Boris Johnny

[Tridimity]

Well, I didn't think it would be possible to despise Boris Johnson any more than I already did, and then he goes and says this:

 

Mr Johnson said in a speech that 16% "of our species" have an IQ below 85, and called for more to be done to help the brightest people in the country.

 

The IQ statistics are fact but we ought to be helping all, irrespective of intellectual ability, to mesh into society by contributing to the human endaevour in a role to which they are suited and contented. People ought not be disrespected just because they score in the lower range of an IQ test.

But Mr Clegg said it was "fairly unpleasant" to talk about people "as if we are a breed of dogs". The Lib Dem leader said people should be encouraged and not told to give up. Speaking on his weekly LBC radio phone-in he said that the danger of such a "deterministic" view of people based on their IQ was "complete anathema to everything I have stood for in politics". Mr Johnson made his comments as he delivered the Centre for Policy Studies' annual Margaret Thatcher lecture. He defended the importance of "boardroom greed" and "some measure of inequality" as a spur to economic activity at a time when the income gap between those at the top and those at the bottom was getting ever wider.

Boardroom greed leads to the inefficient allocation of resources and the over-resourcing of some at the expense of others. Greed leads to inequality and numerous academic studies have shown that socioeconomic inequality is a driving force for unhappiness in society.

He said that any discussion about equality had to take account of the fact that people had different IQ levels, adding: "The harder you shake the pack, the easier it will be for some cornflakes to get to the top." "I am afraid that violent economic centrifuge is operating on human beings who are already very far from equal in raw ability, if not spiritual worth," Mr Johnson said.

Spiritual worth! So now Johnny is a decider of spiritual worth! Funny - from his comments, I wouldn't wish to touch his spirit with a barge-pole.

Commenting on the mayor's speech, Mr Clegg said: "Much though he is a funny and engaging guy, I think these comments reveal a fairly unpleasant, careless elitism that suggests we should somehow give up on a whole swathe of our fellow citizens." He said politicians should be "instilling an opportunity culture" rather than sending out such a "dispiriting" message. "Our job in politics is surely not to simply say we are going to hive off one bunch of people and put them in one category and kind of basically say they are parked and that there is not much we can do about them." Mr Johnson's speech has been widely reported as an attempt to shore up his position with the Conservative right and stake his claim as Lady Thatcher's political heir. He argued that a new generation of "Gordon Gekkos" - a reference to the character in the film Wall Street whose mantra was "greed is good" - should do more to help the wider population but that their greed was a "valid motivator". "For one reason or another - boardroom greed or, as I am assured, the natural and God-given talent of boardroom inhabitants - the income gap between the top cornflakes and the bottom cornflakes is getting wider than ever," he said.

i. God does not exist, so 'God-given' makes no more sense than 'Leprechaun-given'

ii. Innate differences in ability do exist, but this is not a reason to promote societal divide into the haves-and-have nots. The division is a result of right wing policies being implemented by his very own party! IQ and raw ability sometimes does not even correlate with socioeconomic standing.

"I stress, I don't believe that economic equality is possible; indeed, some measure of inequality is essential for the spirit of envy and keeping up with the Joneses that is, like greed, a valuable spur to economic activity."

 

Feelings of envy actually make people feel unhappy and are symptomatic of a real or perceived injustice in resource allocation and/or self-worth. Envy is not something that should be promoted - much less by a person in a position of responsibility. 'Keeping up with the Joneses' and greed are the two attitudes that fuelled our country's consumer credit culture - that ultimately brought the country to its knees. Inequality breeds class warfare and results in most people alternately wishing to be of a higher social class while simultaneously feeling vitriol against the priveleged who will not marry into them or accept them socially. So they go out and buy junk that they cannot afford in reality in the hopes that others might deem them of higher social standing. Well - I don't have much material wealth but I don't give a fuck. I would rather socialise with people who accept me for who I am not what I have.

Prime Minister David Cameron's official spokesman said: "I don't know whether he has read Boris's speech but what I do know is the PM's view about the importance of equality of opportunity. "When it comes to the PM's views around the importance of an entrepreneurial economy he gave a speech on the subject recently at the Mansion House," he added. In his speech, the London mayor advocated a new generation of grammar schools, describing academic competition between children as a "most powerful utensil of academic improvement". While acknowledging the former PM had closed many such schools, he suggested she would have found a way to bring them back under a different guise "to help bright children everywhere to overcome their background".

 

Did anybody stop to consider that perhaps even the most able people of working class background do not want to overcome their original culture? It is possible to be a self-made millionaire and yet to sympathise wholly with the underpriveleged and to wish to keep alive that working class spirit that is characterised by a camaraderie that is extinguished once you dip your toe into the upper middle class world.

Edited November 28, 2013 by Tridimity

[John Cuthber]

The idiot also said

"The growing gulf between rich and poor is inevitable because millions of people are too stupid to get on in life,."

Damn! I wish I had been clever enough to be born into a millionaire aristocratic family like Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson's. How foolish of me not to arrange that.

 

Obviously my fault, as I wasn't paying attention at the time.

[Tridimity]

The idiot also said

"The growing gulf between rich and poor is inevitable because millions of people are too stupid to get on in life,."

Damn! I wish I had been clever enough to be born into a millionaire aristocratic family like Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson's. How foolish of me not to arrange that.

 

Obviously my fault, as I wasn't paying attention at the time.

 

Exactly!

 

If the effect of environment on education and employment prospects were not so great then we would not see News stories like this one:

 

A 60-year-old man switched at birth from his rich parents to a poor family has been given compensation, it's reported.

The Tokyo man will be paid 32m yen ($313,265) by social welfare corporation San-Ikukai, which runs the hospital where he was born in March 1953. Hospital staff mistakenly thought he was the son of a couple whose own baby was born 13 minutes later, says the Asahi Shimbun newspaper.

The mix-up "caused mental distress by depriving him of an opportunity to gain a higher education although his original family was wealthy", said Judge Masatoshi Miyasaka. While his biological siblings - and the boy brought up in his place - attended private high schools and universities, the unnamed man grew up in a family reliant on welfare. He graduated from junior high school and now works as a truck driver.

The compensation also covers the fact that he was denied contact with his family for almost six decades. The switch was only uncovered after his biological parents died. Their sons, who realised their oldest brother looked different to the rest of the family, began to investigate hospital records. A DNA test in 2009 confirmed the Tokyo man was indeed a blood relative.

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-25136472

 

Given enough time and financial investment (and familial connections), even stupid rich people will eventually out-compete intelligent poor people. It is possible for those of low socioeconomic standing to secure a high quality education and lucrative employment but it is far more difficult for them to do so. The working classes must necessarily prioritise survival - not gamble their small amounts of wealth on a higher education that may or may not pay off in the long run.

Edited November 28, 2013 by Tridimity

[Ophiolite]

As a bona fide, tree hugging, left wing, liberal leaning, green socialist let me say that you are both indulging in a knee jerk reaction that does neither you nor your argument any credit.

 

Let us take a single point from those you have objected to.

While acknowledging the former PM had closed many such schools, he suggested she would have found a way to bring them back under a different guise "to help bright children everywhere to overcome their background".

So, you do not want to help bright children overcome the fact that they might live in squalor, or that their parents have no interest in education, that their peers openly laugh at those who are knowledgeable, that they attend schools with insufficient funding and a demoralised staff? Apparently so, for you attack Boris for making the suggestion that such children should be helped to overcome those difficulties of their background.

 

For the record, I think Boris's public responsibilities should be limited to quarterly appearances on Have I Got News For You.

[Tridimity]

So, you do not want to help bright children overcome the fact that they might live in squalor, or that their parents have no interest in education, that their peers openly laugh at those who are knowledgeable, that they attend schools with insufficient funding and a demoralised staff? Apparently so, for you attack Boris for making the suggestion that such children should be helped to overcome those difficulties of their background.

 

 

Ophi, while I appreciate your point that Johnson's championing of the intellectually superior but socioeconomically deprived, is venerable - my main two points of contention are:

 

i. We should be helping all socioeconomically deprived people - the intellectually gifted, mediocre and challenged - to prosper and to succeed in life, in the context of whatever the deprived perceive 'success' to be. We should be helping all individuals to fulfill a role in society that they are capable of doing and are genuinely happy to do. Mutual respect ought to pervade the priveleged and underpriveleged with all recognising that, irrespective of income, they are all united in the fact that they are contributing in a positive way to society. This would go a long way towards ending class warfare.

ii. While I agree with you that it is desirable to remove the talented unerpriveleged from certain aspects of their respective backgrounds, e.g. the negative attitudes towards education and the sheer lack of resources, I certainly would not condone alienating people from their roots and from the spirit of their original community. Their original community and culture will have formed an integral part of that person's identity. That working class camaraderie is not contigent upon one's subsequent material fortune in life. There are certain life lessons and cultural treasures that result from the impoverishment of the working and dependent classes - the mere fact of having little means that the sacrifices one makes for others and the community are all the more meaningful. Do you know what I mean? Wherever I go in life I would not like to think that when I return to my hometown I would be unable to relate to its people because some poxy circumstance or money has ruined the one sympathy that is worth anything. In this sense, I sincerely hope that the intelligent underpriveleged do not 'overcome their background'.

Edited December 2, 2013 by Tridimity

[CharonY]

I fail to see how it is an advantage or categorize societies into different groups and assign them positions within those. Why should background matter? Should you not become a carpenter if you enjoy the work but come from a white-collar family? Shouldn't education not enrich everyone's life regardless of actually applicability to a certain career? Should we not provide children the opportunity to succeed in whatever they want to achieve regardless of where they come from? And doesn't require to teach them the opportunities that exist?

 

I think there is a strong romanticized view of the "impoverished" working class present in the post that is a bit remote from reality. Certain working class jobs have a better salary than academics for example (certainly so early in the career), so I do not think that income is a big issue here. The background of a person forms his/her history but should not determine his/her future.

[Tridimity]

CharonY,

 

Absolutely, I agree with all of your points made here. Any time an individual's autonomy in determining their own destiny is undermined by others (either well-intentioned family members, peer pressure, societal judgment, and amorphous agents such as socioeconomic background), it is a regrettable occurrence. Hot-housing of children by pushy and well-connected socioeconomically priveleged parents may be the most efficient means of extinguishing that child's interest in the subject or occupation. The moment a parent intimates that they will not feel proud of their son/daughter unless (s)he pursues a certain occupation (e.g. the field of Medicine as passed, almost inexorably, from father to son) is, I think, the moment they have failed as a parent. The child may have had a natural inclination towards Medicine anyhow - but it is the parent's role, I think, to expose children to as many different potential occupational options as possible and to subsequently support their child in whichever field the child decides upon for him- or her-self.

 

Tri

Edited December 2, 2013 by Tridimity

[John Cuthber]

... you attack Boris for making the suggestion that such children should be helped to overcome those difficulties of their background.

 

 

Exactly where did BJ say that?

 

There were some meaningless political weasel words about " a way to bring them back under a different guise"

but actions speak a lot louder than words. Boris and his party have been trashing the education system relentlessly.

 

If you want to improve the education of those from impoverished backgrounds, you don't do it by making things worse for them.

[jduff]

You would expect more? Coming up on 9 billion people by 2020. It is like some think it should not be! How we all live in our little bubbles with all the disingenuous commentary

 

 

Well at least I know something is coming true. This pic expresses it best!