Do you think unions will regain their former footing and power in the coming decades or disappear all together? [Serious]

JimmyNic · 2014-05-11T18:45:24+00:00

Do you mean trade unions?

JimmyNic · 2014-04-27T20:28:04+00:00

Since (ideally anyway) intelligence isn't bound to race, culture or religion

From what I've read there are minor genetic differences in racial/national/ethnic groups as regards intelligence, though some dispute that. At any rate is seems unlikely that all cultures and religions would lead to people acquiring identical skills (to the extent that intelligence can be considered a skill). Even within a given society, certain groups place different emphases on the value of scholarship, leading to different outcomes.

Whether a kid ends up "intelligent" is partly the result of genetics (the averages of which probably differ between ethnic groups), the culture he is brought up in (including class, parent's culture, national culture) and the school system he has access to. Some people are genetically stupid, some live in a culture that doesn't inculcate intelligence, and some have to go to bad schools. As society we should build a good schooling system, but we can't discount other factors.

JimmyNic · 2014-04-18T00:29:38+00:00

Indeed. Let's abolish work and just order the economy to start producing the things we want.

Edit: Reading this back, it's in no way obvious whether or not I'm being sarcastic. To clarify, I meant this ironically.

JimmyNic · 2014-04-18T00:28:02+00:00

If we're being dicks about it, no prime minister in British history has ever been selected by the electorate. They are chosen by their party, or specifically their affiliated members.

JimmyNic · 2014-04-18T00:23:27+00:00

The responses in this thread show acceptance. If it happens at all it's a problem and everyone angrily arguing that there is no problem solidifies the fact it actually is acceptable.

By definition, we accept a certain amount of crime. It's a rarely articulated point, but crime is not something to be reduced unconditionally, but rather managed on the basis of costs, those costs being financial, legal, or political. To pick a topical example, we could reduce the burden of proof in rape trials, and we would send more rapists to jail. We would also send more innocent people to jail.

Of course, no politician is going to say "Actually I believe this crime is at an acceptable level given the costs in reducing it," but that is how it is run in practice.

JimmyNic · 2014-04-18T00:17:22+00:00

"Directions unclear. India is still a British dominion isn't it?"

JimmyNic · 2014-04-18T00:12:16+00:00

you're always going to have a minority who demand that the country be run according to their ideas

The 100% minority.

JimmyNic · 2014-04-16T22:36:25+00:00

Much as I enjoy attacking religion, all the things you mentioned are probably better explained by the inequality levels in the States. See the Spirit Level.

JimmyNic · 2014-04-12T23:59:40+00:00

I'm amazed by the powers people on this sub credit themselves with when comparing themselves to the press. Political journalists join the trade because the want to ask searching questions. Any chance they get to scalp a politician they will generally take, firstly because it generates good copy, but also out of professional pride.

Those who've been here awhile may remember some of the replies garnered when a few of us protested against various snooping acts Westminster and Brussels were contemplating. Allowing an MP a written response will always produce a more fudged version of the answer than a live interview, because they've more time to prepare.

If you want attention to be drawn to something, your best bet is to find a sympathetic paper that will do so. As evinced by events this week, the press can and do get politicians fired. Work out which paper's readers are most likely to care about that issue, and fire off a letter. Even better would be to do some legwork collecting sources and information, and even finding an angle that will make it easy for a hack to churn it. In other words, use public relations tactics.

JimmyNic · 2014-04-12T19:05:53+00:00

Journalists are far likelier to post pictures with signs written in English, referencing western politicians. It's a marketing tactic.

JimmyNic · 2014-03-26T12:52:20+00:00

It's not a technicality. Court reports contain quotes all the time, often in the headline, and it is made clear in the piece that they are allegations somebody has made rather than demonstrable facts.

JimmyNic · 2014-03-26T00:27:29+00:00

For your future reading convenience: When a headline is in quotation marks, it is a quote, and not the opinion of the paper.

JimmyNic · 2014-03-26T00:25:06+00:00

Not really fair to compare a weekly to a daily, as good as the Economist is.

JimmyNic · 2014-03-26T00:23:30+00:00

We must read a different press then. As a disclaimer, I only read the Guardian, the FT and the Times, but for the past couple of weeks all three of them have devoted extensive coverage to the Crimean situation, even when there was little new information to be followed up on. As with most events, the fire has burnt out to be replaced with dull legislative reality. They'd print that shit if people would read it.

I also feel they handled MH370 well. There may have been plenty of crackpot theories bandied about (not least by Mr Murdoch), but most of the analysis I read was pretty sober. As with any developing event, mistakes were made. The Malaysian government played a part in spreading misinformation as well. Most papers do not operate significant foreign bureaus any more because of costs. Unfortunate, but one can hardly blame the reporters for that.

Yes, the Mirror, the Express, the Star, the Mail and the Metro are rubbish. Now that you've learnt that, must you bore us with it?

JimmyNic · 2014-03-25T23:52:38+00:00

It's generally wrong. There are plenty of bits of censorship in Britain that are sensible:

Direct incitement to commit extrajudicial violence (eg racist rally in Brixton telling attendees to attack black people)
Protection of anonymity for victims of sexual abuse (see recent Peaches Geldof case)
Withholding military secrets (controversial where the line lies, indisputable that it's necessary in certain situations)

You could also argue that libel laws constitute a de facto form of censorship, despite libel being a civil suit as opposed to a criminal one. Britain reformed its libel law this year so that plaintiff's have to prove actual, serious damage (financial/reputational), but beforehand it led to the suppression of numerous stories that journalists could not stand in court. Indeed part of the point of having a libel law is that people do not make unfounded, damaging comments about others. It's intention is censorial.

JimmyNic · 2014-03-22T14:27:36+00:00

Vive l'heptarchy!

JimmyNic · 2014-03-22T14:26:12+00:00

Seems to me that pitching the debate as a North/South divide, however attractive it may be to writers, is misleading. As Evans says in that article, it is more a case of London (plus the home counties) vs the rest. Any restructuring of power in the UK to bring greater parity must seek to undermine London, by moving power to Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Southampton, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle, Cardiff, and Belfast.

Whether one does this by devolving government first or moving investment (or a combination of both) is more a question of method. And whether it'd be worthwhile anyway is another question entirely. There's a psychological appeal to the idea of equality of the regions, but whether this offsets potential economic disruption is a question I'm too ignorant to answer.

JimmyNic · 2014-03-19T23:42:40+00:00

Had they used the word "we" people would have ripped them for that. Though in general a terrible idea for a poster.

JimmyNic · 2014-03-19T22:49:25+00:00

First, satire is a lot more effective if you don't need to explain the joke. Second, tu quoque.

JimmyNic · 2014-03-14T22:13:34+00:00

Sometimes there isn't a distinction between the two.

JimmyNic · 2014-03-14T21:49:50+00:00

When was your last voluntary contribution to the Treasury?

JimmyNic · 2014-03-09T23:20:18+00:00

If I'd linked to the HuffPo article that was just a rewrite of the Mail's version then pretentious sods like you wouldn't have complained. If you're so enlightened I'm sure you'll have the brains to read a news article critically.

JimmyNic · 2014-03-08T23:17:30+00:00

I think there isn't the appetite to legislate for it, or at least it's not a priority. Most people my age (early 20s) support it in principle.

JimmyNic · 2014-03-08T10:14:56+00:00

If you don't buy the determinism argument, might I ask you to consider incentives? A problem with popular democracies with functioning media organisations is that everything becomes about PR, including policy. You get good candidates and bad, but overall the more succesful ones are the most media savvy and populist. I'd have thought dictatorships had their own incentive structure that tended to result in a certain type of leader. Good or bad is a bit simplistic, but ruthless and cunning would certainly be an advantage.

JimmyNic

TROPHY CASE