The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[AlunB]

Not sure what relevance this has to politics, other than the level of BS being spoken.

The 'sliding door' examples being offered as evidence are just laughable. Nobody knows how their life would have turned out if they had taken a different train, or path or whatever.

Life has so many randomising factors that luck has to play a part. But it impacts on all of us, and let's not forget that bad luck strikes all too.

What is certain is that it is possible for people from poor backgrounds to move up the wealth ladder. It's also possible for children of middle class, comfortable families to slip down it.




PS whilst the story about Mark Robbins saving Fergie's job is a popular one, it is apocryphal at best.

So what's your answer to the original question?

Which question do you want answering? I answered what I felt were the two key issues.
No, and errrm no.

Question of the day

How much personal agency do you think the average person has today in the UK? If someone commits a crime, is that ever excusable because of their circumstances? If someone is born into a poor environment, are they poised to always stay that way? Is someone born into a privilaged rich environment, are they destined to have a good life?

Obviously there are outliers on both sides, but I'm talking about the majority here. When someone gets to, say, 30, how much of what their life has become been down to them, and how much their environment?

I ask this in a politics thread because there seems to be a very distinct difference in how people on the left and right view this.

I thought this was the actual question. I think the others were more rhetorical devices, but I may be wrong. I'm not sure anyone aside from immovable determinists would answer yes to those.

[DaveShoelace]

Thanks for all the replies guys, some cracking answers and viewpoints.

This is a topic I always think of where politics is concerned. For a great deal of time I have been a firm believer that ultimately we are in the driving seat where it comes to our lives. Obviously being an elite footballer or astronaut might be too much of a stretch for most people, but in terms of living a comfortable life, being healthy, having meaningful work and money in the bank, I think that's all in our control. However, recently I've had that belief challenged, not in my own life but when I see some people who are struggling. I know some people whose life is going to be really really made hard by these new tax credit cuts, and there is a (very guilt inducing) debate going on in my head about whether it was somehow their fault they were in such a position for any single government cuts to impact them in the first place.

Still not sure where I stand on it, but if poker has taught me anything it's to focus on the things that are in our control.

[The Camel]

Meh, sports is a poor example, real life in the long run is a better measure.

Real life then.

I know two extremely intelligent, driven people. They put in ridiculous hours and absolutely do not accept defeat when on a project.

I think there's virtually nothing between them in terms of ability, intelligence or diligence.

One is the most successful person in his sphere in the world, got more money than he'll ever be able to count. The other one is potless and currently out of work.

The difference between in their careers is complete luck. If you had put the skint one in the rich one's shoes for one crucial period of about 3 months about 20 years ago, I am certain he would have been just as successful.

[Woodsey]

Meh, sports is a poor example, real life in the long run is a better measure.

It is the same.  It is a business.  People have lucky short term breaks in sales jobs and other careers which make them seem better than they are to results driven/short term thinking senior management which gives the employee a chance of promotion to kick onto a higher level through success which is quite often just luck based.

No it's not, it's such a tiny part of society it's basically irrelevant in the whole scheme of things. I do agree however luck is a big part of sport, hence why it's not comparable to real life.

I'm stunned that you think this. I can think of literally hundreds of examples from mine and friends and colleagues lives where luck played a huge role from work to love to all kinds of things.

The way I met my fiancé is so absurdly fortunate I'm amazed we ever met at all.

Ok I should add in the majority cases just to be accurate, yes there is always the odd lucky fuck, but I totally contest the amount of luck being portrayed here to the majority of people who are successful. Most would have got there eventually, try and try again and all that for the guys willing to put the work in..

I think this is basically the kind of answer Barry was looking for originally. That opinion, and it can only ever be an opinion, tends to be that shared by right wingers (both successful ones and not).

So right wingers think its down to hard work, improving yourself, making the most of your skills and having a determination that will make you succeed? Left wingers like to moan and groan when they see successful people and moan about their own lack of luck which has prevented them being successful? Sounds about right  

Is it any wonder that the righties generally have more cash than the lefties?  

[Woodsey]

Meh, sports is a poor example, real life in the long run is a better measure.

Real life then.

I know two extremely intelligent, driven people. They put in ridiculous hours and absolutely do not accept defeat when on a project.

I think there's virtually nothing between them in terms of ability, intelligence or diligence.

One is the most successful person in his sphere in the world, got more money than he'll ever be able to count. The other one is potless and currently out of work.

The difference between in their careers is complete luck. If you had put the skint one in the rich one's shoes for one crucial period of about 3 months about 20 years ago, I am certain he would have been just as successful.

2 whole people wow.....

[AlunB]

Meh, sports is a poor example, real life in the long run is a better measure.

It is the same.  It is a business.  People have lucky short term breaks in sales jobs and other careers which make them seem better than they are to results driven/short term thinking senior management which gives the employee a chance of promotion to kick onto a higher level through success which is quite often just luck based.

No it's not, it's such a tiny part of society it's basically irrelevant in the whole scheme of things. I do agree however luck is a big part of sport, hence why it's not comparable to real life.

I'm stunned that you think this. I can think of literally hundreds of examples from mine and friends and colleagues lives where luck played a huge role from work to love to all kinds of things.

The way I met my fiancé is so absurdly fortunate I'm amazed we ever met at all.

Ok I should add in the majority cases just to be accurate, yes there is always the odd lucky fuck, but I totally contest the amount of luck being portrayed here to the majority of people who are successful. Most would have got there eventually, try and try again and all that for the guys willing to put the work in..

I think this is basically the kind of answer Barry was looking for originally. That opinion, and it can only ever be an opinion, tends to be that shared by right wingers (both successful ones and not).

So right wingers think its down to hard work, improving yourself, making the most of your skills and having a determination that will make you succeed? Left wingers like to moan and groan when they see successful people and moan about their own lack of luck which has prevented them being successful? Sounds about right  

Is it any wonder that the righties generally have more cash than the lefties?  

Of course it isn't. Although not for the reasons you've said

[The Camel]

Meh, sports is a poor example, real life in the long run is a better measure.

It is the same.  It is a business.  People have lucky short term breaks in sales jobs and other careers which make them seem better than they are to results driven/short term thinking senior management which gives the employee a chance of promotion to kick onto a higher level through success which is quite often just luck based.

No it's not, it's such a tiny part of society it's basically irrelevant in the whole scheme of things. I do agree however luck is a big part of sport, hence why it's not comparable to real life.

I'm stunned that you think this. I can think of literally hundreds of examples from mine and friends and colleagues lives where luck played a huge role from work to love to all kinds of things.

The way I met my fiancé is so absurdly fortunate I'm amazed we ever met at all.

Ok I should add in the majority cases just to be accurate, yes there is always the odd lucky fuck, but I totally contest the amount of luck being portrayed here to the majority of people who are successful. Most would have got there eventually, try and try again and all that for the guys willing to put the work in..

I think this is basically the kind of answer Barry was looking for originally. That opinion, and it can only ever be an opinion, tends to be that shared by right wingers (both successful ones and not).

So right wingers think its down to hard work, improving yourself, making the most of your skills and having a determination that will make you succeed? Left wingers like to moan and groan when they see successful people and moan about their own lack of luck which has prevented them being successful? Sounds about right  

Is it any wonder that the righties generally have more cash than the lefties?  

The only thing I moan about when I talk about successful people is most don't appreciate just how lucky they've been.

[arbboy]

I am probably the biggest right winger on this site even more so than you Woodsey and you are saying i fit into the left wing camp on this.  It isn't that simple.  The vast majority of people in the world don't fully understand the longterm/variance/survival bias/being results orientated and sample sizes and get fooled into believing stuff which generally isn't true.  Luck plays a huge part in people's lifes/careers/relationships.  

[DaveShoelace]

I am probably the biggest right winger on this site even more so than you Woodsey and you are saying i fit into the left wing camp on this.  It isn't that simple.  The vast majority of people in the world don't fully understand the longterm/variance/survival bias/being results orientated and sample sizes and get fooled into believing stuff which generally isn't true.  Luck plays a huge part in people's lifes/careers/relationships.  

Professional gamblers have a tendency to overestimate these things though, precisely because they are more aware of them. I know a lot of professional poker players who call variance on everything in their life, basically as a way of deferring responsibility for those things or because they simply don't understand them.

[The Camel]

I am probably the biggest right winger on this site even more so than you Woodsey and you are saying i fit into the left wing camp on this.  It isn't that simple.  The vast majority of people in the world don't fully understand the longterm/variance/survival bias/being results orientated and sample sizes and get fooled into believing stuff which generally isn't true.  Luck plays a huge part in people's lifes/careers/relationships.  

Professional gamblers have a tendency to overestimate these things though, precisely because they are more aware of them. I know a lot of professional poker players who call variance on everything in their life, basically as a way of deferring responsibility for those things or because they simply don't understand them.

Disagree.

Non gamblers under estimate these things more like.

[DaveShoelace]

I am probably the biggest right winger on this site even more so than you Woodsey and you are saying i fit into the left wing camp on this.  It isn't that simple.  The vast majority of people in the world don't fully understand the longterm/variance/survival bias/being results orientated and sample sizes and get fooled into believing stuff which generally isn't true.  Luck plays a huge part in people's lifes/careers/relationships.  

Professional gamblers have a tendency to overestimate these things though, precisely because they are more aware of them. I know a lot of professional poker players who call variance on everything in their life, basically as a way of deferring responsibility for those things or because they simply don't understand them.

Disagree.

Non gamblers under estimate these things more like.

Can't it be both? Non gamblers underestimate, gamblers overestimate

[arbboy]

I am probably the biggest right winger on this site even more so than you Woodsey and you are saying i fit into the left wing camp on this.  It isn't that simple.  The vast majority of people in the world don't fully understand the longterm/variance/survival bias/being results orientated and sample sizes and get fooled into believing stuff which generally isn't true.  Luck plays a huge part in people's lifes/careers/relationships.  

Professional gamblers have a tendency to overestimate these things though, precisely because they are more aware of them. I know a lot of professional poker players who call variance on everything in their life, basically as a way of deferring responsibility for those things or because they simply don't understand them.

Disagree.

Non gamblers under estimate this things more like.

Beat me in the fastest finger race!  So many examples of it with my friends.  I could go back to 2001 when people were leaving major bookies to join bet365 which was a massive gamble.  Their share options/pension pots/bonuses in 2015 are all pretty much down to luck in choosing 365 in 2001 (who were nothing in the betting world) as only the real top few management/owners who make the key decisions have had any input into the firms success.  They could easily have gone to work for luvbet/ukbetting/bowmans/bet direct (who i hear you ask - exactly) etc etc in 2001 who were just as irrelevant in the online betting market then and paying similar money.  Alternatively they could have chosen much 'safer' options like Stan james and Blue sq in 2001.  These odds compilers had no idea whether joining 365 or ukbetting or bowmans was the best move for them long term.  They just went with it.  There was no skill involved in the decision.  The vast majority of them haven't played that big a role in the growth of the firm.  Their individual success and job security is largely down to luck of them choosing the 'correct' start up firm to join way back in the day.

[The Camel]

I am probably the biggest right winger on this site even more so than you Woodsey and you are saying i fit into the left wing camp on this.  It isn't that simple.  The vast majority of people in the world don't fully understand the longterm/variance/survival bias/being results orientated and sample sizes and get fooled into believing stuff which generally isn't true.  Luck plays a huge part in people's lifes/careers/relationships.  

Professional gamblers have a tendency to overestimate these things though, precisely because they are more aware of them. I know a lot of professional poker players who call variance on everything in their life, basically as a way of deferring responsibility for those things or because they simply don't understand them.

Disagree.

Non gamblers under estimate this things more like.

Beat me in the fastest finger race!  So many examples of it with my friends.  I could go back to 2001 when people were leaving major bookies to join bet365 which was a massive gamble.  Their share options/pension pots/bonuses in 2015 are all pretty much down to luck in choosing 365 in 2001 (who were nothing in the betting world) as only the real top few management/owners who make the key decisions have had any input into the firms success.  They could easily have gone to work for luvbet/ukbetting/bowmans/bet direct (who i hear you ask - exactly) etc etc in 2001 who were just as irrelevant in the online betting market then and paying similar money.  These odds compilers had no idea whether joining 365 or ukbetting or bowmans was the best move for them long term.  They just went with it.  There was no skill involved in the decision.  The vast majority of them haven't played that big a role in the growth of the firm.  Their individual success and job security is largely down to luck of them choosing the 'correct' start up firm to join way back in the day.

Exactly.

And many of them will think their contribution is much more important than it really is!

[arbboy]

I am probably the biggest right winger on this site even more so than you Woodsey and you are saying i fit into the left wing camp on this.  It isn't that simple.  The vast majority of people in the world don't fully understand the longterm/variance/survival bias/being results orientated and sample sizes and get fooled into believing stuff which generally isn't true.  Luck plays a huge part in people's lifes/careers/relationships.  

Professional gamblers have a tendency to overestimate these things though, precisely because they are more aware of them. I know a lot of professional poker players who call variance on everything in their life, basically as a way of deferring responsibility for those things or because they simply don't understand them.

Disagree.

Non gamblers under estimate this things more like.

Beat me in the fastest finger race!  So many examples of it with my friends.  I could go back to 2001 when people were leaving major bookies to join bet365 which was a massive gamble.  Their share options/pension pots/bonuses in 2015 are all pretty much down to luck in choosing 365 in 2001 (who were nothing in the betting world) as only the real top few management/owners who make the key decisions have had any input into the firms success.  They could easily have gone to work for luvbet/ukbetting/bowmans/bet direct (who i hear you ask - exactly) etc etc in 2001 who were just as irrelevant in the online betting market then and paying similar money.  These odds compilers had no idea whether joining 365 or ukbetting or bowmans was the best move for them long term.  They just went with it.  There was no skill involved in the decision.  The vast majority of them haven't played that big a role in the growth of the firm.  Their individual success and job security is largely down to luck of them choosing the 'correct' start up firm to join way back in the day.

Exactly.

And many of them will think their contribution is much more important than it really is!

There is no luck in the 'real world' though only in Sport according to the Right wingers. 

So many of them in the trading team for 15 years could have never been there and it wouldn't have made a jot of difference to the value of the company now.  As in any company only a handful of people make the key decisions which make or break a company long term.  This is where luck comes into life in the real world.

[neeko]

Lets reverse the question - I have a 3 y/o daughter, will her life be "better" if I send her to a private infant / primary school or to a state version?