Boris: Housing, the Economy, and Everything..

Loughton_Monkey

It is not often that I thank Cleggie. But I glanced at a snippet in which he accused Boris of "Careless Elitism" just because he mentioned some facts about the IQ "of our species".

I quickly ascertained that Boris had delivered the annual "Margaret Thatcher" lecture to the Centre for Policy Studies. Had Cleggie kept his big mouth shut, I probably would never have known.

Boris's full lecture (15 pages) is here....

http://www.cps.org.uk/files/factsheets/original/131127181634-BorisJohnsonMargaretThatcherlecture.pdf

I sat here and read every single word. Trying to be offended. Trying to find ammunition with which to "rubbish" Boris. But all I saw was a wonderful 'Election Speech' and plain common sense. I have so far rejected any notion that Boris would oust Cameron as some fanciful joke. Cameron's an idiot, and Boris is a bumbling idiot....

But when the written word (of Boris) is allowed to come forward, I get the feeling that he is a true contender. I found little to disagree with, and everything that is 'missing' in Cameron's wolverine words, but mouse-like action.

I thoroughly recommend it as a good read. Read every word. Have a dictionary at your side. Enjoy!

Out,_Vile_Jelly

Like all of Johnson's speeches it's a) very well written and b) really all about Boris and how great he is.

He is quite right to point out that capitalism is our least worst option and that there are no viable alternatives in the offing, but doesn't mention the increased menace of corporatism and how pathetically governments fawn and simper at the behest of global monopolies (especially in London, where we all have to endure Middle Eastern willy-waving like the Shard).

I also thought the stuff about IQs was misjudged. Are IQs even used much in general British life? They're certainly not relevant for university entrance or running a business.

What did you need a dictionary for incidentally? I did like the Piers Morgan dig.

grizzly1911

I used to think Boris would be interesting as a contender.

I now believ he would be a big mistake.

Generali

Certainly those writing off Boris as a fool or a clown should reconsider. That a Tory managed to win London at all shows that he's a pretty decent operator.

Boris has a knack of appealing to the Tory core while not offending the 'Mondeo Man' type. Of course Labour voters hate him (especially the Class Warriors) but they're hardly going to vote for any Tory.

Kennyboy66

Generali wrote: »

Certainly those writing off Boris as a fool or a clown should reconsider. That a Tory managed to win London at all shows that he's a pretty decent operator.

Boris has a knack of appealing to the Tory core while not offending the 'Mondeo Man' type. Of course Labour voters hate him (especially the Class Warriors) but they're hardly going to vote for any Tory.

Steven "shagger" Norris* managed 45% in 2004, so I'm not sure a tory winning London is that impressive.

He seems the perfect 21st politician. No beliefs, bends with the wind and obsessed with his own image.





* I was amazed to see that he is not only a scouser but an Evertonian.

Loughton_Monkey

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

Like all of Johnson's speeches it's a) very well written and b) really all about Boris and how great he is.

He is quite right to point out that capitalism is our least worst option and that there are no viable alternatives in the offing, but doesn't mention the increased menace of corporatism and how pathetically governments fawn and simper at the behest of global monopolies (especially in London, where we all have to endure Middle Eastern willy-waving like the Shard).

I also thought the stuff about IQs was misjudged. Are IQs even used much in general British life? They're certainly not relevant for university entrance or running a business.

What did you need a dictionary for incidentally? I did like the Piers Morgan dig.

Specifically:

Stakhanovites
Cojones
Eupeptically
Schwerpunkt

Despite a grammar school education, these are not in my everyday vocabulary. If they are in yours then I applaud you.

I agree use of IQ itself is in decline, but it is simply an objective measure. For example, to be below 70 means you are amongst the lowest 2.5% of the population in the intelligence stakes.

Doesn't mean you can't run a business, and doesn't (in itself) mean you won't get to Cambridge [look at Prince Charles for proof]. But in all honesty, you are most unlikely to....

My take on it was that Boris was effectively stating the fact that 16% are below 85 [do you disagree?], and in order for some of these to rise to the top, we must "shake the pack". Quite a positive remark. I'd be interested to know exactly why you think that was 'misjudged'? Should we not shake the pack and let them stay at the bottom? Or should we 'pretend' that people below 85 IQ don't exist and ignore them? Or should we recognise them, but simply use a euphemism like "ADHD" or "Special Needs" or "Educationally Challenged"?

To me that's the same as refusing to refer to immigration, but to say "net migration". Or [worse] refer to immigrants as "Ethnic Minorities".

It reminds me, a bit, of Thatcher's "No such thing as society" comment - so vilified by the media at the time. When you read the actual words, and the actual context of the question she was asked, her sentiment was 'spot on' and in tune with most of the population who understand what she was saying.

grizzly1911

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

My take on it was that Boris was effectively stating the fact that 16% are below 85 [do you disagree?], and in order for some of these to rise to the top, we must "shake the pack". Quite a positive remark. I'd be interested to know exactly why you think that was 'misjudged'? Should we not shake the pack and let them stay at the bottom? Or should we 'pretend' that people below 85 IQ don't exist and ignore them? Or should we recognise them, but simply use a euphemism like "ADHD" or "Special Needs" or "Educationally Challenged"?

It all depends how the words are interpreted.

In shaking the pack the low IQs may simply be shuffled into a compartment and the higher IQs set free without being constrained.

There is nothing specific to say that the lower cornflakes will get to the top only some cornflakes.

TruckerT

Well, I read the first few pages, and, frankly, I found it boring. Thatcher was so long ago that we might as well hark back to the good old days of Henry V111, or Julius Caesar.


I didn't get that far, but I'm not surprised that the only bit the media found worth reporting was the bit about different people having different strengths and weaknesses.


It is not at all uncommon, in this age of 'targets', for the people in charge to bemoan the fact there are quite a lot of individual establishments (schools, hospitals, etc etc) which are below average. They don't seem to understand that, by definition, there will always be individuals who are below average, and there will always be individuals who are above average.


That principle applies to any grouping which is imaginable. I think it is extremely likely that Boris Johnson would be extremely below average in the job of Truck Driver, just as I think I would stand no chance at all of achieving any kind of success as a politician.


But the truck driver classes and the politician classes are becoming increasingly entrenched in their own positions by the widening gap in educational opportunities, cultural opportunities, travel opportunities and almost any other sort of opportunity which you might be able to think of (except X-Factor, of course...).

TruckerT

Loughton_Monkey

grizzly1911 wrote: »

It all depends how the words are interpreted.

In shaking the pack the low IQs may simply be shuffled into a compartment and the higher IQs set free without being constrained.

There is nothing specific to say that the lower cornflakes will get to the top only some cornflakes.

Could he have been any clearer?

"The harder you shake the pack, the easier it will be for some cornflakes to get to the top."

"To get back to my cornflake packet, I worry that there are too many cornflakes who aren't being given a good enough chance to rustle and hustle their way to the top. "

Which part of "some cornflakes" don't you don't understand?

grizzly1911

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Could he have been any clearer?

"The harder you shake the pack, the easier it will be for some cornflakes to get to the top."

"To get back to my cornflake packet, I worry that there are too many cornflakes who aren't being given a good enough chance to rustle and hustle their way to the top. "

Which part of "some cornflakes" don't you don't understand?

Some cornflakes will be high IQ some will be lowIQ.

Still doesn't say that those with the lowest IQs will be shaken to the top.

Within the box you will have highs and lows evenly spread. (Unless they have been selected placed in the box).

All shaking them may do is allow the high IQs to move to the top if they want to.

Kennyboy66

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Specifically:

Stakhanovites

.

Brian Glanville (in the Sunday Times circa 1985) once described Trevor Steven (Everton, football, association) as putting in a Stakanovite performance.

Can't imagine the phrase will be tripping from Alan Shearer's or Michael Owen's lips while they analyse a match.