So I used to think Russell Brand's switch to become an alt-right idiot was a commercial one. But maybe it was because he knew this shit was coming and he calculated the alt-right conspiracy nutjob crowd would be more likely to stick by him?
I just assumed it was because he was an idiot.
But that doesn’t invalidate either of your other hypotheses.
Has anyone on the freethinking alt-right though freely enough to have a "why am I at a party with all the most awful people in London?" epiphany?
That's part of it. There is a grim elegance in the way that a poor economic outlook causes populism to grow, and populist governments tend to turn the economy into a pile of poo, which allows populist leaders to thrive...
All governments are populist the variations are which parts of the populace they target for votes.
Populist is used as a term of abuse when the groups being targeted are 'people like them' instead of 'people like us'.
And, depending upon the circumstances, some politicians are able to spread their populist arms to encompass more groups.
For example Clinton and Blair in the 1990s were able to govern during times of economic prosperity and geopolitical security allowing them to give a greater than normal amount of people what they wanted.
I think the difference is how you respond when giving people what they want is impossible, or at least has massive predictable downsides.
The Populist (capital P) answer seems to be to give people what they want now, and damn the consequences. Or blame shadowy forces for thwarting the democratic will. And the article does have a working definition of what Populism looks like, and it's rather uncomfortable reading for the UK;
The researchers find that having a populist leader hits a country’s GDP per capita and living standards by about 10% over 15 years as the economy turns inward, institutions are undermined and risks are taken with macroeconomic policy.'
I'm curious as to which 'populist' leaders they are referring to who have been in power for 15 years.
Trump and Bolsonaro are often derided as 'populists' but both last only four years.
I suppose there is also Erdogan and Orban and I will admit to little knowledge of the relative strengths of the Turkish and Hungarian economies compared to their equivalents.
Aside from which one of the causes of 'populism' is already existing economic failure.
So if we say that UK 'populism' emerged in 2015-2016 with the rise of the SNP, Corbyn and Brexit its clear that it was the economic failures of the preceding decade that played a substantial role.
I didn’t realise @OnlyLivingBoy had this natural story-telling talent
Translation: I can't understand that formula even with my IQ of 130.
143.7
It is rather a lot of maths for first thing on a Sunday. Nonetheless congrats to @OnlyLivingBoy on his debut, it’s good that this site can offer detailed mathematical analysis
Let me translate it for you
"Given the evidence we have it is credible to argue that the number of seats Labour will win at the next election depends on the relative leader satisfaction and the number of seats last time. Right now satisfaction levels aren't good enough for a Labour majority. But if Sunak continues to disappoint, by election time they will be."
There y'go. You can write an article in the Flint Knapper's Gazette now and pretend it was your idea.
100,000 overdose deaths in this year in the US; the most ever and it’s only September. Most involve fentanyl.
100,000! That’s roughly a Bath or a Carlisle losing every single living soul in the space of 9 months. An obscene statistic. I worry we’ll see the same here.
Related to the Russell Brand story, there have been some interesting articles on 'the great uncancelling' on Tortoise media. Essentially, they are observing a trend whereby cancelling isn't working, using the example of Johnny Depp in particular - these allegations are not sticking unless someone actually gets sent to jail. See also the fact that Andrew Tate is now back in business, and that the allegations (and court findings) against Trump have don't seem to be harming his political prospects. Elon Musk also made some vaguely supportive comments towards Brand yesterday. We may not be seeing 'progress' in the way that some posters think.
Yet Huw Edwards and Pip still remain out on a limb. Careers over. Neither have done anything illegal. Poor Pip has been thrown to the Wolves by people he used to consider friends.
But these people didn't trade on notoriety to start with, though.
I think the phenomenon is more of uncancellable notoriety. These people get stronger the more loudly they're condemned ; so provoking people is in fact their currency, and actually part of the currency of our times - "owning the libs", "I love liberal tears", "white womens' tears", "pale, male and stale tears": ; pick your self-perpetuating language of provocation from the left or right.
Wasn't there an author of a best-selling book around that same time who in similar vein bragged about his promiscuity, and who also became an Alt-Right maverick?
Some of these men left behind a lot of victims.
It seems to be a common theme across media and the arts.
I am reminded of a Hollywood producer who said that the original Polanski prosecution ruined the party atmosphere in Hollywood.
Yes, he said that. Out loud. To camera….
Roisin Murphy also appears to be doing very well with her new album despite the music industry's combined attemots to slience her (not that Roisin chose controversy - she made a private comment about puberty blockers that 90% of the population would be in total agreement with, which she subsequently (in my view needlessly) apologised for, but that was enough for a mass pile on .)
Although she seems to have been quietly removed from 6music and the BBC sites.
She got an uncritical writeup in the Guardian though, and still on their Culture front page. I also seem to recall her apology was of the sorry-you-felt-bad nature, though I may be wrong.
Interesting thread, but I think the statistical methodology is questionable, for a number of reasons. Eleven is an extremely small sample, and I would use VI not leader approval, as the former is a better predictor of the general election result. In addition, there is likely to be some omitted variable bias, since many have observed that voters tend to punish parties that have been in power for a decade or more. Adding a dummy variable for the number of elections previously won could affect the results significantly. Fourthly, there is very likely to be multicollinearity between the two explanatory variables. Multicollinearity invalidates regression analysis, and it is likely to be a particular problem this time. The opposition leader's popularity, and the unpopularity of the current government, could affect their score last time, particularly if they are the same people. A standard part of regression analysis is to test for this, e.g. using VIFs. Finally, I don't agree that a crucial battleground like Scotland should be omitted since so much of Labour's hopes rest there. Since it performed much more like the rest of the UK pre-2015, perhaps a dummy variable should be included?
I think the best way to test for any "mountain to climb" effect is to look at a seat level, rather than nationally. Is the swing towards Labour greater in seats it already holds? If so, then holding more seats will be an advantage. This also has the merit of having a more than sufficient sample size. I vaguely recall some analysis that showed a small effect for seats held for the first time, but no effect beyond that. But at some point I might have a go myself.
Anyway, it is an interesting and important question, and, despite disagreeing with the methodology, I think the conclusion is highly plausible.
Hi Fishing thanks a few brief thoughts. Totally agree on N=11 but that's what we have to work with. Certainly some variables are missing but with N=11 there's a limit to what can be included without over fitting the model. I don't think collinearity is an issue - collinearity affects efficiency of estimators not unbiassedness IIRC and these estimates look relatively efficient ie small SEs. Also a priori I'm not sure L(-1) and S are especially closely correlated, eg note there isn't a single election where both party leaders are unchanged from the previous election. I think it's reasonable to exclude Scotland because the SLab performance won't be determined mainly by Lab vs Con leader ratings. And I think it's well established that leader satisfaction is a more reliable predictor than VI. I don't want to oversell the model but I think it's a reasonable way of looking at the evidence and addressing the question of what 2019 means for the next election.
100,000 overdose deaths in this year in the US; the most ever and it’s only September. Most involve fentanyl.
100,000! That’s roughly a Bath or a Carlisle losing every single living soul in the space of 9 months. An obscene statistic. I worry we’ll see the same here.
Why are you expecting that? Are you expecting a Truss comeback?
100,000 overdose deaths in this year in the US; the most ever and it’s only September. Most involve fentanyl.
100,000! That’s roughly a Bath or a Carlisle losing every single living soul in the space of 9 months. An obscene statistic. I worry we’ll see the same here.
Why are you expecting that? Are you expecting a Truss comeback?
Interestingly I also think that Labour will get a majority next time, though I'm not coming from the perspective of a Labour member, but your analysis has made me think that a Labour majority is less likely than I had thought.
This is because your analysis, based on today's data, means no majority. The assumption of a majority is based on an assumed swing away from Sunak to Starmer. I'm less certain that such a swing will happen, I think last year was so chaotic that Sunak didn't get much of a traditional 'honeymoon' to lose, and AFAIK swingback is more common than swingaway.
We'll see. But I'm feeling more uncertain today. Any analysis which makes you stop and think is a good thing though, and I really appreciate your thoughts and your debut piece, well done!
I didn’t realise @OnlyLivingBoy had this natural story-telling talent
Translation: I can't understand that formula even with my IQ of 130.
143.7
It is rather a lot of maths for first thing on a Sunday. Nonetheless congrats to @OnlyLivingBoy on his debut, it’s good that this site can offer detailed mathematical analysis
If you really think IQ can be measured to the tenth of a point, that is rather revealing.
I didn’t realise @OnlyLivingBoy had this natural story-telling talent
Translation: I can't understand that formula even with my IQ of 130.
143.7
It is rather a lot of maths for first thing on a Sunday. Nonetheless congrats to @OnlyLivingBoy on his debut, it’s good that this site can offer detailed mathematical analysis
Always be wary of people who can quote you their IQ. I knew mine 43 years ago when I had to take a test for a job. I have no idea what it was now.
I concur with the OLB potential LAB 340 seats outcome.
This is based on me using the following non scientific approach:
No one likes CON or Rishi anymore
There is no real enthusiasm for Keir or LAB
But the first factor significantly outweighs the second for an electorate to reluctantly give LAB an 8% lead at the GE which will convert into around 340 seats
Another way of looking at it...
340 Labour and 100ish others (40 SNP, 40 LD, 20 NI) leaves 210 Conservatives. So the big two almost, but not quite, swapping scores.
If you offered that to thoughtful members of the blue team, I reckon they'd bite your arm off faster than an XL Bully.
Talking about the latter - the "ban" is seemingly continuing to unravel faster than a stuffed woollen doggie toy owned by one.
Won't be party political though, as SKS also signed up to the Sunak strategy. But it's another high profile Sunakian promise, like boats'n'inflation.
You are weirdly keen for this ban not to happen. Consistently so
I suggest you go away and watch the video of Ian Price being eaten alive in Staffordshire two days ago. Seriously. Everyone needs to watch it, to know what we are dealing with. It is extremely disturbing - as bad as an ISIS or Cartel video - and it’s in a garden in Middle England
I won’t link directly to it but it’s now so viral a Twitter search of “ian price video” will get you straight there
Be warned
Once you’ve seen it you will realise there is no choice, these animals are so big, dangerous and aggressive they need to be banned immediately. As @williamglenn said last night, the question isn’t “whether a ban will work” it’s whether the government can afford to wait til the end of the year
Soon enough there will be one of these videos involving a child
People can be absurdly sentimental about animals, especially in this country.
Once @Carnyx has watched the Ian Price video he can look at this. The bloodline of half the XL Bullies in the UK
It doesn't alter the fact that a lot of people will sympathise more with the bully dogs, than the people who fall victim to them. There'll be heart-rending tales of poor Satan, who would never hurt a fly, having to be put to sleep.
I met some of these people, who were donors to Wood Green Animal Shelters, when I worked there.
I'd ban multiple breeds, and bring back dog licencing.
However, I suspect I wouldn't get re-elected.
You have to remember that it's a bit like Covid restrictions. People think, "if they can come for my dog, what will they come for next?"
I didn’t realise @OnlyLivingBoy had this natural story-telling talent
Translation: I can't understand that formula even with my IQ of 130.
143.7
It is rather a lot of maths for first thing on a Sunday. Nonetheless congrats to @OnlyLivingBoy on his debut, it’s good that this site can offer detailed mathematical analysis
And to think you've wasted that genius on, checks... travel writing.
I know. To think, I could have been a banker or a politician or a lawyer, instead I am forced to wander the lonely world, looking at things like rivers and stuff
Bonjour!
Where's this ?
It isn't the same charming French-Swiss border region that I also passed through this summer by train, is it ?
No, it’s the Gorge du Tarn in Lozere. A somewhat neglected corner of France. Amazingly
I concur with the OLB potential LAB 340 seats outcome.
This is based on me using the following non scientific approach:
No one likes CON or Rishi anymore
There is no real enthusiasm for Keir or LAB
But the first factor significantly outweighs the second for an electorate to reluctantly give LAB an 8% lead at the GE which will convert into around 340 seats
Another way of looking at it...
340 Labour and 100ish others (40 SNP, 40 LD, 20 NI) leaves 210 Conservatives. So the big two almost, but not quite, swapping scores.
If you offered that to thoughtful members of the blue team, I reckon they'd bite your arm off faster than an XL Bully.
Talking about the latter - the "ban" is seemingly continuing to unravel faster than a stuffed woollen doggie toy owned by one.
Won't be party political though, as SKS also signed up to the Sunak strategy. But it's another high profile Sunakian promise, like boats'n'inflation.
You are weirdly keen for this ban not to happen. Consistently so
I suggest you go away and watch the video of Ian Price being eaten alive in Staffordshire two days ago. Seriously. Everyone needs to watch it, to know what we are dealing with. It is extremely disturbing - as bad as an ISIS or Cartel video - and it’s in a garden in Middle England
I won’t link directly to it but it’s now so viral a Twitter search of “ian price video” will get you straight there
Be warned
Once you’ve seen it you will realise there is no choice, these animals are so big, dangerous and aggressive they need to be banned immediately. As @williamglenn said last night, the question isn’t “whether a ban will work” it’s whether the government can afford to wait til the end of the year
Soon enough there will be one of these videos involving a child
People can be absurdly sentimental about animals, especially in this country.
Therein lies the problem and dilemma, along with the well known problem of legislative definition.
A more likely plan is to just bog owners of vaguely large and dangerous dogs down in paperwork, vet fees, mental health assessments, annual training etc fees, so it becomes too burdensome. Then - any problem dog that comes to the authorities attention for whatever reason can be taken away immediately if the correct paperwork isn't in place. Rather than the current situation, where there is nothing they can do unless someone gets hurt.
1) Compulsory dog insurance. 2) Fines for not having insurance calibrated at court/polices costs + £5000 3) £1000 reward for information leading to a
I concur with the OLB potential LAB 340 seats outcome.
This is based on me using the following non scientific approach:
No one likes CON or Rishi anymore
There is no real enthusiasm for Keir or LAB
But the first factor significantly outweighs the second for an electorate to reluctantly give LAB an 8% lead at the GE which will convert into around 340 seats
Another way of looking at it...
340 Labour and 100ish others (40 SNP, 40 LD, 20 NI) leaves 210 Conservatives. So the big two almost, but not quite, swapping scores.
If you offered that to thoughtful members of the blue team, I reckon they'd bite your arm off faster than an XL Bully.
Talking about the latter - the "ban" is seemingly continuing to unravel faster than a stuffed woollen doggie toy owned by one.
Won't be party political though, as SKS also signed up to the Sunak strategy. But it's another high profile Sunakian promise, like boats'n'inflation.
You are weirdly keen for this ban not to happen. Consistently so
I suggest you go away and watch the video of Ian Price being eaten alive in Staffordshire two days ago. Seriously. Everyone needs to watch it, to know what we are dealing with. It is extremely disturbing - as bad as an ISIS or Cartel video - and it’s in a garden in Middle England
I won’t link directly to it but it’s now so viral a Twitter search of “ian price video” will get you straight there
Be warned
Once you’ve seen it you will realise there is no choice, these animals are so big, dangerous and aggressive they need to be banned immediately. As @williamglenn said last night, the question isn’t “whether a ban will work” it’s whether the government can afford to wait til the end of the year
Soon enough there will be one of these videos involving a child
People can be absurdly sentimental about animals, especially in this country.
Once @Carnyx has watched the Ian Price video he can look at this. The bloodline of half the XL Bullies in the UK
It doesn't alter the fact that a lot of people will sympathise more with the bully dogs, than the people who fall victim to them. There'll be heart-rending tales of poor Satan, who would never hurt a fly, having to be put to sleep.
I met some of these people, who were donors to Wood Green Animal Shelters, when I worked there.
The 400,000+ who've signed the petition is evidence of that.
Plus there is a deeply ingrained belief in many dog owners that if breeds are banned, their Fido will be banned and shot next week.
Interestingly I also think that Labour will get a majority next time, though I'm not coming from the perspective of a Labour member, but your analysis has made me think that a Labour majority is less likely than I had thought.
This is because your analysis, based on today's data, means no majority. The assumption of a majority is based on an assumed swing away from Sunak to Starmer. I'm less certain that such a swing will happen, I think last year was so chaotic that Sunak didn't get much of a traditional 'honeymoon' to lose, and AFAIK swingback is more common than swingaway.
We'll see. But I'm feeling more uncertain today. Any analysis which makes you stop and think is a good thing though, and I really appreciate your thoughts and your debut piece, well done!
Thanks! Yes I agree there is stuff in there to give a Labour supporter pause. Like you I was probably less convinced about a Labour majority after doing it. I still think it's a >50% chance but the range of possible outcomes goes from 1997 to 2015 IMHO.
I didn’t realise @OnlyLivingBoy had this natural story-telling talent
Translation: I can't understand that formula even with my IQ of 130.
143.7
It is rather a lot of maths for first thing on a Sunday. Nonetheless congrats to @OnlyLivingBoy on his debut, it’s good that this site can offer detailed mathematical analysis
Let me translate it for you
"Given the evidence we have it is credible to argue that the number of seats Labour will win at the next election depends on the relative leader satisfaction and the number of seats last time. Right now satisfaction levels aren't good enough for a Labour majority. But if Sunak continues to disappoint, by election time they will be."
There y'go. You can write an article in the Flint Knapper's Gazette now and pretend it was your idea.
If Sunak continues to disappoint, it will mean he has failed to prepare the Conservative Party for an election.
Do stuff that people like.
Stop doing shit they don't like.
Clear the decks of people who are an embarrassment - although many of these have already left the stage by their antics.
Look like you want another term.
Point out to those 25% of former Tory voters not yet decided that a Starmer government would do a raft of thing that will enrage their sensibilities.
A half-way decent job of doing the above for a year will take Labour well out of reach of majority territory. Labour then plummet into the much more awkward territory of having to answer questions about how they would head a rainbow coalition. After the trauma of coping with Brexit, Covid and Ukraine with the consequent cost of living crisis - all in one Parliament - a year of boring governing might look a whole lot more attractive than a prospect of a period of chaotic uncertainties. Especially to those 25% of former Tories.
So I used to think Russell Brand's switch to become an alt-right idiot was a commercial one. But maybe it was because he knew this shit was coming and he calculated the alt-right conspiracy nutjob crowd would be more likely to stick by him?
I just assumed it was because he was an idiot.
But that doesn’t invalidate either of your other hypotheses.
Has anyone on the freethinking alt-right though freely enough to have a "why am I at a party with all the most awful people in London?" epiphany?
Dunno, Calvin Robinson, Neil Oliver and Lozza Fox being of the same opinion certainly gives one pause for thought. I need to wait and see what Right Said Fred think before making my mind up.
For the thousandth time, "populism" means self-consciously appealing to the "people" in a way that is, prima facie at least, antagonistic to elites. It's isn't a synonym for trying to be popular. You can appeal to ordinary people without trying to drag class warfare into it. If your political opinion involves bashing "elites" (Oxbridge graduates, Jews, the illuminati, North London liberals, the "wokerati", globalists, etc), then you're delving into populism. If you're just putting forward policies you think are right and condemning those you think are wrong, you aren't a populist.
Populism touches everything and is probably present in almost every political movement to some degree. Using the word "populism" thus refer to times when it's particularly concentrated or toxic, or largely divorced from any kind of coherence.
So the attack on bankers in the immediate aftermath of the GFC was probably only very lightly populist because there really was a profound issue with the way banking was affecting our economy and a political response was sensible. Whereas the idea that a cabal of globalists are trying to control your mind through vaccines and chemtrails, and we need to overturn the whole system to free ourselves, is rabidly populist (and mercifully not that popular because it's completely insane).
Quite a lot of valuable social reforms were implemented by populists, over the past couple of centuries. Gladstone, Lloyd George, FDR, De Gaulle, Churchill were all populist politicians- albeit, not ones who went down the rabbit hole of conspiracy theories.
I concur with the OLB potential LAB 340 seats outcome.
This is based on me using the following non scientific approach:
No one likes CON or Rishi anymore
There is no real enthusiasm for Keir or LAB
But the first factor significantly outweighs the second for an electorate to reluctantly give LAB an 8% lead at the GE which will convert into around 340 seats
Another way of looking at it...
340 Labour and 100ish others (40 SNP, 40 LD, 20 NI) leaves 210 Conservatives. So the big two almost, but not quite, swapping scores.
If you offered that to thoughtful members of the blue team, I reckon they'd bite your arm off faster than an XL Bully.
Talking about the latter - the "ban" is seemingly continuing to unravel faster than a stuffed woollen doggie toy owned by one.
Won't be party political though, as SKS also signed up to the Sunak strategy. But it's another high profile Sunakian promise, like boats'n'inflation.
You are weirdly keen for this ban not to happen. Consistently so
I suggest you go away and watch the video of Ian Price being eaten alive in Staffordshire two days ago. Seriously. Everyone needs to watch it, to know what we are dealing with. It is extremely disturbing - as bad as an ISIS or Cartel video - and it’s in a garden in Middle England
I won’t link directly to it but it’s now so viral a Twitter search of “ian price video” will get you straight there
Be warned
Once you’ve seen it you will realise there is no choice, these animals are so big, dangerous and aggressive they need to be banned immediately. As @williamglenn said last night, the question isn’t “whether a ban will work” it’s whether the government can afford to wait til the end of the year
Soon enough there will be one of these videos involving a child
People can be absurdly sentimental about animals, especially in this country.
Once @Carnyx has watched the Ian Price video he can look at this. The bloodline of half the XL Bullies in the UK
It doesn't alter the fact that a lot of people will sympathise more with the bully dogs, than the people who fall victim to them. There'll be heart-rending tales of poor Satan, who would never hurt a fly, having to be put to sleep.
I met some of these people, who were donors to Wood Green Animal Shelters, when I worked there.
I'd ban multiple breeds, and bring back dog licencing.
However, I suspect I wouldn't get re-elected.
You have to remember that it's a bit like Covid restrictions. People think, "if they can come for my dog, what will they come for next?"
I concur with the OLB potential LAB 340 seats outcome.
This is based on me using the following non scientific approach:
No one likes CON or Rishi anymore
There is no real enthusiasm for Keir or LAB
But the first factor significantly outweighs the second for an electorate to reluctantly give LAB an 8% lead at the GE which will convert into around 340 seats
Another way of looking at it...
340 Labour and 100ish others (40 SNP, 40 LD, 20 NI) leaves 210 Conservatives. So the big two almost, but not quite, swapping scores.
If you offered that to thoughtful members of the blue team, I reckon they'd bite your arm off faster than an XL Bully.
Talking about the latter - the "ban" is seemingly continuing to unravel faster than a stuffed woollen doggie toy owned by one.
Won't be party political though, as SKS also signed up to the Sunak strategy. But it's another high profile Sunakian promise, like boats'n'inflation.
You are weirdly keen for this ban not to happen. Consistently so
I suggest you go away and watch the video of Ian Price being eaten alive in Staffordshire two days ago. Seriously. Everyone needs to watch it, to know what we are dealing with. It is extremely disturbing - as bad as an ISIS or Cartel video - and it’s in a garden in Middle England
I won’t link directly to it but it’s now so viral a Twitter search of “ian price video” will get you straight there
Be warned
Once you’ve seen it you will realise there is no choice, these animals are so big, dangerous and aggressive they need to be banned immediately. As @williamglenn said last night, the question isn’t “whether a ban will work” it’s whether the government can afford to wait til the end of the year
Soon enough there will be one of these videos involving a child
People can be absurdly sentimental about animals, especially in this country.
Once @Carnyx has watched the Ian Price video he can look at this. The bloodline of half the XL Bullies in the UK
It doesn't alter the fact that a lot of people will sympathise more with the bully dogs, than the people who fall victim to them. There'll be heart-rending tales of poor Satan, who would never hurt a fly, having to be put to sleep.
I met some of these people, who were donors to Wood Green Animal Shelters, when I worked there.
I'd ban multiple breeds, and bring back dog licencing.
However, I suspect I wouldn't get re-elected.
You have to remember that it's a bit like Covid restrictions. People think, "if they can come for my dog, what will they come for next?"
Similarly ULEZ and LTNs
Part of the toxicity of Populism is its campaign against trust in institutions, and that is the cycle that encourages such paranoia.
I note though that Sunak fails at Populism. He cannot project the anti-establishment views that Johnson or Corbyn mastered. Whoever wins the next GE it won't be a Populist.
For the thousandth time, "populism" means self-consciously appealing to the "people" in a way that is, prima facie at least, antagonistic to elites. It's isn't a synonym for trying to be popular. You can appeal to ordinary people without trying to drag class warfare into it. If your political opinion involves bashing "elites" (Oxbridge graduates, Jews, the illuminati, North London liberals, the "wokerati", globalists, etc), then you're delving into populism. If you're just putting forward policies you think are right and condemning those you think are wrong, you aren't a populist.
Populism touches everything and is probably present in almost every political movement to some degree. Using the word "populism" thus refer to times when it's particularly concentrated or toxic, or largely divorced from any kind of coherence.
So the attack on bankers in the immediate aftermath of the GFC was probably only very lightly populist because there really was a profound issue with the way banking was affecting our economy and a political response was sensible. Whereas the idea that a cabal of globalists are trying to control your mind through vaccines and chemtrails, and we need to overturn the whole system to free ourselves, is rabidly populist (and mercifully not that popular because it's completely insane).
And for the 999th time, its something most leaders end up doing. Only the 'people' and the 'elites' change.
Tony Blair with his railing against the "forces of conservativism" etc was very populist. He wasn't just seeking to be popular, he was setting Labour as "the political wing of the British people" while others as elites who are "holding the country back".
The old order, those forces of conservatism, for all their language about promoting the individual, and freedom and liberty, they held people back. They kept people down. They stunted people’s potential. Year after year. Decade after decade.
Look at this Party’s greatest achievement. The forces of conservatism, and the force of the Conservative Party, pulled every trick in the book - voting 51 times, yes 51 times, against the creation of the NHS. One leading Tory, Mr Henry Willink, said at the time that the NHS ‘will destroy so much in this country that we value,’ when we knew human potential can never be realised when whether you are well or ill depends on wealth not need. The forces of conservatism allied to racism are why one of the heroes of the 20th Century, Martin Luther King, is dead. It’s why another, Nelson Mandela, spent the best years of his life in a cell the size of a bed.
And the fox hunting ban, while something I support despite being illiberal as I think its an issue of cruelty, was similarly framed in populist manner. There was a widespread attitude that it was about taking on "Tory toffs in red coats".
For the thousandth time, "populism" means self-consciously appealing to the "people" in a way that is, prima facie at least, antagonistic to elites. It's isn't a synonym for trying to be popular. You can appeal to ordinary people without trying to drag class warfare into it. If your political opinion involves bashing "elites" (Oxbridge graduates, Jews, the illuminati, North London liberals, the "wokerati", globalists, etc), then you're delving into populism. If you're just putting forward policies you think are right and condemning those you think are wrong, you aren't a populist.
Populism touches everything and is probably present in almost every political movement to some degree. Using the word "populism" thus refer to times when it's particularly concentrated or toxic, or largely divorced from any kind of coherence.
So the attack on bankers in the immediate aftermath of the GFC was probably only very lightly populist because there really was a profound issue with the way banking was affecting our economy and a political response was sensible. Whereas the idea that a cabal of globalists are trying to control your mind through vaccines and chemtrails, and we need to overturn the whole system to free ourselves, is rabidly populist (and mercifully not that popular because it's completely insane).
Quite a lot of valuable social reforms were implemented by populists, over the past couple of centuries. Gladstone, Lloyd George, FDR, De Gaulle, Churchill were all populist politicians- albeit, not ones who went down the rabbit hole of conspiracy theories.
The crucial difference there is that all were able to recognise reality, despite their romance.
I'm seeing on Twitter people saying that Russell Brand is now a hero of the right. Is this true? Has he been on "a journey" or is there something else? The guy always struck me as an idiot, but I'm not sure an exposé like this is the way to go.
he knows he'll get that sweet sweet MAGA money if he keeps peddling bullshit to the alt right crowd.
I didn’t realise @OnlyLivingBoy had this natural story-telling talent
Translation: I can't understand that formula even with my IQ of 130.
143.7
It is rather a lot of maths for first thing on a Sunday. Nonetheless congrats to @OnlyLivingBoy on his debut, it’s good that this site can offer detailed mathematical analysis
And to think you've wasted that genius on, checks... travel writing.
I know. To think, I could have been a banker or a politician or a lawyer, instead I am forced to wander the lonely world, looking at things like rivers and stuff
Bonjour!
Where's this ?
It isn't the same charming French-Swiss border region that I also passed through this summer by train, is it ?
No, it’s the Gorge du Tarn in Lozere. A somewhat neglected corner of France. Amazingly
Aha. So it's actually that far from where I was, as I meant the French-Italian border region instead, east of Lyon. There are some similarities in the landscape, despite you being in one of the more South-Central departments.
That looks gorgeous, and I recommend some of the towns and landscapes I passed, too, from the look of them, such as the beautifully Proustishly named Pont de Beauvoisins, on the way to Italy. There's still so many relatively untouched and beautiful regions of France.
I didn’t realise @OnlyLivingBoy had this natural story-telling talent
Translation: I can't understand that formula even with my IQ of 130.
143.7
It is rather a lot of maths for first thing on a Sunday. Nonetheless congrats to @OnlyLivingBoy on his debut, it’s good that this site can offer detailed mathematical analysis
And to think you've wasted that genius on, checks... travel writing.
I know. To think, I could have been a banker or a politician or a lawyer, instead I am forced to wander the lonely world, looking at things like rivers and stuff
Bonjour!
Instead of being a writer with a growing reputation, you could have been the ticket man at Fulham Broadway station.
For the thousandth time, "populism" means self-consciously appealing to the "people" in a way that is, prima facie at least, antagonistic to elites. It's isn't a synonym for trying to be popular. You can appeal to ordinary people without trying to drag class warfare into it. If your political opinion involves bashing "elites" (Oxbridge graduates, Jews, the illuminati, North London liberals, the "wokerati", globalists, etc), then you're delving into populism. If you're just putting forward policies you think are right and condemning those you think are wrong, you aren't a populist.
Populism touches everything and is probably present in almost every political movement to some degree. Using the word "populism" thus refer to times when it's particularly concentrated or toxic, or largely divorced from any kind of coherence.
So the attack on bankers in the immediate aftermath of the GFC was probably only very lightly populist because there really was a profound issue with the way banking was affecting our economy and a political response was sensible. Whereas the idea that a cabal of globalists are trying to control your mind through vaccines and chemtrails, and we need to overturn the whole system to free ourselves, is rabidly populist (and mercifully not that popular because it's completely insane).
Quite a lot of valuable social reforms were implemented by populists, over the past couple of centuries. Gladstone, Lloyd George, FDR, De Gaulle, Churchill were all populist politicians- albeit, not ones who went down the rabbit hole of conspiracy theories.
There was an element of attacks on finance after the GFC that was nothing to do with what actually happened.
There was a campaign against venture capital for example. Which wasn’t involved in the crash and is, fundamentally, about using methods that are diametrically opposed to those that caused the crash.
I didn’t realise @OnlyLivingBoy had this natural story-telling talent
Translation: I can't understand that formula even with my IQ of 130.
143.7
It is rather a lot of maths for first thing on a Sunday. Nonetheless congrats to @OnlyLivingBoy on his debut, it’s good that this site can offer detailed mathematical analysis
If you really think IQ can be measured to the tenth of a point, that is rather revealing.
If you really can’t see a joke when it is says “this is obviously a joke” then….
I didn’t realise @OnlyLivingBoy had this natural story-telling talent
Translation: I can't understand that formula even with my IQ of 130.
143.7
It is rather a lot of maths for first thing on a Sunday. Nonetheless congrats to @OnlyLivingBoy on his debut, it’s good that this site can offer detailed mathematical analysis
If you really think IQ can be measured to the tenth of a point, that is rather revealing.
Or even that it is stable over time and immune to being pickled in alcohol.
I concur with the OLB potential LAB 340 seats outcome.
This is based on me using the following non scientific approach:
No one likes CON or Rishi anymore
There is no real enthusiasm for Keir or LAB
But the first factor significantly outweighs the second for an electorate to reluctantly give LAB an 8% lead at the GE which will convert into around 340 seats
Another way of looking at it...
340 Labour and 100ish others (40 SNP, 40 LD, 20 NI) leaves 210 Conservatives. So the big two almost, but not quite, swapping scores.
If you offered that to thoughtful members of the blue team, I reckon they'd bite your arm off faster than an XL Bully.
Talking about the latter - the "ban" is seemingly continuing to unravel faster than a stuffed woollen doggie toy owned by one.
Won't be party political though, as SKS also signed up to the Sunak strategy. But it's another high profile Sunakian promise, like boats'n'inflation.
You are weirdly keen for this ban not to happen. Consistently so
I suggest you go away and watch the video of Ian Price being eaten alive in Staffordshire two days ago. Seriously. Everyone needs to watch it, to know what we are dealing with. It is extremely disturbing - as bad as an ISIS or Cartel video - and it’s in a garden in Middle England
I won’t link directly to it but it’s now so viral a Twitter search of “ian price video” will get you straight there
Be warned
Once you’ve seen it you will realise there is no choice, these animals are so big, dangerous and aggressive they need to be banned immediately. As @williamglenn said last night, the question isn’t “whether a ban will work” it’s whether the government can afford to wait til the end of the year
Soon enough there will be one of these videos involving a child
I'm not keen. I wish the bloody things didn't even exist. I don'#t even like Staffies.
I'm simply observing the situation and the wider politics. I've flagged up the fundamental contradiction of a breed ban right from the start, and it is proving to be an issue. At least in HMG eyes, and others.
Why aren't they going for a more empirical, Australian-style, ban?
For the thousandth time, "populism" means self-consciously appealing to the "people" in a way that is, prima facie at least, antagonistic to elites. It's isn't a synonym for trying to be popular. You can appeal to ordinary people without trying to drag class warfare into it. If your political opinion involves bashing "elites" (Oxbridge graduates, Jews, the illuminati, North London liberals, the "wokerati", globalists, etc), then you're delving into populism. If you're just putting forward policies you think are right and condemning those you think are wrong, you aren't a populist.
Populism touches everything and is probably present in almost every political movement to some degree. Using the word "populism" thus refer to times when it's particularly concentrated or toxic, or largely divorced from any kind of coherence.
So the attack on bankers in the immediate aftermath of the GFC was probably only very lightly populist because there really was a profound issue with the way banking was affecting our economy and a political response was sensible. Whereas the idea that a cabal of globalists are trying to control your mind through vaccines and chemtrails, and we need to overturn the whole system to free ourselves, is rabidly populist (and mercifully not that popular because it's completely insane).
Populism exists on all sides of the political spectrum.
Blaming the West, bankers, successful businessmen and industrialists for all the world's ills is populist. As is kneejerk banning of nuclear power and all forms of oil & gas immediately. Communism was essentially a direct appeal to populism.
It's characterised by playing to short-term base emotion against what are easily painted as elite or vested interests - which is why it is "popular" - rather than seeking to understand, channel and lead it into more reasoned, rational and longer-term policies that address the root causes.
I didn’t realise @OnlyLivingBoy had this natural story-telling talent
Translation: I can't understand that formula even with my IQ of 130.
143.7
It is rather a lot of maths for first thing on a Sunday. Nonetheless congrats to @OnlyLivingBoy on his debut, it’s good that this site can offer detailed mathematical analysis
If you really think IQ can be measured to the tenth of a point, that is rather revealing.
I once took an IQ test that put me in the 160s, and then another that put me in the 140s.
It's all crap.
Yes, this was post was partially motivated by wanting to humblebrag at how high my IQ score is. But sincerely also to tell you that I think it's crap. And variable. And only measures a narrow, abstract ability. Put me in the kitchen and ask me to follow some basic recipe and use that to measure my IQ and I'm probably down in the low 70s. I am a genius and an idiot, depending on the test. So is almost everyone else.
I agree with this completely (indeed same range of numbers on tests) but will swap the kitchen scenario around.
Put me in a kitchen and give me a recipe to follow and I can do that just fine. With a recipe cooking is little different to chemistry, just do the measurements and follow the processes.
Put me in a kitchen without a recipe though and I'll be pretty lost.
For the thousandth time, "populism" means self-consciously appealing to the "people" in a way that is, prima facie at least, antagonistic to elites. It's isn't a synonym for trying to be popular. You can appeal to ordinary people without trying to drag class warfare into it. If your political opinion involves bashing "elites" (Oxbridge graduates, Jews, the illuminati, North London liberals, the "wokerati", globalists, etc), then you're delving into populism. If you're just putting forward policies you think are right and condemning those you think are wrong, you aren't a populist.
Populism touches everything and is probably present in almost every political movement to some degree. Using the word "populism" thus refer to times when it's particularly concentrated or toxic, or largely divorced from any kind of coherence.
So the attack on bankers in the immediate aftermath of the GFC was probably only very lightly populist because there really was a profound issue with the way banking was affecting our economy and a political response was sensible. Whereas the idea that a cabal of globalists are trying to control your mind through vaccines and chemtrails, and we need to overturn the whole system to free ourselves, is rabidly populist (and mercifully not that popular because it's completely insane).
And for the 999th time, its something most leaders end up doing. Only the 'people' and the 'elites' change.
Tony Blair with his railing against the "forces of conservativism" etc was very populist. He wasn't just seeking to be popular, he was setting Labour as "the political wing of the British people" while others as elites who are "holding the country back".
The old order, those forces of conservatism, for all their language about promoting the individual, and freedom and liberty, they held people back. They kept people down. They stunted people’s potential. Year after year. Decade after decade.
Look at this Party’s greatest achievement. The forces of conservatism, and the force of the Conservative Party, pulled every trick in the book - voting 51 times, yes 51 times, against the creation of the NHS. One leading Tory, Mr Henry Willink, said at the time that the NHS ‘will destroy so much in this country that we value,’ when we knew human potential can never be realised when whether you are well or ill depends on wealth not need. The forces of conservatism allied to racism are why one of the heroes of the 20th Century, Martin Luther King, is dead. It’s why another, Nelson Mandela, spent the best years of his life in a cell the size of a bed.
And the fox hunting ban, while something I support despite being illiberal as I think its an issue of cruelty, was similarly framed in populist manner. There was a widespread attitude that it was about taking on "Tory toffs in red coats".
One fascinating feature of the fox hunting ban was the reaction of some on the left to mass demonstrations against a policy they identified with.
I especially recall talking with some people I knew in the always-up-for-a-demo crowd. They described feeling menaced by being visibly outnumbered by people they disagreed with. I then asked them how they thought people felt, when they saw *their* demos…
I didn’t realise @OnlyLivingBoy had this natural story-telling talent
Translation: I can't understand that formula even with my IQ of 130.
143.7
It is rather a lot of maths for first thing on a Sunday. Nonetheless congrats to @OnlyLivingBoy on his debut, it’s good that this site can offer detailed mathematical analysis
And to think you've wasted that genius on, checks... travel writing.
I know. To think, I could have been a banker or a politician or a lawyer, instead I am forced to wander the lonely world, looking at things like rivers and stuff
Bonjour!
Where's this ?
It isn't the same charming French-Swiss border region that I also passed through this summer by train, is it ?
No, it’s the Gorge du Tarn in Lozere. A somewhat neglected corner of France. Amazingly
Aha. So it's actually that far from where I was, as I meant the French-Italian border region instead, east of Lyon. There are some similarities in the landscape, despite you being in the South-Central department.
That looks gorgeous, and I recommend some of the towns and landscapes I passed, too, from the look of them, such as the beautifully Proustishly named Pont de Beauvoisins. There's still so many relatively untouched beautiful regions of France.
It’s actually nowhere near Italy. It’s the last bit of northern France where it is really southern France. The moors of aubrac, the gorges du Tarn, the Causses and the Cevennes
It’s a startling change as you drive south of the Causses - suddenly it’s all ochre tiles and olive trees
I concur with the OLB potential LAB 340 seats outcome.
This is based on me using the following non scientific approach:
No one likes CON or Rishi anymore
There is no real enthusiasm for Keir or LAB
But the first factor significantly outweighs the second for an electorate to reluctantly give LAB an 8% lead at the GE which will convert into around 340 seats
Another way of looking at it...
340 Labour and 100ish others (40 SNP, 40 LD, 20 NI) leaves 210 Conservatives. So the big two almost, but not quite, swapping scores.
If you offered that to thoughtful members of the blue team, I reckon they'd bite your arm off faster than an XL Bully.
Talking about the latter - the "ban" is seemingly continuing to unravel faster than a stuffed woollen doggie toy owned by one.
Won't be party political though, as SKS also signed up to the Sunak strategy. But it's another high profile Sunakian promise, like boats'n'inflation.
You are weirdly keen for this ban not to happen. Consistently so
I suggest you go away and watch the video of Ian Price being eaten alive in Staffordshire two days ago. Seriously. Everyone needs to watch it, to know what we are dealing with. It is extremely disturbing - as bad as an ISIS or Cartel video - and it’s in a garden in Middle England
I won’t link directly to it but it’s now so viral a Twitter search of “ian price video” will get you straight there
Be warned
Once you’ve seen it you will realise there is no choice, these animals are so big, dangerous and aggressive they need to be banned immediately. As @williamglenn said last night, the question isn’t “whether a ban will work” it’s whether the government can afford to wait til the end of the year
Soon enough there will be one of these videos involving a child
I'm not keen. I wish the bloody things didn't even exist. I don'#t even like Staffies.
I'm simply observing the situation and the wider politics. I've flagged up the fundamental contradiction of a breed ban right from the start, and it is proving to be an issue. At least in HMG eyes, and others.
Why aren't they going for a more empirical, Australian-style, ban?
That would require discretion on the part of police officers and magistrates.
Discretion, like crevice, is a dirty word in U.K. public life.
I concur with the OLB potential LAB 340 seats outcome.
This is based on me using the following non scientific approach:
No one likes CON or Rishi anymore
There is no real enthusiasm for Keir or LAB
But the first factor significantly outweighs the second for an electorate to reluctantly give LAB an 8% lead at the GE which will convert into around 340 seats
Another way of looking at it...
340 Labour and 100ish others (40 SNP, 40 LD, 20 NI) leaves 210 Conservatives. So the big two almost, but not quite, swapping scores.
If you offered that to thoughtful members of the blue team, I reckon they'd bite your arm off faster than an XL Bully.
Talking about the latter - the "ban" is seemingly continuing to unravel faster than a stuffed woollen doggie toy owned by one.
Won't be party political though, as SKS also signed up to the Sunak strategy. But it's another high profile Sunakian promise, like boats'n'inflation.
You are weirdly keen for this ban not to happen. Consistently so
I suggest you go away and watch the video of Ian Price being eaten alive in Staffordshire two days ago. Seriously. Everyone needs to watch it, to know what we are dealing with. It is extremely disturbing - as bad as an ISIS or Cartel video - and it’s in a garden in Middle England
I won’t link directly to it but it’s now so viral a Twitter search of “ian price video” will get you straight there
Be warned
Once you’ve seen it you will realise there is no choice, these animals are so big, dangerous and aggressive they need to be banned immediately. As @williamglenn said last night, the question isn’t “whether a ban will work” it’s whether the government can afford to wait til the end of the year
Soon enough there will be one of these videos involving a child
People can be absurdly sentimental about animals, especially in this country.
Once @Carnyx has watched the Ian Price video he can look at this. The bloodline of half the XL Bullies in the UK
Doesn't surprise me, that inbreeding. But where does that take us in terms of practical and legal politics? It doesn't do much to define the breed, except insofar as tdhe descendants are going to be XL Bullies or crosses thereof in common understanding. But then the dogs won't be telling you their pedigrees like an ancestry.com enthusiast.
Hmm, according to the map, it's at a very similar latitude to those French-Italian regions I passed through, and hence, also, probably the similarities in landscape I mentioned.
These areas are compelling, and I think the landscape is more interesting, to me, than the Central, South-Central, or Northern areas of France, or even than further south in the Riviera. Provence is near here, ofcourse.
I concur with the OLB potential LAB 340 seats outcome.
This is based on me using the following non scientific approach:
No one likes CON or Rishi anymore
There is no real enthusiasm for Keir or LAB
But the first factor significantly outweighs the second for an electorate to reluctantly give LAB an 8% lead at the GE which will convert into around 340 seats
Another way of looking at it...
340 Labour and 100ish others (40 SNP, 40 LD, 20 NI) leaves 210 Conservatives. So the big two almost, but not quite, swapping scores.
If you offered that to thoughtful members of the blue team, I reckon they'd bite your arm off faster than an XL Bully.
Talking about the latter - the "ban" is seemingly continuing to unravel faster than a stuffed woollen doggie toy owned by one.
Won't be party political though, as SKS also signed up to the Sunak strategy. But it's another high profile Sunakian promise, like boats'n'inflation.
You are weirdly keen for this ban not to happen. Consistently so
I suggest you go away and watch the video of Ian Price being eaten alive in Staffordshire two days ago. Seriously. Everyone needs to watch it, to know what we are dealing with. It is extremely disturbing - as bad as an ISIS or Cartel video - and it’s in a garden in Middle England
I won’t link directly to it but it’s now so viral a Twitter search of “ian price video” will get you straight there
Be warned
Once you’ve seen it you will realise there is no choice, these animals are so big, dangerous and aggressive they need to be banned immediately. As @williamglenn said last night, the question isn’t “whether a ban will work” it’s whether the government can afford to wait til the end of the year
Soon enough there will be one of these videos involving a child
I'm not keen. I wish the bloody things didn't even exist. I don'#t even like Staffies.
I'm simply observing the situation and the wider politics. I've flagged up the fundamental contradiction of a breed ban right from the start, and it is proving to be an issue. At least in HMG eyes, and others.
Why aren't they going for a more empirical, Australian-style, ban?
That would require discretion on the part of police officers and magistrates.
Discretion, like crevice, is a dirty word in U.K. public life.
There are specialist police dog control officers. (The kind which control other people's dogs, etc., not come at you with an Alsatian or drugs sniffinf spaniel.) But not many. Which is another issue. A great pity.
I concur with the OLB potential LAB 340 seats outcome.
This is based on me using the following non scientific approach:
No one likes CON or Rishi anymore
There is no real enthusiasm for Keir or LAB
But the first factor significantly outweighs the second for an electorate to reluctantly give LAB an 8% lead at the GE which will convert into around 340 seats
Another way of looking at it...
340 Labour and 100ish others (40 SNP, 40 LD, 20 NI) leaves 210 Conservatives. So the big two almost, but not quite, swapping scores.
If you offered that to thoughtful members of the blue team, I reckon they'd bite your arm off faster than an XL Bully.
Talking about the latter - the "ban" is seemingly continuing to unravel faster than a stuffed woollen doggie toy owned by one.
Won't be party political though, as SKS also signed up to the Sunak strategy. But it's another high profile Sunakian promise, like boats'n'inflation.
You are weirdly keen for this ban not to happen. Consistently so
I suggest you go away and watch the video of Ian Price being eaten alive in Staffordshire two days ago. Seriously. Everyone needs to watch it, to know what we are dealing with. It is extremely disturbing - as bad as an ISIS or Cartel video - and it’s in a garden in Middle England
I won’t link directly to it but it’s now so viral a Twitter search of “ian price video” will get you straight there
Be warned
Once you’ve seen it you will realise there is no choice, these animals are so big, dangerous and aggressive they need to be banned immediately. As @williamglenn said last night, the question isn’t “whether a ban will work” it’s whether the government can afford to wait til the end of the year
Soon enough there will be one of these videos involving a child
People can be absurdly sentimental about animals, especially in this country.
Once @Carnyx has watched the Ian Price video he can look at this. The bloodline of half the XL Bullies in the UK
It doesn't alter the fact that a lot of people will sympathise more with the bully dogs, than the people who fall victim to them. There'll be heart-rending tales of poor Satan, who would never hurt a fly, having to be put to sleep.
I met some of these people, who were donors to Wood Green Animal Shelters, when I worked there.
I'd ban multiple breeds, and bring back dog licencing.
However, I suspect I wouldn't get re-elected.
You have to remember that it's a bit like Covid restrictions. People think, "if they can come for my dog, what will they come for next?"
I concur with the OLB potential LAB 340 seats outcome.
This is based on me using the following non scientific approach:
No one likes CON or Rishi anymore
There is no real enthusiasm for Keir or LAB
But the first factor significantly outweighs the second for an electorate to reluctantly give LAB an 8% lead at the GE which will convert into around 340 seats
Another way of looking at it...
340 Labour and 100ish others (40 SNP, 40 LD, 20 NI) leaves 210 Conservatives. So the big two almost, but not quite, swapping scores.
If you offered that to thoughtful members of the blue team, I reckon they'd bite your arm off faster than an XL Bully.
Talking about the latter - the "ban" is seemingly continuing to unravel faster than a stuffed woollen doggie toy owned by one.
Won't be party political though, as SKS also signed up to the Sunak strategy. But it's another high profile Sunakian promise, like boats'n'inflation.
You are weirdly keen for this ban not to happen. Consistently so
I suggest you go away and watch the video of Ian Price being eaten alive in Staffordshire two days ago. Seriously. Everyone needs to watch it, to know what we are dealing with. It is extremely disturbing - as bad as an ISIS or Cartel video - and it’s in a garden in Middle England
I won’t link directly to it but it’s now so viral a Twitter search of “ian price video” will get you straight there
Be warned
Once you’ve seen it you will realise there is no choice, these animals are so big, dangerous and aggressive they need to be banned immediately. As @williamglenn said last night, the question isn’t “whether a ban will work” it’s whether the government can afford to wait til the end of the year
Soon enough there will be one of these videos involving a child
People can be absurdly sentimental about animals, especially in this country.
Once @Carnyx has watched the Ian Price video he can look at this. The bloodline of half the XL Bullies in the UK
It doesn't alter the fact that a lot of people will sympathise more with the bully dogs, than the people who fall victim to them. There'll be heart-rending tales of poor Satan, who would never hurt a fly, having to be put to sleep.
I met some of these people, who were donors to Wood Green Animal Shelters, when I worked there.
I'd ban multiple breeds, and bring back dog licencing.
However, I suspect I wouldn't get re-elected.
You have to remember that it's a bit like Covid restrictions. People think, "if they can come for my dog, what will they come for next?"
Similarly ULEZ and LTNs
Part of the toxicity of Populism is its campaign against trust in institutions, and that is the cycle that encourages such paranoia.
I note though that Sunak fails at Populism. He cannot project the anti-establishment views that Johnson or Corbyn mastered. Whoever wins the next GE it won't be a Populist.
The problem with trust in institutions is:
Iraq has WMDs The banks are safe The financial statements of X are a 'true and fair view' Immigration from Eastern Europe will only be 5,000 per year Stafford hospital is safe Nothing is happening in Rotherham The metropolitan police are honest Elections in Tower Hamlets are fair University tuition fees will not be raised Antiquities at the British Museum are secure Th Post Office computer system works
With multiple examples in some categories and doubtless plenty of other examples I've forgotten.
How many PB articles have we had from Cyclefree - who is certainly not a 'populist' - ripping apart, deservedly so, a 'revered institution'.
Interesting thread, but I think the statistical methodology is questionable, for a number of reasons. Eleven is an extremely small sample, and I would use VI not leader approval, as the former is a better predictor of the general election result. In addition, there is likely to be some omitted variable bias, since many have observed that voters tend to punish parties that have been in power for a decade or more. Adding a dummy variable for the number of elections previously won could affect the results significantly. Fourthly, there is very likely to be multicollinearity between the two explanatory variables. Multicollinearity invalidates regression analysis, and it is likely to be a particular problem this time. The opposition leader's popularity, and the unpopularity of the current government, could affect their score last time, particularly if they are the same people. A standard part of regression analysis is to test for this, e.g. using VIFs. Finally, I don't agree that a crucial battleground like Scotland should be omitted since so much of Labour's hopes rest there. Since it performed much more like the rest of the UK pre-2015, perhaps a dummy variable should be included?
I think the best way to test for any "mountain to climb" effect is to look at a seat level, rather than nationally. Is the swing towards Labour greater in seats it already holds? If so, then holding more seats will be an advantage. This also has the merit of having a more than sufficient sample size. I vaguely recall some analysis that showed a small effect for seats held for the first time, but no effect beyond that. But at some point I might have a go myself.
Anyway, it is an interesting and important question, and, despite disagreeing with the methodology, I think the conclusion is highly plausible.
Noted. Taking your points in order
Eleven is an extremely small sample. Yes, but you use what you have.
I would use VI not leader approval. Good point. Pause. Go on then
There is likely to be some omitted variable bias. Well yes, but you can say that about any model. Rules-of-thumb are good enough for government work
There is very likely to be multicollinearity between the two explanatory variables. I thought about this, but I'm not sure. Both between the variables (L vs S) and within them (S's internal components*1) appear to be independent-ish.
I don't agree that a crucial battleground like Scotland should be omitted. Agreed, but within its boundaries @OnlyLivingBoy 's model is good enough
In short (too late - Ed), @OnlyLivingBoy has distilled a large, complex situation down to a more manageable subset and created a simple model that PBers can understand. Each step requires a bit of teeth-gritting but simple robust models is what PB needs, and I think this is the first since @isam 's gross satisfaction model.
I didn’t realise @OnlyLivingBoy had this natural story-telling talent
Translation: I can't understand that formula even with my IQ of 130.
143.7
It is rather a lot of maths for first thing on a Sunday. Nonetheless congrats to @OnlyLivingBoy on his debut, it’s good that this site can offer detailed mathematical analysis
If you really think IQ can be measured to the tenth of a point, that is rather revealing.
I once took an IQ test that put me in the 160s, and then another that put me in the 140s.
It's all crap.
Yes, this was post was partially motivated by wanting to humblebrag at how high my IQ score is. But sincerely also to tell you that I think it's crap. And variable. And only measures a narrow, abstract ability. Put me in the kitchen and ask me to follow some basic recipe and use that to measure my IQ and I'm probably down in the low 70s. I am a genius and an idiot, depending on the test. So is almost everyone else.
Back in the recesses of my mind is something to the effect that at least one of the people who went hell for leather over the value of IQ tests in the 30’s was something of a charlatan.
I didn’t realise @OnlyLivingBoy had this natural story-telling talent
Translation: I can't understand that formula even with my IQ of 130.
143.7
It is rather a lot of maths for first thing on a Sunday. Nonetheless congrats to @OnlyLivingBoy on his debut, it’s good that this site can offer detailed mathematical analysis
If you really think IQ can be measured to the tenth of a point, that is rather revealing.
I once took an IQ test that put me in the 160s, and then another that put me in the 140s.
It's all crap. ...
You're surely not saying "It's all crap" just because the two scores differed?
I didn’t realise @OnlyLivingBoy had this natural story-telling talent
Translation: I can't understand that formula even with my IQ of 130.
143.7
It is rather a lot of maths for first thing on a Sunday. Nonetheless congrats to @OnlyLivingBoy on his debut, it’s good that this site can offer detailed mathematical analysis
If you really think IQ can be measured to the tenth of a point, that is rather revealing.
I once took an IQ test that put me in the 160s, and then another that put me in the 140s.
It's all crap. ...
You're surely not saying "It's all crap" just because the two scores differed?
He can't understand why they weren't both 209 exactly?
I concur with the OLB potential LAB 340 seats outcome.
This is based on me using the following non scientific approach:
No one likes CON or Rishi anymore
There is no real enthusiasm for Keir or LAB
But the first factor significantly outweighs the second for an electorate to reluctantly give LAB an 8% lead at the GE which will convert into around 340 seats
Another way of looking at it...
340 Labour and 100ish others (40 SNP, 40 LD, 20 NI) leaves 210 Conservatives. So the big two almost, but not quite, swapping scores.
If you offered that to thoughtful members of the blue team, I reckon they'd bite your arm off faster than an XL Bully.
Talking about the latter - the "ban" is seemingly continuing to unravel faster than a stuffed woollen doggie toy owned by one.
Won't be party political though, as SKS also signed up to the Sunak strategy. But it's another high profile Sunakian promise, like boats'n'inflation.
You are weirdly keen for this ban not to happen. Consistently so
I suggest you go away and watch the video of Ian Price being eaten alive in Staffordshire two days ago. Seriously. Everyone needs to watch it, to know what we are dealing with. It is extremely disturbing - as bad as an ISIS or Cartel video - and it’s in a garden in Middle England
I won’t link directly to it but it’s now so viral a Twitter search of “ian price video” will get you straight there
Be warned
Once you’ve seen it you will realise there is no choice, these animals are so big, dangerous and aggressive they need to be banned immediately. As @williamglenn said last night, the question isn’t “whether a ban will work” it’s whether the government can afford to wait til the end of the year
Soon enough there will be one of these videos involving a child
People can be absurdly sentimental about animals, especially in this country.
Once @Carnyx has watched the Ian Price video he can look at this. The bloodline of half the XL Bullies in the UK
It doesn't alter the fact that a lot of people will sympathise more with the bully dogs, than the people who fall victim to them. There'll be heart-rending tales of poor Satan, who would never hurt a fly, having to be put to sleep.
I met some of these people, who were donors to Wood Green Animal Shelters, when I worked there.
I'd ban multiple breeds, and bring back dog licencing.
However, I suspect I wouldn't get re-elected.
You have to remember that it's a bit like Covid restrictions. People think, "if they can come for my dog, what will they come for next?"
I concur with the OLB potential LAB 340 seats outcome.
This is based on me using the following non scientific approach:
No one likes CON or Rishi anymore
There is no real enthusiasm for Keir or LAB
But the first factor significantly outweighs the second for an electorate to reluctantly give LAB an 8% lead at the GE which will convert into around 340 seats
Another way of looking at it...
340 Labour and 100ish others (40 SNP, 40 LD, 20 NI) leaves 210 Conservatives. So the big two almost, but not quite, swapping scores.
If you offered that to thoughtful members of the blue team, I reckon they'd bite your arm off faster than an XL Bully.
Talking about the latter - the "ban" is seemingly continuing to unravel faster than a stuffed woollen doggie toy owned by one.
Won't be party political though, as SKS also signed up to the Sunak strategy. But it's another high profile Sunakian promise, like boats'n'inflation.
You are weirdly keen for this ban not to happen. Consistently so
I suggest you go away and watch the video of Ian Price being eaten alive in Staffordshire two days ago. Seriously. Everyone needs to watch it, to know what we are dealing with. It is extremely disturbing - as bad as an ISIS or Cartel video - and it’s in a garden in Middle England
I won’t link directly to it but it’s now so viral a Twitter search of “ian price video” will get you straight there
Be warned
Once you’ve seen it you will realise there is no choice, these animals are so big, dangerous and aggressive they need to be banned immediately. As @williamglenn said last night, the question isn’t “whether a ban will work” it’s whether the government can afford to wait til the end of the year
Soon enough there will be one of these videos involving a child
People can be absurdly sentimental about animals, especially in this country.
Once @Carnyx has watched the Ian Price video he can look at this. The bloodline of half the XL Bullies in the UK
It doesn't alter the fact that a lot of people will sympathise more with the bully dogs, than the people who fall victim to them. There'll be heart-rending tales of poor Satan, who would never hurt a fly, having to be put to sleep.
I met some of these people, who were donors to Wood Green Animal Shelters, when I worked there.
I'd ban multiple breeds, and bring back dog licencing.
However, I suspect I wouldn't get re-elected.
You have to remember that it's a bit like Covid restrictions. People think, "if they can come for my dog, what will they come for next?"
Similarly ULEZ and LTNs
Part of the toxicity of Populism is its campaign against trust in institutions, and that is the cycle that encourages such paranoia.
I note though that Sunak fails at Populism. He cannot project the anti-establishment views that Johnson or Corbyn mastered. Whoever wins the next GE it won't be a Populist.
The problem with trust in institutions is:
Iraq has WMDs The banks are safe The financial statements of X are a 'true and fair view' Immigration from Eastern Europe will only be 5,000 per year Stafford hospital is safe Nothing is happening in Rotherham The metropolitan police are honest Elections in Tower Hamlets are fair University tuition fees will not be raised Antiquities at the British Museum are secure Th Post Office computer system works
With multiple examples in some categories and doubtless plenty of other examples I've forgotten.
How many PB articles have we had from Cyclefree - who is certainly not a 'populist' - ripping apart, deservedly so, a 'revered institution'.
Quite so
And also add: “the idea the virus came from the lab is a racist conspiracy and you aren’t even allowed to talk about it”
I concur with the OLB potential LAB 340 seats outcome.
This is based on me using the following non scientific approach:
No one likes CON or Rishi anymore
There is no real enthusiasm for Keir or LAB
But the first factor significantly outweighs the second for an electorate to reluctantly give LAB an 8% lead at the GE which will convert into around 340 seats
Another way of looking at it...
340 Labour and 100ish others (40 SNP, 40 LD, 20 NI) leaves 210 Conservatives. So the big two almost, but not quite, swapping scores.
If you offered that to thoughtful members of the blue team, I reckon they'd bite your arm off faster than an XL Bully.
Talking about the latter - the "ban" is seemingly continuing to unravel faster than a stuffed woollen doggie toy owned by one.
Won't be party political though, as SKS also signed up to the Sunak strategy. But it's another high profile Sunakian promise, like boats'n'inflation.
You are weirdly keen for this ban not to happen. Consistently so
I suggest you go away and watch the video of Ian Price being eaten alive in Staffordshire two days ago. Seriously. Everyone needs to watch it, to know what we are dealing with. It is extremely disturbing - as bad as an ISIS or Cartel video - and it’s in a garden in Middle England
I won’t link directly to it but it’s now so viral a Twitter search of “ian price video” will get you straight there
Be warned
Once you’ve seen it you will realise there is no choice, these animals are so big, dangerous and aggressive they need to be banned immediately. As @williamglenn said last night, the question isn’t “whether a ban will work” it’s whether the government can afford to wait til the end of the year
Soon enough there will be one of these videos involving a child
People can be absurdly sentimental about animals, especially in this country.
Once @Carnyx has watched the Ian Price video he can look at this. The bloodline of half the XL Bullies in the UK
Doesn't surprise me, that inbreeding. But where does that take us in terms of practical and legal politics? It doesn't do much to define the breed, except insofar as tdhe descendants are going to be XL Bullies or crosses thereof in common understanding. But then the dogs won't be telling you their pedigrees like an ancestry.com enthusiast.
Edit: and then we have the other half.
Thought some folk would be in favour of a selective, inbred bloodline.
I concur with the OLB potential LAB 340 seats outcome.
This is based on me using the following non scientific approach:
No one likes CON or Rishi anymore
There is no real enthusiasm for Keir or LAB
But the first factor significantly outweighs the second for an electorate to reluctantly give LAB an 8% lead at the GE which will convert into around 340 seats
Another way of looking at it...
340 Labour and 100ish others (40 SNP, 40 LD, 20 NI) leaves 210 Conservatives. So the big two almost, but not quite, swapping scores.
If you offered that to thoughtful members of the blue team, I reckon they'd bite your arm off faster than an XL Bully.
Talking about the latter - the "ban" is seemingly continuing to unravel faster than a stuffed woollen doggie toy owned by one.
Won't be party political though, as SKS also signed up to the Sunak strategy. But it's another high profile Sunakian promise, like boats'n'inflation.
You are weirdly keen for this ban not to happen. Consistently so
I suggest you go away and watch the video of Ian Price being eaten alive in Staffordshire two days ago. Seriously. Everyone needs to watch it, to know what we are dealing with. It is extremely disturbing - as bad as an ISIS or Cartel video - and it’s in a garden in Middle England
I won’t link directly to it but it’s now so viral a Twitter search of “ian price video” will get you straight there
Be warned
Once you’ve seen it you will realise there is no choice, these animals are so big, dangerous and aggressive they need to be banned immediately. As @williamglenn said last night, the question isn’t “whether a ban will work” it’s whether the government can afford to wait til the end of the year
Soon enough there will be one of these videos involving a child
People can be absurdly sentimental about animals, especially in this country.
Once @Carnyx has watched the Ian Price video he can look at this. The bloodline of half the XL Bullies in the UK
It doesn't alter the fact that a lot of people will sympathise more with the bully dogs, than the people who fall victim to them. There'll be heart-rending tales of poor Satan, who would never hurt a fly, having to be put to sleep.
I met some of these people, who were donors to Wood Green Animal Shelters, when I worked there.
I'd ban multiple breeds, and bring back dog licencing.
However, I suspect I wouldn't get re-elected.
You have to remember that it's a bit like Covid restrictions. People think, "if they can come for my dog, what will they come for next?"
Similarly ULEZ and LTNs
Part of the toxicity of Populism is its campaign against trust in institutions, and that is the cycle that encourages such paranoia.
I note though that Sunak fails at Populism. He cannot project the anti-establishment views that Johnson or Corbyn mastered. Whoever wins the next GE it won't be a Populist.
The problem with trust in institutions is:
Iraq has WMDs The banks are safe The financial statements of X are a 'true and fair view' Immigration from Eastern Europe will only be 5,000 per year Stafford hospital is safe Nothing is happening in Rotherham The metropolitan police are honest Elections in Tower Hamlets are fair University tuition fees will not be raised Antiquities at the British Museum are secure Th Post Office computer system works
With multiple examples in some categories and doubtless plenty of other examples I've forgotten.
How many PB articles have we had from Cyclefree - who is certainly not a 'populist' - ripping apart, deservedly so, a 'revered institution'.
Yes, I think this is a relevant criticism. Too often, trust is portrayed something the little people should give "us", whereas "we" of course know better and get to take the cynical strategic view.
I concur with the OLB potential LAB 340 seats outcome.
This is based on me using the following non scientific approach:
No one likes CON or Rishi anymore
There is no real enthusiasm for Keir or LAB
But the first factor significantly outweighs the second for an electorate to reluctantly give LAB an 8% lead at the GE which will convert into around 340 seats
Another way of looking at it...
340 Labour and 100ish others (40 SNP, 40 LD, 20 NI) leaves 210 Conservatives. So the big two almost, but not quite, swapping scores.
If you offered that to thoughtful members of the blue team, I reckon they'd bite your arm off faster than an XL Bully.
Talking about the latter - the "ban" is seemingly continuing to unravel faster than a stuffed woollen doggie toy owned by one.
Won't be party political though, as SKS also signed up to the Sunak strategy. But it's another high profile Sunakian promise, like boats'n'inflation.
You are weirdly keen for this ban not to happen. Consistently so
I suggest you go away and watch the video of Ian Price being eaten alive in Staffordshire two days ago. Seriously. Everyone needs to watch it, to know what we are dealing with. It is extremely disturbing - as bad as an ISIS or Cartel video - and it’s in a garden in Middle England
I won’t link directly to it but it’s now so viral a Twitter search of “ian price video” will get you straight there
Be warned
Once you’ve seen it you will realise there is no choice, these animals are so big, dangerous and aggressive they need to be banned immediately. As @williamglenn said last night, the question isn’t “whether a ban will work” it’s whether the government can afford to wait til the end of the year
Soon enough there will be one of these videos involving a child
People can be absurdly sentimental about animals, especially in this country.
Once @Carnyx has watched the Ian Price video he can look at this. The bloodline of half the XL Bullies in the UK
It doesn't alter the fact that a lot of people will sympathise more with the bully dogs, than the people who fall victim to them. There'll be heart-rending tales of poor Satan, who would never hurt a fly, having to be put to sleep.
I met some of these people, who were donors to Wood Green Animal Shelters, when I worked there.
I'd ban multiple breeds, and bring back dog licencing.
However, I suspect I wouldn't get re-elected.
You have to remember that it's a bit like Covid restrictions. People think, "if they can come for my dog, what will they come for next?"
Similarly ULEZ and LTNs
Part of the toxicity of Populism is its campaign against trust in institutions, and that is the cycle that encourages such paranoia.
I note though that Sunak fails at Populism. He cannot project the anti-establishment views that Johnson or Corbyn mastered. Whoever wins the next GE it won't be a Populist.
The problem with trust in institutions is:
Iraq has WMDs The banks are safe The financial statements of X are a 'true and fair view' Immigration from Eastern Europe will only be 5,000 per year Stafford hospital is safe Nothing is happening in Rotherham The metropolitan police are honest Elections in Tower Hamlets are fair University tuition fees will not be raised Antiquities at the British Museum are secure Th Post Office computer system works
With multiple examples in some categories and doubtless plenty of other examples I've forgotten.
How many PB articles have we had from Cyclefree - who is certainly not a 'populist' - ripping apart, deservedly so, a 'revered institution'.
And of course institutions can be run badly and fail. No one denies that.
The Populist midset is then to extrapolate to other aspects. For example from Lockdowns were overdone and over strict (a reasonable position) to that the government deliberately imposed Lockdowns as part of a Great Reset, and that because the government advocates vaccines they must be a way of mass poisoning the people for profit.
I didn’t realise @OnlyLivingBoy had this natural story-telling talent
Translation: I can't understand that formula even with my IQ of 130.
143.7
It is rather a lot of maths for first thing on a Sunday. Nonetheless congrats to @OnlyLivingBoy on his debut, it’s good that this site can offer detailed mathematical analysis
And to think you've wasted that genius on, checks... travel writing.
I know. To think, I could have been a banker or a politician or a lawyer, instead I am forced to wander the lonely world, looking at things like rivers and stuff
Bonjour!
Where's this ?
It isn't the same charming French-Swiss border region that I also passed through this summer by train, is it ?
No, it’s the Gorge du Tarn in Lozere. A somewhat neglected corner of France. Amazingly
Aha. So it's actually that far from where I was, as I meant the French-Italian border region instead, east of Lyon. There are some similarities in the landscape, despite you being in the South-Central department.
That looks gorgeous, and I recommend some of the towns and landscapes I passed, too, from the look of them, such as the beautifully Proustishly named Pont de Beauvoisins. There's still so many relatively untouched beautiful regions of France.
It’s actually nowhere near Italy. It’s the last bit of northern France where it is really southern France. The moors of aubrac, the gorges du Tarn, the Causses and the Cevennes
It’s a startling change as you drive south of the Causses - suddenly it’s all ochre tiles and olive trees
So its part of southern France which you think looks like northern France ?
My first reaction at looking at that picture was that it was southern France.
I concur with the OLB potential LAB 340 seats outcome.
This is based on me using the following non scientific approach:
No one likes CON or Rishi anymore
There is no real enthusiasm for Keir or LAB
But the first factor significantly outweighs the second for an electorate to reluctantly give LAB an 8% lead at the GE which will convert into around 340 seats
Another way of looking at it...
340 Labour and 100ish others (40 SNP, 40 LD, 20 NI) leaves 210 Conservatives. So the big two almost, but not quite, swapping scores.
If you offered that to thoughtful members of the blue team, I reckon they'd bite your arm off faster than an XL Bully.
Talking about the latter - the "ban" is seemingly continuing to unravel faster than a stuffed woollen doggie toy owned by one.
Won't be party political though, as SKS also signed up to the Sunak strategy. But it's another high profile Sunakian promise, like boats'n'inflation.
You are weirdly keen for this ban not to happen. Consistently so
I suggest you go away and watch the video of Ian Price being eaten alive in Staffordshire two days ago. Seriously. Everyone needs to watch it, to know what we are dealing with. It is extremely disturbing - as bad as an ISIS or Cartel video - and it’s in a garden in Middle England
I won’t link directly to it but it’s now so viral a Twitter search of “ian price video” will get you straight there
Be warned
Once you’ve seen it you will realise there is no choice, these animals are so big, dangerous and aggressive they need to be banned immediately. As @williamglenn said last night, the question isn’t “whether a ban will work” it’s whether the government can afford to wait til the end of the year
Soon enough there will be one of these videos involving a child
People can be absurdly sentimental about animals, especially in this country.
Once @Carnyx has watched the Ian Price video he can look at this. The bloodline of half the XL Bullies in the UK
Doesn't surprise me, that inbreeding. But where does that take us in terms of practical and legal politics? It doesn't do much to define the breed, except insofar as tdhe descendants are going to be XL Bullies or crosses thereof in common understanding. But then the dogs won't be telling you their pedigrees like an ancestry.com enthusiast.
Edit: and then we have the other half.
Thought some folk would be in favour of a selective, inbred bloodline.
The comparison did occur to me, but I thought better of it. It would be unfair!
I didn’t realise @OnlyLivingBoy had this natural story-telling talent
Translation: I can't understand that formula even with my IQ of 130.
143.7
It is rather a lot of maths for first thing on a Sunday. Nonetheless congrats to @OnlyLivingBoy on his debut, it’s good that this site can offer detailed mathematical analysis
170, if we're into pointless boasts - I did it to join Mensa when I was 18 on the theory that I'd meet lots of sparky clever girls. I did meet one, but the snag was that even if I was bright I was painfully shy. When I saw her off to the train I tried clumsily to kiss her, and she collapsed in laughter. Moral - solving mathematical puzzles doesn't, in itself, make you God's gift to women. (But maybe Leon is a counter-example to that?)
More seriously - impressive article. Like some of the other comments, though, I'm not convinced that leader rating is that decisive these days. People have by and large decided that they want someone who is Not Scary and Not the Tories, and beyond that, they're not too bothered.
I didn’t realise @OnlyLivingBoy had this natural story-telling talent
Translation: I can't understand that formula even with my IQ of 130.
143.7
It is rather a lot of maths for first thing on a Sunday. Nonetheless congrats to @OnlyLivingBoy on his debut, it’s good that this site can offer detailed mathematical analysis
If you really think IQ can be measured to the tenth of a point, that is rather revealing.
I once took an IQ test that put me in the 160s, and then another that put me in the 140s.
It's all crap.
Yes, this was post was partially motivated by wanting to humblebrag at how high my IQ score is. But sincerely also to tell you that I think it's crap. And variable. And only measures a narrow, abstract ability. Put me in the kitchen and ask me to follow some basic recipe and use that to measure my IQ and I'm probably down in the low 70s. I am a genius and an idiot, depending on the test. So is almost everyone else.
I agree with this completely (indeed same range of numbers on tests) but will swap the kitchen scenario around.
Put me in a kitchen and give me a recipe to follow and I can do that just fine. With a recipe cooking is little different to chemistry, just do the measurements and follow the processes.
Put me in a kitchen without a recipe though and I'll be pretty lost.
That is just training though like learning the mother sauces and once you have that basic training you can just make stuff up.
I'm no cook, but I can do a lot of savoury dishes on the fly, less so with deserts where I am less confident about doing something on the fly, but will still have a go. I don't know where to start with fish, but that is because (sadly) I am not a fan.
Countries don't tend to elect paranoid populist when things are going great. GDP may well drop but you'd need to somehow compare like with like: the countries in a mess that voted non-populist.
I think that's right.
And I'd also like to be very careful about any definition of "populist". I would suggest the biggest danger is personal idolatry / demagogery, where instead of loyalty being to the State and to its institutions, it is instead to the Leader.
Then governance shrinks to a local optima: what is best for the glorious leader, rather than what is best for the country as a whole.
So, I would argue that Hitler - where loyalty was personally to the Fuhrer - is a classic example. And I think you could make the case that Trump got very close to this at the end of his term.
Likewise, I think you can make the case that it's not true at all for Meloni in Italy, or Lula in Brazil. They may pursue populist policies, but they continue to be constrained by the ballot box.
I didn’t realise @OnlyLivingBoy had this natural story-telling talent
Translation: I can't understand that formula even with my IQ of 130.
143.7
It is rather a lot of maths for first thing on a Sunday. Nonetheless congrats to @OnlyLivingBoy on his debut, it’s good that this site can offer detailed mathematical analysis
Always be wary of people who can quote you their IQ. I knew mine 43 years ago when I had to take a test for a job. I have no idea what it was now.
I last took an IQ test decades ago. Since then, I've aged, and had meningitis, which sodded about with my short-term memory. I wish I'd done IQ tests and memory tests right before the illness, to see how there were affected, and to see how far it has recovered.
I have little doubt that my 'official' IQ has probably decreased as I've aged, if only because I used to love those sorts of puzzles and questions as a kid, and I don't do them now. But my amount of general knowledge, and experience, has increased.
I didn’t realise @OnlyLivingBoy had this natural story-telling talent
Translation: I can't understand that formula even with my IQ of 130.
143.7
It is rather a lot of maths for first thing on a Sunday. Nonetheless congrats to @OnlyLivingBoy on his debut, it’s good that this site can offer detailed mathematical analysis
If you really think IQ can be measured to the tenth of a point, that is rather revealing.
If you really can’t see a joke when it is says “this is obviously a joke” then….
Sadly, my IQ is insufficient to allow me to divine when you are joking about one of your pet obsessions.
I concur with the OLB potential LAB 340 seats outcome.
This is based on me using the following non scientific approach:
No one likes CON or Rishi anymore
There is no real enthusiasm for Keir or LAB
But the first factor significantly outweighs the second for an electorate to reluctantly give LAB an 8% lead at the GE which will convert into around 340 seats
Another way of looking at it...
340 Labour and 100ish others (40 SNP, 40 LD, 20 NI) leaves 210 Conservatives. So the big two almost, but not quite, swapping scores.
If you offered that to thoughtful members of the blue team, I reckon they'd bite your arm off faster than an XL Bully.
Talking about the latter - the "ban" is seemingly continuing to unravel faster than a stuffed woollen doggie toy owned by one.
Won't be party political though, as SKS also signed up to the Sunak strategy. But it's another high profile Sunakian promise, like boats'n'inflation.
You are weirdly keen for this ban not to happen. Consistently so
I suggest you go away and watch the video of Ian Price being eaten alive in Staffordshire two days ago. Seriously. Everyone needs to watch it, to know what we are dealing with. It is extremely disturbing - as bad as an ISIS or Cartel video - and it’s in a garden in Middle England
I won’t link directly to it but it’s now so viral a Twitter search of “ian price video” will get you straight there
Be warned
Once you’ve seen it you will realise there is no choice, these animals are so big, dangerous and aggressive they need to be banned immediately. As @williamglenn said last night, the question isn’t “whether a ban will work” it’s whether the government can afford to wait til the end of the year
Soon enough there will be one of these videos involving a child
People can be absurdly sentimental about animals, especially in this country.
Once @Carnyx has watched the Ian Price video he can look at this. The bloodline of half the XL Bullies in the UK
Doesn't surprise me, that inbreeding. But where does that take us in terms of practical and legal politics? It doesn't do much to define the breed, except insofar as tdhe descendants are going to be XL Bullies or crosses thereof in common understanding. But then the dogs won't be telling you their pedigrees like an ancestry.com enthusiast.
Edit: and then we have the other half.
Thought some folk would be in favour of a selective, inbred bloodline.
The comparison did occur to me, but I thought better of it. It would be unfair!
Comparing the weird British attitude (at both extremes) to dogs to the weird British attitude (at both extremes) to Royals has some value I feel.
I didn’t realise @OnlyLivingBoy had this natural story-telling talent
Translation: I can't understand that formula even with my IQ of 130.
143.7
It is rather a lot of maths for first thing on a Sunday. Nonetheless congrats to @OnlyLivingBoy on his debut, it’s good that this site can offer detailed mathematical analysis
And to think you've wasted that genius on, checks... travel writing.
I know. To think, I could have been a banker or a politician or a lawyer, instead I am forced to wander the lonely world, looking at things like rivers and stuff
Bonjour!
Where's this ?
It isn't the same charming French-Swiss border region that I also passed through this summer by train, is it ?
No, it’s the Gorge du Tarn in Lozere. A somewhat neglected corner of France. Amazingly
Aha. So it's actually that far from where I was, as I meant the French-Italian border region instead, east of Lyon. There are some similarities in the landscape, despite you being in the South-Central department.
That looks gorgeous, and I recommend some of the towns and landscapes I passed, too, from the look of them, such as the beautifully Proustishly named Pont de Beauvoisins. There's still so many relatively untouched beautiful regions of France.
It’s actually nowhere near Italy. It’s the last bit of northern France where it is really southern France. The moors of aubrac, the gorges du Tarn, the Causses and the Cevennes
It’s a startling change as you drive south of the Causses - suddenly it’s all ochre tiles and olive trees
So its part of southern France which you think looks like northern France ?
My first reaction at looking at that picture was that it was southern France.
It has a 'Jean de Florette' look to me.
Apologies. Misleading photo. That’s where I am now. That’s my view from my little cottage
It is indeed southern France. Languedoc. I drove down from lozere on Friday
Lozere is spectacular in places and it does feel tantalisingly torn between north and south
I concur with the OLB potential LAB 340 seats outcome.
This is based on me using the following non scientific approach:
No one likes CON or Rishi anymore
There is no real enthusiasm for Keir or LAB
But the first factor significantly outweighs the second for an electorate to reluctantly give LAB an 8% lead at the GE which will convert into around 340 seats
Another way of looking at it...
340 Labour and 100ish others (40 SNP, 40 LD, 20 NI) leaves 210 Conservatives. So the big two almost, but not quite, swapping scores.
If you offered that to thoughtful members of the blue team, I reckon they'd bite your arm off faster than an XL Bully.
Talking about the latter - the "ban" is seemingly continuing to unravel faster than a stuffed woollen doggie toy owned by one.
Won't be party political though, as SKS also signed up to the Sunak strategy. But it's another high profile Sunakian promise, like boats'n'inflation.
You are weirdly keen for this ban not to happen. Consistently so
I suggest you go away and watch the video of Ian Price being eaten alive in Staffordshire two days ago. Seriously. Everyone needs to watch it, to know what we are dealing with. It is extremely disturbing - as bad as an ISIS or Cartel video - and it’s in a garden in Middle England
I won’t link directly to it but it’s now so viral a Twitter search of “ian price video” will get you straight there
Be warned
Once you’ve seen it you will realise there is no choice, these animals are so big, dangerous and aggressive they need to be banned immediately. As @williamglenn said last night, the question isn’t “whether a ban will work” it’s whether the government can afford to wait til the end of the year
Soon enough there will be one of these videos involving a child
People can be absurdly sentimental about animals, especially in this country.
Once @Carnyx has watched the Ian Price video he can look at this. The bloodline of half the XL Bullies in the UK
It doesn't alter the fact that a lot of people will sympathise more with the bully dogs, than the people who fall victim to them. There'll be heart-rending tales of poor Satan, who would never hurt a fly, having to be put to sleep.
I met some of these people, who were donors to Wood Green Animal Shelters, when I worked there.
I'd ban multiple breeds, and bring back dog licencing.
However, I suspect I wouldn't get re-elected.
You have to remember that it's a bit like Covid restrictions. People think, "if they can come for my dog, what will they come for next?"
The Navy tested mine when I was 22 and it was 100. I was the best bridge player on every ship I ever served on by some margin so who knows what the fuck it all means.
I did have a CO who was fond of saying "Brains are Bullshit", maybe he was onto something.
I didn’t realise @OnlyLivingBoy had this natural story-telling talent
Translation: I can't understand that formula even with my IQ of 130.
143.7
It is rather a lot of maths for first thing on a Sunday. Nonetheless congrats to @OnlyLivingBoy on his debut, it’s good that this site can offer detailed mathematical analysis
If you really think IQ can be measured to the tenth of a point, that is rather revealing.
If you really can’t see a joke when it is says “this is obviously a joke” then….
Sadly, my IQ is insufficient to allow me to divine when you are joking about one of your pet obsessions.
I’m not obsessed with IQ per se, I AM intrigued by the cognitive dissonance required to dismiss it entirely as a metric. IQ is a flawed measurement but it is still useful, and it definitely measures something - speed of reasoning? - that is remarkably helpful in industrialised technological societies.
Someone with an IQ of 130 will be obviously “smarter” than someone with an IQ of 70. Likewise, barring exceptional sporting or artistic talent in the low IQ person, the high IQ person will nearly always do better in life - earn more, meet a partner, buy a house, have a career
The fact that IQ tests sometimes give uncomfortable results is not a reason to dismiss them entirely, however much we might wish it so
Interesting thread, but I think the statistical methodology is questionable, for a number of reasons. Eleven is an extremely small sample, and I would use VI not leader approval, as the former is a better predictor of the general election result. In addition, there is likely to be some omitted variable bias, since many have observed that voters tend to punish parties that have been in power for a decade or more. Adding a dummy variable for the number of elections previously won could affect the results significantly. Fourthly, there is very likely to be multicollinearity between the two explanatory variables. Multicollinearity invalidates regression analysis, and it is likely to be a particular problem this time. The opposition leader's popularity, and the unpopularity of the current government, could affect their score last time, particularly if they are the same people. A standard part of regression analysis is to test for this, e.g. using VIFs. Finally, I don't agree that a crucial battleground like Scotland should be omitted since so much of Labour's hopes rest there. Since it performed much more like the rest of the UK pre-2015, perhaps a dummy variable should be included?
I think the best way to test for any "mountain to climb" effect is to look at a seat level, rather than nationally. Is the swing towards Labour greater in seats it already holds? If so, then holding more seats will be an advantage. This also has the merit of having a more than sufficient sample size. I vaguely recall some analysis that showed a small effect for seats held for the first time, but no effect beyond that. But at some point I might have a go myself.
Anyway, it is an interesting and important question, and, despite disagreeing with the methodology, I think the conclusion is highly plausible.
Noted. Taking your points in order
Eleven is an extremely small sample. Yes, but you use what you have.
I would use VI not leader approval. Good point. Pause. Go on then
There is likely to be some omitted variable bias. Well yes, but you can say that about any model. Rules-of-thumb are good enough for government work
There is very likely to be multicollinearity between the two explanatory variables. I thought about this, but I'm not sure. Both between the variables (L vs S) and within them (S's internal components*1) appear to be independent-ish.
I don't agree that a crucial battleground like Scotland should be omitted. Agreed, but within its boundaries @OnlyLivingBoy 's model is good enough
In short (too late - Ed), @OnlyLivingBoy has distilled a large, complex situation down to a more manageable subset and created a simple model that PBers can understand. Each step requires a bit of teeth-gritting but simple robust models is what PB needs, and I think this is the first since @isam 's gross satisfaction model.
*1 Ouch - this bit is debatable.
I particularly like punting Scotland into the "too complicated" basket - add your own number.
Follows the best traditions of economic modelling.
I didn’t realise @OnlyLivingBoy had this natural story-telling talent
Translation: I can't understand that formula even with my IQ of 130.
143.7
It is rather a lot of maths for first thing on a Sunday. Nonetheless congrats to @OnlyLivingBoy on his debut, it’s good that this site can offer detailed mathematical analysis
If you really think IQ can be measured to the tenth of a point, that is rather revealing.
If you really can’t see a joke when it is says “this is obviously a joke” then….
Sadly, my IQ is insufficient to allow me to divine when you are joking about one of your pet obsessions.
I’m not obsessed with IQ per se, I AM intrigued by the cognitive dissonance required to dismiss it entirely as a metric. IQ is a flawed measurement but it is still useful, and it definitely measures something - speed of reasoning? - that is remarkably helpful in industrialised technological societies.
Someone with an IQ of 130 will be obviously “smarter” than someone with an IQ of 70. Likewise, barring exceptional sporting or artistic talent in the low IQ person, the high IQ person will nearly always do better in life - earn more, meet a partner, buy a house, have a career
The fact that IQ tests sometimes give uncomfortable results is not a reason to dismiss them entirely, however much we might wish it so
IQ is a series of tests that individually do a reasonable job of measuring cognitive ability in various different areas.
At the same time, the weighting between - say - spatial and verbal reasoning is entirely subjective. Who's to say one should be a 12, and the other a 20? Why not the other way around? And why is there no measure of the ability to pick up new concepts quickly? Or indeed, anything about short term memory capacity, which some other tests rate as a very important part of cognition.
It is also provably the case that with a little training on tests, you can move your baseline by 20 points or so. Which tells you that at least a chunk of what IQ measures is learned, rather than innate.
So, I don't think one should throw them away. But I wouldn't imbue them with some magical power to divine the intelligence of a person. (I would also point out that once you're about one standard deviation away from the mean, they become increasingly poor at predicting income.)
I didn’t realise @OnlyLivingBoy had this natural story-telling talent
Translation: I can't understand that formula even with my IQ of 130.
143.7
It is rather a lot of maths for first thing on a Sunday. Nonetheless congrats to @OnlyLivingBoy on his debut, it’s good that this site can offer detailed mathematical analysis
If you really think IQ can be measured to the tenth of a point, that is rather revealing.
If you really can’t see a joke when it is says “this is obviously a joke” then….
Sadly, my IQ is insufficient to allow me to divine when you are joking about one of your pet obsessions.
I’m not obsessed with IQ per se, I AM intrigued by the cognitive dissonance required to dismiss it entirely as a metric. IQ is a flawed measurement but it is still useful, and it definitely measures something - speed of reasoning? - that is remarkably helpful in industrialised technological societies.
Someone with an IQ of 130 will be obviously “smarter” than someone with an IQ of 70. Likewise, barring exceptional sporting or artistic talent in the low IQ person, the high IQ person will nearly always do better in life - earn more, meet a partner, buy a house, have a career
The fact that IQ tests sometimes give uncomfortable results is not a reason to dismiss them entirely, however much we might wish it so
It does measure something, but its also highly subjective and subject to change. The idea that IQ is fixed and something we are born with is completely unsupported by the evidence.
Which is a good thing, because if it wasn't then we'd be lumped with half the country being relative idiots and unable to change that.
Good parenting, good education, a growth mindset and learning the challenges and feeling comfortable with them all help build people's confidence and can raise their measured "IQ".
I concur with the OLB potential LAB 340 seats outcome.
This is based on me using the following non scientific approach:
No one likes CON or Rishi anymore
There is no real enthusiasm for Keir or LAB
But the first factor significantly outweighs the second for an electorate to reluctantly give LAB an 8% lead at the GE which will convert into around 340 seats
Another way of looking at it...
340 Labour and 100ish others (40 SNP, 40 LD, 20 NI) leaves 210 Conservatives. So the big two almost, but not quite, swapping scores.
If you offered that to thoughtful members of the blue team, I reckon they'd bite your arm off faster than an XL Bully.
Talking about the latter - the "ban" is seemingly continuing to unravel faster than a stuffed woollen doggie toy owned by one.
Won't be party political though, as SKS also signed up to the Sunak strategy. But it's another high profile Sunakian promise, like boats'n'inflation.
You are weirdly keen for this ban not to happen. Consistently so
I suggest you go away and watch the video of Ian Price being eaten alive in Staffordshire two days ago. Seriously. Everyone needs to watch it, to know what we are dealing with. It is extremely disturbing - as bad as an ISIS or Cartel video - and it’s in a garden in Middle England
I won’t link directly to it but it’s now so viral a Twitter search of “ian price video” will get you straight there
Be warned
Once you’ve seen it you will realise there is no choice, these animals are so big, dangerous and aggressive they need to be banned immediately. As @williamglenn said last night, the question isn’t “whether a ban will work” it’s whether the government can afford to wait til the end of the year
Soon enough there will be one of these videos involving a child
People can be absurdly sentimental about animals, especially in this country.
Once @Carnyx has watched the Ian Price video he can look at this. The bloodline of half the XL Bullies in the UK
It doesn't alter the fact that a lot of people will sympathise more with the bully dogs, than the people who fall victim to them. There'll be heart-rending tales of poor Satan, who would never hurt a fly, having to be put to sleep.
I met some of these people, who were donors to Wood Green Animal Shelters, when I worked there.
I'd ban multiple breeds, and bring back dog licencing.
However, I suspect I wouldn't get re-elected.
You have to remember that it's a bit like Covid restrictions. People think, "if they can come for my dog, what will they come for next?"
Similarly ULEZ and LTNs
Part of the toxicity of Populism is its campaign against trust in institutions, and that is the cycle that encourages such paranoia.
I note though that Sunak fails at Populism. He cannot project the anti-establishment views that Johnson or Corbyn mastered. Whoever wins the next GE it won't be a Populist.
The problem with trust in institutions is:
Iraq has WMDs The banks are safe The financial statements of X are a 'true and fair view' Immigration from Eastern Europe will only be 5,000 per year Stafford hospital is safe Nothing is happening in Rotherham The metropolitan police are honest Elections in Tower Hamlets are fair University tuition fees will not be raised Antiquities at the British Museum are secure Th Post Office computer system works
With multiple examples in some categories and doubtless plenty of other examples I've forgotten.
How many PB articles have we had from Cyclefree - who is certainly not a 'populist' - ripping apart, deservedly so, a 'revered institution'.
And of course institutions can be run badly and fail. No one denies that.
The Populist midset is then to extrapolate to other aspects. For example from Lockdowns were overdone and over strict (a reasonable position) to that the government deliberately imposed Lockdowns as part of a Great Reset, and that because the government advocates vaccines they must be a way of mass poisoning the people for profit.
If the establishment are shown to be wrong about A, S, D and F and especially so if they're shown to be lying or covering up the truth then its inevitable that some people think that the establishment are wrong about Q, W E and R or for those of a different viewpoint wrong about Z, X, C and V.
As you say many of these failings will be caused by general incompetence or levels of venality and hypocrisy.
But the 'big conspiracy' works better as a storyline from the ancient world to Ton Knox novels.
I didn’t realise @OnlyLivingBoy had this natural story-telling talent
Translation: I can't understand that formula even with my IQ of 130.
143.7
It is rather a lot of maths for first thing on a Sunday. Nonetheless congrats to @OnlyLivingBoy on his debut, it’s good that this site can offer detailed mathematical analysis
If you really think IQ can be measured to the tenth of a point, that is rather revealing.
If you really can’t see a joke when it is says “this is obviously a joke” then….
Sadly, my IQ is insufficient to allow me to divine when you are joking about one of your pet obsessions.
I’m not obsessed with IQ per se, I AM intrigued by the cognitive dissonance required to dismiss it entirely as a metric. IQ is a flawed measurement but it is still useful, and it definitely measures something - speed of reasoning? - that is remarkably helpful in industrialised technological societies.
Someone with an IQ of 130 will be obviously “smarter” than someone with an IQ of 70. Likewise, barring exceptional sporting or artistic talent in the low IQ person, the high IQ person will nearly always do better in life - earn more, meet a partner, buy a house, have a career
The fact that IQ tests sometimes give uncomfortable results is not a reason to dismiss them entirely, however much we might wish it so
IQ is a series of tests that individually do a reasonable job of measuring cognitive ability in various different areas.
At the same time, the weighting between - say - spatial and verbal reasoning is entirely subjective.
And it is provably the case that with a little training on tests, you can move your baseline by 20 points or so. Which tells you that at least a chunk of what IQ measures is learned, rather than innate.
Many moons ago in a discussion with hyufd I highlighted some of the training you could do/give to boost your IQ score. There are some very simple techniques.
I didn’t realise @OnlyLivingBoy had this natural story-telling talent
Translation: I can't understand that formula even with my IQ of 130.
143.7
It is rather a lot of maths for first thing on a Sunday. Nonetheless congrats to @OnlyLivingBoy on his debut, it’s good that this site can offer detailed mathematical analysis
If you really think IQ can be measured to the tenth of a point, that is rather revealing.
If you really can’t see a joke when it is says “this is obviously a joke” then….
Sadly, my IQ is insufficient to allow me to divine when you are joking about one of your pet obsessions.
I’m not obsessed with IQ per se, I AM intrigued by the cognitive dissonance required to dismiss it entirely as a metric. IQ is a flawed measurement but it is still useful, and it definitely measures something - speed of reasoning? - that is remarkably helpful in industrialised technological societies.
Someone with an IQ of 130 will be obviously “smarter” than someone with an IQ of 70. Likewise, barring exceptional sporting or artistic talent in the low IQ person, the high IQ person will nearly always do better in life - earn more, meet a partner, buy a house, have a career
The fact that IQ tests sometimes give uncomfortable results is not a reason to dismiss them entirely, however much we might wish it so
IQ is a series of tests that individually do a reasonable job of measuring cognitive ability in various different areas.
At the same time, the weighting between - say - spatial and verbal reasoning is entirely subjective.
And it is provably the case that with a little training on tests, you can move your baseline by 20 points or so. Which tells you that at least a chunk of what IQ measures is learned, rather than innate.
Many moons ago in a discussion with hyufd I highlighted some of the training you could do/give to boost your IQ score. There are some very simple techniques.
Practice doesn't make perfect, but practice does make better.
I didn’t realise @OnlyLivingBoy had this natural story-telling talent
Translation: I can't understand that formula even with my IQ of 130.
143.7
It is rather a lot of maths for first thing on a Sunday. Nonetheless congrats to @OnlyLivingBoy on his debut, it’s good that this site can offer detailed mathematical analysis
If you really think IQ can be measured to the tenth of a point, that is rather revealing.
If you really can’t see a joke when it is says “this is obviously a joke” then….
Sadly, my IQ is insufficient to allow me to divine when you are joking about one of your pet obsessions.
I’m not obsessed with IQ per se, I AM intrigued by the cognitive dissonance required to dismiss it entirely as a metric. IQ is a flawed measurement but it is still useful, and it definitely measures something - speed of reasoning? - that is remarkably helpful in industrialised technological societies.
Someone with an IQ of 130 will be obviously “smarter” than someone with an IQ of 70. Likewise, barring exceptional sporting or artistic talent in the low IQ person, the high IQ person will nearly always do better in life - earn more, meet a partner, buy a house, have a career
The fact that IQ tests sometimes give uncomfortable results is not a reason to dismiss them entirely, however much we might wish it so
Presumably you do know your IQ (even though you said you were jesting) because you have quoted many times that you have a high IQ? If you don't know your IQ, how can you be sure that you are not just a deluded idiot?
I didn’t realise @OnlyLivingBoy had this natural story-telling talent
Translation: I can't understand that formula even with my IQ of 130.
143.7
It is rather a lot of maths for first thing on a Sunday. Nonetheless congrats to @OnlyLivingBoy on his debut, it’s good that this site can offer detailed mathematical analysis
If you really think IQ can be measured to the tenth of a point, that is rather revealing.
If you really can’t see a joke when it is says “this is obviously a joke” then….
Sadly, my IQ is insufficient to allow me to divine when you are joking about one of your pet obsessions.
I’m not obsessed with IQ per se, I AM intrigued by the cognitive dissonance required to dismiss it entirely as a metric. IQ is a flawed measurement but it is still useful, and it definitely measures something - speed of reasoning? - that is remarkably helpful in industrialised technological societies.
Someone with an IQ of 130 will be obviously “smarter” than someone with an IQ of 70. Likewise, barring exceptional sporting or artistic talent in the low IQ person, the high IQ person will nearly always do better in life - earn more, meet a partner, buy a house, have a career
The fact that IQ tests sometimes give uncomfortable results is not a reason to dismiss them entirely, however much we might wish it so
IQ is a series of tests that individually do a reasonable job of measuring cognitive ability in various different areas.
At the same time, the weighting between - say - spatial and verbal reasoning is entirely subjective.
And it is provably the case that with a little training on tests, you can move your baseline by 20 points or so. Which tells you that at least a chunk of what IQ measures is learned, rather than innate.
Many moons ago in a discussion with hyufd I highlighted some of the training you could do/give to boost your IQ score. There are some very simple techniques.
Quite. When I was young I had an IQ test. Some of the things there were of types I had never encountered before. Even some prac tice would have helped enormously.
It didn't affect my schooling, but I can't help thinking: they used to divide childrten into grammar sheep and tech modern goats on that basis??
I didn’t realise @OnlyLivingBoy had this natural story-telling talent
Translation: I can't understand that formula even with my IQ of 130.
143.7
It is rather a lot of maths for first thing on a Sunday. Nonetheless congrats to @OnlyLivingBoy on his debut, it’s good that this site can offer detailed mathematical analysis
If you really think IQ can be measured to the tenth of a point, that is rather revealing.
If you really can’t see a joke when it is says “this is obviously a joke” then….
Sadly, my IQ is insufficient to allow me to divine when you are joking about one of your pet obsessions.
I’m not obsessed with IQ per se, I AM intrigued by the cognitive dissonance required to dismiss it entirely as a metric. IQ is a flawed measurement but it is still useful, and it definitely measures something - speed of reasoning? - that is remarkably helpful in industrialised technological societies.
Someone with an IQ of 130 will be obviously “smarter” than someone with an IQ of 70. Likewise, barring exceptional sporting or artistic talent in the low IQ person, the high IQ person will nearly always do better in life - earn more, meet a partner, buy a house, have a career
The fact that IQ tests sometimes give uncomfortable results is not a reason to dismiss them entirely, however much we might wish it so
IQ is a series of tests that individually do a reasonable job of measuring cognitive ability in various different areas.
At the same time, the weighting between - say - spatial and verbal reasoning is entirely subjective. Who's to say one should be a 12, and the other a 20? Why not the other way around? And why is there no measure of the ability to pick up new concepts quickly? Or indeed, anything about short term memory capacity, which some other tests rate as a very important part of cognition.
It is also provably the case that with a little training on tests, you can move your baseline by 20 points or so. Which tells you that at least a chunk of what IQ measures is learned, rather than innate.
So, I don't think one should throw them away. But I wouldn't imbue them with some magical power to divine the intelligence of a person. (I would also point out that once you're about one standard deviation away from the mean, they become increasingly poor at predicting income.)
And which was I spent the top year of primary school on, the school being keen to get the maximum number through the 11+!
I didn’t realise @OnlyLivingBoy had this natural story-telling talent
Translation: I can't understand that formula even with my IQ of 130.
143.7
It is rather a lot of maths for first thing on a Sunday. Nonetheless congrats to @OnlyLivingBoy on his debut, it’s good that this site can offer detailed mathematical analysis
If you really think IQ can be measured to the tenth of a point, that is rather revealing.
If you really can’t see a joke when it is says “this is obviously a joke” then….
Sadly, my IQ is insufficient to allow me to divine when you are joking about one of your pet obsessions.
I’m not obsessed with IQ per se, I AM intrigued by the cognitive dissonance required to dismiss it entirely as a metric. IQ is a flawed measurement but it is still useful, and it definitely measures something - speed of reasoning? - that is remarkably helpful in industrialised technological societies.
Someone with an IQ of 130 will be obviously “smarter” than someone with an IQ of 70. Likewise, barring exceptional sporting or artistic talent in the low IQ person, the high IQ person will nearly always do better in life - earn more, meet a partner, buy a house, have a career
The fact that IQ tests sometimes give uncomfortable results is not a reason to dismiss them entirely, however much we might wish it so
I concur with the OLB potential LAB 340 seats outcome.
This is based on me using the following non scientific approach:
No one likes CON or Rishi anymore
There is no real enthusiasm for Keir or LAB
But the first factor significantly outweighs the second for an electorate to reluctantly give LAB an 8% lead at the GE which will convert into around 340 seats
Another way of looking at it...
340 Labour and 100ish others (40 SNP, 40 LD, 20 NI) leaves 210 Conservatives. So the big two almost, but not quite, swapping scores.
If you offered that to thoughtful members of the blue team, I reckon they'd bite your arm off faster than an XL Bully.
Talking about the latter - the "ban" is seemingly continuing to unravel faster than a stuffed woollen doggie toy owned by one.
Won't be party political though, as SKS also signed up to the Sunak strategy. But it's another high profile Sunakian promise, like boats'n'inflation.
You are weirdly keen for this ban not to happen. Consistently so
I suggest you go away and watch the video of Ian Price being eaten alive in Staffordshire two days ago. Seriously. Everyone needs to watch it, to know what we are dealing with. It is extremely disturbing - as bad as an ISIS or Cartel video - and it’s in a garden in Middle England
I won’t link directly to it but it’s now so viral a Twitter search of “ian price video” will get you straight there
Be warned
Once you’ve seen it you will realise there is no choice, these animals are so big, dangerous and aggressive they need to be banned immediately. As @williamglenn said last night, the question isn’t “whether a ban will work” it’s whether the government can afford to wait til the end of the year
Soon enough there will be one of these videos involving a child
People can be absurdly sentimental about animals, especially in this country.
Once @Carnyx has watched the Ian Price video he can look at this. The bloodline of half the XL Bullies in the UK
It doesn't alter the fact that a lot of people will sympathise more with the bully dogs, than the people who fall victim to them. There'll be heart-rending tales of poor Satan, who would never hurt a fly, having to be put to sleep.
I met some of these people, who were donors to Wood Green Animal Shelters, when I worked there.
I know the type, too
Selfish idiots, not very bright, see themselves as nice people because “I’m a dog person!”
I treat people like shit. But I love dogs. Therefore I am lovely. Cat lovers don't seem to have that.
I didn’t realise @OnlyLivingBoy had this natural story-telling talent
Translation: I can't understand that formula even with my IQ of 130.
143.7
It is rather a lot of maths for first thing on a Sunday. Nonetheless congrats to @OnlyLivingBoy on his debut, it’s good that this site can offer detailed mathematical analysis
If you really think IQ can be measured to the tenth of a point, that is rather revealing.
If you really can’t see a joke when it is says “this is obviously a joke” then….
Sadly, my IQ is insufficient to allow me to divine when you are joking about one of your pet obsessions.
I’m not obsessed with IQ per se, I AM intrigued by the cognitive dissonance required to dismiss it entirely as a metric. IQ is a flawed measurement but it is still useful, and it definitely measures something - speed of reasoning? - that is remarkably helpful in industrialised technological societies.
Someone with an IQ of 130 will be obviously “smarter” than someone with an IQ of 70. Likewise, barring exceptional sporting or artistic talent in the low IQ person, the high IQ person will nearly always do better in life - earn more, meet a partner, buy a house, have a career
The fact that IQ tests sometimes give uncomfortable results is not a reason to dismiss them entirely, however much we might wish it so
Presumably you do know your IQ (even though you said you were jesting) because you have quoted many times that you have a high IQ? If you don't know your IQ, how can you be sure that you are not just a deluded idiot?
I didn’t realise @OnlyLivingBoy had this natural story-telling talent
Translation: I can't understand that formula even with my IQ of 130.
143.7
It is rather a lot of maths for first thing on a Sunday. Nonetheless congrats to @OnlyLivingBoy on his debut, it’s good that this site can offer detailed mathematical analysis
If you really think IQ can be measured to the tenth of a point, that is rather revealing.
If you really can’t see a joke when it is says “this is obviously a joke” then….
Sadly, my IQ is insufficient to allow me to divine when you are joking about one of your pet obsessions.
I’m not obsessed with IQ per se, I AM intrigued by the cognitive dissonance required to dismiss it entirely as a metric. IQ is a flawed measurement but it is still useful, and it definitely measures something - speed of reasoning? - that is remarkably helpful in industrialised technological societies.
Someone with an IQ of 130 will be obviously “smarter” than someone with an IQ of 70. Likewise, barring exceptional sporting or artistic talent in the low IQ person, the high IQ person will nearly always do better in life - earn more, meet a partner, buy a house, have a career
The fact that IQ tests sometimes give uncomfortable results is not a reason to dismiss them entirely, however much we might wish it so
IQ is a series of tests that individually do a reasonable job of measuring cognitive ability in various different areas.
At the same time, the weighting between - say - spatial and verbal reasoning is entirely subjective. Who's to say one should be a 12, and the other a 20? Why not the other way around? And why is there no measure of the ability to pick up new concepts quickly? Or indeed, anything about short term memory capacity, which some other tests rate as a very important part of cognition.
It is also provably the case that with a little training on tests, you can move your baseline by 20 points or so. Which tells you that at least a chunk of what IQ measures is learned, rather than innate.
So, I don't think one should throw them away. But I wouldn't imbue them with some magical power to divine the intelligence of a person. (I would also point out that once you're about one standard deviation away from the mean, they become increasingly poor at predicting income.)
It always strikes me how the kind of person who is keenest on rubbishing IQ tests, suddenly becomes a keen evangelist for IQ tests when they can use a low IQ score to save some poor benighted criminal from the noose
I didn’t realise @OnlyLivingBoy had this natural story-telling talent
Translation: I can't understand that formula even with my IQ of 130.
143.7
It is rather a lot of maths for first thing on a Sunday. Nonetheless congrats to @OnlyLivingBoy on his debut, it’s good that this site can offer detailed mathematical analysis
And to think you've wasted that genius on, checks... travel writing.
I know. To think, I could have been a banker or a politician or a lawyer, instead I am forced to wander the lonely world, looking at things like rivers and stuff
Bonjour!
Where's this ?
It isn't the same charming French-Swiss border region that I also passed through this summer by train, is it ?
No, it’s the Gorge du Tarn in Lozere. A somewhat neglected corner of France. Amazingly
Aha. So it's actually that far from where I was, as I meant the French-Italian border region instead, east of Lyon. There are some similarities in the landscape, despite you being in the South-Central department.
That looks gorgeous, and I recommend some of the towns and landscapes I passed, too, from the look of them, such as the beautifully Proustishly named Pont de Beauvoisins. There's still so many relatively untouched beautiful regions of France.
It’s actually nowhere near Italy. It’s the last bit of northern France where it is really southern France. The moors of aubrac, the gorges du Tarn, the Causses and the Cevennes
It’s a startling change as you drive south of the Causses - suddenly it’s all ochre tiles and olive trees
So its part of southern France which you think looks like northern France ?
My first reaction at looking at that picture was that it was southern France.
It has a 'Jean de Florette' look to me.
Apologies. Misleading photo. That’s where I am now. That’s my view from my little cottage
It is indeed southern France. Languedoc. I drove down from lozere on Friday
Lozere is spectacular in places and it does feel tantalisingly torn between north and south
Notable for having halved in population during the last two centuries:
I didn’t realise @OnlyLivingBoy had this natural story-telling talent
Translation: I can't understand that formula even with my IQ of 130.
143.7
It is rather a lot of maths for first thing on a Sunday. Nonetheless congrats to @OnlyLivingBoy on his debut, it’s good that this site can offer detailed mathematical analysis
If you really think IQ can be measured to the tenth of a point, that is rather revealing.
If you really can’t see a joke when it is says “this is obviously a joke” then….
Sadly, my IQ is insufficient to allow me to divine when you are joking about one of your pet obsessions.
I’m not obsessed with IQ per se, I AM intrigued by the cognitive dissonance required to dismiss it entirely as a metric. IQ is a flawed measurement but it is still useful, and it definitely measures something - speed of reasoning? - that is remarkably helpful in industrialised technological societies.
Someone with an IQ of 130 will be obviously “smarter” than someone with an IQ of 70. Likewise, barring exceptional sporting or artistic talent in the low IQ person, the high IQ person will nearly always do better in life - earn more, meet a partner, buy a house, have a career
The fact that IQ tests sometimes give uncomfortable results is not a reason to dismiss them entirely, however much we might wish it so
IQ is a series of tests that individually do a reasonable job of measuring cognitive ability in various different areas.
At the same time, the weighting between - say - spatial and verbal reasoning is entirely subjective. Who's to say one should be a 12, and the other a 20? Why not the other way around? And why is there no measure of the ability to pick up new concepts quickly? Or indeed, anything about short term memory capacity, which some other tests rate as a very important part of cognition.
It is also provably the case that with a little training on tests, you can move your baseline by 20 points or so. Which tells you that at least a chunk of what IQ measures is learned, rather than innate.
So, I don't think one should throw them away. But I wouldn't imbue them with some magical power to divine the intelligence of a person. (I would also point out that once you're about one standard deviation away from the mean, they become increasingly poor at predicting income.)
BiB: Which is the issue.
Whether someone is 140 or 160 as mine and a few other people's here tests have shown is pretty moot, either way you're 'clever'.
Whether someone is 90 or 110 though, if you take it seriously, is not moot.
But if the 90s are at 90 because of a lack of support, a lack of awareness of the test etc, while the 110s are 110 because they have the support, they have awareness, then what does any of it mean?
I didn’t realise @OnlyLivingBoy had this natural story-telling talent
Translation: I can't understand that formula even with my IQ of 130.
143.7
It is rather a lot of maths for first thing on a Sunday. Nonetheless congrats to @OnlyLivingBoy on his debut, it’s good that this site can offer detailed mathematical analysis
If you really think IQ can be measured to the tenth of a point, that is rather revealing.
Or even that it is stable over time and immune to being pickled in alcohol.
On a point of pedantry, if you pickle something it preserves it.
Interesting thread, but I think the statistical methodology is questionable, for a number of reasons. Eleven is an extremely small sample, and I would use VI not leader approval, as the former is a better predictor of the general election result. In addition, there is likely to be some omitted variable bias, since many have observed that voters tend to punish parties that have been in power for a decade or more. Adding a dummy variable for the number of elections previously won could affect the results significantly. Fourthly, there is very likely to be multicollinearity between the two explanatory variables. Multicollinearity invalidates regression analysis, and it is likely to be a particular problem this time. The opposition leader's popularity, and the unpopularity of the current government, could affect their score last time, particularly if they are the same people. A standard part of regression analysis is to test for this, e.g. using VIFs. Finally, I don't agree that a crucial battleground like Scotland should be omitted since so much of Labour's hopes rest there. Since it performed much more like the rest of the UK pre-2015, perhaps a dummy variable should be included?
I think the best way to test for any "mountain to climb" effect is to look at a seat level, rather than nationally. Is the swing towards Labour greater in seats it already holds? If so, then holding more seats will be an advantage. This also has the merit of having a more than sufficient sample size. I vaguely recall some analysis that showed a small effect for seats held for the first time, but no effect beyond that. But at some point I might have a go myself.
Anyway, it is an interesting and important question, and, despite disagreeing with the methodology, I think the conclusion is highly plausible.
Noted. Taking your points in order
Eleven is an extremely small sample. Yes, but you use what you have.
I would use VI not leader approval. Good point. Pause. Go on then
There is likely to be some omitted variable bias. Well yes, but you can say that about any model. Rules-of-thumb are good enough for government work
There is very likely to be multicollinearity between the two explanatory variables. I thought about this, but I'm not sure. Both between the variables (L vs S) and within them (S's internal components*1) appear to be independent-ish.
I don't agree that a crucial battleground like Scotland should be omitted. Agreed, but within its boundaries @OnlyLivingBoy 's model is good enough
In short (too late - Ed), @OnlyLivingBoy has distilled a large, complex situation down to a more manageable subset and created a simple model that PBers can understand. Each step requires a bit of teeth-gritting but simple robust models is what PB needs, and I think this is the first since @isam 's gross satisfaction model.
*1 Ouch - this bit is debatable.
I particularly like punting Scotland into the "too complicated" basket - add your own number.
Follows the best traditions of economic modelling.
Talking of population issues, Lozere is also mentioned as having the smallest population of any departement of France, I see online, and interestingly.
As I also mentioned, it reminds me slightly of some of the areas between Lyon and Italy, before you get to the highest ones.
Interesting thread, but I think the statistical methodology is questionable, for a number of reasons. Eleven is an extremely small sample, and I would use VI not leader approval, as the former is a better predictor of the general election result. In addition, there is likely to be some omitted variable bias, since many have observed that voters tend to punish parties that have been in power for a decade or more. Adding a dummy variable for the number of elections previously won could affect the results significantly. Fourthly, there is very likely to be multicollinearity between the two explanatory variables. Multicollinearity invalidates regression analysis, and it is likely to be a particular problem this time. The opposition leader's popularity, and the unpopularity of the current government, could affect their score last time, particularly if they are the same people. A standard part of regression analysis is to test for this, e.g. using VIFs. Finally, I don't agree that a crucial battleground like Scotland should be omitted since so much of Labour's hopes rest there. Since it performed much more like the rest of the UK pre-2015, perhaps a dummy variable should be included?
I think the best way to test for any "mountain to climb" effect is to look at a seat level, rather than nationally. Is the swing towards Labour greater in seats it already holds? If so, then holding more seats will be an advantage. This also has the merit of having a more than sufficient sample size. I vaguely recall some analysis that showed a small effect for seats held for the first time, but no effect beyond that. But at some point I might have a go myself.
Anyway, it is an interesting and important question, and, despite disagreeing with the methodology, I think the conclusion is highly plausible.
Noted. Taking your points in order
Eleven is an extremely small sample. Yes, but you use what you have.
I would use VI not leader approval. Good point. Pause. Go on then
There is likely to be some omitted variable bias. Well yes, but you can say that about any model. Rules-of-thumb are good enough for government work
There is very likely to be multicollinearity between the two explanatory variables. I thought about this, but I'm not sure. Both between the variables (L vs S) and within them (S's internal components*1) appear to be independent-ish.
I don't agree that a crucial battleground like Scotland should be omitted. Agreed, but within its boundaries @OnlyLivingBoy 's model is good enough
In short (too late - Ed), @OnlyLivingBoy has distilled a large, complex situation down to a more manageable subset and created a simple model that PBers can understand. Each step requires a bit of teeth-gritting but simple robust models is what PB needs, and I think this is the first since @isam 's gross satisfaction model.
*1 Ouch - this bit is debatable.
I particularly like punting Scotland into the "too complicated" basket - add your own number.
Follows the best traditions of economic modelling.
Scotland needs its own model.
I might give it a go but the average Scottish voter has been dazed and confused ever since 2014.
And, unlike England and Wales, we have an ongoing police investigation that might turn things upside down again. (Yousaf is surprising on the upside, imo).
I think Labour is on course for a clear majority and it won't even be close.
I think on the range of likely possibilities it's certainly a higher chance than many other ones, like Tory most seats.
I think the evidence is staring us right in the face, but people don't believe it.
Sure, that support for Labour is very soft but that's not going to go away until the current administration is evicted in 14 months time.
My sense is that after partygate and Boris' antics the public were still willing to give the Tories one more chance. But after the Truss fiasco, I think much of the public decided a change of government was needed and switched off. To win them back Sunak would have to have done a exceptional job (and though he is better than his two predecessors, he hasn't) or Starmer would have to made an enormous mistake (which he seems determined to avoid given his ming vase strategy).
I didn’t realise @OnlyLivingBoy had this natural story-telling talent
Translation: I can't understand that formula even with my IQ of 130.
143.7
It is rather a lot of maths for first thing on a Sunday. Nonetheless congrats to @OnlyLivingBoy on his debut, it’s good that this site can offer detailed mathematical analysis
If you really think IQ can be measured to the tenth of a point, that is rather revealing.
If you really can’t see a joke when it is says “this is obviously a joke” then….
Sadly, my IQ is insufficient to allow me to divine when you are joking about one of your pet obsessions.
I’m not obsessed with IQ per se, I AM intrigued by the cognitive dissonance required to dismiss it entirely as a metric. IQ is a flawed measurement but it is still useful, and it definitely measures something - speed of reasoning? - that is remarkably helpful in industrialised technological societies.
Someone with an IQ of 130 will be obviously “smarter” than someone with an IQ of 70. Likewise, barring exceptional sporting or artistic talent in the low IQ person, the high IQ person will nearly always do better in life - earn more, meet a partner, buy a house, have a career
The fact that IQ tests sometimes give uncomfortable results is not a reason to dismiss them entirely, however much we might wish it so
IQ is a series of tests that individually do a reasonable job of measuring cognitive ability in various different areas.
At the same time, the weighting between - say - spatial and verbal reasoning is entirely subjective. Who's to say one should be a 12, and the other a 20? Why not the other way around? And why is there no measure of the ability to pick up new concepts quickly? Or indeed, anything about short term memory capacity, which some other tests rate as a very important part of cognition.
It is also provably the case that with a little training on tests, you can move your baseline by 20 points or so. Which tells you that at least a chunk of what IQ measures is learned, rather than innate.
So, I don't think one should throw them away. But I wouldn't imbue them with some magical power to divine the intelligence of a person. (I would also point out that once you're about one standard deviation away from the mean, they become increasingly poor at predicting income.)
It always strikes me how the kind of person who is keenest on rubbishing IQ tests, suddenly becomes a keen evangelist for IQ tests when they can use a low IQ score to save some poor benighted criminal from the noose
One of the things IQ tests are notably poor at measuring is the likelihood of someone inserting a complete non sequitur into a conversation.
I didn’t realise @OnlyLivingBoy had this natural story-telling talent
Translation: I can't understand that formula even with my IQ of 130.
143.7
It is rather a lot of maths for first thing on a Sunday. Nonetheless congrats to @OnlyLivingBoy on his debut, it’s good that this site can offer detailed mathematical analysis
And to think you've wasted that genius on, checks... travel writing.
I know. To think, I could have been a banker or a politician or a lawyer, instead I am forced to wander the lonely world, looking at things like rivers and stuff
Bonjour!
Where's this ?
It isn't the same charming French-Swiss border region that I also passed through this summer by train, is it ?
No, it’s the Gorge du Tarn in Lozere. A somewhat neglected corner of France. Amazingly
Aha. So it's actually that far from where I was, as I meant the French-Italian border region instead, east of Lyon. There are some similarities in the landscape, despite you being in the South-Central department.
That looks gorgeous, and I recommend some of the towns and landscapes I passed, too, from the look of them, such as the beautifully Proustishly named Pont de Beauvoisins. There's still so many relatively untouched beautiful regions of France.
It’s actually nowhere near Italy. It’s the last bit of northern France where it is really southern France. The moors of aubrac, the gorges du Tarn, the Causses and the Cevennes
It’s a startling change as you drive south of the Causses - suddenly it’s all ochre tiles and olive trees
So its part of southern France which you think looks like northern France ?
My first reaction at looking at that picture was that it was southern France.
It has a 'Jean de Florette' look to me.
Apologies. Misleading photo. That’s where I am now. That’s my view from my little cottage
It is indeed southern France. Languedoc. I drove down from lozere on Friday
Lozere is spectacular in places and it does feel tantalisingly torn between north and south
Notable for having halved in population during the last two centuries:
Do you find that such declining places have a different 'feel' to economically more successful rural locations ?
Yes, it’s incredibly empty. Which is part of the appeal - for a visitor
You can drive on a main road for 20 minutes and not see another vehicle (bikers love it)
It used to be rich from wool, then cotton and silk - it boasts some handsome chateaux and townhouses. But it endured horrible religious wars then the industry went bust
However the population has now stabilised and it’s not obviously THAT poor any more. Some tourism and 2nd homes bring money in. It’s one of my favourite corners of France
I concur with the OLB potential LAB 340 seats outcome.
This is based on me using the following non scientific approach:
No one likes CON or Rishi anymore
There is no real enthusiasm for Keir or LAB
But the first factor significantly outweighs the second for an electorate to reluctantly give LAB an 8% lead at the GE which will convert into around 340 seats
Another way of looking at it...
340 Labour and 100ish others (40 SNP, 40 LD, 20 NI) leaves 210 Conservatives. So the big two almost, but not quite, swapping scores.
If you offered that to thoughtful members of the blue team, I reckon they'd bite your arm off faster than an XL Bully.
Talking about the latter - the "ban" is seemingly continuing to unravel faster than a stuffed woollen doggie toy owned by one.
Won't be party political though, as SKS also signed up to the Sunak strategy. But it's another high profile Sunakian promise, like boats'n'inflation.
You are weirdly keen for this ban not to happen. Consistently so
I suggest you go away and watch the video of Ian Price being eaten alive in Staffordshire two days ago. Seriously. Everyone needs to watch it, to know what we are dealing with. It is extremely disturbing - as bad as an ISIS or Cartel video - and it’s in a garden in Middle England
I won’t link directly to it but it’s now so viral a Twitter search of “ian price video” will get you straight there
Be warned
Once you’ve seen it you will realise there is no choice, these animals are so big, dangerous and aggressive they need to be banned immediately. As @williamglenn said last night, the question isn’t “whether a ban will work” it’s whether the government can afford to wait til the end of the year
Soon enough there will be one of these videos involving a child
People can be absurdly sentimental about animals, especially in this country.
Once @Carnyx has watched the Ian Price video he can look at this. The bloodline of half the XL Bullies in the UK
It doesn't alter the fact that a lot of people will sympathise more with the bully dogs, than the people who fall victim to them. There'll be heart-rending tales of poor Satan, who would never hurt a fly, having to be put to sleep.
I met some of these people, who were donors to Wood Green Animal Shelters, when I worked there.
I know the type, too
Selfish idiots, not very bright, see themselves as nice people because “I’m a dog person!”
I treat people like shit. But I love dogs. Therefore I am lovely. Cat lovers don't seem to have that.
I gather that the New Zealand authorities are seriously thinking of banning cats from being ‘outside’, due to their hunting the indigenous fauna, which have, until 200 or so years ago, been more or less predator free.
I didn’t realise @OnlyLivingBoy had this natural story-telling talent
Translation: I can't understand that formula even with my IQ of 130.
143.7
It is rather a lot of maths for first thing on a Sunday. Nonetheless congrats to @OnlyLivingBoy on his debut, it’s good that this site can offer detailed mathematical analysis
If you really think IQ can be measured to the tenth of a point, that is rather revealing.
If you really can’t see a joke when it is says “this is obviously a joke” then….
Sadly, my IQ is insufficient to allow me to divine when you are joking about one of your pet obsessions.
I’m not obsessed with IQ per se, I AM intrigued by the cognitive dissonance required to dismiss it entirely as a metric. IQ is a flawed measurement but it is still useful, and it definitely measures something - speed of reasoning? - that is remarkably helpful in industrialised technological societies.
Someone with an IQ of 130 will be obviously “smarter” than someone with an IQ of 70. Likewise, barring exceptional sporting or artistic talent in the low IQ person, the high IQ person will nearly always do better in life - earn more, meet a partner, buy a house, have a career
The fact that IQ tests sometimes give uncomfortable results is not a reason to dismiss them entirely, however much we might wish it so
IQ is a series of tests that individually do a reasonable job of measuring cognitive ability in various different areas.
At the same time, the weighting between - say - spatial and verbal reasoning is entirely subjective. Who's to say one should be a 12, and the other a 20? Why not the other way around? And why is there no measure of the ability to pick up new concepts quickly? Or indeed, anything about short term memory capacity, which some other tests rate as a very important part of cognition.
It is also provably the case that with a little training on tests, you can move your baseline by 20 points or so. Which tells you that at least a chunk of what IQ measures is learned, rather than innate.
So, I don't think one should throw them away. But I wouldn't imbue them with some magical power to divine the intelligence of a person. (I would also point out that once you're about one standard deviation away from the mean, they become increasingly poor at predicting income.)
It always strikes me how the kind of person who is keenest on rubbishing IQ tests, suddenly becomes a keen evangelist for IQ tests when they can use a low IQ score to save some poor benighted criminal from the noose
Which makes perfect sense for the same reason that people laughed at your putting a decimal point on an IQ score.
Realistically the only way to take an IQ score semi 'seriously' is to add a +- 20 points margin of error to it.
If someone's IQ is below 70, then they've got real issues.
If someone's IQ is above 120 then they're bright, on what IQ measures at least (maybe not emotional or other issues).
Comparing a 97 to a 107 though? Saying the 97 is below average, while the 107 is brighter? Nah, that's just bullshit.
Interesting thread, but I think the statistical methodology is questionable, for a number of reasons. Eleven is an extremely small sample, and I would use VI not leader approval, as the former is a better predictor of the general election result. In addition, there is likely to be some omitted variable bias, since many have observed that voters tend to punish parties that have been in power for a decade or more. Adding a dummy variable for the number of elections previously won could affect the results significantly. Fourthly, there is very likely to be multicollinearity between the two explanatory variables. Multicollinearity invalidates regression analysis, and it is likely to be a particular problem this time. The opposition leader's popularity, and the unpopularity of the current government, could affect their score last time, particularly if they are the same people. A standard part of regression analysis is to test for this, e.g. using VIFs. Finally, I don't agree that a crucial battleground like Scotland should be omitted since so much of Labour's hopes rest there. Since it performed much more like the rest of the UK pre-2015, perhaps a dummy variable should be included?
I think the best way to test for any "mountain to climb" effect is to look at a seat level, rather than nationally. Is the swing towards Labour greater in seats it already holds? If so, then holding more seats will be an advantage. This also has the merit of having a more than sufficient sample size. I vaguely recall some analysis that showed a small effect for seats held for the first time, but no effect beyond that. But at some point I might have a go myself.
Anyway, it is an interesting and important question, and, despite disagreeing with the methodology, I think the conclusion is highly plausible.
Noted. Taking your points in order
Eleven is an extremely small sample. Yes, but you use what you have.
I would use VI not leader approval. Good point. Pause. Go on then
There is likely to be some omitted variable bias. Well yes, but you can say that about any model. Rules-of-thumb are good enough for government work
There is very likely to be multicollinearity between the two explanatory variables. I thought about this, but I'm not sure. Both between the variables (L vs S) and within them (S's internal components*1) appear to be independent-ish.
I don't agree that a crucial battleground like Scotland should be omitted. Agreed, but within its boundaries @OnlyLivingBoy 's model is good enough
In short (too late - Ed), @OnlyLivingBoy has distilled a large, complex situation down to a more manageable subset and created a simple model that PBers can understand. Each step requires a bit of teeth-gritting but simple robust models is what PB needs, and I think this is the first since @isam 's gross satisfaction model.
*1 Ouch - this bit is debatable.
I particularly like punting Scotland into the "too complicated" basket - add your own number.
Follows the best traditions of economic modelling.
Scotland needs its own model.
I might give it a go but the average Scottish voter has been dazed and confused ever since 2014.
And, unlike England and Wales, we have an ongoing police investigation that might turn things upside down again. (Yousaf is surprising on the upside, imo).
No need to call it an opinion, he is.
But since his own party colleagues accused him of being utterly unfit to be First Minister and said he wouldn't last five minutes, we're talking a low bar there.
In the US, they're very keen on standardized testing, which is similar to IQ.
My son always hits it out the park on the reading comprehension, typically scoring in the 92nd to 98th percentile. But on spatial reasoning, he's typically middle of the road (at best), usually coming in somewhere between the 40th and 55th percentile.
I always wonder about kids like that: who score very well on one part of a test, but averagely on another. If he'd been taking the 11+ in the past, would he have gone to Secondary Modern because one part of his scores was not that great.
I concur with the OLB potential LAB 340 seats outcome.
This is based on me using the following non scientific approach:
No one likes CON or Rishi anymore
There is no real enthusiasm for Keir or LAB
But the first factor significantly outweighs the second for an electorate to reluctantly give LAB an 8% lead at the GE which will convert into around 340 seats
Another way of looking at it...
340 Labour and 100ish others (40 SNP, 40 LD, 20 NI) leaves 210 Conservatives. So the big two almost, but not quite, swapping scores.
If you offered that to thoughtful members of the blue team, I reckon they'd bite your arm off faster than an XL Bully.
Talking about the latter - the "ban" is seemingly continuing to unravel faster than a stuffed woollen doggie toy owned by one.
Won't be party political though, as SKS also signed up to the Sunak strategy. But it's another high profile Sunakian promise, like boats'n'inflation.
You are weirdly keen for this ban not to happen. Consistently so
I suggest you go away and watch the video of Ian Price being eaten alive in Staffordshire two days ago. Seriously. Everyone needs to watch it, to know what we are dealing with. It is extremely disturbing - as bad as an ISIS or Cartel video - and it’s in a garden in Middle England
I won’t link directly to it but it’s now so viral a Twitter search of “ian price video” will get you straight there
Be warned
Once you’ve seen it you will realise there is no choice, these animals are so big, dangerous and aggressive they need to be banned immediately. As @williamglenn said last night, the question isn’t “whether a ban will work” it’s whether the government can afford to wait til the end of the year
Soon enough there will be one of these videos involving a child
People can be absurdly sentimental about animals, especially in this country.
Once @Carnyx has watched the Ian Price video he can look at this. The bloodline of half the XL Bullies in the UK
It doesn't alter the fact that a lot of people will sympathise more with the bully dogs, than the people who fall victim to them. There'll be heart-rending tales of poor Satan, who would never hurt a fly, having to be put to sleep.
I met some of these people, who were donors to Wood Green Animal Shelters, when I worked there.
I know the type, too
Selfish idiots, not very bright, see themselves as nice people because “I’m a dog person!”
I treat people like shit. But I love dogs. Therefore I am lovely. Cat lovers don't seem to have that.
I gather that the New Zealand authorities are seriously thinking of banning cats from being ‘outside’, due to their hunting the indigenous fauna, which have, until 200 or so years ago, been more or less predator free.
I v isited this place years ago. Amazing place to stay at night, best time to see wall to wall marsupials and monotremes, or rather fence to fence, as it had a electrified fence to keep out the cats. Founder even had a cat fur hat Davy Crockett style to make the point. Made him VERY unpopular with a certain element in the local population.
Comments
Trump and Bolsonaro are often derided as 'populists' but both last only four years.
I suppose there is also Erdogan and Orban and I will admit to little knowledge of the relative strengths of the Turkish and Hungarian economies compared to their equivalents.
Aside from which one of the causes of 'populism' is already existing economic failure.
So if we say that UK 'populism' emerged in 2015-2016 with the rise of the SNP, Corbyn and Brexit its clear that it was the economic failures of the preceding decade that played a substantial role.
"Given the evidence we have it is credible to argue that the number of seats Labour will win at the next election depends on the relative leader satisfaction and the number of seats last time. Right now satisfaction levels aren't good enough for a Labour majority. But if Sunak continues to disappoint, by election time they will be."
There y'go. You can write an article in the Flint Knapper's Gazette now and pretend it was your idea.
Sure, that support for Labour is very soft but that's not going to go away until the current administration is evicted in 14 months time.
100,000 overdose deaths in this year in the US; the most ever and it’s only September. Most involve fentanyl.
100,000! That’s roughly a Bath or a Carlisle losing every single living soul in the space of 9 months. An obscene statistic. I worry we’ll see the same here.
I don't want to oversell the model but I think it's a reasonable way of looking at the evidence and addressing the question of what 2019 means for the next election.
Interestingly I also think that Labour will get a majority next time, though I'm not coming from the perspective of a Labour member, but your analysis has made me think that a Labour majority is less likely than I had thought.
This is because your analysis, based on today's data, means no majority. The assumption of a majority is based on an assumed swing away from Sunak to Starmer. I'm less certain that such a swing will happen, I think last year was so chaotic that Sunak didn't get much of a traditional 'honeymoon' to lose, and AFAIK swingback is more common than swingaway.
We'll see. But I'm feeling more uncertain today. Any analysis which makes you stop and think is a good thing though, and I really appreciate your thoughts and your debut piece, well done!
💰**EXCLUSIVE**💰
A ‘flat tax’ where every worker pays only 20% of their income to the Treasury was considered for Liz Truss’s mini-Budget
Would have cost £41bn - the biggest measure by far. Was dubbed going ‘full Estonia’ (that nation has a flat tax)
https://x.com/benrileysmith/status/1703334365986509114?s=20
2) Fines for not having insurance calibrated at court/polices costs + £5000
3) £1000 reward for information leading to a Plus there is a deeply ingrained belief in many dog owners that if breeds are banned, their Fido will be banned and shot next week.
Do stuff that people like.
Stop doing shit they don't like.
Clear the decks of people who are an embarrassment - although many of these have already left the stage by their antics.
Look like you want another term.
Point out to those 25% of former Tory voters not yet decided that a Starmer government would do a raft of thing that will enrage their sensibilities.
A half-way decent job of doing the above for a year will take Labour well out of reach of majority territory. Labour then plummet into the much more awkward territory of having to answer questions about how they would head a rainbow coalition. After the trauma of coping with Brexit, Covid and Ukraine with the consequent cost of living crisis - all in one Parliament - a year of boring governing might look a whole lot more attractive than a prospect of a period of chaotic uncertainties. Especially to those 25% of former Tories.
Part of the toxicity of Populism is its campaign against trust in institutions, and that is the cycle that encourages such paranoia.
I note though that Sunak fails at Populism. He cannot project the anti-establishment views that Johnson or Corbyn mastered. Whoever wins the next GE it won't be a Populist.
Tony Blair with his railing against the "forces of conservativism" etc was very populist. He wasn't just seeking to be popular, he was setting Labour as "the political wing of the British people" while others as elites who are "holding the country back".
The old order, those forces of conservatism, for all their language about promoting the individual, and freedom and liberty, they held people back. They kept people down. They stunted people’s potential. Year after year. Decade after decade.
Look at this Party’s greatest achievement. The forces of conservatism, and the force of the Conservative Party, pulled every trick in the book - voting 51 times, yes 51 times, against the creation of the NHS. One leading Tory, Mr Henry Willink, said at the time that the NHS ‘will destroy so much in this country that we value,’ when we knew human potential can never be realised when whether you are well or ill depends on wealth not need. The forces of conservatism allied to racism are why one of the heroes of the 20th Century, Martin Luther King, is dead. It’s why another, Nelson Mandela, spent the best years of his life in a cell the size of a bed.
And the fox hunting ban, while something I support despite being illiberal as I think its an issue of cruelty, was similarly framed in populist manner. There was a widespread attitude that it was about taking on "Tory toffs in red coats".
That looks gorgeous, and I recommend some of the towns and landscapes I passed, too, from the look of them, such as the beautifully Proustishly named Pont de Beauvoisins, on the way to Italy. There's still so many relatively untouched and beautiful regions of France.
There was a campaign against venture capital for example. Which wasn’t involved in the crash and is, fundamentally, about using methods that are diametrically opposed to those that caused the crash.
I'm simply observing the situation and the wider politics. I've flagged up the fundamental contradiction of a breed ban right from the start, and it is proving to be an issue. At least in HMG eyes, and others.
Why aren't they going for a more empirical, Australian-style, ban?
Blaming the West, bankers, successful businessmen and industrialists for all the world's ills is populist. As is kneejerk banning of nuclear power and all forms of oil & gas immediately. Communism was essentially a direct appeal to populism.
It's characterised by playing to short-term base emotion against what are easily painted as elite or vested interests - which is why it is "popular" - rather than seeking to understand, channel and lead it into more reasoned, rational and longer-term policies that address the root causes.
Put me in a kitchen and give me a recipe to follow and I can do that just fine. With a recipe cooking is little different to chemistry, just do the measurements and follow the processes.
Put me in a kitchen without a recipe though and I'll be pretty lost.
I especially recall talking with some people I knew in the always-up-for-a-demo crowd. They described feeling menaced by being visibly outnumbered by people they disagreed with. I then asked them how they thought people felt, when they saw *their* demos…
It’s a startling change as you drive south of the Causses - suddenly it’s all ochre tiles and olive trees
Discretion, like crevice, is a dirty word in U.K. public life.
Edit: and then we have the other half.
And we are debating if it is "dangerous"???
Seriously?????
These areas are compelling, and I think the landscape is more interesting, to me, than the Central, South-Central, or Northern areas of France, or even than further south in the Riviera. Provence is near here, ofcourse.
Iraq has WMDs
The banks are safe
The financial statements of X are a 'true and fair view'
Immigration from Eastern Europe will only be 5,000 per year
Stafford hospital is safe
Nothing is happening in Rotherham
The metropolitan police are honest
Elections in Tower Hamlets are fair
University tuition fees will not be raised
Antiquities at the British Museum are secure
Th Post Office computer system works
With multiple examples in some categories and doubtless plenty of other examples I've forgotten.
How many PB articles have we had from Cyclefree - who is certainly not a 'populist' - ripping apart, deservedly so, a 'revered institution'.
- Eleven is an extremely small sample. Yes, but you use what you have.
- I would use VI not leader approval. Good point. Pause. Go on then
- There is likely to be some omitted variable bias. Well yes, but you can say that about any model. Rules-of-thumb are good enough for government work
- There is very likely to be multicollinearity between the two explanatory variables. I thought about this, but I'm not sure. Both between the variables (L vs S) and within them (S's internal components*1) appear to be independent-ish.
- I don't agree that a crucial battleground like Scotland should be omitted. Agreed, but within its boundaries @OnlyLivingBoy 's model is good enough
In short (too late - Ed), @OnlyLivingBoy has distilled a large, complex situation down to a more manageable subset and created a simple model that PBers can understand. Each step requires a bit of teeth-gritting but simple robust models is what PB needs, and I think this is the first since @isam 's gross satisfaction model.*1 Ouch - this bit is debatable.
Who consciously buys a dog like this? At some significant expense? Why?
You don’t “accidentally” spend £2000 on one of the most dangerous dog breeds on the planet
Mere ownership of this dog is enough to breed suspicion
And also add: “the idea the virus came from the lab is a racist conspiracy and you aren’t even allowed to talk about it”
The Populist midset is then to extrapolate to other aspects. For example from Lockdowns were overdone and over strict (a reasonable position) to that the government deliberately imposed Lockdowns as part of a Great Reset, and that because the government advocates vaccines they must be a way of mass poisoning the people for profit.
My first reaction at looking at that picture was that it was southern France.
It has a 'Jean de Florette' look to me.
More seriously - impressive article. Like some of the other comments, though, I'm not convinced that leader rating is that decisive these days. People have by and large decided that they want someone who is Not Scary and Not the Tories, and beyond that, they're not too bothered.
I'm no cook, but I can do a lot of savoury dishes on the fly, less so with deserts where I am less confident about doing something on the fly, but will still have a go. I don't know where to start with fish, but that is because (sadly) I am not a fan.
And I'd also like to be very careful about any definition of "populist". I would suggest the biggest danger is personal idolatry / demagogery, where instead of loyalty being to the State and to its institutions, it is instead to the Leader.
Then governance shrinks to a local optima: what is best for the glorious leader, rather than what is best for the country as a whole.
So, I would argue that Hitler - where loyalty was personally to the Fuhrer - is a classic example. And I think you could make the case that Trump got very close to this at the end of his term.
Likewise, I think you can make the case that it's not true at all for Meloni in Italy, or Lula in Brazil. They may pursue populist policies, but they continue to be constrained by the ballot box.
I have little doubt that my 'official' IQ has probably decreased as I've aged, if only because I used to love those sorts of puzzles and questions as a kid, and I don't do them now. But my amount of general knowledge, and experience, has increased.
It is indeed southern France. Languedoc. I drove down from lozere on Friday
Lozere is spectacular in places and it does feel tantalisingly torn between north and south
I did have a CO who was fond of saying "Brains are Bullshit", maybe he was onto something.
Someone with an IQ of 130 will be obviously “smarter” than someone with an IQ of 70. Likewise, barring exceptional sporting or artistic talent in the low IQ person, the high IQ person will nearly always do better in life - earn more, meet a partner, buy a house, have a career
The fact that IQ tests sometimes give uncomfortable results is not a reason to dismiss them entirely, however much we might wish it so
Follows the best traditions of economic modelling.
At the same time, the weighting between - say - spatial and verbal reasoning is entirely subjective. Who's to say one should be a 12, and the other a 20? Why not the other way around? And why is there no measure of the ability to pick up new concepts quickly? Or indeed, anything about short term memory capacity, which some other tests rate as a very important part of cognition.
It is also provably the case that with a little training on tests, you can move your baseline by 20 points or so. Which tells you that at least a chunk of what IQ measures is learned, rather than innate.
So, I don't think one should throw them away. But I wouldn't imbue them with some magical power to divine the intelligence of a person. (I would also point out that once you're about one standard deviation away from the mean, they become increasingly poor at predicting income.)
Which is a good thing, because if it wasn't then we'd be lumped with half the country being relative idiots and unable to change that.
Good parenting, good education, a growth mindset and learning the challenges and feeling comfortable with them all help build people's confidence and can raise their measured "IQ".
As you say many of these failings will be caused by general incompetence or levels of venality and hypocrisy.
But the 'big conspiracy' works better as a storyline from the ancient world to Ton Knox novels.
It didn't affect my schooling, but I can't help thinking: they used to divide childrten into grammar sheep and tech modern goats on that basis??
But I love dogs.
Therefore I am lovely.
Cat lovers don't seem to have that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lozère
Do you find that such declining places have a different 'feel' to economically more successful rural locations ?
Whether someone is 140 or 160 as mine and a few other people's here tests have shown is pretty moot, either way you're 'clever'.
Whether someone is 90 or 110 though, if you take it seriously, is not moot.
But if the 90s are at 90 because of a lack of support, a lack of awareness of the test etc, while the 110s are 110 because they have the support, they have awareness, then what does any of it mean?
As I also mentioned, it reminds me slightly of some of the areas between Lyon and Italy, before you get to the highest ones.
And, unlike England and Wales, we have an ongoing police investigation that might turn things upside down again. (Yousaf is surprising on the upside, imo).
You can drive on a main road for 20 minutes and not see another vehicle (bikers love it)
It used to be rich from wool, then cotton and silk - it boasts some handsome chateaux and townhouses. But it endured horrible religious wars then the industry went bust
However the population has now stabilised and it’s not obviously THAT poor any more. Some tourism and 2nd homes bring money in. It’s one of my favourite corners of France
Realistically the only way to take an IQ score semi 'seriously' is to add a +- 20 points margin of error to it.
If someone's IQ is below 70, then they've got real issues.
If someone's IQ is above 120 then they're bright, on what IQ measures at least (maybe not emotional or other issues).
Comparing a 97 to a 107 though? Saying the 97 is below average, while the 107 is brighter? Nah, that's just bullshit.
But since his own party colleagues accused him of being utterly unfit to be First Minister and said he wouldn't last five minutes, we're talking a low bar there.
My son always hits it out the park on the reading comprehension, typically scoring in the 92nd to 98th percentile. But on spatial reasoning, he's typically middle of the road (at best), usually coming in somewhere between the 40th and 55th percentile.
I always wonder about kids like that: who score very well on one part of a test, but averagely on another. If he'd been taking the 11+ in the past, would he have gone to Secondary Modern because one part of his scores was not that great.
https://www.warrawongws.com.au/
I v isited this place years ago. Amazing place to stay at night, best time to see wall to wall marsupials and monotremes, or rather fence to fence, as it had a electrified fence to keep out the cats. Founder even had a cat fur hat Davy Crockett style to make the point. Made him VERY unpopular with a certain element in the local population.