For all the talk of the Tories being the party who give you a help in hand, social mobility has fallen in the last 30 years - in which there have been three Conservative PMs.
Um, most of the fall happened during Blair/Brown's government, not under the tories
A lot, however, was down to the abolition of grammar schools (started under Labour, continued under the Tories) and the assisted places scheme (uniquely Labour).
This is why Gove's reforms are so critical: education has to be at the heart of turning this country around
I mentioned the rightwards shift in politics - thereby including Blair/Brown. Social mobility actually began to stagnate in the 1970s - so it is a failing of both the Conservative and Labour parties'. Incidentially, income inequality has also increase massively since the 1980s, too.
As for Gove's reforms; I'm personally not convinced they are going to dramatically improve education
@TCPoliticalBetting I don't think the LDs did have the chance between 1997-2001, when Blair had ridiculous approval ratings, and New Labour were at the peak of their powers. Although, I agree that Ashdown's pact with Blair was foolhardy.
I agree, though there are a couple of factors that make direct comparison a little false.
For a start, West Yorkshire isn't a city. Neither is the West Midlands.
Plus, London will get a 'capital bonus'. It's natural for the capital of a country to get headquarters established there over other potential locations.
Not that I'm arguing against London being the wealthiest part of the UK. But then, if the cluster of museums, art galleries and transport spending were suddenly dumped on Leeds, say, one suspects the latter city would suddenly seem much more prosperous.
There's also the unique, otherworldly nature of the property market.
All of that has some force. It does not explain why these eight cities are less productive than the English average (in some cases far less productive):
ONS @ONS · 58m58 minutes ago Labour productivity in northern & midlands city regions 9-16% below England average http://ow.ly/Q2FCY
I imagine it is because New Labour used the public sector to absorb manufacturing redundancies in northern towns.
There was not a word on PB about those funny ethnic surnames like Cook or Huxley.
Exactly the argument that the Guardian made when the Times began revealing the Rotherham scandal in 2011. Fortunately, the Times stuck to its guns.
I think, statistically, the group most likely to be paedophiles will turn out to be MPs.
I didn't want to say anything about that to avoid causing trouble for Mr Smithson Sr, not knowing where exactly to draw the line. But it is worth considering whether power rather than religion or ethnicity corrupts.
The question is why many of these Asian men in towns across England feel they have power over these girls. I would imagine there is a sense of untouchability that existed - and possibly still exists among many. In the case today, five men were convicted, when the victim involved was allegedly raped by sixty men. It seems like the vast majority are getting away. Potentially, part of this is because of an unwillingness to fully shine the light on these crimes. Even today, the BBC is reporting the president of another country arriving in another country as front page news, when an abuse ring of dozens in an English town does not appear on it at all.
On the Tories: they are essentially a middle class party, who stand-up for, and protect the interests of the middle class, and the wealthy. For all the talk of the Tories being the party who give you a help in hand, social mobility has fallen in the last 30 years - in which there have been three Conservative PMs.
There's a simple reason for that: they didn't support grammar schools. Thatcher got rid of more of them than almost anyone else.
CIF is not worse than the Telegraph comments' section. I've seen that comments' section delve into the worse kind of misogyny and racism at times.
I'd say they're about the same in nastiness. Telegraphers can be sexist and racist, but Guardianistas can be psychotically murderous about "Tories", and other hate-groups.
The Guardianistas are marginally crazier, tho, which was my point. Slightly more neurotic and bizarre.
Hmmm, that's true. I agree that they are the same in nastiness - CIF has become a lot worse in recent years - I don't recall it being that bad pre-2010. That said I'm going to have to say they are both equally crazy. A group of people that sensitive to anything negative said about Nigel Farage are deffo crazy. No one should be that attached to a political leader.
Just watching Inside F1 (video's up on the BBC site), and enjoying watching Pat Symonds pointing out to Tom Clarkson that Monaco and Hungary aren't similar tracks.
*sighs*
It's worse than someone thinking Caesar was more capable as a soldier than Hannibal.
@AndyJS you and @Charles appear to attribute the decline in social mobility/inequality to the removal of grammar schools. Would you both reintroduce them, and if you did what would happen to the kids who did not pass their 11+.
For all the talk of the Tories being the party who give you a help in hand, social mobility has fallen in the last 30 years - in which there have been three Conservative PMs.
Um, most of the fall happened during Blair/Brown's government, not under the tories
A lot, however, was down to the abolition of grammar schools (started under Labour, continued under the Tories) and the assisted places scheme (uniquely Labour).
This is why Gove's reforms are so critical: education has to be at the heart of turning this country around
Education is at the heart, but public health surely must be the most important.
On the second one I was tempted to right JCWNBPM but can't be bothered to have to explain why Labour are nuts to be contemplating electing him as leader.
Mori has done a Tory leadership poll today for the Evening Standard following their Labour leadership poll yesterday.
It shows Osborne closing in on Boris on 45% with Tory voters, level with May, just behind Boris on 47%.
Overall, amongst all voters these are the figures on whether voters thought a leadership candidate could be a good PM (and their net agree/disagree total)
Boris 32% (-20%) Osborne 23% (-30%) May 28% (-14%) Gove 13% (-40%)
On the subject of gnomes, my extensive leafletting around Torbay - a place I would have expected to be a strong redoubt of the cheerful ceramic characters - showed them to be seriously endangered.
They have been squeezed out by the meerkat ornament, it seems. Tragic....
My daughter is repelled by recreational vehicles. Something about the way the rear juts out so far from the rear axles. This was a new 'phobia' to me.
The movie INSIDE OUT has a recurring riff on odd childhood phobias, from clowns to broccoli.
BTW it's a fecking incredible film, in case I hadn't made that clear.
No spoilers! I'm taking my daughter to see it next week, due to living in the provinces and having to wait for the wagon to deliver the film.
I won't spoil it by saying you're in for a treat. Watch it in 3D if you can, tho it's not essential.
People are speculating it might be the first animated movie to win Best Film. I doubt it, seeing as they didn't even nominate the phenomenal LEGO MOVIE in "Best Animated Feature".
But it will like BE the best movie released this year.
Here's a taste of the rapturous critical reception (warning: SPOILERS):
I think Oscar would have to change the rules for it to qualify - currently only possible to win in the Animated section. Which is a bit crap when Lord of the Rings won best Oscar for being a CGI fest....
Animated features have been nommed for Best Movie in the past - e.g. Beauty and the Beast - but maybe the rules have changed?
If they have then it might be worth putting a few quid on INSIDE OUT for Best Animated Feature Oscar. It is surely a certainty. It's quite possibly the greatest movie Pixar have made.
I recall some controversy in recent years as on occasions the best movie of a year, or at least contender for best movie of the year, has been animated and not included, so I'm pretty sure the rules have been changes since Beauty and the Beast days, alas. Pretty sure some people thought Wall-E was better than all the Best Picture nominees that year.
If people are calling Inside Out Best Picture worthy, perhaps I will be able to go see it without some people wondering why the guy in his 20s with no kids is watching the movie.
On the second one I was tempted to right JCWNBPM but can't be bothered to have to explain why Labour are nuts to be contemplating electing him as leader.
Hmmmmm... The Doctor doesn't know the way to address a letter nor how to end it.
You should never (IMHO) address a letter to Dear Jeremy Hunt MP and even if you make that mistake its not the way to sign it off......
Oh and on call doesn't mean you are doing any work, you just need to be available.
and...
Dear Sir= Yours faithfully Dear Mr or named person.. = Yours sincerely
On the second one I was tempted to write JCWNBPM but can't be bothered to have to explain why Labour are nuts to be contemplating electing him as leader.
OH dear tHE Doctor doesn't know the way to address a letter nor how to end it.
You should never address a letter to Dear Jeremy Hunt MP and even if you make that mistake its not the way to sign it off......
Oh and on call doesn't mean you are doing any work, you just need to be available.
Dear Sir= Yours faithfully Dear Mr or named person.. = Yours sincerely
My doctor friend who shared the link is an intelligent person - but he just seems to be blinded by a hatred for the Tories.
Here's something I struggle with on social mobility. Let's imagine a thought experiment where the following holds true:
1) Intelligence is partly defined by genetic inheritance, and partly by schooling 2) The system is a true meritocracy, where everyone fulfils their potential and those with the highest natural intelligence achieve the most economic success 3) People marry and have children with people of similar economic success
If we imagine a starting point where children from poor families are just as likely to be intelligent as children from rich families. We have a great, meritocratic schooling system, where everyone maxes out on the schooling part of intelligence. The only thing that is left is their natural genetic ability. In this first generation, we start with the following:
Rich families have 50% smart kids, 50% stupid kids Poor families have 50% smart kids, 50% stupid kids
If you get one of the best 50% of jobs, you become relatively rich. If you get one of the bottom 50% you become relatively poor. We get the following results:
- Smart, poor children become smart, rich adults - Stupid, poor children become stupid, poor adults - Smart, rich children become smart, rich adults - Stupid, poor children become stupid, poor adults
When we examine the numbers, we find that 50% of poor kids get rich, and 50% of rich kids stay rich. Yay, social mobility!
Now let us imagine that the smart, rich adults and the stupid, poor adults all breed with each other. The children of the smart, rich adults are more likely to be smart. The children of the stupid, poor adults are more likely to be stupid. In this second generation, we may get a situation like this:
Rich families have 60% smart kids, 40% stupid kids Poor families have 40% smart kids, 60% stupid kids
Once again, everyone has great schooling, and everyone achieves their educational and economic potential. Once again:
- Smart, poor children become smart, rich adults - Stupid, poor children become stupid, poor adults - Smart, rich children become smart, rich adults - Stupid, poor children become stupid, poor adults
When we examine the numbers, we find that 60% of rich kids stay rich, and just 40% of poor kids get rich. Oh dear, social mobility is falling!
Obviously, this is a very simple model. But it reveals a worrying truth. Even in a truly meritocratic society, after a few generations, rich children will do better than poor children as long as intelligence is inheritable and as long as people marry similarly successful people.
On the second one I was tempted to right JCWNBPM but can't be bothered to have to explain why Labour are nuts to be contemplating electing him as leader.
Hmmmmm... The Doctor doesn't know the way to address a letter nor how to end it.
You should never (IMHO) address a letter to Dear Jeremy Hunt MP and even if you make that mistake its not the way to sign it off......
Oh and on call doesn't mean you are doing any work, you just need to be available.
and...
Dear Sir= Yours faithfully Dear Mr or named person.. = Yours sincerely
How should one address an MP in a letter? Dear Joe Bloggs MP seems a very common 'error' that people are making, and omitting Mr/Mrs seems increasingly common when people may not, in the case of women, aware of which prefix is right (and so avoid Mr so it is a rule and not gender specific I guess). Since many people don't like being addressed as Sir/Madam, what is one to do?
I'm not at all sure May will run in 20xx. So where might her support go? One thing you can place bets on however is that the tory party will not nominate some wildcard bozo just so the Party can have a wider debate about it. Somehow I don't think the Labour Party will ever again either - although of course LOTO Corbyn might change the rules.
For all the talk of the Tories being the party who give you a help in hand, social mobility has fallen in the last 30 years - in which there have been three Conservative PMs.
Um, most of the fall happened during Blair/Brown's government, not under the tories
A lot, however, was down to the abolition of grammar schools (started under Labour, continued under the Tories) and the assisted places scheme (uniquely Labour).
This is why Gove's reforms are so critical: education has to be at the heart of turning this country around
I mentioned the rightwards shift in politics - thereby including Blair/Brown. Social mobility actually began to stagnate in the 1970s - so it is a failing of both the Conservative and Labour parties'. Incidentially, income inequality has also increase massively since the 1980s, too.
As for Gove's reforms; I'm personally not convinced they are going to dramatically improve education
@TCPoliticalBetting I don't think the LDs did have the chance between 1997-2001, when Blair had ridiculous approval ratings, and New Labour were at the peak of their powers. Although, I agree that Ashdown's pact with Blair was foolhardy.
The Gove reforms, specifically the relentless focus on accountability and the ruthless attack of low expectations should transform the prospects of kids who have been let down by coasting, comfortable local authority schools. As a Governor in a rural secondary school I see first hand the impact and have no doubt that high academic expectations for all are preferable to a return to grammar schools.
To an extent assortive mating does cause social inequality in such a system (though assortive mating is usually assymetric in that many men are choose mates a rung or so down and top end intellectual females often struggle to find a bloke of the same caliber: Liz Kendall for example).
This is counteracted by the phenomenon of regression to the mean, so there are always some bright kids born to dullards and vice versa, so there is always a degree of flow and movement up and down the social scale.
@AndyJS you and @Charles appear to attribute the decline in social mobility/inequality to the removal of grammar schools. Would you both reintroduce them, and if you did what would happen to the kids who did not pass their 11+.
Indeed and how do you arrange the split of the teachers as well. And pay for the duplication. The point about grammar schools is well made however, in the sense that selection via a grammar school means that there becomes less need for selection by having the right postcode.
@AndyJS you and @Charles appear to attribute the decline in social mobility/inequality to the removal of grammar schools. Would you both reintroduce them, and if you did what would happen to the kids who did not pass their 11+.
I wouldn't, no. Grammar schools worked well for those people who made the cut, but the secondary moderns were not sufficient for those who didn't.
Personally I prefer academic-based setting within schools, plus specialist schools for people with particular aptitudes. We also need to get away from the false canard that an academic and/or university education is most appropriate for 50%+ of the education. There is nothing shameful about vocational or skills-based education to enable people to maximise their potential based on their innate abilities
Antifrank says - ''All of that has some force. It does not explain why these eight cities are less productive than the English average (in some cases far less productive)''
Well we do know that a very small area encompasses financial services and all the added value and profits and invisible exports that go with it. If we take diamonds - cut diamonds - I believe we are one of the biggest exporters in the world. History and expertise places all that business in London.
With all this talk of Labour leadership elections and candidates, I had forgotten Cameron had only been an MP for 4 years when he became leader. Not always a detriment I suppose, though I guess Spad experience helped there.
I wonder what might have happened if Witney had not become available as a seat; he'd already fought and lost at one GE, and I'm sure he'd have been given another cosy seat to fight, but still.
Here's something I struggle with on social mobility.
[snip]
Obviously, this is a very simple model. But it reveals a worrying truth. Even in a truly meritocratic society, after a few generations, rich children will do better than poor children as long as intelligence is inheritable and as long as people marry similarly successful people.
Yes, but the secret is the ability for the breakthrough talent from the poor group to ascend into the rich group. This improves the gene pool and also ensures that talent is not wasted.
Wealth is sticky, that is true*, but it is not inexhaustible
* As an example, our family had a dreadful dearth of talent for 125 years (1825 - 1950). But the strength of the brand and the family culture that had been developed prior to that meant that when the genetic legacy improved (by marrying into an incredibly talented but relatively poor family of Irish lawyers) there was still the potential to turn things around
I'm not at all sure May will run in 20xx. So where might her support go? One thing you can place bets on however is that the tory party will not nominate some wildcard bozo just so the Party can have a wider debate about it. Somehow I don't think the Labour Party will ever again either - although of course LOTO Corbyn might change the rules.
May will run if Boris does, as the highly disciplined daughter of a vicar she is said to not have been amused by his affairs and laid back approach to life.
Of course the Tories did allow IDS to knock-out Portillo by 1 vote in 2001
@AndyJS you and @Charles appear to attribute the decline in social mobility/inequality to the removal of grammar schools. Would you both reintroduce them, and if you did what would happen to the kids who did not pass their 11+.
Indeed and how do you arrange the split of the teachers as well. And pay for the duplication. The point about grammar schools is well made however, in the sense that selection via a grammar school means that there becomes less need for selection by having the right postcode.
Selection does not just have to be at 11, Finland selects at 16
To an extent assortive mating does cause social inequality in such a system (though assortive mating is usually assymetric in that many men are choose mates a rung or so down and top end intellectual females often struggle to find a bloke of the same caliber: Liz Kendall for example).
This is counteracted by the phenomenon of regression to the mean, so there are always some bright kids born to dullards and vice versa, so there is always a degree of flow and movement up and down the social scale.
Put simply, when the boss used to marry the slightly thick 19 year-old receptionist, it did a world of good for social mobility. That doesn't happen so much today. (Note I didn't specify the genders of the boss and receptionist).
" Yvette Cooper: ‘Andy’s campaign seems to want Liz and me to leave it to the boys’
As Jeremy Corbyn’s surge has plunged Labour into civil war, his leadership rival has trodden a cautious path. Now, angered by a sexist undertone to the campaign, she’s ready to make a stand."
If memory recalls, Girl on Boy action was never this dull.
@AndyJS you and @Charles appear to attribute the decline in social mobility/inequality to the removal of grammar schools. Would you both reintroduce them, and if you did what would happen to the kids who did not pass their 11+.
Indeed and how do you arrange the split of the teachers as well. And pay for the duplication. The point about grammar schools is well made however, in the sense that selection via a grammar school means that there becomes less need for selection by having the right postcode.
Selection does not just have to be at 11, Finland selects at 16
I have yet to meet a person who does not believe in selection for educational purposes for university, very few who would select age 5. The argument is where the right point on this spectrum is best. I think the evidence is that Finland does better on this than us.
I doubt very much whether any other party will displace Labour as the left-of-centre party in the UK, as long as we have FPTP. It is possible that Labour will split if Corbyn is elected as leader, and a splinter party formed, but it would be extremely hard for such a party to gain enough traction to displace Labour. The LibDems have missed their chance to displace Labour as the fiscally-sane party of the left. UKIP is a different kettle of fish, which might continue to take votes off Labour, but is never going to eat into Labour's academic, metropolitan, feminist, or ethnic support segments.
The most likely outcome of Labour's travails is disarray, similar to (but worse than) that suffered by the Conservatives in the dark days of IDS, but not extinction. Eventually they'll recover, but it could take a long time.
It was only 18 months after the departure of IDS that the Tories managed over 30 net gains at the 2005 election and ended up just 3% short of Labour in the national vote!
There was not a word on PB about those funny ethnic surnames like Cook or Huxley.
Exactly the argument that the Guardian made when the Times began revealing the Rotherham scandal in 2011. Fortunately, the Times stuck to its guns.
I think, statistically, the group most likely to be paedophiles will turn out to be MPs.
I didn't want to say anything about that to avoid causing trouble for Mr Smithson Sr, not knowing where exactly to draw the line. But it is worth considering whether power rather than religion or ethnicity corrupts.
The question is why many of these Asian men in towns across England feel they have power over these girls. I would imagine there is a sense of untouchability that existed - and possibly still exists among many. In the case today, five men were convicted, when the victim involved was allegedly raped by sixty men. It seems like the vast majority are getting away. Potentially, part of this is because of an unwillingness to fully shine the light on these crimes. Even today, the BBC is reporting the president of another country arriving in another country as front page news, when an abuse ring of dozens in an English town does not appear on it at all.
Usually the big conspiracies happen when people believe they can get away with it and do. It is probably wise to mention that often, perhaps even mostly, child abuse is not connected to conspiracies of and is done by people close to or with some formal responsibility for the victim. But this is about the big conspiracies like the religious orders, certain BBC stars, senior Establishment figures, senior figures in ethnic minority and majority communities, etc. etc. etc.
@AndyJS you and @Charles appear to attribute the decline in social mobility/inequality to the removal of grammar schools. Would you both reintroduce them, and if you did what would happen to the kids who did not pass their 11+.
Indeed and how do you arrange the split of the teachers as well. And pay for the duplication. The point about grammar schools is well made however, in the sense that selection via a grammar school means that there becomes less need for selection by having the right postcode.
Selection does not just have to be at 11, Finland selects at 16
I have yet to meet a person who does not believe in selection for educational purposes for university, very few who would select age 5. The argument is where the right point on this spectrum is best. I think the evidence is that Finland does better on this than us.
The reasons for Corbyn's appeal have been discussed fully. It is comprehensible, even though his backers are deluded. What I can't understand for the life of me is the appeal of Tom Watson - he's not even particularly left wing?
My God, I just saw INSIDE OUT. It had half the kids in the audience crying. And me (tho not my nine year old). Yet everyone walked out redeemed. Clever, funny, beautiful, wise and moving. Another animated kids' film which far surpasses anything made for adults, in the last year, that I can recall.
''For every laugh there should be a tear'' as Walt Disney is supposed to have said. I generally enjoy these sort of films although it seems to me that it's easier to manipulate emotions with animation. The 'wise' part I guess may be subjective - however the benefit of this film might be to explore the motives and complexities of emotions to young people.
I despair I really do. Not sure I will be able to stay in a party led by Corbyn. I will be politically homeless for the first time. Surely there must be room for a centre-left party who are actually interested in forming a government? It appears not.
Well Monty, Corbyn hasn't won yet. I'm a very moderate socialist and would much prefer a moderate leader with good communication skills and the ability to reach out beyond the Labour tribe. But as there doesn't seem to be one on offer, I can't help but wonder if someone from the left might be a good choice for now. There are a lot of people with more left wing views who must have felt and still feel pretty alienated. It might be good to let them have their chance and see what the voters make of it. Another 5 years of being sensible might look like a good option, but sometimes it is better to be interesting than right. Labour hasn't run on a radical programme since 1983 - a lot of people are too young to remember just how unpopular that manifesto was. A reminder might be just what is needed.
On the second one I was tempted to right JCWNBPM but can't be bothered to have to explain why Labour are nuts to be contemplating electing him as leader.
Hmmmmm... The Doctor doesn't know the way to address a letter nor how to end it.
You should never (IMHO) address a letter to Dear Jeremy Hunt MP and even if you make that mistake its not the way to sign it off......
Oh and on call doesn't mean you are doing any work, you just need to be available.
and...
Dear Sir= Yours faithfully Dear Mr or named person.. = Yours sincerely
How should one address an MP in a letter? Dear Joe Bloggs MP seems a very common 'error' that people are making, and omitting Mr/Mrs seems increasingly common when people may not, in the case of women, aware of which prefix is right (and so avoid Mr so it is a rule and not gender specific I guess). Since many people don't like being addressed as Sir/Madam, what is one to do?
When writing to someone answerable to you as your MP is, "Dear Joe" signed off "Yours" or similar seems fine. He/ she should reply to you "Dear Mr/ Mrs/ Ms ..." signed off "Yours sincerely". MPs are often quite jumped up enough without being supported in their view that you're an oik by you being all Uriah Heepish.
Comments
As for Gove's reforms; I'm personally not convinced they are going to dramatically improve education
@TCPoliticalBetting I don't think the LDs did have the chance between 1997-2001, when Blair had ridiculous approval ratings, and New Labour were at the peak of their powers. Although, I agree that Ashdown's pact with Blair was foolhardy.
*sighs*
It's worse than someone thinking Caesar was more capable as a soldier than Hannibal.
http://www.itv.com/news/london/2015-07-23/furious-doctor-blasts-health-secretary-by-posting-payslip-online-to-reveal-2-61-an-hour-overtime/
http://wire.novaramedia.com/2015/07/6-reasons-jeremy-corbyn-could-win-the-next-general-election/
On the second one I was tempted to right JCWNBPM but can't be bothered to have to explain why Labour are nuts to be contemplating electing him as leader.
It shows Osborne closing in on Boris on 45% with Tory voters, level with May, just behind Boris on 47%.
Overall, amongst all voters these are the figures on whether voters thought a leadership candidate could be a good PM (and their net agree/disagree total)
Boris 32% (-20%)
Osborne 23% (-30%)
May 28% (-14%)
Gove 13% (-40%)
The Labour figures yesterday for comparison were
Burnham 27% (0%)
Cooper 22% (-12%)
Kendall 16% (-14%)
Corbyn 17% (-19%)
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3605/Osborne-closes-gap-on-May-and-Johnson-as-a-potential-PM-among-Conservative-supporters.aspx
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3602/Burnham-leads-the-pack-but-all-Labour-hopefuls-have-work-to-do.aspx
Hmmmmm... The Doctor doesn't know the way to address a letter nor how to end it.
You should never (IMHO) address a letter to Dear Jeremy Hunt MP and even if you make that mistake its not the way to sign it off......
Oh and on call doesn't mean you are doing any work, you just need to be available.
and...
Dear Sir= Yours faithfully
Dear Mr or named person.. = Yours sincerely
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11761389/Labour-can-rise-again-but-it-must-resist-Jeremy-Corbyns-siren-calls.html
1) Intelligence is partly defined by genetic inheritance, and partly by schooling
2) The system is a true meritocracy, where everyone fulfils their potential and those with the highest natural intelligence achieve the most economic success
3) People marry and have children with people of similar economic success
If we imagine a starting point where children from poor families are just as likely to be intelligent as children from rich families. We have a great, meritocratic schooling system, where everyone maxes out on the schooling part of intelligence. The only thing that is left is their natural genetic ability. In this first generation, we start with the following:
Rich families have 50% smart kids, 50% stupid kids
Poor families have 50% smart kids, 50% stupid kids
If you get one of the best 50% of jobs, you become relatively rich. If you get one of the bottom 50% you become relatively poor. We get the following results:
- Smart, poor children become smart, rich adults
- Stupid, poor children become stupid, poor adults
- Smart, rich children become smart, rich adults
- Stupid, poor children become stupid, poor adults
When we examine the numbers, we find that 50% of poor kids get rich, and 50% of rich kids stay rich. Yay, social mobility!
Now let us imagine that the smart, rich adults and the stupid, poor adults all breed with each other. The children of the smart, rich adults are more likely to be smart. The children of the stupid, poor adults are more likely to be stupid. In this second generation, we may get a situation like this:
Rich families have 60% smart kids, 40% stupid kids
Poor families have 40% smart kids, 60% stupid kids
Once again, everyone has great schooling, and everyone achieves their educational and economic potential. Once again:
- Smart, poor children become smart, rich adults
- Stupid, poor children become stupid, poor adults
- Smart, rich children become smart, rich adults
- Stupid, poor children become stupid, poor adults
When we examine the numbers, we find that 60% of rich kids stay rich, and just 40% of poor kids get rich. Oh dear, social mobility is falling!
Obviously, this is a very simple model. But it reveals a worrying truth. Even in a truly meritocratic society, after a few generations, rich children will do better than poor children as long as intelligence is inheritable and as long as people marry similarly successful people.
To an extent assortive mating does cause social inequality in such a system (though assortive mating is usually assymetric in that many men are choose mates a rung or so down and top end intellectual females often struggle to find a bloke of the same caliber: Liz Kendall for example).
This is counteracted by the phenomenon of regression to the mean, so there are always some bright kids born to dullards and vice versa, so there is always a degree of flow and movement up and down the social scale.
http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/regrmean.php
Personally I prefer academic-based setting within schools, plus specialist schools for people with particular aptitudes. We also need to get away from the false canard that an academic and/or university education is most appropriate for 50%+ of the education. There is nothing shameful about vocational or skills-based education to enable people to maximise their potential based on their innate abilities
Well we do know that a very small area encompasses financial services and all the added value and profits and invisible exports that go with it. If we take diamonds - cut diamonds - I believe we are one of the biggest exporters in the world. History and expertise places all that business in London.
I wonder what might have happened if Witney had not become available as a seat; he'd already fought and lost at one GE, and I'm sure he'd have been given another cosy seat to fight, but still.
Wealth is sticky, that is true*, but it is not inexhaustible
* As an example, our family had a dreadful dearth of talent for 125 years (1825 - 1950). But the strength of the brand and the family culture that had been developed prior to that meant that when the genetic legacy improved (by marrying into an incredibly talented but relatively poor family of Irish lawyers) there was still the potential to turn things around
Of course the Tories did allow IDS to knock-out Portillo by 1 vote in 2001
Bush – 28% (30)
Rubio – 16% (31)
Walker – 13% (2)
Trump – 11% (-)
Huckabee – 5% (-)
Cruz – 4% (8)
Paul – 3% (7)
Kasich – 3% (-)
Fiorina – 2% (-)
Carson – 1% (-)
Jindal – 1% (-)
Christie – 0% (-)
Graham – 0% (-)
Pataki – 0% (-)
Perry – 0% (-)
Santorum – 0% (-)
Undecided – 13% (17)
https://t.e2ma.net/webview/fe2ue/a12adeab8e567e17eea79fe807c41ea4
First prefs...
AB 13
YC 12
JC 12
LK 5
Round 2...
AB 14
YC 16
JC 12
Final round...
AB 23
YC 18
Burnham nominated.
As Jeremy Corbyn’s surge has plunged Labour into civil war, his leadership rival has trodden a cautious path. Now, angered by a sexist undertone to the campaign, she’s ready to make a stand."
If memory recalls, Girl on Boy action was never this dull.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/24/yvette-cooper-interview-labour-leadership-protest
BB 4
SC 1
AE 0
CF 16
TW 20
Final round...
CF 18
TW 23
Watson nominated.
new thread
I generally enjoy these sort of films although it seems to me that it's easier to manipulate emotions with animation. The 'wise' part I guess may be subjective - however the benefit of this film might be to explore the motives and complexities of emotions to young people.