Could Raith Rovers upset the Brown by election bet?
April 22nd, 2008
How winning promotion would cost me £1000
Until last week I have to admit that I have never followed the fortunes of teams in the Scottish second division too closely - if at all. But since the Crewe & Nantwich by election came into the frame all has changed - for if the Fife team manages to secure promotion then I might be down £1000.
For last June in what now seems to be an earlier political era, one of the big bets put out by William Hill was what would happen first from a list of things during Gordon Brown’s premiership. The options included a general election, “A full UK withdrawal from Iraq”, “Gordon and Sarah having another child”, “Labour losing a by election” and Gordon’s local club, “Raith Rovers winning promotion”.
Immediately the market came out the 10/1 against Labour losing a by election was spotted by an eagle-eyed PBer who announced it on the thread. Those who acted quickly got the 10/1 and within hours the price tightened to 5/1 and then to 3/1. At the time, of course, there were the upcoming Sedgefield and Ealing Southall by elections.
What made the bet so attractive was that even, as it did, Labour hold on to the two seats it was defending on July 19th 2007 the bet was still valid until one of the listed options comes about.
Well there’s been no general election, Gordon and Sarah have not had another child, British troops are still in Iraq but now we have a by election in the offing. As far as I can see the only problem could be Raith Rovers. They are now third in the league and competing strongly for a place in the play-offs that could see them moving up a division. Everything will be resolved on May 10th so it’s not possible for a by election to take place before that.
So I am sorry Raith Rovers fans. I’ll be hoping that one of the other teams makes it.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Oh dear Mike, you’ve just lost the Kirkcaldy readership! Shame on you for putting money before your reader’s happiness (especially one Mr. G Brown!).
Is there a moral here?
Something about not mixing Politics and Football?
Well, doesn’t look like automatic promotion’s on the cards for Raith - but the playoffs look a near-certainty. So without making too many judgements about the rival merits of Airdrie, Clyde, etc., it looks like you’ve a three in four chance of winning. Still pretty good odds…
Wonder how many other Raith fans cheer on England, even when they are beating the Auld Enemy? - or would have us believe such nonsense?
They’ll be dancing in the streets of Raith on May 10th if they do get promoted.
I think they’re guaranteed a playoff spot.. time to hedge, I think!
When are the Scottish Div 2 playoffs happening? I have got £1200 riding on this as well!
Re 7. Sorry 10 May.
They are indeed guaranteed a playoff spot, no chance of automatic promotion.
I don’t believe for a minute that the byelection will be lost either, so I think the bet will keep running into next season
6 et al - Raith are guaranteed a play-off spot - against Airdrie United, one of Alloa, Peterhead & Brechin, and one of Clyde & Morton. Play-off semi-final 1st & 2nd leg are 30th April & 3rd May
Michael White in today’s Guardian blogs:
“Does it matter? Well, it might. Last night’s Evening Standard contained a “Boris still leads but all depends on second votes” admission among the routine Ken-baiting headlines.
The Johnson lead after second preference votes are counted is down to 53% to 47%, according to YouGov, which reported a gap as large as 14% four weeks ago before it readjusted its samples (so I am told) more accurately to reflect the capital’s population.
The Livingstone campaign has improved lately and a Sunday Times/MRUK poll even gave the mayor a 45:44% first preference lead, a 50:50% dead heat on second votes.
Even YouGov, whose internet polling is widely mistrusted, acknowledges that doubts about Boris’s fundamental seriousness are finally becoming an issue for voters. Livingstone may yet survive - again.
As the historian Tristram Hunt points out (in the Standard actually: it’s hedging its bet a bit) Boris is cunningly deploying a century-old Tory strategy of playing off suburban resentments of central London.
London works best when it is ruled from the centre, asserts Hunt. He points to Herbert Morrison, the city’s powerful inter-war boss, to make his case. ”
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/04/michael_whites_political_blog_135.html
4: and whilst we are all giving GB a good kicking, here are those classic quotes again…
Feb 2007: “Gordon Brown stumbled over the issue of national identity yesterday, naming England, not Scotland, as the team he’d like to win the World Cup. Announcing the launch of the English bid for the 2018 World Cup, Mr Brown said he hoped the host nation would win the tournament. When talking about the English, he repeatedly used the word “we”. When asked what about the Scotland team, he said only that they would “do well.”
Gordon Brown: “one of my favourite sporting moments was Gazza’s goal against Scotland in Euro ‘96.”
Gordon Brown: “I have been to lots of England matches, but the most memorable were the Euro 96 game against Scotland, with Gazza’s great goal, and the 0-0 game in Rome the following year when England held on to qualify for France 98.”
Presumably not the sort of thing he comes out with in the pie and Bovril queue at Stark’s Park…?
11. “Even YouGov, whose internet polling is widely mistrusted.”
Widely? You mean by the Livingstone camp because it shows him behind? This would be the same YouGov who were the most accurate at the last mayoral election, yes?
The Grauniad are getting desperate and I say that as someone who thinks when they’re not in misrepresentation-fervour (ie usually around an election, save for Toynbee who is like that all the time) they can be a quite good read.
I wonder if Sid will be on the ball and be giving generous odds on Raith?!
Is the market still up at Will Hill, and if so - what are the current odds? (Sorry, behind firewall in office)
This Raith Rovers lot - do they play on grass or astroturf?
Mike - Isn’t the right strategy to wait for the playoffs and just back Raith heavily in their individual games?
So Mike it sounds like you are fine as long as the sports team Gordon Brown is supporting don’t do well. As long as he actually goes to see them before the end of the season, then I think you should be fine!
17.PtP - I shall do that as I have just become an enthusiastic Raith Rovers fan!
One Brownism (as distinct from the Coffee House’s Brownies) charted the course of his own Premiership:
““We cannot allow our promises that became pledges to descend into just aspirations, and then wishful thinking, and then only words that symbolise broken promises.” (source Pb.com 2007)
That is a ten pence quote if ever there was one.
Brown’s record in backing sports teams is one which ought to be treated with caution.
Watches Man Utd v. Man City - Utd lose home derby game for first time c. 1971. Watches England v. Germany at Wembley - England lose. Hosts summit at Emirates Stadium - one week later Arsenal are bundled out of European Cup.
21 - he had a pretty bad run last year in jinxing English/British sporting prospects if memory serves - which just reinforces the impression that everything the man touches turns to sh1t.
Sorry to be so blunt…
12. Actually I feel a bit sorry for him. Any sensible person in his position, when asked about England’s bid and their chances, would have said something like “Well, you know that I always have to have a bit of national loyalty *grin to journos* so of course I’d love to see Scotland do well in such a cup. But I hope England, the host nation, also make fans proud.”
See!? Would Brown *really* have been attacked for saying something like this?
21. what is this supposed to be proving? sports teams win, lose and draw all the time whether he watches them or not
20: let that be his epitaph.
Hope Dave’s PMQs-prep team is aware of that little beauty!
4 Bob Sykes, my friend Callum is a Raith supporter who supports England whenever they play. However, he is only 8, and is the despair of his parents (but only for this, and no other, reason.)
Does supporting certain Football teams come within Sean’s definition of Altruism? I know some Nottingham Forest Fans who think it might.
Do they despair that he supports Raith, or England? (or both!)
11. Shooting the messenger is so silly.
The delegate maths in Penn will be delayed :
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PENNSYLVANIA_DELEGATES?SITE=PAEASELN&SECTION=POLITICS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
21 - Richard Milhous Nixon, who was a genuine American Football fan (and extremely knowledgeable - a real geek for stats and records) had a similar trait. Every team he touched turned to mud.
“His unsolicited advice to [Redskins] Coach George Allen resulted in a disastrous interception ending the Redskins’ last hopes for a come-from-behind victory in the 1971 playoffs. They lost - the final score was 24 to 20. Two weeks later Nixon announced he was backing Miami against Dallas in the Super Bowl. This time he went so far as to send in a play which once again backfired disastrously. Miami lost 24 to 3. The Nixon jinx continued to plague the Redskins again in the 1973 Super Bowl, dispite quarterback Bill Kilmer’s widely-quoted statement at this time that this time he would just as soon do without the President’s tactical advice. The Redskins were three-point favourites against the Dolphins this time around, but with Nixon on their side they got blown out of the stadium and wound up on the sick end of a deceptively one-sided 14 to 7 defeat”
Hunter S Thompson “Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail ‘72″
It does not look like the Rovers are in good form at the moment having lost 0-1 to relegation threatened Queen’s Park last game:
http://www.raithroversfc.com/cgi-bin/matchdetails.cgi?id=795
What’s the definition of losing a by-election? If Boris beats Ken then there’s going to be a by-election in Henley that Labour stand very little chance of winning…
Still won’t help you out with Raith Rovers though, I’m afraid.
@29:
It could be that Michael White is just falling foul of a generalisation of Smithson’s Law: “A rogue pollster is one that produces polls you consistently disagree with”.
32 - Err… that was 3 games ago - most recently won 5-2 away at Berwick (but then Berwick appear to be the Derby of the Scottish 2nd Div)
http://www.raithroversfc.com/cgi-bin/fixtures.cgi
Following on from 32 it appears Raith have a player called Borris who was sent off and another one called Goodwillie. The attendance at this match appears to be about 3 people looking at the photos.
27 O/T but I see Zuma has come out strongly calling for Zim election results to be published and for other African leaders to “help” Mbeki. Zambia’s Mwanawasa has stated that the Chines arms shipment should be turned back by all African countries and the Chinese are saying it will be returned to China. Apparently it is short of fuel so needs to dock somewhere - question is if it docks in Angola will it only refuel?
Seems to be some movement and pressure on Mugabe.
@33:
Doesn’t BoJo plan to remain MP for Henley?
38 No. When Lynton crosby arrived the first thing he did was get BoJo to renounce his throne if elected.
39 - I thought it was unclear whether he meant immediately or at the next general election though?
28 His Dad’s an Inverness Cally supporter, and his Mum is from Galasheils (slight tendency towards Hearts.) It’s the English thing that annoys them. The lad (a good Sunday School pupil) explains it by referring to the need to be a good neighbour.
35. Lennon - I stand corrected. Seriously what odds would you put on Raith besting Peterhead, Alloa and Brechin in the play offs?
41, hehehe. Maybe that’s Gordon’s excuse too:p
anything like the playoffs there is so much pressure and element of chance.
odds must be very close to 1 in 4.
List of rebel MPs supporting Field’s amendment. Lots of usual suspects but surprised to see John Cruddas.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/apr/22/economy.labour
45. Interesting about Cruddas.
44 - They’ll be in the playoffs with the side finishing 9th in Div 1 as well as those in 2nd/3th/4th in their division. 3/1 looks about right, possibly 11/4.
I’d let you hedge with me except I’m on the same bet
I’m sure the bookies will have play-off winner prices up once the regular season is over.
Cruddas may well be the next leader of the Labour Party. He was the only credible candidate for deputy, he is an honest and decent bloke who garners respect from many quarters. compare him to the vacuous, careerist, non-entities that are usually mentioned as next leader and its clear he has a shot.
when Labour implode after the next election they will need someone to give them a reason to survive and Cruddas is that man.
‘Scots scientist discovers why England can’t take penalties’
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/Scots-scientist-discovers-why-England.4004982.jp
“The England football team’s poor record in penalty shoot-outs could be due to historical stereotyping, according to researchers at St Andrews University”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/tayside_and_central/7359217.stm
45 - You say usual suspects, but weren’t most of them saying how everything would be great once the great Gordo got hold of the magic wand?
Raith Rovers?! Enough of such highfalutin’ political debate.
Back to egoism versus altruism. I see someone called “Eddie”, on the last thread, was pooh-poohing the idea of group selection as being “thoroughly demolished” by Dawkins’ Selfish Gene.
Tish tish. This is the intellectual equivalent of wearing baseball caps the wrong way round. A tad passe.
Eddie needs to catch up on his reading; group Selection is now back in fashion.
Apologies for the huge chunk of Wikipedia text:
“Although Richard Dawkins and fellow advocates of the gene-centered view of evolution remain unconvinced (see, for example, [12][13][14]), Wilson & Sober’s work has been part of a broad revival of interest in multilevel selection as an explanation for evolutionary phenomena.
“Indeed, in a 2005 article[15], E. O. Wilson (often regarded as the father of sociobiology) argued that kin selection could no longer be thought of as underlying the evolution of extreme sociality, for two reasons.
“First, some authors have shown that the argument that haplodiploid inheritance, characteristic of the Hymenoptera, creates a strong selection pressure towards nonreproductive castes is mathematically flawed (e.g. [16]). Secondly, eusociality no longer seems to be confined to the hymenopterans; increasing numbers of highly social taxa have been found in the years since Wilson’s foundational text on sociobiology was published in 1975[10], including a variety of insect species, as well as a rodent species (the naked mole rat). Wilson suggests the equation for Hamilton’s rule:[17]
rb > c
(where b represents the benefit to the recipient of altruism, c the cost to the altruist, and r their degree of relatedness) should be replaced by the more general equation
(rbk + be) > c
in which bk is the benefit to kin (b in the original equation) and be is the benefit accruing to the group as a whole. He then argues that, in the present state of the evidence in relation to social insects, it appears that be>>rbk, so that altruism needs to be explained in terms of selection at the colony level rather than at the kin level.”
(rbk + be)??!! > c??!!!!
QED.
Latest Rasmussen Presidential and Primary Trackers :
McCain 49% .. Clinton 43%
McCain 47% .. Obama 44%
Clinton 41% .. Obama 49%
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
48 He would be the core vote choice; strong backing from unions, left wing but not Militant Left, strong on activists and membership rights.
@51:
I’m gonna call my first daughter Hymenoptera. That or Chlamydia.
51 - again, Sean, that only works if you assume biological predestination. Not all of us would accept that.
53 well what else is there for Labour. Every one of their ministers is tainted with failure, corruption and duplicity. The party is bankrupt. I’m just listening to that crook Jowell explain the olympic budget on sky. she is just a two-bob, low-life liar and that is how all the labour party ministers are viewed by the public. they are utterly discredited rubbish.
‘Brown’s solidarity call fails to inspire unions’
I suppose that that last sentence about sums up the Unionist’s dire plight: the only way they can get Scots to vote for the Union is with massive bribes, funded by the taxpayer. How long before the taxpayers spot that their money is being abused for the basest of political purposes?
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/politics/Brown39s-solidarity-call-fails-to.4004995.jp
@51: As I understand it, Sean, the gene-centred view of selection finds it difficult to account for phenomena such as homosexuality, whereas it falls out of various group-selection models quite easily.
There’s nothing that throws one’s view of a geneticist into sharper focus than being told that, biologically, you can’t possibly exist.
@53:
…strong on activists…
And strong on the causes of activists?
@55:
Enough with the solipsism.
One suspects that Mother Nature cares not a jot whether you choose to ‘accept’ it. Life will continue to go on around you as it please whether you like it or not.
51 Full marks,Sean, for getting the word “haplodiploid” into today’s thread. I wonder what it means………
57 - Conversely a friend of mine is a geneticist (admittedly a bit crazy) but he says that it is feasible that there is no Gay gene and that humans turn gay as a means of dealing with overpopulation. Part of me thinks this is deeply insane, but the egomaniac in me finds it good that somehow I might be helping the survival of man.
59 - we’re not talking about Mother Nature. We’re talking about the individual actions of human beings. I’m suggesting that not everything we do (as opposed to our underlying biological predispositions) is determined by our genes.
[54] Martin Coxall threatens I’m gonna call my first daughter Hymenoptera. That or Chlamydia
Read chapter six of Freakonomics first…
Sean T at 51
A bit above my head, but are you saying that a delicate flower like roger is altruistically allowed to flourish in the pbc group but the rough boys at Guido’s (of whom he was complaining this morning) would soon put paid to him ?
@62:
Fair enough, but that’s a bit trite. But, humanity has been behaving in a remarkably consistent way for the best part of a million years. Sooner or later, somebody was going to notice.
Call it what you will, Human Beings are remarkably predictable creatures.
You may think it’s possible for humanity to work against their instincts, though the onus is clearly on you to demonstrate this assertion. But the fact the we haven’t done so suggests that even if we could, we clearly don’t want to.
In any case, evolution has furnished us with an instinct for survival, arguably the most successful creature on the planet. Maybe even considering rising above our biological imperative would be an act of stupidity.
61 - the thing that astonishes me is how many gay men are on politicalbetting.com - there are far more of us than the statistical norm. That suggests either (1) the gay gene and the political anorak gene are linked or (2) the social impact that makes someone interested in politics turns them gay.
66 - There is a third option, coincidence!
65 - yes, human beings are predictable, in large enough numbers. Self preservation and all those wonderful other basic imperatives are a good way of forecasting group behaviour.
But to suggest that gives an insight into individual behaviour is a little naive. You’re not an actuary, by any chance, are you?
67 - perhaps Rod Crosby could perform a statistical analysis of the numbers of gay men that we could expect to post on politicalbetting.com and the likelihood of actual numbers being attributable to chance. Or perhaps not.
66, 67. Another explanation is simply intelligence levels.
I was reading some sociobiology the other day and came across this interesting fact: the average IQ of gay men is about 110 - i.e. ten points above the average. The writer speculated that there was, consequently, some genetic link between homosexuality and high intelligence. (There could be other explanations of course)
Given that the people on this site are, by nature, gonna be a little brighter than average, you would expect the site to contain an above-average proportion of gay commenters.
70 - I like the theory, but find it hard to reconcile with my dating history.
@68:
No, I’m a psychohistorian. Want to join my foundation?
I agree with you. Genetics isn’t useful to predict human minutiae, but it’s remarkably adept at macroanthropological phenomena.
To point out that my genes probably don’t predict what I’m gonna buy for dinner tonight is, I suspect, an uncontroversial assertion.
@71:
*chortle*
71 -
Here’s one. Gay people are perhaps less likely to have kids and therefore more time to be active in politics than your average 2.4 children wage slave family man/woman.
70. that doesn’t sound like a fact to me; more like incredibly dubious research conclusion.
Keep the faith Mike.
In tonights big game I can’t see Liverpool winning.
Must be reasonable odds for Chelsea to win or draw,and my sources say that they are fired up for this one.
Don’t forget what Jimmy Greaves once said”Funny game football”
the crippling shame and confusion felt by gay adolescents in a largely heterosexual society turns them towards all sorts of socially unacceptable pastimes, including politics.
@60:
Oh, btw: A “haplodiploid” cell is one whose gamete contains only one chromosome.
79, isn’t it haploid a gamete: ie it has only 23 chromosomes as opposed to diploid cells which have 46?
(Apologies if I got the chromosome numbers wrong:p)
Millions of haplodiploids are waiting to gamete you.
@78:
“the crippling shame and confusion felt by politically-active adolescents in a largely apolitical society turns them towards all sorts of socially unacceptable pastimes, including homosexuality.”
Hmmm.
O/T - You wouldn’t bet against this young man in a F1 context would you?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/sport/kevingarside/april08/schumacherssontakestothetrack.htm
69 - Exclusively, a preview of Rod’s findings:
“Politicalbetting.com is trending gay over time, but is still nowhere near the level of gayness Cameron requires to form a majority”
70: “Given that the people on this site are, by nature, gonna be a little brighter than average”
Hm, really?
One or two I’d question…
76. I actually agree. I wish I could remember where I read this gay/high IQ factoid - I think it was on a website. I do remember it was from a reputable source; I also remember being startled by it - and slightly dubious.
Other explanations spring to mind: maybe smarter gay men are just more likely to be middle class, to have liberal friends, and therefore more confident about “coming out”. There may be droves of stupider men, who live in poorer, less tolerant mileus, who are too scared to come out, or even admit they are gay themselves.
I understand these guys are known as “rough trade”.
But it is equally possible there IS a genetic link between gayness and cleverness. It’s fairly obvious there is some link between gayness and creativity, for instance.
Crewe and Nantwich: GAY GAIN.
@81: Very droll. Have a pat on the back.
I’m quids in with either a by-election defeat or Iraq withdrawal.
My Gran was a Raith Rovers fan - maybe I should have listened!
87 - Ave It will either be choking with indignation or quivering with anticipation.
86 - out of interest, was the same phenomenon observed in gay women?
@91:
I notice that we’re not allowed to use the L*sbi*n word here.
91. Don’t recall lesb1ans being mentioned. On sheer anecdotal evidence, I would say NO. In fact maybe the opposite.
75 - I think that is almost certainly right. Politics can be a very time consuming hobby particularly at certain times of year, so doesn’t fit well with family life. There are probably also disproportionate numbers of childless married couples and people whose children have flown the nest in politics.
It would also be interesting to see, as a form of control experiment, whether disproportionate numbers of allotment owners are gay (again a hobby which is not only time consuming but particularly time consuming at certain times of year).
94. I think you might also find an allotment is an ideal place to get away from the wife …
93 - maybe an IQ/EQ thing, then? Gay men possibly being very ‘male’, and testing accordingly?
that’s right - every time you mention Lisbon on the site this guy checks in from Thailand, at all times of day or night, and spams the thread with his eurosceptic rantings and ravings.
91. Having said that, here is some evidence that “tuppence lickers” are indeed smarter than average - indeed almost as smart as mintymen.
http://tinyurl.com/6gcdyg
This isn’t the website where I found the factoid last week. But it is interesting. Notice how the stupidest people of all are bisexual men.
That explains why the Lib Dems are so rubbish.
@98:
This isn’t the website where I found the factoid last week. But it is interesting. Notice how the stupidest people of all are bisexual men.
That explains why the Lib Dems are so rubbish.
You utter bastard. I’ve just guffawed Coke Zero all over my keyboard because of you.
94 It is bad that politics is incompatible with 9-5 full-time work and family life. I think Labour, the workers party, should try and deal with this. We certainly need less pre-pubescent professional politicians at Westminster. As big a problem as minority representation IMO.
98 quote “bisexual women and especially men fall to the bottom” - I think we knew that.
86. it is fairly clear that being more, shall we say, “enlightened” means a homosexual is more likely to ‘come out’. Claiming a measurable IQ difference in the population at large would be crazy.
I notice you also work on the assumption that the middle classes are somehow “cleverer” than the ‘lower’ classes, not an assumption that actually holds true (although there is a very slight effect in IQ test results, thought to be due to education)
There’s always the possibility that perhaps gay people like betting more ?
103 - Well they are reputed to have higher disposable incomes etc
We already know that gay MPs are discriminated against on pay…
they tend to have fewer kids + ex-wives working for them
103. Also true:
http://tinyurl.com/yyqju3
104 - Surely more than reputed… classic example of DINKY’s (generalising massivly of course but…)
@103:
There’s any number of possible correlations. Perhaps all gay men are power-crazed wannabe despots?
Maybe we just like the debauched carnal atmosphere of the October Conferences?
Maybe we’re all so overcome with unrestrained manlust for Dave, George and Boris we are powerless to resist?
70. I believe there has also been pretty strong, albeit purely correlational, evidence that homosexuality within the male line was linked with very high fertility in the female line. Thus it could be a gene (or more likely group of genes) which, from an evolutionary point of view, was consistently advantageous in females but occasionally catastrophic within males.
78. I have also read a study that argued the more social difficulty a child had, the more likely they would become involved in politics. The summary suggested an explanation that politics gave an immediate circle of friends and allies for people who had trouble fitting in elsewhere. I reckon causation probably lies in the other direction: most people don’t like opinionated, argumentative sods.
100 - I was thinking about run-of-the-mill activists as much as MPs/councillors. But in any event I am not sure much can be done. Working people and people with families (particularly single parents but also couples) simply have less time to devote to things other than family and work. That is just a fact you can do nothing about.
@106:
I would suspect that’s probably a side effect of many gay men having had difficult teenage years- which is when most mental illnesses first manifest themselves.
It certainly comes as no great surprise that clinical depression and related illnesses run very high amongst gay men.
Perhaps PBC is the only thing stopping me from plaiting myself round the axle of a bendy bus.
Maybe taunting Mark Senior is my way of crying for help.
*sob*
103/104 - again surely a function of the not generally having kids point (and perhaps Sean’s IQ point if it converts to better jobs). Kids are expensive and tend to hamper people’s career prospects by making it harder to move for work and work difficult hours.
109. my experience is that the socially more ‘difficult’ kids at my school were all into politics - maybe no-one would listen to them normally.
I wonder if “family men” (women) and maybe even, popular people, derive more satisfaction from passing their views and lifestyles on to their kids and friends, than they do from trying to force their views onto strangers (i.e. active politics)
102. Actually wealthier people do have higher IQs, although that is very different from natural intelligence. Doing well in IQ tests is simply your ability to think in a certain way - practice at IQ tests can raise your IQ by 25 points as you understand how you’re supposed to answer the questions better. Richer people are more likely to have had a more stimulating puzzle-solving environment in childhood and adolescence, so it’s no surprise they do better.
110 Not sure that it’s something you can do nothing about. At least I would hate to resign myself to be governed by a professional political class or those with spare time.
That said local activism down my way is dominated by the retired, women with empty nests and freakish young wannabes. It’s a sad state of affairs.
@115:
It’s a fundamental problem not with politics, but with representative democracy.
The solution is to transition to a system of democracy that doesn’t involve elections.
This is left as an exercise to the reader.
115 - I don’t see a problem with professional politicians in some senses, I think a lot of problems are actually caused by the amateurs.
114. I think that is far from proven - as well as the obvious problem you raised, there are a number of serious skewing factors
* wealth can be generated by intelligence in the current generation
* there are lots of different types of intelligence (some of which are measured somewhat by IQ tests), and lots of theories about how genetic they are
My personal experience of higher education is that the real geniuses were disproportionately from very poor backgrounds with no record of academic achievement. This may just be anecdotal chance, it may be that the few who got through from that background had had to work harder throughout life to get there, etc. etc. any number of reasons - but I have real difficulty believing that the middle classes are generally and systematically more intelligent.
116. But you just carry the problem forward: You get decisions made by more people, but not by people who have enough time to properly research and understand the issue. The result would be more bad decisions.
unfortunately if you want professional leadership in a democracy, you are going to need professional politicians to do it.
119 - I would accept that line of argument, were it not for the fact that so many terrible decisions are made by the “professionals”, and very often for terrible reasons (eg to avoid losing face).
109 Its not necessarily “catastrophic” in relation to high fertility- there are good genetic reasons (similar to principles as SeanT expounded in relation to social organisations like bees & ants) why homosexuality in men could be advantageous in societies.
In primitive societies there was often a high rate of loss of males leaving fatherless families. While polygamy is common, providing opportunity for women to still marry, there would be a disadvantage to the children of the dead male. Unmarried (gay) uncles/cousins would provide protection to those children as the closest they would get to genetic descendants.
Additionally such societies often need strong defence. Male bonding amongst soldiery, the willingness to die for your friends, is an asset. The loss of a few reproductive males a generation is more than made up by their ability to defend the family gene. Higher fertility amongst women counter-balances the impact on population.
Perhaps “Career Politician” is a better term.
Yeah, well, I’ve got a massive c0ck.
How clever does that make me?
Hey, I said it was left as an exercise as the reader! I specifically didn’t propose an alternative because I don’t know what that should be.
I am leaning towards the Senate that we replace the House of Lords with being chosen by sortition rather than election, however.
124 - I don’t know how clever that makes you, but I’m sure you’re very popular.
@124:
Depends. How good is it at maths?
118. “But I have real difficulty believing that the middle classes are generally and systematically more intelligent.”
Is this a serious remark??
I’m not saying all chavs are thick. Nor am I saying all bourgeois are smart. Clearly this is nonsense. Harry Enfield’s “Tim Nice-but-Dim” charatcer rang true for a reason.
But it seems screamingly obvious that, on average, richer people are gonna be cleverer than poorer people. A society would have to be utterly devoid of any social mobility, like a kind of extreme version of caste-ridden India, for your thesis to be true.
Clever people acquire money and status. Stupid people don’t. Ergo the middle classes are smarter than the working classes.
Oh Dear NuLabour at it again !!!
Ministers were accused of burying bad news today after delaying the release of child poverty figures again.
Data on households with below average incomes is widely expected to indicate that the Government will miss its flagship target for halving the number of youngsters in poverty by 2010.
The latest information had originally been due for publication last month, but was put back to May 2 for extra checks.
Work and Pensions (DWP) Secretary James Purnell today admitted that the figures would not now be ready until June.
In a written Commons statement, he said: “In the course of validating the statistics, DWP statisticians identified a small but important inaccuracy in the 2006-7 data which impacts upon some of the headline figures.
127. It’s got up to the “Full Clegg” so far…
And counting.
@128:
But Sean, all men are created equal. Didn’t you get the memo?
128 Truly clever people are found on a beach supping a gin and tonic. Thick people seek “status”.
@130:
I’m imagining a new SI unit of sexual prowess, based around the ersthwile greasy political Lothario.
1 centiclegg = 0.3 of a sexual partner.
117 Yes the same problem with magistrates amateurs.
Are they altruistic ? or just networking.
Or how`s about special constables.
133 How may Opiks are there to one Clegg?
How many do you need to get a full Smithson?
@135:
Well, Opik’s not backwards about coming forwards with his tummy banana. He’s probably pushing a kiloclegg by now.
129, how unfortunate the figures are delayed until the day after the elections.
I hope Cameron picks this up.
Be very interesting to see how PMQs goes.
137 - No they are being recounted again.. no doubt they are desperately going to continue recounting the figures until they get to figures that show them in a good light.
SeanT, i am some what confused by your line of argument.
Forgive me if i’m wrong, but what you are arguing is that people care about the well-being and health of those close to them and are willing to have a personal cost for a group benefit therefore they are not altruistic. That seems to be the definition of altruism.
US PRESIDENTIAL
Just heard a TV news report that Obama has just been endorsed by JULIE NIXON EISENHOWER.
Will wonders never cease?
PS - She’s a PA resident, but am guessing that she remains a registered Republican.
128 travellers are more intelligent in a business sense than the underclass.
As they break the law admitedley to make money, but they would rather not come into contact with anyone in the public sector.
They can be self reliant and sort things out themselves, as well as have role models within their own society.
Some in certain estates aren`t intelligent enough to be criminals, and make any money,so they damage their own communities,and will forever be costing the tax payer money.
135. Christ. My knob can’t figure that out.
It can count out in linear integers, that’s it.
I could never match a Full Smithson - just don’t meet enough ladies
As for a Kilo-Clegg, well, I think I’d need a replacement for my worn out John Thomas if that happened.
140 yIKEs!
122. Well yes, but as far as the collection of genes in that particular specimen it’s pretty catastrophic. Not only is there a very minuscule chance of that specimen breeding, but there’s the added alienation factor caused by desiring to take actions that the bulk of a group would find uncomfortable, which could increase the risk of maiming or death.
But our ultimate point was the same: the family gene can aid many members of the group at the expense of a few. It can afford to have some copies to have negligible chance of being recreated in order than other copies have a greater chance of success.
128. It’s not just within one generation either. Those intelligent individuals that make it rich are likely to create a similar culture to their childhood for their descendants, in addition to having the extra resources for maximising their children’s potential.
@142:
Yeah, but Opik gets double points for identical twins.
Though, clearly a Kiloclegg is extremely unlikely, since it means getting your end a way with a different person every day, six days a week, for a decade.
I imagine even Liberal Democrats don’t have time for that.
132. That’s not true. The smart thing to do is to increase our own happiness. It’s been shown by study after study that not doing much causes depression while being productive, whether it’s having a successful career or climbing Everest, makes us feel great.
Sky news reports that Gordon will be flying the St George’s Cross over Downing Street tomorrow - oddly though he didn’t fly the saltire last St Andrews Day
…nor the Welsh flag on 1st March
…nor indeed either St Patrick’s Saltire on 17th March (or the flag of Ulster)
wonder why the English are being so privileged?
146 Good idea! Everest, the ultimate quest to get ice for that g&t. Do you have experience to back up those claims BTW?
144 You just have to look at the history of the English Crown to see that genes, breeding and family values are not a wholly reliable predictor of future outcomes.
128. SeanT. If it really was screamingly obvious, there would be some evidence for it.
You are blurring the boundaries between wealth and class. Yes being intelligent will help you become rich, if any social mobility exists. But being very rich does not make you upper class (and vice versa).
Really the link you would need to prove would be between family social class (which may well be linked to the intelligence, diligence and/or luck of your ancestors) and intelligence - and this link has not been proven to exist. It is difficult to prove because of a number of confusing factors - for a start, the upper classes try their very hardest to prevent any “chavs” from using their schools, universities, getting the good jobs, etc.
and many “chavs” do make life hard for themselves by choosing to ignore the benefits of educational focus.
If what you were saying was true, the aristocracy in society would be getting dramatically cleverer, as well as richer, and the poor would be evolving (and already have evolved somewhat) into a sub-human race. Not only has that not happened, but some of the greatest geniuses have always (and continue to) come from working class backgrounds and achieve greatness through natural talent and hard work alone, confounding your worldview on this subject.
145. I’m sure there is someone, somewhere, who has slept with 30,000 women.
3 women a night, every night, for 30 years = A kiloclegg
However, a “MegaClegg” would be truly implausible.
Anyone got a Deca-Clegg?
I mean that as 10x Cleggs - 300 women - not a 1/10th of a Clegg, which would be a disappointingly small total of 3 women only.
150 I think you’re obsessed with Nick Clegg.
O/T from the BBC’s Breaking News:
LATEST: 10 Downing St to fly flag of St George to mark English patron saint’s day. More soon.
I do worry about Gordon Brown, I really do.
@149:
“…universities…”
If that’s a cheap shot at Oxbridge, I can assure you that’s completely unfair. Oxford and Cambridge work extremely hard through the target schools programme to encourage state school pupils to apply.
PENNSYLVANIA POP QUIZ
Q: What PA borough was formerly named “Mauch Chunk”?
Bonus Question: What does “Mauch Chunk” mean? (I’d really like to know!)
147
Are you surprised. Thats Gordo for you. Of course he will say thats theres nothing political in such gesture posturing.
153. In 30 years the proportion of state school kids there has gone up by 2%.
152 Sky beats BBC yet again - see 147
@154:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Thorpe,_Pennsylvania
Apparently.
No word on the etymology of Mauch Chunk though.
157 - And Ted beats MB, yet again!
151. Of course. He is the Stiffmeister! The man we all aspire to be.
What a legend - what a player - what a GUY.
He is my hero.
Oh Cleggie, rain down some of your stardust on me!!
153. it wasn’t intended as one, but I can assure you that there is an awful lot more they could do.
The state school figures are
(a) way, way too low
(b) dominated by 30-odd selective, middle-class-only, state schools which parents will do anything to get their kids into, including moving house, lying, backhanders, grooming young children for entrance exams, etc. - public schools in everything but name. Comprehensive school admissions to Oxbridge are absolutely pathetic.
136. I have - very briefly - shared a girlfriend with Lembit Opik. I have therefore at least one hemiOpik to my name.
@156:
The important thing is that state school pupils are being encouraged to apply. Ultimately, (and I’m speaking as somebody who went to Oxford from a state school) that they should choose the best students.
It’s really not our University’s fault if the British public sector schools don’t produce up-to-snuff kids. Nor is it their duty to lower their standards to appease lefty consciences.
And the number of *applications* from state schools is drastically up.
161. Somebody didn’t get into Oxbridge methinks.
It’s ok, “ed”. Why not go for the full Clegg instead?
156. Although Oxbridge do get unfairly singled out, Durham and Bristol are much worse and no one kicks up a fuss about them.
162. SHARED a girlfriend?
WTF?!
Three-some? Or did you just take turns while the other watched?
149. This isn’t an argument. It’s not even masquerading as an argument. It’s an incoherent procession of disconnected half-truths.
Such is leftwing thinking today. No wonder you lot got crushed in the Cold War.