No mainstream party is coming out of this with their head held high. That said, I don’t think voters expect a party leader to be able to control the hidden actions of their MPs. What the voters want to see is someone taking seriously decisive action once the appalling behaviour is exposed.

From what I’ve seen, Cameron has done fairly well, Brown has done fairly badly and Clegg has done absolutely nothing.

What has Cameron done or said that Brown hasn’t equalled or gone further on?

Brown has actually set up a discplinary procedure while Cameron has made PR out of calling for Viggers to stand down when he was standing down anyway.

btw, I don’t think any party has gone far enough, and I’d rather try and get my own party to go further than compete with Tories over spinning the action that has been taken, but couldn’t let LfAT’s nonsense go unchallenged.

[1] I don’t think you can describe calling for the Speaker’s resignation (and getting it) as “absolutely nothing”, LFaT. It was a high-risk strategy that paid off – maybe Cleggy isn’t such a dweeb after all…

We need to stop and think about what’s going on in our politics. The Barclay brothers, who own the Daily Telegraph, are throwing smears all over the place, in an attempt to drive the electorate into the hands of BNP/UKIP. (I recommend the excellent Libertas video if anyone wants to know about UKIP’s ethics).

I can’t stand the politicians in charge of our country. We desperately need reform. Gordon Brown is an obnoxious cretin and Nadine Dorries is an arse, but even though we’re all enjoying attacking them, we should not fall into this trap. The Barclays tried to take over Sark and they’re trying it here. Someone needs to point the finger at this naked emperor and do it before we hold an election.

“We need to stop and think about what’s going on in our politics. The Barclay brothers, who own the Daily Telegraph, are throwing smears all over the place, in an attempt to drive the electorate into the hands of BNP/UKIP. ”

Are you Nadine Dorries in disguise?

Anyone hear Little Dorries on Today this morning? She was very concerned that the probable outcome of the expenses revelations is mass suicide amongst MPs. However, true to form she also managed to put the boot into the interviewer when the latter suggested that Dorries had just said that in fact it was OK for MPs to spend their allowances on anything they liked.

Re. Blears, if the ‘I’m working-class, me’ line fails, and ‘sexism’ doesn’t work, her allies can always argue it’s because she’s ginger.

As for Nadine Dorries: she’s clearly trying to misdirect everyone with an ‘MP Suicide Watch’, when the more interesting ‘story’ is her claim that ‘everyone’ knew (but the media didn’t report it, no not even the ‘waste’-phobic right-wing press) and that the allowance was effectively a tax-free lump sum of £24K to spend like pocket money – which she doesn’t seem to realise makes things worse.

“We need to stop and think about what’s going on in our politics. The Barclay brothers, who own the Daily Telegraph, are throwing smears all over the place, in an attempt to drive the electorate into the hands of BNP/UKIP”

What is it with the Left and their preoccupation with the media? For about a century there has been this meme on the Left that all their troubles can be traced back to a right-wing media. If only the right wing media could be stopped, then the public would stop falling for their lies….ad infinitum. Inherent in this is the assumption that the general public are a cretinous mass (lumpen proletariat?) who are led by the nose by these cackling arch-reactionaries. This is a microcosm of the Left’s more general flaw of being inherently suspicious of the general public and wanting to abstract decision-making away from the public and into smaller, ideologically pure, elites.

Really, guys, you would do so much better at the polls if you learned to trust the public and not treat them like morons. We can tell you know…

Finally, there is a supreme irony in these wails about right-wing newspapers with relatively low circulation when the BBC, with its liberal-left agenda, is massively larger and massively more influential and reaches million upon million every day through it’s vast multimedia network. It squats like a toad on top of all political commentary and analysis in this country.

And no one forces people to buy the Telegraph – unlike the BBC.

#9 your comment is self-contradictory.

BBC viewership figures are much higher than ITN or Sky or any of its rivals whether on terrestrial or digital. I wish right-wingers weren’t so inherently distrustful of the public, believing the “lumpen-proletariat” unquestioningly fall for the BBC’s “left-liberal lies”. People might still have to pay for it, but the BBC wouldn’t be influential if people didn’t choose to watch.

You can’t have it both ways.

Moran should definitely be axed.

“What is it with the Left and their preoccupation with the media? For about a century there has been this meme on the Left that all their troubles can be traced back to a right-wing media. If only the right wing media could be stopped, then the public would stop falling for their lies….ad infinitum. Inherent in this is the assumption that the general public are a cretinous mass (lumpen proletariat?) who are led by the nose by these cackling arch-reactionaries. This is a microcosm of the Left’s more general flaw of being inherently suspicious of the general public and wanting to abstract decision-making away from the public and into smaller, ideologically pure, elites.”

I agree, every leftie I’ve ever known has been obsessed with which paper people read, it’s because a lot of left wingers work in the media – and therefore have a vested interest in perpetuating the myth that it’s responsible for everythink from teenage pregancies to crime to how people vote – as if none of those things happened before tabloids or sky news.
Lefties in general still tend to believe in 1960s style (wholly discredited) “nurture” rather than nature explanations for behaviour.

@The Admiral and Matt Munro:

Proportion of daily Circulation of conservative leaning newspapers = circa 70pc.

Proportion of population leaning Tory at the moment = circa 40pc.

That is why “the Left” has a beef at the media.

Not forgetting the fact that the shoddy free market consensus these organs built up with the Tory Party plaything since Thatch has rammed us straight into the economic wall.

Also leave aside their rabble-rousing appeals to nationalism, xenophobia and racism (the Express’s garbage front page today a classic case-in-point).

The quicker the Expenses row ushers in Proportional Representation the better. No more unchecked rightwing Tory government, no more damaging rightwing tabloid influence on public discourse.

What about the BBC ? Monpoly on public sector broadcasting and webnews ? Newspaper circulation in freefall and the blogshere dominated by the (soft) left. The left have always had a tenous grasp of cause/effect and can’t seem to understand that people read papers which are congruent with their established views.

If I went out tomorrow and bought a fishing magazine would I become a fisherman overnight ? Probably not. But I am a mountain biker so I buy mountain biking magazines.

The idiot Steen is going and will be forgotten by the weekend.
Purnell, Hoon – and “unacceptable” Blears – are still there.
And why?
Because Brown is weak, weak, weak.

“Lefties in general still tend to believe in 1960s style (wholly discredited) “nurture” rather than nature explanations for behaviour.”

Just, wow. Anyone who isn’t completely fucking moronic can surely see that both are important… can’t they…?

Finally, there is a supreme irony in these wails about right-wing newspapers with relatively low circulation when the BBC, with its liberal-left agenda

I find it ironic that rightwingers keep saying left-wingers are complaining about media bias, while simultaneously whining that the BBC isn’t right-wing enough for them.

Anyway – I’ll hold up my hand and say I think the Telegraph should be applauded for these stories. Of course I would have preferred it if the Guardian ran them but it’ll do. Better than some govt committee.

John B – Science is, on an almost daily and usually supressed basis, showing that nurture is increasingly unimportant, like so much white noise if you like. Both are necessary, obviously, in the sense that you can’t have one without the other, but nature trumps nurture every time,

John B – Science is, on an almost daily and usually supressed basis, showing that nurture is increasingly unimportant, like so much white noise if you like. Both are necessary, obviously, in the sense that you can’t have one without the other, but nature trumps nurture every time,

Do you have some examples of this?

(sorry, my last post should’ve had quotes around the first para)

An obvious example – the school building (academy) programme. The government did not produce any research showing that there is a correlation between the age/design of the school buildings and the results of the pupils. They didn’t because there isn’t any. Obvious really if you consider that Eton, Oxford and Cambridge were built in the 16th century and most comprehensives were built post 1960.
There is, however, a wealth of evidence that intelligence is largely inherited and that school age, equipment, even the ability of the teachers makes almost no difference to outcomes.
This same tabula rasa logic is applied by the left to differences between the sexes – pretending there aren’t any or claiming they are entirely socially constructed – despite massive evidence of universal pysiological, biological, psychological, perceptual and behavioural difference that hold in all known cultures

It’s got to the point where psychology undergraduates, find themselves ostracised if they mention the words “innate” and “diference” in the same sentence

If you want some hardcore research – not exacly current admittedly – then try googling Sameroff what he shows basically is that “nurture” is really just nature seen from a different perspectice.

@Matt Munro

More psuedo psychobabble nonsense.

Certainly intelligence is partly inherited, but more important than that is the learning “styles” that are also genetically determined.

Education today is able to reach far more youngsters thanks to decades of research into pedagogy and delivery of subject matter. This research incorporates a wealth of techniques, material, equipment, the breadth of which you will have little understanding.

Conservatives have a far-too-simplstic understanding of education (as on most matters, in fact). Too often reactionary knee-jerk fatalism like yours (oh, it’s all inherited so it doesn’t matter anyway) reigns supreme. That is why education is not safe in the hands of contemporary conservatism.

Sy@19, no, he doesn’t, but that’s because they’ve been suppressed.

Matt@21 none of that proves anything about the relative importance of nature vs nurture. To support your thesis, you’d need to show that kids from underclass backgrounds, adopted at birth by toffs, did little better in life than underclass kids. In actual studies, they don’t: they do slightly worse than toff kids.

@22 well said

“There is, however, a wealth of evidence that intelligence is largely inherited and that school age, equipment, even the ability of the teachers makes almost no difference to outcomes.
This same tabula rasa logic is applied by the left to differences between the sexes – pretending there aren’t any or claiming they are entirely socially constructed – despite massive evidence of universal pysiological, biological, psychological, perceptual and behavioural difference that hold in all known cultures”

Dude, I see where you are coming from but I think you are missing the point about social construction. We know there are natural differences between the sexes, but would you say that makes women genetically pre-disposed to wear dresses, to cook, to stay in domestic work rather than work for pay? That would be rubbish, considering things like that are obviously the consequence of relatively contingent historical conditions – things like the public/private distinction which varies from culture to culture and doesn’t even exist in all of them. With that in mind, you have to consider the possibility that social arrangements and norms might subject people to behave in certain ways. Obviously genes interact with this, but the fact that ways of living vary so much should indicate that they are hardly determinant.

It is rather like the way you used to get (and still get a handful) of conservatives who think that some people are naturally poor, due to having certain vices or inabilities. That there are natural differences in outcomes and status. Of course, it is rubbish. We are ALL naturally poor (since poverty is what you get when nothing much is happening), and the fact that hardly anyone is poor in this society indicates that institutions (including certain forms of nurture) can work to make people more prosperous.

[14] Matt, you assume that people buy newspapers priarily to read the political news in them. It’s not what their marketing departments think.

BEN-M Oh dear oh dear, there’s no such thing as a “learning style” – that’s progressive eductaion psychobabble to cover up bad teaching and/or stupid kids. 36 kids in a class, what you gonna do teach 36 different ways ? Believe it or not I’m actually quite well educated , because my parents got me into a grammar school and away from the progressive comprehensive system of the 60s and 70s which was full of prats like you, spouting crap like you are, even then. Ask my brother about it, all he learned at school was to call the teacher “Dave” and something called citizenship (called Social and Personal health or something now), a generation of kids had their life chances wasted because of people like you.

John B – how do you explain the Royal family then – they have the best eductaion money can buy, and have done for generations, yet none are rocket scientists ? I guess it depends what “actual studies” you read………….

“but would you say that makes women genetically pre-disposed to wear dresses, to cook, to stay in domestic work rather than work for pay?”

Er seeing as thats what they’ve done for centuries, then yes I would say that, absolutely. Social constructions are simply the ways that society finds to acomodate innate preferences. And the direction of effect is the same in all cultures, despite some obvious and less obvious differences in actual roles, men predominatly provide and women predominatly raise families.

“That there are natural differences in outcomes and status. Of course, it is rubbish”.

Er so why has every human (and almost all animal) societies in history had a hierarchy ?

And most adoption studies show that intelligence is largely inependent of environment

Centuries? Men were in tights just a couple of hundred years ago!

Even if hierarchies have some innate likelihood of emergence, the content of the hierarchy is very changeable. For example, you might get the toughest, or the cleverest or most attractive or most productive (in some socially defined way) fulfilling top roles depending on the society. So some specific individual being at the top cannot be said to be in anyway natural. It depends on how their features and strategies are valued.

People who believe in nature over nurture have bad genes.

This Munro chap is a complete lunatic – whether he has good genes or bad genes.

I’d enjoy reading a single scientific study in a peer assessed journal not underpinned by the radical Right that supports his contention that nurture has no role to play. Actually over the last several years, figures like Judith Harris have been arguing that we need to move away from a definition of “nurture” that is solely limited to the effects of the family and towards a definition that admits of the radical influence that is had by peer groups and other economic factors.

Moreover, the argumentation which Munro advances as regards academies is fallacious. I’m opposed to Academies, but the age/design of the buildings are not the only thing which the government has aimed at by Building Schools for the Future. And even if it were, the idea that simply because there is no correlation between school age/design and academic performance, we can toss out all ‘nurture’ is ludicrous. Actually a much more important aspect of nurture in the education debate comes under the heading of contextual value added.

This is a measure of how well kids do based on a set of socio-economic data. You can get access to all this information publicly – ask for your local school’s Transformation Plan and assorted documentation. Every school compiles one for Ofsted, and it takes a year or so of detailed research – including the socio-economic composition of the students. The results from the collation of studies like these and other independent academic studies is that we know there is a close degree of correlation between academic achievement and where one falls on the socio-economic scales.

In fact, we measure how effective schools are on the basis of the achievement they inspire on average in their students set against what an average student from the local socio-economic background might be expected to achieve. All of this is about nurture, and absolutely none of it is about nature – sure some kids will be born more intelligent than others – but the measure of any system of “nurture” is what it inspires in each child beyond what they might otherwise achieve given their genetically-ordained abilities.

The real problem for Cameron is his only tactic has been to convince people that the Tory party has changed. Of course, anyone with half a brain and who follows politics knows full well that the Tories have not changed one jot. They are still the nasty party, full of arrogant, privileged hypocrites that believe they have both a divine right to rule ,and a a huge sense of entitlement.

The only good thing about this scandal is that some Tory Mps have decided to remind the general public what a bunch of greedy morons they are.

But it could get very interesting if some Tory MPs decide to stay on, and the local parties back them.. I still don’t believe that a single Tory will be voted out because of this.

If intelligence is not innate how do we account for this sort of thing? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-463539/Two-year-old-Matilda-youngest-girl-Mensa.html
(genuine question by the way)

Performance in school [or exams] does not necessarily measure intelligence – or put another way, there are probably some very bright kids who (for one reason or another) do not perform very well at school.

If nurture (predominately) DOES account for intelligence then presumably we would see the highest concentration of clever children in affluent areas since parents have far greater resources compared to those in impoverished areas – I’m not sure that that is the case though?

It always makes me laugh when the tory trolls try and pretend that the media support of their party has no effect on elections. I mean, how stupid can some people be?

For a very short period of time in the 1990s the Tory party got a taste of their own medicine as the Tory press turned on John Major. Day after day they attacked this pathetic man, and the result? Well, a landslide Labour win and the Tory party reduced to about 30-32% of the vote. Prior to that the previous 4 elections had been conducted with a rabid frothing at the mouth Tory press directing all its fire on the Labour party; Result 4 Tory wins. There was a short period in the early 1980s when the SDP/Liberal party climbed to over 50% in the polls. But then The Tory media went to work for about 18 months of constant attacks day after day, until they had destroyed any thought of a new age in politics.

In the 1974 election the Tory party was very lukewarm in it’s support of Ted Heath. Murdoch had just taken over the Sun and had yet to swing it in behind the Tory party. As a result The Labour party was able to win a very narrow election. If the media is so unimportant, why is it that whenever there is a revolution in a country the first thing that is secured is the TV and radio channels?

No one is saying that intelligence is not innate.

What I am driving at is that Matt Munro clearly hasn’t a clue. If society exists to accommodate innate tendencies, then his accusation that “progressive” methods of teaching (whatever those are!) have wasted the life chances of our youth is meaningless. After all, if we take his world view, just as women should stay in the kitchen since that is the practice of centuries (it isn’t, incidentally), then education is predetermined by “innate tendencies” also and all the education system does is rubber stamp the series of innate tendencies. His argument is self-contradictory.

Intelligence is innate, but just as wood has innate properties, what that innate property is used for is not a property of the wood. Each is socially mediated. This is where Munro’s argument is lamentably ill-equipped.

Dave Semple – you are obviously a deep thinker, with strongly held opinions, who I suspect works for nu labour or is closely aligned to them – so asking me to cite “unbiased reasearch” (there’s no such thing) when you are exibiting bias yourself is ludicrous

“contextual value added”.

And what might that mean, apart from a statistical smoke and mirrors trick ?

I send my kids to school, and pay the taxes, to get them an education that will get them a good job, not to have “contextual value added” measured by some frustrated marxist with a denim jacket and a guilt complex thanks all the same.

“I’d enjoy reading a single scientific study in a peer assessed journal not underpinned by the radical Right that supports his contention that nurture has no role to play”

Er ever heard of Charles Darwin ? Yes, he has a nurture role (one cannot exist without the other) but he’s ever so slightly saying that nature holds the whip hand wouldn’t you say ? I never said NO role for nurture anyway.

“The results from the collation of studies like these and other independent academic studies is that we know there is a close degree of correlation between academic achievement and where one falls on the socio-economic scales.”

Oh, so it turns out that poor people don’t do as well as school as rich people ??? What a ground breaking piece of reasearch that was – I think Bowlby spotted that in the 1950s and he wasn’t the first………….

You’ll also doubtless be aware of research showing that parental aspiration is the biggest determinant of eductaional outcomes then ?

“In fact, we measure how effective schools are on the basis of the achievement they inspire on average in their students set against what an average student from the local socio-economic background might be expected to achieve”

So you lower standards and then fiddle the stats so it looks like the worst schools are actually doing ok ?

Has it ever occured to you that people may end up in the lower socio economic strata precisely *because* of their genes ??

The idea that people like you still have any involment whasover in educational policy would worry me if it weren’t for the fact that by the time my kids start senior school (where the progressives do the real damage) nulab will be in the wildreness for a generation

Dave Semple – you are obviously a deep thinker, with strongly held opinions, who I suspect works for nu labour or is closely aligned to them

Ad hominem fail

Matt – you’re not Chris Woodhead in disguise are you?

And I’m not a conservative – If I have to have a label it would be libertarian.

“Has it ever occured to you that people may end up in the lower socio economic strata precisely *because* of their genes ??”

The more Tory trolls talk, the more fascist they sound.

“And I’m not a conservative – If I have to have a label it would be libertarian.”

That settles it, I now know not to sake you seriously . There is no such thing as libertarians.

Just pretend Libertarians.

“Has it ever occured to you that people may end up in the lower socio economic strata precisely *because* of their genes ??”

“The more Tory trolls talk, the more fascist they sound.”

And your explanation is ???

Most people don’t ‘end up’ in the lower social strata, they are born there. Do you honestly think the royal family are genetically predisposed to high intelligence?

And I wouldn’t invoke Darwin here, as ‘fitness’ in evolutionary terms is a measure of reproductive success and since this is inversely proportunate to educational attainment the world would be getting dumber if differences in IQ were down to genes.

As Arthur C Clarke wrote, intelligence has yet to prove it has any survival value.

“And I’m not a conservative – If I have to have a label it would be libertarian.”

But not really my kinda libertarian.

Doesn’t this rather go against our whole idea that in the end people have a choice (and the responsibility) for what they do? We can accept that genes play a role without saying they are decisive in anything other than a handful of activities (like playing chess or something). They might set some upper boundaries on intelligence or athleticism but they are hardly the only way of evaluating people and people can be very successful without either. Knowledge of our genes just allows to achieve even more.

Sally and Matt Munro – now calm down.

I believe what Matt was saying was that those born less innately intelligent, all other things being controlled for, would be poorer (being less productive) than those born more innately intelligent. I think we can all agree on that.

However, all other things are not controlled for, the quality of education for the poorest is low and the the converse is true of those born to the well off. To ignore this contributing fact, among many many others, does seem a little reactionary.

“believe what Matt was saying was that those born less innately intelligent, all other things being controlled for, would be poorer (being less productive) than those born more innately intelligent. I think we can all agree on that.”

So how to you explain the Royal family then? I mean most of them are as thick as shit. Yet they are not poor.

And according to Mat Morons weird theories , it is really strange that all the clever people end up at Private Schools. Odd that.

I think Sally could provide the definitive case study here.

What she says is clearly “thick” and “stupid” but is she “innately” moronic?

My view is that, a) her views are indeed “thick”, “prejudiced” “weird”, etc, but that b) no one with an IQ that low would be posting on this website.

Therefore, both nurture and nature are playing a part.

#42

Actually, average IQ has been going up over the last few decades. Explain that through genetics. (Or by claiming the comprehensive system has failed children.)

@ 47: has IQ been going up? What are the figures?

Average IQ is still 100, it’s just been revised upwards for the last few decades.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

Better nutrition causes IQ to develop better etc.

sally, I even tried to make it obvious:

“I believe what Matt was saying was that those born less innately intelligent, all other things being controlled for, would be poorer (being less productive) than those born more innately intelligent. I think we can all agree on that.”

“I believe what Matt was saying was that those born less innately intelligent, all other things being controlled for, would be poorer (being less productive) than those born more innately intelligent. I think we can all agree on that.”

Two words.

“David”, and “Beckham”.

People who are born inately less intelligent would only be poorer in a society which rewards particular forms of intelligence over others, and given the exploitative nature of capitalism and the aggressiveness you need to succeed, capitalism rewards those of low emotional intelligence. Most rich people get there either by being cunts or by being born rich because their parents were cunts.

if they cannot manage their own parties,how can they manage the country?

“Actually, average IQ has been going up over the last few decades. Explain that through genetics. (Or by claiming the comprehensive system has failed children.)”

IQ is based on a particular kind of verbal reasoning which people have to be inducted into before they can really excel at it. It is not necessarily all that useful a skill to have from day to day or an especially good measure of general intelligence imho.

“People who are born inately less intelligent would only be poorer in a society which rewards particular forms of intelligence over others, and given the exploitative nature of capitalism and the aggressiveness you need to succeed, capitalism rewards those of low emotional intelligence. Most rich people get there either by being cunts or by being born rich because their parents were cunts.”

I disagree. EQ, if it means anything, is what politicians have in spades. They know exactly how to manipulate a social situation to make sure they come out in an advantageous. I imagine most business people can’t get too far without it either.

#53 I agree.