I really hope this is OK to copy (from Yes, Prime Minister 1986) -
Jim Hacker explains who reads the newspapers:
Hacker: Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers. The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country; the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; the Financial Times is read by people who own the country; the Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country, and the Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.
Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?
Bernard: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.
It took about 4 weeks here to change exams for all schools and universities.
Aye, about that to sort out our university exams. But, that only needed the lecturer who gave the course modifying the questions already set to shift the emphasis on the questions towards something which can test the student's understanding if they have access to their notes and text books. And, then have someone else in the department to look it over and confirm it's a decent test of the students understanding. Scale that up to an exam board setting exams in several dozen subjects that need to be sat by thousands of students across the country then if it's done in a few weeks then that's far from ideal. And, you still need to be able to get those out to students and give them somewhere that they can sit the exams.
And, that's just the exams. How do you teach students who don't have internet access at home (you can provide a laptop, how do you get an engineer in to hook up broadband where there isn't any?), who share a bedroom with a sibling and their only work space is bit of the dining table if they're lucky? Not everyone has an internet connection, a desk to work at, a quiet room where there isn't a load of people coming and going and the TV on (to entertain the younger siblings). As I said, there's a good argument that the first step to reduce lockdown could be to get these children back into school, because these are the kids most disadvantaged by being out of school. They're also most likely to be disadvantaged by the "was that grade accurate?" uncertainty over this years results - those who are going onto university will be mostly all in the same boat, by the time they go looking for work the question will be how well they do at uni rather than the results of A levels or Highers; likewise those going on to do A levels/Highers; or those going straight into work, in a few years what they've done for work will be what people look at if they apply for a new job or promotion; those who leave school without a job or further education lined up will have to live with the uncertainty about exam grades until such a time as they can get a job or college place.
This Boris is dangerous, has been dangerous. Even his own infection and recovery didn't affect him. Doubtless his own death wouldn't affect him.
On that we can agree. Wholeheartedly.
The gov't here provides free cell phone data for the past 3 months. Renewed now to end of June. Cellular hot spots. Put up a tower. Attach to other poles. Tops of buildings. But that's cultural here. Isolated areas always get internet broadband and cell towers as a basic service. We've got it at our cabin. 19km 12 miles of cable then running to each of 45 cabins and a lodge. No we didn't pay for it. Cell tower too.
There are crews this morning putting in more cables via hydrovac horizontal drilling. Quite noisy.
Academic marks follow everyone. My univ transcripts contains my highschool. I don't buy it. They took some holding pattern time after 2 weeks shutdown. Everything went online. Fall school term is contingently also planned for online. I'm hearing about a hybrid model of online plus not in person. Teachers are highly stressed but doing it.
I really hope this is OK to copy (from Yes, Prime Minister 1986) -
Jim Hacker explains who reads the newspapers:
Hacker: Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers. The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country; the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; the Financial Times is read by people who own the country; the Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country, and the Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.
Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?
Bernard: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.
Ah, the FT! Knew I was missing something (and they are centre-right - capitalist but not batshit insane).
Pssssst (whispers) Academic marks don't follow everyone. My high school grades were crappy, and once I got into university I never saw them again. Same with my university grades once I got into grad school. And the grad school grades were seen by nobody but the folks conferring the degree, which was all that my hiring committee ever saw... So YMMV here, too.
I really hope this is OK to copy (from Yes, Prime Minister 1986) -
Jim Hacker explains who reads the newspapers:
Hacker: Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers. The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country; the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; the Financial Times is read by people who own the country; the Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country, and the Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.
Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?
Bernard: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.
Ah, the FT! Knew I was missing something (and they are centre-right - capitalist but not batshit insane).
You may have noticed that the Daily Distress Express is missing from Mr Hacker's list, but I expect its readers could be lumped in (or, preferably, buried) with those of the Daily Wail Mail.
On the issue of the relative 'reach' of right and left - or perhaps the far right and far left of we restricted it to the different polar zones - I think that's hard to quantify.
I think we can agree that there is a steady stream of biographies put out by major publishers fluffing Churchill's reputation, and the idea that he "deliberately fostered" the famine (as opposed to culpable in making things worse than it should have been) is a relatively minority view.
I didn't say it was anything other than a minority view. But it is a view I've heard expressed. As far as Churchill's reputation goes in terms of history and hagiography, other than some of the most egregiously populist histories, there are plenty of more balanced accounts. I'm old enough to remedy his cachet wavering from time to time. He was generally out of favour during the '70s, I'd suggest - or at least there was something of a reaction against the popular mythology. He was back in favour during the Thatcher era and is generally on a bit of a roll now.
I can remember a conversation with Aussie Communists - or at least sympathisers - back in 1979 when I came out with the standard South Walian view only to be told to leave the poor old guy alone. They didn't like his politics but they'd grown up in the East End before emigrating to Australia as £10 Poms in the 1960s and had a lot of time for Churchill for all the usual reasons - summer of 1940, his oratory etc.
I used to teach a German lad, whose surname was Koch, and pronounced in the same way you would a male hen. At first he was puzzled others finding his name funny; once he understood the joke he took pride in being the "Cock-man"!
As for grades following you around, my understanding was that they got you into the next stage and then were forgotten. So my O Levels allowed me to do A Levels, they opened the door for University, while your degree only matters when applying for your first job. However, I could be wrong. (And I genuinely don't know what to do on the question of when schools should reopen.)
My locality has an R of 1.1, and many northern councils are currently in open revolt over the government Cummings' plans to reopen on June 1st, seeing it as a way of getting a lot of sick and dead teachers, teaching assistants and other support staff.
On the issue of the relative 'reach' of right and left - or perhaps the far right and far left of we restricted it to the different polar zones - I think that's hard to quantify.
I think we can agree that there is a steady stream of biographies put out by major publishers fluffing Churchill's reputation, and the idea that he "deliberately fostered" the famine (as opposed to culpable in making things worse than it should have been) is a relatively minority view.
I didn't say it was anything other than a minority view. But it is a view I've heard expressed. As far as Churchill's reputation goes in terms of history and hagiography, other than some of the most egregiously populist histories, there are plenty of more balanced accounts..
I think you could read any number of 'mainstream' accounts without hearing any mention of the Bengal famine apart from exculpation.
The consistent argument I will present it that armchair critics are pointless - have virtually no value. That on political matters it is irrelevant whether you bang on your computer saying how much you dislike, disagree with or oppose any politicians or policy enacted by them. What matters is election results and inbetween opinion polls. Whether this is "right" or "wrong" is also by and large irrelevant. It is, what it is.
No. What matters is election results AND a mature democracy which includes voting and holding to account those who are voted for. However, it has been some time since anything that grown up has gone on in British government, so it's little wonder so many seem content to settle for the thinly veiled populist dictatorship that's been shaping up so nicely since the shitfest that is Brexit hit the islands.
But you are "grown up"......sighs
Personally? Haven't a clue. But whether I am or not I do have my own opinions on how I'd like politicians to serve the electorate. Eg, I think it's important for those elected, to be held to account for their decisions. I think that that is a sign of a grown-up democracy, when accountability of politicians is taken seriously. I'm sure others must think so, too. And I don't think individual 'grown-upness' need have anything to do with it. I think mature, smart, intelligent people can find themselves accepting puerile political life as being the norm. I just don't understand why or how.
I grew up in a country where politics was either a sick joke or a dangerous topic to be avoided. Westminster, by contrast, looked grown up, robust, morally and politically rigorous, free by comparison. It's just a mystery to me to see how it has deteriorated and degenerated into a really sad caricature of a once statesmanlike institution that the world to a greater degree could admire and look to for an international lead in important global affairs.
Is that the fault of the electorate or those who are elected? Or both? Or a combination of a load of other factors? I'd say 'yes' to all those questions.
How do you work out though that it is YOU who understands and "gets it" but the rest of the electorate that are at fault?
I don't have to work anything out. I look around me and hear the words spoken and observe the actions of the politicians. I make no pretence to being smart or, frankly, that interested. Except for the dead people. Dead people make a difference to me. Maybe that makes me weird.
Several weeks ago ('Five-Missed-Cobra-Meetings') Johnson said the UK had more than enough capacity for, specifically, testing, and for dealing with the virus, keeping fatalities down to negligible levels. I'm not saying he was lying, but who's going to put their hand up and say he was speaking the truth. Brexit is - I would say - evidently clearly not the example of greatness and unity as predicted by its campaigners. £350 million per week for the NHS? As I recall that was the very first casualty of 'oh, well, that's not really what we actually meant....'.
And I'm not 'getting it' whatever 'it' is. In fact, there is nothing to 'get'. There's just politicians' promises vs. reality.
I'm merely commenting on what I see and hear. Others are very happy to tell me that what I see and hear is wrong. And they do. From the David Icke/Bakersfield Doctor conspiracy theorists to the right-wing Johnson idolators who perhaps really and truly believe that the pandemic could not have been prepared for and genuinely came as a huge surprise to world leaders. I'm still relieved to not be in their company, even if I am a lowly minority!
I'd not heard the saying, but I can understand it. Did you know that the plan for the raid had various groups of Canadians carrying out sabotage, then re-grouping and marching across country? No comprehension at all that the German zone of France (which included Dieppe) was occupied by over 100,000 troops.
I think Canada's contribution has been undervalued and underestimated in both World Wars, as indeed has the contribution of the Commonwealth nations of that time more broadly. We didn't 'stand alone' in 1940. We had the full-weight of the Empire behind us and potential (and actual in terms of materiel) US support ... as Churchill acknowledged in his most famous speech.
Dieppe was a disaster. But it's not as if we ourselves weren't in the firing line. For all the overblown 'Finest hour' rhetoric it wasn't as if we were fighting a proxy war.
FWIW, some 907 Canadians were killed at Dieppe, many more injured and many others taken prisoner. The Royal Navy lost 550 men. British troops 'on the ground' were mainly Commandos and Royal Marines and 275 of these were killed and others injured and captured.
So yes, the Canadians bore the brunt of the carnage but it's not as if the British had their feet up over a cup of tea.
Somewhere between the 'Churchill was a complete and utter bastard and a total disaster and Churchill could do no wrong and the sun shone out of his arse' tropes lies the middle ground.
On the issue of the relative 'reach' of right and left - or perhaps the far right and far left of we restricted it to the different polar zones - I think that's hard to quantify.
I think we can agree that there is a steady stream of biographies put out by major publishers fluffing Churchill's reputation, and the idea that he "deliberately fostered" the famine (as opposed to culpable in making things worse than it should have been) is a relatively minority view.
I didn't say it was anything other than a minority view. But it is a view I've heard expressed. As far as Churchill's reputation goes in terms of history and hagiography, other than some of the most egregiously populist histories, there are plenty of more balanced accounts..
I think you could read any number of 'mainstream' accounts without hearing any mention of the Bengal famine apart from exculpation.
I'm sure that's the case too.
My point is that we should be looking for balance in both 'mainstream' and 'alternative' accounts.
Coming back to the Dieppe thing, I'm sure Gee D is right that the Canadians were expected to march cross country once they'd seized the town. As it happened, it was so well defended and the Royal Naval and RAF support so ineffective that they hardly got further than the beach.
Churchill had an almost obsessive belief in the effectiveness of Commandos - having seen the Boer Kommando units operating successfully during the Boer War. So he overestimated their ability to overwhelm the German defences at Dieppe. He thought they could knock out and disrupt German installations allowing the Canadians to take the town, conduct reconnaissance and then effect a fighting withdrawal. In the event it was a dismal failure and a bloody catastrophe.
The only mitigation might be that valuable lessons were learned so that similar mistakes were not made - or made to a lesser extent - on D-Day two years later. Shame it was such an expensive mistake in human terms.
I can understand the resentment. An American Serb once gave me a hard time over Churchill's alliance with Tito and Stalin. 'He would have stopped at nothing to defend his two-bit island ...'
Some chicken. Some neck.
It wasn't just about defending Blighty. It was about the liberation of Europe. France was still in the War when the evacuations took place at Dunkirk. The intention wasn't just to save our troops and defend our island but to return them as soon as practically possible to support the 51st Highland Division who were still fighting alongside the French south of the Somme.
These plans were revised as France collapsed and surrendered in late June and plans to evacuate the Highland Division were abandoned as impractical.
Churchill's war aims were always to hold on for as long as possible with the support of the Commonwealth until such time as 'the New World' with all its power and resources came 'to the liberation of the Old.'
That doesn't mean he didn't make mistakes. It doesn't mean that everything that Britain did during the War was justifiable or squeaky clean. But given what was at stake it's hard to see what he could have done in 1940 that wouldn't have led to a worse outcome - but who knows? We can only speculate about alternatives.
On the issue of the relative 'reach' of right and left - or perhaps the far right and far left of we restricted it to the different polar zones - I think that's hard to quantify.
I think we can agree that there is a steady stream of biographies put out by major publishers fluffing Churchill's reputation, and the idea that he "deliberately fostered" the famine (as opposed to culpable in making things worse than it should have been) is a relatively minority view.
I didn't say it was anything other than a minority view. But it is a view I've heard expressed. As far as Churchill's reputation goes in terms of history and hagiography, other than some of the most egregiously populist histories, there are plenty of more balanced accounts..
I think you could read any number of 'mainstream' accounts without hearing any mention of the Bengal famine apart from exculpation.
I'm sure that's the case too.
My point is that we should be looking for balance in both 'mainstream' and 'alternative' accounts.
I don't think we need to balance a shift in the Overton Window around your one encounter with Dave Spart.
Bothandism got us into this mess. It will not get us out of it. The truth is where it is, not where some abstract notion of propriety believes it ought to be.
On the issue of the relative 'reach' of right and left - or perhaps the far right and far left of we restricted it to the different polar zones - I think that's hard to quantify.
I think we can agree that there is a steady stream of biographies put out by major publishers fluffing Churchill's reputation, and the idea that he "deliberately fostered" the famine (as opposed to culpable in making things worse than it should have been) is a relatively minority view.
I didn't say it was anything other than a minority view. But it is a view I've heard expressed. As far as Churchill's reputation goes in terms of history and hagiography, other than some of the most egregiously populist histories, there are plenty of more balanced accounts..
I think you could read any number of 'mainstream' accounts without hearing any mention of the Bengal famine apart from exculpation.
I'm sure that's the case too.
My point is that we should be looking for balance in both 'mainstream' and 'alternative' accounts.
I don't think we need to balance a shift in the Overton Window around your one encounter with Dave Spart.
I know more Dave and Diane Sparts than you might think.
Churchill's war aims were always to hold on for as long as possible with the support of the Commonwealth until such time as 'the New World' with all its power and resources came 'to the liberation of the Old.'
That doesn't mean he didn't make mistakes. It doesn't mean that everything that Britain did during the War was justifiable or squeaky clean. But given what was at stake it's hard to see what he could have done in 1940 that wouldn't have led to a worse outcome - but who knows? We can only speculate about alternatives.
Then you get his great reluctance to allow Australian troops to return home to defend Australia after Singapore fell. His concern was to protect the Indian Empire as a cheap source of raw materials and then a place to sell goods manufactured from those materials. And of course the unrealistic wish to maintain an empire. Basically, he failed to understand the 1926 Conference which resulted in the Balfour Declaration, and considered that the UK government was able to override the wishes of the governments of the Dominions. Curtin turned to the US and obtained immediate support.
On the issue of the relative 'reach' of right and left - or perhaps the far right and far left of we restricted it to the different polar zones - I think that's hard to quantify.
I think we can agree that there is a steady stream of biographies put out by major publishers fluffing Churchill's reputation, and the idea that he "deliberately fostered" the famine (as opposed to culpable in making things worse than it should have been) is a relatively minority view.
I didn't say it was anything other than a minority view. But it is a view I've heard expressed. As far as Churchill's reputation goes in terms of history and hagiography, other than some of the most egregiously populist histories, there are plenty of more balanced accounts..
I think you could read any number of 'mainstream' accounts without hearing any mention of the Bengal famine apart from exculpation.
I'm sure that's the case too.
My point is that we should be looking for balance in both 'mainstream' and 'alternative' accounts.
I don't think we need to balance a shift in the Overton Window around your one encounter with Dave Spart.
I know more Dave and Diane Sparts than you might think.
Pretty sure than in 2020 the loudmouthed members of the Spart family have less reach than even any number of fringe ideas that you'd care to mention - perhaps you should stop hanging out with people who annoy you?
My locality has an R of 1.1, and many northern councils are currently in open revolt over the government Cummings' plans to reopen on June 1st, seeing it as a way of getting a lot of sick and dead teachers, teaching assistants and other support staff.
If I hear one more person say it’ll be fine, because Denmark is managing schools being open, I shall scream! Talk about you might as well compare apples and pears. Let me see 🤔. Oh yes, Denmark approx 600 deaths, UK, um, would that be tens of thousands? Denmark, well funded education, resources and buildings, UK, um, not so much after 10 years of austerity. Denmark, no I think I’ll stop there for the sake of my mental well being! My daughter in law, a teacher with 3 school age children lives in the NW and is scared. Would I trust anything this government says? Absolutely not!
On the issue of the relative 'reach' of right and left - or perhaps the far right and far left of we restricted it to the different polar zones - I think that's hard to quantify.
I think we can agree that there is a steady stream of biographies put out by major publishers fluffing Churchill's reputation, and the idea that he "deliberately fostered" the famine (as opposed to culpable in making things worse than it should have been) is a relatively minority view.
I didn't say it was anything other than a minority view. But it is a view I've heard expressed. As far as Churchill's reputation goes in terms of history and hagiography, other than some of the most egregiously populist histories, there are plenty of more balanced accounts..
I think you could read any number of 'mainstream' accounts without hearing any mention of the Bengal famine apart from exculpation.
I'm sure that's the case too.
My point is that we should be looking for balance in both 'mainstream' and 'alternative' accounts.
I don't think we need to balance a shift in the Overton Window around your one encounter with Dave Spart.
I know more Dave and Diane Sparts than you might think.
Pretty sure than in 2020 the loudmouthed members of the Spart family have less reach than even any number of fringe ideas that you'd care to mention - perhaps you should stop hanging out with people who annoy you?
I'd leave the Ship if that was the case. Or else those who find me annoying would boot me off it.
My locality has an R of 1.1, and many northern councils are currently in open revolt over the government Cummings' plans to reopen on June 1st, seeing it as a way of getting a lot of sick and dead teachers, teaching assistants and other support staff.
... because everyone knows that teachers and support staff grow on trees, and it will be just as easy to replace them as it is to replace the six hundred or so NHS staff who have died. Easier, in fact, because they don't need to be medically qualified. 😠
This policy doesn't even make sense if you do value the economy above human lives.
... because everyone knows that teachers and support staff grow on trees, and it will be just as easy to replace them as it is to replace the six hundred or so NHS staff who have died. Easier, in fact, because they don't need to be medically qualified. 😠
Of course in England teachers no longer need to be qualified at all.
Wasn't that always the case in the posh private schools?
Which is why Gove thought it would be a great idea to have it that way for everyone, because the circumstances and pressures that drive recruitment at Eton, Harrow and Westminster are exactly the same as those that drive Arsend Academy, Blackpool.
Until relatively recently that was also the case in universities - lecturers were recruited on their research record without any consideration about their ability to teach, either in a lecture theatre or direct student supervision. And, training to help people gain those skills was decidedly lacking. The former polys generally had a higher quality of teaching because they primarily recruited for teaching ability, and research capability was secondary (or, even not a consideration). That has largely changed over the last couple of decades - partly because the large number of students paying fees mean that they expect to have a better quality of education, partly because research grants pay less than full economic cost and so research needs to be supported by a surplus income from somewhere else (and, tuition fees provide that). So, now teaching experience and ability are part of the decision making in appointing new lecturers (though research ability, or at least an ability to write lots of papers and BS that you'll get lots of research grants, still tops the list), and universities will now provide all new staff courses in delivering lectures and other aspects of teaching.
Whether Oxbridge continues the traditional approach of putting some very smart researcher in front of students without any teaching skills or programme to develop those skills I don't know. But the current cabinet probably went through the university system where lecturers couldn't teach themselves out of a paper bag.
My locality has an R of 1.1, and many northern councils are currently in open revolt over the government Cummings' plans to reopen on June 1st, seeing it as a way of getting a lot of sick and dead teachers, teaching assistants and other support staff.
If I hear one more person say it’ll be fine, because Denmark is managing schools being open, I shall scream! Talk about you might as well compare apples and pears. Let me see 🤔. Oh yes, Denmark approx 600 deaths, UK, um, would that be tens of thousands? Denmark, well funded education, resources and buildings, UK, um, not so much after 10 years of austerity. Denmark, no I think I’ll stop there for the sake of my mental well being! My daughter in law, a teacher with 3 school age children lives in the NW and is scared. Would I trust anything this government says? Absolutely not!
Yes, thank you for that. Denmark also locked down early, 11 March, I think. There are plenty of strange comparisons like this floating around, e.g., flu/covid, UK/Sweden, especially by the skeptics. Didn't the UK govt offer reassurance on care homes?
Until relatively recently that was also the case in universities - lecturers were recruited on their research record without any consideration about their ability to teach, either in a lecture theatre or direct student supervision. And, training to help people gain those skills was decidedly lacking. The former polys generally had a higher quality of teaching because they primarily recruited for teaching ability, and research capability was secondary (or, even not a consideration). That has largely changed over the last couple of decades - partly because the large number of students paying fees mean that they expect to have a better quality of education, partly because research grants pay less than full economic cost and so research needs to be supported by a surplus income from somewhere else (and, tuition fees provide that). So, now teaching experience and ability are part of the decision making in appointing new lecturers (though research ability, or at least an ability to write lots of papers and BS that you'll get lots of research grants, still tops the list), and universities will now provide all new staff courses in delivering lectures and other aspects of teaching.
Whether Oxbridge continues the traditional approach of putting some very smart researcher in front of students without any teaching skills or programme to develop those skills I don't know. But the current cabinet probably went through the university system where lecturers couldn't teach themselves out of a paper bag.
From what I recall Oxford and Cambridge traditionally made up for that with tutorials and supervisions (respectively) and still do, though I suspect (and anecdotes I've heard would support the idea) that luck of the draw still had a large effect on the quality of service you received as a student.
My issue as a student wasn't so much that my lecturers were poor at teaching (though some of them were) but that most of the physics department didn't have English as a first language, with them having built a world class research team on the cheap by recruiting extensively in the former USSR after the wall came down. One of our lecturers was heard to retort, in response to complaints that we were having trouble understanding the material, that he'd learnt the whole lot in a different alphabet so we should imagine how he felt!
A lot of the moral responsibility for the Irish Famine being so much more disastrous than it might have been rests squarely on the shoulders of the senior civil servant responsible. Some of it, though, rests with those who let him get on with it.
He was a man widely respected for his incorruptible integrity. Unfortunately, this was accompanied by an abnormal dogmatic rigidity, especially with regard to social policy and economics, an impervious conviction that he was right at all times, a complete shortfall on human sentiment and a lack of any sense of inner humility. He eventually was rewarded with a baronetcy, though not until 30 years later and mainly for other things.
Churchill's greatness derives from what he pulled off as a war leader in 1940. He was, though, also markedly flawed, something many of those who adulate him, including one of my headmasters long ago, refuse to recognise. So was Lloyd George whose achievements were in many ways much greater. After all, unusually, he was a successful peace time politician as well.
Mr de Pfeffel appears to imagine that by studiously modelling the flaws of both, somehow he will also absorb the greatnesses of both without having to do anything to merit either.
Until relatively recently that was also the case in universities - lecturers were recruited on their research record without any consideration about their ability to teach, either in a lecture theatre or direct student supervision. And, training to help people gain those skills was decidedly lacking. The former polys generally had a higher quality of teaching because they primarily recruited for teaching ability, and research capability was secondary (or, even not a consideration). That has largely changed over the last couple of decades - partly because the large number of students paying fees mean that they expect to have a better quality of education, partly because research grants pay less than full economic cost and so research needs to be supported by a surplus income from somewhere else (and, tuition fees provide that). So, now teaching experience and ability are part of the decision making in appointing new lecturers (though research ability, or at least an ability to write lots of papers and BS that you'll get lots of research grants, still tops the list), and universities will now provide all new staff courses in delivering lectures and other aspects of teaching.
Whether Oxbridge continues the traditional approach of putting some very smart researcher in front of students without any teaching skills or programme to develop those skills I don't know. But the current cabinet probably went through the university system where lecturers couldn't teach themselves out of a paper bag.
I have some up-to-date information on that. First, a Cambridge PhD student who was "funded" by the university during their doctoral research for 2 years by teaching for 15 hours a week: fortunately they were a languages student and had spent time between first degree and the start of their research working in language schools abroad and teaching one-to-one. They said that without that experience they would have been floundering.
Second, we have living with us at the moment a Godchild who has just sent in his thesis for moderation. A scientist, he was given no guidance but also expected to undertake teaching. Deemed too young to go up at just 17, he spent a year as a lab assistant in a boarding school, an experience he said he drew on heavily.
A lot of the moral responsibility for the Irish Famine being so much more disastrous than it might have been rests squarely on the shoulders of the senior civil servant responsible. Some of it, though, rests with those who let him get on with it.
He was a man widely respected for his incorruptible integrity. Unfortunately, this was accompanied by an abnormal dogmatic rigidity, especially with regard to social policy and economics, an impervious conviction that he was right at all times, a complete shortfall on human sentiment and a lack of any sense of inner humility. He eventually was rewarded with a baronetcy, though not until 30 years later and mainly for other things.
Churchill's greatness derives from what he pulled off as a war leader in 1940. He was, though, also markedly flawed, something many of those who adulate him, including one of my headmasters long ago, refuse to recognise. So was Lloyd George whose achievements were in many ways much greater. After all, unusually, he was a successful peace time politician as well.
Mr de Pfeffel appears to imagine that by studiously modelling the flaws of both, somehow he will also absorb the greatnesses of both without having to do anything to merit either.
I think that's true. Boris thinks of himself in Churchillian terms, as if to think in that way is key to assuming the mantle without actually having to do anything to earn it ... and of course there is plenty about Churchill that one wouldn't really want to emulate.
The only similarity to Lloyd George I can see lies in Boris's libido.
Mr de Pfeffel appears to imagine that by studiously modelling the flaws of both, somehow he will also absorb the greatnesses of both without having to do anything to merit either.
I think that's particularly insightful.
Up thread, I did not acknowledge Sir Winston's flaws - mostly because I did not think it pertinent to the discussion at that point but I do agree that the simplistic beatification or demonisation are both wide of the mark. He was a complex, brilliant and deeply flawed character. So what?
OTOH Johnson only has one out of those three. Sadly he's completely wrong in his self-assessment as which one.
Mr de Pfeffel appears to imagine that by studiously modelling the flaws of both, somehow he will also absorb the greatnesses of both without having to do anything to merit either.
I think that's particularly insightful.
Up thread, I did not acknowledge Sir Winston's flaws - mostly because I did not think it pertinent to the discussion at that point but I do agree that the simplistic beatification or demonisation are both wide of the mark. He was a complex, brilliant and deeply flawed character. So what?
I think the reason it matters is because the events around WWII and the life of Churchill in particular have increasingly had an hagiographic treatment applied to them - most vociferously by the children of the wartime generation rather than that generation itself.
This nostalgic reading that flattens out those events is than used as a template to recast other historical events in that same image (Gove wanted to recast the events of First World War to fit the most simplistic template of the Second).
Ultimately this form of remembrance moves these events (and the people involved in them) beyond the sphere of criticism altogether and I think that's a very dangerous thing - if only because it is then adopted by contemporary politicians to push certain policies and to provide exculpation when needed.
Mr de Pfeffel appears to imagine that by studiously modelling the flaws of both, somehow he will also absorb the greatnesses of both without having to do anything to merit either.
I think that's particularly insightful.
Up thread, I did not acknowledge Sir Winston's flaws - mostly because I did not think it pertinent to the discussion at that point but I do agree that the simplistic beatification or demonisation are both wide of the mark. He was a complex, brilliant and deeply flawed character. So what?
I think the reason it matters is because the events around WWII and the life of Churchill in particular have increasingly had an hagiographic treatment applied to them - most vociferously by the children of the wartime generation rather than that generation itself.
This nostalgic reading that flattens out those events is than used as a template to recast other historical events in that same image (Gove wanted to recast the events of First World War to fit the most simplistic template of the Second).
Ultimately this form of remembrance moves these events (and the people involved in them) beyond the sphere of criticism altogether and I think that's a very dangerous thing - if only because it is then adopted by contemporary politicians to push certain policies and to provide exculpation when needed.
I agree with all of that.
I was a little lazy and imprecise in my phrasing.
There is an interesting argument to be had in general about weighing great achievements against other failings and whether and when one cancels out the other. It's clearly true that this applies to Sir Winston specifically. The reason I wrote 'so what?' - which was lazy writing - is because in the context of arguing against the notion that Johnson is great like Churchill, I don't think we need to focus on Sir Winston's failings. I do consider Churchill a great British leader and a lot of other things too.
Where I am probably guilty of not joined up thinking is in ignoring the hagiographic treatment of Churchill. This is because it is the same simplistic nonsense - from the same people - to argue that it is some form of blasphemy to question WSC's greatness as it is to think that Boris's confident bluster is any form of leadership.
They want us to believe that Boris is a jolly good chap. In reality, Mr Johnson is an arrogant, lazy, feckless incompetent. My point was that even this one-dimensional view of Churchill didn't do Johnson any favours. However, you are right about the dangerous nation myths about the war and how 'we stood alone' etc. I wasn't trying to ignore this truth just that even a rose-tinted view of Churchill was not helpful to Boris's cause. Reflecting on what you wrote, I think this rose-tinted view needs challenging as well because the Boris is Great myth folds into this false narrative and national identity so easily.
And the extent to which the "we stood alone" myth, combined with a similar myth of "we were the principal victors of WW II" played and continues to play roles in the Brexit camp.
Reflecting on what you wrote, I think this rose-tinted view needs challenging as well because the Boris is Great myth folds into this false narrative and national identity so easily.
Yes, simplistic nonsense can still be dangerous - and even if Johnson's attempt to tap into that mythos and the associated affect ultimately fails, it still leaves those levers for more skilled politicians to manipulate.
Academic marks follow everyone. My univ transcripts contains my highschool. I don't buy it. They took some holding pattern time after 2 weeks shutdown. Everything went online. Fall school term is contingently also planned for online. I'm hearing about a hybrid model of online plus not in person. Teachers are highly stressed but doing it.
Free cellular broadband could, in principle, be done (but wouldn't be). Finding adequate space for children to study in a crowded house is rather harder. Perhaps you're not aware of the difference in scale between houses in rural Canada and what you get in the urban UK. You can, perhaps, throw up a few broadband towers and buy a crate of laptops. It's rather harder to throw up a couple of extra rooms in a small flat. A lot of people don't even have a dining table to have a shared space at.
There's also rather a difference between the educational model where the school sets the exam and awards the grade, and the model where the exams are national public exams and everyone sits the same paper.
From what I recall Oxford and Cambridge traditionally made up for that with tutorials and supervisions (respectively) and still do, though I suspect (and anecdotes I've heard would support the idea) that luck of the draw still had a large effect on the quality of service you received as a student.
I think it often more accurate to say that the tutorial/supervision is the focus of your education, and that lectures are supplementary material. Certainly our lecturers varied in quality - some were fantastic, and some were awful. Most people voted with their feet and only attended lectures by competent lecturers. Nobody would dare miss a tutorial.
I did over-react I'm afraid. You are right that he has been keeping his head down to an extent and conveniently spending more time with Baby Number 5 ... or is it 6 or ...
In fairness, he has been very ill, but I'm sure his aides are keeping him out of the firing line for the moment.
Pssssst (whispers) Academic marks don't follow everyone. My high school grades were crappy, and once I got into university I never saw them again. Same with my university grades once I got into grad school. And the grad school grades were seen by nobody but the folks conferring the degree, which was all that my hiring committee ever saw... So YMMV here, too.
You couldn't go university without at least a grade C in maths, in addition to whatever A level grades were asked of you.
Including your high school grades in CVs and applications is considered laughable, but is also demanded by many hiring managers.
Can confirm that high school exam grades have been explicitly gatekept in a number of hiring processes I've been through, even 20 years later.
Comments
Jim Hacker explains who reads the newspapers:
Hacker: Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers. The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country; the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; the Financial Times is read by people who own the country; the Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country, and the Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.
Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?
Bernard: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.
The gov't here provides free cell phone data for the past 3 months. Renewed now to end of June. Cellular hot spots. Put up a tower. Attach to other poles. Tops of buildings. But that's cultural here. Isolated areas always get internet broadband and cell towers as a basic service. We've got it at our cabin. 19km 12 miles of cable then running to each of 45 cabins and a lodge. No we didn't pay for it. Cell tower too.
There are crews this morning putting in more cables via hydrovac horizontal drilling. Quite noisy.
Academic marks follow everyone. My univ transcripts contains my highschool. I don't buy it. They took some holding pattern time after 2 weeks shutdown. Everything went online. Fall school term is contingently also planned for online. I'm hearing about a hybrid model of online plus not in person. Teachers are highly stressed but doing it.
Ah, the FT! Knew I was missing something (and they are centre-right - capitalist but not batshit insane).
You may have noticed that the Daily Distress Express is missing from Mr Hacker's list, but I expect its readers could be lumped in (or, preferably, buried) with those of the Daily Wail Mail.
He does not, however, have anything like the charm, wit, intelligence, and feeling for Peotry, shown by The Curse of St Custard's...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Molesworth
I didn't say it was anything other than a minority view. But it is a view I've heard expressed. As far as Churchill's reputation goes in terms of history and hagiography, other than some of the most egregiously populist histories, there are plenty of more balanced accounts. I'm old enough to remedy his cachet wavering from time to time. He was generally out of favour during the '70s, I'd suggest - or at least there was something of a reaction against the popular mythology. He was back in favour during the Thatcher era and is generally on a bit of a roll now.
I can remember a conversation with Aussie Communists - or at least sympathisers - back in 1979 when I came out with the standard South Walian view only to be told to leave the poor old guy alone. They didn't like his politics but they'd grown up in the East End before emigrating to Australia as £10 Poms in the 1960s and had a lot of time for Churchill for all the usual reasons - summer of 1940, his oratory etc.
A complex character with a complex legacy.
As for grades following you around, my understanding was that they got you into the next stage and then were forgotten. So my O Levels allowed me to do A Levels, they opened the door for University, while your degree only matters when applying for your first job. However, I could be wrong. (And I genuinely don't know what to do on the question of when schools should reopen.)
I think you could read any number of 'mainstream' accounts without hearing any mention of the Bengal famine apart from exculpation.
I don't have to work anything out. I look around me and hear the words spoken and observe the actions of the politicians. I make no pretence to being smart or, frankly, that interested. Except for the dead people. Dead people make a difference to me. Maybe that makes me weird.
Several weeks ago ('Five-Missed-Cobra-Meetings') Johnson said the UK had more than enough capacity for, specifically, testing, and for dealing with the virus, keeping fatalities down to negligible levels. I'm not saying he was lying, but who's going to put their hand up and say he was speaking the truth. Brexit is - I would say - evidently clearly not the example of greatness and unity as predicted by its campaigners. £350 million per week for the NHS? As I recall that was the very first casualty of 'oh, well, that's not really what we actually meant....'.
And I'm not 'getting it' whatever 'it' is. In fact, there is nothing to 'get'. There's just politicians' promises vs. reality.
I'm merely commenting on what I see and hear. Others are very happy to tell me that what I see and hear is wrong. And they do. From the David Icke/Bakersfield Doctor conspiracy theorists to the right-wing Johnson idolators who perhaps really and truly believe that the pandemic could not have been prepared for and genuinely came as a huge surprise to world leaders. I'm still relieved to not be in their company, even if I am a lowly minority!
Dieppe was a disaster. But it's not as if we ourselves weren't in the firing line. For all the overblown 'Finest hour' rhetoric it wasn't as if we were fighting a proxy war.
So yes, the Canadians bore the brunt of the carnage but it's not as if the British had their feet up over a cup of tea.
Somewhere between the 'Churchill was a complete and utter bastard and a total disaster and Churchill could do no wrong and the sun shone out of his arse' tropes lies the middle ground.
I'm sure that's the case too.
My point is that we should be looking for balance in both 'mainstream' and 'alternative' accounts.
Coming back to the Dieppe thing, I'm sure Gee D is right that the Canadians were expected to march cross country once they'd seized the town. As it happened, it was so well defended and the Royal Naval and RAF support so ineffective that they hardly got further than the beach.
Churchill had an almost obsessive belief in the effectiveness of Commandos - having seen the Boer Kommando units operating successfully during the Boer War. So he overestimated their ability to overwhelm the German defences at Dieppe. He thought they could knock out and disrupt German installations allowing the Canadians to take the town, conduct reconnaissance and then effect a fighting withdrawal. In the event it was a dismal failure and a bloody catastrophe.
The only mitigation might be that valuable lessons were learned so that similar mistakes were not made - or made to a lesser extent - on D-Day two years later. Shame it was such an expensive mistake in human terms.
I can understand the resentment. An American Serb once gave me a hard time over Churchill's alliance with Tito and Stalin. 'He would have stopped at nothing to defend his two-bit island ...'
Some chicken. Some neck.
It wasn't just about defending Blighty. It was about the liberation of Europe. France was still in the War when the evacuations took place at Dunkirk. The intention wasn't just to save our troops and defend our island but to return them as soon as practically possible to support the 51st Highland Division who were still fighting alongside the French south of the Somme.
These plans were revised as France collapsed and surrendered in late June and plans to evacuate the Highland Division were abandoned as impractical.
Churchill's war aims were always to hold on for as long as possible with the support of the Commonwealth until such time as 'the New World' with all its power and resources came 'to the liberation of the Old.'
That doesn't mean he didn't make mistakes. It doesn't mean that everything that Britain did during the War was justifiable or squeaky clean. But given what was at stake it's hard to see what he could have done in 1940 that wouldn't have led to a worse outcome - but who knows? We can only speculate about alternatives.
I don't think we need to balance a shift in the Overton Window around your one encounter with Dave Spart.
I know more Dave and Diane Sparts than you might think.
Then you get his great reluctance to allow Australian troops to return home to defend Australia after Singapore fell. His concern was to protect the Indian Empire as a cheap source of raw materials and then a place to sell goods manufactured from those materials. And of course the unrealistic wish to maintain an empire. Basically, he failed to understand the 1926 Conference which resulted in the Balfour Declaration, and considered that the UK government was able to override the wishes of the governments of the Dominions. Curtin turned to the US and obtained immediate support.
That was probably during the time when we had a Labour government...
There are numerous variations on the theme, I'm sure.
Pretty sure than in 2020 the loudmouthed members of the Spart family have less reach than even any number of fringe ideas that you'd care to mention - perhaps you should stop hanging out with people who annoy you?
If I hear one more person say it’ll be fine, because Denmark is managing schools being open, I shall scream! Talk about you might as well compare apples and pears. Let me see 🤔. Oh yes, Denmark approx 600 deaths, UK, um, would that be tens of thousands? Denmark, well funded education, resources and buildings, UK, um, not so much after 10 years of austerity. Denmark, no I think I’ll stop there for the sake of my mental well being! My daughter in law, a teacher with 3 school age children lives in the NW and is scared. Would I trust anything this government says? Absolutely not!
I'd leave the Ship if that was the case.
... because everyone knows that teachers and support staff grow on trees, and it will be just as easy to replace them as it is to replace the six hundred or so NHS staff who have died. Easier, in fact, because they don't need to be medically qualified. 😠
This policy doesn't even make sense if you do value the economy above human lives.
Of course in England teachers no longer need to be qualified at all.
Which is why Gove thought it would be a great idea to have it that way for everyone, because the circumstances and pressures that drive recruitment at Eton, Harrow and Westminster are exactly the same as those that drive Arsend Academy, Blackpool.
Whether Oxbridge continues the traditional approach of putting some very smart researcher in front of students without any teaching skills or programme to develop those skills I don't know. But the current cabinet probably went through the university system where lecturers couldn't teach themselves out of a paper bag.
Yes, thank you for that. Denmark also locked down early, 11 March, I think. There are plenty of strange comparisons like this floating around, e.g., flu/covid, UK/Sweden, especially by the skeptics. Didn't the UK govt offer reassurance on care homes?
From what I recall Oxford and Cambridge traditionally made up for that with tutorials and supervisions (respectively) and still do, though I suspect (and anecdotes I've heard would support the idea) that luck of the draw still had a large effect on the quality of service you received as a student.
My issue as a student wasn't so much that my lecturers were poor at teaching (though some of them were) but that most of the physics department didn't have English as a first language, with them having built a world class research team on the cheap by recruiting extensively in the former USSR after the wall came down. One of our lecturers was heard to retort, in response to complaints that we were having trouble understanding the material, that he'd learnt the whole lot in a different alphabet so we should imagine how he felt!
He was a man widely respected for his incorruptible integrity. Unfortunately, this was accompanied by an abnormal dogmatic rigidity, especially with regard to social policy and economics, an impervious conviction that he was right at all times, a complete shortfall on human sentiment and a lack of any sense of inner humility. He eventually was rewarded with a baronetcy, though not until 30 years later and mainly for other things.
Churchill's greatness derives from what he pulled off as a war leader in 1940. He was, though, also markedly flawed, something many of those who adulate him, including one of my headmasters long ago, refuse to recognise. So was Lloyd George whose achievements were in many ways much greater. After all, unusually, he was a successful peace time politician as well.
Mr de Pfeffel appears to imagine that by studiously modelling the flaws of both, somehow he will also absorb the greatnesses of both without having to do anything to merit either.
I have some up-to-date information on that. First, a Cambridge PhD student who was "funded" by the university during their doctoral research for 2 years by teaching for 15 hours a week: fortunately they were a languages student and had spent time between first degree and the start of their research working in language schools abroad and teaching one-to-one. They said that without that experience they would have been floundering.
Second, we have living with us at the moment a Godchild who has just sent in his thesis for moderation. A scientist, he was given no guidance but also expected to undertake teaching. Deemed too young to go up at just 17, he spent a year as a lab assistant in a boarding school, an experience he said he drew on heavily.
I think that's true. Boris thinks of himself in Churchillian terms, as if to think in that way is key to assuming the mantle without actually having to do anything to earn it ... and of course there is plenty about Churchill that one wouldn't really want to emulate.
The only similarity to Lloyd George I can see lies in Boris's libido.
I think that's particularly insightful.
Up thread, I did not acknowledge Sir Winston's flaws - mostly because I did not think it pertinent to the discussion at that point but I do agree that the simplistic beatification or demonisation are both wide of the mark. He was a complex, brilliant and deeply flawed character. So what?
OTOH Johnson only has one out of those three. Sadly he's completely wrong in his self-assessment as which one.
AFZ
I think the reason it matters is because the events around WWII and the life of Churchill in particular have increasingly had an hagiographic treatment applied to them - most vociferously by the children of the wartime generation rather than that generation itself.
This nostalgic reading that flattens out those events is than used as a template to recast other historical events in that same image (Gove wanted to recast the events of First World War to fit the most simplistic template of the Second).
Ultimately this form of remembrance moves these events (and the people involved in them) beyond the sphere of criticism altogether and I think that's a very dangerous thing - if only because it is then adopted by contemporary politicians to push certain policies and to provide exculpation when needed.
As long as this time they have proper security checks on ministerial staff and other outsiders brought in.
I agree with all of that.
I was a little lazy and imprecise in my phrasing.
There is an interesting argument to be had in general about weighing great achievements against other failings and whether and when one cancels out the other. It's clearly true that this applies to Sir Winston specifically. The reason I wrote 'so what?' - which was lazy writing - is because in the context of arguing against the notion that Johnson is great like Churchill, I don't think we need to focus on Sir Winston's failings. I do consider Churchill a great British leader and a lot of other things too.
Where I am probably guilty of not joined up thinking is in ignoring the hagiographic treatment of Churchill. This is because it is the same simplistic nonsense - from the same people - to argue that it is some form of blasphemy to question WSC's greatness as it is to think that Boris's confident bluster is any form of leadership.
They want us to believe that Boris is a jolly good chap. In reality, Mr Johnson is an arrogant, lazy, feckless incompetent. My point was that even this one-dimensional view of Churchill didn't do Johnson any favours. However, you are right about the dangerous nation myths about the war and how 'we stood alone' etc. I wasn't trying to ignore this truth just that even a rose-tinted view of Churchill was not helpful to Boris's cause. Reflecting on what you wrote, I think this rose-tinted view needs challenging as well because the Boris is Great myth folds into this false narrative and national identity so easily.
AFZ
Yes, simplistic nonsense can still be dangerous - and even if Johnson's attempt to tap into that mythos and the associated affect ultimately fails, it still leaves those levers for more skilled politicians to manipulate.
Bloody hell, Hugal. You're behind. He's been back blustering in the House of Commons for a while now. Don't you watch the news or read the papers?
Free cellular broadband could, in principle, be done (but wouldn't be). Finding adequate space for children to study in a crowded house is rather harder. Perhaps you're not aware of the difference in scale between houses in rural Canada and what you get in the urban UK. You can, perhaps, throw up a few broadband towers and buy a crate of laptops. It's rather harder to throw up a couple of extra rooms in a small flat. A lot of people don't even have a dining table to have a shared space at.
There's also rather a difference between the educational model where the school sets the exam and awards the grade, and the model where the exams are national public exams and everyone sits the same paper.
I think it often more accurate to say that the tutorial/supervision is the focus of your education, and that lectures are supplementary material. Certainly our lecturers varied in quality - some were fantastic, and some were awful. Most people voted with their feet and only attended lectures by competent lecturers. Nobody would dare miss a tutorial.
He seems to be missing a lot of evening briefings. I normally do keep up with the news but not for a few days.
In fairness, he has been very ill, but I'm sure his aides are keeping him out of the firing line for the moment.
You couldn't go university without at least a grade C in maths, in addition to whatever A level grades were asked of you.
Including your high school grades in CVs and applications is considered laughable, but is also demanded by many hiring managers.
Can confirm that high school exam grades have been explicitly gatekept in a number of hiring processes I've been through, even 20 years later.