Good morning all Herdson's last paragraph is laughable in many ways:
1. For that reason, I expect Trump to lose in 2020: Herdson never expected him to win in the first place. 2. He only just won this year against a very weak Democrat opponent: Yeh, the opponent everybody, including Herdson, said could never lose.
It may be a bumpy ride, but no one can tell the future: 2016 was the year when the American and World progressive elite knew that the world was theirs for the foreseeable future. They were wrong, and now all around the world, many things are up for grabs.
That's wrong. I was still tipping Trump at 6/4. It's true that on balance I thought that Hillary had the better chance of winning (and the fact that she won the popular vote by as much as she did is evidence that she did - she just ballsed up her Firewall states), but the idea that I said she "could never lose" is bullshit.
People will not vote for someone who winces in the presence of the Union Jack and will not give time to a party led by someone who does. That's why May is so far ahead. Don't kid yourself otherwise.
I can understand Labour voters who are disenchanted with the marxist tit, staying at home, what I am questioning is why voters are switching to the Tories. Incidentally my parents come from the Whitehawk Estate in Brighton, and were the first of their family to go to university, mother is now one of Tezzie's blue rinsers
Yep, there are many like me and your Mum. The advances made by ordinary people in the second half of the 20th century were wonderful. God bless the welfare state.
Southam with respect when you went to uni it was completely free, nowadays pretty much every 20 something year old has been there - and its not really a competitive advantage... more just up to a 9% pay cut for the rest of your working life.
It's still a small advantage in certain industries. I don't think it would be easy to go into banking without a degree. I personally have never needed my degree for anything since I graduated. It's just in a frame in my old bedroom. However, opening the door without one is close to impossible these days. It shouldn't be that way because there is an awfully large amount of talent being ignored, but the recruitment industry is just rubbish.
It's not just a qualification, it's an education. I studied medieval history and the subject has been totally irrelevant to all that I have done since. But the disciplines I learned in terms of analysing sources and framing arguments have been invaluable. I did not have those skills when I left school.
Oh wow. Snap re: medieval history. I sometimes wonder if there is anyone on PB who didn't study medieval/ancient history.
I did medieval history (mainly 14th/early 15th century before moving on to the reformation) as part of my second degree, taken later in life, does that still count?
The one and only time I sifted through 320 grad applications (4 years ago now) shocked me to the bone. I had not heard of most of the Universities.
I mean, I expected to not know some of the less popular colleges and PPHs at The Other Place....
We mostly had applications from top 20 universities so that wasn't a problem. The problem was that the universities were teaching to the test rather than giving their students the tools to think for themselves as they did when I was there.
The one and only time I sifted through 320 grad applications (4 years ago now) shocked me to the bone. I had not heard of most of the Universities.
I mean, I expected to not know some of the less popular colleges and PPHs at The Other Place....
We mostly had applications from top 20 universities so that wasn't a problem. The problem was that the universities were teaching to the test rather than giving their students the tools to think for themselves as they did when I was there.
Possibly James Dyson and Mervyn King for Brexit made me think... Even traditional, outspoken Tories like Loyd Webber and I think Michael Caine came behind Remain from my knowledge.
I thought Michael Caine did come out for Brexit? Ray Winstone as well i think though I don't think either way in favour of "hard" Brexit..
Julian Fellows was also a Breixteer and Dame Joan Collins. So there were a few #Celebs4Brexit
The one and only time I sifted through 320 grad applications (4 years ago now) shocked me to the bone. I had not heard of most of the Universities.
I mean, I expected to not know some of the less popular colleges and PPHs at The Other Place....
We mostly had applications from top 20 universities so that wasn't a problem. The problem was that the universities were teaching to the test rather than giving their students the tools to think for themselves as they did when I was there.
The thing about Trump and also with Brexit....I cannot think of one cultural figure, literary, art, film, theatre, religious, business, academic, politician....who I respect that actively supports these extreme, right wing nationalist movements.
Possibly James Dyson and Mervyn King for Brexit made me think... Even traditional, outspoken Tories like Loyd Webber and I think Michael Caine came behind Remain from my knowledge. But as far as Trump goes it's a big fat zilch....
Alt Right Populist Nationalists can dismiss the intelligentsia as some kind of mythical elite all they want....but the nature of these movements is that they pander to lowest common denominator, greed, ignorance, prejudice and stupidity. And as Gobbels knew...it works....the rich elites can mobilise the prejudice of dumb people to create a movement as we now see with Trump and his billionaire cronies running the country to make themselves richer....
Hillary won the popular vote mainly due to one state of the union; California, helped a little by Oregon and Washington State.
Interesting to compare these two posts side-by-side. Yes Hillary swept the Californian luvvies endorsements but much good it did her in the rest of the States and as a result the Electoral College.
The Democrats need to spend less time on the Californian luvvies and more on the rest of the nation.
I've written several articles on this, and spoken personally to some of the experts in the field, like Flynn in NZ, who first noted the famous Flynn effect (he's also a lefty)
Nobody in the world of psychometrics - the science of measuring human intelligence - doubts that there is an average gap in IQ between races. It's an accepted fact. Repeated time and again. No one really doubts that modern IQ tests measure something we generally associate with intelligence (SATS in the USA are basically IQ tests, for instance, and they are the gateway to university entrance)
However, the WIDER scientific community does indeed say little on this subject, because it is painfully awkward, socially unacceptable, and anyone that does talk about it - like Watson - is pilloried and exiled. Literally.
But that's kinda my point. Some science - like global warming - is seen as intrinsically good and treated as unquestionable religion. Some science is BAD and hidden away. It's a rum do.
I was sharing a house in Kentish Town at the time of that Watson article and remember bringing home The Metro where I had read it and asking the other housemates opinion. One of them was a real left wing French girl who said even if it were conclusively proven to be true, she would refuse to believe it.
People will not vote for someone who winces in the presence of the Union Jack and will not give time to a party led by someone who does. That's why May is so far ahead. Don't kid yourself otherwise.
I can understand Labour voters who are disenchanted with the marxist tit, staying at home, what I am questioning is why voters are switching to the Tories. Incidentally my parents come from the Whitehawk Estate in Brighton, and were the first of their family to go to university, mother is now one of Tezzie's blue rinsers
I think the issue is now much more a competence one than people fretting about Hamas (who?) or the IRA (oh that nice Martin McGuinness wthings which mainly politically active people have views on, and even we mostly don't think they are urgent current matters. But most people have the impression that May is solidly competent and has her party behind her and that Corbyn is shaky and Labour is disorganised and squabbling.
The perception of May will probably weaken over time, as nearly all leaders slide as reality swamps them. Labour is now less obviously squabble-prone and Corbyn has fixed some of the problems, but changing perceptions is extremely difficult. But so is finding a credible alternative who members and indeed voters will think is worth turning out for and a credible PM. Would we now be ahead in the polls if we were led by, say, Andy Burnham, nice though he is?
Peresonally I agree with most of Corbyn's views, I really like his style and I see him as something of a personal friend, so I'm loyal and that won't be affected by polls or by-election results. The wider party is naturally uneasy but doesn't see a good alternative before 2020.
When you say "that nice Martin McGuinness who gets on with the Queen", are you implying that's what a meaningful amount of people think?
Very few people aged over 45 would think that, and they go out and vote.
The IRA is absolute poison in the West Midlands.
My old boss was of Irish heritage and he supported the "boys".
We were on a management retreat for a couple of days and one night he was waxing lyrical about how they used to collect money in certain pubs in North London for the cause.
I was drunk at the time but sensible enough to walk away before I did something stupid.
They did do that on a Friday night. At closing time in pubs in Archway, Kilburn, Camden Town etc they'd play the Soldier's Song, then there'd be a collection - for "Sinn Fein". I saw it loads of times.
People will not vote for someone who winces in the presence of the Union Jack and will not give time to a party led by someone who does. That's why May is so far ahead. Don't kid yourself otherwise.
I can understand Labour voters who are disenchanted with the marxist tit, staying at home, what I am questioning is why voters are switching to the Tories. Incidentally my parents come from the Whitehawk Estate in Brighton, and were the first of their family to go to university, mother is now one of Tezzie's blue rinsers
I think the issue is now much more a competence one than people fretting about Hamas (who?) or the IRA (oh that nice Martin McGuinness who gets on with the Queen) or whether we should literally go to war with Russia without America if Estonia were threatened (which even non-Labour people might think is a bit oo-er). These are things which mainly politically active people have views on, and even we mostly don't think they are urgent current matters. But most people have the impression that May is solidly competent and has her party behind her and that Corbyn is shaky and Labour is disorganised and squabbling.
The perception of May will probably weaken over time, as nearly all leaders slide as reality swamps them. Labour is now less obviously squabble-prone and Corbyn has fixed some of the problems, but changing perceptions is extremely difficult. But so is finding a credible alternative who members and indeed voters will think is worth turning out for and a credible PM. Would we now be ahead in the polls if we were led by, say, Andy Burnham, nice though he is?
Peresonally I agree with most of Corbyn's views, I really like his style and I see him as something of a personal friend, so I'm loyal and that won't be affected by polls or by-election results. The wider party is naturally uneasy but doesn't see a good alternative before 2020.
"I really like his style" Not something often said about Jeremy!!
The one and only time I sifted through 320 grad applications (4 years ago now) shocked me to the bone. I had not heard of most of the Universities.
I mean, I expected to not know some of the less popular colleges and PPHs at The Other Place....
We mostly had applications from top 20 universities so that wasn't a problem. The problem was that the universities were teaching to the test rather than giving their students the tools to think for themselves as they did when I was there.
There are 20 top universities?
Outside of Imperial?
I'm only half joking - I sort of struggle to name Unis after:
Ox Cam London Edinburgh St Andrews Glasgow Durham Manchester York Exeter Bristol Warwick Leeds Southampton Brighton
Sorry chaps, but there's a great deal of silliness in this thread. Firstly wrt to 'America 1st' - this has always been the case. Remember BP, or 'British Petroleum' as Obama took delight in calling it. The US has always plundered whatever it wanted from the UK (other places it has been more generous with, but only because they were strategic buffers). It has always organised the world entirely in its own interests, and the latest trade deals are an attempt to entrench its current advantage. All this doing is correctly labelling the tin.
Secondly wrt Russia - Russia's actions are reciprocal to 'The Wests'. We hear when Russia moves a missile closer the border, but we don't hear about the NATO manoeuvres that this is a response to. If we calm down, they will calm down. A lot of PBers have been taken in by what is essentially propaganda, and it's been an embarrassing spectacle.
Yes lucky guy - Russia is our benevolent big brother.
Can you name the last time Russia did anything bad to us. USA rips us off on an ongoing basis, we have only just paid them for all the outdated junk they sold us at exorbitant prices in WWII, they kicked UK out of America , duffed up their navy etc etc. Some halfwits on here wearing blinkers.
"Can you name the last time Russia did anything bad to us."
How about leaving a radiation trail across London from a botched assassination attempt?
I was born in 1960. Y'all are going to have to wait for my generation to die before we forget what the IRA & loyalist paramilitaries did in NI.
There's a lesson here for Europhiles too. You might like to console yourselves that this is merely a hiatus; give it thirty or forty years and you can take the UK back into the EU. It's important to take the long view of history .
Except that today's young Europhiles are not likely to be so when they get older. The ageing process has at no stage made people more Europhile.
I agree in part - people become more conservative as they age (small 'c' ofc). However, post Brexit, I think the EU will become like the Elysian fields - everything will be better there (irrespective of whether it is or not) and this will shape future thinking.
People who think leaving the EU will solve all our problems are like folk who think a nose job will automatically make them happier. Not that there are any such deluded people on here, naturally.
The one and only time I sifted through 320 grad applications (4 years ago now) shocked me to the bone. I had not heard of most of the Universities.
I mean, I expected to not know some of the less popular colleges and PPHs at The Other Place....
We mostly had applications from top 20 universities so that wasn't a problem. The problem was that the universities were teaching to the test rather than giving their students the tools to think for themselves as they did when I was there.
There are 20 top universities?
Outside of Imperial?
I'm only half joking - I sort of struggle to name Unis after:
Ox Cam London Edinburgh St Andrews Glasgow Durham Manchester York Exeter Bristol Warwick Leeds Southampton Brighton
The one and only time I sifted through 320 grad applications (4 years ago now) shocked me to the bone. I had not heard of most of the Universities.
I mean, I expected to not know some of the less popular colleges and PPHs at The Other Place....
Which is sadly often the thin end of the wedge. 7-8 years ago I was running a recruiting round for software developers at [large database company] and ran through eighty odd interviews over a couple of weeks, and then had to explain to my client why I had rejected the lot. Actually it was quite simple, they were piss poor to a man/woman, none could demonstrate the slightest sign of having the experience they claimed, half of them we didnt even get as far as the technical interview, and those that did you could see their eyes glaze over when you got to about the third question out of twenty you wanted to discuss!
The one and only time I sifted through 320 grad applications (4 years ago now) shocked me to the bone. I had not heard of most of the Universities.
I mean, I expected to not know some of the less popular colleges and PPHs at The Other Place....
We mostly had applications from top 20 universities so that wasn't a problem. The problem was that the universities were teaching to the test rather than giving their students the tools to think for themselves as they did when I was there.
There are 20 top universities?
Outside of Imperial?
I'm only half joking - I sort of struggle to name Unis after:
Ox Cam London Edinburgh St Andrews Glasgow Durham Manchester York Exeter Bristol Warwick Leeds Southampton Brighton
People will not vote for someone who winces in the presence of the Union Jack and will not give time to a party led by someone who does. That's why May is so far ahead. Don't kid yourself otherwise.
I can understand Labour voters who are disenchanted with the marxist tit, staying at home, what I am questioning is why voters are switching to the Tories. Incidentally my parents come from the Whitehawk Estate in Brighton, and were the first of their family to go to university, mother is now one of Tezzie's blue rinsers
Yep, there are many like me and your Mum. The advances made by ordinary people in the second half of the 20th century were wonderful. God bless the welfare state.
Southam with respect when you went to uni it was completely free, nowadays pretty much every 20 something year old has been there - and its not really a competitive advantage... more just up to a 9% pay cut for the rest of your working life.
It's still a small advantage in certain industries. I don't think it would be easy to go into banking without a degree. I personally have never needed my degree for anything since I graduated. It's just in a frame in my old bedroom. However, opening the door without one is close to impossible these days. It shouldn't be that way because there is an awfully large amount of talent being ignored, but the recruitment industry is just rubbish.
It's not just a qualification, it's an education. I studied medieval history and the subject has been totally irrelevant to all that I have done since. But the disciplines I learned in terms of analysing sources and framing arguments have been invaluable. I did not have those skills when I left school.
Oh wow. Snap re: medieval history. I sometimes wonder if there is anyone on PB who didn't study medieval/ancient history.
I did medieval history (mainly 14th/early 15th century before moving on to the reformation) as part of my second degree, taken later in life, does that still count?
Anglo-Saxon history (as one of three final year courses), so close.
People will not vote for someone who winces in the presence of the Union Jack and will not give time to a party led by someone who does. That's why May is so far ahead. Don't kid yourself otherwise.
I can understand Labour voters who are disenchanted with the marxist tit, staying at home, what I am questioning is why voters are switching to the Tories. Incidentally my parents come from the Whitehawk Estate in Brighton, and were the first of their family to go to university, mother is now one of Tezzie's blue rinsers
Yep, there are many like me and your Mum. The advances made by ordinary people in the second half of the 20th century were wonderful. God bless the welfare state.
Southam with respect when you went to uni it was completely free, nowadays pretty much every 20 something year old has been there - and its not really a competitive advantage... more just up to a 9% pay cut for the rest of your working life.
It's still a small advantage in certain industries. I don't think it would be easy to go into banking without a degree. I personally have never needed my degree for anything since I graduated. It's just in a frame in my old bedroom. However, opening the door without one is close to impossible these days. It shouldn't be that way because there is an awfully large amount of talent being ignored, but the recruitment industry is just rubbish.
It's not just a qualification, it's an education. I studied medieval history and the subject has been totally irrelevant to all that I have done since. But the disciplines I learned in terms of analysing sources and framing arguments have been invaluable. I did not have those skills when I left school.
Oh wow. Snap re: medieval history. I sometimes wonder if there is anyone on PB who didn't study medieval/ancient history.
I did medieval history (mainly 14th/early 15th century before moving on to the reformation) as part of my second degree, taken later in life, does that still count?
Anglo-Saxon history (as one of three final year courses), so close.
As with Mr Llama, this is sort of proving my point.....
I was born in 1960. Y'all are going to have to wait for my generation to die before we forget what the IRA & loyalist paramilitaries did in NI.
There's a lesson here for Europhiles too. You might like to console yourselves that this is merely a hiatus; give it thirty or forty years and you can take the UK back into the EU. It's important to take the long view of history .
Except that today's young Europhiles are not likely to be so when they get older. The ageing process has at no stage made people more Europhile.
I agree in part - people become more conservative as they age (small 'c' ofc). However, post Brexit, I think the EU will become like the Elysian fields - everything will be better there (irrespective of whether it is or not) and this will shape future thinking.
People who think leaving the EU will solve all our problems are like folk who think a nose job will automatically make them happier. Not that there are any such deluded people on here, naturally.
To be fair I think that Remainers who think leaving the UK state behind for the EU are more like that - especially if not a nose job then to cover themselves in fake tan etc.
People will not vote for someone who winces in the presence of the Union Jack and will not give time to a party led by someone who does. That's why May is so far ahead. Don't kid yourself otherwise.
I can understand Labour voters who are disenchanted with the marxist tit, staying at home, what I am questioning is why voters are switching to the Tories. Incidentally my parents come from the Whitehawk Estate in Brighton, and were the first of their family to go to university, mother is now one of Tezzie's blue rinsers
I think the issue is now much more a competence one than people fretting about Hamas (who?) or the IRA (oh that nice Martin McGuinness who gets on with the Queen) or whether we should literally go to war with Russia without America if Estonia were threatened (which even non-Labour people might think is a bit oo-er). These are things which mainly politically active people have views on, and even we mostly don't think they are urgent current matters. But most people have the impression that May is solidly competent and has her party behind her and that Corbyn is shaky and Labour is disorganised and squabbling.
The perception of May will probably weaken over time, as nearly all leaders slide as reality swamps them. Labour is now less obviously squabble-prone and Corbyn has fixed some of the problems, but changing perceptions is extremely difficult. But so is finding a credible alternative who members and indeed voters will think is worth turning out for and a credible PM. Would we now be ahead in the polls if we were led by, say, Andy Burnham, nice though he is?
Peresonally I agree with most of Corbyn's views, I really like his style and I see him as something of a personal friend, so I'm loyal and that won't be affected by polls or by-election results. The wider party is naturally uneasy but doesn't see a good alternative before 2020.
"I really like his style" Not something often said about Jeremy!!
As you " fall over the cliff" as Labour get trounced in 2020 or whenever the election is called, I am sure your loyally will be "remembered".
I was born in 1960. Y'all are going to have to wait for my generation to die before we forget what the IRA & loyalist paramilitaries did in NI.
There's a lesson here for Europhiles too. You might like to console yourselves that this is merely a hiatus; give it thirty or forty years and you can take the UK back into the EU. It's important to take the long view of history .
Except that today's young Europhiles are not likely to be so when they get older. The ageing process has at no stage made people more Europhile.
I agree in part - people become more conservative as they age (small 'c' ofc). However, post Brexit, I think the EU will become like the Elysian fields - everything will be better there (irrespective of whether it is or not) and this will shape future thinking.
People who think leaving the EU will solve all our problems are like folk who think a nose job will automatically make them happier. Not that there are any such deluded people on here, naturally.
Yeah but can the EU survive the Russian and American Presidents conspiring it's downfall?
That's some powerful forces pitted against it. I have a strong feeling there won't be an EU as we know it in ten years.
The one and only time I sifted through 320 grad applications (4 years ago now) shocked me to the bone. I had not heard of most of the Universities.
I mean, I expected to not know some of the less popular colleges and PPHs at The Other Place....
We mostly had applications from top 20 universities so that wasn't a problem. The problem was that the universities were teaching to the test rather than giving their students the tools to think for themselves as they did when I was there.
There are 20 top universities?
Outside of Imperial?
I'm only half joking - I sort of struggle to name Unis after:
Ox Cam London Edinburgh St Andrews Glasgow Durham Manchester York Exeter Bristol Warwick Leeds Southampton Brighton
The one and only time I sifted through 320 grad applications (4 years ago now) shocked me to the bone. I had not heard of most of the Universities.
I mean, I expected to not know some of the less popular colleges and PPHs at The Other Place....
We mostly had applications from top 20 universities so that wasn't a problem. The problem was that the universities were teaching to the test rather than giving their students the tools to think for themselves as they did when I was there.
There are 20 top universities?
Outside of Imperial?
I'm only half joking - I sort of struggle to name Unis after:
Ox Cam London Edinburgh St Andrews Glasgow Durham Manchester York Exeter Bristol Warwick Leeds Southampton Brighton
Good morning all Herdson's last paragraph is laughable in many ways:
1. For that reason, I expect Trump to lose in 2020: Herdson never expected him to win in the first place. 2. He only just won this year against a very weak Democrat opponent: Yeh, the opponent everybody, including Herdson, said could never lose.
It may be a bumpy ride, but no one can tell the future: 2016 was the year when the American and World progressive elite knew that the world was theirs for the foreseeable future. They were wrong, and now all around the world, many things are up for grabs.
That's wrong. I was still tipping Trump at 6/4. It's true that on balance I thought that Hillary had the better chance of winning (and the fact that she won the popular vote by as much as she did is evidence that she did - she just ballsed up her Firewall states), but the idea that I said she "could never lose" is bullshit.
Hillary won the popular vote mainly due to one state of the union; California, helped a little by Oregon and Washington State.
True, however, Trump won the election because he threaded the needle though Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, all of which he won by less than 1%, and all of which the polls suggested that Hillary was going to win - in line with the national polls, so to call an 'on-balance' favourable to Hillary was entirely justified, with the strong caveat that Trump had a realistic path to power - which is what I did.
The one and only time I sifted through 320 grad applications (4 years ago now) shocked me to the bone. I had not heard of most of the Universities.
I mean, I expected to not know some of the less popular colleges and PPHs at The Other Place....
We mostly had applications from top 20 universities so that wasn't a problem. The problem was that the universities were teaching to the test rather than giving their students the tools to think for themselves as they did when I was there.
There are 20 top universities?
Outside of Imperial?
I'm only half joking - I sort of struggle to name Unis after:
Ox Cam London Edinburgh St Andrews Glasgow Durham Manchester York Exeter Bristol Warwick Leeds Southampton Brighton
People will not vote for someone who winces in the presence of the Union Jack and will not give time to a party led by someone who does. That's why May is so far ahead. Don't kid yourself otherwise.
I can understand Labour voters who are disenchanted with the marxist tit, staying at home, what I am questioning is why voters are switching to the Tories. Incidentally my parents come from the Whitehawk Estate in Brighton, and were the first of their family to go to university, mother is now one of Tezzie's blue rinsers
Yep, there are many like me and your Mum. The advances made by ordinary people in the second half of the 20th century were wonderful. God bless the welfare state.
Southam with respect when you went to uni it was completely free, nowadays pretty much every 20 something year old has been there - and its not really a competitive advantage... more just up to a 9% pay cut for the rest of your working life.
It's still a small advantage in certain industries. I don't think it would be easy to go into banking without a degree. I personally have never needed my degree for anything since I graduated. It's just in a frame in my old bedroom. However, opening the door without one is close to impossible these days. It shouldn't be that way because there is an awfully large amount of talent being ignored, but the recruitment industry is just rubbish.
It's not just a qualification, it's an education. I studied medieval history and the subject has been totally irrelevant to all that I have done since. But the disciplines I learned in terms of analysing sources and framing arguments have been invaluable. I did not have those skills when I left school.
Oh wow. Snap re: medieval history. I sometimes wonder if there is anyone on PB who didn't study medieval/ancient history.
Plenty stuck in medieval thinking for sure
Like the Scottish Wars of Independence?
I was correct , you conflate real life with life 700 years ago
People will not vote for someone who winces in the presence of the Union Jack and will not give time to a party led by someone who does. That's why May is so far ahead. Don't kid yourself otherwise.
I think the issue is now much more a competence one than people fretting about Hamas (who?) or the IRA (oh that nice Martin McGuinness wthings which mainly politically active people have views on, and even we mostly don't think they are urgent current matters. But most people have the impression that May is solidly competent and has her party behind her and that Corbyn is shaky and Labour is disorganised and squabbling.
The perception of May will probably weaken over time, as nearly all leaders slide as reality swamps them. Labour is now less obviously squabble-prone and Corbyn has fixed some of the problems, but changing perceptions is extremely difficult. But so is finding a credible alternative who members and indeed voters will think is worth turning out for and a credible PM. Would we now be ahead in the polls if we were led by, say, Andy Burnham, nice though he is?
Peresonally I agree with most of Corbyn's views, I really like his style and I see him as something of a personal friend, so I'm loyal and that won't be affected by polls or by-election results. The wider party is naturally uneasy but doesn't see a good alternative before 2020.
When you say "that nice Martin McGuinness who gets on with the Queen", are you implying that's what a meaningful amount of people think?
Very few people aged over 45 would think that, and they go out and vote.
The IRA is absolute poison in the West Midlands.
My old boss was of Irish heritage and he supported the "boys".
We were on a management retreat for a couple of days and one night he was waxing lyrical about how they used to collect money in certain pubs in North London for the cause.
I was drunk at the time but sensible enough to walk away before I did something stupid.
They did do that on a Friday night. At closing time in pubs in Archway, Kilburn, Camden Town etc they'd play the Soldier's Song, then there'd be a collection - for "Sinn Fein". I saw it loads of times.
Catholic Churches in Glasgow used to do the same in the '80s, a second collection after Sunday Mass - "For The Boys in Ireland" Always used to walk sheepishly past and wondered if they were making a note of the boys who didn't put their hand in their pocket.
People will not vote for someone who winces in the presence of the Union Jack and will not give time to a party led by someone who does. That's why May is so far ahead. Don't kid yourself otherwise.
I can understand Labour voters who are disenchanted with the marxist tit, staying at home, what I am questioning is why voters are switching to the Tories. Incidentally my parents come from the Whitehawk Estate in Brighton, and were the first of their family to go to university, mother is now one of Tezzie's blue rinsers
Yep, there are many like me and your Mum. The advances made by ordinary people in the second half of the 20th century were wonderful. God bless the welfare state.
Southam with respect when you went to uni it was completely free, nowadays pretty much every 20 something year old has been there - and its not really a competitive advantage... more just up to a 9% pay cut for the rest of your working life.
It's still a small advantage in certain industries. I don't think it would be easy to go into banking without a degree. I personally have never needed my degree for anything since I graduated. It's just in a frame in my old bedroom. However, opening the door without one is close to impossible these days. It shouldn't be that way because there is an awfully large amount of talent being ignored, but the recruitment industry is just rubbish.
It's not just a qualification, it's an education. I studied medieval history and the subject has been totally irrelevant to all that I have done since. But the disciplines I learned in terms of analysing sources and framing arguments have been invaluable. I did not have those skills when I left school.
Oh wow. Snap re: medieval history. I sometimes wonder if there is anyone on PB who didn't study medieval/ancient history.
Plenty stuck in medieval thinking for sure
Like the Scottish Wars of Independence?
I was correct , you conflate real life with life 700 years ago
I was born in 1960. Y'all are going to have to wait for my generation to die before we forget what the IRA & loyalist paramilitaries did in NI.
There's a lesson here for Europhiles too. You might like to console yourselves that this is merely a hiatus; give it thirty or forty years and you can take the UK back into the EU. It's important to take the long view of history .
Except that today's young Europhiles are not likely to be so when they get older. The ageing process has at no stage made people more Europhile.
I agree in part - people become more conservative as they age (small 'c' ofc). However, post Brexit, I think the EU will become like the Elysian fields - everything will be better there (irrespective of whether it is or not) and this will shape future thinking.
People who think leaving the EU will solve all our problems are like folk who think a nose job will automatically make them happier. Not that there are any such deluded people on here, naturally.
Yeah but can the EU survive the Russian and American Presidents conspiring it's downfall?
That's some powerful forces pitted against it. I have a strong feeling there won't be an EU as we know it in ten years.
That will be true about the EU, regardless of RU/US.
Simply us leaving will have a profound effect, which is why they are so annoyed.
Reluctant ant as I am to bring up AGW. I remain a fence-sitter. It's an interesting theory, it may even be correct, but it is not fixed science. Until you can predict with it, and explain or control the confounding factors, it will remain a possibility (possibly the most likely one so far) only.
Being the flavour of the decade (s), it will receive the advantages of more favourable publications until it ceases to be the flavour of choice.
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." ... Max Planck.
You can take this quote both ways. Old theories die only when a better one turns up AND the opponents eventually die.
The particle theory of light was taken as truth for centuries, despite the wave theory having obvious advantages (Newton's greatness saw to that). He wasn't wrong, he just wasn't totally right.
We may discover that carbon dioxide is a factor in the world warming. How decisive a factor has still to be proved scientifically. It's unlikely to be the only factor (IMHO) but I may be wrong.
The precautionary principle (just in case) requires a cost/benefit analysis. Spending gazillions now may prove to be the best thing. Well, punks, do we feel lucky?
Sorry chaps, but there's a great deal of silliness in this thread. Firstly wrt to 'America 1st' - this has always been the case. Remember BP, or 'British Petroleum' as Obama took delight in calling it. The US has always plundered whatever it wanted from the UK (other places it has been more generous with, but only because they were strategic buffers). It has always organised the world entirely in its own interests, and the latest trade deals are an attempt to entrench its current advantage. All this doing is correctly labelling the tin.
Secondly wrt Russia - Russia's actions are reciprocal to 'The Wests'. We hear when Russia moves a missile closer the border, but we don't hear about the NATO manoeuvres that this is a response to. If we calm down, they will calm down. A lot of PBers have been taken in by what is essentially propaganda, and it's been an embarrassing spectacle.
Yes lucky guy - Russia is our benevolent big brother.
Can you name the last time Russia did anything bad to us. USA rips us off on an ongoing basis, we have only just paid them for all the outdated junk they sold us at exorbitant prices in WWII, they kicked UK out of America , duffed up their navy etc etc. Some halfwits on here wearing blinkers.
"Can you name the last time Russia did anything bad to us."
How about leaving a radiation trail across London from a botched assassination attempt?
Hardly an excuse for a war and it was London so a bonus. Let them know what it is like having their nucleur crap parked outside your front door.
People will not vote for someone who winces in the presence of the Union Jack and will not give time to a party led by someone who does. That's why May is so far ahead. Don't kid yourself otherwise.
I can understand Labour voters who are disenchanted with the marxist tit, staying at home, what I am questioning is why voters are switching to the Tories. Incidentally my parents come from the Whitehawk Estate in Brighton, and were the first of their family to go to university, mother is now one of Tezzie's blue rinsers
Yep, there are many like me and your Mum. The advances made by ordinary people in the second half of the 20th century were wonderful. God bless the welfare state.
Southam with respect when you went to uni it was completely free, nowadays pretty much every 20 something year old has been there - and its not really a competitive advantage... more just up to a 9% pay cut for the rest of your working life.
It's still a small advantage in certain industries. I don't think it would be easy to go into banking without a degree. I personally have never needed my degree for anything since I graduated. It's just in a frame in my old bedroom. However, opening the door without one is close to impossible these days. It shouldn't be that way because there is an awfully large amount of talent being ignored, but the recruitment industry is just rubbish.
It's not just a qualification, it's an education. I studied medieval history and the subject has been totally irrelevant to all that I have done since. But the disciplines I learned in terms of analysing sources and framing arguments have been invaluable. I did not have those skills when I left school.
Oh wow. Snap re: medieval history. I sometimes wonder if there is anyone on PB who didn't study medieval/ancient history.
Plenty stuck in medieval thinking for sure
Like the Scottish Wars of Independence?
I was correct , you conflate real life with life 700 years ago
Why Malc? Wasn't what happened 700 years ago real life, or are they myths an fables to hide the sordid truth that there was no life 700 years ago?
People will not vote for someone who winces in the presence of the Union Jack and will not give time to a party led by someone who does. That's why May is so far ahead. Don't kid yourself otherwise.
I can understand Labour voters who are disenchanted with the marxist tit, staying at home, what I am questioning is why voters are switching to the Tories. Incidentally my parents come from the Whitehawk Estate in Brighton, and were the first of their family to go to university, mother is now one of Tezzie's blue rinsers
Yep, there are many like me and your Mum. The advances made by ordinary people in the second half of the 20th century were wonderful. God bless the welfare state.
Southam with respect when you went to uni it was completely free, nowadays pretty much every 20 something year old has been there - and its not really a competitive advantage... more just up to a 9% pay cut for the rest of your working life.
It's still a small advantage in certain industries. I don't think it would be easy to go into banking without a degree. I personally have never needed my degree for anything since I graduated. It's just in a frame in my old bedroom. However, opening the door without one is close to impossible these days. It shouldn't be that way because there is an awfully large amount of talent being ignored, but the recruitment industry is just rubbish.
It's not just a qualification, it's an education. I studied medieval history and the subject has been totally irrelevant to all that I have done since. But the disciplines I learned in terms of analysing sources and framing arguments have been invaluable. I did not have those skills when I left school.
Oh wow. Snap re: medieval history. I sometimes wonder if there is anyone on PB who didn't study medieval/ancient history.
I studied Biochemistry at Imperial - but History was my second favourite subject after chemistry at school
People will not vote for someone who winces in the presence of the Union Jack and will not give time to a party led by someone who does. That's why May is so far ahead. Don't kid yourself otherwise.
I can understand Labour voters who are disenchanted with the marxist tit, staying at home, what I am questioning is why voters are switching to the Tories. Incidentally my parents come from the Whitehawk Estate in Brighton, and were the first of their family to go to university, mother is now one of Tezzie's blue rinsers
Yep, there are many like me and your Mum. The advances made by ordinary people in the second half of the 20th century were wonderful. God bless the welfare state.
Southam with respect when you went to uni it was completely free, nowadays pretty much every 20 something year old has been there - and its not really a competitive advantage... more just up to a 9% pay cut for the rest of your working life.
It's still a small advantage in certain industries. I don't think it would be easy to go into banking without a degree. I personally have never needed my degree for anything since I graduated. It's just in a frame in my old bedroom. However, opening the door without one is close to impossible these days. It shouldn't be that way because there is an awfully large amount of talent being ignored, but the recruitment industry is just rubbish.
It's not just a qualification, it's an education. I studied medieval history and the subject has been totally irrelevant to all that I have done since. But the disciplines I learned in terms of analysing sources and framing arguments have been invaluable. I did not have those skills when I left school.
Oh wow. Snap re: medieval history. I sometimes wonder if there is anyone on PB who didn't study medieval/ancient history.
I studied Biochemistry at Imperial - but History was my second favourite subject after chemistry at school
People will not vote for someone who winces in the presence of the Union Jack and will not give time to a party led by someone who does. That's why May is so far ahead. Don't kid yourself otherwise.
I can understand Labour voters who are disenchanted with the marxist tit, staying at home, what I am questioning is why voters are switching to the Tories. Incidentally my parents come from the Whitehawk Estate in Brighton, and were the first of their family to go to university, mother is now one of Tezzie's blue rinsers
Yep, there are many like me and your Mum. The advances made by ordinary people in the second half of the 20th century were wonderful. God bless the welfare state.
Southam with respect when you went to uni it was completely free, nowadays pretty much every 20 something year old has been there - and its not really a competitive advantage... more just up to a 9% pay cut for the rest of your working life.
It's not just a qualification, it's an education. I studied medieval history and the subject has been totally irrelevant to all that I have done since. But the disciplines I learned in terms of analysing sources and framing arguments have been invaluable. I did not have those skills when I left school.
Oh wow. Snap re: medieval history. I sometimes wonder if there is anyone on PB who didn't study medieval/ancient history.
Plenty stuck in medieval thinking for sure
Like the Scottish Wars of Independence?
I was correct , you conflate real life with life 700 years ago
Morning Malc!
Morning GIn, Hope you are well. The elite seem to be like headless chickens at the moment, they cannot quite get to grips with "The Donald" being the BIG Dog. Everywhere you turn there are sad losers uttering personal insults about him, the same headbangers that praised the no good sons of bitches that preceeded him. Remarkable times and PB full of dinosaurs stuck in medieval times , what a time to be full of the joys of life. All that and my birthday tomorrow.
The one and only time I sifted through 320 grad applications (4 years ago now) shocked me to the bone. I had not heard of most of the Universities.
I mean, I expected to not know some of the less popular colleges and PPHs at The Other Place....
We mostly had applications from top 20 universities so that wasn't a problem. The problem was that the universities were teaching to the test rather than giving their students the tools to think for themselves as they did when I was there.
There are 20 top universities?
Outside of Imperial?
I'm only half joking - I sort of struggle to name Unis after:
Ox Cam London Edinburgh St Andrews Glasgow Durham Manchester York Exeter Bristol Warwick Leeds Southampton Brighton
erm......
Birmingham, UEA, Leicester, Aston ...
Loughborough, Lancaster & Bath are all in the top 15 and ahead of most of those.
31% (22% of 2015 Labour voters) think that Labour's policy is to relax immigration, 13% (18% of Labour voters) think that Labour's policy is to tighten immigration. 38% (34% of Labour voters) are not sure what Labour's policy is on immigration.
People will not vote for someone who winces in the presence of the Union Jack and will not give time to a party led by someone who does. That's why May is so far ahead. Don't kid yourself otherwise.
I can understand Labour voters who are disenchanted with the marxist tit, staying at home, what I am questioning is why voters are switching to the Tories. Incidentally my parents come from the Whitehawk Estate in Brighton, and were the first of their family to go to university, mother is now one of Tezzie's blue rinsers
Yep, there are many like me and your Mum. The advances made by ordinary people in the second half of the 20th century were wonderful. God bless the welfare state.
Southam with respect when you went to uni it was completely free, nowadays pretty much every 20 something year old has been there - and its not really a competitive advantage... more just up to a 9% pay cut for the rest of your working life.
It's still a small advantage in certain industries. I don't think it would be easy to go into banking without a degree. I personally have never needed my degree for anything since I graduated. It's just in a frame in my old bedroom. However, opening the door without one is close to impossible these days. It shouldn't be that way because there is an awfully large amount of talent being ignored, but the recruitment industry is just rubbish.
It's not just a qualification, it's an education. I studied medieval history and the subject has been totally irrelevant to all that I have done since. But the disciplines I learned in terms of analysing sources and framing arguments have been invaluable. I did not have those skills when I left school.
Oh wow. Snap re: medieval history. I sometimes wonder if there is anyone on PB who didn't study medieval/ancient history.
Plenty stuck in medieval thinking for sure
Like the Scottish Wars of Independence?
I was correct , you conflate real life with life 700 years ago
Why Malc? Wasn't what happened 700 years ago real life, or are they myths an fables to hide the sordid truth that there was no life 700 years ago?
Past life Mike and we can only surmise. However why am I here now if there was no life then.
I've written several articles on this, and spoken personally to some of the experts in the field, like Flynn in NZ, who first noted the famous Flynn effect (he's also a lefty)
Nobody in the world of psychometrics - the science of measuring human intelligence - doubts that there is an average gap in IQ between races. It's an accepted fact. Repeated time and again. No one really doubts that modern IQ tests measure something we generally associate with intelligence (SATS in the USA are basically IQ tests, for instance, and they are the gateway to university entrance)
However, the WIDER scientific community does indeed say little on this subject, because it is painfully awkward, socially unacceptable, and anyone that does talk about it - like Watson - is pilloried and exiled. Literally.
But that's kinda my point. Some science - like global warming - is seen as intrinsically good and treated as unquestionable religion. Some science is BAD and hidden away. It's a rum do.
Your argument seems to be that pyschometric findings are not accepted purely because they aren't politically correct. But how about another argument - that maybe they just aren't accepted because many in the wider scientific community aren't convinced by the pyschometric argument on innate racial differences in intelligence. Even those within the scientific community who didn't agree with Dr James Watson being 'shunned', and banned from talks don't necessarily agree with his views:
People will not vote for someone who winces in the presence of the Union Jack and will not give time to a party led by someone who does. That's why May is so far ahead. Don't kid yourself otherwise.
I can understand Labour voters who are disenchanted with the marxist tit, staying at home, what I am questioning is why voters are switching to the Tories. Incidentally my parents come from the Whitehawk Estate in Brighton, and were the first of their family to go to university, mother is now one of Tezzie's blue rinsers
Yep, there are many like me and your Mum. The advances made by ordinary people in the second half of the 20th century were wonderful. God bless the welfare state.
Southam with respect when you went to uni it was completely free, nowadays pretty much every 20 something year old has been there - and its not really a competitive advantage... more just up to a 9% pay cut for the rest of your working life.
It's still a small advantage in certain industries. I don't think it would be easy to go into banking without a degree. I personally have never needed my degree for anything since I graduated. It's just in a frame in my old bedroom. However, opening the door without one is close to impossible these days. It shouldn't be that way because there is an awfully large amount of talent being ignored, but the recruitment industry is just rubbish.
It's not just a qualification, it's an education. I studied medieval history and the subject has been totally irrelevant to all that I have done since. But the disciplines I learned in terms of analysing sources and framing arguments have been invaluable. I did not have those skills when I left school.
Oh wow. Snap re: medieval history. I sometimes wonder if there is anyone on PB who didn't study medieval/ancient history.
I studied Biochemistry at Imperial - but History was my second favourite subject after chemistry at school
And we all study GOT, to keep our hands in.
I study the horses but remain near bottom of the class
Morning GIn, Hope you are well. The elite seem to be like headless chickens at the moment, they cannot quite get to grips with "The Donald" being the BIG Dog. Everywhere you turn there are sad losers uttering personal insults about him, the same headbangers that praised the no good sons of bitches that preceeded him. Remarkable times and PB full of dinosaurs stuck in medieval times , what a time to be full of the joys of life. All that and my birthday tomorrow.
Happy birthday Malc!
Yes certainly "interesting" times. I did vote for Brexit but I think "The Donald" might have been a step too far for me... But we are where we are. There's no point the "elites" running round in a blind panic they've just got to see how it shakes out - As have we all.
People will not vote for someone who winces in the presence of the Union Jack and will not give time to a party led by someone who does. That's why May is so far ahead. Don't kid yourself otherwise.
I can understand Labour voters who are disenchanted with the marxist tit, staying at home, what I am questioning is why voters are switching to the Tories. Incidentally my parents come from the Whitehawk Estate in Brighton, and were the first of their family to go to university, mother is now one of Tezzie's blue rinsers
I think the issue is now much more a competence one than people fretting about Hamas (who?) or the IRA (oh that nice Martin McGuinness who gets on with the Queen) or whether we should literally go to war with Russia without America if Estonia were threatened (which even non-Labour people might think is a bit oo-er). These are things which mainly politically active people have views on, and even we mostly don't think they are urgent current matters. But most people have the impression that May is solidly competent and has her party behind her and that Corbyn is shaky and Labour is disorganised and squabbling.
The perception of May will probably weaken over time, as nearly all leaders slide as reality swamps them. Labour is now less obviously squabble-prone and Corbyn has fixed some of the problems, but changing perceptions is extremely difficult. But so is finding a credible alternative who members and indeed voters will think is worth turning out for and a credible PM. Would we now be ahead in the polls if we were led by, say, Andy Burnham, nice though he is?
Peresonally I agree with most of Corbyn's views, I really like his style and I see him as something of a personal friend, so I'm loyal and that won't be affected by polls or by-election results. The wider party is naturally uneasy but doesn't see a good alternative before 2020.
"I really like his style" Not something often said about Jeremy!!
If Corbyn's broad lack of appeal, and the fact that he has destroyed the Parliamentary chances of the Labour Party doesn't deter Nick, then..........I'm afraid it's not a badge of honour to say you are loyal to him, really Nick it isn't...
BTW...WTF do people always mention Andy Burnham as the only alternative? Starmer, Clive Lewis, Dan Jarvis, Emily Thornberry, Hilary Benn...there are a number of potentially strong leaders who would put up a much better fight.
Note to Nick....leadership matters, ratings matter, perception matters. David Miliband would now be PM and Brexit would never have happened in an alternative universe.
Will probably end in tears. Still, Nuttall highly unlikely to last long enough in the top job to get close to Farage's record of Commons election defeats - is he up to seven or eight by now?
I've written several articles on this, and spoken personally to some of the experts in the field, like Flynn in NZ, who first noted the famous Flynn effect (he's also a lefty)
Nobody in the world of psychometrics - the science of measuring human intelligence - doubts that there is an average gap in IQ between races. It's an accepted fact. Repeated time and again. No one really doubts that modern IQ tests measure something we generally associate with intelligence (SATS in the USA are basically IQ tests, for instance, and they are the gateway to university entrance)
However, the WIDER scientific community does indeed say little on this subject, because it is painfully awkward, socially unacceptable, and anyone that does talk about it - like Watson - is pilloried and exiled. Literally.
But that's kinda my point. Some science - like global warming - is seen as intrinsically good and treated as unquestionable religion. Some science is BAD and hidden away. It's a rum do.
I was sharing a house in Kentish Town at the time of that Watson article and remember bringing home The Metro where I had read it and asking the other housemates opinion. One of them was a real left wing French girl who said even if it were conclusively proven to be true, she would refuse to believe it.
For every person who doesn't want it to be true, there seems to be a person who desperately wants it to be true. I'm sure it's just the spirit of scientific enquiry that drives their desperation.
Morning GIn, Hope you are well. The elite seem to be like headless chickens at the moment, they cannot quite get to grips with "The Donald" being the BIG Dog. Everywhere you turn there are sad losers uttering personal insults about him, the same headbangers that praised the no good sons of bitches that preceeded him. Remarkable times and PB full of dinosaurs stuck in medieval times , what a time to be full of the joys of life. All that and my birthday tomorrow.
Happy birthday Malc!
Yes certainly "interesting" times. I did vote for Brexit but I think "The Donald" might have been a step too far for me... But we are where we are. There's no point the "elites" running round in a blind panic they've just got to see how it shakes out - As have we all.
Gin, Difference will be that we get a few laughs as we get fleeced compared to the usual professional assassins.
I've written several articles on this, and spoken personally to some of the experts in the field, like Flynn in NZ, who first noted the famous Flynn effect (he's also a lefty)
Nobody in the world of psychometrics - the science of measuring human intelligence - doubts that there is an average gap in IQ between races. It's an accepted fact. Repeated time and again. No one really doubts that modern IQ tests measure something we generally associate with intelligence (SATS in the USA are basically IQ tests, for instance, and they are the gateway to university entrance)
However, the WIDER scientific community does indeed say little on this subject, because it is painfully awkward, socially unacceptable, and anyone that does talk about it - like Watson - is pilloried and exiled. Literally.
But that's kinda my point. Some science - like global warming - is seen as intrinsically good and treated as unquestionable religion. Some science is BAD and hidden away. It's a rum do.
I was sharing a house in Kentish Town at the time of that Watson article and remember bringing home The Metro where I had read it and asking the other housemates opinion. One of them was a real left wing French girl who said even if it were conclusively proven to be true, she would refuse to believe it.
For every person who doesn't want it to be true, there seems to be a person who desperately wants it to be true. I'm sure it's just the spirit of scientific enquiry that drives their desperation.
Well, I have to say this is exactly what I thought when reading isam's post.
As trailed: Will probably end in tears. Still, Nuttall highly unlikely to last long enough in the top job to get close to Farage's record of Commons election defeats - is he up to seven or eight by now?
I imagine now he is crying all the way to the bank whitehouse
Will probably end in tears. Still, Nuttall highly unlikely to last long enough in the top job to get close to Farage's record of Commons election defeats - is he up to seven or eight by now?
I'll be cheering him on....come on Nuttall....I hope he wins, and we lose Copeland....and then we get mashed in the locals and lose Wales.......and McCluskey loses too.....
And maybe then we can move the Labour party ahead.....
I've written several articles on this, and spoken personally to some of the experts in the field, like Flynn in NZ, who first noted the famous Flynn effect (he's also a lefty)
Nobody in the world of psychometrics - the science of measuring human intelligence - doubts that there is an average gap in IQ between races. It's an accepted fact. Repeated time and again. No one really doubts that modern IQ tests measure something we generally associate with intelligence (SATS in the USA are basically IQ tests, for instance, and they are the gateway to university entrance)
However, the WIDER scientific community does indeed say little on this subject, because it is painfully awkward, socially unacceptable, and anyone that does talk about it - like Watson - is pilloried and exiled. Literally.
But that's kinda my point. Some science - like global warming - is seen as intrinsically good and treated as unquestionable religion. Some science is BAD and hidden away. It's a rum do.
Your argument seems to be that pyschometric findings are not accepted purely because they aren't politically correct. But how about another argument - that maybe they just aren't accepted because many in the wider scientific community aren't convinced by the pyschometric argument on innate racial differences in intelligence. Even those within the scientific community who didn't agree with Dr James Watson being 'shunned', and banned from talks don't necessarily agree with his views:
The science is far from settled. I think the point of bringing it up is to wind-up lefties. The way I see it, there are many forms of intelligence. I could not even begin to do an IQ test, my eyes just glaze over. If that makes me thick, so be it.
I've written several articles on this, and spoken personally to some of the experts in the field, like Flynn in NZ, who first noted the famous Flynn effect (he's also a lefty)
Nobody in the world of psychometrics - the science of measuring human intelligence - doubts that there is an average gap in IQ between races. It's an accepted fact. Repeated time and again. No one really doubts that modern IQ tests measure something we generally associate with intelligence (SATS in the USA are basically IQ tests, for instance, and they are the gateway to university entrance)
However, the WIDER scientific community does indeed say little on this subject, because it is painfully awkward, socially unacceptable, and anyone that does talk about it - like Watson - is pilloried and exiled. Literally.
But that's kinda my point. Some science - like global warming - is seen as intrinsically good and treated as unquestionable religion. Some science is BAD and hidden away. It's a rum do.
I was sharing a house in Kentish Town at the time of that Watson article and remember bringing home The Metro where I had read it and asking the other housemates opinion. One of them was a real left wing French girl who said even if it were conclusively proven to be true, she would refuse to believe it.
For every person who doesn't want it to be true, there seems to be a person who desperately wants it to be true. I'm sure it's just the spirit of scientific enquiry that drives their desperation.
I would want nothing more than AGW to be proved as some giant con, I really would...
I've written several articles on this, and spoken personally to some of the experts in the field, like Flynn in NZ, who first noted the famous Flynn effect (he's also a lefty)
Nobody in the world of psychometrics - the science of measuring human intelligence - doubts that there is an average gap in IQ between races. It's an accepted fact. Repeated time and again. No one really doubts that modern IQ tests measure something we generally associate with intelligence (SATS in the USA are basically IQ tests, for instance, and they are the gateway to university entrance)
However, the WIDER scientific community does indeed say little on this subject, because it is painfully awkward, socially unacceptable, and anyone that does talk about it - like Watson - is pilloried and exiled. Literally.
But that's kinda my point. Some science - like global warming - is seen as intrinsically good and treated as unquestionable religion. Some science is BAD and hidden away. It's a rum do.
I was sharing a house in Kentish Town at the time of that Watson article and remember bringing home The Metro where I had read it and asking the other housemates opinion. One of them was a real left wing French girl who said even if it were conclusively proven to be true, she would refuse to believe it.
For every person who doesn't want it to be true, there seems to be a person who desperately wants it to be true. I'm sure it's just the spirit of scientific enquiry that drives their desperation.
I would want nothing more than AGW to be proved as some giant con, I really would...
Its not a on, but the timescales are beyond our lifetime so no need to worry too much - I'm doing my bit for the planet by not having kids anyway.
I've written several articles on this, and spoken personally to some of the experts in the field, like Flynn in NZ, who first noted the famous Flynn effect (he's also a lefty)
Nobody in the world of psychometrics - the science of measuring human intelligence - doubts that there is an average gap in IQ between races. It's an accepted fact. Repeated time and again. No one really doubts that modern IQ tests measure something we generally associate with intelligence (SATS in the USA are basically IQ tests, for instance, and they are the gateway to university entrance)
However, the WIDER scientific community does indeed say little on this subject, because it is painfully awkward, socially unacceptable, and anyone that does talk about it - like Watson - is pilloried and exiled. Literally.
But that's kinda my point. Some science - like global warming - is seen as intrinsically good and treated as unquestionable religion. Some science is BAD and hidden away. It's a rum do.
Your argument seems to be that pyschometric findings are not accepted purely because they aren't politically correct. But how about another argument - that maybe they just aren't accepted because many in the wider scientific community aren't convinced by the pyschometric argument on innate racial differences in intelligence. Even those within the scientific community who didn't agree with Dr James Watson being 'shunned', and banned from talks don't necessarily agree with his views:
Brexit is on track and that's the main motivation gone, surely?
Agreed. The Kippers are going to be becalmed for a couple of year while we find out if Tezzie is going to deliver what she said, or if that speech was world class bullshit and they are going to spend the next two years walking it back. The actualité of the immigration deal is going to be key for their demographic, if its just visa-for-a-job-offer they are going to be back in business big time for the next election, especially if the rest of it is a bit "meh".
I've written several articles on this, and spoken personally to some of the experts in the field, like Flynn in NZ, who first noted the famous Flynn effect (he's also a lefty)
Nobody in the world of psychometrics - the science of measuring human intelligence - doubts that there is an average gap in IQ between races. It's an accepted fact. Repeated time and again. No one really doubts that modern IQ tests measure something we generally associate with intelligence (SATS in the USA are basically IQ tests, for instance, and they are the gateway to university entrance)
However, the WIDER scientific community does indeed say little on this subject, because it is painfully awkward, socially unacceptable, and anyone that does talk about it - like Watson - is pilloried and exiled. Literally.
But that's kinda my point. Some science - like global warming - is seen as intrinsically good and treated as unquestionable religion. Some science is BAD and hidden away. It's a rum do.
I was sharing a house in Kentish Town at the time of that Watson article and remember bringing home The Metro where I had read it and asking the other housemates opinion. One of them was a real left wing French girl who said even if it were conclusively proven to be true, she would refuse to believe it.
For every person who doesn't want it to be true, there seems to be a person who desperately wants it to be true. I'm sure it's just the spirit of scientific enquiry that drives their desperation.
Perhaps. Would be interesting to know the truth, although I think it is probably unprovable one way or the other. Does it matter anyway?
Morning GIn, Hope you are well. The elite seem to be like headless chickens at the moment, they cannot quite get to grips with "The Donald" being the BIG Dog. Everywhere you turn there are sad losers uttering personal insults about him, the same headbangers that praised the no good sons of bitches that preceeded him. Remarkable times and PB full of dinosaurs stuck in medieval times , what a time to be full of the joys of life. All that and my birthday tomorrow.
Happy birthday Malc!
Yes certainly "interesting" times. I did vote for Brexit but I think "The Donald" might have been a step too far for me... But we are where we are. There's no point the "elites" running round in a blind panic they've just got to see how it shakes out - As have we all.
No more so than on BBC Dateline just now with Polly Toynbee suffering complete breakdown. And by the way Happy Birthday Malc - lang may yer lum reek
The science is far from settled. I think the point of bringing it up is to wind-up lefties. The way I see it, there are many forms of intelligence. I could not even begin to do an IQ test, my eyes just glaze over. If that makes me thick, so be it.
What I really want to know is why this obsession with 'winding up lefties' exists. I don't come on this site to wind up those on right. I agree with you that there are many forms of intelligence. I also wouldn't fancy doing an IQ test either!
@rkrkrk Thanks for that link. I'll give it a read.
The science is far from settled. I think the point of bringing it up is to wind-up lefties. The way I see it, there are many forms of intelligence. I could not even begin to do an IQ test, my eyes just glaze over. If that makes me thick, so be it.
My IQ was tested as a 4 year old child...... it was really low, borderline learning needs....still I managed to get straight A's at school, always top of my class (top grades at a grammar school), sail through an Economics Degree, get two other Masters including an MBA...all doing minimal work. And yes, I was the youngest Director at the time at work, and amass a self made business on the side which has enabled me to effectively retire at the age of 42, whilst also posting here...
There have been tests where people have been asked to just consider what it would be like (e.g.) to be black slave prior to taking a test, and their IQ rating in the test is measurably reduced.
Attitude and self-belief plays a huge part in what people achieve.
Will probably end in tears. Still, Nuttall highly unlikely to last long enough in the top job to get close to Farage's record of Commons election defeats - is he up to seven or eight by now?
I'll be cheering him on....come on Nuttall....I hope he wins, and we lose Copeland....and then we get mashed in the locals and lose Wales.......and McCluskey loses too.....
And maybe then we can move the Labour party ahead.....
I am with you, comrade. Sadly, McCluskey will not lose, though. But having won he may find Corbyn is less his cup of tea than was the case when he needed far left votes to get re-elected.
I don't think that article says anything really to contradict, even at the end it says midterms are all about the President's record and if Trump's ratings are low then the Democrats will be the beneficiaries and most likely take the House. It discusses how low the Democratic base is i.e. out of control of the White House, Congress, State Legislatures and Governorships but in 2008 the GOP were out of control of the White House and Congress and State Legislatures and Governorships but took control of the House just two years later
Will probably end in tears. Still, Nuttall highly unlikely to last long enough in the top job to get close to Farage's record of Commons election defeats - is he up to seven or eight by now?
I'll be cheering him on....come on Nuttall....I hope he wins, and we lose Copeland....and then we get mashed in the locals and lose Wales.......and McCluskey loses too.....
And maybe then we can move the Labour party ahead.....
My take on the by-elections is that Labour has moved relatively quickly in part to leave the rival parties less time to organise, and in part to avoid a potential avalanche of bad news all in one go in May.
Labour's exposure to losses in the English local elections is rather limited, given that they are primarily being held in shire counties and not even Corbyn can lose the metro-mayoralties in Manchester and Liverpool (although the Tories appear to fancy their chances in the West Midlands.) But Scotland is almost guaranteed to be a massacre, and Wales could also be nasty. Labour currently controls Swansea, Newport, and everything inbetween except for the Vale of Glamorgan. Could be a much messier picture after May 4th.
Of course, the legions of Corbyn supporters in the Labour Party mass membership will blame all of this on the behaviour of traitorous MPs, and things will most likely carry on regardless.
But even Blakemore accepts that there is a difference. DUH. In the quote you gave. QED.
Anyhoo, I'm not here to argue this difficult and painful topic, whether the difference is genetic or environmental, what IQ tests really show, blah blah, the point I'm trying to make is that science is not this pure realm of absolute logic that some (particularly AGW advocates) like to make out.
Like any field of human endeavour it is subject to political, social and ethical pressure, introducing bias and subjectivity, even with the best of intentions. Sometimes this can be because certain questions are too controversial to investigate, sometimes this can be because financial incentives steer scientists into particular kinds of research, and towards particular conclusions.
The scientific method is a great thing. It is not perfect.
From the PDFs I've found on psychometrics, they are arguing that there are innate racial differences. Blakemore doesn't accept that there are innate racial differences. There is a huge difference between arguing that there are innate racial differences between the races on intelligence, to arguing that intelligence is governed by environmental factors.
I'm not getting involved in your wider argument on science, it was just the race/intelligence argument which sparked my interest.
Sorry chaps, but there's a great deal of silliness in this thread. Firstly wrt to 'America 1st' - this has always been the case. Remember BP, or 'British Petroleum' as Obama took delight in calling it. The US has always plundered whatever it wanted from the UK (other places it has been more generous with, but only because they were strategic buffers). It has always organised the world entirely in its own interests, and the latest trade deals are an attempt to entrench its current advantage. All this doing is correctly labelling the tin.
Secondly wrt Russia - Russia's actions are reciprocal to 'The Wests'. We hear when Russia moves a missile closer the border, but we don't hear about the NATO manoeuvres that this is a response to. If we calm down, they will calm down. A lot of PBers have been taken in by what is essentially propaganda, and it's been an embarrassing spectacle.
Yes lucky guy - Russia is our benevolent big brother.
Can you name the last time Russia did anything bad to us. USA rips us off on an ongoing basis, we have only just paid them for all the outdated junk they sold us at exorbitant prices in WWII, they kicked UK out of America , duffed up their navy etc etc. Some halfwits on here wearing blinkers.
"Can you name the last time Russia did anything bad to us."
How about leaving a radiation trail across London from a botched assassination attempt?
Hardly an excuse for a war and it was London so a bonus. Let them know what it is like having their nucleur crap parked outside your front door.
There have been tests where people have been asked to just consider what it would be like (e.g.) to be black slave prior to taking a test, and their IQ rating in the test is measurably reduced.
Attitude and self-belief plays a huge part in what people achieve.
Stereotypic threat - often used to explain why women do better on verbal tests and men on spatial. If you know it exists you can use it to your advantage.
(My son did a project on it during his Psychology Conversion Masters, including in his final presentation the phrase "University professors always mark male students very generously")
On byelection in Stoke, I don't hate Corbyn so much that I'll root for UKIP. The Tories or Lib Dems taking that seat would be enough to send shockwaves through the Labour party.
If Trump is true to his word and concludes an early trade deal with the UK and at the same time shuns the EU how long before EU companies re-locate to UK to benefit from the UK's trade deal
And how ironic that would be
Not sure how the UK can or should get on the America First bandwagon.
We can get on it by taking the trade deal the US offers us. Given Trump is pulling out of the TPP and demanding to rewrite NAFTA such a deal is unlikely to be one that works to the UK's advantage. America First is pretty self-explanatory. However, a totally deregulated, low tax economy in which public services are stripped to a bare minimum has been the Tory right's wet dream for decades. They will happily abandon the working class voters they claim to care about to achieve it and with Labour irrelevant and unelectable the short term political cost could be easily manageable.
May and Hammond will cut corporation tax but beyond that there will be no deregulated, ultra low tax, slashing public services to the bone from her, as her conference speech made clear she is economically left of Cameron and Osborne for starters and she is also more wary of Trump than the likes of Fox and Farage. Even Trump is no libertarian either given his protectionism and support for infrastructure spending
Will probably end in tears. Still, Nuttall highly unlikely to last long enough in the top job to get close to Farage's record of Commons election defeats - is he up to seven or eight by now?
I'll be cheering him on....come on Nuttall....I hope he wins, and we lose Copeland....and then we get mashed in the locals and lose Wales.......and McCluskey loses too.....
And maybe then we can move the Labour party ahead.....
My take on the by-elections is that Labour has moved relatively quickly in part to leave the rival parties less time to organise, and in part to avoid a potential avalanche of bad news all in one go in May.
Labour's exposure to losses in the English local elections is rather limited, given that they are primarily being held in shire counties and not even Corbyn can lose the metro-mayoralties in Manchester and Liverpool (although the Tories appear to fancy their chances in the West Midlands.) But Scotland is almost guaranteed to be a massacre, and Wales could also be nasty. Labour currently controls Swansea, Newport, and everything inbetween except for the Vale of Glamorgan. Could be a much messier picture after May 4th.
Of course, the legions of Corbyn supporters in the Labour Party mass membership will blame all of this on the behaviour of traitorous MPs, and things will most likely carry on regardless.
Compare the opinion polls today with those 4 years ago when these council seats were last fought. There is plenty of scope for Labour to lose bigly in May in the English locals. I can see us losing all of our seats in North Yorkshire, for example.
The one and only time I sifted through 320 grad applications (4 years ago now) shocked me to the bone. I had not heard of most of the Universities.
I mean, I expected to not know some of the less popular colleges and PPHs at The Other Place....
We mostly had applications from top 20 universities so that wasn't a problem. The problem was that the universities were teaching to the test rather than giving their students the tools to think for themselves as they did when I was there.
There are 20 top universities?
Outside of Imperial?
I'm only half joking - I sort of struggle to name Unis after:
Ox Cam London Edinburgh St Andrews Glasgow Durham Manchester York Exeter Bristol Warwick Leeds Southampton Brighton
erm......
Astonished you put Brighton into your list, Mr. Mortimer. It does have some nice facilities and its post-grad medical school has something of a good reputation but it is one of Kenneth Baker's ex-polytechnics and most of its departments are rather third rate. I did my PGCE there and was not impressed.
Unless you meant Sussex Uni, of course, which is just over on the other side of the A27 and altogether a different caldron of octopuss. Or at least it was when I last had dealings with it, but given MaxPB's comments upthread I'd no longer be sure of that.
I've written several articles on this, and spoken personally to some of the experts in the field, like Flynn in NZ, who first noted the famous Flynn effect (he's also a lefty)
Nobody in the world of psychometrics - the science of measuring human intelligence - doubts that there is an average gap in IQ between races. It's an accepted fact. Repeated time and again. No one really doubts that modern IQ tests measure something we generally associate with intelligence (SATS in the USA are basically IQ tests, for instance, and they are the gateway to university entrance)
However, the WIDER scientific community does indeed say little on this subject, because it is painfully awkward, socially unacceptable, and anyone that does talk about it - like Watson - is pilloried and exiled. Literally.
But that's kinda my point. Some science - like global warming - is seen as intrinsically good and treated as unquestionable religion. Some science is BAD and hidden away. It's a rum do.
I was sharing a house in Kentish Town at the time of that Watson article and remember bringing home The Metro where I had read it and asking the other housemates opinion. One of them was a real left wing French girl who said even if it were conclusively proven to be true, she would refuse to believe it.
For every person who doesn't want it to be true, there seems to be a person who desperately wants it to be true. I'm sure it's just the spirit of scientific enquiry that drives their desperation.
Well, I have to say this is exactly what I thought when reading isam's post.
I've written several articles on this, and spoken personally to some of the experts in the field, like Flynn in NZ, who first noted the famous Flynn effect (he's also a lefty)
Nobody in the world of psychometrics - the science of measuring human intelligence - doubts that there is an average gap in IQ between races. It's an accepted fact. Repeated time and again. No one really doubts that modern IQ tests measure something we generally associate with intelligence (SATS in the USA are basically IQ tests, for instance, and they are the gateway to university entrance)
However, the WIDER scientific community does indeed say little on this subject, because it is painfully awkward, socially unacceptable, and anyone that does talk about it - like Watson - is pilloried and exiled. Literally.
But that's kinda my point. Some science - like global warming - is seen as intrinsically good and treated as unquestionable religion. Some science is BAD and hidden away. It's a rum do.
I was sharing a house in Kentish Town at the time of that Watson article and remember bringing home The Metro where I had read it and asking the other housemates opinion. One of them was a real left wing French girl who said even if it were conclusively proven to be true, she would refuse to believe it.
For every person who doesn't want it to be true, there seems to be a person who desperately wants it to be true. I'm sure it's just the spirit of scientific enquiry that drives their desperation.
I would want nothing more than AGW to be proved as some giant con, I really would...
The trouble is, we can't - the only scientific way would be to have two 'earths', orbiting two identical suns at exactly the same stage in stellar development, one with and one without mankind - and observe the results.
What we do know is that average temperatures have gone up in the 20th century and this has coincided with a great increase in the number of people and the amount of energy (which always ends up as heat - whether it is renewable or not) used.
We also know that there have been periods in the earth's past (even close to historical as opposed to geological periods) when the average temperature has been both higher and lower than today.
An interesting article from David H as always (and as always, many thanks).
I don't disagree with much of it so just a couple of random thoughts:
1) Is it conceivable the GOP will dump Trump as it were if the midterms go badly in 2018 ? Could we see Trump running as an independent incumbent against GOP and Dem candidates in 2020 ?
2) My perception of Trump's supporters (as with many who voted LEAVE last June, including myself) is that they are questioning, if not struggling with the question of identity and with the question of their country's future and their place in the world.
Up to 1989, there was clarity but since then America has never been certain whether it wanted a Pax Americana worldwide (which required the power and the will to enforce it) or a retreat back to its hemisphere if not its own borders. The geography of America has allowed it the luxury of isolationism that Britain doesn't enjoy from only 22 miles of water.
Yet technology and economy have driven globalisation and the nebulous nature of the cultural and societal changes that has wrought has, I think, left many confused, bewildered and angry. The old-fashioned jobs are gone because the Chinese, Indians, Bangladeshis or whoever can produce it so much cheaper - the thing you made before is still there, it's still cheap but it's made somewhere else and your job is gone.
"Stop the World - I Want to Get off" might be a nice mantra for the age but unfortunately the world isn't going to stop. The only thing to bring jobs back is to invest, seriously invest, in education and re-skilling. Promote quality rather than quantity, diversify, invest in r&d and become the world leader you once were but in new technology.
The alternative is to lower your taxes, hope the foreign investors will come and hire your workers to make the tea, scrub the office floors and work for their foreign managers who will live in the nice houses you will help build and whose gardens you will look after and whose houses you will clean - a service industry par excellence.
Trump fronted a tv programme which was ostensibly about investing in people - if the new populism is to be anything other than a race to a bottom, it has to be about learning, training and research.
It was Trump voters who won the primaries for him against establishment candidates, they would likely do so again and those voters may not turn out for Paul Ryan in 2018 but they will likely do so again for Trump in 2020
Sorry chaps, but there's a great deal of silliness in this thread. Firstly wrt to 'America 1st' - this has always been the case. Remember BP, or 'British Petroleum' as Obama took delight in calling it. The US has always plundered whatever it wanted from the UK (other places it has been more generous with, but only because they were strategic buffers). It has always organised the world entirely in its own interests, and the latest trade deals are an attempt to entrench its current advantage. All this doing is correctly labelling the tin.
Secondly wrt Russia - Russia's actions are reciprocal to 'The Wests'. We hear when Russia moves a missile closer the border, but we don't hear about the NATO manoeuvres that this is a response to. If we calm down, they will calm down. A lot of PBers have been taken in by what is essentially propaganda, and it's been an embarrassing spectacle.
Yes lucky guy - Russia is our benevolent big brother.
Can you name the last time Russia did anything bad to us. USA rips us off on an ongoing basis, we have only just paid them for all the outdated junk they sold us at exorbitant prices in WWII, they kicked UK out of America , duffed up their navy etc etc. Some halfwits on here wearing blinkers.
"Can you name the last time Russia did anything bad to us."
How about leaving a radiation trail across London from a botched assassination attempt?
Hardly an excuse for a war and it was London so a bonus. Let them know what it is like having their nucleur crap parked outside your front door.
Will probably end in tears. Still, Nuttall highly unlikely to last long enough in the top job to get close to Farage's record of Commons election defeats - is he up to seven or eight by now?
I'll be cheering him on....come on Nuttall....I hope he wins, and we lose Copeland....and then we get mashed in the locals and lose Wales.......and McCluskey loses too.....
And maybe then we can move the Labour party ahead.....
My take on the by-elections is that Labour has moved relatively quickly in part to leave the rival parties less time to organise, and in part to avoid a potential avalanche of bad news all in one go in May.
Labour's exposure to losses in the English local elections is rather limited, given that they are primarily being held in shire counties and not even Corbyn can lose the metro-mayoralties in Manchester and Liverpool (although the Tories appear to fancy their chances in the West Midlands.) But Scotland is almost guaranteed to be a massacre, and Wales could also be nasty. Labour currently controls Swansea, Newport, and everything inbetween except for the Vale of Glamorgan. Could be a much messier picture after May 4th.
Of course, the legions of Corbyn supporters in the Labour Party mass membership will blame all of this on the behaviour of traitorous MPs, and things will most likely carry on regardless.
Compare the opinion polls today with those 4 years ago when these council seats were last fought. There is plenty of scope for Labour to lose bigly in May in the English locals. I can see us losing all of our seats in North Yorkshire, for example.
This is very true. I'm talking in the context of Labour having actual control of so few of these councils to begin with that it can't suffer the eye-catching loss of large numbers of English authorities.
I would also imagine they'll be hoping for some decent performances from the Liberal Democrats, to deflect some of the media attention away from Labour's generally useless performances and onto Lib Dem gains and Tory losses in Southern England.
Will probably end in tears. Still, Nuttall highly unlikely to last long enough in the top job to get close to Farage's record of Commons election defeats - is he up to seven or eight by now?
I'll be cheering him on....come on Nuttall....I hope he wins, and we lose Copeland....and then we get mashed in the locals and lose Wales.......and McCluskey loses too.....
And maybe then we can move the Labour party ahead.....
My take on the by-elections is that Labour has moved relatively quickly in part to leave the rival parties less time to organise, and in part to avoid a potential avalanche of bad news all in one go in May.
Other way round perhaps? Labour has moved slowly on these byelections and is only now rushing to get its act together after reports of Tory activists typing Copeland into their satnavs.
I'll be surprised if he lasts a full term, if he does then I can't see him being a two term president. A lot of these people who vote for him are going to quickly realize he's all talk.
I've lost count of the number of pbERs who have said they would love to see such an outcome happening because it'll wind up lefties. It is just juvenile stuff.
As said, I'd love AGW to be wrong. I'd love it if austerity worked, and the UK was now thriving with a properly funded NHS. I would love to walk through Oxford and not see the bodies, predominantly young people, sleeping homeless, or the proliferation of food banks...I'd love to see the UK continue to be an influential player in global institutions because fundamentally I think we bring a unique perspective....
I like to be proved wrong...on Brexit, Trump, the EU, AGW, ISISS....
But I fundamentally know that it has been a liberal voice that has driven rights for LBTG, ethnicities, women, children, environmental causes...
Will probably end in tears. Still, Nuttall highly unlikely to last long enough in the top job to get close to Farage's record of Commons election defeats - is he up to seven or eight by now?
I'll be cheering him on....come on Nuttall....I hope he wins, and we lose Copeland....and then we get mashed in the locals and lose Wales.......and McCluskey loses too.....
And maybe then we can move the Labour party ahead.....
My take on the by-elections is that Labour has moved relatively quickly in part to leave the rival parties less time to organise, and in part to avoid a potential avalanche of bad news all in one go in May.
Other way round perhaps? Labour has moved slowly on these byelections and is only now rushing to get its act together after reports of Tory activists typing Copeland into their satnavs.
Tories had leaflets through letterboxes about Corbyn and his hatred of all things nuclear, within 48 hours of Jamie Reed announcing his resignation.
Memo to any MP who wants to resign: Don't announce it in advance, the by-election spending limits don't kick in until you've actually gone!
I've lost count of the number of pbERs who have said they would love to see such an outcome happening because it'll wind up lefties. It is just juvenile stuff.
As said, I'd love AGW to be wrong. I'd love it if austerity worked, and the UK was now thriving with a properly funded NHS. I would love to walk through Oxford and not see the bodies, predominantly young people, sleeping homeless, or the proliferation of food banks...I'd love to see the UK continue to be an influential player in global institutions because fundamentally I think we bring a unique perspective....
I like to be proved wrong...on Brexit, Trump, the EU, AGW, ISISS....
But I fundamentally know that it has been a liberal voice that has driven rights for LBTG, ethnicities, women, children, environmental causes...
You'd rather people went hungry than we had food banks? Well, it's a view....clearly, one shared by the last Labour Govt., who just couldn't countenance the flak of people going "to food banks to collect stuff on its "use by" date. There are many rocks you can throw at this Govt., but bemoaning the rise in people getting fed by food banks is just crass.
I'll be surprised if he lasts a full term, if he does then I can't see him being a two term president. A lot of these people who vote for him are going to quickly realize he's all talk.
Historically the odds are he loses Congress in 2018 but is re elected in 2020
I'll be surprised if he lasts a full term, if he does then I can't see him being a two term president. A lot of these people who vote for him are going to quickly realize he's all talk.
That's the thing. I don't think his voters will realise this. Many of them no longer trust mainsteam media and instead get their info directly from him from twitter etc. He will blame someone else as per usual before it was Hillary now it will be the MSM telling fake news everything will be fake news or he will blame the Senate and house Democrats. Thats why he will last a full term.
But even Blakemore accepts that there is a difference. DUH. In the quote you gave. QED.
Anyhoo, I'm not here to argue this difficult and painful topic, whether the difference is genetic or environmental, what IQ tests really show, blah blah, the point I'm trying to make is that science is not this pure realm of absolute logic that some (particularly AGW advocates) like to make out.
Like any field of human endeavour it is subject to political, social and ethical pressure, introducing bias and subjectivity, even with the best of intentions. Sometimes this can be because certain questions are too controversial to investigate, sometimes this can be because financial incentives steer scientists into particular kinds of research, and towards particular conclusions.
The scientific method is a great thing. It is not perfect.
From the PDFs I've found on psychometrics, they are arguing that there are innate racial differences. Blakemore doesn't accept that there are innate racial differences. There is a huge difference between arguing that there are innate racial differences between the races on intelligence, to arguing that intelligence is governed by environmental factors.
I'm not getting involved in your wider argument on science, it was just the race/intelligence argument which sparked my interest.
The consensus at the moment is that intelligence is partly inherited, AND partly a product of environment.
What is more interesting to me, these days, is the Flynn Effect. The discovery that IQs have been rising fast since 1900 (incidentally this strongly implies that environment is definitely an influence on IQ/intelligence).
It seems that the Flynn Effect has stopped. Indeed it might have reversed, and we are all getting stupider. Some say this is because smart women aren't having enough babies (so-called dysgenic drift)
I'll be surprised if he lasts a full term, if he does then I can't see him being a two term president. A lot of these people who vote for him are going to quickly realize he's all talk.
You have fvck all basis for saying that, other than hope. He might disappoint. Or he might do as he did in getting himself elected - surround himself with very smart people who threaded a way to win the Presidency whilst losing the popular vote. Former heads of Exxon aren't the sort of people who want to be associated with failure - still less, the now back-in-the-fold Goldman Sachs.
It seems to me what really terrifies you about Donald Trump is that he might just succeed.
I've lost count of the number of pbERs who have said they would love to see such an outcome happening because it'll wind up lefties. It is just juvenile stuff.
As said, I'd love AGW to be wrong. I'd love it if austerity worked, and the UK was now thriving with a properly funded NHS. I would love to walk through Oxford and not see the bodies, predominantly young people, sleeping homeless, or the proliferation of food banks...I'd love to see the UK continue to be an influential player in global institutions because fundamentally I think we bring a unique perspective....
I like to be proved wrong...on Brexit, Trump, the EU, AGW, ISISS....
But I fundamentally know that it has been a liberal voice that has driven rights for LBTG, ethnicities, women, children, environmental causes...
You'd rather people went hungry than we had food banks? Well, it's a view....clearly, one shared by the last Labour Govt., who just couldn't countenance the flak of people going "to food banks to collect stuff on its "use by" date. There are many rocks you can throw at this Govt., but bemoaning the rise in people getting fed by food banks is just crass.
I've never understood the opposition to food banks, from those who are usually all in favour of charity. Is it not a mark of a civilised society that we look after those not as fortunate as ourselves?
The trouble is, we can't - the only scientific way would be to have two 'earths', orbiting two identical suns at exactly the same stage in stellar development, one with and one without mankind - and observe the results.
What we do know is that average temperatures have gone up in the 20th century and this has coincided with a great increase in the number of people and the amount of energy (which always ends up as heat - whether it is renewable or not) used.
We also know that there have been periods in the earth's past (even close to historical as opposed to geological periods) when the average temperature has been both higher and lower than today.</blockquote
In a sense it doesn't matter...most renewable energies are neutral, or at least more desirable than burning stuff (except of course destroying rain forest and replacing with plant oils). So Govt should encourage one and discourage the other.
The problem is that you have loony right wing nut jobs who just hate the govt interfering at all; they are so blinded by ideology, and they are desperate to believe that AGW is some lefty, liberal con.
The Alt Right in the USA and here hate liberals more than their real enemies. A crusade against AGW represents an ideological battle against lefties...but the Russians invading Ukraine, and threatening Europe...well that's not a problem...
That was my point earlier with all the pbERS loving to wind liberals up...they would much rather see liberals squirm than anything else (i.e. terrible policy). Repealing Obamacare with no alternative is another example.
Will probably end in tears. Still, Nuttall highly unlikely to last long enough in the top job to get close to Farage's record of Commons election defeats - is he up to seven or eight by now?
I'll be cheering him on....come on Nuttall....I hope he wins, and we lose Copeland....and then we get mashed in the locals and lose Wales.......and McCluskey loses too.....
And maybe then we can move the Labour party ahead.....
My take on the by-elections is that Labour has moved relatively quickly in part to leave the rival parties less time to organise, and in part to avoid a potential avalanche of bad news all in one go in May.
Other way round perhaps? Labour has moved slowly on these byelections and is only now rushing to get its act together after reports of Tory activists typing Copeland into their satnavs.
Tories had leaflets through letterboxes about Corbyn and his hatred of all things nuclear, within 48 hours of Jamie Reed announcing his resignation.
Memo to any MP who wants to resign: Don't announce it in advance, the by-election spending limits don't kick in until you've actually gone!
I'll be surprised if he lasts a full term, if he does then I can't see him being a two term president. A lot of these people who vote for him are going to quickly realize he's all talk.
Is there much precedent for a President simply resigning or retiring? I'd have thought even if Trump becomes unpopular, he's likely to at least serve a full term. Short of a full blown scandal like Nixon leading to Trump's early downfall, what's to stop him staying even if he becomes hated?
FWIW, I don't think Trump's popularity is likely to decline very significantly over the first few years of his Presidency. Out of interest, does anyone know the figures for premature ends to Presidency? I know there have been 4 assassinations, but how many have been successfully impeached, resigned for any reason, died in office, etc?
However, the WIDER scientific community does indeed say little on this subject, because it is painfully awkward, socially unacceptable, and anyone that does talk about it - like Watson - is pilloried and exiled. Literally.
But that's kinda my point. Some science - like global warming - is seen as intrinsically good and treated as unquestionable religion. Some science is BAD and hidden away. It's a rum do.
I was sharing a house in Kentish Town at the time of that Watson article and remember bringing home The Metro where I had read it and asking the other housemates opinion. One of them was a real left wing French girl who said even if it were conclusively proven to be true, she would refuse to believe it.
For every person who doesn't want it to be true, there seems to be a person who desperately wants it to be true. I'm sure it's just the spirit of scientific enquiry that drives their desperation.
I would want nothing more than AGW to be proved as some giant con, I really would...
The trouble is, we can't - the only scientific way would be to have two 'earths', orbiting two identical suns at exactly the same stage in stellar development, one with and one without mankind - and observe the results.
What we do know is that average temperatures have gone up in the 20th century and this has coincided with a great increase in the number of people and the amount of energy (which always ends up as heat - whether it is renewable or not) used.
We also know that there have been periods in the earth's past (even close to historical as opposed to geological periods) when the average temperature has been both higher and lower than today.
We also know the science of how greenhouses work with energy balances and heat reflection at different wavelengths. It isn't just empirical observation or the correlation between rising average temperatures and the number of humans. There is science behind it too.
I've lost count of the number of pbERs who have said they would love to see such an outcome happening because it'll wind up lefties. It is just juvenile stuff.
As said, I'd love AGW to be wrong. I'd love it if austerity worked, and the UK was now thriving with a properly funded NHS. I would love to walk through Oxford and not see the bodies, predominantly young people, sleeping homeless, or the proliferation of food banks...I'd love to see the UK continue to be an influential player in global institutions because fundamentally I think we bring a unique perspective....
I like to be proved wrong...on Brexit, Trump, the EU, AGW, ISISS....
But I fundamentally know that it has been a liberal voice that has driven rights for LBTG, ethnicities, women, children, environmental causes...
You'd rather people went hungry than we had food banks? Well, it's a view....clearly, one shared by the last Labour Govt., who just couldn't countenance the flak of people going "to food banks to collect stuff on its "use by" date. There are many rocks you can throw at this Govt., but bemoaning the rise in people getting fed by food banks is just crass.
I've never understood the opposition to food banks, from those who are usually all in favour of charity. Is it not a mark of a civilised society that we look after those not as fortunate as ourselves?
Comments
Julian Fellows was also a Breixteer and Dame Joan Collins. So there were a few #Celebs4Brexit
The Democrats need to spend less time on the Californian luvvies and more on the rest of the nation.
Ox
Cam
London
Edinburgh
St Andrews
Glasgow
Durham
Manchester
York
Exeter
Bristol
Warwick
Leeds
Southampton
Brighton
erm......
How about leaving a radiation trail across London from a botched assassination attempt?
People who think leaving the EU will solve all our problems are like folk who think a nose job will automatically make them happier. Not that there are any such deluded people on here, naturally.
That's some powerful forces pitted against it. I have a strong feeling there won't be an EU as we know it in ten years.
https://twitter.com/DanJukes17/status/822759526080376833
That will be true about the EU, regardless of RU/US.
Simply us leaving will have a profound effect, which is why they are so annoyed.
Being the flavour of the decade (s), it will receive the advantages of more favourable publications until it ceases to be the flavour of choice.
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." ... Max Planck.
You can take this quote both ways. Old theories die only when a better one turns up AND the opponents eventually die.
The particle theory of light was taken as truth for centuries, despite the wave theory having obvious advantages (Newton's greatness saw to that). He wasn't wrong, he just wasn't totally right.
We may discover that carbon dioxide is a factor in the world warming. How decisive a factor has still to be proved scientifically. It's unlikely to be the only factor (IMHO) but I may be wrong.
The precautionary principle (just in case) requires a cost/benefit analysis. Spending gazillions now may prove to be the best thing. Well, punks, do we feel lucky?
.
"People who think leaving the EU will solve all our problems are like folk who think a nose job will automatically make them happier.."
True, but you have solved the problem of an ugly nose.
31% (22% of 2015 Labour voters) think that Labour's policy is to relax immigration, 13% (18% of Labour voters) think that Labour's policy is to tighten immigration. 38% (34% of Labour voters) are not sure what Labour's policy is on immigration.
Prof Colin Blakemore, a neuroscientist at University of Oxford and the former head of the Medical Research Council, said studies had shown that differences in the IQs of black and white Americans were closing year by year - showing that intelligence was heavily governed by environment.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-488400/DNA-scientist-suspended-lab-claiming-white-people-intelligent-blacks.html#ixzz4WOTgiJBk
Yes certainly "interesting" times. I did vote for Brexit but I think "The Donald" might have been a step too far for me... But we are where we are. There's no point the "elites" running round in a blind panic they've just got to see how it shakes out - As have we all.
BTW...WTF do people always mention Andy Burnham as the only alternative? Starmer, Clive Lewis, Dan Jarvis, Emily Thornberry, Hilary Benn...there are a number of potentially strong leaders who would put up a much better fight.
Note to Nick....leadership matters, ratings matter, perception matters. David Miliband would now be PM and Brexit would never have happened in an alternative universe.
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/822762675226767360
Will probably end in tears. Still, Nuttall highly unlikely to last long enough in the top job to get close to Farage's record of Commons election defeats - is he up to seven or eight by now?
I'm sure it's just the spirit of scientific enquiry that drives their desperation.
I'll be cheering him on....come on Nuttall....I hope he wins, and we lose Copeland....and then we get mashed in the locals and lose Wales.......and McCluskey loses too.....
And maybe then we can move the Labour party ahead.....
Brexit is on track and that's the main motivation gone, surely?
To protest? Hmm ... against what in particular?
The only really wound-up people are the Remainers, so that's Liberal.
Thought this was interesting... People in poverty experience an average ten point drop in IQ that goes once they are not in a poverty situation.
https://m.phys.org/news/2013-08-poverty-cognitive-ten-iq.html
I'd be less surprised if Labour lose Stoke than Copeland.
@rkrkrk Thanks for that link. I'll give it a read.
The science is far from settled. I think the point of bringing it up is to wind-up lefties. The way I see it, there are many forms of intelligence. I could not even begin to do an IQ test, my eyes just glaze over. If that makes me thick, so be it.
@Joff
My IQ was tested as a 4 year old child...... it was really low, borderline learning needs....still I managed to get straight A's at school, always top of my class (top grades at a grammar school), sail through an Economics Degree, get two other Masters including an MBA...all doing minimal work. And yes, I was the youngest Director at the time at work, and amass a self made business on the side which has enabled me to effectively retire at the age of 42, whilst also posting here...
There have been tests where people have been asked to just consider what it would be like (e.g.) to be black slave prior to taking a test, and their IQ rating in the test is measurably reduced.
Attitude and self-belief plays a huge part in what people achieve.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEIjEpx-qXQ
Labour's exposure to losses in the English local elections is rather limited, given that they are primarily being held in shire counties and not even Corbyn can lose the metro-mayoralties in Manchester and Liverpool (although the Tories appear to fancy their chances in the West Midlands.) But Scotland is almost guaranteed to be a massacre, and Wales could also be nasty. Labour currently controls Swansea, Newport, and everything inbetween except for the Vale of Glamorgan. Could be a much messier picture after May 4th.
Of course, the legions of Corbyn supporters in the Labour Party mass membership will blame all of this on the behaviour of traitorous MPs, and things will most likely carry on regardless.
I'm not getting involved in your wider argument on science, it was just the race/intelligence argument which sparked my interest.
Happy birthday for tomorrow, Malc.
(My son did a project on it during his Psychology Conversion Masters, including in his final presentation the phrase "University professors always mark male students very generously")
Unless you meant Sussex Uni, of course, which is just over on the other side of the A27 and altogether a different caldron of octopuss. Or at least it was when I last had dealings with it, but given MaxPB's comments upthread I'd no longer be sure of that.
What we do know is that average temperatures have gone up in the 20th century and this has coincided with a great increase in the number of people and the amount of energy (which always ends up as heat - whether it is renewable or not) used.
We also know that there have been periods in the earth's past (even close to historical as opposed to geological periods) when the average temperature has been both higher and lower than today.
I would also imagine they'll be hoping for some decent performances from the Liberal Democrats, to deflect some of the media attention away from Labour's generally useless performances and onto Lib Dem gains and Tory losses in Southern England.
I've lost count of the number of pbERs who have said they would love to see such an outcome happening because it'll wind up lefties. It is just juvenile stuff.
As said, I'd love AGW to be wrong. I'd love it if austerity worked, and the UK was now thriving with a properly funded NHS. I would love to walk through Oxford and not see the bodies, predominantly young people, sleeping homeless, or the proliferation of food banks...I'd love to see the UK continue to be an influential player in global institutions because fundamentally I think we bring a unique perspective....
I like to be proved wrong...on Brexit, Trump, the EU, AGW, ISISS....
But I fundamentally know that it has been a liberal voice that has driven rights for LBTG, ethnicities, women, children, environmental causes...
Memo to any MP who wants to resign: Don't announce it in advance, the by-election spending limits don't kick in until you've actually gone!
It seems to me what really terrifies you about Donald Trump is that he might just succeed.
The trouble is, we can't - the only scientific way would be to have two 'earths', orbiting two identical suns at exactly the same stage in stellar development, one with and one without mankind - and observe the results.
What we do know is that average temperatures have gone up in the 20th century and this has coincided with a great increase in the number of people and the amount of energy (which always ends up as heat - whether it is renewable or not) used.
We also know that there have been periods in the earth's past (even close to historical as opposed to geological periods) when the average temperature has been both higher and lower than today.</blockquote
@weejonnie
In a sense it doesn't matter...most renewable energies are neutral, or at least more desirable than burning stuff (except of course destroying rain forest and replacing with plant oils). So Govt should encourage one and discourage the other.
The problem is that you have loony right wing nut jobs who just hate the govt interfering at all; they are so blinded by ideology, and they are desperate to believe that AGW is some lefty, liberal con.
The Alt Right in the USA and here hate liberals more than their real enemies. A crusade against AGW represents an ideological battle against lefties...but the Russians invading Ukraine, and threatening Europe...well that's not a problem...
That was my point earlier with all the pbERS loving to wind liberals up...they would much rather see liberals squirm than anything else (i.e. terrible policy). Repealing Obamacare with no alternative is another example.
FWIW, I don't think Trump's popularity is likely to decline very significantly over the first few years of his Presidency. Out of interest, does anyone know the figures for premature ends to Presidency? I know there have been 4 assassinations, but how many have been successfully impeached, resigned for any reason, died in office, etc?
https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/climate-change-challenges-and-solutions
Let's bring back the Work Houses for the Poor...