Psychological Hogwash?

The Mail reports that human beings are 'hard-wired' to 'fancy' to other races and that Dr Michael Lewis, who led the research project, said:

"It will come as no surprise to many that facial attractiveness makes up part of the decision of who we marry. ‘And it's no coincidence that groups perceived as more attractive - black males and Asian females - feature more often in mixed-race marriages. ‘In the past more measurable features such as wealth, status and fertility have been considered more important in how we choose out partners. ‘Our study matches the same patterns observed in the Government's data on marriage."

I would argue that this 'research' is no more than yet another attempt at 'social engineering', as intimated by Up Pompeii. The case that Up Pompeii makes, that white males and females supposedly 'prefer' coloured partners; that the media will 'pick-up' on this supposed fact and promote is not in doubt, because (a) we all believe in 'myths'; and (b), the media believe everything they are told and do not bother to query or investigate claims.


Now, where does the word 'myth' enter the report in the Mail. Have we not been led to believe that men of black ethnicity are 'bigger' than white men, or in 'polite-speak', better endowed? Where is the 'research'? Are we not led to believe that Asian women are more subservient to the male? Where is the 'research'? Consequently I would argue that 'facial attractiveness' has bugger-all to do with it. As a result both men and women have been led to believe 'something' - and once into 'it' then find that it ain't so. Whereas men may be quite 'happy' with a situation in which they find they are 'top dog', where women are concerned the situation alters because I would suggest that the female gene 'kicks-in' whereby they accept their situation 'for the benefit of the children' and their desire to maintain a family atmosphere. The latter point is underlined with cases where women who accept 'violence' from their partner for that one reason, so who is to say that they do not accept their situation in 'mixed marriages' for the same reason?


It may well be that there are cases of happy and successful 'mixed marriages' but has there been any 'research' into cases where this is not so? Bearing in mind that I have now become a cynic, this begs the question whether the latest 'research' is not 'government inspired'? I would not put anything past our political bastards!


Over to my readers - but just saying.................

When will they every learn?

From Dr Éoin Clarke, a Labour Party member and editor of The Green Benches:

"Some of the best pieces of the 1997 manifesto cost practically nothing. Devolution, HRA, FOIA, Minimum wage and the NI Peace agreement were arguably the 5 greatest successes of the first Labour term in power and they cost practically nothing.......Below I list 13 socialist policies that would cost the state nothing."

I can only agree, devolution and human rights did not cost the state a damn thing - but it sure cost the people something in the increased upkeep of more politicians and cost of the judicial system!


There is not one policy which Eoin Clarke proposes that would cost the state anything, but it sure would cost businesses, customers and the people in general something because of the provision of monitoring agencies/quangos etc. All these proposals are no more than an extension of the socialist/Cameron/Clegg ideology of 'enforced behaviour' and 'social engineering'!


Eoin Clarke's doctorate is unknown, but in common with all socialist who hold 'doctorates' one can only presume it is in the field of stupidity!

Ministerial 'rebellion' - really?

Andrew Grice, in the Independent, writes about Conservative ministers having joined the revolt against the Government's controversial proposals to relax the planning rules to allow more building in the countryside. Notably, as in all such articles, not one 'rebel' is named - although in fairness, on the question of HS2, both Gillan and Lidington have been reported to have stated that they would vote against that policy. However, on that last point, I have yet to see or hear either Gillan and Lidington actually say that.

What we have here with this story is yet more 'social engineering' in that we are led to believe a row is brewing within government on policy matters, one issued to have us believe that a policy may possibly be under review. As with all such stories it will be interesting to see whether principle and honour outweigh the perks of ministerial position, power and 'wonga' (in the monetary sense).

If only we had a participatory/referism form of democracy it would not matter one iota what a government minister intimated as their 'view', or 'spin', would count for nought - likewise it would 'kill' their use of the media and 'friendly' journalists, thus saving us from wasting our eyesight reading non-stories.

There are many reasons for a change to our system of democracy - and probably the most important and beneficial would be the negation of politicians and their thought processes, together with non-journalists who it would seem have no thought processes!

Whose home is it anyway?

A report by a new 'charity', the Intergenerational Foundation (IF), has been referred to by both Politics Home, the Guardian and the BBC. The Intergenerational Foundation was only incorporated on 23rd February 2011, consequently there are no accounts yet available so we have no knowledge who is funding this 'charity'. When we look at their advisory board we find amongst their number a Director of Priced Out, a housing campaign for first-time buyers, and an Associate Fellow of the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), the latter being a left-wing think-tank; together with two journalists from the Guardian and the Head of Society and Social Change at the National Centre of Social Research and who manages the team responsible for the British Social Attitudes Survey - this person is also currently the UK Co-ordinator of the European Social Survey.

This report by the IF is basically stating that the older generation living in large houses on their own - consequently with unused bedrooms - should down-size to smaller property thus freeing up the market for those wishing to buy homes. This begs a few questions;

• Surely by down-sizing such people are purchasing homes that are more in the range of first-time buyers?
• Who would buy those larger homes? Possibly property developers to convert into flats, or demolish and replace with two or more 'executive' homes? Which brings into question the position on the advisory board of the Director of Priced Out whose campaign no doubt is backed by property developers?
• There is no doubt an element of those living in large houses to 'will' the property to their children, thus providing for them and their families?
• Just who is to decide how many bedrooms any one, or two, people need? Is the IF advocating a Property Police? 

What we have here is yet another 'charity' attempting to dictate social policy, hence the earlier question of who is funding this outfit because cynic that I am, I detect the hand of government being involved here, regardless of ministerial protestations. Just ask yourself how often government has used 'charities' to provide pressure on public opinion, build up a 'fire-storm' of public concern and then turning round and saying that they, the government, have to act?

As with much in our society today, especially where charities are concerned, this latest 'charity' has a distinct aroma attached!


Afterthought: And nobody start commenting on the nimbyism aspect - please!