in it
Intelligence is no longer a criterion, then?
I think that is unfair. Both IDS and Corbyn may be highly intelligent - at least more intelligent than any of us on here. But it is the nature of both political conviction and ideology that it often masks intelligence. I agree with Leon that both would benefit the Lords although I suspect in the case of Corbyn he would not choose to accept.
I can’t speak for Corbyn. But twenty four years as a Redbridge councillor entitles me to tell you that IDS is not an intelligent man.
I will have to take your word for it as like most I have only ever seen him from afar.
He has the intelligence of a mid ranking army officer. Which is not nothing, but is not something either.
Whereas you have.... what? How would you estimate your own intelligence by this metric?
Serious question
To be honest, I think that question goes to the heart of what intelligence might be.
I always did well at school, and seem to have an ability to join the dots and see the big picture in most situations, such that I am able to learn new things quickly and understand the basics of new fields after the minimum of study.
Yet I have always marvelled at those people who seem able to become true experts in subjects at depth, and I have generally failed whenever I have tried to follow them down such a path. I know a little about a lot but a lot about a little. Indeed my life is a story of using my skills as a generalist and avoiding choices that would involve competing with people who have deep understanding of narrow fields.
I should have been one of those eighteenth or nineteenth century gentlemen who quickly got to the limits of knowledge in their fields because not that much was known. But nowadays, it takes a serious degree of application to get to the limits of knowledge in any field, and the effort required has so far eluded me.
Hence I am reduced to debating nighttime on PB with you, wondering whether your wine bottle is as empty as mine.
I would say, forensically (and I am quite good at this - it's a parlour game) that you have an IQ of about 125-130. Definitely highly intelligent, but also intelligent enough to know you are no game-changer. My IQ is ~140. I am clearly and significantly smarter than you
However I am also drunker than you, generally, and that is a handicap
I am also prone to insane mood swings, which is a further handicap, and has probably led me to not quite fulfilling my potential. On the other hand, I have had a fucking laugh and a half, and many many women, so there is that
Yet you haven’t met many women who would have you again, which is the pertinent point.
I will settle for being less intelligent than you when the wine bottle is empty, knowing that the reverse will be true tomorrow morning.
But largely because I think IQ measures intelligence in breadth rather than depth.
Perhaps this historical nugget might solace both of us
A few years ago I visited Leonardo Da Vinci's final home, in Amboise, France. You can tour his kitchens, wardrobes, laboratory, and his exquisite garden, and also his bedroom, where he died. Apparently on his deathbed Leonardo wept and apologised to God, for not having made the most of his God-given talents
And he probably had a point. All that skill, and so little in the end. And yet, he also helped to change the world in the High Renaissance
If Leonardo felt that he didn't do all that he could have done, I imagine it is a universal human experience, at least if you have a brain and self-awareness
Watching the news this evening (something that I do increasingly little nowadays, to the overall benefit of my mental wellbeing,) the next juggernaut coming round the corner after spats about sleaze and over the success/failure of the Glasgow summit, is this migrant situation brewing in Eastern Europe. There are now substantial numbers of people - several thousand, and increasing all the time - sat in Belarus on the border with Poland, the Poles are refusing to let them in, temperatures in that part of the world are hovering around freezing, and will presumably get significantly worse before too much longer. How that all ends is anyone's guess, but it looks pretty grim.
Certainly a number of Tory MPs would lose their seats if Mori is correct. Indeed the Conservatives would not have a single seat left in inner London. Though I suspect IDS would stand down beforehand and head to the Lords.
We would also be back to a hung parliament, only this time with the SNP, not the DUP or LDs, as Kingmakers
And you have just made the case why the lords should be abolished
IDS automatically goes to the unelected Lords after he decides to stand down
More sleaze
I don't see why.
He is a former Cabinet Minister and party leader, exactly the type who should be part of the Lords as well as the high flyers from other professions, business, the arts, sport, religious leaders etc
Yes, I agree
IDS is exactly the kind of person you want in the Lords, if you want senior politicians. Thoughtful, hard working, experienced at a very high level, has done good work on poverty, and he represents a big strand of opinion in British life. Why would he not be an asset in a sensible, law-modifying 2nd chamber?
I would say the same for Jeremy Corbyn. I despise his politics, but he has never broken the law, and he is clearly popular with many, and represents a definite slice of British politics. And he has wisdom (of his own kind) after many years. Put him in the Lords, too. This is not a party political thing. If you have an appointed revising 2nd chamber then these people should be in it
Intelligence is no longer a criterion, then?
I think that is unfair. Both IDS and Corbyn may be highly intelligent - at least more intelligent than any of us on here. But it is the nature of both political conviction and ideology that it often masks intelligence. I agree with Leon that both would benefit the Lords although I suspect in the case of Corbyn he would not choose to accept.
I can’t speak for Corbyn. But twenty four years as a Redbridge councillor entitles me to tell you that IDS is not an intelligent man.
I will have to take your word for it as like most I have only ever seen him from afar.
He has the intelligence of a mid ranking army officer. Which is not nothing, but is not something either.
Quite.
And Corbyn is another who is middling to mediocre.
The most intelligent PM of my lifetime on paper was Gordon Brown. The most intelligent Tory leader of my lifetime was William Hague.
Enough said. High intelligence may make you a brilliant professor, QC or surgeon it does not guarantee success in much else.
Drive and judgement are more important
Depends on your age, but Wilson was most intelligent. Youngest Oxford don.
And if you think Brown didn't have drive, I have a couple of bridges to sell you.
Even Wilson was only a middle ranking PM and left a sluggish economy in urgent need of Thatcher's reforms.
Brown may have had drive, that did not mean he always had judgement
Ok, but you said "on paper". And on paper, it has to be Wilson.
Certainly a number of Tory MPs would lose their seats if Mori is correct. Indeed the Conservatives would not have a single seat left in inner London. Though I suspect IDS would stand down beforehand and head to the Lords.
We would also be back to a hung parliament, only this time with the SNP, not the DUP or LDs, as Kingmakers
And you have just made the case why the lords should be abolished
IDS automatically goes to the unelected Lords after he decides to stand down
More sleaze
I don't see why.
He is a former Cabinet Minister and party leader, exactly the type who should be part of the Lords as well as the high flyers from other professions, business, the arts, sport, religious leaders etc
Yes, I agree
IDS is exactly the kind of person you want in the Lords, if you want senior politicians. Thoughtful, hard working, experienced at a very high level, has done good work on poverty, and he represents a big strand of opinion in British life. Why would he not be an asset in a sensible, law-modifying 2nd chamber?
I would say the same for Jeremy Corbyn. I despise his politics, but he has never broken the law, and he is clearly popular with many, and represents a definite slice of British politics. And he has wisdom (of his own kind) after many years. Put him in the Lords, too. This is not a party political thing. If you have an appointed revising 2nd chamber then these people should be in it
Intelligence is no longer a criterion, then?
I think that is unfair. Both IDS and Corbyn may be highly intelligent - at least more intelligent than any of us on here. But it is the nature of both political conviction and ideology that it often masks intelligence. I agree with Leon that both would benefit the Lords although I suspect in the case of Corbyn he would not choose to accept.
I can’t speak for Corbyn. But twenty four years as a Redbridge councillor entitles me to tell you that IDS is not an intelligent man.
I will have to take your word for it as like most I have only ever seen him from afar.
He has the intelligence of a mid ranking army officer. Which is not nothing, but is not something either.
Whereas you have.... what? How would you estimate your own intelligence by this metric?
Serious question
To be honest, I think that question goes to the heart of what intelligence might be.
I always did well at school, and seem to have an ability to join the dots and see the big picture in most situations, such that I am able to learn new things quickly and understand the basics of new fields after the minimum of study.
Yet I have always marvelled at those people who seem able to become true experts in subjects at depth, and I have generally failed whenever I have tried to follow them down such a path. I know a little about a lot but a lot about a little. Indeed my life is a story of using my skills as a generalist and avoiding choices that would involve competing with people who have deep understanding of narrow fields.
I should have been one of those eighteenth or nineteenth century gentlemen who quickly got to the limits of knowledge in their fields because not that much was known. But nowadays, it takes a serious degree of application to get to the limits of knowledge in any field, and the effort required has so far eluded me.
Hence I am reduced to debating nighttime on PB with you, wondering whether your wine bottle is as empty as mine.
I would say, forensically (and I am quite good at this - it's a parlour game) that you have an IQ of about 125-130. Definitely highly intelligent, but also intelligent enough to know you are no game-changer. My IQ is ~140. I am clearly and significantly smarter than you
However I am also drunker than you, generally, and that is a handicap
I am also prone to insane mood swings, which is a further handicap, and has probably led me to not quite fulfilling my potential. On the other hand, I have had a fucking laugh and a half, and many many women, so there is that
Yet you haven’t met many women who would have you again, which is the pertinent point.
I will settle for being less intelligent than you when the wine bottle is empty, knowing that the reverse will be true tomorrow morning.
But largely because I think IQ measures intelligence in breadth rather than depth.
Perhaps this historical nugget might solace both of us
A few years ago I visited Leonardo Da Vinci's final home, in Amboise, France. You can tour his kitchens, wardrobes, laboratory, and his exquisite garden, and also his bedroom, where he died. Apparently on his deathbed Leonardo wept and apologised to God, for not having made the most of his God-given talents
And he probably had a point. All that skill, and so little in the end. And yet, he also helped to change the world in the High Renaissance
If Leonardo felt that he didn't do all that he could have done, I imagine it is a universal human experience, at least if you have a brain and self-awareness
Fair point. Not believing in this god nonsense helps a lot. Since we’re all going to turn to dust, it really doesn’t matter.
Certainly a number of Tory MPs would lose their seats if Mori is correct. Indeed the Conservatives would not have a single seat left in inner London. Though I suspect IDS would stand down beforehand and head to the Lords.
We would also be back to a hung parliament, only this time with the SNP, not the DUP or LDs, as Kingmakers
And you have just made the case why the lords should be abolished
IDS automatically goes to the unelected Lords after he decides to stand down
More sleaze
I don't see why.
He is a former Cabinet Minister and party leader, exactly the type who should be part of the Lords as well as the high flyers from other professions, business, the arts, sport, religious leaders etc
Yes, I agree
IDS is exactly the kind of person you want in the Lords, if you want senior politicians. Thoughtful, hard working, experienced at a very high level, has done good work on poverty, and he represents a big strand of opinion in British life. Why would he not be an asset in a sensible, law-modifying 2nd chamber?
I would say the same for Jeremy Corbyn. I despise his politics, but he has never broken the law, and he is clearly popular with many, and represents a definite slice of British politics. And he has wisdom (of his own kind) after many years. Put him in the Lords, too. This is not a party political thing. If you have an appointed revising 2nd chamber then these people should be in it
Intelligence is no longer a criterion, then?
I think that is unfair. Both IDS and Corbyn may be highly intelligent - at least more intelligent than any of us on here. But it is the nature of both political conviction and ideology that it often masks intelligence. I agree with Leon that both would benefit the Lords although I suspect in the case of Corbyn he would not choose to accept.
I can’t speak for Corbyn. But twenty four years as a Redbridge councillor entitles me to tell you that IDS is not an intelligent man.
I will have to take your word for it as like most I have only ever seen him from afar.
He has the intelligence of a mid ranking army officer. Which is not nothing, but is not something either.
Quite.
And Corbyn is another who is middling to mediocre.
The most intelligent PM of my lifetime on paper was Gordon Brown. The most intelligent Tory leader of my lifetime was William Hague.
Enough said. High intelligence may make you a brilliant professor, QC or surgeon it does not guarantee success in much else.
Drive and judgement are more important
Depends on your age, but Wilson was most intelligent. Youngest Oxford don.
And if you think Brown didn't have drive, I have a couple of bridges to sell you.
Surely true intelligence is a combination of many many things. Speed of thought processing is absolutely fundamental ("G", as it is known), that is *pure* intelligence, if such a thing exists.
But political intelligence also requires many more things: strategic vision, tactical nous, the ability to sense public feelings, emotional acuity and insight - the talent to make allies, but also the ruthlessness to drop them when necessary. A scientific eye also helps. Likewise a lawyerly gaze. You can weigh evidence
Of all the post war prime ministers I would say Thatcher had the most of these (but not all), followed by Blair
Unsurprisingly, she is now our most revered ex prime minister, and Blair is still admired by many despite the horror of Iraq
Great post. Would add sheer bloody commitment to the task. All those hours in meetings, rallies, pretending to be interested in what the constituency Chairman has to say, empathising with the hobby horse of the Member for Shitsville Southeast, remembering spouse's names, etc. Here's where the incumbent falls short.
The story suggests Adam Afriyie has the money if needs be but in any case, you'd imagine the Tories could arrange a whip round. Decades back it used to be said that when Conservatives ran into similar trouble, Michael Heseltine would write a cheque and the whips' office would own their immortal souls.
Watching the news this evening (something that I do increasingly little nowadays, to the overall benefit of my mental wellbeing,) the next juggernaut coming round the corner after spats about sleaze and over the success/failure of the Glasgow summit, is this migrant situation brewing in Eastern Europe. There are now substantial numbers of people - several thousand, and increasing all the time - sat in Belarus on the border with Poland, the Poles are refusing to let them in, temperatures in that part of the world are hovering around freezing, and will presumably get significantly worse before too much longer. How that all ends is anyone's guess, but it looks pretty grim.
Activate the Farage!
Yes, very droll. Though FWIW I don't think the British Government has much to worry about from that quarter anymore. If the EU states back Poland on pushback in this case, which it looks distinctly as if they're doing, then they have no basis to object to similar tactics from the UK Border Force if used against the boat people. However you judge the morality of the situation, in practical terms Priti Patel would be off the hook.
Certainly a number of Tory MPs would lose their seats if Mori is correct. Indeed the Conservatives would not have a single seat left in inner London. Though I suspect IDS would stand down beforehand and head to the Lords.
We would also be back to a hung parliament, only this time with the SNP, not the DUP or LDs, as Kingmakers
And you have just made the case why the lords should be abolished
IDS automatically goes to the unelected Lords after he decides to stand down
More sleaze
I don't see why.
He is a former Cabinet Minister and party leader, exactly the type who should be part of the Lords as well as the high flyers from other professions, business, the arts, sport, religious leaders etc
Yes, I agree
IDS is exactly the kind of person you want in the Lords, if you want senior politicians. Thoughtful, hard working, experienced at a very high level, has done good work on poverty, and he represents a big strand of opinion in British life. Why would he not be an asset in a sensible, law-modifying 2nd chamber?
I would say the same for Jeremy Corbyn. I despise his politics, but he has never broken the law, and he is clearly popular with many, and represents a definite slice of British politics. And he has wisdom (of his own kind) after many years. Put him in the Lords, too. This is not a party political thing. If you have an appointed revising 2nd chamber then these people should be in it
Intelligence is no longer a criterion, then?
I think that is unfair. Both IDS and Corbyn may be highly intelligent - at least more intelligent than any of us on here. But it is the nature of both political conviction and ideology that it often masks intelligence. I agree with Leon that both would benefit the Lords although I suspect in the case of Corbyn he would not choose to accept.
I can’t speak for Corbyn. But twenty four years as a Redbridge councillor entitles me to tell you that IDS is not an intelligent man.
I will have to take your word for it as like most I have only ever seen him from afar.
He has the intelligence of a mid ranking army officer. Which is not nothing, but is not something either.
Quite.
And Corbyn is another who is middling to mediocre.
The most intelligent PM of my lifetime on paper was Gordon Brown. The most intelligent Tory leader of my lifetime was William Hague.
Enough said. High intelligence may make you a brilliant professor, QC or surgeon it does not guarantee success in much else.
Drive and judgement are more important
Depends on your age, but Wilson was most intelligent. Youngest Oxford don.
And if you think Brown didn't have drive, I have a couple of bridges to sell you.
A decade to get a PhD? In the history of Marxism in the Labour Party?
Not sure that Brown was exactly a driven genius...
Pretty sarky at the end there. 'MPs discussed the need for more discussions and agreed to "take their time" with any reforms, but how long will the public give them?'
Paterson's arrogance, and Boris's lack of judgement over it, and the brazenness of the government in pretending people couldn't see what was happening and claiming they were doing something else, is infuriating. I'd never be surprised if next week polls rebound, but whoever first noted that this was such a needless affair is dead right. Why why why did they pick this fight?
Vague memories of Dominic Cummings wondering why Boris wanted to fight Marcus Rashford over starving children.
Certainly a number of Tory MPs would lose their seats if Mori is correct. Indeed the Conservatives would not have a single seat left in inner London. Though I suspect IDS would stand down beforehand and head to the Lords.
We would also be back to a hung parliament, only this time with the SNP, not the DUP or LDs, as Kingmakers
And you have just made the case why the lords should be abolished
IDS automatically goes to the unelected Lords after he decides to stand down
More sleaze
I don't see why.
He is a former Cabinet Minister and party leader, exactly the type who should be part of the Lords as well as the high flyers from other professions, business, the arts, sport, religious leaders etc
Yes, I agree
IDS is exactly the kind of person you want in the Lords, if you want senior politicians. Thoughtful, hard working, experienced at a very high level, has done good work on poverty, and he represents a big strand of opinion in British life. Why would he not be an asset in a sensible, law-modifying 2nd chamber?
I would say the same for Jeremy Corbyn. I despise his politics, but he has never broken the law, and he is clearly popular with many, and represents a definite slice of British politics. And he has wisdom (of his own kind) after many years. Put him in the Lords, too. This is not a party political thing. If you have an appointed revising 2nd chamber then these people should be in it
Intelligence is no longer a criterion, then?
I think that is unfair. Both IDS and Corbyn may be highly intelligent - at least more intelligent than any of us on here. But it is the nature of both political conviction and ideology that it often masks intelligence. I agree with Leon that both would benefit the Lords although I suspect in the case of Corbyn he would not choose to accept.
I can’t speak for Corbyn. But twenty four years as a Redbridge councillor entitles me to tell you that IDS is not an intelligent man.
I will have to take your word for it as like most I have only ever seen him from afar.
He has the intelligence of a mid ranking army officer. Which is not nothing, but is not something either.
Whereas you have.... what? How would you estimate your own intelligence by this metric?
Serious question
To be honest, I think that question goes to the heart of what intelligence might be.
I always did well at school, and seem to have an ability to join the dots and see the big picture in most situations, such that I am able to learn new things quickly and understand the basics of new fields after the minimum of study.
Yet I have always marvelled at those people who seem able to become true experts in subjects at depth, and I have generally failed whenever I have tried to follow them down such a path. I know a little about a lot but a lot about a little. Indeed my life is a story of using my skills as a generalist and avoiding choices that would involve competing with people who have deep understanding of narrow fields.
I should have been one of those eighteenth or nineteenth century gentlemen who quickly got to the limits of knowledge in their fields because not that much was known. But nowadays, it takes a serious degree of application to get to the limits of knowledge in any field, and the effort required has so far eluded me.
Hence I am reduced to debating nighttime on PB with you, wondering whether your wine bottle is as empty as mine.
I would say, forensically (and I am quite good at this - it's a parlour game) that you have an IQ of about 125-130. Definitely highly intelligent, but also intelligent enough to know you are no game-changer. My IQ is ~140. I am clearly and significantly smarter than you
However I am also drunker than you, generally, and that is a handicap
I am also prone to insane mood swings, which is a further handicap, and has probably led me to not quite fulfilling my potential. On the other hand, I have had a fucking laugh and a half, and many many women, so there is that
Hmmmm. I haven't seen any evidence you are smarter than @IanB2 . On the contrary you have on a number of occasions made deductions that don't follow logical processes. I have never seen Ian do that.
Certainly a number of Tory MPs would lose their seats if Mori is correct. Indeed the Conservatives would not have a single seat left in inner London. Though I suspect IDS would stand down beforehand and head to the Lords.
We would also be back to a hung parliament, only this time with the SNP, not the DUP or LDs, as Kingmakers
And you have just made the case why the lords should be abolished
IDS automatically goes to the unelected Lords after he decides to stand down
More sleaze
I don't see why.
He is a former Cabinet Minister and party leader, exactly the type who should be part of the Lords as well as the high flyers from other professions, business, the arts, sport, religious leaders etc
Yes, I agree
IDS is exactly the kind of person you want in the Lords, if you want senior politicians. Thoughtful, hard working, experienced at a very high level, has done good work on poverty, and he represents a big strand of opinion in British life. Why would he not be an asset in a sensible, law-modifying 2nd chamber?
I would say the same for Jeremy Corbyn. I despise his politics, but he has never broken the law, and he is clearly popular with many, and represents a definite slice of British politics. And he has wisdom (of his own kind) after many years. Put him in the Lords, too. This is not a party political thing. If you have an appointed revising 2nd chamber then these people should be in it
Intelligence is no longer a criterion, then?
I think that is unfair. Both IDS and Corbyn may be highly intelligent - at least more intelligent than any of us on here. But it is the nature of both political conviction and ideology that it often masks intelligence. I agree with Leon that both would benefit the Lords although I suspect in the case of Corbyn he would not choose to accept.
I can’t speak for Corbyn. But twenty four years as a Redbridge councillor entitles me to tell you that IDS is not an intelligent man.
I will have to take your word for it as like most I have only ever seen him from afar.
He has the intelligence of a mid ranking army officer. Which is not nothing, but is not something either.
Whereas you have.... what? How would you estimate your own intelligence by this metric?
Serious question
To be honest, I think that question goes to the heart of what intelligence might be.
I always did well at school, and seem to have an ability to join the dots and see the big picture in most situations, such that I am able to learn new things quickly and understand the basics of new fields after the minimum of study.
Yet I have always marvelled at those people who seem able to become true experts in subjects at depth, and I have generally failed whenever I have tried to follow them down such a path. I know a little about a lot but a lot about a little. Indeed my life is a story of using my skills as a generalist and avoiding choices that would involve competing with people who have deep understanding of narrow fields.
I should have been one of those eighteenth or nineteenth century gentlemen who quickly got to the limits of knowledge in their fields because not that much was known. But nowadays, it takes a serious degree of application to get to the limits of knowledge in any field, and the effort required has so far eluded me.
Hence I am reduced to debating nighttime on PB with you, wondering whether your wine bottle is as empty as mine.
I would say, forensically (and I am quite good at this - it's a parlour game) that you have an IQ of about 125-130. Definitely highly intelligent, but also intelligent enough to know you are no game-changer. My IQ is ~140. I am clearly and significantly smarter than you
However I am also drunker than you, generally, and that is a handicap
I am also prone to insane mood swings, which is a further handicap, and has probably led me to not quite fulfilling my potential. On the other hand, I have had a fucking laugh and a half, and many many women, so there is that
Yet you haven’t met many women who would have you again, which is the pertinent point.
I will settle for being less intelligent than you when the wine bottle is empty, knowing that the reverse will be true tomorrow morning.
But largely because I think IQ measures intelligence in breadth rather than depth.
Perhaps this historical nugget might solace both of us
A few years ago I visited Leonardo Da Vinci's final home, in Amboise, France. You can tour his kitchens, wardrobes, laboratory, and his exquisite garden, and also his bedroom, where he died. Apparently on his deathbed Leonardo wept and apologised to God, for not having made the most of his God-given talents
And he probably had a point. All that skill, and so little in the end. And yet, he also helped to change the world in the High Renaissance
If Leonardo felt that he didn't do all that he could have done, I imagine it is a universal human experience, at least if you have a brain and self-awareness
Fair point. Not believing in this god nonsense helps a lot. Since we’re all going to turn to dust, it really doesn’t matter.
I would have thought the opposite.
If there is no afterlife, in which you have all eternity to be creative again after atoning to God for not making enough use of your talents on earth., then even more important to leave a legacy
Certainly a number of Tory MPs would lose their seats if Mori is correct. Indeed the Conservatives would not have a single seat left in inner London. Though I suspect IDS would stand down beforehand and head to the Lords.
We would also be back to a hung parliament, only this time with the SNP, not the DUP or LDs, as Kingmakers
And you have just made the case why the lords should be abolished
IDS automatically goes to the unelected Lords after he decides to stand down
More sleaze
I don't see why.
He is a former Cabinet Minister and party leader, exactly the type who should be part of the Lords as well as the high flyers from other professions, business, the arts, sport, religious leaders etc
Yes, I agree
IDS is exactly the kind of person you want in the Lords, if you want senior politicians. Thoughtful, hard working, experienced at a very high level, has done good work on poverty, and he represents a big strand of opinion in British life. Why would he not be an asset in a sensible, law-modifying 2nd chamber?
I would say the same for Jeremy Corbyn. I despise his politics, but he has never broken the law, and he is clearly popular with many, and represents a definite slice of British politics. And he has wisdom (of his own kind) after many years. Put him in the Lords, too. This is not a party political thing. If you have an appointed revising 2nd chamber then these people should be in it
Intelligence is no longer a criterion, then?
I think that is unfair. Both IDS and Corbyn may be highly intelligent - at least more intelligent than any of us on here. But it is the nature of both political conviction and ideology that it often masks intelligence. I agree with Leon that both would benefit the Lords although I suspect in the case of Corbyn he would not choose to accept.
I can’t speak for Corbyn. But twenty four years as a Redbridge councillor entitles me to tell you that IDS is not an intelligent man.
I will have to take your word for it as like most I have only ever seen him from afar.
He has the intelligence of a mid ranking army officer. Which is not nothing, but is not something either.
Quite.
And Corbyn is another who is middling to mediocre.
The most intelligent PM of my lifetime on paper was Gordon Brown. The most intelligent Tory leader of my lifetime was William Hague.
Enough said. High intelligence may make you a brilliant professor, QC or surgeon it does not guarantee success in much else.
Certainly a number of Tory MPs would lose their seats if Mori is correct. Indeed the Conservatives would not have a single seat left in inner London. Though I suspect IDS would stand down beforehand and head to the Lords.
We would also be back to a hung parliament, only this time with the SNP, not the DUP or LDs, as Kingmakers
And you have just made the case why the lords should be abolished
IDS automatically goes to the unelected Lords after he decides to stand down
More sleaze
I don't see why.
He is a former Cabinet Minister and party leader, exactly the type who should be part of the Lords as well as the high flyers from other professions, business, the arts, sport, religious leaders etc
Yes, I agree
IDS is exactly the kind of person you want in the Lords, if you want senior politicians. Thoughtful, hard working, experienced at a very high level, has done good work on poverty, and he represents a big strand of opinion in British life. Why would he not be an asset in a sensible, law-modifying 2nd chamber?
I would say the same for Jeremy Corbyn. I despise his politics, but he has never broken the law, and he is clearly popular with many, and represents a definite slice of British politics. And he has wisdom (of his own kind) after many years. Put him in the Lords, too. This is not a party political thing. If you have an appointed revising 2nd chamber then these people should be in it
Intelligence is no longer a criterion, then?
I think that is unfair. Both IDS and Corbyn may be highly intelligent - at least more intelligent than any of us on here. But it is the nature of both political conviction and ideology that it often masks intelligence. I agree with Leon that both would benefit the Lords although I suspect in the case of Corbyn he would not choose to accept.
I can’t speak for Corbyn. But twenty four years as a Redbridge councillor entitles me to tell you that IDS is not an intelligent man.
I will have to take your word for it as like most I have only ever seen him from afar.
He has the intelligence of a mid ranking army officer. Which is not nothing, but is not something either.
Quite.
And Corbyn is another who is middling to mediocre.
The most intelligent PM of my lifetime on paper was Gordon Brown. The most intelligent Tory leader of my lifetime was William Hague.
Enough said. High intelligence may make you a brilliant professor, QC or surgeon it does not guarantee success in much else.
Drive and judgement are more important
Depends on your age, but Wilson was most intelligent. Youngest Oxford don.
And if you think Brown didn't have drive, I have a couple of bridges to sell you.
Surely true intelligence is a combination of many many things. Speed of thought processing is absolutely fundamental ("G", as it is known), that is *pure* intelligence, if such a thing exists.
But political intelligence also requires many more things: strategic vision, tactical nous, the ability to sense public feelings, emotional acuity and insight - the talent to make allies, but also the ruthlessness to drop them when necessary. A scientific eye also helps. Likewise a lawyerly gaze. You can weigh evidence
Of all the post war prime ministers I would say Thatcher had the most of these (but not all), followed by Blair
Unsurprisingly, she is now our most revered ex prime minister, and Blair is still admired by many despite the horror of Iraq
Great post. Would add sheer bloody commitment to the task. All those hours in meetings, rallies, pretending to be interested in what the constituency Chairman has to say, empathising with the hobby horse of the Member for Shitsville Southeast, remembering spouse's names, etc. Here's where the incumbent falls short.
Yes, you're right. Also the mental and physical capacity for bloody hard work, at times. Remember Thatcher slept 4 hours a night or whatever
When you add it all together it is quite a tick-list, and it is unsurprising that 99% of politicians fall short. Ditto kings, princes or Popes. To become great at leadership requires a rare combination of skills, and some dumb luck, too
Certainly a number of Tory MPs would lose their seats if Mori is correct. Indeed the Conservatives would not have a single seat left in inner London. Though I suspect IDS would stand down beforehand and head to the Lords.
We would also be back to a hung parliament, only this time with the SNP, not the DUP or LDs, as Kingmakers
And you have just made the case why the lords should be abolished
IDS automatically goes to the unelected Lords after he decides to stand down
More sleaze
I don't see why.
He is a former Cabinet Minister and party leader, exactly the type who should be part of the Lords as well as the high flyers from other professions, business, the arts, sport, religious leaders etc
Yes, I agree
IDS is exactly the kind of person you want in the Lords, if you want senior politicians. Thoughtful, hard working, experienced at a very high level, has done good work on poverty, and he represents a big strand of opinion in British life. Why would he not be an asset in a sensible, law-modifying 2nd chamber?
I would say the same for Jeremy Corbyn. I despise his politics, but he has never broken the law, and he is clearly popular with many, and represents a definite slice of British politics. And he has wisdom (of his own kind) after many years. Put him in the Lords, too. This is not a party political thing. If you have an appointed revising 2nd chamber then these people should be in it
Intelligence is no longer a criterion, then?
I think that is unfair. Both IDS and Corbyn may be highly intelligent - at least more intelligent than any of us on here. But it is the nature of both political conviction and ideology that it often masks intelligence. I agree with Leon that both would benefit the Lords although I suspect in the case of Corbyn he would not choose to accept.
I can’t speak for Corbyn. But twenty four years as a Redbridge councillor entitles me to tell you that IDS is not an intelligent man.
I will have to take your word for it as like most I have only ever seen him from afar.
He has the intelligence of a mid ranking army officer. Which is not nothing, but is not something either.
Quite.
And Corbyn is another who is middling to mediocre.
The most intelligent PM of my lifetime on paper was Gordon Brown. The most intelligent Tory leader of my lifetime was William Hague.
Enough said. High intelligence may make you a brilliant professor, QC or surgeon it does not guarantee success in much else.
Drive and judgement are more important
Depends on your age, but Wilson was most intelligent. Youngest Oxford don.
And if you think Brown didn't have drive, I have a couple of bridges to sell you.
Even Wilson was only a middle ranking PM and left a sluggish economy in urgent need of Thatcher's reforms.
Brown may have had drive, that did not mean he always had judgement
Ok, but you said "on paper". And on paper, it has to be Wilson.
I also said 'in my lifetime'. Wilson had long left office when I was born, otherwise you could play this game back to Gladstone and beyond
Certainly a number of Tory MPs would lose their seats if Mori is correct. Indeed the Conservatives would not have a single seat left in inner London. Though I suspect IDS would stand down beforehand and head to the Lords.
We would also be back to a hung parliament, only this time with the SNP, not the DUP or LDs, as Kingmakers
And you have just made the case why the lords should be abolished
IDS automatically goes to the unelected Lords after he decides to stand down
More sleaze
I don't see why.
He is a former Cabinet Minister and party leader, exactly the type who should be part of the Lords as well as the high flyers from other professions, business, the arts, sport, religious leaders etc
Yes, I agree
IDS is exactly the kind of person you want in the Lords, if you want senior politicians. Thoughtful, hard working, experienced at a very high level, has done good work on poverty, and he represents a big strand of opinion in British life. Why would he not be an asset in a sensible, law-modifying 2nd chamber?
I would say the same for Jeremy Corbyn. I despise his politics, but he has never broken the law, and he is clearly popular with many, and represents a definite slice of British politics. And he has wisdom (of his own kind) after many years. Put him in the Lords, too. This is not a party political thing. If you have an appointed revising 2nd chamber then these people should be in it
Intelligence is no longer a criterion, then?
I think that is unfair. Both IDS and Corbyn may be highly intelligent - at least more intelligent than any of us on here. But it is the nature of both political conviction and ideology that it often masks intelligence. I agree with Leon that both would benefit the Lords although I suspect in the case of Corbyn he would not choose to accept.
I can’t speak for Corbyn. But twenty four years as a Redbridge councillor entitles me to tell you that IDS is not an intelligent man.
I will have to take your word for it as like most I have only ever seen him from afar.
He has the intelligence of a mid ranking army officer. Which is not nothing, but is not something either.
Whereas you have.... what? How would you estimate your own intelligence by this metric?
Serious question
To be honest, I think that question goes to the heart of what intelligence might be.
I always did well at school, and seem to have an ability to join the dots and see the big picture in most situations, such that I am able to learn new things quickly and understand the basics of new fields after the minimum of study.
Yet I have always marvelled at those people who seem able to become true experts in subjects at depth, and I have generally failed whenever I have tried to follow them down such a path. I know a little about a lot but a lot about a little. Indeed my life is a story of using my skills as a generalist and avoiding choices that would involve competing with people who have deep understanding of narrow fields.
I should have been one of those eighteenth or nineteenth century gentlemen who quickly got to the limits of knowledge in their fields because not that much was known. But nowadays, it takes a serious degree of application to get to the limits of knowledge in any field, and the effort required has so far eluded me.
Hence I am reduced to debating nighttime on PB with you, wondering whether your wine bottle is as empty as mine.
I would say, forensically (and I am quite good at this - it's a parlour game) that you have an IQ of about 125-130. Definitely highly intelligent, but also intelligent enough to know you are no game-changer. My IQ is ~140. I am clearly and significantly smarter than you
However I am also drunker than you, generally, and that is a handicap
I am also prone to insane mood swings, which is a further handicap, and has probably led me to not quite fulfilling my potential. On the other hand, I have had a fucking laugh and a half, and many many women, so there is that
Hmmmm. I haven't seen any evidence you are smarter than @IanB2 . On the contrary you have on a number of occasions made deductions that don't follow logical processes. I have never seen Ian do that.
Certainly a number of Tory MPs would lose their seats if Mori is correct. Indeed the Conservatives would not have a single seat left in inner London. Though I suspect IDS would stand down beforehand and head to the Lords.
We would also be back to a hung parliament, only this time with the SNP, not the DUP or LDs, as Kingmakers
And you have just made the case why the lords should be abolished
IDS automatically goes to the unelected Lords after he decides to stand down
More sleaze
I don't see why.
He is a former Cabinet Minister and party leader, exactly the type who should be part of the Lords as well as the high flyers from other professions, business, the arts, sport, religious leaders etc
Yes, I agree
IDS is exactly the kind of person you want in the Lords, if you want senior politicians. Thoughtful, hard working, experienced at a very high level, has done good work on poverty, and he represents a big strand of opinion in British life. Why would he not be an asset in a sensible, law-modifying 2nd chamber?
I would say the same for Jeremy Corbyn. I despise his politics, but he has never broken the law, and he is clearly popular with many, and represents a definite slice of British politics. And he has wisdom (of his own kind) after many years. Put him in the Lords, too. This is not a party political thing. If you have an appointed revising 2nd chamber then these people should be in it
Intelligence is no longer a criterion, then?
I think that is unfair. Both IDS and Corbyn may be highly intelligent - at least more intelligent than any of us on here. But it is the nature of both political conviction and ideology that it often masks intelligence. I agree with Leon that both would benefit the Lords although I suspect in the case of Corbyn he would not choose to accept.
I can’t speak for Corbyn. But twenty four years as a Redbridge councillor entitles me to tell you that IDS is not an intelligent man.
I will have to take your word for it as like most I have only ever seen him from afar.
He has the intelligence of a mid ranking army officer. Which is not nothing, but is not something either.
Quite.
And Corbyn is another who is middling to mediocre.
The most intelligent PM of my lifetime on paper was Gordon Brown. The most intelligent Tory leader of my lifetime was William Hague.
Enough said. High intelligence may make you a brilliant professor, QC or surgeon it does not guarantee success in much else.
Drive and judgement are more important
Depends on your age, but Wilson was most intelligent. Youngest Oxford don.
And if you think Brown didn't have drive, I have a couple of bridges to sell you.
Surely true intelligence is a combination of many many things. Speed of thought processing is absolutely fundamental ("G", as it is known), that is *pure* intelligence, if such a thing exists.
But political intelligence also requires many more things: strategic vision, tactical nous, the ability to sense public feelings, emotional acuity and insight - the talent to make allies, but also the ruthlessness to drop them when necessary. A scientific eye also helps. Likewise a lawyerly gaze. You can weigh evidence
Of all the post war prime ministers I would say Thatcher had the most of these (but not all), followed by Blair
Unsurprisingly, she is now our most revered ex prime minister, and Blair is still admired by many despite the horror of Iraq
Great post. Would add sheer bloody commitment to the task. All those hours in meetings, rallies, pretending to be interested in what the constituency Chairman has to say, empathising with the hobby horse of the Member for Shitsville Southeast, remembering spouse's names, etc. Here's where the incumbent falls short.
Yes, you're right. Also the mental and physical capacity for bloody hard work, at times. Remember Thatcher slept 4 hours a night or whatever
When you add it all together it is quite a tick-list, and it is unsurprising that 99% of politicians fall short. Ditto kings, princes or Popes. To become great at leadership requires a rare combination of skills, and some dumb luck, too
In addition, unlike in any other field except the NHS and academia, you've also got your colleagues all hoping you'll fail, and doing their best to ensure you do.
The story suggests Adam Afriyie has the money if needs be but in any case, you'd imagine the Tories could arrange a whip round. Decades back it used to be said that when Conservatives ran into similar trouble, Michael Heseltine would write a cheque and the whips' office would own their immortal souls.
Reads like HMRC have lost patience with Afriyie's protracted haggling. And have given him the hurry up. Not that he is "facing bankruptcy". (In anything other than a technical sense).
Certainly a number of Tory MPs would lose their seats if Mori is correct. Indeed the Conservatives would not have a single seat left in inner London. Though I suspect IDS would stand down beforehand and head to the Lords.
We would also be back to a hung parliament, only this time with the SNP, not the DUP or LDs, as Kingmakers
And you have just made the case why the lords should be abolished
IDS automatically goes to the unelected Lords after he decides to stand down
More sleaze
I don't see why.
He is a former Cabinet Minister and party leader, exactly the type who should be part of the Lords as well as the high flyers from other professions, business, the arts, sport, religious leaders etc
Yes, I agree
IDS is exactly the kind of person you want in the Lords, if you want senior politicians. Thoughtful, hard working, experienced at a very high level, has done good work on poverty, and he represents a big strand of opinion in British life. Why would he not be an asset in a sensible, law-modifying 2nd chamber?
I would say the same for Jeremy Corbyn. I despise his politics, but he has never broken the law, and he is clearly popular with many, and represents a definite slice of British politics. And he has wisdom (of his own kind) after many years. Put him in the Lords, too. This is not a party political thing. If you have an appointed revising 2nd chamber then these people should be in it
Intelligence is no longer a criterion, then?
I think that is unfair. Both IDS and Corbyn may be highly intelligent - at least more intelligent than any of us on here. But it is the nature of both political conviction and ideology that it often masks intelligence. I agree with Leon that both would benefit the Lords although I suspect in the case of Corbyn he would not choose to accept.
I can’t speak for Corbyn. But twenty four years as a Redbridge councillor entitles me to tell you that IDS is not an intelligent man.
I will have to take your word for it as like most I have only ever seen him from afar.
He has the intelligence of a mid ranking army officer. Which is not nothing, but is not something either.
Whereas you have.... what? How would you estimate your own intelligence by this metric?
Serious question
To be honest, I think that question goes to the heart of what intelligence might be.
I always did well at school, and seem to have an ability to join the dots and see the big picture in most situations, such that I am able to learn new things quickly and understand the basics of new fields after the minimum of study.
Yet I have always marvelled at those people who seem able to become true experts in subjects at depth, and I have generally failed whenever I have tried to follow them down such a path. I know a little about a lot but a lot about a little. Indeed my life is a story of using my skills as a generalist and avoiding choices that would involve competing with people who have deep understanding of narrow fields.
I should have been one of those eighteenth or nineteenth century gentlemen who quickly got to the limits of knowledge in their fields because not that much was known. But nowadays, it takes a serious degree of application to get to the limits of knowledge in any field, and the effort required has so far eluded me.
Hence I am reduced to debating nighttime on PB with you, wondering whether your wine bottle is as empty as mine.
I would say, forensically (and I am quite good at this - it's a parlour game) that you have an IQ of about 125-130. Definitely highly intelligent, but also intelligent enough to know you are no game-changer. My IQ is ~140. I am clearly and significantly smarter than you
However I am also drunker than you, generally, and that is a handicap
I am also prone to insane mood swings, which is a further handicap, and has probably led me to not quite fulfilling my potential. On the other hand, I have had a fucking laugh and a half, and many many women, so there is that
Hmmmm. I haven't seen any evidence you are smarter than @IanB2 . On the contrary you have on a number of occasions made deductions that don't follow logical processes. I have never seen Ian do that.
Shall we put that down to the alcohol.
No, I blame the women
I'll tell you what though you aren't bad at this writing lark.
Had a lovely evening back in the pub for knit group for the first time since pre-pandemic this evening. Have really missed it a lot more than I thought I would.
Mask rules are really absurd. I was in the pub for two and a half hours, drinking, eating, talking and knitting without wearing a mask, but I had to have it on for ten seconds to enter the pub and a few minutes to use the toilet and pay before leaving. What a nonsense.
My wife is concerned about the risk because I wasn't putting a mask back on in between drinks of beer. I might not be able to go back for a while. It's going to take a while before she's comfortable in places with other people again.
@HYUFD regularly confuses education with intelligence
The 2 normally follow.
There are not many people who left school at 16 with 2 D grade GCSES with 140+ IQs
Many people may have left school at 16 and not had the chance to be further educated at the time for a start, it was not always as common as now after all.
But even if it does 'normally' follow, it does not 'always' follow, so someone not having as much education cannot be just assumed to be less intelligent without further info. I have a brother with no GCSEs at all, but he's no slower of thought than I am. Someone might assume differently on paper, but if they looked into it they'd have to rethink.
The story suggests Adam Afriyie has the money if needs be but in any case, you'd imagine the Tories could arrange a whip round. Decades back it used to be said that when Conservatives ran into similar trouble, Michael Heseltine would write a cheque and the whips' office would own their immortal souls.
Reads like HMRC have lost patience with Afriyie's protracted haggling. And have given him the hurry up. Not that he is "facing bankruptcy". (In anything other than a technical sense).
Reading between the lines, it sounds as though he made the mistake of personally guaranteeing the debts of a company, which then got into trouble. Hot tip: Never, ever, ever do this.
Certainly a number of Tory MPs would lose their seats if Mori is correct. Indeed the Conservatives would not have a single seat left in inner London. Though I suspect IDS would stand down beforehand and head to the Lords.
We would also be back to a hung parliament, only this time with the SNP, not the DUP or LDs, as Kingmakers
And you have just made the case why the lords should be abolished
IDS automatically goes to the unelected Lords after he decides to stand down
More sleaze
I don't see why.
He is a former Cabinet Minister and party leader, exactly the type who should be part of the Lords as well as the high flyers from other professions, business, the arts, sport, religious leaders etc
Yes, I agree
IDS is exactly the kind of person you want in the Lords, if you want senior politicians. Thoughtful, hard working, experienced at a very high level, has done good work on poverty, and he represents a big strand of opinion in British life. Why would he not be an asset in a sensible, law-modifying 2nd chamber?
I would say the same for Jeremy Corbyn. I despise his politics, but he has never broken the law, and he is clearly popular with many, and represents a definite slice of British politics. And he has wisdom (of his own kind) after many years. Put him in the Lords, too. This is not a party political thing. If you have an appointed revising 2nd chamber then these people should be in it
Intelligence is no longer a criterion, then?
I think that is unfair. Both IDS and Corbyn may be highly intelligent - at least more intelligent than any of us on here. But it is the nature of both political conviction and ideology that it often masks intelligence. I agree with Leon that both would benefit the Lords although I suspect in the case of Corbyn he would not choose to accept.
I can’t speak for Corbyn. But twenty four years as a Redbridge councillor entitles me to tell you that IDS is not an intelligent man.
I will have to take your word for it as like most I have only ever seen him from afar.
He has the intelligence of a mid ranking army officer. Which is not nothing, but is not something either.
Quite.
And Corbyn is another who is middling to mediocre.
The most intelligent PM of my lifetime on paper was Gordon Brown. The most intelligent Tory leader of my lifetime was William Hague.
Enough said. High intelligence may make you a brilliant professor, QC or surgeon it does not guarantee success in much else.
Drive and judgement are more important
Depends on your age, but Wilson was most intelligent. Youngest Oxford don.
And if you think Brown didn't have drive, I have a couple of bridges to sell you.
Surely true intelligence is a combination of many many things. Speed of thought processing is absolutely fundamental ("G", as it is known), that is *pure* intelligence, if such a thing exists.
But political intelligence also requires many more things: strategic vision, tactical nous, the ability to sense public feelings, emotional acuity and insight - the talent to make allies, but also the ruthlessness to drop them when necessary. A scientific eye also helps. Likewise a lawyerly gaze. You can weigh evidence
Of all the post war prime ministers I would say Thatcher had the most of these (but not all), followed by Blair
Unsurprisingly, she is now our most revered ex prime minister, and Blair is still admired by many despite the horror of Iraq
Great post. Would add sheer bloody commitment to the task. All those hours in meetings, rallies, pretending to be interested in what the constituency Chairman has to say, empathising with the hobby horse of the Member for Shitsville Southeast, remembering spouse's names, etc. Here's where the incumbent falls short.
Yes, you're right. Also the mental and physical capacity for bloody hard work, at times. Remember Thatcher slept 4 hours a night or whatever
When you add it all together it is quite a tick-list, and it is unsurprising that 99% of politicians fall short. Ditto kings, princes or Popes. To become great at leadership requires a rare combination of skills, and some dumb luck, too
In addition, unlike in any other field except the NHS and academia, you've also got your colleagues all hoping you'll fail, and doing their best to ensure you do.
You'd be surprised how vicious the dildo-knapping world can be, likewise, as I understand it, the arts in general
Plenty of people trying to get their rivals cancelled
Certainly a number of Tory MPs would lose their seats if Mori is correct. Indeed the Conservatives would not have a single seat left in inner London. Though I suspect IDS would stand down beforehand and head to the Lords.
We would also be back to a hung parliament, only this time with the SNP, not the DUP or LDs, as Kingmakers
And you have just made the case why the lords should be abolished
IDS automatically goes to the unelected Lords after he decides to stand down
More sleaze
I don't see why.
He is a former Cabinet Minister and party leader, exactly the type who should be part of the Lords as well as the high flyers from other professions, business, the arts, sport, religious leaders etc
Yes, I agree
IDS is exactly the kind of person you want in the Lords, if you want senior politicians. Thoughtful, hard working, experienced at a very high level, has done good work on poverty, and he represents a big strand of opinion in British life. Why would he not be an asset in a sensible, law-modifying 2nd chamber?
I would say the same for Jeremy Corbyn. I despise his politics, but he has never broken the law, and he is clearly popular with many, and represents a definite slice of British politics. And he has wisdom (of his own kind) after many years. Put him in the Lords, too. This is not a party political thing. If you have an appointed revising 2nd chamber then these people should be in it
Intelligence is no longer a criterion, then?
I think that is unfair. Both IDS and Corbyn may be highly intelligent - at least more intelligent than any of us on here. But it is the nature of both political conviction and ideology that it often masks intelligence. I agree with Leon that both would benefit the Lords although I suspect in the case of Corbyn he would not choose to accept.
I can’t speak for Corbyn. But twenty four years as a Redbridge councillor entitles me to tell you that IDS is not an intelligent man.
I will have to take your word for it as like most I have only ever seen him from afar.
He has the intelligence of a mid ranking army officer. Which is not nothing, but is not something either.
Quite.
And Corbyn is another who is middling to mediocre.
The most intelligent PM of my lifetime on paper was Gordon Brown. The most intelligent Tory leader of my lifetime was William Hague.
Enough said. High intelligence may make you a brilliant professor, QC or surgeon it does not guarantee success in much else.
Drive and judgement are more important
Depends on your age, but Wilson was most intelligent. Youngest Oxford don.
And if you think Brown didn't have drive, I have a couple of bridges to sell you.
Surely true intelligence is a combination of many many things. Speed of thought processing is absolutely fundamental ("G", as it is known), that is *pure* intelligence, if such a thing exists.
But political intelligence also requires many more things: strategic vision, tactical nous, the ability to sense public feelings, emotional acuity and insight - the talent to make allies, but also the ruthlessness to drop them when necessary. A scientific eye also helps. Likewise a lawyerly gaze. You can weigh evidence
Of all the post war prime ministers I would say Thatcher had the most of these (but not all), followed by Blair
Unsurprisingly, she is now our most revered ex prime minister, and Blair is still admired by many despite the horror of Iraq
Great post. Would add sheer bloody commitment to the task. All those hours in meetings, rallies, pretending to be interested in what the constituency Chairman has to say, empathising with the hobby horse of the Member for Shitsville Southeast, remembering spouse's names, etc. Here's where the incumbent falls short.
Yes, you're right. Also the mental and physical capacity for bloody hard work, at times. Remember Thatcher slept 4 hours a night or whatever
When you add it all together it is quite a tick-list, and it is unsurprising that 99% of politicians fall short. Ditto kings, princes or Popes. To become great at leadership requires a rare combination of skills, and some dumb luck, too
In addition, unlike in any other field except the NHS and academia, you've also got your colleagues all hoping you'll fail, and doing their best to ensure you do.
You'd be surprised how vicious the dildo-knapping world can be
You should read David Epstein's book, Range: Why Generalists Succeed in a Specialised World (one for your letter to Santa, perhaps).
David Epstein examined the world’s most successful athletes, artists, musicians, inventors, forecasters and scientists. He discovered that in most fields—especially those that are complex and unpredictable—generalists, not specialists, are primed to excel. Generalists often find their path late, and they juggle many interests rather than focusing on one. They’re also more creative, more agile, and able to make connections their more specialized peers can’t see. https://davidepstein.com/the-range/
Hmm, sounds like Emma Raducanu, from earlier in this thread, who famously played many sports when young, as well as passing her A-levels. It also supports the creation of diverse rather than homogenous teams, for those who remember State Street's hiring rules from a couple of threads back.
The story suggests Adam Afriyie has the money if needs be but in any case, you'd imagine the Tories could arrange a whip round. Decades back it used to be said that when Conservatives ran into similar trouble, Michael Heseltine would write a cheque and the whips' office would own their immortal souls.
@HYUFD regularly confuses education with intelligence
The 2 normally follow.
There are not many people who left school at 16 with 2 D grade GCSES with 140+ IQs
There used to be lots, almost certainly the majority, who left school as soon as they could because their families needed the money and/or there were no grants for higher education. Even among educated professionals like solicitors and accountants, many will have left school early and qualified by evening classes and articles.
@HYUFD regularly confuses education with intelligence
The 2 normally follow.
There are not many people who left school at 16 with 2 D grade GCSES with 140+ IQs
Many people may have left school at 16 and not had the chance to be further educated at the time for a start, it was not always as common as now after all.
But even if it does 'normally' follow, it does not 'always' follow, so someone not having as much education cannot be just assumed to be less intelligent without further info. I have a brother with no GCSEs at all, but he's no slower of thought than I am. Someone might assume differently on paper, but if they looked into it they'd have to rethink.
A low IQ can occasionally work to one's advantage:
Certainly a number of Tory MPs would lose their seats if Mori is correct. Indeed the Conservatives would not have a single seat left in inner London. Though I suspect IDS would stand down beforehand and head to the Lords.
We would also be back to a hung parliament, only this time with the SNP, not the DUP or LDs, as Kingmakers
And you have just made the case why the lords should be abolished
IDS automatically goes to the unelected Lords after he decides to stand down
More sleaze
I don't see why.
He is a former Cabinet Minister and party leader, exactly the type who should be part of the Lords as well as the high flyers from other professions, business, the arts, sport, religious leaders etc
Yes, I agree
IDS is exactly the kind of person you want in the Lords, if you want senior politicians. Thoughtful, hard working, experienced at a very high level, has done good work on poverty, and he represents a big strand of opinion in British life. Why would he not be an asset in a sensible, law-modifying 2nd chamber?
I would say the same for Jeremy Corbyn. I despise his politics, but he has never broken the law, and he is clearly popular with many, and represents a definite slice of British politics. And he has wisdom (of his own kind) after many years. Put him in the Lords, too. This is not a party political thing. If you have an appointed revising 2nd chamber then these people should be in it
Intelligence is no longer a criterion, then?
I think that is unfair. Both IDS and Corbyn may be highly intelligent - at least more intelligent than any of us on here. But it is the nature of both political conviction and ideology that it often masks intelligence. I agree with Leon that both would benefit the Lords although I suspect in the case of Corbyn he would not choose to accept.
I can’t speak for Corbyn. But twenty four years as a Redbridge councillor entitles me to tell you that IDS is not an intelligent man.
I will have to take your word for it as like most I have only ever seen him from afar.
He has the intelligence of a mid ranking army officer. Which is not nothing, but is not something either.
Quite.
And Corbyn is another who is middling to mediocre.
The most intelligent PM of my lifetime on paper was Gordon Brown. The most intelligent Tory leader of my lifetime was William Hague.
Enough said. High intelligence may make you a brilliant professor, QC or surgeon it does not guarantee success in much else.
Drive and judgement are more important
Depends on your age, but Wilson was most intelligent. Youngest Oxford don.
And if you think Brown didn't have drive, I have a couple of bridges to sell you.
A decade to get a PhD? In the history of Marxism in the Labour Party?
Not sure that Brown was exactly a driven genius...
Anyways. Have spent the last 2 weeks visiting my aged Mother, now alone, in the Red Wall. Hot topic amongst her and her octogenarian friends and acquaintances is, by a country mile, the NHS. Ailments untreated, appointments postponed, a five week (!) wait for a GP slot. Having to use technology. Booster confusion. Which isn't to say this is the only politics to have cut through, nor that the solution is widely agreed upon. But it sure is the hot issue. These folk vote, and are discontented. Get your money on Leigh, or it's successor, going back to Red next time if a halfway decent Labour candidate is chosen.
Had a lovely evening back in the pub for knit group for the first time since pre-pandemic this evening. Have really missed it a lot more than I thought I would.
Mask rules are really absurd. I was in the pub for two and a half hours, drinking, eating, talking and knitting without wearing a mask, but I had to have it on for ten seconds to enter the pub and a few minutes to use the toilet and pay before leaving. What a nonsense.
My wife is concerned about the risk because I wasn't putting a mask back on in between drinks of beer. I might not be able to go back for a while. It's going to take a while before she's comfortable in places with other people again.
Is this in Scotland or Wales or NI? No one is wearing masks in the pub in England
You should read David Epstein's book, Range: Why Generalists Succeed in a Specialised World (one for your letter to Santa, perhaps).
David Epstein examined the world’s most successful athletes, artists, musicians, inventors, forecasters and scientists. He discovered that in most fields—especially those that are complex and unpredictable—generalists, not specialists, are primed to excel. Generalists often find their path late, and they juggle many interests rather than focusing on one. They’re also more creative, more agile, and able to make connections their more specialized peers can’t see. https://davidepstein.com/the-range/
Hmm, sounds like Emma Raducanu, from earlier in this thread, who famously played many sports when young, as well as passing her A-levels. It also supports the creation of diverse rather than homogenous teams, for those who remember State Street's hiring rules from a couple of threads back.
Edited to remove screwed-up previous quotes.
Strangely enough, was reading similar last night about 2 time NBA MVP Steve Nash. He didn't even play basketball till around 12 iirc.
The head of Canada’s largest airline is facing public outrage and calls for his resignation after giving a speech in English to business leaders in Quebec
Had a lovely evening back in the pub for knit group for the first time since pre-pandemic this evening. Have really missed it a lot more than I thought I would.
Mask rules are really absurd. I was in the pub for two and a half hours, drinking, eating, talking and knitting without wearing a mask, but I had to have it on for ten seconds to enter the pub and a few minutes to use the toilet and pay before leaving. What a nonsense.
My wife is concerned about the risk because I wasn't putting a mask back on in between drinks of beer. I might not be able to go back for a while. It's going to take a while before she's comfortable in places with other people again.
We call it the mask dance. It is obviously absurd.
@HYUFD regularly confuses education with intelligence
The 2 normally follow.
There are not many people who left school at 16 with 2 D grade GCSES with 140+ IQs
Many people may have left school at 16 and not had the chance to be further educated at the time for a start, it was not always as common as now after all.
But even if it does 'normally' follow, it does not 'always' follow, so someone not having as much education cannot be just assumed to be less intelligent without further info. I have a brother with no GCSEs at all, but he's no slower of thought than I am. Someone might assume differently on paper, but if they looked into it they'd have to rethink.
A low IQ can occasionally work to one's advantage:
Certainly a number of Tory MPs would lose their seats if Mori is correct. Indeed the Conservatives would not have a single seat left in inner London. Though I suspect IDS would stand down beforehand and head to the Lords.
We would also be back to a hung parliament, only this time with the SNP, not the DUP or LDs, as Kingmakers
And you have just made the case why the lords should be abolished
IDS automatically goes to the unelected Lords after he decides to stand down
More sleaze
I don't see why.
He is a former Cabinet Minister and party leader, exactly the type who should be part of the Lords as well as the high flyers from other professions, business, the arts, sport, religious leaders etc
Yes, I agree
IDS is exactly the kind of person you want in the Lords, if you want senior politicians. Thoughtful, hard working, experienced at a very high level, has done good work on poverty, and he represents a big strand of opinion in British life. Why would he not be an asset in a sensible, law-modifying 2nd chamber?
I would say the same for Jeremy Corbyn. I despise his politics, but he has never broken the law, and he is clearly popular with many, and represents a definite slice of British politics. And he has wisdom (of his own kind) after many years. Put him in the Lords, too. This is not a party political thing. If you have an appointed revising 2nd chamber then these people should be in it
Intelligence is no longer a criterion, then?
I think that is unfair. Both IDS and Corbyn may be highly intelligent - at least more intelligent than any of us on here. But it is the nature of both political conviction and ideology that it often masks intelligence. I agree with Leon that both would benefit the Lords although I suspect in the case of Corbyn he would not choose to accept.
I can’t speak for Corbyn. But twenty four years as a Redbridge councillor entitles me to tell you that IDS is not an intelligent man.
I will have to take your word for it as like most I have only ever seen him from afar.
He has the intelligence of a mid ranking army officer. Which is not nothing, but is not something either.
Quite.
And Corbyn is another who is middling to mediocre.
The most intelligent PM of my lifetime on paper was Gordon Brown. The most intelligent Tory leader of my lifetime was William Hague.
Enough said. High intelligence may make you a brilliant professor, QC or surgeon it does not guarantee success in much else.
Drive and judgement are more important
Depends on your age, but Wilson was most intelligent. Youngest Oxford don.
And if you think Brown didn't have drive, I have a couple of bridges to sell you.
A decade to get a PhD? In the history of Marxism in the Labour Party?
Not sure that Brown was exactly a driven genius...
Anyone who becomes PM has a ton of drive.
When was the last PM without drive and ambition?
Balfour?
Macmillan spent much of his premiership reading Trollope in the Downing Street garden, though in reality he had more ambition than he showed
@HYUFD regularly confuses education with intelligence
The 2 normally follow.
There are not many people who left school at 16 with 2 D grade GCSES with 140+ IQs
There used to be lots, almost certainly the majority, who left school as soon as they could because their families needed the money and/or there were no grants for higher education. Even among educated professionals like solicitors and accountants, many will have left school early and qualified by evening classes and articles.
Yes but they will still likely have got pretty good grades at the level of education they did get to
@HYUFD regularly confuses education with intelligence
The 2 normally follow.
There are not many people who left school at 16 with 2 D grade GCSES with 140+ IQs
Many people may have left school at 16 and not had the chance to be further educated at the time for a start, it was not always as common as now after all.
But even if it does 'normally' follow, it does not 'always' follow, so someone not having as much education cannot be just assumed to be less intelligent without further info. I have a brother with no GCSEs at all, but he's no slower of thought than I am. Someone might assume differently on paper, but if they looked into it they'd have to rethink.
A low IQ can occasionally work to one's advantage:
The head of Canada’s largest airline is facing public outrage and calls for his resignation after giving a speech in English to business leaders in Quebec
Blimey. I know they take it very seriously in Quebec and understand the referenced complaints about the government not doing enough to uphold bilinguilism are probably legitimate given the rules, but that really still a surprising level of reaction. French is still easily the predominant language in the province I assume?
Certainly a number of Tory MPs would lose their seats if Mori is correct. Indeed the Conservatives would not have a single seat left in inner London. Though I suspect IDS would stand down beforehand and head to the Lords.
We would also be back to a hung parliament, only this time with the SNP, not the DUP or LDs, as Kingmakers
And you have just made the case why the lords should be abolished
IDS automatically goes to the unelected Lords after he decides to stand down
More sleaze
I don't see why.
He is a former Cabinet Minister and party leader, exactly the type who should be part of the Lords as well as the high flyers from other professions, business, the arts, sport, religious leaders etc
Yes, I agree
IDS is exactly the kind of person you want in the Lords, if you want senior politicians. Thoughtful, hard working, experienced at a very high level, has done good work on poverty, and he represents a big strand of opinion in British life. Why would he not be an asset in a sensible, law-modifying 2nd chamber?
I would say the same for Jeremy Corbyn. I despise his politics, but he has never broken the law, and he is clearly popular with many, and represents a definite slice of British politics. And he has wisdom (of his own kind) after many years. Put him in the Lords, too. This is not a party political thing. If you have an appointed revising 2nd chamber then these people should be in it
Intelligence is no longer a criterion, then?
I think that is unfair. Both IDS and Corbyn may be highly intelligent - at least more intelligent than any of us on here. But it is the nature of both political conviction and ideology that it often masks intelligence. I agree with Leon that both would benefit the Lords although I suspect in the case of Corbyn he would not choose to accept.
I can’t speak for Corbyn. But twenty four years as a Redbridge councillor entitles me to tell you that IDS is not an intelligent man.
I will have to take your word for it as like most I have only ever seen him from afar.
He has the intelligence of a mid ranking army officer. Which is not nothing, but is not something either.
Quite.
And Corbyn is another who is middling to mediocre.
The most intelligent PM of my lifetime on paper was Gordon Brown. The most intelligent Tory leader of my lifetime was William Hague.
Enough said. High intelligence may make you a brilliant professor, QC or surgeon it does not guarantee success in much else.
Drive and judgement are more important
Depends on your age, but Wilson was most intelligent. Youngest Oxford don.
And if you think Brown didn't have drive, I have a couple of bridges to sell you.
A decade to get a PhD? In the history of Marxism in the Labour Party?
Not sure that Brown was exactly a driven genius...
Anyone who becomes PM has a ton of drive.
When was the last PM without drive and ambition?
Balfour?
Macmillan spent much of his premiership reading Trollope in the Downing Street garden, though in reality he had more ambition than he showed
Certainly a number of Tory MPs would lose their seats if Mori is correct. Indeed the Conservatives would not have a single seat left in inner London. Though I suspect IDS would stand down beforehand and head to the Lords.
We would also be back to a hung parliament, only this time with the SNP, not the DUP or LDs, as Kingmakers
And you have just made the case why the lords should be abolished
IDS automatically goes to the unelected Lords after he decides to stand down
More sleaze
I don't see why.
He is a former Cabinet Minister and party leader, exactly the type who should be part of the Lords as well as the high flyers from other professions, business, the arts, sport, religious leaders etc
Yes, I agree
IDS is exactly the kind of person you want in the Lords, if you want senior politicians. Thoughtful, hard working, experienced at a very high level, has done good work on poverty, and he represents a big strand of opinion in British life. Why would he not be an asset in a sensible, law-modifying 2nd chamber?
I would say the same for Jeremy Corbyn. I despise his politics, but he has never broken the law, and he is clearly popular with many, and represents a definite slice of British politics. And he has wisdom (of his own kind) after many years. Put him in the Lords, too. This is not a party political thing. If you have an appointed revising 2nd chamber then these people should be in it
Intelligence is no longer a criterion, then?
I think that is unfair. Both IDS and Corbyn may be highly intelligent - at least more intelligent than any of us on here. But it is the nature of both political conviction and ideology that it often masks intelligence. I agree with Leon that both would benefit the Lords although I suspect in the case of Corbyn he would not choose to accept.
I can’t speak for Corbyn. But twenty four years as a Redbridge councillor entitles me to tell you that IDS is not an intelligent man.
I will have to take your word for it as like most I have only ever seen him from afar.
He has the intelligence of a mid ranking army officer. Which is not nothing, but is not something either.
Quite.
And Corbyn is another who is middling to mediocre.
The most intelligent PM of my lifetime on paper was Gordon Brown. The most intelligent Tory leader of my lifetime was William Hague.
Enough said. High intelligence may make you a brilliant professor, QC or surgeon it does not guarantee success in much else.
Drive and judgement are more important
Depends on your age, but Wilson was most intelligent. Youngest Oxford don.
And if you think Brown didn't have drive, I have a couple of bridges to sell you.
A decade to get a PhD? In the history of Marxism in the Labour Party?
Not sure that Brown was exactly a driven genius...
Anyone who becomes PM has a ton of drive.
When was the last PM without drive and ambition?
Balfour?
Macmillan spent much of his premiership reading Trollope in the Downing Street garden, though in reality he had more ambition than he showed
Insert sexist joke about trollops here.
I would not be surprised if Boris had not had a few trollops in the Downing Street garden too
On languages, having looked at Quebec and done a wiki crawl, it is claimed that 1.5million people in Scotland said they could speak Scots. That's more than speak Welsh, is that really true?
You should read David Epstein's book, Range: Why Generalists Succeed in a Specialised World (one for your letter to Santa, perhaps).
David Epstein examined the world’s most successful athletes, artists, musicians, inventors, forecasters and scientists. He discovered that in most fields—especially those that are complex and unpredictable—generalists, not specialists, are primed to excel. Generalists often find their path late, and they juggle many interests rather than focusing on one. They’re also more creative, more agile, and able to make connections their more specialized peers can’t see. https://davidepstein.com/the-range/
Hmm, sounds like Emma Raducanu, from earlier in this thread, who famously played many sports when young, as well as passing her A-levels. It also supports the creation of diverse rather than homogenous teams, for those who remember State Street's hiring rules from a couple of threads back.
Edited to remove screwed-up previous quotes.
Strangely enough, was reading similar last night about 2 time NBA MVP Steve Nash. He didn't even play basketball till around 12 iirc.
Dammit. Somehow I was reading John's post and thinking its not too late for me at 56. And then you have to come along and put it into some sort of logical perspective.
On languages, having looked at Quebec and done a wiki crawl, it is claimed that 1.5million people in Scotland said they could speak Scots. That's more than speak Welsh, is that really true?
Certainly a number of Tory MPs would lose their seats if Mori is correct. Indeed the Conservatives would not have a single seat left in inner London. Though I suspect IDS would stand down beforehand and head to the Lords.
We would also be back to a hung parliament, only this time with the SNP, not the DUP or LDs, as Kingmakers
And you have just made the case why the lords should be abolished
IDS automatically goes to the unelected Lords after he decides to stand down
More sleaze
I don't see why.
He is a former Cabinet Minister and party leader, exactly the type who should be part of the Lords as well as the high flyers from other professions, business, the arts, sport, religious leaders etc
Yes, I agree
IDS is exactly the kind of person you want in the Lords, if you want senior politicians. Thoughtful, hard working, experienced at a very high level, has done good work on poverty, and he represents a big strand of opinion in British life. Why would he not be an asset in a sensible, law-modifying 2nd chamber?
I would say the same for Jeremy Corbyn. I despise his politics, but he has never broken the law, and he is clearly popular with many, and represents a definite slice of British politics. And he has wisdom (of his own kind) after many years. Put him in the Lords, too. This is not a party political thing. If you have an appointed revising 2nd chamber then these people should be in it
Intelligence is no longer a criterion, then?
I think that is unfair. Both IDS and Corbyn may be highly intelligent - at least more intelligent than any of us on here. But it is the nature of both political conviction and ideology that it often masks intelligence. I agree with Leon that both would benefit the Lords although I suspect in the case of Corbyn he would not choose to accept.
I can’t speak for Corbyn. But twenty four years as a Redbridge councillor entitles me to tell you that IDS is not an intelligent man.
I will have to take your word for it as like most I have only ever seen him from afar.
He has the intelligence of a mid ranking army officer. Which is not nothing, but is not something either.
Quite.
And Corbyn is another who is middling to mediocre.
The most intelligent PM of my lifetime on paper was Gordon Brown. The most intelligent Tory leader of my lifetime was William Hague.
Enough said. High intelligence may make you a brilliant professor, QC or surgeon it does not guarantee success in much else.
Drive and judgement are more important
Depends on your age, but Wilson was most intelligent. Youngest Oxford don.
And if you think Brown didn't have drive, I have a couple of bridges to sell you.
A decade to get a PhD? In the history of Marxism in the Labour Party?
Not sure that Brown was exactly a driven genius...
Anyone who becomes PM has a ton of drive.
When was the last PM without drive and ambition?
Balfour?
Macmillan spent much of his premiership reading Trollope in the Downing Street garden, though in reality he had more ambition than he showed
Insert sexist joke about trollops here.
I would not be surprised if Boris had not had a few trollops in the Downing Street garden too
Any particular cabinet minister you were thinking of?
@HYUFD regularly confuses education with intelligence
The 2 normally follow.
There are not many people who left school at 16 with 2 D grade GCSES with 140+ IQs
Many people may have left school at 16 and not had the chance to be further educated at the time for a start, it was not always as common as now after all.
But even if it does 'normally' follow, it does not 'always' follow, so someone not having as much education cannot be just assumed to be less intelligent without further info. I have a brother with no GCSEs at all, but he's no slower of thought than I am. Someone might assume differently on paper, but if they looked into it they'd have to rethink.
A low IQ can occasionally work to one's advantage:
The head of Canada’s largest airline is facing public outrage and calls for his resignation after giving a speech in English to business leaders in Quebec
Blimey. I know they take it very seriously in Quebec and understand the referenced complaints about the government not doing enough to uphold bilinguilism are probably legitimate given the rules, but that really still a surprising level of reaction. French is still easily the predominant language in the province I assume?
By contrast. He really ought to have known. Plus he gave the speech in Quebec. The city not the Province. It is super vital there. For most Canadians being bi-lingual above a certain level is de rigueur. An inability to speak, or even attempt, French is gauche. You can get by in Montreal without French. But up Province there is little English. They will be OK if you make an effort. As we are here. But it seems he didn't even try. You would Garner little sympathy speaking French in Vancouver as a CEO. And quite rightly.
The head of Canada’s largest airline is facing public outrage and calls for his resignation after giving a speech in English to business leaders in Quebec
Blimey. I know they take it very seriously in Quebec and understand the referenced complaints about the government not doing enough to uphold bilinguilism are probably legitimate given the rules, but that really still a surprising level of reaction. French is still easily the predominant language in the province I assume?
By contrast. He really ought to have known. Plus he gave the speech in Quebec. The city not the Province. It is super vital there. For most Canadians being bi-lingual above a certain level is de rigueur. An inability to speak, or even attempt, French is gauche. You can get by in Montreal without French. But up Province there is little English. They will be OK if you make an effort. As we are here. But it seems he didn't even try. You would Garner little sympathy speaking French in Vancouver as a CEO. And quite rightly.
I can understand the surprise he has lived there so long, where it is so vital, and with relatives who speak it, and yet he cannot get by in the language. But given the reaction I'd assume he was telling the truth, as there seems no upside to upsetting people otherwise.
Russia is at it around the borders of Ukraine again. The differences this time round is timing, its winter season, some of the units are very much of a go forward nature and where not involved earlier this year, and some of the movements are less visible this time around.
It's one of the reasons why the CIA Director was in Moscow recently. Its also noted that the US monitoring of the area, often visible from publically available resources, has gone dark.
Anyone who thinks the stuff on the Belarus / Polish border, which appears to have escalated at the same time, doesn't have Moscow's greasy paw prints over it is not merely naive, they are as thick as two short planks.
Then you have a bit of a Balkan slow burn going on.
Its busier in the east than its been for some time.
It is a constant test of the collective West, the EU in particular whilst its two most significant members are going into and out of election cycles.
The head of Canada’s largest airline is facing public outrage and calls for his resignation after giving a speech in English to business leaders in Quebec
Blimey. I know they take it very seriously in Quebec and understand the referenced complaints about the government not doing enough to uphold bilinguilism are probably legitimate given the rules, but that really still a surprising level of reaction. French is still easily the predominant language in the province I assume?
By contrast. He really ought to have known. Plus he gave the speech in Quebec. The city not the Province. It is super vital there. For most Canadians being bi-lingual above a certain level is de rigueur. An inability to speak, or even attempt, French is gauche. You can get by in Montreal without French. But up Province there is little English. They will be OK if you make an effort. As we are here. But it seems he didn't even try. You would Garner little sympathy speaking French in Vancouver as a CEO. And quite rightly.
I can understand the surprise he has lived there so long, where it is so vital, and with relatives who speak it, and yet he cannot get by in the language. But given the reaction I'd assume he was telling the truth, as there seems no upside to upsetting people otherwise.
Yeah. I suspect there must be more to this than is apparent.
On languages, having looked at Quebec and done a wiki crawl, it is claimed that 1.5million people in Scotland said they could speak Scots. That's more than speak Welsh, is that really true?
The 2011 census indicated that 63% of the population had "no skills in Scots"
On languages, having looked at Quebec and done a wiki crawl, it is claimed that 1.5million people in Scotland said they could speak Scots. That's more than speak Welsh, is that really true?
3 million people in the West Midlands probably claim to be able to speak Brummie or Black Country.
Had a lovely evening back in the pub for knit group for the first time since pre-pandemic this evening. Have really missed it a lot more than I thought I would.
Mask rules are really absurd. I was in the pub for two and a half hours, drinking, eating, talking and knitting without wearing a mask, but I had to have it on for ten seconds to enter the pub and a few minutes to use the toilet and pay before leaving. What a nonsense.
My wife is concerned about the risk because I wasn't putting a mask back on in between drinks of beer. I might not be able to go back for a while. It's going to take a while before she's comfortable in places with other people again.
We call it the mask dance. It is obviously absurd.
Is it actually enforced in Scotland? I mean do people really put their masks on to go for a leak, then take them off again. Really?
Had a lovely evening back in the pub for knit group for the first time since pre-pandemic this evening. Have really missed it a lot more than I thought I would.
Mask rules are really absurd. I was in the pub for two and a half hours, drinking, eating, talking and knitting without wearing a mask, but I had to have it on for ten seconds to enter the pub and a few minutes to use the toilet and pay before leaving. What a nonsense.
My wife is concerned about the risk because I wasn't putting a mask back on in between drinks of beer. I might not be able to go back for a while. It's going to take a while before she's comfortable in places with other people again.
We call it the mask dance. It is obviously absurd.
Is it actually enforced in Scotland? I mean do people really put their masks on to go for a leak, then take them off again. Really?
I went to a rather nice foody pub in the Peak District last Friday. (The Peacock, at Rowsley, if you're interested). They were firmly requesting all customers to do the mask dance. I didn't flouce out in a huff, because we had booked a table, and I was hungry. And the food was very good. But had I known they were mask-dancers I would have gone somewhere else.
Had a lovely evening back in the pub for knit group for the first time since pre-pandemic this evening. Have really missed it a lot more than I thought I would.
Mask rules are really absurd. I was in the pub for two and a half hours, drinking, eating, talking and knitting without wearing a mask, but I had to have it on for ten seconds to enter the pub and a few minutes to use the toilet and pay before leaving. What a nonsense.
My wife is concerned about the risk because I wasn't putting a mask back on in between drinks of beer. I might not be able to go back for a while. It's going to take a while before she's comfortable in places with other people again.
We call it the mask dance. It is obviously absurd.
Is it actually enforced in Scotland? I mean do people really put their masks on to go for a leak, then take them off again. Really?
People do in Los Angeles. I find it especially absurd when people do it at outdoor restaurants.
Had a lovely evening back in the pub for knit group for the first time since pre-pandemic this evening. Have really missed it a lot more than I thought I would.
Mask rules are really absurd. I was in the pub for two and a half hours, drinking, eating, talking and knitting without wearing a mask, but I had to have it on for ten seconds to enter the pub and a few minutes to use the toilet and pay before leaving. What a nonsense.
My wife is concerned about the risk because I wasn't putting a mask back on in between drinks of beer. I might not be able to go back for a while. It's going to take a while before she's comfortable in places with other people again.
We call it the mask dance. It is obviously absurd.
Is it actually enforced in Scotland? I mean do people really put their masks on to go for a leak, then take them off again. Really?
I went to a rather nice foody pub in the Peak District last Friday. (The Peacock, at Rowsley, if you're interested). They were firmly requesting all customers to do the mask dance. I didn't flouce out in a huff, because we had booked a table, and I was hungry. And the food was very good. But had I known they were mask-dancers I would have gone somewhere else.
Bizarre - I haven’t encountered a single pub that has requested that (although the usual caveat about dovish London applies).
Had a lovely evening back in the pub for knit group for the first time since pre-pandemic this evening. Have really missed it a lot more than I thought I would.
Mask rules are really absurd. I was in the pub for two and a half hours, drinking, eating, talking and knitting without wearing a mask, but I had to have it on for ten seconds to enter the pub and a few minutes to use the toilet and pay before leaving. What a nonsense.
My wife is concerned about the risk because I wasn't putting a mask back on in between drinks of beer. I might not be able to go back for a while. It's going to take a while before she's comfortable in places with other people again.
We call it the mask dance. It is obviously absurd.
Is it actually enforced in Scotland? I mean do people really put their masks on to go for a leak, then take them off again. Really?
I went to a rather nice foody pub in the Peak District last Friday. (The Peacock, at Rowsley, if you're interested). They were firmly requesting all customers to do the mask dance. I didn't flouce out in a huff, because we had booked a table, and I was hungry. And the food was very good. But had I known they were mask-dancers I would have gone somewhere else.
While I think it's absurd, it also affects one for... oohhh... around the six seconds it takes to get to the table and the six seconds it takes to get back. So, I doubt it'd stop me from going to a place where the food was good.
Had a lovely evening back in the pub for knit group for the first time since pre-pandemic this evening. Have really missed it a lot more than I thought I would.
Mask rules are really absurd. I was in the pub for two and a half hours, drinking, eating, talking and knitting without wearing a mask, but I had to have it on for ten seconds to enter the pub and a few minutes to use the toilet and pay before leaving. What a nonsense.
My wife is concerned about the risk because I wasn't putting a mask back on in between drinks of beer. I might not be able to go back for a while. It's going to take a while before she's comfortable in places with other people again.
We call it the mask dance. It is obviously absurd.
Is it actually enforced in Scotland? I mean do people really put their masks on to go for a leak, then take them off again. Really?
Had a lovely evening back in the pub for knit group for the first time since pre-pandemic this evening. Have really missed it a lot more than I thought I would.
Mask rules are really absurd. I was in the pub for two and a half hours, drinking, eating, talking and knitting without wearing a mask, but I had to have it on for ten seconds to enter the pub and a few minutes to use the toilet and pay before leaving. What a nonsense.
My wife is concerned about the risk because I wasn't putting a mask back on in between drinks of beer. I might not be able to go back for a while. It's going to take a while before she's comfortable in places with other people again.
We call it the mask dance. It is obviously absurd.
Is it actually enforced in Scotland? I mean do people really put their masks on to go for a leak, then take them off again. Really?
A Scottish nightclub has got round the rules by putting furniture on the dancefloor.
Had a lovely evening back in the pub for knit group for the first time since pre-pandemic this evening. Have really missed it a lot more than I thought I would.
Mask rules are really absurd. I was in the pub for two and a half hours, drinking, eating, talking and knitting without wearing a mask, but I had to have it on for ten seconds to enter the pub and a few minutes to use the toilet and pay before leaving. What a nonsense.
My wife is concerned about the risk because I wasn't putting a mask back on in between drinks of beer. I might not be able to go back for a while. It's going to take a while before she's comfortable in places with other people again.
We call it the mask dance. It is obviously absurd.
Is it actually enforced in Scotland? I mean do people really put their masks on to go for a leak, then take them off again. Really?
People do in Los Angeles. I find it especially absurd when people do it at outdoor restaurants.
Today, checking in for a United Airlines flight, I had to tick a box promising I would "put the mask back on between bites".
Had a lovely evening back in the pub for knit group for the first time since pre-pandemic this evening. Have really missed it a lot more than I thought I would.
Mask rules are really absurd. I was in the pub for two and a half hours, drinking, eating, talking and knitting without wearing a mask, but I had to have it on for ten seconds to enter the pub and a few minutes to use the toilet and pay before leaving. What a nonsense.
My wife is concerned about the risk because I wasn't putting a mask back on in between drinks of beer. I might not be able to go back for a while. It's going to take a while before she's comfortable in places with other people again.
We call it the mask dance. It is obviously absurd.
Is it actually enforced in Scotland? I mean do people really put their masks on to go for a leak, then take them off again. Really?
People do in Los Angeles. I find it especially absurd when people do it at outdoor restaurants.
Today, checking in for a United Airlines flight, I had to tick a box promising I would "put the mask back on between bites".
That's an FAA regulation, and they take it very seriously.
@HYUFD regularly confuses education with intelligence
The 2 normally follow.
There are not many people who left school at 16 with 2 D grade GCSES with 140+ IQs
Many people may have left school at 16 and not had the chance to be further educated at the time for a start, it was not always as common as now after all.
But even if it does 'normally' follow, it does not 'always' follow, so someone not having as much education cannot be just assumed to be less intelligent without further info. I have a brother with no GCSEs at all, but he's no slower of thought than I am. Someone might assume differently on paper, but if they looked into it they'd have to rethink.
Yes, some people who did badly at school are highly intelligent in other ways (or just got failed by the system), but it doesn't really apply to Corbyn who had every privilege and hasn't, unlike McDonnell, Abbott or his idol Benn, shown much original thinking in the 50 odd years since. Being a bit dim is what, ironically, made him a bit of a success and what also brought his downfall. I say it brought his success as his politics is largely repeating bromidic versions of others' political programmes and declaring socialism a good thing. This is a guy who suggested reopening the coal mines at a time when climate change is the big issue. More or less every Corbyn speech was along the lines of 'Obviously bad thing is bad, it's an outrage that will be automatically solved by having a socialist government'. That united the Labour left in a way that others, who'd done harder thinking, couldn't because they admit trade-offs and negatives they think worth it for the end goal. Bennite socialism in one country, for example, was much more coherent but also hit a brick wall as it followed through on its logic in a way that divided even the left. I say his dimness also caused his downfall as Corbyn basically swallows far left orthodoxies whole without questioning them or having the intellect to do so, even when they are glaringly destructive, as with his views on antisemitism and the Skripals affair. A smarter man would have long ago realised that the Stop the War attitude of 'everyone who hates the west/Israel deserves suppport' was both morally repugnant and a millstone that stupidly tied some fairly popular and possibly achievable ideas to completely toxic ones that couldn't survive contact with reality anyway.
The full quote from General Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord is worth reading:
I divide my officers into four classes as follows: the clever, the industrious, the lazy, and the stupid. Each officer always possesses two of these qualities. Those who are clever and industrious I appoint to the General Staff. Use can under certain circumstances be made of those who are stupid and lazy. The man who is clever and lazy qualifies for the highest leadership posts. He has the requisite and the mental clarity for difficult decisions. But whoever is stupid and industrious must be got rid of, for he is too dangerous.
(Possibly apocryphal, says the Oxford reference.)
(I have been thinking about that quote for years -- and have yet to come to an opinion on its usefulness.)
King County (Seattle and most of the suburban population) has put in stricter rules:
For indoor activities and large outdoor events. Beginning October 25, people ages 12 and older will be required to show proof of full COVID-19 vaccination or a negative test result to enter certain indoor and outdoor events and establishments in King County.
I see signs up describing the new rule, but have yet to be asked to show my vaccination cards. FWIW, until now, COVID cases have been lower here than in most of the United States.
They are just beginning to vaccinate kids five an up. (I was charmed by the reaction of one newly-vaccinated boy. He was delighted to be vaccinated because that meant he could have pillow fights with his best friend.)
Had a lovely evening back in the pub for knit group for the first time since pre-pandemic this evening. Have really missed it a lot more than I thought I would.
Mask rules are really absurd. I was in the pub for two and a half hours, drinking, eating, talking and knitting without wearing a mask, but I had to have it on for ten seconds to enter the pub and a few minutes to use the toilet and pay before leaving. What a nonsense.
My wife is concerned about the risk because I wasn't putting a mask back on in between drinks of beer. I might not be able to go back for a while. It's going to take a while before she's comfortable in places with other people again.
Ah, the We call it the mask dance. It is obviously absurd.
Is it actually enforced in Scotland? I mean do people really put their masks on to go for a leak, then take them off again. Really?
I went to a rather nice foody pub in the Peak District last Friday. (The Peacock, at Rowsley, if you're interested). They were firmly requesting all customers to do the mask dance. I didn't flouce out in a huff, because we had booked a table, and I was hungry. And the food was very good. But had I known they were mask-dancers I would have gone somewhere else.
I've got a photo of myself, axe in hand, standing on a springing block on a pier on the Derwent viaduct behind the Peacock.
@LostPassword does your wife not realise that masks generally protect other people and not yourself?
Yes. And she's fully aware of how effective the vaccines are, and what that means in terms of how dangerous Covid now is in comparison to seasonal flu.
It's not rational and that makes it harder.
We talked about it some more last night and she doesn't want to go out for anything leisure-related at all. She has some exercise classes starting up to go to for help with her joint problems and she feels that's more than enough risk to face. She was in a right grump last night and I'm pretty sure she doesn't want me to go to knit night again, but doesn't want to say so, possibly because she realises she's being a bit irrational.
But then life is about irrational feelings as well as rational logic.
Had a lovely evening back in the pub for knit group for the first time since pre-pandemic this evening. Have really missed it a lot more than I thought I would.
Mask rules are really absurd. I was in the pub for two and a half hours, drinking, eating, talking and knitting without wearing a mask, but I had to have it on for ten seconds to enter the pub and a few minutes to use the toilet and pay before leaving. What a nonsense.
My wife is concerned about the risk because I wasn't putting a mask back on in between drinks of beer. I might not be able to go back for a while. It's going to take a while before she's comfortable in places with other people again.
Is this in Scotland or Wales or NI? No one is wearing masks in the pub in England
It's in Scotland, where Sturgeon is seeking a point of difference with England by fear-mongering and enforcing the continued use of masks.
Had a lovely evening back in the pub for knit group for the first time since pre-pandemic this evening. Have really missed it a lot more than I thought I would.
Mask rules are really absurd. I was in the pub for two and a half hours, drinking, eating, talking and knitting without wearing a mask, but I had to have it on for ten seconds to enter the pub and a few minutes to use the toilet and pay before leaving. What a nonsense.
My wife is concerned about the risk because I wasn't putting a mask back on in between drinks of beer. I might not be able to go back for a while. It's going to take a while before she's comfortable in places with other people again.
We call it the mask dance. It is obviously absurd.
Is it actually enforced in Scotland? I mean do people really put their masks on to go for a leak, then take them off again. Really?
Well, everyone complied with the rules last night, so I don't know whether enforced is the right word. Not sure what would have happened if I'd tried not to.
Comments
Whereas, in Westminster, they are an irrelevance of 1, and my money would be on them continuing to be so.
I was quick. Like Boris.
Not sure that Brown was exactly a driven genius...
I always did well at school, and seem to have an ability to join the dots and see the big picture in most situations, such that I am able to learn new things quickly and understand the basics of new fields after the minimum of study.
Yet I have always marvelled at those people who seem able to become true experts in subjects at depth, and I have generally failed whenever I have tried to follow them down such a path. I know a little about a lot but a lot about a little. Indeed my life is a story of using my skills as a generalist and avoiding choices that would involve competing with people who have deep understanding of narrow fields.
I should have been one of those eighteenth or nineteenth century gentlemen who quickly got to the limits of knowledge in their fields because not that much was known. But nowadays, it takes a serious degree of application to get to the limits of knowledge in any field, and the effort required has so far eluded me.
Hence I am reduced to debating nighttime on PB with you, wondering whether your wine bottle is as empty as mine.
Adopting von Moltke's dictum, as an intelligent generalist, without having the ability to become an expert in a specifice field, you'd be an ideal commander, because you could see the big picture, but you owuld also know how to delegate. Whereas the more intelligent experts would be the staff officers, who could work up your ideas into detailed plans.
I though the most intelligent went into the railway section of the Imperial German Staff? And went insane trying to create the perfect timetable for war....
A few years ago I visited Leonardo Da Vinci's final home, in Amboise, France. You can tour his kitchens, wardrobes, laboratory, and his exquisite garden, and also his bedroom, where he died. Apparently on his deathbed Leonardo wept and apologised to God, for not having made the most of his God-given talents
And he probably had a point. All that skill, and so little in the end. And yet, he also helped to change the world in the High Renaissance
If Leonardo felt that he didn't do all that he could have done, I imagine it is a universal human experience, at least if you have a brain and self-awareness
Handling and Storage:
1. Using both hands during handling gently, do not be rude, do not move furniture reluctantly without enough manpower.
Here's where the incumbent falls short.
When was the last PM without drive and ambition?
Balfour?
Shall we put that down to the alcohol.
If there is no afterlife, in which you have all eternity to be creative again after atoning to God for not making enough use of your talents on earth., then even more important to leave a legacy
When you add it all together it is quite a tick-list, and it is unsurprising that 99% of politicians fall short. Ditto kings, princes or Popes. To become great at leadership requires a rare combination of skills, and some dumb luck, too
There are not many people who left school at 16 with 2 D grade GCSES with 140+ IQs
Not that he is "facing bankruptcy". (In anything other than a technical sense).
Mask rules are really absurd. I was in the pub for two and a half hours, drinking, eating, talking and knitting without wearing a mask, but I had to have it on for ten seconds to enter the pub and a few minutes to use the toilet and pay before leaving. What a nonsense.
My wife is concerned about the risk because I wasn't putting a mask back on in between drinks of beer. I might not be able to go back for a while. It's going to take a while before she's comfortable in places with other people again.
But even if it does 'normally' follow, it does not 'always' follow, so someone not having as much education cannot be just assumed to be less intelligent without further info. I have a brother with no GCSEs at all, but he's no slower of thought than I am. Someone might assume differently on paper, but if they looked into it they'd have to rethink.
Plenty of people trying to get their rivals cancelled
You should read David Epstein's book, Range: Why Generalists Succeed in a Specialised World (one for your letter to Santa, perhaps).
David Epstein examined the world’s most successful athletes, artists, musicians, inventors, forecasters and scientists. He discovered that in most fields—especially those that are complex and unpredictable—generalists, not specialists, are primed to excel. Generalists often find their path late, and they juggle many interests rather than focusing on one. They’re also more creative, more agile, and able to make connections their more specialized peers can’t see.
https://davidepstein.com/the-range/
Hmm, sounds like Emma Raducanu, from earlier in this thread, who famously played many sports when young, as well as passing her A-levels. It also supports the creation of diverse rather than homogenous teams, for those who remember State Street's hiring rules from a couple of threads back.
Edited to remove screwed-up previous quotes.
Good night!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-59206825
Hot topic amongst her and her octogenarian friends and acquaintances is, by a country mile, the NHS.
Ailments untreated, appointments postponed, a five week (!) wait for a GP slot. Having to use technology. Booster confusion.
Which isn't to say this is the only politics to have cut through, nor that the solution is widely agreed upon. But it sure is the hot issue.
These folk vote, and are discontented. Get your money on Leigh, or it's successor, going back to Red next time if a halfway decent Labour candidate is chosen.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/08/air-canada-public-outrage-speech-english-quebec-french
Back to being a has been I suppose.
Argh, beaten to a sitter
For most Canadians being bi-lingual above a certain level is de rigueur. An inability to speak, or even attempt, French is gauche.
You can get by in Montreal without French. But up Province there is little English. They will be OK if you make an effort. As we are here. But it seems he didn't even try.
You would Garner little sympathy speaking French in Vancouver as a CEO. And quite rightly.
It's one of the reasons why the CIA Director was in Moscow recently. Its also noted that the US monitoring of the area, often visible from publically available resources, has gone dark.
Anyone who thinks the stuff on the Belarus / Polish border, which appears to have escalated at the same time, doesn't have Moscow's greasy paw prints over it is not merely naive, they are as thick as two short planks.
Then you have a bit of a Balkan slow burn going on.
Its busier in the east than its been for some time.
It is a constant test of the collective West, the EU in particular whilst its two most significant members are going into and out of election cycles.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/edinburgh-nightclub-gets-rid-dancefloor-25397338
(I have been thinking about that quote for years -- and have yet to come to an opinion on its usefulness.)
They are just beginning to vaccinate kids five an up. (I was charmed by the reaction of one newly-vaccinated boy. He was delighted to be vaccinated because that meant he could have pillow fights with his best friend.)
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/08/politics/cnn-poll-biden-job-approval/index.html
"Gloomy landscape for Democrats in midterms as Biden's approval drops to 38% in USA TODAY/Suffolk poll"
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/11/07/biden-approval-falls-38-midterms-loom-usa-today-suffolk-poll/6320098001/
Sleep at 10pm linked to lower risk of heart disease, study finds
Early or late bedtimes may result in individuals missing cues that help reset body clock each day
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/nov/09/sleep-at-10pm-linked-to-lower-risk-of-heart-disease-study-finds
Top MP earns fortune for working in tax haven: Former attorney general Geoffrey Cox has second job that saw him vote remotely from the Caribbean
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10179601/Former-attorney-general-Geoffrey-Cox-second-job-saw-vote-remotely-Caribbean.html
PARLIA-MINTED Twelve MPs rake in whopping £3.5million in just two years on top of £81k salaries
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/16676582/twelve-mps-3-5million-second-jobs/
Eleven Conservatives and Sir Ed Davey.
But wait, the Mail hits back with thirty, though it only lists its top ten consultancy earners:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10179727/Former-Cabinet-minister-Andrew-Mitchell-earns-182k-half-dozen-consultancy-jobs.html
(And this is another very random comment.)
It's not rational and that makes it harder.
We talked about it some more last night and she doesn't want to go out for anything leisure-related at all. She has some exercise classes starting up to go to for help with her joint problems and she feels that's more than enough risk to face. She was in a right grump last night and I'm pretty sure she doesn't want me to go to knit night again, but doesn't want to say so, possibly because she realises she's being a bit irrational.
But then life is about irrational feelings as well as rational logic.
I really don't know what to do.