Politics Thread!

[pogo]

But check the date: that report's from a year ago. Then the IMF were also warning the government its policy was wrong. And we know how that turned out: the govt. stuck its course and the IMF admitted it got it wrong:

http://www.yakyak.org/viewtopic.php?p=1606672#p1606672

[zip accident]

Intervening against natural selection would be one of the very bad ideas I was talking about.

Oh, right. So what are prisons for then?

Why don't we just let outlaws rampage.

Prisons are for criminals. I am not saying there is anything wrong with putting criminals in jail.

What you are talking about is a purge of people you call psychopaths, who have done nothing criminal. They presumably have made more money than most and/or are or were in the leadship ranks of a political party. That would be a mistake. Particularly when the result would be enacted by political leaders on opposing political leaders, and we know how that typically goes for the general public.

Psychopaths are everywhere.

By which definition of psychopath?

The internationally recognized Hare Psychopathy Checklist.

Wikipedia says 0.6 % in Britain for scoring half the possible score.

I'm sure if you set the level low enough, everyone can be depressed, or manic, or whatever aberation you want.

I've met one or two nasty people in my time, the ones I talked to had or made excuses (they may have been crap excuses, but they existed, psychopathy in the rare people who have it means not caring about excuses).

I did look at Amazon's look inside feature for that book, and most unedifying it was, there were introductions to prefaces to introductions, when you got to the actual text it burbled on for a couple of pages without saying anything significant, by which time I came to the conclusion I have better things to do with my time.

Your loss.

My saving as well. Have you seen the price on that? More than all three books of the lord of the rings.

[(o)(o)]

But check the date: that report's from a year ago. Then the IMF were also warning the government its policy was wrong. And we know how that turned out: the govt. stuck its course and the IMF admitted it got it wrong:

http://www.yakyak.org/viewtopic.php?p=1606672#p1606672

Why are you linking to yakyak when referring to the IMF? Oh I see - it's so you can pursue your "I'm right!" agenda.

Look mate, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

The OBR hasn't changed it's tune regarding those comments on growth and, believe it or not, the IMF are not dispensing the inerrant words of god. Indeed, given their history, healthy scepticism is advisable.

[(o)(o)]

What you are talking about is a purge of people you call psychopaths, who have done nothing criminal. They presumably have made more money than most and/or are or were in the leadship ranks of a political party. That would be a mistake. Particularly when the result would be enacted by political leaders on opposing political leaders, and we know how that typically goes for the general public.

Not following you here.

Are you saying it is or isn't OK for psychopaths to be in positions of power making decisions that affect others?

I'm sure if you set the level low enough, everyone can be depressed, or manic, or whatever aberation you want.

A psychopath is something quite different. They can be hard to detect interpersonally as they mimic the behaviours of regular people. Don't get hung up on the details... it's fairly non-controversial that psycopathy (by whatever diagnostic scale) is in the upper echelons of power.. it just needs to be on the agenda.

Have you seen the price on that? More than all three books of the lord of the rings.

It's freely available if you look around.. Some people believe the book is that important it needs to be widely read and are thus distributing it. It would be unwise to glibly dismiss it's widespread acclaim, however Jon Ronson covered the topic in a more accessible way should you wish to pursue that path.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovi ... reat-ceos/

[Gorecki]

INTERLUDE

In the interest of fairness post Pogo's incisive "LOL MILLIBAND LOOKS FUNNY!!!!!!" here's a dose of Gove

[zip accident]

What you are talking about is a purge of people you call psychopaths, who have done nothing criminal. They presumably have made more money than most and/or are or were in the leadship ranks of a political party. That would be a mistake. Particularly when the result would be enacted by political leaders on opposing political leaders, and we know how that typically goes for the general public.

Not following you here.

Are you saying it is or isn't OK for psychopaths to be in positions of power making decisions that affect others?

I am saying if all politicians are psychopaths, it would be a very bad idea to let the worst ones chose which of the other ones were to be cast down, because when the opposition is outlawed, what is left is a tyranny.

I'm sure if you set the level low enough, everyone can be depressed, or manic, or whatever aberation you want.

A psychopath is something quite different.

They are assessed according to how they score on a set of questions. If you set the level at one "yes" for a psychopath, everybody becomes a psychopath, if it requires all "yes"s, then psychopaths disappear. That's not about how psychopathology works, it's about how statistics works, statistics about psychopaths is still statistics.

They can be hard to detect interpersonally as they mimic the behaviours of regular people. Don't get hung up on the details... it's fairly non-controversial that psycopathy (by whatever diagnostic scale) is in the upper echelons of power.. it just needs to be on the agenda.

Try asking Mr Miliband or Mr Cameron whether they are a psychopath, and see how controversial that gets. You might be able to convince each of them that the other is, but themselves? You'd get a fat lip.

Have you seen the price on that? More than all three books of the lord of the rings.

It's freely available if you look around.. Some people believe the book is that important it needs to be widely read and are thus distributing it. It would be unwise to glibly dismiss it's widespread acclaim, however Jon Ronson covered the topic in a more accessible way should you wish to pursue that path.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovi ... reat-ceos/

Loads endlessly in Firefox, a readable page shows for one frame but it's gone the next.

[gravy]

The Jon Ronson book is a good read (as is most of his stuff) though the most interesting stuff for me was the stuff about how hard it is to classify mental health conditions and the particular problems of current systems of diagnosis.

AFAIK psycopath isn't a term used anymore by mental health professionals either but if you put it in a book title it helps sell books

[merman]

Ed Milliband's "idea" of no Jobseeker's Allowance for 18-21 year olds without training/qualification is misguided.

Iain Duncan Smith's knee-jerk portrayal of it as "a massively uncosted proposal" is rank hypocrisy of the highest order.

[pogo]

Actually makes a lot of sense, provided it's funded. Right now you can get free education up to age 19, i.e. the end of 6th form + 1 year. After that you have to pay although there are many subsidies and forms of further support. Changing it to age 21 would be straightforward and greatly simplify things for young people who have to navigate the at times arcanely complex world of FE/HE funding. And at that age if you're unable to find work further training is an obvious thing to do.

It would be expensive though. Not just the cost of education and training but you'd need to provide maintenance grants, for people's living expenses while they study. Secondary students can be expected to live at home but 19+ year olds are adults. They may have families of their own; they're not just going to the local school, the nearest suitable college may be half way across the county. They'll need somewhere to live and money for other expenses. It would not be cheap and would need to be costed.

[adam]

they'd get £57 a week training allowance - but means tested so nothing if their parents earn above a threshold

[VNVObit]

The Jon Ronson book is a good read (as is most of his stuff) though the most interesting stuff for me was the stuff about how hard it is to classify mental health conditions and the particular problems of current systems of diagnosis.

+1

Ed Milliband's "idea" of no Jobseeker's Allowance for 18-21 year olds without training/qualification is misguided.

Iain Duncan Smith's knee-jerk portrayal of it as "a massively uncosted proposal" is rank hypocrisy of the highest order.

don't believe it is necessarily misguided there is a significant problem with unskilled work going to people with skills/education. If you're an employer and you've the choice between someone who's gotten further education/training or someone who hasn't then the choice tends to be fairly easy (may need to lie down as just agreed with part of pogo's response )

Actually makes a lot of sense, provided it's funded. Right now you can get free education up to age 19, i.e. the end of 6th form + 1 year. After that you have to pay although there are many subsidies and forms of further support. Changing it to age 21 would be straightforward and greatly simplify things for young people who have to navigate the at times arcanely complex world of FE/HE funding. And at that age if you're unable to find work further training is an obvious thing to do.

It would be expensive though. Not just the cost of education and training but you'd need to provide maintenance grants, for people's living expenses while they study. Secondary students can be expected to live at home but 19+ year olds are adults. They may have families of their own; they're not just going to the local school, the nearest suitable college may be half way across the county. They'll need somewhere to live and money for other expenses. It would not be cheap and would need to be costed.

the cost of not doing it would also need to be costed (i.e. a true cost/benefit analysis). Tories are tremendously good at talking about costing as if that was the sole basis on which to make a decision with no regard to benefit (the Affordable Housing/Increase in Housing Benefit stupidity comes readily to mind). Then there's the tendency to overshoot these costings (IDS and Gove have been responsible for doing so on their pet projects) with no acceptance of responsibility and the usual attempt to sweep them under the table (though that last bit could be laid at most politicians)

[KlaxonCow]

As long as I get my free owl, I'm happy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27926420

[pogo]

they'd get £57 a week training allowance - but means tested so nothing if their parents earn above a threshold

I don't think you can just treat them as children and assume they're living at home. But there's another less obvious cost, the cost of providing the training. Further education like higher education is heavily subsidised. Students pay only a fraction the actual cost. So if you dramatically expand 18-21 education and training the number of heavily subsidised places goes up. There's probably a lot of investment needed upfront too: building new facilities, expanding existing colleges, adapting courses for the larger and more diverse cohort that's suddenly signing up.

[VNVObit]

As long as I get my free owl, I'm happy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27926420

but is it a fully costed owl

[adam]

they'd get £57 a week training allowance - but means tested so nothing if their parents earn above a threshold

I don't think you can just treat them as children and assume they're living at home. But there's another less obvious cost, the cost of providing the training. Further education like higher education is heavily subsidised. Students pay only a fraction the actual cost. So if you dramatically expand 18-21 education and training the number of heavily subsidised places goes up. There's probably a lot of investment needed upfront too: building new facilities, expanding existing colleges, adapting courses for the larger and more diverse cohort that's suddenly signing up.

yes, it's the same as that "no housing benefit for under 24's" idea - doesn't account for people estranged from their parents, orphans etc

the cost may end up dictating whats offered - for instance i think they're talking about "one A level equivalent" being enough to get benefit - that could be a £150 evening course, or 20-30 hours tuition, might be able to do something faster than that

a selection here from "free" to £2000

http://www.hotcourses.com/training-cour ... ining.html

keep in mind that the full time courses would lead to the equivalent of 3 A levels or so, could be delivered part time over a week or even in a couple of days

there are training providers like tabs that run courses for dwp already who'd do this i think

the other thing of course is that A levels are not employment training

or it may end up being http://www.learndirect.com/ - online courses not delivered by a real person, dwp could even make their own mickey mouse online course - right you've got your level 3 in customer service so can apply for retail jobs now