I know it's kind of his thing to be the young, very passionate, very lefty pundit, and I've no reason to believe it is not a genuinely held position even if, perhaps, he plays the schtick up a bit, but how do he and his reconcile their enthusiasm for such ideas, which they act as though will naturally be shared by the wider public, with its lack of success even within the Labour party?
Granted, maybe that's more just a political party thing - how do people get so passionate and believe everyone else must think the same way, when it is demonstrated so often it is not the case.
Being passionate is one thing, thinking everyone will agree is something else. All kinds of passionate people have a permanent dilemma that they recognise that they probably won't ever get a majority for their views. Ways to resolve that are
(1) Keep campaigning and hope you win one day (Syriza, fundamentalist religious types) (2) Overthrow the system so you can win anyway (Lenin, Robespierre) (3) Compromise as much as you think necessary to get a majority (most politicians) (4) Resign yourself to being in a minority and perhaps influencing the debate (Corbyn, probably).
Only (2) is actually morally wrong (at least if the system allows democratic challenge), though (3) can become so if you end up selling out altogether.
How does the fact that only 2,500 Union members have signed up reconcile with recent reports that Unite were using call centres to sign up 1,000 members per day?
Meanwhile, in the other leadership contest, Tim Farron has set a high bar for the contest of cramming the most anachronisms and mistakes into an opening paragraph:
I understand why most will want a galvaniser/unifier/grandstander to lead a kind of street-fighting comeback, and Farron is perceived to be that candidate - but I think he's too intellectually weak to sustain a charge from the left, and is too open to caricature as a low-rent student politics agitator. He could actually kill the party.
Lamb is less charismatic and more cerebral, but can position the LDs as a genuinely liberal party with specific policies - e.g. on cannabis - that the other parties won't touch.
Mind you, my political gut is not the most reliable judge, as my 8/5/15 profit/loss spreadsheet attests.
Why does it matter who you vote for or who's leader? The LDs are over.
No, they aren't. But they are massively diminished. Who becomes the next leader is quite important in terms of their future.
But by all means feel free to ignore any posts or discussion on it!
As a Labour supporter I have to say, were the positions to be reversed, there is no way I'd pay £3 to the Tories just so I could get to vote for Nadine Dorries as party leader.
It's completely O/T but Nadine Dorries is for me one of those people like Elton John, Barrie John, Prester John and Jack Lord who have their name on back to front. Her real name is surely Doris Nadine?
There seems to be a blanket assumption that trade union members are a bunch of zealous Stalinists. They aren't. I doubt most union members ever really give thought to their union's political position; for most their union is there to give them recourse against unfair treatment by their employer.
Union leaders are far, far from being representative of their base (remember that YouGov poll of how teachers voted in 2010?).
Who gives employers recourse against unfair treatment by their employees?
There seems to be a blanket assumption that trade union members are a bunch of zealous Stalinists. They aren't. I doubt most union members ever really give thought to their union's political position; for most their union is there to give them recourse against unfair treatment by their employer.
Union leaders are far, far from being representative of their base (remember that YouGov poll of how teachers voted in 2010?).
Who gives employers recourse against unfair treatment by their employees?
I know it's kind of his thing to be the young, very passionate, very lefty pundit, and I've no reason to believe it is not a genuinely held position even if, perhaps, he plays the schtick up a bit, but how do he and his reconcile their enthusiasm for such ideas, which they act as though will naturally be shared by the wider public, with its lack of success even within the Labour party?
Granted, maybe that's more just a political party thing - how do people get so passionate and believe everyone else must think the same way, when it is demonstrated so often it is not the case.
Being passionate is one thing, thinking everyone will agree is something else. All kinds of passionate people have a permanent dilemma that they recognise that they probably won't ever get a majority for their views. Ways to resolve that are
(1) Keep campaigning and hope you win one day (Syriza, fundamentalist religious types) (2) Overthrow the system so you can win anyway (Lenin, Robespierre) (3) Compromise as much as you think necessary to get a majority (most politicians) (4) Resign yourself to being in a minority and perhaps influencing the debate (Corbyn, probably).
Only (2) is actually morally wrong (at least if the system allows democratic challenge), though (3) can become so if you end up selling out altogether.
I'd like to be (2) but realistically am only the first half of (4)
There seems to be a blanket assumption that trade union members are a bunch of zealous Stalinists. They aren't. I doubt most union members ever really give thought to their union's political position; for most their union is there to give them recourse against unfair treatment by their employer.
Union leaders are far, far from being representative of their base (remember that YouGov poll of how teachers voted in 2010?).
Who gives employers recourse against unfair treatment by their employees?
Their ability to sack them?
How did that work out for TFL when they tried to sack the Tube driver who failed breath tests?
It's a trick question of course. The answer is "Cameron's Tories" because they're going to outlaw nutty strikes.
There seems to be a blanket assumption that trade union members are a bunch of zealous Stalinists. They aren't. I doubt most union members ever really give thought to their union's political position; for most their union is there to give them recourse against unfair treatment by their employer.
Union leaders are far, far from being representative of their base (remember that YouGov poll of how teachers voted in 2010?).
Who gives employers recourse against unfair treatment by their employees?
Their ability to sack them?
In too many cases sacking the bastards is just the start of your legal problems.
Meanwhile, in the other leadership contest, Tim Farron has set a high bar for the contest of cramming the most anachronisms and mistakes into an opening paragraph:
I understand why most will want a galvaniser/unifier/grandstander to lead a kind of street-fighting comeback, and Farron is perceived to be that candidate - but I think he's too intellectually weak to sustain a charge from the left, and is too open to caricature as a low-rent student politics agitator. He could actually kill the party.
Lamb is less charismatic and more cerebral, but can position the LDs as a genuinely liberal party with specific policies - e.g. on cannabis - that the other parties won't touch.
Mind you, my political gut is not the most reliable judge, as my 8/5/15 profit/loss spreadsheet attests.
Yes, must say I remain mystified as to the appeal of Farron. From the outside Lamb seems to me manifestly superior, and yet Farron is the overwhelming favourite?
It's all about that base.
He's been a hugely effective constituency campaigner, turning a Liberal/Tory marginal into the safest Lib Dem seat in the country. He's also untainted by the coalition, having been agitating from the sidelines throughout.
He'll probably win, but by a finer margin than the betting suggests.
Meanwhile, in the other leadership contest, Tim Farron has set a high bar for the contest of cramming the most anachronisms and mistakes into an opening paragraph:
I understand why most will want a galvaniser/unifier/grandstander to lead a kind of street-fighting comeback, and Farron is perceived to be that candidate - but I think he's too intellectually weak to sustain a charge from the left, and is too open to caricature as a low-rent student politics agitator. He could actually kill the party.
Lamb is less charismatic and more cerebral, but can position the LDs as a genuinely liberal party with specific policies - e.g. on cannabis - that the other parties won't touch.
Mind you, my political gut is not the most reliable judge, as my 8/5/15 profit/loss spreadsheet attests.
Yes, must say I remain mystified as to the appeal of Farron. From the outside Lamb seems to me manifestly superior, and yet Farron is the overwhelming favourite?
It's all about that base.
He's been a hugely effective constituency campaigner, turning a Liberal/Tory marginal into the safest Lib Dem seat in the country. He's also untainted by the coalition, having been agitating from the sidelines throughout.
He'll probably win, but by a finer margin than the betting suggests.
Can you sum up for us what the Lib Dems stand for and a reason to vote for them? Thanks.
There seems to be a blanket assumption that trade union members are a bunch of zealous Stalinists. They aren't. I doubt most union members ever really give thought to their union's political position; for most their union is there to give them recourse against unfair treatment by their employer.
Union leaders are far, far from being representative of their base (remember that YouGov poll of how teachers voted in 2010?).
Who gives employers recourse against unfair treatment by their employees?
The first one I thought of was the General Medical Council: I assume I could think of others if I had the time.
However, I do take your point. The professional classes do have trade unions (we just call them something else) and the big business owners have Human Resource departments[1] but I suspect the small business owner has far less support, and I think that may have been the point you were making
[1] HR defends the company against the employee, not vice versa...
Very interesting watching that video from 2005 on the Conservative contest. Cameron's been around for bloody ages. He'll definitely go down as a historic PM, whether good or ill. He'll either have won 2 General Elections and 3 referendum votes, or have taken us out of the EU.
He's also has as contemporaries Blair, Brown, Miliband and AN Other Labour leader; likewise Kennedy, Campbell, Clegg [who he saw off by the unusual method of becoming his colleague then destroying his party] and another Lib Dem leader.
I do think he could've handled some things a lot better (most notably Defence and Aid, and his ignorance of the most basic aspects of the internet is troubling), but in political terms he's been a very significant figure. However, with at least a few years left he has time to completely bugger up his legacy or improve it substantially.
For a Tory, it is actually a genuinely tough call which of the donkeys in the derby you want to win.
They are so crap I'd like any of them to win. But who's the crappest? Blimey.
thinking tories might fear Cooper most as the leader most capable of causing trouble for them in house of commons.
I'd think they'd be most happy to have Burnham (or Corbyn, obviously!) and least likely to have Kendall leading Labour, with Yvette somewhere in the middle.
On the subject of leaders, watching Cameron addressing the Magna Carta celebrations - he is really good at making public speeches at these big apolitical national events.
Cameron is a decent default prime minister. History will be the judge of if he develops or has by stealth had a genuine transformative vision which he pulls off too.
Meanwhile, in the other leadership contest, Tim Farron has set a high bar for the contest of cramming the most anachronisms and mistakes into an opening paragraph:
I understand why most will want a galvaniser/unifier/grandstander to lead a kind of street-fighting comeback, and Farron is perceived to be that candidate - but I think he's too intellectually weak to sustain a charge from the left, and is too open to caricature as a low-rent student politics agitator. He could actually kill the party.
Lamb is less charismatic and more cerebral, but can position the LDs as a genuinely liberal party with specific policies - e.g. on cannabis - that the other parties won't touch.
Mind you, my political gut is not the most reliable judge, as my 8/5/15 profit/loss spreadsheet attests.
Yes, must say I remain mystified as to the appeal of Farron. From the outside Lamb seems to me manifestly superior, and yet Farron is the overwhelming favourite?
It's all about that base.
He's been a hugely effective constituency campaigner, turning a Liberal/Tory marginal into the safest Lib Dem seat in the country. He's also untainted by the coalition, having been agitating from the sidelines throughout.
He'll probably win, but by a finer margin than the betting suggests.
Can you sum up for us what the Lib Dems stand for and a reason to vote for them? Thanks.
The question that either one of the candidates needs to effectively answer. To caricature, it's something like:
Farron - "Left-ish popular causes that Labour aren't picking up" Lamb - "Dry economics, social liberalism and freedom of expression"
I'm too busy with work/family/life generally to be engaged politically, so my summaries aren't that well-informed and are probably a bit unfair.
Meanwhile, in the other leadership contest, Tim Farron has set a high bar for the contest of cramming the most anachronisms and mistakes into an opening paragraph:
I understand why most will want a galvaniser/unifier/grandstander to lead a kind of street-fighting comeback, and Farron is perceived to be that candidate - but I think he's too intellectually weak to sustain a charge from the left, and is too open to caricature as a low-rent student politics agitator. He could actually kill the party.
Lamb is less charismatic and more cerebral, but can position the LDs as a genuinely liberal party with specific policies - e.g. on cannabis - that the other parties won't touch.
Mind you, my political gut is not the most reliable judge, as my 8/5/15 profit/loss spreadsheet attests.
Yes, must say I remain mystified as to the appeal of Farron. From the outside Lamb seems to me manifestly superior, and yet Farron is the overwhelming favourite?
It's all about that base.
He's been a hugely effective constituency campaigner, turning a Liberal/Tory marginal into the safest Lib Dem seat in the country. He's also untainted by the coalition, having been agitating from the sidelines throughout.
He'll probably win, but by a finer margin than the betting suggests.
Can you sum up for us what the Lib Dems stand for and a reason to vote for them? Thanks.
The question that either one of the candidates needs to effectively answer. To caricature, it's something like:
Farron - "Left-ish popular causes that Labour aren't picking up" Lamb - "Dry economics, social liberalism and freedom of expression"
I'm too busy with work/family/life generally to be engaged politically, so my summaries aren't that well-informed and are probably a bit unfair.
David Cameron might well go down as the Tory Leader/Prime Minister who killed the Lib Dems, Scottish Nationalism, The Labour Party and Euroscepticism stone dead.
He could also go down as the guy who ended the Union, took the UK out of the EU and split the Tory Party.
I know it's kind of his thing to be the young, very passionate, very lefty pundit, and I've no reason to believe it is not a genuinely held position even if, perhaps, he plays the schtick up a bit, but how do he and his reconcile their enthusiasm for such ideas, which they act as though will naturally be shared by the wider public, with its lack of success even within the Labour party?
Granted, maybe that's more just a political party thing - how do people get so passionate and believe everyone else must think the same way, when it is demonstrated so often it is not the case.
No disrespect to Mr. Jones, but I don't understand how he got to be in his position of influence in the commentariat. His ideas and demeanour just seem like that of any student union leftist. How come he stood out?
David Cameron might well go down as the Tory Leader/Prime Minister who killed the Lib Dems, Scottish Nationalism, The Labour Party and Euroscepticism stone dead.
He could also go down as the guy who ended the Union, took the UK out of the EU and split the Tory Party.
David Cameron claims to be a eurosceptic himself, so I'd hate to think he wanted to kill the movement stone dead.
David Cameron might well go down as the Tory Leader/Prime Minister who killed the Lib Dems, Scottish Nationalism, The Labour Party and Euroscepticism stone dead.
He could also go down as the guy who ended the Union, took the UK out of the EU and split the Tory Party.
In an ideal (Geoff-shaped) world he'd go down as the Tory Leader/Prime Minister who killed the Lib Dems, Scottish Nationalism, The Labour Party, ended the Union and took the UK out of the EU.
I know it's kind of his thing to be the young, very passionate, very lefty pundit, and I've no reason to believe it is not a genuinely held position even if, perhaps, he plays the schtick up a bit, but how do he and his reconcile their enthusiasm for such ideas, which they act as though will naturally be shared by the wider public, with its lack of success even within the Labour party?
Granted, maybe that's more just a political party thing - how do people get so passionate and believe everyone else must think the same way, when it is demonstrated so often it is not the case.
No disrespect to Mr. Jones, but I don't understand how he got to be in his position of influence in the commentariat. His ideas and demeanour just seem like that of any student union leftist. How come he stood out?
Luck, I presume, and reasonable articulation in front of the camera and the persevearence to keep on going, plus some lack of self awareness necessary for all pundits.
On Cameron, I'm quite well disposed toward him, some incompetencies and failures notwithstanding, but I do think it significant that one of the sort of criticisms about him is that he just 'looks like a PM' or words to that effect, as if there's not much else to him (which may or may not be the case, I think it a little unfair to say that's all there is), but which ignores that having that quality is rarer than people think. In part because of what he says and how he says it, but also as just some innate quality, Cameron doesn't seem the scare figure Labour occasionally tried to make him seem, and because he looks and sounds like a PM, as they say, the lazy attacks don't work brilliantly either. As others have pointed out, although this is a narrow majority he now has, it is not insignificant at all how he has managed it.
If he can win the EU ref, I can easily see him being regarded as a very significant PM, rather than just significant.
Miss Plato, never followed the excitable Jones, but I did follow a Guardian chap [try not to just follow people with whom I entirely agree]. For reasons I do not understand, he blocked me. I did message him a few times, and he'd sometimes reply, but it was all very civil.
The BBC adopted him as their pet years ago. Without their help, he'd be nowhere bar Morning Star fodder. I listened to an intv with him about his book Chavs on R5 long before GE2010. He blamed Thatcher for *chavs* having poor dress sense as Tories had the nice stuff. Really.
This is the Amazon summary
In modern Britain, the working class has become an object of fear and ridicule. From Little Britain's Vicky Pollard to the demonization of Jade Goody, media and politicians alike dismiss as feckless, criminalized and ignorant a vast, underprivileged swathe of society whose members have become stereotyped by one, hate-filled word: chavs. In this acclaimed investigation, Owen Jones explores how the working class has gone from 'salt of the earth' to 'scum of the earth.' Exposing the ignorance and prejudice at the heart of the chav caricature, he portrays a far more complex reality. The chav stereotype, he argues, is used by governments as a convenient figleaf to avoid genuine engagement with social and economic problems and to justify widening inequality. Based on a wealth of original research, Chavs is a damning indictment of the media and political establishment and an illuminating, disturbing portrait of inequality and class hatred in modern Britain. This updated edition includes a new chapter exploring the causes and consequences of the UK riots in the summer of 2010.
I know it's kind of his thing to be the young, very passionate, very lefty pundit, and I've no reason to believe it is not a genuinely held position even if, perhaps, he plays the schtick up a bit, but how do he and his reconcile their enthusiasm for such ideas, which they act as though will naturally be shared by the wider public, with its lack of success even within the Labour party?
Granted, maybe that's more just a political party thing - how do people get so passionate and believe everyone else must think the same way, when it is demonstrated so often it is not the case.
No disrespect to Mr. Jones, but I don't understand how he got to be in his position of influence in the commentariat. His ideas and demeanour just seem like that of any student union leftist. How come he stood out?
David Cameron might well go down as the Tory Leader/Prime Minister who killed the Lib Dems, Scottish Nationalism, The Labour Party and Euroscepticism stone dead.
He could also go down as the guy who ended the Union, took the UK out of the EU and split the Tory Party.
David Cameron claims to be a eurosceptic himself, so I'd hate to think he wanted to kill the movement stone dead.
Cameron claimed to be a liberal and look what happened.
David Cameron might well go down as the Tory Leader/Prime Minister who killed the Lib Dems, Scottish Nationalism, The Labour Party and Euroscepticism stone dead.
He could also go down as the guy who ended the Union, took the UK out of the EU and split the Tory Party.
David Cameron claims to be a eurosceptic himself, so I'd hate to think he wanted to kill the movement stone dead.
I don't think 'hard' euroskeptics regard the 'soft' ones, the ones who are critical of but content to remain in the EU if enough conditions are met (varying on how critical they are), as euroskeptics at all, so Cameron would not be one, and thus willing to 'kill off' the 'hard' ones.
Putting a hard left Trotskyite on the ballot is custom for Labour. It certainly helps Burnham and to a lesser extent Cooper, since Corbyn will increase participation in the leadership election among the most left wing portion of Labour, as a result not that Kendall had much of a chance but now it's probably close to absolute zero.
Now it will all go down to second preferences, in the Burnham-Cooper race the victor will be decided by: 1.If Burnham's lead on 1st preferences over Cooper is less than half Kendall's 1st preferences. 2.If Kendall's 1st preferences are at least double the number of Corbyn's.
If the above happens then Cooper will win, if not then Burnham will win.
I think Corbyn could get as much as 25-30% of first preferences. The scale of disillusionment with the main contenders among Labour members is really high.
David Cameron might well go down as the Tory Leader/Prime Minister who killed the Lib Dems, Scottish Nationalism, The Labour Party and Euroscepticism stone dead.
He could also go down as the guy who ended the Union, took the UK out of the EU and split the Tory Party.
David Cameron claims to be a eurosceptic himself, so I'd hate to think he wanted to kill the movement stone dead.
Putting a hard left Trotskyite on the ballot is custom for Labour. It certainly helps Burnham and to a lesser extent Cooper, since Corbyn will increase participation in the leadership election among the most left wing portion of Labour, as a result not that Kendall had much of a chance but now it's probably close to absolute zero.
Now it will all go down to second preferences, in the Burnham-Cooper race the victor will be decided by: 1.If Burnham's lead on 1st preferences over Cooper is less than half Kendall's 1st preferences. 2.If Kendall's 1st preferences are at least double the number of Corbyn's.
If the above happens then Cooper will win, if not then Burnham will win.
= exemplary illustration of why the British public prefers FPTP.
Yes, must say I remain mystified as to the appeal of Farron. From the outside Lamb seems to me manifestly superior, and yet Farron is the overwhelming favourite?
It's all about that base.
He's been a hugely effective constituency campaigner, turning a Liberal/Tory marginal into the safest Lib Dem seat in the country. He's also untainted by the coalition, having been agitating from the sidelines throughout.
He'll probably win, but by a finer margin than the betting suggests.
Can you sum up for us what the Lib Dems stand for and a reason to vote for them? Thanks.
The question that either one of the candidates needs to effectively answer. To caricature, it's something like:
Farron - "Left-ish popular causes that Labour aren't picking up" Lamb - "Dry economics, social liberalism and freedom of expression"
I'm too busy with work/family/life generally to be engaged politically, so my summaries aren't that well-informed and are probably a bit unfair.
Thanks. Not a great hand to play for the brand.
No indeed - to use an over-extended turn of phrase, the coalition (plus a bit of UKIP and a lot of SNP) shot their fox, protest vote-wise, and in a paradigm of political debate still mired in left vs right, it's hard to get liberalism into the discussion. There is a rump of traditional liberal support, plus a good chunk of centrist-types who would consider voting LD over unimpressive right- or left-wingers (there I go with that paradigm!) - but barring electoral reform the days of Ashdown/Kennedy-era representation are unlikely to ever return.
However, that 5-10% of the population who are genuine liberals do deserve representation. My preference would be for thoughtful, evidence-based policies working from the basis of the harm principle, free markets, free expression and a small-ish but compassionate (ungainly word, but there it is) state. There was a fair bit of stunt legislation/policymaking in the last five years and some daft hostage-to-fortune stuff beforehand (most obviously the position on university tuition, which managed to be the wrong answer to the wrong question).
That's hardly election-winning stuff (and in passing demonstrates one of many reasons why I've never got involved in politics). But honestly, given ththe LDs will never win an election they should ditch the opportunism and stick to being right on the right issues.
The green cars that you can get a £5k grant for: Sales rocket five-fold as drivers scoop up subsidy – but how long will the pot last?
DfT figures shows nearly 10k green cars were sold in first three months British buyers tempted in by £5k government grant and better technology But subsidy pot could be running out far more quickly than anticipated
It utterly misses the point. We shouldn't be castigating employers for 'systematically excluding bright working-class applicants' - no employer ever does that. We should asking why it is that bright-working-class children are leaving school, and even university, unable to speak properly, write properly, engage in normal social interaction, or present themselves properly for interview, and why they don't get into the top univeristies in the first place.
David Cameron might well go down as the Tory Leader/Prime Minister who killed the Lib Dems, Scottish Nationalism, The Labour Party and Euroscepticism stone dead.
He could also go down as the guy who ended the Union, took the UK out of the EU and split the Tory Party.
David Cameron claims to be a eurosceptic himself, so I'd hate to think he wanted to kill the movement stone dead.
I don't think 'hard' euroskeptics regard the 'soft' ones, the ones who are critical of but content to remain in the EU if enough conditions are met (varying on how critical they are), as euroskeptics at all, so Cameron would not be one, and thus willing to 'kill off' the 'hard' ones.
Yes, I've been accused of not being eurosceptic enough myself! I can never understand the mindset of wanting to exclude people who share the same principles but in milder terms. It's all rather Judean People's Front. However, I think us soft eurosceptics need to accept we benefit from the hard eurosceptics. The more influence they get, the more it bolsters our case to get concessions from the EU to satisfy the country.
There is nothing less employable that someone who talks in a *stupid and inarticulate* way.
Or someone who fails on basic grammar/spelling in their application or CV. Those were dumped at the sifting stage. I used to make all potential hires write a letter to a customer during the intv process - and was APPALLED at the quality as far back as the early 2000s.
It ham-strings them totally. As are strong accents and poor diction. If you can't be readily understood - you're carrying a massive disadvantage.
It utterly misses the point. We shouldn't be castigating employers for 'systematically excluding bright working-class applicants' - no employer ever does that. We should asking why it is that bright-working-class children are leaving school, and even university, unable to speak properly, write properly, engage in normal social interaction, or present themselves properly for interview.
The green cars that you can get a £5k grant for: Sales rocket five-fold as drivers scoop up subsidy – but how long will the pot last?
DfT figures shows nearly 10k green cars were sold in first three months British buyers tempted in by £5k government grant and better technology But subsidy pot could be running out far more quickly than anticipated
Well of course the subsidies will run out, what did they expect when free money is on offer?
Favourite "Green" car - Porsche 918 Spyder. 200mph and 100mpg, although not at the same time; 0-125mph in a little over 7 seconds yet exempt from the congestion charge. Yours for a million Euros (minus the 5 grand subsidy!)- except that they sold all 918 of them already. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche_918
How former mill town Dewsbury in West Yorkshire is linked to more than a dozen Islamist extremists and terrorists including Britain's youngest suicide bomber
More than a dozen terrorists have links to Dewsbury, in West Yorkshire Talha Asmal, Britain's youngest suicide bomber, was from the mill town So was 7/7 mastermind Mohammad Sidique Khan and another bomber Imam says extremists recruit young Muslims using 'paedophile ring' tactics
It utterly misses the point. We shouldn't be castigating employers for 'systematically excluding bright working-class applicants' - no employer ever does that. We should asking why it is that bright-working-class children are leaving school, and even university, unable to speak properly, write properly, engage in normal social interaction, or present themselves properly for interview.
I smelt [EDIT! 'smelled'] a rat when I saw that on the beeb website this morning. I don't think there is any evidence of systematic exclusion of applicants in that report at all (though there might be a bit of 'unconscious bias' in employing people similar to oneself, plus a bit of what you say too). It's also very hard to define 'working class' - to be fair, the report acknowledges this, but using free school meals as a proxy is a totally unsatisfactory. Most people on my street - typically successful tradespeople or small business owners - would probably describe themselves with pride as being working class, despite having comfortable incomes.
Better to simply say 'poor backgrounds' than bringing class into it.
I've loads of cousins who live in Dewsbury and a claim to fame is that one of them played for Batley reserves (before they were called the Bulldogs).
My Auntie never forgave Karen Matthews for dragging them out to look for Shannon. A life-long Labour supporter who still called the neighbours 'Pakis' despite them being kindness itself when her husband (my uncle) died.
What is it about academics which makes them so stupid?
From page 22 of the report on non-educational barriers to the elite professions:
Further, even where individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds access elite professions, they may not achieve the same outcomes as those from more privileged backgrounds. Analysis of the Labour Force Survey conducted by the same authors found that even where socially mobile people are successful in entering the higher professions, including law and finance, they frequently fail to achieve the same levels of success, in terms of earnings at least, as their more privileged peers
In other words, the answer to their own question (which is about why elite professional firms recruit few youngsters from less privileged backgrounds) is staring them in the face, but they are too stupid, or more likely too soaked in lefty dogma, to see it.
How can you possibly write a 112-page report on this subject and fail to make the connection between the outcomes and the recruitment policy, i.e. to fail to conclude that the issue relates to poor state education, not a conspiracy or irrational discrimination by employers? In fact the paragraph I've quoted above suggests these employers are over-compensating and recruiting too many individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, who subsequently under-perform.
Danish update for punters, election tomorrow: latest 4 polls (all yesterday) show centre-right still ahead in 3 out of 4, on +4.6, +1.5, -0.6 and +3.8.
It utterly misses the point. We shouldn't be castigating employers for 'systematically excluding bright working-class applicants' - no employer ever does that. We should asking why it is that bright-working-class children are leaving school, and even university, unable to speak properly, write properly, engage in normal social interaction, or present themselves properly for interview, and why they don't get into the top univeristies in the first place.
Bang on. This appears to be a classic case of correlation does not equal causation.
That said, there is still a little bit of perception bias in operation in some industries, particularly law. I don't think it's a case of original background, but you certainly have an advantage in some firms if you read law at Oxbridge and someone can put a word in for you to get some work experience or, in some cases, an interview.
It utterly misses the point. We shouldn't be castigating employers for 'systematically excluding bright working-class applicants' - no employer ever does that. We should asking why it is that bright-working-class children are leaving school, and even university, unable to speak properly, write properly, engage in normal social interaction, or present themselves properly for interview, and why they don't get into the top univeristies in the first place.
"no employer ever does that."
to deny any kind of old-boy network, or more subtle bias seems somewhat over the top. I haven't read the report, but to deny that some barriers exist seems quite unrealistic
to deny any kind of old-boy network, or more subtle bias seems somewhat over the top. I haven't read the report, but to deny that some barriers exist seems quite unrealistic
Such barriers might exist, but no employer would systematically set out to exclude bright applicants - quite the reverse.
to deny any kind of old-boy network, or more subtle bias seems somewhat over the top. I haven't read the report, but to deny that some barriers exist seems quite unrealistic
Such barriers might exist, but no employer would systematically set out to exclude bright applicants - quite the reverse.
It would be interesting to know how many of the report's authors have any experience of recruitment as an employer.
o/t re ISIS : if dambusters was acceptable, why do we not knock out IS power generating capacity? (or the iraqi air force or whoever) is this a terribly naive question? I am drunk, right enough
Really pleased that Jeremy Corbyn made it onto the ballot-I hope some of you got on at 100-1.I'm still happy with the 5-1 I got on Yvette Cooper.With Tom Watson looking a shoe-in for deputy leader I think the need for gender balance may trump other factors-with 2nd prefences key.Yvette trumps Liz Kendall on experience and competence.Liz looks lightweight to me in comparison and over-priced. There is nothing to be gained by the nonsense in today's DT,if it is true of course,concerning the use of the language of the "Taliban".Jeremy Corbyn's appeal for the debate to remain comradely and respectful should be heard.We can disagree without being disagreeable.
What is it about academics which makes them so stupid?
From page 22 of the report on non-educational barriers to the elite professions:
Further, even where individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds access elite professions, they may not achieve the same outcomes as those from more privileged backgrounds. Analysis of the Labour Force Survey conducted by the same authors found that even where socially mobile people are successful in entering the higher professions, including law and finance, they frequently fail to achieve the same levels of success, in terms of earnings at least, as their more privileged peers
In other words, the answer to their own question (which is about why elite professional firms recruit few youngsters from less privileged backgrounds) is staring them in the face, but they are too stupid, or more likely too soaked in lefty dogma, to see it.
How can you possibly write a 112-page report on this subject and fail to make the connection between the outcomes and the recruitment policy, i.e. to fail to conclude that the issue relates to poor state education, not a conspiracy or irrational discrimination by employers? In fact the paragraph I've quoted above suggests these employers are over-compensating and recruiting too many individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, who subsequently under-perform.
It could just as easily mean that discrimination continues even after entry to a profession. There is some possibility of this at least in Medicine and Law.
Danish update for punters, election tomorrow: latest 4 polls (all yesterday) show centre-right still ahead in 3 out of 4, on +4.6, +1.5, -0.6 and +3.8.
to deny any kind of old-boy network, or more subtle bias seems somewhat over the top. I haven't read the report, but to deny that some barriers exist seems quite unrealistic
Such barriers might exist, but no employer would systematically set out to exclude bright applicants - quite the reverse.
For once I think you're being naive. Systematic bias rarely comes about by malign intent and can exist despite the best wishes of the people responsible. If good management were so easy there wouldn't be so much of an industry surrounding the development of managers.
Update on Greek default, according to new policies published Greece will never officially default even if it not pays the bonds held by the ECB.
Peter Spiegel @SpiegelPeter 3m3 minutes ago Under this new @standardpoors criteria, #Greece would most likely never default.
Standard and Poor June 11 2015
"Standard & Poor’s has lowered Greece’s sovereign rating one notch further into junk territory, saying the country will likely default within the next 12 months if it doesn’t agree with its creditors over the €7.2 billion installment"
to deny any kind of old-boy network, or more subtle bias seems somewhat over the top. I haven't read the report, but to deny that some barriers exist seems quite unrealistic
Such barriers might exist, but no employer would systematically set out to exclude bright applicants - quite the reverse.
For once I think you're being naive. Systematic bias rarely comes about by malign intent and can exist despite the best wishes of the people responsible. If good management were so easy there wouldn't be so much of an industry surrounding the development of managers.
Or so many dodgy managers at the top of professions!
I agree with the general criticism of the "barrier to top jobs" report, but I don't feel comfortable with this item: QUOTE Candidates who show they are "confident", "poised" and "polished", who articulate themselves in a certain way, and in the right accent, who have experienced foreign travel and the kind of social situations, such as large dinners, helpful to business, are considered safe bets. END-QUOTE http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-33109052
Whichever way you try to rationalose it away, Candidates from poorer backgrounds are less likely to have developed such attributes than those from better off backgrounds - especially Public Schools which are famously good at instilling confidence (as discussed in some recent PB threads).
We can fix the schools and universities so that they produce excellent candidates from all backgrounds, but dare I say that we also maybe need to tweak the expectations of employers just a little bit to give them all the fairest chance possible? (edited para)
Odd, according to twitter, Jeremy Corbyn’s nomination appears to have achieved that rare feat of pleasing just about everyone across the political sphere, bar Dan Hodges – splitter.
What is it about academics which makes them so stupid?
From page 22 of the report on non-educational barriers to the elite professions:
Further, even where individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds access elite professions, they may not achieve the same outcomes as those from more privileged backgrounds. Analysis of the Labour Force Survey conducted by the same authors found that even where socially mobile people are successful in entering the higher professions, including law and finance, they frequently fail to achieve the same levels of success, in terms of earnings at least, as their more privileged peers
In other words, the answer to their own question (which is about why elite professional firms recruit few youngsters from less privileged backgrounds) is staring them in the face, but they are too stupid, or more likely too soaked in lefty dogma, to see it.
How can you possibly write a 112-page report on this subject and fail to make the connection between the outcomes and the recruitment policy, i.e. to fail to conclude that the issue relates to poor state education, not a conspiracy or irrational discrimination by employers? In fact the paragraph I've quoted above suggests these employers are over-compensating and recruiting too many individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, who subsequently under-perform.
We have an early years policy that is based on the idea - almost certainly true - that being from a lower socio-economic background is a strong predictor of outcomes like academic success.
I agree with the general criticism of the "barrier to top jobs" report, but I don't feel comfortable with this item: QUOTE Candidates who show they are "confident", "poised" and "polished", who articulate themselves in a certain way, and in the right accent, who have experienced foreign travel and the kind of social situations, such as large dinners, helpful to business, are considered safe bets. END-QUOTE http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-33109052
Whichever way you try to rationalose it away, Candidates from poorer backgrounds are less likely to have developed such attributes than those from better off backgrounds - especially Public Schools which are famously good at instilling confidence (as discussed in some recent PB threads).
We can fix the schools and universities so that they excellent candidates from all backgrounds, but dare I say that we also maybe need to tweak the expectations of employers just a little bit to give them all the fairest chance possible?
Of the disparity in entry to Oxford - for which I once had the stats - at least two thirds, maybe more, disappeared when you controlled for A-level grades. If Richard is right to say it's an omission from the report, then it's glaring...
It could just as easily mean that discrimination continues even after entry to a profession. There is some possibility of this at least in Medicine and Law.
Having just finished Jury Duty, I have no problem believing that the legal profession suffers from discrimination. At one point the barrister and judge had a lengtthy discussion over which of them spoke the better Greek, and where they had learnt (learned?) it. They had to clarify that they were discussing ancient Greek, obviously, not the modern version. The rest of the court was somewhat bemused.
[this arose from a discussion of the term 'erythema' for redness of the skin]
We can fix the schools and universities so that they excellent candidates from all backgrounds, but dare I say that we also maybe need to tweak the expectations of employers just a little bit to give them all the fairest chance possible?
Just how might my "expectations" as an employer be "tweaked just a little bit" in practice?
What is it about academics which makes them so stupid?
From page 22 of the report on non-educational barriers to the elite professions:
Further, even where individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds access elite professions, they may not achieve the same outcomes as those from more privileged backgrounds. Analysis of the Labour Force Survey conducted by the same authors found that even where socially mobile people are successful in entering the higher professions, including law and finance, they frequently fail to achieve the same levels of success, in terms of earnings at least, as their more privileged peers
In other words, the answer to their own question (which is about why elite professional firms recruit few youngsters from less privileged backgrounds) is staring them in the face, but they are too stupid, or more likely too soaked in lefty dogma, to see it.
How can you possibly write a 112-page report on this subject and fail to make the connection between the outcomes and the recruitment policy, i.e. to fail to conclude that the issue relates to poor state education, not a conspiracy or irrational discrimination by employers? In fact the paragraph I've quoted above suggests these employers are over-compensating and recruiting too many individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, who subsequently under-perform.
We have an early years policy that is based on the idea - almost certainly true - that being from a lower socio-economic background is a strong predictor of outcomes like academic success.
It probably is but is that due to "posh tests", snobbery and discrimination or is it, much more likely, to do with stable families, good schooling, parental discipline, aspiration and example and better diets?
I accept wealth makes all that much easier but I'm not convinced it's the be all and end all. Who you mix with as a child, the mentors and authority figures you have, and their attitude, is so so important.
We can fix the schools and universities so that they excellent candidates from all backgrounds, but dare I say that we also maybe need to tweak the expectations of employers just a little bit to give them all the fairest chance possible?
Just how might my "expectations" as an employer be "tweaked just a little bit" in practice?
What is it about academics which makes them so stupid?
From page 22 of the report on non-educational barriers to the elite professions:
Further, even where individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds access elite professions, they may not achieve the same outcomes as those from more privileged backgrounds. Analysis of the Labour Force Survey conducted by the same authors found that even where socially mobile people are successful in entering the higher professions, including law and finance, they frequently fail to achieve the same levels of success, in terms of earnings at least, as their more privileged peers
In other words, the answer to their own question (which is about why elite professional firms recruit few youngsters from less privileged backgrounds) is staring them in the face, but they are too stupid, or more likely too soaked in lefty dogma, to see it.
How can you possibly write a 112-page report on this subject and fail to make the connection between the outcomes and the recruitment policy, i.e. to fail to conclude that the issue relates to poor state education, not a conspiracy or irrational discrimination by employers? In fact the paragraph I've quoted above suggests these employers are over-compensating and recruiting too many individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, who subsequently under-perform.
We have an early years policy that is based on the idea - almost certainly true - that being from a lower socio-economic background is a strong predictor of outcomes like academic success.
It probably is but is that due to "posh tests", snobbery and discrimination or is it, much more likely, to do with stable families, good schooling, parental discipline, aspiration and example and better diets?
I accept wealth makes all that much easier but I'm not convinced it's the be all and end all. Who you mix with as a child, the mentors and authority figures you have, and their attitude, is so so important.
My point was that few, if any "poshness" tests are relevant to early years teaching and the "stable families, good schooling, parental discipline, aspiration and example and better diets" are more relevant, along with others I might add, for example the amount of time parents spend with their children, availability of learning materials at home, and exposure of the child to other children.
Underperformance at school will mean underperformance in the workplace.
Islington North Conservative candidate Adrian Berrill-Cox said: “It would be an act of vandalism to remove a fixture like Jeremy Corbyn. I know he’s referred to as a comrade but in my experience he’s a true gentleman and I can’t think of anyone I’d rather lose to"
Underperformance at school will mean underperformance in the workplace.
do I not recall some survey in the past that said lower social classes improved more after university entrance? or did i imagine that?
Possibly. You'd hope that the advantages those from higher socio-economic backgrounds had would diminish both in absolute terms and in comparison to everything you might be hired or be promoted on the back of.
My worry over Corbyn on the ballot is that he will split the harder left vote in Labour ranks that would have otherwise ensured Burnham safely through as Leader.
This surely has to help Liz, the only one of the Labour candidates who seems in my view remotely attractive to Middle England and therefore electable as future PM.
My worry over Corbyn on the ballot is that he will split the harder left vote in Labour ranks that would have otherwise ensured Burnham safely through as Leader.
This surely has to help Liz, the only one of the Labour candidates who seems in my view remotely attractive to Middle England and therefore electable as future PM.
As a Tory voter, that is not an outcome I want!
Ah, but the socialists are voting with some newfangled system I believe, so it won't matter.
My worry over Corbyn on the ballot is that he will split the harder left vote in Labour ranks that would have otherwise ensured Burnham safely through as Leader.
This surely has to help Liz, the only one of the Labour candidates who seems in my view remotely attractive to Middle England and therefore electable as future PM.
As a Tory voter, that is not an outcome I want!
With Corbyn on the ballot, people who would otherwise not have bothered to vote will now take part. If they use their second preferences, they will break for Burnham. AB must be pleased to have JC on the ballot!
My worry over Corbyn on the ballot is that he will split the harder left vote in Labour ranks that would have otherwise ensured Burnham safely through as Leader.
This surely has to help Liz, the only one of the Labour candidates who seems in my view remotely attractive to Middle England and therefore electable as future PM.
As a Tory voter, that is not an outcome I want!
With Corbyn on the ballot, people who would otherwise not have bothered to vote will now take part. If they use their second preferences, they will break for Burnham. AB must be pleased to have JC on the ballot!
Yes, that's my net reading of it, though it's possible a few members won't rank beyond 1 so he might lose a couple off the back of that.
My worry over Corbyn on the ballot is that he will split the harder left vote in Labour ranks that would have otherwise ensured Burnham safely through as Leader.
This surely has to help Liz, the only one of the Labour candidates who seems in my view remotely attractive to Middle England and therefore electable as future PM.
As a Tory voter, that is not an outcome I want!
With Corbyn on the ballot, people who would otherwise not have bothered to vote will now take part. If they use their second preferences, they will break for Burnham. AB must be pleased to have JC on the ballot!
Assuming Corbyn comes fourth.
I think he will in the end but before today we had "polls" of varying veracity showing him ahead of the others. We'll probably now have polls showing him in the mix.
It could just as easily mean that discrimination continues even after entry to a profession. There is some possibility of this at least in Medicine and Law.
This is getting ridiculous - first they try to fix up school exam results, then they try to fix up university entry, now they are trying to fix up entry to the professions, and you're now in addition suggesting there is 'discrimination' for life.
Well, you can't fix up life.
What you can do is go right back to the beginning, and address the actual issue, which has virtually nothing to do with exams being biased, or university entrance being biased, or entry to elite professions being biased, or performance in those professions being biased, but instead has everything to do with an educational system which fails bright but less-privileged kids abysmally.
If they were taught to speak and write good English, if they were challenged so that they developed confidence, if they were taught that manners and presentation matter, if they were told a little bit about how the world works (hint: it doesn't work by giving prizes to everyone), if they were not allowed to coast in class, if their views of the world were stretched to take them outside the limits of their immediate surroundings, if they were encouraged to achieve, then we wouldn't need to artificially skew the selection procedures later on.
I'm not saying this is easy - but it is what needs to be done. Everything else is just displacement activity, and acts as a distraction from the real problem.
Comments
(1) Keep campaigning and hope you win one day (Syriza, fundamentalist religious types)
(2) Overthrow the system so you can win anyway (Lenin, Robespierre)
(3) Compromise as much as you think necessary to get a majority (most politicians)
(4) Resign yourself to being in a minority and perhaps influencing the debate (Corbyn, probably).
Only (2) is actually morally wrong (at least if the system allows democratic challenge), though (3) can become so if you end up selling out altogether.
What is actually happening?
But by all means feel free to ignore any posts or discussion on it!
Left-leaning = stronger feelings
Stronger feelings = more likely to vote
More likely to vote = Jeremy Corbyn
it follows that Jeremy Corbyn is a shoe-in.
Oh yes!
It's a trick question of course. The answer is "Cameron's Tories" because they're going to outlaw nutty strikes.
He's been a hugely effective constituency campaigner, turning a Liberal/Tory marginal into the safest Lib Dem seat in the country. He's also untainted by the coalition, having been agitating from the sidelines throughout.
He'll probably win, but by a finer margin than the betting suggests.
Thanks.
However, I do take your point. The professional classes do have trade unions (we just call them something else) and the big business owners have Human Resource departments[1] but I suspect the small business owner has far less support, and I think that may have been the point you were making
[1] HR defends the company against the employee, not vice versa...
A few are getting a shade giddy over Corbyn.
Very interesting watching that video from 2005 on the Conservative contest. Cameron's been around for bloody ages. He'll definitely go down as a historic PM, whether good or ill. He'll either have won 2 General Elections and 3 referendum votes, or have taken us out of the EU.
He's also has as contemporaries Blair, Brown, Miliband and AN Other Labour leader; likewise Kennedy, Campbell, Clegg [who he saw off by the unusual method of becoming his colleague then destroying his party] and another Lib Dem leader.
I do think he could've handled some things a lot better (most notably Defence and Aid, and his ignorance of the most basic aspects of the internet is troubling), but in political terms he's been a very significant figure. However, with at least a few years left he has time to completely bugger up his legacy or improve it substantially.
Farron - "Left-ish popular causes that Labour aren't picking up"
Lamb - "Dry economics, social liberalism and freedom of expression"
I'm too busy with work/family/life generally to be engaged politically, so my summaries aren't that well-informed and are probably a bit unfair.
Not a great hand to play for the brand.
2010 was far more significant, because they put on a hundred seats and entered the first full peacetime coalition since the War.
I think both terms have some remarkable Wiki points in the future.
He could also go down as the guy who ended the Union, took the UK out of the EU and split the Tory Party.
On Cameron, I'm quite well disposed toward him, some incompetencies and failures notwithstanding, but I do think it significant that one of the sort of criticisms about him is that he just 'looks like a PM' or words to that effect, as if there's not much else to him (which may or may not be the case, I think it a little unfair to say that's all there is), but which ignores that having that quality is rarer than people think. In part because of what he says and how he says it, but also as just some innate quality, Cameron doesn't seem the scare figure Labour occasionally tried to make him seem, and because he looks and sounds like a PM, as they say, the lazy attacks don't work brilliantly either. As others have pointed out, although this is a narrow majority he now has, it is not insignificant at all how he has managed it.
If he can win the EU ref, I can easily see him being regarded as a very significant PM, rather than just significant.
Well you know what the morning thread is going to be about now
Tory MPs swing behind George ‘Caesar’ Osborne for next leader
http://bit.ly/1L8Ur8l
This is the Amazon summary
It certainly helps Burnham and to a lesser extent Cooper, since Corbyn will increase participation in the leadership election among the most left wing portion of Labour, as a result not that Kendall had much of a chance but now it's probably close to absolute zero.
Now it will all go down to second preferences, in the Burnham-Cooper race the victor will be decided by:
1.If Burnham's lead on 1st preferences over Cooper is less than half Kendall's 1st preferences.
2.If Kendall's 1st preferences are at least double the number of Corbyn's.
If the above happens then Cooper will win, if not then Burnham will win.
Can I strongly urge PBers to keep on topic on that thread/not be silly/aggressive/abusive as it will be viewed widely.
Were it to be a success it will be repeated.
It means what it says. I'm Eurosceptic and would prefer much better terms with the EU but not scared to leave if that can't be delivered.
(And the odds on PBers staying on topic, let alone the rest, can't be less than 100/1!)
However, that 5-10% of the population who are genuine liberals do deserve representation. My preference would be for thoughtful, evidence-based policies working from the basis of the harm principle, free markets, free expression and a small-ish but compassionate (ungainly word, but there it is) state. There was a fair bit of stunt legislation/policymaking in the last five years and some daft hostage-to-fortune stuff beforehand (most obviously the position on university tuition, which managed to be the wrong answer to the wrong question).
That's hardly election-winning stuff (and in passing demonstrates one of many reasons why I've never got involved in politics). But honestly, given ththe LDs will never win an election they should ditch the opportunism and stick to being right on the right issues.
Peter Spiegel @SpiegelPeter 3m3 minutes ago
Under this new @standardpoors criteria, #Greece would most likely never default.
He meets them tomorrow and wants some questions to ask.
Who better to ask than PBers?
"Yes, you did, you invaded Sicily."
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/study-into-non-educational-barriers-to-top-jobs-published
It utterly misses the point. We shouldn't be castigating employers for 'systematically excluding bright working-class applicants' - no employer ever does that. We should asking why it is that bright-working-class children are leaving school, and even university, unable to speak properly, write properly, engage in normal social interaction, or present themselves properly for interview, and why they don't get into the top univeristies in the first place.
Or someone who fails on basic grammar/spelling in their application or CV. Those were dumped at the sifting stage. I used to make all potential hires write a letter to a customer during the intv process - and was APPALLED at the quality as far back as the early 2000s.
It ham-strings them totally. As are strong accents and poor diction. If you can't be readily understood - you're carrying a massive disadvantage.
Favourite "Green" car - Porsche 918 Spyder.
200mph and 100mpg, although not at the same time; 0-125mph in a little over 7 seconds yet exempt from the congestion charge.
Yours for a million Euros (minus the 5 grand subsidy!)- except that they sold all 918 of them already.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche_918
Just re-aquainted myself with an amazing statistic from that election: 620 of 641 GB seats were retained by the party that won them in 1997.
Better to simply say 'poor backgrounds' than bringing class into it.
I've loads of cousins who live in Dewsbury and a claim to fame is that one of them played for Batley reserves (before they were called the Bulldogs).
My Auntie never forgave Karen Matthews for dragging them out to look for Shannon. A life-long Labour supporter who still called the neighbours 'Pakis' despite them being kindness itself when her husband (my uncle) died.
From page 22 of the report on non-educational barriers to the elite professions:
Further, even where individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds access elite professions, they may not achieve the same outcomes as those from more privileged backgrounds. Analysis of the Labour Force Survey conducted by the same authors found that even where socially mobile people are successful in entering the higher professions, including law and finance, they frequently fail to achieve the same levels of success, in terms of earnings at least, as their more privileged peers
In other words, the answer to their own question (which is about why elite professional firms recruit few youngsters from less privileged backgrounds) is staring them in the face, but they are too stupid, or more likely too soaked in lefty dogma, to see it.
How can you possibly write a 112-page report on this subject and fail to make the connection between the outcomes and the recruitment policy, i.e. to fail to conclude that the issue relates to poor state education, not a conspiracy or irrational discrimination by employers? In fact the paragraph I've quoted above suggests these employers are over-compensating and recruiting too many individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, who subsequently under-perform.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/non-educational-barriers-to-the-elite-professions-evaluation
(I'm off to China for a conference, back Friday.)
That said, there is still a little bit of perception bias in operation in some industries, particularly law. I don't think it's a case of original background, but you certainly have an advantage in some firms if you read law at Oxbridge and someone can put a word in for you to get some work experience or, in some cases, an interview.
to deny any kind of old-boy network, or more subtle bias seems somewhat over the top. I haven't read the report, but to deny that some barriers exist seems quite unrealistic
There is nothing to be gained by the nonsense in today's DT,if it is true of course,concerning the use of the language of the "Taliban".Jeremy Corbyn's appeal for the debate to remain comradely and respectful should be heard.We can disagree without being disagreeable.
"Standard & Poor’s has lowered Greece’s sovereign rating one notch further into junk territory, saying the country will likely default within the next 12 months if it doesn’t agree with its creditors over the €7.2 billion installment"
Source: Reuters
http://rt.com/business/266467-greece-sp-rating-downgrade/
Trouble for the new leader is that he/she wont even have rubbish polling to prop up their position.
QUOTE
Candidates who show they are "confident", "poised" and "polished", who articulate themselves in a certain way, and in the right accent, who have experienced foreign travel and the kind of social situations, such as large dinners, helpful to business, are considered safe bets.
END-QUOTE
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-33109052
Whichever way you try to rationalose it away, Candidates from poorer backgrounds are less likely to have developed such attributes than those from better off backgrounds - especially Public Schools which are famously good at instilling confidence (as discussed in some recent PB threads).
We can fix the schools and universities so that they produce excellent candidates from all backgrounds, but dare I say that we also maybe need to tweak the expectations of employers just a little bit to give them all the fairest chance possible? (edited para)
[this arose from a discussion of the term 'erythema' for redness of the skin]
I accept wealth makes all that much easier but I'm not convinced it's the be all and end all. Who you mix with as a child, the mentors and authority figures you have, and their attitude, is so so important.
Underperformance at school will mean underperformance in the workplace.
Islington North Conservative candidate Adrian Berrill-Cox said: “It would be an act of vandalism to remove a fixture like Jeremy Corbyn. I know he’s referred to as a comrade but in my experience he’s a true gentleman and I can’t think of anyone I’d rather lose to"
This surely has to help Liz, the only one of the Labour candidates who seems in my view remotely attractive to Middle England and therefore electable as future PM.
As a Tory voter, that is not an outcome I want!
Wonder if he has a donkey jacket handy, just in case.... :-)
I really agree with Richard Nabavi and Plato's comments on this. It's *frustrating* more than anything else.
I think he will in the end but before today we had "polls" of varying veracity showing him ahead of the others. We'll probably now have polls showing him in the mix.
Well, you can't fix up life.
What you can do is go right back to the beginning, and address the actual issue, which has virtually nothing to do with exams being biased, or university entrance being biased, or entry to elite professions being biased, or performance in those professions being biased, but instead has everything to do with an educational system which fails bright but less-privileged kids abysmally.
If they were taught to speak and write good English, if they were challenged so that they developed confidence, if they were taught that manners and presentation matter, if they were told a little bit about how the world works (hint: it doesn't work by giving prizes to everyone), if they were not allowed to coast in class, if their views of the world were stretched to take them outside the limits of their immediate surroundings, if they were encouraged to achieve, then we wouldn't need to artificially skew the selection procedures later on.
I'm not saying this is easy - but it is what needs to be done. Everything else is just displacement activity, and acts as a distraction from the real problem.