Have skin in the game

Have skin in the game
idiom

informal
To be directly involved in or affected by something, especially financially

If people have skin in the game, preventable costs fall.
A debate has been rumbling over how to ensure that lenders have more skin in the game.

The equivalent expression for “Have skin in the game” is 

“Een duit in het zakje doen” or “Een duit in het zakje hebben.” 

This phrase conveys the idea that someone is personally invested or has a stake in a particular situation or outcome.

“Skin in the game” is a phrase that conveys the idea that someone is personally invested in a situation, endeavor, or decision. It implies that they have something to lose if things don’t go well or something to gain if things succeed.

This phrase is often used to highlight the importance of commitment, accountability, and personal involvement.

The term originated from the world of finance and investing, where it referred to an investor having their own money at stake in a particular investment. If they have “skin in the game,” they are more likely to make careful and thoughtful decisions, as their own financial well-being is directly linked to the outcome.

In a broader context, “skin in the game” can refer to various scenarios beyond finance. For example, in business, it might suggest that someone is not just making decisions from a detached position but has a direct stake in the success of the company. In personal relationships, it might indicate that someone is emotionally invested and committed.

Overall, “skin in the game” underscores the idea that having a personal stake in a situation often leads to a higher level of dedication, responsibility, and accountability.

1 Post Office Scandal Inquiry Closing Statements

 

Back to menu  IMPORTANT CONTENT Listening recommended  Must  ***

 

Heeft 18 uur geleden live gestreamd #post #postoffice #postofficescandal

Today, the statutory inquiry will hear the closing statements of Phase 4 of the Post Office Horizon IT scandal, after an ITV drama brought the scandal into the spotlight.

Click to read the full story: https://shorturl.at/qsv69

At minute 6: Having skin in the game

 

2 Post Office scandal: Government left scrambling over Horizon failures

Back to menu  IMPORTANT CONTENT Listening recommended  Must  ***

 

10 jan 2024

Triggered by a ground-breaking TV drama, the Post Office scandal has rocketed up the news agenda in the past week.

The saga has left government ministers scrambling to find a way to clear the names of sub-postmasters wrongly accused of stealing.

Scotland Tonight reflected on the devastating scandal with the former Perthshire subpostmater Chris Dawson and the legal academic Dr Andrew Tickell.

3 The Horizon Post Office Scandal Plus Lionel Rishi | Pod Save the UK

Back to menu

 

11 jan 2024 Pod Save the UK

Why did it take a TV drama to wake politicians up to what’s been described as the most widespread miscarriage of justice in British legal history? More than 700 sub-postmasters were convicted of theft, due to accounting discrepancies caused by the Post Office’s faulty computer system. ITV’s Mr Bates vs The Post Office caused public outrage and has forced the Government into taking unprecedented action. James Harding, former BBC director of News and Current Affairs, joins Nish and Coco to discuss what lessons journalism can learn from the saga.

With the Uk, like much of Western Europe, recording historically low birthrates, Nish and Coco wonder why it only seems to be politicians on the right who ever engage with it as an issue. Is it a simple matter of economics, or maybe it’s just 14 years of Conservative Government that’s killed the mood!

Plus Keir Starmer’s glitter-bomber makes a surprise appearance, we find out Coco’s unusual choice of pool nickname, and why the PM is ‘Dancing on the ceiling’.

Pod Save the UK is a Reduced Listening production for Crooked Media.

4 The Post Office scandal: Lessons from the UK’s largest miscarriage of justice | The New Statesman

Back to menu

 

11 jan 2024 The New Statesman Podcast

Rishi Sunak has announced new legislation to exonerate the victims of the Post Office Scandal, following ITV’s drama Mr Bates versus the Post Office.

Between 2009 and 2015 more than 700 people who ran Post Offices, also known as sub-postmasters, were wrongly accused of embezzling money and subsequently prosecuted. The fault was actually that of a dodgy computer accounting system.


In addition to having to pay back the money from their own pockets, the strain, stress and stigma of this wrongful conviction destroyed the livelihoods of many of the sub-postmasters who were subject to criminal convictions, imprisonment, and bankruptcy. In some cases this also led to illness, divorce, and suicide.


In 2019, the High Court ruled that the Horizon system was faulty and in 2020 the government set up a public inquiry. But this has had renewed national interest thanks to the ITV drama Mr Bates vs the Post Office which aired in the new year week, and has resulted in a major intervention by the government – which will introduce a blanket law to exonerate all those who were convicted.

Anoosh Chakelian, Will Dunn and Freddie Hayward discuss what we can learn from one of the country’s greatest miscarriages of justice.

The New Statesman podcast is now on YouTube. Anoosh Chakelian and New Statesman colleagues including political editor Andrew Marr discuss the latest in UK politics news, helping you understand the forces shaping British politics today.

Watch all the latest episodes of the New Statesman podcast here:


The New Statesman brings you unrivalled analysis of of the latest UK and international politics. On our YouTube channel you’ll find insight on the top news and global current affairs stories, as well as insightful interviews with politicians, advisers and leading political thinkers, to help you understand the political and economic forces shaping the world.

With regular contributions from our writers including Political Editor Andrew Marr and Anoosh Chakelian – host of the New Statesman podcast – we’ll help you understand the world of politics and global affairs from Westminster to Washington and beyond.

“Having skin in the game” is an idiom that emphasizes the importance of personal involvement, commitment, or investment in a particular endeavor or situation. The phrase is often used to convey several key points:

Personal Involvement: It suggests that individuals are not just bystanders or observers but are actively participating and engaged in a situation.

Personal Stake or Investment: It implies that the person has something at risk, such as time, money, reputation, or effort. This personal investment aligns their interests with the success or failure of the venture.

Accountability: When someone has “skin in the game,” they are likely to take greater responsibility for their decisions and actions, as the consequences directly impact them.

Commitment to Success: Having a personal stake motivates individuals to work harder and strive for success, as they stand to gain or lose something based on the outcome.

Credibility and Trust: It often enhances credibility and trustworthiness, as people are more likely to trust those who are directly affected by the consequences of their choices.

The term is frequently used in various contexts, including business, finance, politics, and everyday decision-making, to emphasize the importance of being actively involved and invested in one’s pursuits.

What does the expression “skin in the game” mean?

It is an expression recently made famous by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. It is an easy way to evaluate a person. Basically it is the good old “there can’t be a discrepancy between your actions and your words”. If there is, you are not trustworthy. Your skin is not in the game. You just talk.

Most books and university lectures about ethics do not have skin in the game. At least not fully. Let’s look at a statement:

Sexual harassment is unacceptable.
That is a good statement. However, only if you have skin in the game. Because if you make the above statement then you must follow it no matter what.

Let’s look at another statement:

Sexual harassment is unacceptable unless the harasser is powerful and/or brings in a lot of money.
If someone uttered that statement in my presence, I would feel horrified and then shake his hand. He describes an ugly world, but he isn’t in denial about the real limits of his reaction. He describes the limits with his words.

The person who is ready to follow the first statement no matter what is an angel. I wouldn’t shake the hand of an angel. I would shake his wing. Very gently.

https://www.quora.com/

In the product development world, this comes from the parable of the chicken and the pig…basically:

A chicken and a pig want to start a restaurant – serving bacon and eggs. The chicken creates an egg a day, without any consequence to herself. The pig, however, has to sacrifice actual “skin” in order to provide its contribution to the business.

The point here is that the pig should have more say in what happens in the business than the chicken, because he’s committing more to the efforts.

This is why in SCRUM teams, you’ll have someone say “I’m just a chicken” during a stand-up meeting. They don’t have “say” on what the team does because they’re not committed to delivering anything at the time. The “pigs”, on the other hand, are the team members whose efforts are pushing the project forward.

https://www.quora.com/

The Walking Dead Prank – Just For Laughs Gags

Back to menu

 
26 okt 2016
 

At a funeral, family and friends gather one last time around the dead body when all of a sudden, the guy moves an arm, and comes back to life as a scary vampire… Run for cover!!!!