The Telegraph are reporting that Burnham will scrap Lammy's proposed changes to Jury trials. These fundamental changes to our constitutional and legal arrangements matter far more to me than temporary changes to taxation policies and, if Burnham is planning on dropping them then I take that as a very encouraging sign.
Suggests that Lammy won't be keeping his job then.
Getting him out of Cabinet will very welcome. He just isn't good enough for government.
Lammy was a good Foreign Secretary and could go back there.
Does Socialism boil down to: "If one person is poor, everyone should be poor"?
No. "If nine people are poor and one person is wealthy, ten people could be comfortably off."
They want 99 people to be poor and one weathly, and they want to be that 1%.
Or, at best, "it's better that everyone loses as long as the rich lose most than everyone gaining if the rich gain most".
Here's a challenge for the PB righties. Come up with a non-caricatured summary of left-wing politics on the basis of an assumption of good faith among lefties.
I think I made a pretty good attempt of describing the essence of Tory ideology the other day, without restoring to caricature. Can any of you do the same?
Every person deserves to enjoy a dignified, broadly equal standard of living, with those who are more able or driven paying more to support those who are less able to contribute. Each person is a blank slate and as such should not benefit from their parents' wealth accumulation or other advantages conferred by linage.
Feels pretty close.
The first sentence is a decent attempt, but it makes the second redundant.
I'd say the second is essential - a key part of modern left wing thought is the fungibility of humans - a 10th generation 60km from Mogadishu subsistence farmer is there because they never got the opportunity or support of someone who went to Eton and then did good, so that entirely explains their differences, rather than acknowledging that actually in a lot of cases, while there is a large amount of intergeneration variability, IQ is extremely heritable. That's why there's so much bleating about private school overrepresentation - if people used their common sense to see that humans are not a blank slate private school overrepresentation makes absolutely perfect sense.
Estimates of the heritability of IQ are about 50%, which I wouldn’t call “extremely”. IQ has a correlation with income of about 0.3-0.4, so it explains about 10-15% of variation in income. The correlation between IQ and wealth is even lower, about 0.16, so it explains about 3% of the variation in wealth.
The fact IQ only explains about 3% of the variation in wealth, doesn’t that make you more sympathetic to socialist views? Our current system isn’t rewarding ability or merit!
Isn't this partly because IQ is a pretty crude measure?
Levels of both income and wealth are almost certainly linked to things such as "work ethic" and "deferred gratification" which aren't directly connected to intelligence, and are presumably partially learnt behaviours, and partially inherited.
Sure, there are lots of problems with IQ as a measure, and whatever IQ measures, it clearly isn’t everything that matters.
Levels of both income and wealth are also clearly linked to things such as “inherited wealth”, “going to private school” and “your parents knowing people”… and indeed also “luck”.
People are desperate to find a reason to justify inequality to escape any feeling that they ought to find a way to do something about it.
By which you mean socialism of course
There is more than one way to skin a cat, and there are many different imaginings of what socialism involves, and I am open to people coming up with new ideas to solve old problems.
One of the things I ultimately found most disappointing about Corbyn was that he was rigidly attached to ideas and policies from the 70s, as though nobody had had a good new idea since.
Yes but at the end of the day you want some form of the same old socialism or social democracy ie same old tax the rich and wealthy, property owners and high earners and businesses more and redistribute via more public spending and welfare and some nationalisations. So not miles off what Corbyn wanted anyway
I mean, yes, I'm on the left, but, I don't think that's really a fair reflection of my politics.
For example, I would much prefer that the structure of the economy is changed so that lower-paid people are paid more, and then those people wouldn't be reliant on handouts from government, which can easily be taken away, as we saw with tax credits that were given by Brown and taken away by Osborne.
Edit: I also think I've bored on a lot about how I think a government could make people feel richer, even without increasing their income by a single penny, if they tracked the ways in which various companies are to efficient at extracting cash from people - e.g. leasehold, car finance, automatic increases in utility bills, etc.
I feel that you do me a disservice by just lazily assigning to me a set of policies that you see as a definition of socialism, instead of having a more interesting discussion of what my personal views are. If you were less keen to pigeonhole me so that you could dismiss me, we might surprise ourselves and find points of agreement.
',,,so that lower-paid people are paid more.' The UK minimum wage is already amongst the highest in the OECD and double that in the USA and that is making it harder for small businesses especially to afford to hire more workers
And yet it is also true that, in one of the more advanced economies in the world, someone can work their butt off for a wage that is insufficient to live well.
If my claim is true alongside yours, then that is hardly a ringing endorsement of the way we have structured our economy, is it?
Well you may not live in luxury but anyone on minimum wage in the UK can easily afford food, water, a 1 bed rental and some clothing and is better off than 95% of the bottom 10% of income earners anywhere else in the world
It feels like Norway have played slightly better than us overall so this is a bit unlucky for them.
They're a very decent side indeed. To think we made fun of Italy for losing the qualifying group against them. Helps when you're a very decent side with an absolute top drawer striker, mind. Not over yet.
It feels like Norway have played slightly better than us overall so this is a bit unlucky for them.
England's second half was really poor. They were very fortunate to get to 90 minutes level. But they have a better bench and that might make the difference.
Does Socialism boil down to: "If one person is poor, everyone should be poor"?
No. "If nine people are poor and one person is wealthy, ten people could be comfortably off."
They want 99 people to be poor and one weathly, and they want to be that 1%.
Or, at best, "it's better that everyone loses as long as the rich lose most than everyone gaining if the rich gain most".
Here's a challenge for the PB righties. Come up with a non-caricatured summary of left-wing politics on the basis of an assumption of good faith among lefties.
I think I made a pretty good attempt of describing the essence of Tory ideology the other day, without restoring to caricature. Can any of you do the same?
Every person deserves to enjoy a dignified, broadly equal standard of living, with those who are more able or driven paying more to support those who are less able to contribute. Each person is a blank slate and as such should not benefit from their parents' wealth accumulation or other advantages conferred by linage.
Feels pretty close.
The first sentence is a decent attempt, but it makes the second redundant.
I'd say the second is essential - a key part of modern left wing thought is the fungibility of humans - a 10th generation 60km from Mogadishu subsistence farmer is there because they never got the opportunity or support of someone who went to Eton and then did good, so that entirely explains their differences, rather than acknowledging that actually in a lot of cases, while there is a large amount of intergeneration variability, IQ is extremely heritable. That's why there's so much bleating about private school overrepresentation - if people used their common sense to see that humans are not a blank slate private school overrepresentation makes absolutely perfect sense.
Estimates of the heritability of IQ are about 50%, which I wouldn’t call “extremely”. IQ has a correlation with income of about 0.3-0.4, so it explains about 10-15% of variation in income. The correlation between IQ and wealth is even lower, about 0.16, so it explains about 3% of the variation in wealth.
The fact IQ only explains about 3% of the variation in wealth, doesn’t that make you more sympathetic to socialist views? Our current system isn’t rewarding ability or merit!
Isn't this partly because IQ is a pretty crude measure?
Levels of both income and wealth are almost certainly linked to things such as "work ethic" and "deferred gratification" which aren't directly connected to intelligence, and are presumably partially learnt behaviours, and partially inherited.
Sure, there are lots of problems with IQ as a measure, and whatever IQ measures, it clearly isn’t everything that matters.
Levels of both income and wealth are also clearly linked to things such as “inherited wealth”, “going to private school” and “your parents knowing people”… and indeed also “luck”.
People are desperate to find a reason to justify inequality to escape any feeling that they ought to find a way to do something about it.
By which you mean socialism of course
There is more than one way to skin a cat, and there are many different imaginings of what socialism involves, and I am open to people coming up with new ideas to solve old problems.
One of the things I ultimately found most disappointing about Corbyn was that he was rigidly attached to ideas and policies from the 70s, as though nobody had had a good new idea since.
Yes but at the end of the day you want some form of the same old socialism or social democracy ie same old tax the rich and wealthy, property owners and high earners and businesses more and redistribute via more public spending and welfare and some nationalisations. So not miles off what Corbyn wanted anyway
I mean, yes, I'm on the left, but, I don't think that's really a fair reflection of my politics.
For example, I would much prefer that the structure of the economy is changed so that lower-paid people are paid more, and then those people wouldn't be reliant on handouts from government, which can easily be taken away, as we saw with tax credits that were given by Brown and taken away by Osborne.
Edit: I also think I've bored on a lot about how I think a government could make people feel richer, even without increasing their income by a single penny, if they tracked the ways in which various companies are to efficient at extracting cash from people - e.g. leasehold, car finance, automatic increases in utility bills, etc.
I feel that you do me a disservice by just lazily assigning to me a set of policies that you see as a definition of socialism, instead of having a more interesting discussion of what my personal views are. If you were less keen to pigeonhole me so that you could dismiss me, we might surprise ourselves and find points of agreement.
',,,so that lower-paid people are paid more.' The UK minimum wage is already amongst the highest in the OECD and double that in the USA and that is making it harder for small businesses especially to afford to hire more workers
And yet it is also true that, in one of the more advanced economies in the world, someone can work their butt off for a wage that is insufficient to live well.
If my claim is true alongside yours, then that is hardly a ringing endorsement of the way we have structured our economy, is it?
Well you may not live in luxury but anyone on minimum wage in the UK can easily afford food, water, a 1 bed rental and some clothing and is better off than 95% of the bottom 10% of income earners anywhere else in the world
I would like to see the maths on that. Especially on easily paying rent.
Does Socialism boil down to: "If one person is poor, everyone should be poor"?
No. "If nine people are poor and one person is wealthy, ten people could be comfortably off."
They want 99 people to be poor and one weathly, and they want to be that 1%.
Or, at best, "it's better that everyone loses as long as the rich lose most than everyone gaining if the rich gain most".
Here's a challenge for the PB righties. Come up with a non-caricatured summary of left-wing politics on the basis of an assumption of good faith among lefties.
I think I made a pretty good attempt of describing the essence of Tory ideology the other day, without restoring to caricature. Can any of you do the same?
Every person deserves to enjoy a dignified, broadly equal standard of living, with those who are more able or driven paying more to support those who are less able to contribute. Each person is a blank slate and as such should not benefit from their parents' wealth accumulation or other advantages conferred by linage.
Feels pretty close.
The first sentence is a decent attempt, but it makes the second redundant.
I'd say the second is essential - a key part of modern left wing thought is the fungibility of humans - a 10th generation 60km from Mogadishu subsistence farmer is there because they never got the opportunity or support of someone who went to Eton and then did good, so that entirely explains their differences, rather than acknowledging that actually in a lot of cases, while there is a large amount of intergeneration variability, IQ is extremely heritable. That's why there's so much bleating about private school overrepresentation - if people used their common sense to see that humans are not a blank slate private school overrepresentation makes absolutely perfect sense.
Estimates of the heritability of IQ are about 50%, which I wouldn’t call “extremely”. IQ has a correlation with income of about 0.3-0.4, so it explains about 10-15% of variation in income. The correlation between IQ and wealth is even lower, about 0.16, so it explains about 3% of the variation in wealth.
The fact IQ only explains about 3% of the variation in wealth, doesn’t that make you more sympathetic to socialist views? Our current system isn’t rewarding ability or merit!
Isn't this partly because IQ is a pretty crude measure?
Levels of both income and wealth are almost certainly linked to things such as "work ethic" and "deferred gratification" which aren't directly connected to intelligence, and are presumably partially learnt behaviours, and partially inherited.
Sure, there are lots of problems with IQ as a measure, and whatever IQ measures, it clearly isn’t everything that matters.
Levels of both income and wealth are also clearly linked to things such as “inherited wealth”, “going to private school” and “your parents knowing people”… and indeed also “luck”.
People are desperate to find a reason to justify inequality to escape any feeling that they ought to find a way to do something about it.
By which you mean socialism of course
There is more than one way to skin a cat, and there are many different imaginings of what socialism involves, and I am open to people coming up with new ideas to solve old problems.
One of the things I ultimately found most disappointing about Corbyn was that he was rigidly attached to ideas and policies from the 70s, as though nobody had had a good new idea since.
Yes but at the end of the day you want some form of the same old socialism or social democracy ie same old tax the rich and wealthy, property owners and high earners and businesses more and redistribute via more public spending and welfare and some nationalisations. So not miles off what Corbyn wanted anyway
I mean, yes, I'm on the left, but, I don't think that's really a fair reflection of my politics.
For example, I would much prefer that the structure of the economy is changed so that lower-paid people are paid more, and then those people wouldn't be reliant on handouts from government, which can easily be taken away, as we saw with tax credits that were given by Brown and taken away by Osborne.
Edit: I also think I've bored on a lot about how I think a government could make people feel richer, even without increasing their income by a single penny, if they tracked the ways in which various companies are to efficient at extracting cash from people - e.g. leasehold, car finance, automatic increases in utility bills, etc.
I feel that you do me a disservice by just lazily assigning to me a set of policies that you see as a definition of socialism, instead of having a more interesting discussion of what my personal views are. If you were less keen to pigeonhole me so that you could dismiss me, we might surprise ourselves and find points of agreement.
',,,so that lower-paid people are paid more.' The UK minimum wage is already amongst the highest in the OECD and double that in the USA and that is making it harder for small businesses especially to afford to hire more workers
And yet it is also true that, in one of the more advanced economies in the world, someone can work their butt off for a wage that is insufficient to live well.
If my claim is true alongside yours, then that is hardly a ringing endorsement of the way we have structured our economy, is it?
Well you may not live in luxury but anyone on minimum wage in the UK can easily afford food, water, a 1 bed rental and some clothing and is better off than 95% of the bottom 10% of income earners anywhere else in the world
I would like to see the maths on that. Especially on easily paying rent.
The UK now has an annual minimum wage of £24,000 a year, easily enough to afford what I said plus a 1 bed rental anywhere bar central London
Does Socialism boil down to: "If one person is poor, everyone should be poor"?
No. "If nine people are poor and one person is wealthy, ten people could be comfortably off."
They want 99 people to be poor and one weathly, and they want to be that 1%.
Or, at best, "it's better that everyone loses as long as the rich lose most than everyone gaining if the rich gain most".
Here's a challenge for the PB righties. Come up with a non-caricatured summary of left-wing politics on the basis of an assumption of good faith among lefties.
I think I made a pretty good attempt of describing the essence of Tory ideology the other day, without restoring to caricature. Can any of you do the same?
Every person deserves to enjoy a dignified, broadly equal standard of living, with those who are more able or driven paying more to support those who are less able to contribute. Each person is a blank slate and as such should not benefit from their parents' wealth accumulation or other advantages conferred by linage.
Feels pretty close.
The first sentence is a decent attempt, but it makes the second redundant.
I'd say the second is essential - a key part of modern left wing thought is the fungibility of humans - a 10th generation 60km from Mogadishu subsistence farmer is there because they never got the opportunity or support of someone who went to Eton and then did good, so that entirely explains their differences, rather than acknowledging that actually in a lot of cases, while there is a large amount of intergeneration variability, IQ is extremely heritable. That's why there's so much bleating about private school overrepresentation - if people used their common sense to see that humans are not a blank slate private school overrepresentation makes absolutely perfect sense.
Estimates of the heritability of IQ are about 50%, which I wouldn’t call “extremely”. IQ has a correlation with income of about 0.3-0.4, so it explains about 10-15% of variation in income. The correlation between IQ and wealth is even lower, about 0.16, so it explains about 3% of the variation in wealth.
The fact IQ only explains about 3% of the variation in wealth, doesn’t that make you more sympathetic to socialist views? Our current system isn’t rewarding ability or merit!
Isn't this partly because IQ is a pretty crude measure?
Levels of both income and wealth are almost certainly linked to things such as "work ethic" and "deferred gratification" which aren't directly connected to intelligence, and are presumably partially learnt behaviours, and partially inherited.
Sure, there are lots of problems with IQ as a measure, and whatever IQ measures, it clearly isn’t everything that matters.
Levels of both income and wealth are also clearly linked to things such as “inherited wealth”, “going to private school” and “your parents knowing people”… and indeed also “luck”.
People are desperate to find a reason to justify inequality to escape any feeling that they ought to find a way to do something about it.
By which you mean socialism of course
There is more than one way to skin a cat, and there are many different imaginings of what socialism involves, and I am open to people coming up with new ideas to solve old problems.
One of the things I ultimately found most disappointing about Corbyn was that he was rigidly attached to ideas and policies from the 70s, as though nobody had had a good new idea since.
Yes but at the end of the day you want some form of the same old socialism or social democracy ie same old tax the rich and wealthy, property owners and high earners and businesses more and redistribute via more public spending and welfare and some nationalisations. So not miles off what Corbyn wanted anyway
I mean, yes, I'm on the left, but, I don't think that's really a fair reflection of my politics.
For example, I would much prefer that the structure of the economy is changed so that lower-paid people are paid more, and then those people wouldn't be reliant on handouts from government, which can easily be taken away, as we saw with tax credits that were given by Brown and taken away by Osborne.
Edit: I also think I've bored on a lot about how I think a government could make people feel richer, even without increasing their income by a single penny, if they tracked the ways in which various companies are to efficient at extracting cash from people - e.g. leasehold, car finance, automatic increases in utility bills, etc.
I feel that you do me a disservice by just lazily assigning to me a set of policies that you see as a definition of socialism, instead of having a more interesting discussion of what my personal views are. If you were less keen to pigeonhole me so that you could dismiss me, we might surprise ourselves and find points of agreement.
',,,so that lower-paid people are paid more.' The UK minimum wage is already amongst the highest in the OECD and double that in the USA and that is making it harder for small businesses especially to afford to hire more workers
And yet it is also true that, in one of the more advanced economies in the world, someone can work their butt off for a wage that is insufficient to live well.
If my claim is true alongside yours, then that is hardly a ringing endorsement of the way we have structured our economy, is it?
Well you may not live in luxury but anyone on minimum wage in the UK can easily afford food, water, a 1 bed rental and some clothing and is better off than 95% of the bottom 10% of income earners anywhere else in the world
We could have a decent debate on that, aided as Bart says by some figures. If it wasn't half midnight with a game to watch perhaps I'd look some up.
Nevertheless, is that the extent of your ambition? In an economy elsewhere swimming in wealth?
I have much sympathy with those who lament inequality but believe with integrity that any attempt to reduce inequality would do more harm than good.
I just think we can do better. And I find a response that says our businesses cannot afford to pay their workers to live with dignity and comfort woefully inadequate.
Does Socialism boil down to: "If one person is poor, everyone should be poor"?
No. "If nine people are poor and one person is wealthy, ten people could be comfortably off."
They want 99 people to be poor and one weathly, and they want to be that 1%.
Or, at best, "it's better that everyone loses as long as the rich lose most than everyone gaining if the rich gain most".
Here's a challenge for the PB righties. Come up with a non-caricatured summary of left-wing politics on the basis of an assumption of good faith among lefties.
I think I made a pretty good attempt of describing the essence of Tory ideology the other day, without restoring to caricature. Can any of you do the same?
Every person deserves to enjoy a dignified, broadly equal standard of living, with those who are more able or driven paying more to support those who are less able to contribute. Each person is a blank slate and as such should not benefit from their parents' wealth accumulation or other advantages conferred by linage.
Feels pretty close.
The first sentence is a decent attempt, but it makes the second redundant.
I'd say the second is essential - a key part of modern left wing thought is the fungibility of humans - a 10th generation 60km from Mogadishu subsistence farmer is there because they never got the opportunity or support of someone who went to Eton and then did good, so that entirely explains their differences, rather than acknowledging that actually in a lot of cases, while there is a large amount of intergeneration variability, IQ is extremely heritable. That's why there's so much bleating about private school overrepresentation - if people used their common sense to see that humans are not a blank slate private school overrepresentation makes absolutely perfect sense.
Estimates of the heritability of IQ are about 50%, which I wouldn’t call “extremely”. IQ has a correlation with income of about 0.3-0.4, so it explains about 10-15% of variation in income. The correlation between IQ and wealth is even lower, about 0.16, so it explains about 3% of the variation in wealth.
The fact IQ only explains about 3% of the variation in wealth, doesn’t that make you more sympathetic to socialist views? Our current system isn’t rewarding ability or merit!
Isn't this partly because IQ is a pretty crude measure?
Levels of both income and wealth are almost certainly linked to things such as "work ethic" and "deferred gratification" which aren't directly connected to intelligence, and are presumably partially learnt behaviours, and partially inherited.
Sure, there are lots of problems with IQ as a measure, and whatever IQ measures, it clearly isn’t everything that matters.
Levels of both income and wealth are also clearly linked to things such as “inherited wealth”, “going to private school” and “your parents knowing people”… and indeed also “luck”.
People are desperate to find a reason to justify inequality to escape any feeling that they ought to find a way to do something about it.
By which you mean socialism of course
There is more than one way to skin a cat, and there are many different imaginings of what socialism involves, and I am open to people coming up with new ideas to solve old problems.
One of the things I ultimately found most disappointing about Corbyn was that he was rigidly attached to ideas and policies from the 70s, as though nobody had had a good new idea since.
Yes but at the end of the day you want some form of the same old socialism or social democracy ie same old tax the rich and wealthy, property owners and high earners and businesses more and redistribute via more public spending and welfare and some nationalisations. So not miles off what Corbyn wanted anyway
I mean, yes, I'm on the left, but, I don't think that's really a fair reflection of my politics.
For example, I would much prefer that the structure of the economy is changed so that lower-paid people are paid more, and then those people wouldn't be reliant on handouts from government, which can easily be taken away, as we saw with tax credits that were given by Brown and taken away by Osborne.
Edit: I also think I've bored on a lot about how I think a government could make people feel richer, even without increasing their income by a single penny, if they tracked the ways in which various companies are to efficient at extracting cash from people - e.g. leasehold, car finance, automatic increases in utility bills, etc.
I feel that you do me a disservice by just lazily assigning to me a set of policies that you see as a definition of socialism, instead of having a more interesting discussion of what my personal views are. If you were less keen to pigeonhole me so that you could dismiss me, we might surprise ourselves and find points of agreement.
',,,so that lower-paid people are paid more.' The UK minimum wage is already amongst the highest in the OECD and double that in the USA and that is making it harder for small businesses especially to afford to hire more workers
And yet it is also true that, in one of the more advanced economies in the world, someone can work their butt off for a wage that is insufficient to live well.
If my claim is true alongside yours, then that is hardly a ringing endorsement of the way we have structured our economy, is it?
Well you may not live in luxury but anyone on minimum wage in the UK can easily afford food, water, a 1 bed rental and some clothing and is better off than 95% of the bottom 10% of income earners anywhere else in the world
We could have a decent debate on that, aided as Bart says by some figures. If it wasn't half midnight with a game to watch perhaps I'd look some up.
Nevertheless, is that the extent of your ambition? In an economy elsewhere swimming in wealth?
I have much sympathy with those who lament inequality but believe with integrity that any attempt to reduce inequality would do more harm than good.
I just think we can do better. And I find a response that says our businesses cannot afford to pay their workers to live with dignity and comfort woefully inadequate.
Yes, we already have one of the highest minimum wages in the world with business, especially small businesses, finding it difficult enough to hire people as it is. Whack up that minimum wage even higher and you will just increase unemployment and a job on £24k a year is far better than being on JSA or UC
Does Socialism boil down to: "If one person is poor, everyone should be poor"?
No. "If nine people are poor and one person is wealthy, ten people could be comfortably off."
They want 99 people to be poor and one weathly, and they want to be that 1%.
Or, at best, "it's better that everyone loses as long as the rich lose most than everyone gaining if the rich gain most".
Here's a challenge for the PB righties. Come up with a non-caricatured summary of left-wing politics on the basis of an assumption of good faith among lefties.
I think I made a pretty good attempt of describing the essence of Tory ideology the other day, without restoring to caricature. Can any of you do the same?
Every person deserves to enjoy a dignified, broadly equal standard of living, with those who are more able or driven paying more to support those who are less able to contribute. Each person is a blank slate and as such should not benefit from their parents' wealth accumulation or other advantages conferred by linage.
Feels pretty close.
The first sentence is a decent attempt, but it makes the second redundant.
I'd say the second is essential - a key part of modern left wing thought is the fungibility of humans - a 10th generation 60km from Mogadishu subsistence farmer is there because they never got the opportunity or support of someone who went to Eton and then did good, so that entirely explains their differences, rather than acknowledging that actually in a lot of cases, while there is a large amount of intergeneration variability, IQ is extremely heritable. That's why there's so much bleating about private school overrepresentation - if people used their common sense to see that humans are not a blank slate private school overrepresentation makes absolutely perfect sense.
Estimates of the heritability of IQ are about 50%, which I wouldn’t call “extremely”. IQ has a correlation with income of about 0.3-0.4, so it explains about 10-15% of variation in income. The correlation between IQ and wealth is even lower, about 0.16, so it explains about 3% of the variation in wealth.
The fact IQ only explains about 3% of the variation in wealth, doesn’t that make you more sympathetic to socialist views? Our current system isn’t rewarding ability or merit!
Isn't this partly because IQ is a pretty crude measure?
Levels of both income and wealth are almost certainly linked to things such as "work ethic" and "deferred gratification" which aren't directly connected to intelligence, and are presumably partially learnt behaviours, and partially inherited.
Sure, there are lots of problems with IQ as a measure, and whatever IQ measures, it clearly isn’t everything that matters.
Levels of both income and wealth are also clearly linked to things such as “inherited wealth”, “going to private school” and “your parents knowing people”… and indeed also “luck”.
People are desperate to find a reason to justify inequality to escape any feeling that they ought to find a way to do something about it.
By which you mean socialism of course
There is more than one way to skin a cat, and there are many different imaginings of what socialism involves, and I am open to people coming up with new ideas to solve old problems.
One of the things I ultimately found most disappointing about Corbyn was that he was rigidly attached to ideas and policies from the 70s, as though nobody had had a good new idea since.
Yes but at the end of the day you want some form of the same old socialism or social democracy ie same old tax the rich and wealthy, property owners and high earners and businesses more and redistribute via more public spending and welfare and some nationalisations. So not miles off what Corbyn wanted anyway
I mean, yes, I'm on the left, but, I don't think that's really a fair reflection of my politics.
For example, I would much prefer that the structure of the economy is changed so that lower-paid people are paid more, and then those people wouldn't be reliant on handouts from government, which can easily be taken away, as we saw with tax credits that were given by Brown and taken away by Osborne.
Edit: I also think I've bored on a lot about how I think a government could make people feel richer, even without increasing their income by a single penny, if they tracked the ways in which various companies are to efficient at extracting cash from people - e.g. leasehold, car finance, automatic increases in utility bills, etc.
I feel that you do me a disservice by just lazily assigning to me a set of policies that you see as a definition of socialism, instead of having a more interesting discussion of what my personal views are. If you were less keen to pigeonhole me so that you could dismiss me, we might surprise ourselves and find points of agreement.
',,,so that lower-paid people are paid more.' The UK minimum wage is already amongst the highest in the OECD and double that in the USA and that is making it harder for small businesses especially to afford to hire more workers
And yet it is also true that, in one of the more advanced economies in the world, someone can work their butt off for a wage that is insufficient to live well.
If my claim is true alongside yours, then that is hardly a ringing endorsement of the way we have structured our economy, is it?
Well you may not live in luxury but anyone on minimum wage in the UK can easily afford food, water, a 1 bed rental and some clothing and is better off than 95% of the bottom 10% of income earners anywhere else in the world
We could have a decent debate on that, aided as Bart says by some figures. If it wasn't half midnight with a game to watch perhaps I'd look some up.
Nevertheless, is that the extent of your ambition? In an economy elsewhere swimming in wealth?
I have much sympathy with those who lament inequality but believe with integrity that any attempt to reduce inequality would do more harm than good.
I just think we can do better. And I find a response that says our businesses cannot afford to pay their workers to live with dignity and comfort woefully inadequate.
Yes, we already have one of the highest minimum wages in the world with business, especially small businesses, finding it difficult enough to hire people as it is. Whack up that minimum wage even higher and you will just increase unemployment and a job on £24k a year is far better than being on JSA or UC
I'm not really debating the minimum wage. As lost password says upthread I don't really want an economy whereby state intervention is required for hard working people to live well.
I'm lamenting the claim that, on your own account, for many small businesses they cannot afford to pay their workers a decent, dignified wage.and still function as healthy businesses.
Does Socialism boil down to: "If one person is poor, everyone should be poor"?
No. "If nine people are poor and one person is wealthy, ten people could be comfortably off."
They want 99 people to be poor and one weathly, and they want to be that 1%.
Or, at best, "it's better that everyone loses as long as the rich lose most than everyone gaining if the rich gain most".
Here's a challenge for the PB righties. Come up with a non-caricatured summary of left-wing politics on the basis of an assumption of good faith among lefties.
I think I made a pretty good attempt of describing the essence of Tory ideology the other day, without restoring to caricature. Can any of you do the same?
Every person deserves to enjoy a dignified, broadly equal standard of living, with those who are more able or driven paying more to support those who are less able to contribute. Each person is a blank slate and as such should not benefit from their parents' wealth accumulation or other advantages conferred by linage.
Feels pretty close.
The first sentence is a decent attempt, but it makes the second redundant.
I'd say the second is essential - a key part of modern left wing thought is the fungibility of humans - a 10th generation 60km from Mogadishu subsistence farmer is there because they never got the opportunity or support of someone who went to Eton and then did good, so that entirely explains their differences, rather than acknowledging that actually in a lot of cases, while there is a large amount of intergeneration variability, IQ is extremely heritable. That's why there's so much bleating about private school overrepresentation - if people used their common sense to see that humans are not a blank slate private school overrepresentation makes absolutely perfect sense.
Estimates of the heritability of IQ are about 50%, which I wouldn’t call “extremely”. IQ has a correlation with income of about 0.3-0.4, so it explains about 10-15% of variation in income. The correlation between IQ and wealth is even lower, about 0.16, so it explains about 3% of the variation in wealth.
The fact IQ only explains about 3% of the variation in wealth, doesn’t that make you more sympathetic to socialist views? Our current system isn’t rewarding ability or merit!
Isn't this partly because IQ is a pretty crude measure?
Levels of both income and wealth are almost certainly linked to things such as "work ethic" and "deferred gratification" which aren't directly connected to intelligence, and are presumably partially learnt behaviours, and partially inherited.
Sure, there are lots of problems with IQ as a measure, and whatever IQ measures, it clearly isn’t everything that matters.
Levels of both income and wealth are also clearly linked to things such as “inherited wealth”, “going to private school” and “your parents knowing people”… and indeed also “luck”.
People are desperate to find a reason to justify inequality to escape any feeling that they ought to find a way to do something about it.
By which you mean socialism of course
There is more than one way to skin a cat, and there are many different imaginings of what socialism involves, and I am open to people coming up with new ideas to solve old problems.
One of the things I ultimately found most disappointing about Corbyn was that he was rigidly attached to ideas and policies from the 70s, as though nobody had had a good new idea since.
Yes but at the end of the day you want some form of the same old socialism or social democracy ie same old tax the rich and wealthy, property owners and high earners and businesses more and redistribute via more public spending and welfare and some nationalisations. So not miles off what Corbyn wanted anyway
I mean, yes, I'm on the left, but, I don't think that's really a fair reflection of my politics.
For example, I would much prefer that the structure of the economy is changed so that lower-paid people are paid more, and then those people wouldn't be reliant on handouts from government, which can easily be taken away, as we saw with tax credits that were given by Brown and taken away by Osborne.
Edit: I also think I've bored on a lot about how I think a government could make people feel richer, even without increasing their income by a single penny, if they tracked the ways in which various companies are to efficient at extracting cash from people - e.g. leasehold, car finance, automatic increases in utility bills, etc.
I feel that you do me a disservice by just lazily assigning to me a set of policies that you see as a definition of socialism, instead of having a more interesting discussion of what my personal views are. If you were less keen to pigeonhole me so that you could dismiss me, we might surprise ourselves and find points of agreement.
',,,so that lower-paid people are paid more.' The UK minimum wage is already amongst the highest in the OECD and double that in the USA and that is making it harder for small businesses especially to afford to hire more workers
And yet it is also true that, in one of the more advanced economies in the world, someone can work their butt off for a wage that is insufficient to live well.
If my claim is true alongside yours, then that is hardly a ringing endorsement of the way we have structured our economy, is it?
Well you may not live in luxury but anyone on minimum wage in the UK can easily afford food, water, a 1 bed rental and some clothing and is better off than 95% of the bottom 10% of income earners anywhere else in the world
We could have a decent debate on that, aided as Bart says by some figures. If it wasn't half midnight with a game to watch perhaps I'd look some up.
Nevertheless, is that the extent of your ambition? In an economy elsewhere swimming in wealth?
I have much sympathy with those who lament inequality but believe with integrity that any attempt to reduce inequality would do more harm than good.
I just think we can do better. And I find a response that says our businesses cannot afford to pay their workers to live with dignity and comfort woefully inadequate.
Yes, we already have one of the highest minimum wages in the world with business, especially small businesses, finding it difficult enough to hire people as it is. Whack up that minimum wage even higher and you will just increase unemployment and a job on £24k a year is far better than being on JSA or UC
I'm not really debating the minimum wage. As lost password says upthread I don't really want an economy whereby state intervention is required for hard working people to live well.
I'm lamenting the claim that, on your own account, for many small businesses they cannot afford to pay their workers a decent, dignified wage.and still function as healthy businesses.
Yes as their tax and regulatory burden is too high
Well done England, through to the semi finals, so already now done as well as the 1990 and 2018 world cups. Win that one and they get to the final for the first time since 1966 but that is a big if if Argentina win tomorrow
Does Socialism boil down to: "If one person is poor, everyone should be poor"?
No. "If nine people are poor and one person is wealthy, ten people could be comfortably off."
They want 99 people to be poor and one weathly, and they want to be that 1%.
Or, at best, "it's better that everyone loses as long as the rich lose most than everyone gaining if the rich gain most".
Here's a challenge for the PB righties. Come up with a non-caricatured summary of left-wing politics on the basis of an assumption of good faith among lefties.
I think I made a pretty good attempt of describing the essence of Tory ideology the other day, without restoring to caricature. Can any of you do the same?
Every person deserves to enjoy a dignified, broadly equal standard of living, with those who are more able or driven paying more to support those who are less able to contribute. Each person is a blank slate and as such should not benefit from their parents' wealth accumulation or other advantages conferred by linage.
Feels pretty close.
The first sentence is a decent attempt, but it makes the second redundant.
I'd say the second is essential - a key part of modern left wing thought is the fungibility of humans - a 10th generation 60km from Mogadishu subsistence farmer is there because they never got the opportunity or support of someone who went to Eton and then did good, so that entirely explains their differences, rather than acknowledging that actually in a lot of cases, while there is a large amount of intergeneration variability, IQ is extremely heritable. That's why there's so much bleating about private school overrepresentation - if people used their common sense to see that humans are not a blank slate private school overrepresentation makes absolutely perfect sense.
Estimates of the heritability of IQ are about 50%, which I wouldn’t call “extremely”. IQ has a correlation with income of about 0.3-0.4, so it explains about 10-15% of variation in income. The correlation between IQ and wealth is even lower, about 0.16, so it explains about 3% of the variation in wealth.
The fact IQ only explains about 3% of the variation in wealth, doesn’t that make you more sympathetic to socialist views? Our current system isn’t rewarding ability or merit!
Isn't this partly because IQ is a pretty crude measure?
Levels of both income and wealth are almost certainly linked to things such as "work ethic" and "deferred gratification" which aren't directly connected to intelligence, and are presumably partially learnt behaviours, and partially inherited.
Sure, there are lots of problems with IQ as a measure, and whatever IQ measures, it clearly isn’t everything that matters.
Levels of both income and wealth are also clearly linked to things such as “inherited wealth”, “going to private school” and “your parents knowing people”… and indeed also “luck”.
People are desperate to find a reason to justify inequality to escape any feeling that they ought to find a way to do something about it.
By which you mean socialism of course
There is more than one way to skin a cat, and there are many different imaginings of what socialism involves, and I am open to people coming up with new ideas to solve old problems.
One of the things I ultimately found most disappointing about Corbyn was that he was rigidly attached to ideas and policies from the 70s, as though nobody had had a good new idea since.
Yes but at the end of the day you want some form of the same old socialism or social democracy ie same old tax the rich and wealthy, property owners and high earners and businesses more and redistribute via more public spending and welfare and some nationalisations. So not miles off what Corbyn wanted anyway
I mean, yes, I'm on the left, but, I don't think that's really a fair reflection of my politics.
For example, I would much prefer that the structure of the economy is changed so that lower-paid people are paid more, and then those people wouldn't be reliant on handouts from government, which can easily be taken away, as we saw with tax credits that were given by Brown and taken away by Osborne.
Edit: I also think I've bored on a lot about how I think a government could make people feel richer, even without increasing their income by a single penny, if they tracked the ways in which various companies are to efficient at extracting cash from people - e.g. leasehold, car finance, automatic increases in utility bills, etc.
I feel that you do me a disservice by just lazily assigning to me a set of policies that you see as a definition of socialism, instead of having a more interesting discussion of what my personal views are. If you were less keen to pigeonhole me so that you could dismiss me, we might surprise ourselves and find points of agreement.
',,,so that lower-paid people are paid more.' The UK minimum wage is already amongst the highest in the OECD and double that in the USA and that is making it harder for small businesses especially to afford to hire more workers
And yet it is also true that, in one of the more advanced economies in the world, someone can work their butt off for a wage that is insufficient to live well.
If my claim is true alongside yours, then that is hardly a ringing endorsement of the way we have structured our economy, is it?
Well you may not live in luxury but anyone on minimum wage in the UK can easily afford food, water, a 1 bed rental and some clothing and is better off than 95% of the bottom 10% of income earners anywhere else in the world
We could have a decent debate on that, aided as Bart says by some figures. If it wasn't half midnight with a game to watch perhaps I'd look some up.
Nevertheless, is that the extent of your ambition? In an economy elsewhere swimming in wealth?
I have much sympathy with those who lament inequality but believe with integrity that any attempt to reduce inequality would do more harm than good.
I just think we can do better. And I find a response that says our businesses cannot afford to pay their workers to live with dignity and comfort woefully inadequate.
Yes, we already have one of the highest minimum wages in the world with business, especially small businesses, finding it difficult enough to hire people as it is. Whack up that minimum wage even higher and you will just increase unemployment and a job on £24k a year is far better than being on JSA or UC
I'm not really debating the minimum wage. As lost password says upthread I don't really want an economy whereby state intervention is required for hard working people to live well.
I'm lamenting the claim that, on your own account, for many small businesses they cannot afford to pay their workers a decent, dignified wage.and still function as healthy businesses.
Yes as their tax and regulatory burden is too high
And on that we don't necessarily disagree. Though I'd argue that's only part of the problem. And with that, goodnight!
'Andy Burnham may be at his most powerful - no Cabinet positions announced, 'North Korean' levels of support among Labour MPs - but there are already tensions and jockeying for position among his most loyal allies
* Such is the speed of coronation that Burnham has yet to decide on his living arrangements. His wife, Marie-France Van Heel, is considering staying in Manchester so she can continue her role as a marketing executive, with the couple reuniting over long weekends. One ally jokingly said Burnham could end up living a 'bachelor' lifestyle above No 11..'
'Andy Burnham may be at his most powerful - no Cabinet positions announced, 'North Korean' levels of support among Labour MPs - but there are already tensions and jockeying for position among his most loyal allies
* Such is the speed of coronation that Burnham has yet to decide on his living arrangements. His wife, Marie-France Van Heel, is considering staying in Manchester so she can continue her role as a marketing executive, with the couple reuniting over long weekends. One ally jokingly said Burnham could end up living a 'bachelor' lifestyle above No 11..'
'Andy Burnham may be at his most powerful - no Cabinet positions announced, 'North Korean' levels of support among Labour MPs - but there are already tensions and jockeying for position among his most loyal allies
* Such is the speed of coronation that Burnham has yet to decide on his living arrangements. His wife, Marie-France Van Heel, is considering staying in Manchester so she can continue her role as a marketing executive, with the couple reuniting over long weekends. One ally jokingly said Burnham could end up living a 'bachelor' lifestyle above No 11..'
Well done England, through to the semi finals, so already now done as well as the 1990 and 2018 world cups. Win that one and they get to the final for the first time since 1966 but that is a big if if Argentina win tomorrow
I'd argue if you look at their results and who they were against they've done rather better than 2018 (where they stumbled into the semis with a very favourable draw) or 1990 (where they squeezed unconvincingly through each match). And the rest of the footballing world is a lot stronger nowadays.
Regrettably it now means going out against the cheating Argies instead!
Well done England, through to the semi finals, so already now done as well as the 1990 and 2018 world cups. Win that one and they get to the final for the first time since 1966 but that is a big if if Argentina win tomorrow
I will not have to listen to Sam Matterface and Lee Dixon commentate on another England match for the rest of the tournament.
You wouldn't have had to listen to Sam Matterface and Lee Dixon commentate on another England match for the rest of the tournament whatever the result tonight.
'Andy Burnham may be at his most powerful - no Cabinet positions announced, 'North Korean' levels of support among Labour MPs - but there are already tensions and jockeying for position among his most loyal allies
* Such is the speed of coronation that Burnham has yet to decide on his living arrangements. His wife, Marie-France Van Heel, is considering staying in Manchester so she can continue her role as a marketing executive, with the couple reuniting over long weekends. One ally jokingly said Burnham could end up living a 'bachelor' lifestyle above No 11..'
Smart politics. Doubt he has a plan to deal with the backlog of cases though.
Well dropping the appeal against the ruling of the illegality of using terrorism legislation to arrest grannies et al holding Palestine Action placards would get rid of 1,000 or so of the backlog for a start.
I will not have to listen to Sam Matterface and Lee Dixon commentate on another England match for the rest of the tournament.
I'd be interested in the views of our resident statistician - but for about 25 years (roughly 1995-2020) the performances on ITV seemed to be consistently awful. It wasn't just win/lose, it was that the wins in ITV were unconvincing 2-0s against tiny Carribbean nations; the losses on BBC were creditable performances against Brazil and the losses on ITV were abject capitulations against Iceland. I don't believe it was a curse - but it was a very strong correlation. But over the last five years or so the pattern seems to uave gone away.
I will not have to listen to Sam Matterface and Lee Dixon commentate on another England match for the rest of the tournament.
You wouldn't have had to listen to Sam Matterface and Lee Dixon commentate on another England match for the rest of the tournament whatever the result tonight.
Widdecombe has turned into yet another battleground of the bloody culture war.
How long before Net Zero is to blame for her death??
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 15m Allison, this is a murder case. The alleged perpetrator is still at large. You are not involved in the investigation. You are not a police officer. You do not have any of the relevant facts. Let the police do their job.
Allison Pearson @AllisonPearson Ann Widdecombe had several cameras on her property.
The police need to release the CCTV from Wednesday lunchtime/afternoon so the public can help them identify her alleged killer.
What’s the problem? He is dangerous and needs to be found.
Evidently the police do have CCTV footage of the perpetrator, because they have said that they are (still) looking for a white male. They think at the moment that they can nab him without sharing the information with the public. We shall see if that is right, or if he continues to evade them.
They have nabbed him apparently - arrest made of a 28 year old man (white British) in South Yorkshire.
I like the way he wouldn't let the nonsense go. He's an oddity, but I like him.
One of the reasons I like Thomas Tuchel is that he refuses to give a flying fuck about what other people think.
Thomas Tuchel is 100% my favourite England manager of my lifetime. Indeed, this is probably my favourite England team since the early 80s, and I was, what, 7 then and not really in a position to judge.
Bobby Robson - endearing and likeable if a little eccentric but not notably effective. Graham Taylor - ditto, but more som Terry Venables - likeable in an untrustworthy way, but git far more credit than he deserved for getting to the semi finals of a gime tournament - basically par. Glenn Hoddle - I had high hopes for Hoddle which were cruelly dashed in all senses. Sven - playing the exact same XI every game, bringing on Phil Neville with 20 minutes to go does not constitute management. Underachieved with a good crop of (albeit horrible) players. Steve McClaren - got a lot of stick for having an umbrella, which I thought harsh. That German fella - gets credit for not taking Gary Neville's shit, but underachieved like everyone else. Gareth Southgate - not terrible, but nothing like as good as his reputation suggests. Was handed some weak opposition in 2018 and failed as soon as they came uo against anyone decent. I liked his waistcoat but found him a bit sanctimonious.
Do we actually want Argentina with all that that entails or another game like we've just seen vs the Swiss?
100% the Swiss. I'd rather lose to the Swiss than the Argies.
But who would you rather beat?
Surely a semi final victory over the Argies would at least be some small compensation for losing to France.
No. I will not enjoy a match against Argentina at all, because they will cheat and they will get away with it. Even if England win I will be a knot of anger at the end. I would enjoy seeing them lose but I would probably get more pleasure from seeing them lose against Switzerland. Seeing Argentina beat Switzerland has no upside fir me whatsoever.
Smart politics. Doubt he has a plan to deal with the backlog of cases though.
Well dropping the appeal against the ruling of the illegality of using terrorism legislation to arrest grannies et al holding Palestine Action placards would get rid of 1,000 or so of the backlog for a start.
That appeal has already been heard. The government won. It is now up to Ms Ammori to take it to the Supreme Court if she wishes.
I think that England will beat Argentina but they will be thumped by the French.
I could take that. France are the better team and would deserve to win. Argentina are not the better team but they will win by cheating and I will feel resentful.
Comments
Helps when you're a very decent side with an absolute top drawer striker, mind.
Not over yet.
Looked harsh.
VAR.
Nevertheless, is that the extent of your ambition? In an economy elsewhere swimming in wealth?
I have much sympathy with those who lament inequality but believe with integrity that any attempt to reduce inequality would do more harm than good.
I just think we can do better. And I find a response that says our businesses cannot afford to pay their workers to live with dignity and comfort woefully inadequate.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/07/11/burnham-scrap-lammy-plans-curb-jury-trials/
I'm lamenting the claim that, on your own account, for many small businesses they cannot afford to pay their workers a decent, dignified wage.and still function as healthy businesses.
England’s mentality monsters are in the semi-finals of the 2026 World Cup!
I will not have to listen to Sam Matterface and Lee Dixon commentate on another England match for the rest of the tournament.
Thank goodness.
I will not have to listen to Sam Matterface and Lee Dixon commentate on another England match for the rest of the tournament.
'Andy Burnham may be at his most powerful - no Cabinet positions announced, 'North Korean' levels of support among Labour MPs - but there are already tensions and jockeying for position among his most loyal allies
* Such is the speed of coronation that Burnham has yet to decide on his living arrangements. His wife, Marie-France Van Heel, is considering staying in Manchester so she can continue her role as a marketing executive, with the couple reuniting over long weekends. One ally jokingly said Burnham could end up living a 'bachelor' lifestyle above No 11..'
https://x.com/Steven_Swinford/status/2075972223219667194?s=20
Regrettably it now means going out against the cheating Argies instead!
At 2am BST.
But yes, the curse of ITV is a myth.
He's an oddity, but I like him.
Nice to know the people at the top are having the same problems as ordinary people.
Jude looked really pissed off.
I don't believe it was a curse - but it was a very strong correlation.
But over the last five years or so the pattern seems to uave gone away.
And both Switzerland and Argentina look beatable.
Bring on Wednesday!
https://metro.co.uk/2026/06/17/englands-itv-curse-real-three-lions-record-bbc-itv-ahead-world-cup-opener-2-28800845/
PETER HITCHENS: Petulant, snarling Nigel Farage, the Thatcher tribute act with nothing much to offer
https://x.com/DailyMailUK/status/2076016089956294923
cheesedefence.Thoughts and prayers for the people who lay England at every major tournament.
Surely a semi final victory over the Argies would at least be some small compensation for losing to France.
Bobby Robson - endearing and likeable if a little eccentric but not notably effective.
Graham Taylor - ditto, but more som
Terry Venables - likeable in an untrustworthy way, but git far more credit than he deserved for getting to the semi finals of a gime tournament - basically par.
Glenn Hoddle - I had high hopes for Hoddle which were cruelly dashed in all senses.
Sven - playing the exact same XI every game, bringing on Phil Neville with 20 minutes to go does not constitute management. Underachieved with a good crop of (albeit horrible) players.
Steve McClaren - got a lot of stick for having an umbrella, which I thought harsh.
That German fella - gets credit for not taking Gary Neville's shit, but underachieved like everyone else.
Gareth Southgate - not terrible, but nothing like as good as his reputation suggests. Was handed some weak opposition in 2018 and failed as soon as they came uo against anyone decent. I liked his waistcoat but found him a bit sanctimonious.
What an absolute melon!