On Ofsted. I know an awful lot about Ofsted, for reasons I'm not going to disclose. And I'm not going to quibble with the excellent header, although I would dispute a few elements of it. However, I would put forward a defence of Ofsted on its impact, if not on its current practice.
I spent my career in post-16 education, which Ofsted started inspecting in 2001. The first tranche of inspections between 2001 and 2003 highlighted dreadful practice in many colleges, with success rates (the proportion who start a course and finish it successfully) being simply appalling - often less than 50%, sometimes as low as 20/30%; alongside much poor teaching practice, obviously. The impact of accountability from Ofsted led to a very rapid improvement in such measures - by the time I retired (2018), if the success rate wasn't at least 80% the institution was in trouble. In schools, I think the impact was similar, albeit more mixed.
I'm in danger of writing too much, especially as I've just come back from the pub. But I'd conclude by saying that some form of inspection accountability is probably a necessary evil.
I agree about inspections. And I said as much. Self-evaluation is not the answer, as OFSTED itself has undoubtedly proved.
A little anecdote, if it helps. When I first became a Head of Department, after just two terms in teaching, I was taking over a failing department in a school at risk of closure.
Having looked at what was going on, the first thing I did was go to a good friend who was an OFSTED inspector and ask his advice on what would, from his very wide experience of these things, be the right thing to do.
He gave me the best advice I've ever had, and by following it in twelve months I had not only turned my own department around but was supporting three others in their attempts to lift them out of the mire. With considerable success. That school went, following his guidance transmitted through me, from 'bloody lucky not to get inadequate' to 'outstanding' in just three years.
And he did that in over a hundred schools, up and down the land. That's the lives of thousands of children improved.
That's what OFSTED can be. And should be. An organisation that can give excellent advice, and be relied on to be fair, but when necessary actually show some balls and sort shit out. Whether it was doing that under Woodhead, himself a failed teacher twice fired from schools, is a different question. But under Tomlinson and Bell, it certainly was.
The anger I express in my somewhat prolix thread header is because it's currently not doing that.
OFSTED is necessary. It does not have to be evil. The fact it is, and in particular the fact that it is a serious risk to children through institutional lethargy, should be unacceptable to us all.
Nice anecdote - I've seen simlar. Out of curiosity, was your Ofsted inspector an HMI or an Additional Inspector? In my experience there's usually, though not always, quite a difference.
I think he was an additional inspector but as he worked more or less full time for OFSTED (he was retired) as far as I was concerned that was a distinction without a difference. He would do inspections most weeks.
If every OFSTED inspector was like my friend, even the catastrophic curriculum framework wouldn't be so bad to deal with.
The Tory membership still rates JRM so that says it all really.
That's the real trouble. There will be bright young Tories in Notting Hill or similar, but they have to be acceptable to my mother, and yes she does like JRM...
On Ofsted. I know an awful lot about Ofsted, for reasons I'm not going to disclose. And I'm not going to quibble with the excellent header, although I would dispute a few elements of it. However, I would put forward a defence of Ofsted on its impact, if not on its current practice.
I spent my career in post-16 education, which Ofsted started inspecting in 2001. The first tranche of inspections between 2001 and 2003 highlighted dreadful practice in many colleges, with success rates (the proportion who start a course and finish it successfully) being simply appalling - often less than 50%, sometimes as low as 20/30%; alongside much poor teaching practice, obviously. The impact of accountability from Ofsted led to a very rapid improvement in such measures - by the time I retired (2018), if the success rate wasn't at least 80% the institution was in trouble. In schools, I think the impact was similar, albeit more mixed.
I'm in danger of writing too much, especially as I've just come back from the pub. But I'd conclude by saying that some form of inspection accountability is probably a necessary evil.
I agree about inspections. And I said as much. Self-evaluation is not the answer, as OFSTED itself has undoubtedly proved.
A little anecdote, if it helps. When I first became a Head of Department, after just two terms in teaching, I was taking over a failing department in a school at risk of closure.
Having looked at what was going on, the first thing I did was go to a good friend who was an OFSTED inspector and ask his advice on what would, from his very wide experience of these things, be the right thing to do.
He gave me the best advice I've ever had, and by following it in twelve months I had not only turned my own department around but was supporting three others in their attempts to lift them out of the mire. With considerable success. That school went, following his guidance transmitted through me, from 'bloody lucky not to get inadequate' to 'outstanding' in just three years.
And he did that in over a hundred schools, up and down the land. That's the lives of thousands of children improved.
That's what OFSTED can be. And should be. An organisation that can give excellent advice, and be relied on to be fair, but when necessary actually show some balls and sort shit out. Whether it was doing that under Woodhead, himself a failed teacher twice fired from schools, is a different question. But under Tomlinson and Bell, it certainly was.
The anger I express in my somewhat prolix thread header is because it's currently not doing that.
OFSTED is necessary. It does not have to be evil. The fact it is, and in particular the fact that it is a serious risk to children through institutional lethargy, should be unacceptable to us all.
Nice anecdote - I've seen simlar. Out of curiosity, was your Ofsted inspector an HMI or an Additional Inspector? In my experience there's usually, though not always, quite a difference.
I think he was an additional inspector but as he worked more or less full time for OFSTED (he was retired) as far as I was concerned that was a distinction without a difference. He would do inspections most weeks.
If every OFSTED inspector was like my friend, even the catastrophic curriculum framework wouldn't be so bad to deal with.
Personally I think the current Ofsted framework is unbalanced. Too much emphasis on the curriculum stuff and not enough on students' outcomes and the quality of teaching, which were the main focus of previous frameworks. Others disagree.
On Ofsted. I know an awful lot about Ofsted, for reasons I'm not going to disclose. And I'm not going to quibble with the excellent header, although I would dispute a few elements of it. However, I would put forward a defence of Ofsted on its impact, if not on its current practice.
I spent my career in post-16 education, which Ofsted started inspecting in 2001. The first tranche of inspections between 2001 and 2003 highlighted dreadful practice in many colleges, with success rates (the proportion who start a course and finish it successfully) being simply appalling - often less than 50%, sometimes as low as 20/30%; alongside much poor teaching practice, obviously. The impact of accountability from Ofsted led to a very rapid improvement in such measures - by the time I retired (2018), if the success rate wasn't at least 80% the institution was in trouble. In schools, I think the impact was similar, albeit more mixed.
I'm in danger of writing too much, especially as I've just come back from the pub. But I'd conclude by saying that some form of inspection accountability is probably a necessary evil.
I agree about inspections. And I said as much. Self-evaluation is not the answer, as OFSTED itself has undoubtedly proved.
A little anecdote, if it helps. When I first became a Head of Department, after just two terms in teaching, I was taking over a failing department in a school at risk of closure.
Having looked at what was going on, the first thing I did was go to a good friend who was an OFSTED inspector and ask his advice on what would, from his very wide experience of these things, be the right thing to do.
He gave me the best advice I've ever had, and by following it in twelve months I had not only turned my own department around but was supporting three others in their attempts to lift them out of the mire. With considerable success. That school went, following his guidance transmitted through me, from 'bloody lucky not to get inadequate' to 'outstanding' in just three years.
And he did that in over a hundred schools, up and down the land. That's the lives of thousands of children improved.
That's what OFSTED can be. And should be. An organisation that can give excellent advice, and be relied on to be fair, but when necessary actually show some balls and sort shit out. Whether it was doing that under Woodhead, himself a failed teacher twice fired from schools, is a different question. But under Tomlinson and Bell, it certainly was.
The anger I express in my somewhat prolix thread header is because it's currently not doing that.
OFSTED is necessary. It does not have to be evil. The fact it is, and in particular the fact that it is a serious risk to children through institutional lethargy, should be unacceptable to us all.
Nice anecdote - I've seen simlar. Out of curiosity, was your Ofsted inspector an HMI or an Additional Inspector? In my experience there's usually, though not always, quite a difference.
I think he was an additional inspector but as he worked more or less full time for OFSTED (he was retired) as far as I was concerned that was a distinction without a difference. He would do inspections most weeks.
If every OFSTED inspector was like my friend, even the catastrophic curriculum framework wouldn't be so bad to deal with.
Personally I think the current Ofsted framework is unbalanced. Too much emphasis on the curriculum stuff and not enough on students' outcomes and the quality of teaching, which were the main focus of previous frameworks. Others disagree.
Personally, I do not understand how *any* curriculum framework could put processes ahead of outcomes for something like teaching. Isn't the whole point of teaching meant to have an outcome of a child that's been well educated according to their own needs?
I know Spielman and the DfE disagree. However, I consider their views utterly worthless.
Who had the government's wine cellar on their next government scandal bingo card?
33 000 bottles with a value of £3.2 million works out at an average of nearly £100 a bottle.
Rather better than my wine cellar!
Well, they haven’t been shopping at the local supermarket!
My brother was once a guest at an official dinner at the British embassy in Paris a couple of decades back. Tremendous wines he said, after all can't insult the French!
When Franklin D. Roosevelt was Governor of New York, and then President of the United States, one thing that REALLY bugged him was practice, indeed insistence, by First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, of serving DOMESTIC wines at state dinners and the like.
This at a time when American domestic wines available, at least on eastern seaboard, where New York State wines. Which unfortunately (though probably correctly) were considered undrinkable in high society as product of "foxy" grapes.
Off topic, I don't normally go for blended whisky, but yesterday I sampled some Chivas 18, which was rather nice. I then discovered that it retails at £94 a bottle, so I think I'll be sticking to 12 year old Single Malts.
Dewar's 18 is even better imo. Blended whisky can be wonderful at higher ages - many component whiskies will actually be older than the age statement; which indicates the minimum age.
A little anecdote, if it helps. When I first became a Head of Department, after just two terms in teaching, I was taking over a failing department in a school at risk of closure.
Having looked at what was going on, the first thing I did was go to a good friend who was an OFSTED inspector and ask his advice on what would, from his very wide experience of these things, be the right thing to do.
He gave me the best advice I've ever had, and by following it in twelve months I had not only turned my own department around but was supporting three others in their attempts to lift them out of the mire. With considerable success. That school went, following his guidance transmitted through me, from 'bloody lucky not to get inadequate' to 'outstanding' in just three years.
Out of curiosity, what kinds of things did he advise? I'm curious about what works in turning around a struggling school. (Presumably some of it is specific to the problems in that particular school, and some more generally applicable.)
On Ofsted. I know an awful lot about Ofsted, for reasons I'm not going to disclose. And I'm not going to quibble with the excellent header, although I would dispute a few elements of it. However, I would put forward a defence of Ofsted on its impact, if not on its current practice.
I spent my career in post-16 education, which Ofsted started inspecting in 2001. The first tranche of inspections between 2001 and 2003 highlighted dreadful practice in many colleges, with success rates (the proportion who start a course and finish it successfully) being simply appalling - often less than 50%, sometimes as low as 20/30%; alongside much poor teaching practice, obviously. The impact of accountability from Ofsted led to a very rapid improvement in such measures - by the time I retired (2018), if the success rate wasn't at least 80% the institution was in trouble. In schools, I think the impact was similar, albeit more mixed.
I'm in danger of writing too much, especially as I've just come back from the pub. But I'd conclude by saying that some form of inspection accountability is probably a necessary evil.
I agree about inspections. And I said as much. Self-evaluation is not the answer, as OFSTED itself has undoubtedly proved.
A little anecdote, if it helps. When I first became a Head of Department, after just two terms in teaching, I was taking over a failing department in a school at risk of closure.
Having looked at what was going on, the first thing I did was go to a good friend who was an OFSTED inspector and ask his advice on what would, from his very wide experience of these things, be the right thing to do.
He gave me the best advice I've ever had, and by following it in twelve months I had not only turned my own department around but was supporting three others in their attempts to lift them out of the mire. With considerable success. That school went, following his guidance transmitted through me, from 'bloody lucky not to get inadequate' to 'outstanding' in just three years.
And he did that in over a hundred schools, up and down the land. That's the lives of thousands of children improved.
That's what OFSTED can be. And should be. An organisation that can give excellent advice, and be relied on to be fair, but when necessary actually show some balls and sort shit out. Whether it was doing that under Woodhead, himself a failed teacher twice fired from schools, is a different question. But under Tomlinson and Bell, it certainly was.
The anger I express in my somewhat prolix thread header is because it's currently not doing that.
OFSTED is necessary. It does not have to be evil. The fact it is, and in particular the fact that it is a serious risk to children through institutional lethargy, should be unacceptable to us all.
Nice anecdote - I've seen simlar. Out of curiosity, was your Ofsted inspector an HMI or an Additional Inspector? In my experience there's usually, though not always, quite a difference.
I think he was an additional inspector but as he worked more or less full time for OFSTED (he was retired) as far as I was concerned that was a distinction without a difference. He would do inspections most weeks.
If every OFSTED inspector was like my friend, even the catastrophic curriculum framework wouldn't be so bad to deal with.
Personally I think the current Ofsted framework is unbalanced. Too much emphasis on the curriculum stuff and not enough on students' outcomes and the quality of teaching, which were the main focus of previous frameworks. Others disagree.
Personally, I do not understand how *any* curriculum framework could put processes ahead of outcomes for something like teaching. Isn't the whole point of teaching meant to have an outcome of a child that's been well educated according to their own needs?
I know Spielman and the DfE disagree. However, I consider their views utterly worthless.
Are there any others?
In general I agree. But in post-16 it's a bit more complicated. For apprenticeships, for example, the content of the curriculum and the way it's sequenced is almost as important as the teaching, particularly for higher-level apprenticeships where learners can, to some extent, just get on with it. Anyway, I'm getting too specialised now.
A little anecdote, if it helps. When I first became a Head of Department, after just two terms in teaching, I was taking over a failing department in a school at risk of closure.
Having looked at what was going on, the first thing I did was go to a good friend who was an OFSTED inspector and ask his advice on what would, from his very wide experience of these things, be the right thing to do.
He gave me the best advice I've ever had, and by following it in twelve months I had not only turned my own department around but was supporting three others in their attempts to lift them out of the mire. With considerable success. That school went, following his guidance transmitted through me, from 'bloody lucky not to get inadequate' to 'outstanding' in just three years.
Out of curiosity, what kinds of things did he advise? I'm curious about what works in turning around a struggling school. (Presumably some of it is specific to the problems in that particular school, and some more generally applicable.)
He advised me on what marking policy would be most effective. He advised me on how to design the curriculum to support learning and development (incidentally I also had input from an HMI on that as well) He also taught me more on book scrutinies in ten minutes than I would have learned on my own in five years, which was enormously helpful in making sure these things were being done correctly He taught me a new system of data tracking that genuinely revolutionised the way we monitored performance and was swiftly rolled out across the school.
And he never asked for anything at all in exchange. He thought helping children learn was more than reward enough.
Sadly, he left a year into Spielman's tenure. He was past retirement age, but he was also completely fed up. He said that what he was being asked to do was not what he went into OFSTED to achieve.
Off topic, I don't normally go for blended whisky, but yesterday I sampled some Chivas 18, which was rather nice. I then discovered that it retails at £94 a bottle, so I think I'll be sticking to 12 year old Single Malts.
Dewar's 18 is even better imo. Blended whisky can be wonderful at higher ages - many component whiskies will actually be older than the age statement; which indicates the minimum age.
I was in a pub in St Hellier a few years back and one of the blended whiskeys they had on their board was priced at £125 per shot (£30 off if you buy 2).
A little anecdote, if it helps. When I first became a Head of Department, after just two terms in teaching, I was taking over a failing department in a school at risk of closure.
Having looked at what was going on, the first thing I did was go to a good friend who was an OFSTED inspector and ask his advice on what would, from his very wide experience of these things, be the right thing to do.
He gave me the best advice I've ever had, and by following it in twelve months I had not only turned my own department around but was supporting three others in their attempts to lift them out of the mire. With considerable success. That school went, following his guidance transmitted through me, from 'bloody lucky not to get inadequate' to 'outstanding' in just three years.
Out of curiosity, what kinds of things did he advise? I'm curious about what works in turning around a struggling school. (Presumably some of it is specific to the problems in that particular school, and some more generally applicable.)
He advised me on what marking policy would be most effective. He advised me on how to design the curriculum to support learning and development (incidentally I also had input from an HMI on that as well) He also taught me more on book scrutinies in ten minutes than I would have learned on my own in five years, which was enormously helpful in making sure these things were being done correctly He taught me a new system of data tracking that genuinely revolutionised the way we monitored performance and was swiftly rolled out across the school.
And he never asked for anything at all in exchange. He thought helping children learn was more than reward enough.
Sadly, he left a year into Spielman's tenure. He was past retirement age, but he was also completely fed up. He said that what he was being asked to do was not what he went into OFSTED to achieve.
Who had the government's wine cellar on their next government scandal bingo card?
33 000 bottles with a value of £3.2 million works out at an average of nearly £100 a bottle.
Rather better than my wine cellar!
Well, they haven’t been shopping at the local supermarket!
My brother was once a guest at an official dinner at the British embassy in Paris a couple of decades back. Tremendous wines he said, after all can't insult the French!
Apparently the wine cellar at the Elysee is quite something. Possibly the best in the world alongside the royal wine cellar in London, I'd guess
Trinity maybe, although they have no repute for great wines (But you'd expect them to keep such things quiet).
Venice otherwise.
Nowhere in Venice will have that consistent power and wealth over the last two centuries
The Elysee and the Royals do. Perhaps the US presidency?*
Off topic, I don't normally go for blended whisky, but yesterday I sampled some Chivas 18, which was rather nice. I then discovered that it retails at £94 a bottle, so I think I'll be sticking to 12 year old Single Malts.
Dewar's 18 is even better imo. Blended whisky can be wonderful at higher ages - many component whiskies will actually be older than the age statement; which indicates the minimum age.
I was in a pub in St Hellier a few years back and one of the blended whiskeys they had on their board was priced at £125 per shot (£30 off if you buy 2).
It's a different world. That's like my monthly disposal income on a single shot of whiskey.
The Tory membership still rates JRM so that says it all really.
That's the real trouble. There will be bright young Tories in Notting Hill or similar, but they have to be acceptable to my mother, and yes she does like JRM...
it will take a couple of bad defeats before the parliamentary party starts to look to who can win an election rather than who can do the best right wing politics.
Off topic, I don't normally go for blended whisky, but yesterday I sampled some Chivas 18, which was rather nice. I then discovered that it retails at £94 a bottle, so I think I'll be sticking to 12 year old Single Malts.
Dewar's 18 is even better imo. Blended whisky can be wonderful at higher ages - many component whiskies will actually be older than the age statement; which indicates the minimum age.
I was in a pub in St Hellier a few years back and one of the blended whiskeys they had on their board was priced at £125 per shot (£30 off if you buy 2).
I was in Cincinnati recently and had a tiny snifter of a $20k bottle of Bourbon
I cannot say it was worth the money (tho I got it free)
Off topic, I don't normally go for blended whisky, but yesterday I sampled some Chivas 18, which was rather nice. I then discovered that it retails at £94 a bottle, so I think I'll be sticking to 12 year old Single Malts.
Dewar's 18 is even better imo. Blended whisky can be wonderful at higher ages - many component whiskies will actually be older than the age statement; which indicates the minimum age.
I was in a pub in St Hellier a few years back and one of the blended whiskeys they had on their board was priced at £125 per shot (£30 off if you buy 2).
I was in Cincinnati recently and had a tiny snifter of a $20k bottle of Bourbon
I cannot say it was worth the money (tho I got it free)
There's always been folk with more money than sense.
A little anecdote, if it helps. When I first became a Head of Department, after just two terms in teaching, I was taking over a failing department in a school at risk of closure.
Having looked at what was going on, the first thing I did was go to a good friend who was an OFSTED inspector and ask his advice on what would, from his very wide experience of these things, be the right thing to do.
He gave me the best advice I've ever had, and by following it in twelve months I had not only turned my own department around but was supporting three others in their attempts to lift them out of the mire. With considerable success. That school went, following his guidance transmitted through me, from 'bloody lucky not to get inadequate' to 'outstanding' in just three years.
Out of curiosity, what kinds of things did he advise? I'm curious about what works in turning around a struggling school. (Presumably some of it is specific to the problems in that particular school, and some more generally applicable.)
He advised me on what marking policy would be most effective. He advised me on how to design the curriculum to support learning and development (incidentally I also had input from an HMI on that as well) He also taught me more on book scrutinies in ten minutes than I would have learned on my own in five years, which was enormously helpful in making sure these things were being done correctly He taught me a new system of data tracking that genuinely revolutionised the way we monitored performance and was swiftly rolled out across the school.
And he never asked for anything at all in exchange. He thought helping children learn was more than reward enough.
Sadly, he left a year into Spielman's tenure. He was past retirement age, but he was also completely fed up. He said that what he was being asked to do was not what he went into OFSTED to achieve.
In short, he was supportive rather than punitive?
Yes. Although I should stress, he was advising me as a friend. It might have been different had he been on a formal inspection.
But one thing I did notice about his work - which he talked about a lot because he had a real passion for it - was that the learning of children was front and centre of absolutely everything. If they were learning, he was happy. If they weren't, the only thing he wanted was to find a way for them to improve.
I'd not be afraid of being inspected by somebody with that attitude. If I get my ears twisted, I'll know I deserve it and that I need to improve things. And, moreover, I'll be willing to be told what to do to get it right.
Somebody out to build a report on forged evidence to fit a preconceived agenda is a horse of a different colour.
Again, two years ago if you'd told me OFSTED inspectors were doing that I would have laughed at you. Because although I sometimes wondered how complete their information was or whether they tended to see facts that fit their theories I would never have accused them of making stuff up.
Now - well, now I don't feel I can trust them.
I think everyone knows I have an even more jaundiced view of the ISI than OFSTED. However, I would say that one thing their new framework is triumphantly right on is that if they spot a problem they will immediately offer guidance on how to fix it, and if it's sorted by the end of the inspection they will not include it in the report on the grounds that it's all good now.
If OFSTED had taken that approach they'd have several other problems but they wouldn't have the law on their case.
Off topic, I don't normally go for blended whisky, but yesterday I sampled some Chivas 18, which was rather nice. I then discovered that it retails at £94 a bottle, so I think I'll be sticking to 12 year old Single Malts.
Dewar's 18 is even better imo. Blended whisky can be wonderful at higher ages - many component whiskies will actually be older than the age statement; which indicates the minimum age.
I was in a pub in St Hellier a few years back and one of the blended whiskeys they had on their board was priced at £125 per shot (£30 off if you buy 2).
I was in Cincinnati recently and had a tiny snifter of a $20k bottle of Bourbon
I cannot say it was worth the money (tho I got it free)
How bad was it that it wasn't worth the money, despite being free?
Off topic, I don't normally go for blended whisky, but yesterday I sampled some Chivas 18, which was rather nice. I then discovered that it retails at £94 a bottle, so I think I'll be sticking to 12 year old Single Malts.
Dewar's 18 is even better imo. Blended whisky can be wonderful at higher ages - many component whiskies will actually be older than the age statement; which indicates the minimum age.
I was in a pub in St Hellier a few years back and one of the blended whiskeys they had on their board was priced at £125 per shot (£30 off if you buy 2).
It's a different world. That's like my monthly disposal income on a single shot of whiskey.
Whisky. Whisk-e-y refers to Irish Whiskey or American Whiskey.
There are about 28 25ml shots in a 70cl bottle, so that's a £3,500 bottle - though they've probably marked it up a fair bit. That's usually the price of a 40 year old malt from a pretty good distillery (though Macallan the prices are different for some reason). You don't see many blended whiskies command that sort of price, even very aged ones.
Another part of OFSTED's work is their inspection regimen for local authorities. Counties in particular can be utterly paralysed by an impending OFSTED inspection but said inspections do tend to highlight problems in either social care in general or SEN provision in particular which can be embarrassing to ruling groups and Cabinet members.
A poor OFSTED report is often a catalyst for changes at senior management level with a number of "retirements" suddenly being announced.
I'd argue special needs provision is a huge issue facing all local authorities - quite apart from the assessment process itself being hampered by a lack of qualified staff, the accommodation available within schools (dedicated units) just can't deal with the numbers of children deemed to be requiring SEN teaching.
The latter may or may not be a direct consequence of the pandemic - those asserting lockdowns did huge damage to some children do have some evidence supporting their argument.
Off topic, I don't normally go for blended whisky, but yesterday I sampled some Chivas 18, which was rather nice. I then discovered that it retails at £94 a bottle, so I think I'll be sticking to 12 year old Single Malts.
Dewar's 18 is even better imo. Blended whisky can be wonderful at higher ages - many component whiskies will actually be older than the age statement; which indicates the minimum age.
I was in a pub in St Hellier a few years back and one of the blended whiskeys they had on their board was priced at £125 per shot (£30 off if you buy 2).
I was in Cincinnati recently and had a tiny snifter of a $20k bottle of Bourbon
I cannot say it was worth the money (tho I got it free)
I was in Derby recently, and had a really nice cod and chips. Just over a tenner, and worth every penny.
PS For @viewcode: I was never told what the word limit for headers was. I have done short ones long before you started monitoring mine. I have different styles and lengths depending on where I am writing. Those on my work website are very short usually. For clients it depends on their requirements and for the legal feminist group, it's around 1600 words because those tend to be scholarly legal articles. On my personal website I please myself.
The Tory membership still rates JRM so that says it all really.
That's the real trouble. There will be bright young Tories in Notting Hill or similar, but they have to be acceptable to my mother, and yes she does like JRM...
it will take a couple of bad defeats before the parliamentary party starts to look to who can win an election rather than who can do the best right wing politics.
Rishi's failure to 'do right wing politics' is why he's on course to lose. We have the highest tax burden ever, a disastrously bloated and inefficient state that needs an axe taking to it, untramelled immigration - right wing politics have never been more important.
A little anecdote, if it helps. When I first became a Head of Department, after just two terms in teaching, I was taking over a failing department in a school at risk of closure.
Having looked at what was going on, the first thing I did was go to a good friend who was an OFSTED inspector and ask his advice on what would, from his very wide experience of these things, be the right thing to do.
He gave me the best advice I've ever had, and by following it in twelve months I had not only turned my own department around but was supporting three others in their attempts to lift them out of the mire. With considerable success. That school went, following his guidance transmitted through me, from 'bloody lucky not to get inadequate' to 'outstanding' in just three years.
Out of curiosity, what kinds of things did he advise? I'm curious about what works in turning around a struggling school. (Presumably some of it is specific to the problems in that particular school, and some more generally applicable.)
He advised me on what marking policy would be most effective. He advised me on how to design the curriculum to support learning and development (incidentally I also had input from an HMI on that as well) He also taught me more on book scrutinies in ten minutes than I would have learned on my own in five years, which was enormously helpful in making sure these things were being done correctly He taught me a new system of data tracking that genuinely revolutionised the way we monitored performance and was swiftly rolled out across the school.
And he never asked for anything at all in exchange. He thought helping children learn was more than reward enough.
Sadly, he left a year into Spielman's tenure. He was past retirement age, but he was also completely fed up. He said that what he was being asked to do was not what he went into OFSTED to achieve.
An interesting example of what a good inspection system can do - I presume a chunk of his knowledge came from seeing so many different schools and seeing what really worked?
If so, that matches with what has been seen in other fields. There are numerous stories, in aviation, of personnel from the FAA and similar organisations providing invaluable information (based on years of inspection) to operators and designers of aircraft.
The Tory membership still rates JRM so that says it all really.
That's the real trouble. There will be bright young Tories in Notting Hill or similar, but they have to be acceptable to my mother, and yes she does like JRM...
it will take a couple of bad defeats before the parliamentary party starts to look to who can win an election rather than who can do the best right wing politics.
Rishi's failure to 'do right wing politics' is why he's on course to lose. We have the highest tax burden ever, a disastrously bloated and inefficient state that needs an axe taking to it, untramelled immigration - right wing politics have never been more important.
A little anecdote, if it helps. When I first became a Head of Department, after just two terms in teaching, I was taking over a failing department in a school at risk of closure.
Having looked at what was going on, the first thing I did was go to a good friend who was an OFSTED inspector and ask his advice on what would, from his very wide experience of these things, be the right thing to do.
He gave me the best advice I've ever had, and by following it in twelve months I had not only turned my own department around but was supporting three others in their attempts to lift them out of the mire. With considerable success. That school went, following his guidance transmitted through me, from 'bloody lucky not to get inadequate' to 'outstanding' in just three years.
Out of curiosity, what kinds of things did he advise? I'm curious about what works in turning around a struggling school. (Presumably some of it is specific to the problems in that particular school, and some more generally applicable.)
He advised me on what marking policy would be most effective. He advised me on how to design the curriculum to support learning and development (incidentally I also had input from an HMI on that as well) He also taught me more on book scrutinies in ten minutes than I would have learned on my own in five years, which was enormously helpful in making sure these things were being done correctly He taught me a new system of data tracking that genuinely revolutionised the way we monitored performance and was swiftly rolled out across the school.
And he never asked for anything at all in exchange. He thought helping children learn was more than reward enough.
Sadly, he left a year into Spielman's tenure. He was past retirement age, but he was also completely fed up. He said that what he was being asked to do was not what he went into OFSTED to achieve.
In short, he was supportive rather than punitive?
Yes. Although I should stress, he was advising me as a friend. It might have been different had he been on a formal inspection.
But one thing I did notice about his work - which he talked about a lot because he had a real passion for it - was that the learning of children was front and centre of absolutely everything. If they were learning, he was happy. If they weren't, the only thing he wanted was to find a way for them to improve.
I'd not be afraid of being inspected by somebody with that attitude. If I get my ears twisted, I'll know I deserve it and that I need to improve things. And, moreover, I'll be willing to be told what to do to get it right.
Somebody out to build a report on forged evidence to fit a preconceived agenda is a horse of a different colour.
Again, two years ago if you'd told me OFSTED inspectors were doing that I would have laughed at you. Because although I sometimes wondered how complete their information was or whether they tended to see facts that fit their theories I would never have accused them of making stuff up.
Now - well, now I don't feel I can trust them.
I think everyone knows I have an even more jaundiced view of the ISI than OFSTED. However, I would say that one thing their new framework is triumphantly right on is that if they spot a problem they will immediately offer guidance on how to fix it, and if it's sorted by the end of the inspection they will not include it in the report on the grounds that it's all good now.
If OFSTED had taken that approach they'd have several other problems but they wouldn't have the law on their case.
Suspicion: the key turning point was when Ofsted became a trigger for academisation, and it was sort of understood that a certain proportion of schools would need to be pushed through that process.
Once the stakes of the assessment were pushed that high (and at the good/outstanding boundary as well) it became too much about the show on both sides.
And since the consequences of the reports were so weighty, Ofsted had to maintain a "we don't make mistakes" facade, and the framework had to become over mechanistic, because you can't destroy careers on impressions.
I remember meeting Spielman shortly after she took over and being optimistic; she didn't have Wilshaw's "I embody Outstanding" bombast. I was wrong.
The Tory membership still rates JRM so that says it all really.
That's the real trouble. There will be bright young Tories in Notting Hill or similar, but they have to be acceptable to my mother, and yes she does like JRM...
it will take a couple of bad defeats before the parliamentary party starts to look to who can win an election rather than who can do the best right wing politics.
Rishi's failure to 'do right wing politics' is why he's on course to lose. We have the highest tax burden ever, a disastrously bloated and inefficient state that needs an axe taking to it, untramelled immigration - right wing politics have never been more important.
Let me guess: the bits of the "disastrously bloated and inefficient state" that you want to put an axe to are the parts you don't use, need or interact with?
Off topic, I don't normally go for blended whisky, but yesterday I sampled some Chivas 18, which was rather nice. I then discovered that it retails at £94 a bottle, so I think I'll be sticking to 12 year old Single Malts.
Dewar's 18 is even better imo. Blended whisky can be wonderful at higher ages - many component whiskies will actually be older than the age statement; which indicates the minimum age.
I was in a pub in St Hellier a few years back and one of the blended whiskeys they had on their board was priced at £125 per shot (£30 off if you buy 2).
Years ago was on a Caribbean cruise (my one & only) when one of the port stops got cancelled due to engine trouble. Anyway, as part of the "compensation" to passengers for NOT seeing Nassau, announcement was made that we were each entitled to one free drink, IIRC correctly at each of the ship's watering holes.
So I went immediately to the fanciest bar on the vessel and told the bartender that I'd like a brandy - specifically, the Super-XXXXXXXXX top-of-the line brandy I'd noticed previously.
Not sure it was really worth the price . . . but didn't have to pay a dime. It was very nice.
A little anecdote, if it helps. When I first became a Head of Department, after just two terms in teaching, I was taking over a failing department in a school at risk of closure.
Having looked at what was going on, the first thing I did was go to a good friend who was an OFSTED inspector and ask his advice on what would, from his very wide experience of these things, be the right thing to do.
He gave me the best advice I've ever had, and by following it in twelve months I had not only turned my own department around but was supporting three others in their attempts to lift them out of the mire. With considerable success. That school went, following his guidance transmitted through me, from 'bloody lucky not to get inadequate' to 'outstanding' in just three years.
Out of curiosity, what kinds of things did he advise? I'm curious about what works in turning around a struggling school. (Presumably some of it is specific to the problems in that particular school, and some more generally applicable.)
He advised me on what marking policy would be most effective. He advised me on how to design the curriculum to support learning and development (incidentally I also had input from an HMI on that as well) He also taught me more on book scrutinies in ten minutes than I would have learned on my own in five years, which was enormously helpful in making sure these things were being done correctly He taught me a new system of data tracking that genuinely revolutionised the way we monitored performance and was swiftly rolled out across the school.
And he never asked for anything at all in exchange. He thought helping children learn was more than reward enough.
Sadly, he left a year into Spielman's tenure. He was past retirement age, but he was also completely fed up. He said that what he was being asked to do was not what he went into OFSTED to achieve.
In short, he was supportive rather than punitive?
Yes. Although I should stress, he was advising me as a friend. It might have been different had he been on a formal inspection.
But one thing I did notice about his work - which he talked about a lot because he had a real passion for it - was that the learning of children was front and centre of absolutely everything. If they were learning, he was happy. If they weren't, the only thing he wanted was to find a way for them to improve.
I'd not be afraid of being inspected by somebody with that attitude. If I get my ears twisted, I'll know I deserve it and that I need to improve things. And, moreover, I'll be willing to be told what to do to get it right.
Somebody out to build a report on forged evidence to fit a preconceived agenda is a horse of a different colour.
Again, two years ago if you'd told me OFSTED inspectors were doing that I would have laughed at you. Because although I sometimes wondered how complete their information was or whether they tended to see facts that fit their theories I would never have accused them of making stuff up.
Now - well, now I don't feel I can trust them.
I think everyone knows I have an even more jaundiced view of the ISI than OFSTED. However, I would say that one thing their new framework is triumphantly right on is that if they spot a problem they will immediately offer guidance on how to fix it, and if it's sorted by the end of the inspection they will not include it in the report on the grounds that it's all good now.
If OFSTED had taken that approach they'd have several other problems but they wouldn't have the law on their case.
Suspicion: the key turning point was when Ofsted became a trigger for academisation, and it was sort of understood that a certain proportion of schools would need to be pushed through that process.
Once the stakes of the assessment were pushed that high (and at the good/outstanding boundary as well) it became too much about the show on both sides.
And since the consequences of the reports were so weighty, Ofsted had to maintain a "we don't make mistakes" facade, and the framework had to become over mechanistic, because you can't destroy careers on impressions.
I remember meeting Spielman shortly after she took over and being optimistic; she didn't have Wilshaw's "I embody Outstanding" bombast. I was wrong.
We all make mistakes, which is why we need inspections.
@Malmesbury yes. His knowledge of good practice was because he saw so much. And, of course, the reason I went to him in the first place.
One point though - this wasn't about getting an outstanding OFSTED grade, as it would be now. It was about delivering an outstanding education which was recognised in an 'outstanding' grade.
The Tory membership still rates JRM so that says it all really.
That's the real trouble. There will be bright young Tories in Notting Hill or similar, but they have to be acceptable to my mother, and yes she does like JRM...
it will take a couple of bad defeats before the parliamentary party starts to look to who can win an election rather than who can do the best right wing politics.
Rishi's failure to 'do right wing politics' is why he's on course to lose. We have the highest tax burden ever, a disastrously bloated and inefficient state that needs an axe taking to it, untramelled immigration - right wing politics have never been more important.
Let me guess: the bits of the "disastrously bloated and inefficient state" that you want to put an axe to are the parts you don't use, need or interact with?
Not really; I'd be quite happy to see an axe taken to the parts I have regular dealings with. The administrative parts of quangos and Government departments are ludicrously overmanned and they need a rocket up them.
And funnily enough, Keegan’s husband was head of Fujitsu UK during the worst of that scandal…..
Indeed. This is what he says on his LinkedIn page -
Note the very carefully crafted statement about the Post Office which leaves a lot of questions unanswered.
I would very much like to understand the internal structure of Fujitsu during this time, its governance etc. Because even though Gareth Jenkins is obviously someone with a lot of explaining to do, there will have been lots of other much more senior people than him involved in the tendering process, in the design, development and management of Horizon, in the contractual arrangements with the Post Office and in the legal and other decisions taken throughout this whole period, including in relation to the prosecutions, investigations and so on.
They should not be allowed to develop sloping shoulders, any more than all the PO managers in addition to Paula Vennells, civil servants and Ministers should be allowed to.
The Tory membership still rates JRM so that says it all really.
That's the real trouble. There will be bright young Tories in Notting Hill or similar, but they have to be acceptable to my mother, and yes she does like JRM...
it will take a couple of bad defeats before the parliamentary party starts to look to who can win an election rather than who can do the best right wing politics.
Rishi's failure to 'do right wing politics' is why he's on course to lose. We have the highest tax burden ever, a disastrously bloated and inefficient state that needs an axe taking to it, untramelled immigration - right wing politics have never been more important.
Let me guess: the bits of the "disastrously bloated and inefficient state" that you want to put an axe to are the parts you don't use, need or interact with?
Not really; I'd be quite happy to see an axe taken to the parts I have regular dealings with. The administrative parts of quangos and Government departments are ludicrously overmanned and they need a rocket up them.
Really? What evidence do you have for that?
You do realise you're asking for worse public services?
Off topic, I don't normally go for blended whisky, but yesterday I sampled some Chivas 18, which was rather nice. I then discovered that it retails at £94 a bottle, so I think I'll be sticking to 12 year old Single Malts.
Dewar's 18 is even better imo. Blended whisky can be wonderful at higher ages - many component whiskies will actually be older than the age statement; which indicates the minimum age.
I was in a pub in St Hellier a few years back and one of the blended whiskeys they had on their board was priced at £125 per shot (£30 off if you buy 2).
I was in Cincinnati recently and had a tiny snifter of a $20k bottle of Bourbon
I cannot say it was worth the money (tho I got it free)
I was in Derby recently, and had a really nice cod and chips. Just over a tenner, and worth every penny.
I guess I got the better deal.
About the same, I'd say
Mine is a much better story; yours was much more satisfying
Off topic, I don't normally go for blended whisky, but yesterday I sampled some Chivas 18, which was rather nice. I then discovered that it retails at £94 a bottle, so I think I'll be sticking to 12 year old Single Malts.
Dewar's 18 is even better imo. Blended whisky can be wonderful at higher ages - many component whiskies will actually be older than the age statement; which indicates the minimum age.
I was in a pub in St Hellier a few years back and one of the blended whiskeys they had on their board was priced at £125 per shot (£30 off if you buy 2).
I was in Cincinnati recently and had a tiny snifter of a $20k bottle of Bourbon
I cannot say it was worth the money (tho I got it free)
I was in Derby recently, and had a really nice cod and chips. Just over a tenner, and worth every penny.
I guess I got the better deal.
About the same, I'd say
At least mine meant I didn't have to go to Cincinnati.
How many terms will SKS serve? And who will succeed him?
Term and a half. He's 61 now, and will retire at a sensible age with mild gratitude from the nation for a job adequately done. It could have been a lot worse.
As for his successor, I doubt they are a household name in their own household yet. There's no sign of a Blair/Brown thing happening, and thank goodness for that.
What I would also like to see is a list of non-bonkers stars on the Conservative candidates list. There must be someone good there, mustn't there?
Has anyone honestly had a good fish and chips and thought: that fish was better for being battered? I'm not sure I have, unless the fish is frozen and awful. A decent piece of fish should be grilled or quickly fried, how does smothering it in thick chunky batter make it "better"?
It's a melancholy admission. It is our national dish. It just disappoints me
On the other hand I love chips fried in beef dripping: they are the biz
The Tory membership still rates JRM so that says it all really.
That's the real trouble. There will be bright young Tories in Notting Hill or similar, but they have to be acceptable to my mother, and yes she does like JRM...
it will take a couple of bad defeats before the parliamentary party starts to look to who can win an election rather than who can do the best right wing politics.
Rishi's failure to 'do right wing politics' is why he's on course to lose. We have the highest tax burden ever, a disastrously bloated and inefficient state that needs an axe taking to it, untramelled immigration - right wing politics have never been more important.
Let me guess: the bits of the "disastrously bloated and inefficient state" that you want to put an axe to are the parts you don't use, need or interact with?
Not really; I'd be quite happy to see an axe taken to the parts I have regular dealings with. The administrative parts of quangos and Government departments are ludicrously overmanned and they need a rocket up them.
Really? What evidence do you have for that?
You do realise you're asking for worse public services?
On the contrary, staffing in (as an example) the NHS has grown vastly in recent years. Its headcount is comparable to the worldwide headcount of MacDonald's. Yet things have got shitter and shitter. Efficiencies are vital and I don't think they will harm the service - quite the opposite.
Has anyone honestly had a good fish and chips and thought: that fish was better for being battered? I'm not sure I have, unless the fish is frozen and awful. A decent piece of fish should be grilled or quickly fried, how does smothering it in thick chunky batter make it "better"?
It's a melancholy admission. It is our national dish. It just disappoints me
On the other hand I love chips fried in beef dripping: they are the biz
Battered fish is fried quickly. Batter is delicious, and deep drying the fish (as with deep frying anything) drives the moisture into the fish, making the middle tender and moist, whilst the outside is deliciously crispy. The fat that still adheres to the concoction helps deliver the flavours of the fish to the tastebuds.
Off topic, I don't normally go for blended whisky, but yesterday I sampled some Chivas 18, which was rather nice. I then discovered that it retails at £94 a bottle, so I think I'll be sticking to 12 year old Single Malts.
Dewar's 18 is even better imo. Blended whisky can be wonderful at higher ages - many component whiskies will actually be older than the age statement; which indicates the minimum age.
I was in a pub in St Hellier a few years back and one of the blended whiskeys they had on their board was priced at £125 per shot (£30 off if you buy 2).
I was in Cincinnati recently and had a tiny snifter of a $20k bottle of Bourbon
I cannot say it was worth the money (tho I got it free)
I was in Derby recently, and had a really nice cod and chips. Just over a tenner, and worth every penny.
I guess I got the better deal.
About the same, I'd say
At least mine meant I didn't have to go to Cincinnati.
Quite so
Cincinnati is a sad place. Lots of potential, but pretty much fucked in that contemporary urban American way: hollowed out centre, too much parking, freeways in the middle of the city, homelessness and crime. And fairly shit food
In the 19th century it was the Queen of the West, and images show that to be true. The automobile destroyed it
Has anyone honestly had a good fish and chips and thought: that fish was better for being battered? I'm not sure I have, unless the fish is frozen and awful. A decent piece of fish should be grilled or quickly fried, how does smothering it in thick chunky batter make it "better"?
It's a melancholy admission. It is our national dish. It just disappoints me
On the other hand I love chips fried in beef dripping: they are the biz
I've had very good battered fish in Tyndrum, Oban and Troon in the recent past. Local chippies are a disappointment these days though. Coating the fish in panko breadcrumbs seems to mean they can charge a lot more without putting any effort in to the fish itself.
Has anyone honestly had a good fish and chips and thought: that fish was better for being battered? I'm not sure I have, unless the fish is frozen and awful. A decent piece of fish should be grilled or quickly fried, how does smothering it in thick chunky batter make it "better"?
It's a melancholy admission. It is our national dish. It just disappoints me
On the other hand I love chips fried in beef dripping: they are the biz
The batter is the best bit. You're just saying you don't like batter. Which is fair enough.
The Tory membership still rates JRM so that says it all really.
That's the real trouble. There will be bright young Tories in Notting Hill or similar, but they have to be acceptable to my mother, and yes she does like JRM...
it will take a couple of bad defeats before the parliamentary party starts to look to who can win an election rather than who can do the best right wing politics.
Rishi's failure to 'do right wing politics' is why he's on course to lose. We have the highest tax burden ever, a disastrously bloated and inefficient state that needs an axe taking to it, untramelled immigration - right wing politics have never been more important.
Let me guess: the bits of the "disastrously bloated and inefficient state" that you want to put an axe to are the parts you don't use, need or interact with?
Not really; I'd be quite happy to see an axe taken to the parts I have regular dealings with. The administrative parts of quangos and Government departments are ludicrously overmanned and they need a rocket up them.
Really? What evidence do you have for that?
You do realise you're asking for worse public services?
On the contrary, staffing in (as an example) the NHS has grown vastly in recent years. Its headcount is comparable to the worldwide headcount of MacDonald's. Yet things have got shitter and shitter. Efficiencies are vital and I don't think they will harm the service - quite the opposite.
Staffing has grown, output has not grown in proportion is true enough. So the answer is that productivity has dropped.
How do we improve productivity? Is it by sacking staff? Or is it by investing in training and capital equipment like every other organisation?
Instead we strip bare training and capital budgets in favour of "front line services" and act surprised when it doesn't work.
Has anyone honestly had a good fish and chips and thought: that fish was better for being battered? I'm not sure I have, unless the fish is frozen and awful. A decent piece of fish should be grilled or quickly fried, how does smothering it in thick chunky batter make it "better"?
It's a melancholy admission. It is our national dish. It just disappoints me
On the other hand I love chips fried in beef dripping: they are the biz
Battered fish is fried quickly. Batter is delicious, and deep drying the fish (as with deep frying anything) drives the moisture into the fish, making the middle tender and moist, whilst the outside is deliciously crispy. The fat that still adheres to the concoction helps deliver the flavours of the fish to the tastebuds.
Grilled. Pffft.
Inteesting. Do you eat the batter? To me it seems extraneous
Off topic, I don't normally go for blended whisky, but yesterday I sampled some Chivas 18, which was rather nice. I then discovered that it retails at £94 a bottle, so I think I'll be sticking to 12 year old Single Malts.
Dewar's 18 is even better imo. Blended whisky can be wonderful at higher ages - many component whiskies will actually be older than the age statement; which indicates the minimum age.
I was in a pub in St Hellier a few years back and one of the blended whiskeys they had on their board was priced at £125 per shot (£30 off if you buy 2).
I was in Cincinnati recently and had a tiny snifter of a $20k bottle of Bourbon
I cannot say it was worth the money (tho I got it free)
I was in Derby recently, and had a really nice cod and chips. Just over a tenner, and worth every penny.
I guess I got the better deal.
About the same, I'd say
At least mine meant I didn't have to go to Cincinnati.
Quite so
Cincinnati is a sad place. Lots of potential, but pretty much fucked in that contemporary urban American way: hollowed out centre, too much parking, freeways in the middle of the city, homelessness and crime. And fairly shit food
In the 19th century it was the Queen of the West, and images show that to be true. The automobile destroyed it
When the world ends I want to be in Cincinnati as it's always 20 years behind the times.
Has anyone honestly had a good fish and chips and thought: that fish was better for being battered? I'm not sure I have, unless the fish is frozen and awful. A decent piece of fish should be grilled or quickly fried, how does smothering it in thick chunky batter make it "better"?
It's a melancholy admission. It is our national dish. It just disappoints me
On the other hand I love chips fried in beef dripping: they are the biz
The batter is the best bit. You're just saying you don't like batter. Which is fair enough.
The Tory membership still rates JRM so that says it all really.
That's the real trouble. There will be bright young Tories in Notting Hill or similar, but they have to be acceptable to my mother, and yes she does like JRM...
it will take a couple of bad defeats before the parliamentary party starts to look to who can win an election rather than who can do the best right wing politics.
Rishi's failure to 'do right wing politics' is why he's on course to lose. We have the highest tax burden ever, a disastrously bloated and inefficient state that needs an axe taking to it, untramelled immigration - right wing politics have never been more important.
Let me guess: the bits of the "disastrously bloated and inefficient state" that you want to put an axe to are the parts you don't use, need or interact with?
Not really; I'd be quite happy to see an axe taken to the parts I have regular dealings with. The administrative parts of quangos and Government departments are ludicrously overmanned and they need a rocket up them.
Really? What evidence do you have for that?
You do realise you're asking for worse public services?
On the contrary, staffing in (as an example) the NHS has grown vastly in recent years. Its headcount is comparable to the worldwide headcount of MacDonald's. Yet things have got shitter and shitter. Efficiencies are vital and I don't think they will harm the service - quite the opposite.
Two quick things to say about this:
1) Staff count has gone up; but AIUI so has workload. The problem is demand as much as laziness or inefficiency. Not that there can not be improvements, especially in terms of structure: but reorganisations often end up with things being more expensive, not less.
2) We have had thirteen years of trying to find efficiencies. A few were found; but a problem is that one person's 'waste' is another person's necessity. There may not actually be that many 'efficiencies' left to find.
If you care to give good, solid examples that make a large difference, feel free.
The Tory membership still rates JRM so that says it all really.
That's the real trouble. There will be bright young Tories in Notting Hill or similar, but they have to be acceptable to my mother, and yes she does like JRM...
it will take a couple of bad defeats before the parliamentary party starts to look to who can win an election rather than who can do the best right wing politics.
Rishi's failure to 'do right wing politics' is why he's on course to lose. We have the highest tax burden ever, a disastrously bloated and inefficient state that needs an axe taking to it, untramelled immigration - right wing politics have never been more important.
Let me guess: the bits of the "disastrously bloated and inefficient state" that you want to put an axe to are the parts you don't use, need or interact with?
Not really; I'd be quite happy to see an axe taken to the parts I have regular dealings with. The administrative parts of quangos and Government departments are ludicrously overmanned and they need a rocket up them.
Really? What evidence do you have for that?
You do realise you're asking for worse public services?
On the contrary, staffing in (as an example) the NHS has grown vastly in recent years. Its headcount is comparable to the worldwide headcount of MacDonald's. Yet things have got shitter and shitter. Efficiencies are vital and I don't think they will harm the service - quite the opposite.
Staffing has grown, output has not grown in proportion is true enough. So the answer is that productivity has dropped.
How do we improve productivity? Is it by sacking staff? Or is it by investing in training and capital equipment like every other organisation?
Instead we strip bare training and capital budgets in favour of "front line services" and act surprised when it doesn't work.
Plus, the reduction in admin staff ("to protect the frontline") means you get doctors doing more of their own admin. See also: schools.
Off topic, I don't normally go for blended whisky, but yesterday I sampled some Chivas 18, which was rather nice. I then discovered that it retails at £94 a bottle, so I think I'll be sticking to 12 year old Single Malts.
Dewar's 18 is even better imo. Blended whisky can be wonderful at higher ages - many component whiskies will actually be older than the age statement; which indicates the minimum age.
I was in a pub in St Hellier a few years back and one of the blended whiskeys they had on their board was priced at £125 per shot (£30 off if you buy 2).
I was in Cincinnati recently and had a tiny snifter of a $20k bottle of Bourbon
I cannot say it was worth the money (tho I got it free)
I was in Derby recently, and had a really nice cod and chips. Just over a tenner, and worth every penny.
I guess I got the better deal.
About the same, I'd say
At least mine meant I didn't have to go to Cincinnati.
Quite so
Cincinnati is a sad place. Lots of potential, but pretty much fucked in that contemporary urban American way: hollowed out centre, too much parking, freeways in the middle of the city, homelessness and crime. And fairly shit food
In the 19th century it was the Queen of the West, and images show that to be true. The automobile destroyed it
Aw. I was expecting you to say: "But you were in Derby!"
Has anyone honestly had a good fish and chips and thought: that fish was better for being battered? I'm not sure I have, unless the fish is frozen and awful. A decent piece of fish should be grilled or quickly fried, how does smothering it in thick chunky batter make it "better"?
It's a melancholy admission. It is our national dish. It just disappoints me
On the other hand I love chips fried in beef dripping: they are the biz
Battered fish is fried quickly. Batter is delicious, and deep drying the fish (as with deep frying anything) drives the moisture into the fish, making the middle tender and moist, whilst the outside is deliciously crispy. The fat that still adheres to the concoction helps deliver the flavours of the fish to the tastebuds.
Grilled. Pffft.
Inteesting. Do you eat the batter? To me it seems extraneous
Of course I do; it's delicious, big crispy bits of heaven. It's not particularly good for you, though it is apparently true that the nutrients in fish are placed in a way that protects them from high heat, so the fish is fine.
Late to the OFSTED debate as I've been travelling all day. Was name checked in the header too. (A minor point, I don't work in a PRU. I work in a special intervention unit at an SEN school. It's a technical difference). Agree about the vastly positive impact on standards in FE. I witnessed those first hand, too. And possibly Councils, though I have no particular knowledge of those. Very much agree on the "school is a school" point. It isn't. My Unit can't function on a timetable. Or a curriculum. Or necessarily be planned. We keep being made to try. But it doesn't work. But it is forced academisation which is the nub of the issue here. The raison d'etre of inspection ought to be to improve standards. That has been lost. Replaced by a default attitude that if you make a school into an academy that IS an automatic improvement. The evidence for that is mixed to say the very least.
Has anyone honestly had a good fish and chips and thought: that fish was better for being battered? I'm not sure I have, unless the fish is frozen and awful. A decent piece of fish should be grilled or quickly fried, how does smothering it in thick chunky batter make it "better"?
It's a melancholy admission. It is our national dish. It just disappoints me
On the other hand I love chips fried in beef dripping: they are the biz
I've had very good battered fish in Tyndrum, Oban and Troon in the recent past. Local chippies are a disappointment these days though. Coating the fish in panko breadcrumbs seems to mean they can charge a lot more without putting any effort in to the fish itself.
I believe I've eaten chish and fips from that same chippy in Oban. It is quite famous, right?
Very good, tho again the batter felt a little.... extra
Has anyone honestly had a good fish and chips and thought: that fish was better for being battered? I'm not sure I have, unless the fish is frozen and awful. A decent piece of fish should be grilled or quickly fried, how does smothering it in thick chunky batter make it "better"?
It's a melancholy admission. It is our national dish. It just disappoints me
On the other hand I love chips fried in beef dripping: they are the biz
It depends how hungry I am. If I'm not hungry, the batter can be a bit much. If I've just done exercise or am very hungry, the batter can be divine. I generally find my appreciation of foods varies depending on mood and situation.
Many moons ago, a pub here in Cambridge managed to serve a fish that was piping hot on the inside, but still frozen solid on the inside. Quite a feat: a kind of piscine baked Alaska.
Has anyone honestly had a good fish and chips and thought: that fish was better for being battered? I'm not sure I have, unless the fish is frozen and awful. A decent piece of fish should be grilled or quickly fried, how does smothering it in thick chunky batter make it "better"?
It's a melancholy admission. It is our national dish. It just disappoints me
On the other hand I love chips fried in beef dripping: they are the biz
Battered fish is fried quickly. Batter is delicious, and deep drying the fish (as with deep frying anything) drives the moisture into the fish, making the middle tender and moist, whilst the outside is deliciously crispy. The fat that still adheres to the concoction helps deliver the flavours of the fish to the tastebuds.
Grilled. Pffft.
Inteesting. Do you eat the batter? To me it seems extraneous
Where are these fish and chips being eaten? If (say) it's on a bench by the seaside, the batter is pretty much essential. On a white plate with white wine as the Sun sets on the Mediterranean, probably a mistake. Alternatively, if it's a too tired/pissed to cook meal, it depends. Though I'd go with battered sausage then anyway.
The Tory membership still rates JRM so that says it all really.
That's the real trouble. There will be bright young Tories in Notting Hill or similar, but they have to be acceptable to my mother, and yes she does like JRM...
it will take a couple of bad defeats before the parliamentary party starts to look to who can win an election rather than who can do the best right wing politics.
Rishi's failure to 'do right wing politics' is why he's on course to lose. We have the highest tax burden ever, a disastrously bloated and inefficient state that needs an axe taking to it, untramelled immigration - right wing politics have never been more important.
Let me guess: the bits of the "disastrously bloated and inefficient state" that you want to put an axe to are the parts you don't use, need or interact with?
Not really; I'd be quite happy to see an axe taken to the parts I have regular dealings with. The administrative parts of quangos and Government departments are ludicrously overmanned and they need a rocket up them.
Really? What evidence do you have for that?
You do realise you're asking for worse public services?
On the contrary, staffing in (as an example) the NHS has grown vastly in recent years. Its headcount is comparable to the worldwide headcount of MacDonald's. Yet things have got shitter and shitter. Efficiencies are vital and I don't think they will harm the service - quite the opposite.
Staffing has grown, output has not grown in proportion is true enough. So the answer is that productivity has dropped.
How do we improve productivity? Is it by sacking staff? Or is it by investing in training and capital equipment like every other organisation?
Instead we strip bare training and capital budgets in favour of "front line services" and act surprised when it doesn't work.
Why do we need a huge Department of Health, a huge NHS England, huge NHS Trusts, all sitting above anyone who actually delivers a service?
Despite this, my local hospital hasn't even caught up with the fact that people use email, and still makes appointments by letter. I support you in your task of putting people back together. I don't support ludicrous paper pushing when the economy is on its knees.
The Tory membership still rates JRM so that says it all really.
That's the real trouble. There will be bright young Tories in Notting Hill or similar, but they have to be acceptable to my mother, and yes she does like JRM...
it will take a couple of bad defeats before the parliamentary party starts to look to who can win an election rather than who can do the best right wing politics.
Rishi's failure to 'do right wing politics' is why he's on course to lose. We have the highest tax burden ever, a disastrously bloated and inefficient state that needs an axe taking to it, untramelled immigration - right wing politics have never been more important.
Let me guess: the bits of the "disastrously bloated and inefficient state" that you want to put an axe to are the parts you don't use, need or interact with?
Not really; I'd be quite happy to see an axe taken to the parts I have regular dealings with. The administrative parts of quangos and Government departments are ludicrously overmanned and they need a rocket up them.
Really? What evidence do you have for that?
You do realise you're asking for worse public services?
On the contrary, staffing in (as an example) the NHS has grown vastly in recent years. Its headcount is comparable to the worldwide headcount of MacDonald's. Yet things have got shitter and shitter. Efficiencies are vital and I don't think they will harm the service - quite the opposite.
Two quick things to say about this:
1) Staff count has gone up; but AIUI so has workload. The problem is demand as much as laziness or inefficiency. Not that there can not be improvements, especially in terms of structure: but reorganisations often end up with things being more expensive, not less.
2) We have had thirteen years of trying to find efficiencies. A few were found; but a problem is that one person's 'waste' is another person's necessity. There may not actually be that many 'efficiencies' left to find.
If you care to give good, solid examples that make a large difference, feel free.
I would like to ask, why under Labour did the A&E target nearly always get met after they started investing + the 48 hour doctor target too? The graphs are striking, whatever the Tories have done, they've broken it
“If we hadn't had Keir Starmer putting up with Corbyn during all that nonsense…he would not have been elected."
@DannytheFink asks Peter Mandelson if Keir Starmer was wrong to serve in Jeremy Corbyn’s shadow cabinet.
Peter Mandelson is as usual, correct.
But what if Corbyn had won? Saying “Oh I only pretended to agree with him, and campaigned for him to be PM because I thought we’d lose and then I’d take over” wouldn’t be the most believable excuse for promoting someone Sir Keir and Mandelson consider an anti semite who would be terrible at running the country
If Corbyn had become PM, I suspect that a VONC would have been engineered so that a PM more to the liking of the PLP could be installed.
And you don’t see that as a democratic outrage? Johnson was given 2-3 years
What democratic outrage? We do not elect the Prime Minister.
Presenting someone as the candidate for prime minister during an election and the en changing them immediately afterwards. It’s a false prospectus (as Livingstone did with the GLA). That’s different to a PM being sacked after a couple of years for not being up to it.
The fundamental difference is between “could” and “should”.
Has anyone honestly had a good fish and chips and thought: that fish was better for being battered? I'm not sure I have, unless the fish is frozen and awful. A decent piece of fish should be grilled or quickly fried, how does smothering it in thick chunky batter make it "better"?
It's a melancholy admission. It is our national dish. It just disappoints me
On the other hand I love chips fried in beef dripping: they are the biz
I've had very good battered fish in Tyndrum, Oban and Troon in the recent past. Local chippies are a disappointment these days though. Coating the fish in panko breadcrumbs seems to mean they can charge a lot more without putting any effort in to the fish itself.
I believe I've eaten chish and fips from that same chippy in Oban. It is quite famous, right?
Very good, tho again the batter felt a little.... extra
It was just a random chippy in Oban - no idea if it was famous or not. Just 'somewhere to hand' while waiting on a ferry.
“If we hadn't had Keir Starmer putting up with Corbyn during all that nonsense…he would not have been elected."
@DannytheFink asks Peter Mandelson if Keir Starmer was wrong to serve in Jeremy Corbyn’s shadow cabinet.
Peter Mandelson is as usual, correct.
But what if Corbyn had won? Saying “Oh I only pretended to agree with him, and campaigned for him to be PM because I thought we’d lose and then I’d take over” wouldn’t be the most believable excuse for promoting someone Sir Keir and Mandelson consider an anti semite who would be terrible at running the country
If Corbyn had become PM, I suspect that a VONC would have been engineered so that a PM more to the liking of the PLP could be installed.
And you don’t see that as a democratic outrage? Johnson was given 2-3 years
It wouldn't have been engineered; it would have happened organically.
The first thing to pin down in this counterfactual is when Corbyn became PM, and on what basis. Both matter massively. In 2017 - by far the more likely - it's not difficult to construct a narrative where the Tories screw up even more during the campaign (or earlier), and there's an anti-Tory / Brexit-sceptic majority. In 2019, that's much harder - though had the May government fallen in Spring 2019, who knows what parliament might have resulted.
But we do know that after the Labour MPs No Confidenced Corbyn by 80-20, then lost their challenge, they pretty much all fell back into line. That effect would have been magnified several times had Corbyn's mandate come from the electorate rather than the party.
Either way though, how Corbyn handled Salisbury, Brexit, Ukraine or Covid - to name just the most obvious policy challenges - could have led to his downfall. He could have seriously alienated his MPs, coalition colleagues and public on any of them. And had he led a minority government, that could have ended his government. Indeed, in a weak 2019 win, the Lib Dems might have been able to demand a different PM as their price of support, though Labour could (and probably would) have said 'no'.
But sooner or later, he would have made so big a political failure with serious real world consequences that his government would have become unsustainable.
The interpretation I put on @SandyRentool proposition was directly after the election. If he had been a fair run at it and then failed that’s a different matter
The Tory membership still rates JRM so that says it all really.
That's the real trouble. There will be bright young Tories in Notting Hill or similar, but they have to be acceptable to my mother, and yes she does like JRM...
it will take a couple of bad defeats before the parliamentary party starts to look to who can win an election rather than who can do the best right wing politics.
Rishi's failure to 'do right wing politics' is why he's on course to lose. We have the highest tax burden ever, a disastrously bloated and inefficient state that needs an axe taking to it, untramelled immigration - right wing politics have never been more important.
Let me guess: the bits of the "disastrously bloated and inefficient state" that you want to put an axe to are the parts you don't use, need or interact with?
Not really; I'd be quite happy to see an axe taken to the parts I have regular dealings with. The administrative parts of quangos and Government departments are ludicrously overmanned and they need a rocket up them.
Really? What evidence do you have for that?
You do realise you're asking for worse public services?
On the contrary, staffing in (as an example) the NHS has grown vastly in recent years. Its headcount is comparable to the worldwide headcount of MacDonald's. Yet things have got shitter and shitter. Efficiencies are vital and I don't think they will harm the service - quite the opposite.
Staffing has grown, output has not grown in proportion is true enough. So the answer is that productivity has dropped.
How do we improve productivity? Is it by sacking staff? Or is it by investing in training and capital equipment like every other organisation?
Instead we strip bare training and capital budgets in favour of "front line services" and act surprised when it doesn't work.
Why do we need a huge Department of Health, a huge NHS England, huge NHS Trusts, all sitting above anyone who actually delivers a service?
Despite this, my local hospital hasn't even caught up with the fact that people use email, and still makes appointments by letter. I support you in your task of putting people back together. I don't support ludicrous paper pushing when the economy is on its knees.
Yep, I quite agree, we need to invest in IT in order to increase productivity.
Compared to other countries health systems, admin and management roles are already very spartan. Indeed that may well be part of the problem..
“If we hadn't had Keir Starmer putting up with Corbyn during all that nonsense…he would not have been elected."
@DannytheFink asks Peter Mandelson if Keir Starmer was wrong to serve in Jeremy Corbyn’s shadow cabinet.
Peter Mandelson is as usual, correct.
But what if Corbyn had won? Saying “Oh I only pretended to agree with him, and campaigned for him to be PM because I thought we’d lose and then I’d take over” wouldn’t be the most believable excuse for promoting someone Sir Keir and Mandelson consider an anti semite who would be terrible at running the country
If Corbyn had become PM, I suspect that a VONC would have been engineered so that a PM more to the liking of the PLP could be installed.
And you don’t see that as a democratic outrage? Johnson was given 2-3 years
It wouldn't have been engineered; it would have happened organically.
The first thing to pin down in this counterfactual is when Corbyn became PM, and on what basis. Both matter massively. In 2017 - by far the more likely - it's not difficult to construct a narrative where the Tories screw up even more during the campaign (or earlier), and there's an anti-Tory / Brexit-sceptic majority. In 2019, that's much harder - though had the May government fallen in Spring 2019, who knows what parliament might have resulted.
But we do know that after the Labour MPs No Confidenced Corbyn by 80-20, then lost their challenge, they pretty much all fell back into line. That effect would have been magnified several times had Corbyn's mandate come from the electorate rather than the party.
Either way though, how Corbyn handled Salisbury, Brexit, Ukraine or Covid - to name just the most obvious policy challenges - could have led to his downfall. He could have seriously alienated his MPs, coalition colleagues and public on any of them. And had he led a minority government, that could have ended his government. Indeed, in a weak 2019 win, the Lib Dems might have been able to demand a different PM as their price of support, though Labour could (and probably would) have said 'no'.
But sooner or later, he would have made so big a political failure with serious real world consequences that his government would have become unsustainable.
The interpretation I put on @SandyRentool proposition was directly after the election. If he had been a fair run at it and then failed that’s a different matter
So you are saying the 2015 Tory campaign was fraudulent?
Has anyone honestly had a good fish and chips and thought: that fish was better for being battered? I'm not sure I have, unless the fish is frozen and awful. A decent piece of fish should be grilled or quickly fried, how does smothering it in thick chunky batter make it "better"?
It's a melancholy admission. It is our national dish. It just disappoints me
On the other hand I love chips fried in beef dripping: they are the biz
Battered fish is fried quickly. Batter is delicious, and deep drying the fish (as with deep frying anything) drives the moisture into the fish, making the middle tender and moist, whilst the outside is deliciously crispy. The fat that still adheres to the concoction helps deliver the flavours of the fish to the tastebuds.
Grilled. Pffft.
Inteesting. Do you eat the batter? To me it seems extraneous
Where are these fish and chips being eaten? If (say) it's on a bench by the seaside, the batter is pretty much essential. On a white plate with white wine as the Sun sets on the Mediterranean, probably a mistake. Alternatively, if it's a too tired/pissed to cook meal, it depends. Though I'd go with battered sausage then anyway.
Yes, in (a) the batter becomes a vehicle, something you largely discard, apart from the nicely soaked bits. But a way of transporting delicious undamaged white fish to your mouth
Then it is like the Cornish pasty, where most of the pastry was meant to be discarded, especially the crimped "handle" as that is how your filthy fingers held it. It is only now post-mining that people eat "the whole pasty"
And a truly well made pasty is a beautiful thing, if you have an appetite. It needs crucial adherence to the original recipe, especially the white pepper, beef skirt, turnip/swede - no fucking carrots!
Has anyone honestly had a good fish and chips and thought: that fish was better for being battered? I'm not sure I have, unless the fish is frozen and awful. A decent piece of fish should be grilled or quickly fried, how does smothering it in thick chunky batter make it "better"?
It's a melancholy admission. It is our national dish. It just disappoints me
On the other hand I love chips fried in beef dripping: they are the biz
It depends how hungry I am. If I'm not hungry, the batter can be a bit much. If I've just done exercise or am very hungry, the batter can be divine. I generally find my appreciation of foods varies depending on mood and situation.
Many moons ago, a pub here in Cambridge managed to serve a fish that was piping hot on the inside, but still frozen solid on the inside. Quite a feat: a kind of piscine baked Alaska.
My wife, born and bred in Lancashire, reckons that the fish and chips in our local Essex pub are the best she’s ever had.
Has anyone honestly had a good fish and chips and thought: that fish was better for being battered? I'm not sure I have, unless the fish is frozen and awful. A decent piece of fish should be grilled or quickly fried, how does smothering it in thick chunky batter make it "better"?
It's a melancholy admission. It is our national dish. It just disappoints me
On the other hand I love chips fried in beef dripping: they are the biz
I've had very good battered fish in Tyndrum, Oban and Troon in the recent past. Local chippies are a disappointment these days though. Coating the fish in panko breadcrumbs seems to mean they can charge a lot more without putting any effort in to the fish itself.
I believe I've eaten chish and fips from that same chippy in Oban. It is quite famous, right?
Very good, tho again the batter felt a little.... extra
It was just a random chippy in Oban - no idea if it was famous or not. Just 'somewhere to hand' while waiting on a ferry.
Possibly this one
OBAN FISH & CHIP SHOP, ARGYLL Awarded a Tripadvisor Certificate of Excellence in 2018, Oban’s forty-seat Fish and Chip Shop has the honour of being named one of the ‘best fish and chips he’s tasted’ by celebrity chef Rick Stein. Family-run in the centre of Oban, the sea is just steps away with panoramic views of the local islands. You can enjoy delicious, freshly cooked fish, as well as seafood platters, homemade desserts and meat dishes.
Quite a lot of love for Rayner but I have a theory based on my evil prejudices and knowledge of equally horrible people.
It’s been pointed out many times on here about the ridiculous way the British - really the English - like their posh elite educated overlords. That there is a sort of class based cultural cringe of doffing the cap to a Cameron et Al because they went to public schools and top universities.
It’s an embarrassed aspirational thing where if you vote for your betters you are part of their thing.
So when it comes to Rayner I don’t think you can discount the opposite of above. There will be a massive amount of people who see how she dresses (sorry but she is the worst kind of grown up who hasn’t grown up and thinks it’s edgy to dress like a student) and hear her speak and be aghast that she is their “better”. The English don’t mind someone being above them if they can justify it because of their wealth/class/education but John Prescott was never going to be taken seriously and neither will Rayner.
There is also that thing about how the English can hate someone by virtue of their accent regardless of what they actually have to say and there aren’t enough swing seats where people won’t hate how she speaks.
It’s not nice what I’ve written but it’s how we are.
The Tory membership still rates JRM so that says it all really.
That's the real trouble. There will be bright young Tories in Notting Hill or similar, but they have to be acceptable to my mother, and yes she does like JRM...
it will take a couple of bad defeats before the parliamentary party starts to look to who can win an election rather than who can do the best right wing politics.
Rishi's failure to 'do right wing politics' is why he's on course to lose. We have the highest tax burden ever, a disastrously bloated and inefficient state that needs an axe taking to it, untramelled immigration - right wing politics have never been more important.
Let me guess: the bits of the "disastrously bloated and inefficient state" that you want to put an axe to are the parts you don't use, need or interact with?
Not really; I'd be quite happy to see an axe taken to the parts I have regular dealings with. The administrative parts of quangos and Government departments are ludicrously overmanned and they need a rocket up them.
Really? What evidence do you have for that?
You do realise you're asking for worse public services?
On the contrary, staffing in (as an example) the NHS has grown vastly in recent years. Its headcount is comparable to the worldwide headcount of MacDonald's. Yet things have got shitter and shitter. Efficiencies are vital and I don't think they will harm the service - quite the opposite.
Staffing has grown, output has not grown in proportion is true enough. So the answer is that productivity has dropped.
How do we improve productivity? Is it by sacking staff? Or is it by investing in training and capital equipment like every other organisation?
Instead we strip bare training and capital budgets in favour of "front line services" and act surprised when it doesn't work.
Why do we need a huge Department of Health, a huge NHS England, huge NHS Trusts, all sitting above anyone who actually delivers a service?
Despite this, my local hospital hasn't even caught up with the fact that people use email, and still makes appointments by letter. I support you in your task of putting people back together. I don't support ludicrous paper pushing when the economy is on its knees.
I might argue that some of these are necessary. For instance, AIUI we pay relatively little for drugs because the NHS gives us mass purchasing power - or something like that. How much does that save, compared to the cost of the relevant bureaucracy?
The email thing is interesting: but I would point out that a fair few people *still* don't have access to email. Quite a few, in fact: 7 million households in the UK have no Internet.
The Tory membership still rates JRM so that says it all really.
That's the real trouble. There will be bright young Tories in Notting Hill or similar, but they have to be acceptable to my mother, and yes she does like JRM...
it will take a couple of bad defeats before the parliamentary party starts to look to who can win an election rather than who can do the best right wing politics.
Rishi's failure to 'do right wing politics' is why he's on course to lose. We have the highest tax burden ever, a disastrously bloated and inefficient state that needs an axe taking to it, untramelled immigration - right wing politics have never been more important.
Let me guess: the bits of the "disastrously bloated and inefficient state" that you want to put an axe to are the parts you don't use, need or interact with?
Not really; I'd be quite happy to see an axe taken to the parts I have regular dealings with. The administrative parts of quangos and Government departments are ludicrously overmanned and they need a rocket up them.
Really? What evidence do you have for that?
You do realise you're asking for worse public services?
On the contrary, staffing in (as an example) the NHS has grown vastly in recent years. Its headcount is comparable to the worldwide headcount of MacDonald's. Yet things have got shitter and shitter. Efficiencies are vital and I don't think they will harm the service - quite the opposite.
Staffing has grown, output has not grown in proportion is true enough. So the answer is that productivity has dropped.
How do we improve productivity? Is it by sacking staff? Or is it by investing in training and capital equipment like every other organisation?
Instead we strip bare training and capital budgets in favour of "front line services" and act surprised when it doesn't work.
Why do we need a huge Department of Health, a huge NHS England, huge NHS Trusts, all sitting above anyone who actually delivers a service?
Despite this, my local hospital hasn't even caught up with the fact that people use email, and still makes appointments by letter. I support you in your task of putting people back together. I don't support ludicrous paper pushing when the economy is on its knees.
Yep, I quite agree, we need to invest in IT in order to increase productivity.
Compared to other countries health systems, admin and management roles are already very spartan. Indeed that may well be part of the problem..
I don't think it works that way. I think productivity is usually inspired by necessity, not being given billions of pounds to procure a useless company to provide a non-working solution. There's no reason why the hospital can't use the email solutions already available, and deploy its already considerable administrative resources more effectively. It doesn't because it doesn't have to.
“If we hadn't had Keir Starmer putting up with Corbyn during all that nonsense…he would not have been elected."
@DannytheFink asks Peter Mandelson if Keir Starmer was wrong to serve in Jeremy Corbyn’s shadow cabinet.
Peter Mandelson is as usual, correct.
But what if Corbyn had won? Saying “Oh I only pretended to agree with him, and campaigned for him to be PM because I thought we’d lose and then I’d take over” wouldn’t be the most believable excuse for promoting someone Sir Keir and Mandelson consider an anti semite who would be terrible at running the country
If Corbyn had become PM, I suspect that a VONC would have been engineered so that a PM more to the liking of the PLP could be installed.
And you don’t see that as a democratic outrage? Johnson was given 2-3 years
It wouldn't have been engineered; it would have happened organically.
The first thing to pin down in this counterfactual is when Corbyn became PM, and on what basis. Both matter massively. In 2017 - by far the more likely - it's not difficult to construct a narrative where the Tories screw up even more during the campaign (or earlier), and there's an anti-Tory / Brexit-sceptic majority. In 2019, that's much harder - though had the May government fallen in Spring 2019, who knows what parliament might have resulted.
But we do know that after the Labour MPs No Confidenced Corbyn by 80-20, then lost their challenge, they pretty much all fell back into line. That effect would have been magnified several times had Corbyn's mandate come from the electorate rather than the party.
Either way though, how Corbyn handled Salisbury, Brexit, Ukraine or Covid - to name just the most obvious policy challenges - could have led to his downfall. He could have seriously alienated his MPs, coalition colleagues and public on any of them. And had he led a minority government, that could have ended his government. Indeed, in a weak 2019 win, the Lib Dems might have been able to demand a different PM as their price of support, though Labour could (and probably would) have said 'no'.
But sooner or later, he would have made so big a political failure with serious real world consequences that his government would have become unsustainable.
The interpretation I put on @SandyRentool proposition was directly after the election. If he had been a fair run at it and then failed that’s a different matter
So you are saying the 2015 Tory campaign was fraudulent?
No. Firstly Cameron chose to resign and I am not a supporter of indentured servitude.
Secondly he had failed in a key policy, of keeping the UK in the EU, so felt he didn’t have the ability to continue to lead the government effectively
This is the parallel I am thinking about:
Mr Livingstone found himself in the middle of controversy within 24 hours of Labour winning the GLC election on May 7, 1981, when he led a coup against the then Labour leader, Andrew Macintosh, now Lord Macintosh of Haringey.
The Tory membership still rates JRM so that says it all really.
That's the real trouble. There will be bright young Tories in Notting Hill or similar, but they have to be acceptable to my mother, and yes she does like JRM...
it will take a couple of bad defeats before the parliamentary party starts to look to who can win an election rather than who can do the best right wing politics.
Rishi's failure to 'do right wing politics' is why he's on course to lose. We have the highest tax burden ever, a disastrously bloated and inefficient state that needs an axe taking to it, untramelled immigration - right wing politics have never been more important.
Let me guess: the bits of the "disastrously bloated and inefficient state" that you want to put an axe to are the parts you don't use, need or interact with?
Not really; I'd be quite happy to see an axe taken to the parts I have regular dealings with. The administrative parts of quangos and Government departments are ludicrously overmanned and they need a rocket up them.
Really? What evidence do you have for that?
You do realise you're asking for worse public services?
On the contrary, staffing in (as an example) the NHS has grown vastly in recent years. Its headcount is comparable to the worldwide headcount of MacDonald's. Yet things have got shitter and shitter. Efficiencies are vital and I don't think they will harm the service - quite the opposite.
Staffing has grown, output has not grown in proportion is true enough. So the answer is that productivity has dropped.
How do we improve productivity? Is it by sacking staff? Or is it by investing in training and capital equipment like every other organisation?
Instead we strip bare training and capital budgets in favour of "front line services" and act surprised when it doesn't work.
Why do we need a huge Department of Health, a huge NHS England, huge NHS Trusts, all sitting above anyone who actually delivers a service?
Despite this, my local hospital hasn't even caught up with the fact that people use email, and still makes appointments by letter. I support you in your task of putting people back together. I don't support ludicrous paper pushing when the economy is on its knees.
I might argue that some of these are necessary. For instance, AIUI we pay relatively little for drugs because the NHS gives us mass purchasing power - or something like that. How much does that save, compared to the cost of the relevant bureaucracy?
The email thing is interesting: but I would point out that a fair few people *still* don't have access to email. Quite a few, in fact: 7 million households in the UK have no Internet.
Arguably the NHS is a wierd mix of still using old fashioned post and up to date use of apps. I ordered my repeat prescription on the NHS app, but we still get a lot of commas through the post. I can access my test results on the app too (useful and interesting during a recent chest infection as I was able to read up on the latest research about the nasty bacteria that caused me three weeks of grief.)
Perhaps this reflects that the NHS serves people from one day old to over one hundred years and that there will be different expectations across those people?
One other thing - beware targets. While they may be seen to drive performance they also distort activity.
Has anyone honestly had a good fish and chips and thought: that fish was better for being battered? I'm not sure I have, unless the fish is frozen and awful. A decent piece of fish should be grilled or quickly fried, how does smothering it in thick chunky batter make it "better"?
It's a melancholy admission. It is our national dish. It just disappoints me
On the other hand I love chips fried in beef dripping: they are the biz
I've had very good battered fish in Tyndrum, Oban and Troon in the recent past. Local chippies are a disappointment these days though. Coating the fish in panko breadcrumbs seems to mean they can charge a lot more without putting any effort in to the fish itself.
I believe I've eaten chish and fips from that same chippy in Oban. It is quite famous, right?
Very good, tho again the batter felt a little.... extra
It was just a random chippy in Oban - no idea if it was famous or not. Just 'somewhere to hand' while waiting on a ferry.
Possibly this one
OBAN FISH & CHIP SHOP, ARGYLL Awarded a Tripadvisor Certificate of Excellence in 2018, Oban’s forty-seat Fish and Chip Shop has the honour of being named one of the ‘best fish and chips he’s tasted’ by celebrity chef Rick Stein. Family-run in the centre of Oban, the sea is just steps away with panoramic views of the local islands. You can enjoy delicious, freshly cooked fish, as well as seafood platters, homemade desserts and meat dishes.
If you have got as far as Oban, the next stop could be the fish and chip van at Tobermory harbour. Battered delight.
I have read the header but not all the comments below the line. So forgive me if this is a question that has already been answered.
Was OFSTED doomed from the start (was the basic way it was formluated wrong)? Or is it subsequent changes and poor leadership that has made it so bad?
In asking this question I am making two assumptions which ydoethur has made explicit in his header. Firstly that inspections are necessary in some form and secondly that OFSTED is now a complete failure and not fit for purpose.
The Tory membership still rates JRM so that says it all really.
That's the real trouble. There will be bright young Tories in Notting Hill or similar, but they have to be acceptable to my mother, and yes she does like JRM...
it will take a couple of bad defeats before the parliamentary party starts to look to who can win an election rather than who can do the best right wing politics.
Rishi's failure to 'do right wing politics' is why he's on course to lose. We have the highest tax burden ever, a disastrously bloated and inefficient state that needs an axe taking to it, untramelled immigration - right wing politics have never been more important.
Let me guess: the bits of the "disastrously bloated and inefficient state" that you want to put an axe to are the parts you don't use, need or interact with?
Not really; I'd be quite happy to see an axe taken to the parts I have regular dealings with. The administrative parts of quangos and Government departments are ludicrously overmanned and they need a rocket up them.
Really? What evidence do you have for that?
You do realise you're asking for worse public services?
On the contrary, staffing in (as an example) the NHS has grown vastly in recent years. Its headcount is comparable to the worldwide headcount of MacDonald's. Yet things have got shitter and shitter. Efficiencies are vital and I don't think they will harm the service - quite the opposite.
Staffing has grown, output has not grown in proportion is true enough. So the answer is that productivity has dropped.
How do we improve productivity? Is it by sacking staff? Or is it by investing in training and capital equipment like every other organisation?
Instead we strip bare training and capital budgets in favour of "front line services" and act surprised when it doesn't work.
Why do we need a huge Department of Health, a huge NHS England, huge NHS Trusts, all sitting above anyone who actually delivers a service?
Despite this, my local hospital hasn't even caught up with the fact that people use email, and still makes appointments by letter. I support you in your task of putting people back together. I don't support ludicrous paper pushing when the economy is on its knees.
I might argue that some of these are necessary. For instance, AIUI we pay relatively little for drugs because the NHS gives us mass purchasing power - or something like that. How much does that save, compared to the cost of the relevant bureaucracy?
The email thing is interesting: but I would point out that a fair few people *still* don't have access to email. Quite a few, in fact: 7 million households in the UK have no Internet.
"Ofcom (the Office of Communications) and ONS (the Office of National Statistics) show that 6 per cent of UK households have no access to the internet and 4.2 million adults have either never used the internet or have not used it in the past three months."
“If we hadn't had Keir Starmer putting up with Corbyn during all that nonsense…he would not have been elected."
@DannytheFink asks Peter Mandelson if Keir Starmer was wrong to serve in Jeremy Corbyn’s shadow cabinet.
Peter Mandelson is as usual, correct.
But what if Corbyn had won? Saying “Oh I only pretended to agree with him, and campaigned for him to be PM because I thought we’d lose and then I’d take over” wouldn’t be the most believable excuse for promoting someone Sir Keir and Mandelson consider an anti semite who would be terrible at running the country
If Corbyn had become PM, I suspect that a VONC would have been engineered so that a PM more to the liking of the PLP could be installed.
And you don’t see that as a democratic outrage? Johnson was given 2-3 years
It wouldn't have been engineered; it would have happened organically.
The first thing to pin down in this counterfactual is when Corbyn became PM, and on what basis. Both matter massively. In 2017 - by far the more likely - it's not difficult to construct a narrative where the Tories screw up even more during the campaign (or earlier), and there's an anti-Tory / Brexit-sceptic majority. In 2019, that's much harder - though had the May government fallen in Spring 2019, who knows what parliament might have resulted.
But we do know that after the Labour MPs No Confidenced Corbyn by 80-20, then lost their challenge, they pretty much all fell back into line. That effect would have been magnified several times had Corbyn's mandate come from the electorate rather than the party.
Either way though, how Corbyn handled Salisbury, Brexit, Ukraine or Covid - to name just the most obvious policy challenges - could have led to his downfall. He could have seriously alienated his MPs, coalition colleagues and public on any of them. And had he led a minority government, that could have ended his government. Indeed, in a weak 2019 win, the Lib Dems might have been able to demand a different PM as their price of support, though Labour could (and probably would) have said 'no'.
But sooner or later, he would have made so big a political failure with serious real world consequences that his government would have become unsustainable.
The interpretation I put on @SandyRentool proposition was directly after the election. If he had been a fair run at it and then failed that’s a different matter
So you are saying the 2015 Tory campaign was fraudulent?
No. Firstly Cameron chose to resign and I am not a supporter of indentured servitude.
Secondly he had failed in a key policy, of keeping the UK in the EU, so felt he didn’t have the ability to continue to lead the government effectively
This is the parallel I am thinking about:
Mr Livingstone found himself in the middle of controversy within 24 hours of Labour winning the GLC election on May 7, 1981, when he led a coup against the then Labour leader, Andrew Macintosh, now Lord Macintosh of Haringey.
My memory of that though, and it may be faulty, was that that was widely trailed as being what would likely happen after the election. You can't have a "coup" when it's no great surprise to anyone.
How's that going? I am doing 5K every day for 30 days before I start training for my next half
Not too bad, thanks. I gave up on my marathon-a-week plan after I got Covid over Easter - it knocked me out for seven or eight weeks, after which I stood little chance of catching up, sadly. I still did 15 or 16 over the first half of the year. Quite proud of that, despite not reaching my target.
My current little scheme is teaching myself to swim - at least, I can swim, but not well. I can do 1,500 metres backstroke, but I can barely do a 25m length front crawl. It seems my little brain cannot cope with counting strokes, kicking legs, moving my arms and breathing at the same time - at least without taking in mouthfuls of water!
Good luck with your running - it sounds like you've got a considered plan there.
Quite a lot of love for Rayner but I have a theory based on my evil prejudices and knowledge of equally horrible people.
It’s been pointed out many times on here about the ridiculous way the British - really the English - like their posh elite educated overlords. That there is a sort of class based cultural cringe of doffing the cap to a Cameron et Al because they went to public schools and top universities.
It’s an embarrassed aspirational thing where if you vote for your betters you are part of their thing.
So when it comes to Rayner I don’t think you can discount the opposite of above. There will be a massive amount of people who see how she dresses (sorry but she is the worst kind of grown up who hasn’t grown up and thinks it’s edgy to dress like a student) and hear her speak and be aghast that she is their “better”. The English don’t mind someone being above them if they can justify it because of their wealth/class/education but John Prescott was never going to be taken seriously and neither will Rayner.
There is also that thing about how the English can hate someone by virtue of their accent regardless of what they actually have to say and there aren’t enough swing seats where people won’t hate how she speaks.
It’s not nice what I’ve written but it’s how we are.
It's one of the ways we have gone backwards as a country. 100 years ago next month we had our first ever Labour government.
Ramsey MacDonald was the illegitimate son of a farm worker and a domestic servant. The new colonial secretary was a Welsh engine driver. The home secretary a Glaswegian iron moulder. There were several ex coal miners in cabinet.
Quite a lot of love for Rayner but I have a theory based on my evil prejudices and knowledge of equally horrible people.
It’s been pointed out many times on here about the ridiculous way the British - really the English - like their posh elite educated overlords. That there is a sort of class based cultural cringe of doffing the cap to a Cameron et Al because they went to public schools and top universities.
It’s an embarrassed aspirational thing where if you vote for your betters you are part of their thing.
So when it comes to Rayner I don’t think you can discount the opposite of above. There will be a massive amount of people who see how she dresses (sorry but she is the worst kind of grown up who hasn’t grown up and thinks it’s edgy to dress like a student) and hear her speak and be aghast that she is their “better”. The English don’t mind someone being above them if they can justify it because of their wealth/class/education but John Prescott was never going to be taken seriously and neither will Rayner.
There is also that thing about how the English can hate someone by virtue of their accent regardless of what they actually have to say and there aren’t enough swing seats where people won’t hate how she speaks.
It’s not nice what I’ve written but it’s how we are.
I think Rayner’s someone to be admired. The phrase ‘dragged herself up by her own bootstraps’ applies, rather than having a load of advantages. Every credit to her!
I have read the header but not all the comments below the line. So forgive me if this is a question that has already been answered.
Was OFSTED doomed from the start (was the basic way it was formluated wrong)? Or is it subsequent changes and poor leadership that has made it so bad?
In asking this question I am making two assumptions which ydoethur has made explicit in his header. Firstly that inspections are necessary in some form and secondly that OFSTED is now a complete failure and not fit for purpose.
I groped at an answer earlier. Or rather agreed with I think @ydoethur that the turning point was when its purpose ceased to be to drive up standards, and instead became a vehicle for forcing academisation on schools.
Has anyone honestly had a good fish and chips and thought: that fish was better for being battered? I'm not sure I have, unless the fish is frozen and awful. A decent piece of fish should be grilled or quickly fried, how does smothering it in thick chunky batter make it "better"?
It's a melancholy admission. It is our national dish. It just disappoints me
On the other hand I love chips fried in beef dripping: they are the biz
Battered fish is fried quickly. Batter is delicious, and deep drying the fish (as with deep frying anything) drives the moisture into the fish, making the middle tender and moist, whilst the outside is deliciously crispy. The fat that still adheres to the concoction helps deliver the flavours of the fish to the tastebuds.
Grilled. Pffft.
Inteesting. Do you eat the batter? To me it seems extraneous
Of course I do; it's delicious, big crispy bits of heaven. It's not particularly good for you, though it is apparently true that the nutrients in fish are placed in a way that protects them from high heat, so the fish is fine.
There is nothing in batter apart from basic, pretty boring, ingredients none of which are in themselves bad for you. A sensible consumption of all of them will enable you to live for ever, and the fats in which they are fried will ward off depression both chemically and in the joy which their consumption together with the fish gives. This is especially true if you do this in western Scotland around sunset. And it gets a tick for low sugar.
I have read the header but not all the comments below the line. So forgive me if this is a question that has already been answered.
Was OFSTED doomed from the start (was the basic way it was formluated wrong)? Or is it subsequent changes and poor leadership that has made it so bad?
In asking this question I am making two assumptions which ydoethur has made explicit in his header. Firstly that inspections are necessary in some form and secondly that OFSTED is now a complete failure and not fit for purpose.
I would say it's more complex than that.
Chris Woodhead, as a very antagonistic figure, a poor administrator and a man with a grudge for having failed as a teacher, caused OFSTED significant reputational damage in the early days. He fostered an atmosphere of suspicion and mistrust that's never been entirely dispelled.
That said, under Tomlinson in particular and his successors it did some very good work in raising standards (as @Northern_Al quite rightly notes) and seemed to be getting past its earlier difficulties.
However, in I think 2008 it was simultaneously made a non-ministerial department, so lost all oversight, and had its remit massively expanded to include things like social care and local council provision. The first in particular is a complex highly specialised field and should have its own separate inspectorate. At the same time, this lack of specialisation meant inspectors who were not qualified in any field of inspection (including ex-police officers and school receptionists) were being recruited. That didn't do any favours to standards.
Finally, they have become deeply involved in the academisation drive. Academy schools are not a bad thing in and of themselves but using an OFSTED report to force a school to join a particular academy chain nominated by some fool at the DfE is a bad idea. Especially if that report has been deliberately written using false information to justify that outcome, as was the case at Caversham. (Interestingly despite the fact the SoS has a statutory duty to force academise a school given a 4 on leadership - another thing Derry lied to the inquest about - that doesn't seem to have happened at Caversham. That tells me all I need to know about what was happening.)
There have been issues with leadership. Gilbert was a very poor choice. Wilshaw definitely made mistakes. But since 2016 it's been ruination. What Morgan was thinking when she appointed Spielman (assuming she was) I have no idea.
As I say, I don't see a way back for OFSTED. Certainly not in its current form. I think breaking it up and expunging the name is the optimum solution from here but it might require a wholesale upheaval in staffing too.
I have read the header but not all the comments below the line. So forgive me if this is a question that has already been answered.
Was OFSTED doomed from the start (was the basic way it was formluated wrong)? Or is it subsequent changes and poor leadership that has made it so bad?
In asking this question I am making two assumptions which ydoethur has made explicit in his header. Firstly that inspections are necessary in some form and secondly that OFSTED is now a complete failure and not fit for purpose.
I groped at an answer earlier. Or rather agreed with I think @ydoethur that the turning point was when its purpose ceased to be to drive up standards, and instead became a vehicle for forcing academisation on schools.
When I was seconded to one of the precursors of the Care Quality Commission we were expected to be supportive of those we were inspecting. If possible, of course.
Quite a lot of love for Rayner but I have a theory based on my evil prejudices and knowledge of equally horrible people.
It’s been pointed out many times on here about the ridiculous way the British - really the English - like their posh elite educated overlords. That there is a sort of class based cultural cringe of doffing the cap to a Cameron et Al because they went to public schools and top universities.
It’s an embarrassed aspirational thing where if you vote for your betters you are part of their thing.
So when it comes to Rayner I don’t think you can discount the opposite of above. There will be a massive amount of people who see how she dresses (sorry but she is the worst kind of grown up who hasn’t grown up and thinks it’s edgy to dress like a student) and hear her speak and be aghast that she is their “better”. The English don’t mind someone being above them if they can justify it because of their wealth/class/education but John Prescott was never going to be taken seriously and neither will Rayner.
There is also that thing about how the English can hate someone by virtue of their accent regardless of what they actually have to say and there aren’t enough swing seats where people won’t hate how she speaks.
It’s not nice what I’ve written but it’s how we are.
I think Rayner’s someone to be admired. The phrase ‘dragged herself up by her own bootstraps’ applies, rather than having a load of advantages. Every credit to her!
She is fine, and is a decent representative of millions of working class people and their aspirations. She would probably find me, and many PB people, quite boring. At a guess she would feel the same about Starmer. She probably isn't wrong.
Quite a lot of love for Rayner but I have a theory based on my evil prejudices and knowledge of equally horrible people.
It’s been pointed out many times on here about the ridiculous way the British - really the English - like their posh elite educated overlords. That there is a sort of class based cultural cringe of doffing the cap to a Cameron et Al because they went to public schools and top universities.
It’s an embarrassed aspirational thing where if you vote for your betters you are part of their thing.
So when it comes to Rayner I don’t think you can discount the opposite of above. There will be a massive amount of people who see how she dresses (sorry but she is the worst kind of grown up who hasn’t grown up and thinks it’s edgy to dress like a student) and hear her speak and be aghast that she is their “better”. The English don’t mind someone being above them if they can justify it because of their wealth/class/education but John Prescott was never going to be taken seriously and neither will Rayner.
There is also that thing about how the English can hate someone by virtue of their accent regardless of what they actually have to say and there aren’t enough swing seats where people won’t hate how she speaks.
It’s not nice what I’ve written but it’s how we are.
It's one of the ways we have gone backwards as a country. 100 years ago next month we had our first ever Labour government.
Ramsey MacDonald was the illegitimate son of a farm worker and a domestic servant. The new colonial secretary was a Welsh engine driver. The home secretary a Glaswegian iron moulder. There were several ex coal miners in cabinet.
It's hard to imagine such a cabinet now.
I'm assuming the last ex-coal miner to serve in the cabinet will be Patrick McLoughlin.
Has anyone honestly had a good fish and chips and thought: that fish was better for being battered? I'm not sure I have, unless the fish is frozen and awful. A decent piece of fish should be grilled or quickly fried, how does smothering it in thick chunky batter make it "better"?
It's a melancholy admission. It is our national dish. It just disappoints me
On the other hand I love chips fried in beef dripping: they are the biz
The batter is the best bit. You're just saying you don't like batter. Which is fair enough.
The Tory membership still rates JRM so that says it all really.
That's the real trouble. There will be bright young Tories in Notting Hill or similar, but they have to be acceptable to my mother, and yes she does like JRM...
it will take a couple of bad defeats before the parliamentary party starts to look to who can win an election rather than who can do the best right wing politics.
Rishi's failure to 'do right wing politics' is why he's on course to lose. We have the highest tax burden ever, a disastrously bloated and inefficient state that needs an axe taking to it, untramelled immigration - right wing politics have never been more important.
Let me guess: the bits of the "disastrously bloated and inefficient state" that you want to put an axe to are the parts you don't use, need or interact with?
Not really; I'd be quite happy to see an axe taken to the parts I have regular dealings with. The administrative parts of quangos and Government departments are ludicrously overmanned and they need a rocket up them.
Really? What evidence do you have for that?
You do realise you're asking for worse public services?
On the contrary, staffing in (as an example) the NHS has grown vastly in recent years. Its headcount is comparable to the worldwide headcount of MacDonald's. Yet things have got shitter and shitter. Efficiencies are vital and I don't think they will harm the service - quite the opposite.
Staffing has grown, output has not grown in proportion is true enough. So the answer is that productivity has dropped.
How do we improve productivity? Is it by sacking staff? Or is it by investing in training and capital equipment like every other organisation?
Instead we strip bare training and capital budgets in favour of "front line services" and act surprised when it doesn't work.
Why do we need a huge Department of Health, a huge NHS England, huge NHS Trusts, all sitting above anyone who actually delivers a service?
Despite this, my local hospital hasn't even caught up with the fact that people use email, and still makes appointments by letter. I support you in your task of putting people back together. I don't support ludicrous paper pushing when the economy is on its knees.
I might argue that some of these are necessary. For instance, AIUI we pay relatively little for drugs because the NHS gives us mass purchasing power - or something like that. How much does that save, compared to the cost of the relevant bureaucracy?
The email thing is interesting: but I would point out that a fair few people *still* don't have access to email. Quite a few, in fact: 7 million households in the UK have no Internet.
"Ofcom (the Office of Communications) and ONS (the Office of National Statistics) show that 6 per cent of UK households have no access to the internet and 4.2 million adults have either never used the internet or have not used it in the past three months."
Which is still quite an arresting figure.
Living in the north in a WWC community I know quite a few people who have never accessed the internet; all older people. Many have family members who will assist with bits and pieces. Those who don't increasingly struggle with the way in which the default position of absolutely everything assumes access.
On the election timing question, an interesting claim from Labour that the government is running down the clock on a load of stuff like this booze report and that this indicates a spring election in the offing.
The Tory membership still rates JRM so that says it all really.
That's the real trouble. There will be bright young Tories in Notting Hill or similar, but they have to be acceptable to my mother, and yes she does like JRM...
it will take a couple of bad defeats before the parliamentary party starts to look to who can win an election rather than who can do the best right wing politics.
Rishi's failure to 'do right wing politics' is why he's on course to lose. We have the highest tax burden ever, a disastrously bloated and inefficient state that needs an axe taking to it, untramelled immigration - right wing politics have never been more important.
Let me guess: the bits of the "disastrously bloated and inefficient state" that you want to put an axe to are the parts you don't use, need or interact with?
Not really; I'd be quite happy to see an axe taken to the parts I have regular dealings with. The administrative parts of quangos and Government departments are ludicrously overmanned and they need a rocket up them.
Really? What evidence do you have for that?
You do realise you're asking for worse public services?
On the contrary, staffing in (as an example) the NHS has grown vastly in recent years. Its headcount is comparable to the worldwide headcount of MacDonald's. Yet things have got shitter and shitter. Efficiencies are vital and I don't think they will harm the service - quite the opposite.
Staffing has grown, output has not grown in proportion is true enough. So the answer is that productivity has dropped.
How do we improve productivity? Is it by sacking staff? Or is it by investing in training and capital equipment like every other organisation?
Instead we strip bare training and capital budgets in favour of "front line services" and act surprised when it doesn't work.
Why do we need a huge Department of Health, a huge NHS England, huge NHS Trusts, all sitting above anyone who actually delivers a service?
Despite this, my local hospital hasn't even caught up with the fact that people use email, and still makes appointments by letter. I support you in your task of putting people back together. I don't support ludicrous paper pushing when the economy is on its knees.
I might argue that some of these are necessary. For instance, AIUI we pay relatively little for drugs because the NHS gives us mass purchasing power - or something like that. How much does that save, compared to the cost of the relevant bureaucracy?
The email thing is interesting: but I would point out that a fair few people *still* don't have access to email. Quite a few, in fact: 7 million households in the UK have no Internet.
"Ofcom (the Office of Communications) and ONS (the Office of National Statistics) show that 6 per cent of UK households have no access to the internet and 4.2 million adults have either never used the internet or have not used it in the past three months."
Which is still quite an arresting figure.
Living in the north in a WWC community I know quite a few people who have never accessed the internet; all older people. Many have family members who will assist with bits and pieces. Those who don't increasingly struggle with the way in which the default position of absolutely everything assumes access.
What's a WWC community?
I'd estimate that half the people I see at Citizens Advice can't use the internet, mainly because they have never learned and lack the confidence to start now.
The Tory membership still rates JRM so that says it all really.
That's the real trouble. There will be bright young Tories in Notting Hill or similar, but they have to be acceptable to my mother, and yes she does like JRM...
it will take a couple of bad defeats before the parliamentary party starts to look to who can win an election rather than who can do the best right wing politics.
Rishi's failure to 'do right wing politics' is why he's on course to lose. We have the highest tax burden ever, a disastrously bloated and inefficient state that needs an axe taking to it, untramelled immigration - right wing politics have never been more important.
Let me guess: the bits of the "disastrously bloated and inefficient state" that you want to put an axe to are the parts you don't use, need or interact with?
Not really; I'd be quite happy to see an axe taken to the parts I have regular dealings with. The administrative parts of quangos and Government departments are ludicrously overmanned and they need a rocket up them.
Really? What evidence do you have for that?
You do realise you're asking for worse public services?
On the contrary, staffing in (as an example) the NHS has grown vastly in recent years. Its headcount is comparable to the worldwide headcount of MacDonald's. Yet things have got shitter and shitter. Efficiencies are vital and I don't think they will harm the service - quite the opposite.
Staffing has grown, output has not grown in proportion is true enough. So the answer is that productivity has dropped.
How do we improve productivity? Is it by sacking staff? Or is it by investing in training and capital equipment like every other organisation?
Instead we strip bare training and capital budgets in favour of "front line services" and act surprised when it doesn't work.
Why do we need a huge Department of Health, a huge NHS England, huge NHS Trusts, all sitting above anyone who actually delivers a service?
Despite this, my local hospital hasn't even caught up with the fact that people use email, and still makes appointments by letter. I support you in your task of putting people back together. I don't support ludicrous paper pushing when the economy is on its knees.
I might argue that some of these are necessary. For instance, AIUI we pay relatively little for drugs because the NHS gives us mass purchasing power - or something like that. How much does that save, compared to the cost of the relevant bureaucracy?
The email thing is interesting: but I would point out that a fair few people *still* don't have access to email. Quite a few, in fact: 7 million households in the UK have no Internet.
"Ofcom (the Office of Communications) and ONS (the Office of National Statistics) show that 6 per cent of UK households have no access to the internet and 4.2 million adults have either never used the internet or have not used it in the past three months."
Which is still quite an arresting figure.
Living in the north in a WWC community I know quite a few people who have never accessed the internet; all older people. Many have family members who will assist with bits and pieces. Those who don't increasingly struggle with the way in which the default position of absolutely everything assumes access.
What's a WWC community?
I'd estimate that half the people I see at Citizens Advice can't use the internet, mainly because they have never learned and lack the confidence to start now.
A community which is preponderantly working class by reference to occupation and education level and of nearly all white British ethnicity. In this case, a place where the factory worker and white van man is king.
Perhaps the most traduced and misunderstood of all the groupings.
Off topic, I don't normally go for blended whisky, but yesterday I sampled some Chivas 18, which was rather nice. I then discovered that it retails at £94 a bottle, so I think I'll be sticking to 12 year old Single Malts.
Dewar's 18 is even better imo. Blended whisky can be wonderful at higher ages - many component whiskies will actually be older than the age statement; which indicates the minimum age.
I was in a pub in St Hellier a few years back and one of the blended whiskeys they had on their board was priced at £125 per shot (£30 off if you buy 2).
I was in Cincinnati recently and had a tiny snifter of a $20k bottle of Bourbon
I cannot say it was worth the money (tho I got it free)
When my dad was provost marshal Navy and president of the regulating branch mess, I was his guest at a mess dinner at hms excellent. The brandy had been taken off a French warship during the napoleonic wars. Even in my twenties, I knew it was good stuff
The Tory membership still rates JRM so that says it all really.
That's the real trouble. There will be bright young Tories in Notting Hill or similar, but they have to be acceptable to my mother, and yes she does like JRM...
it will take a couple of bad defeats before the parliamentary party starts to look to who can win an election rather than who can do the best right wing politics.
Rishi's failure to 'do right wing politics' is why he's on course to lose. We have the highest tax burden ever, a disastrously bloated and inefficient state that needs an axe taking to it, untramelled immigration - right wing politics have never been more important.
Let me guess: the bits of the "disastrously bloated and inefficient state" that you want to put an axe to are the parts you don't use, need or interact with?
Not really; I'd be quite happy to see an axe taken to the parts I have regular dealings with. The administrative parts of quangos and Government departments are ludicrously overmanned and they need a rocket up them.
Really? What evidence do you have for that?
You do realise you're asking for worse public services?
On the contrary, staffing in (as an example) the NHS has grown vastly in recent years. Its headcount is comparable to the worldwide headcount of MacDonald's. Yet things have got shitter and shitter. Efficiencies are vital and I don't think they will harm the service - quite the opposite.
Staffing has grown, output has not grown in proportion is true enough. So the answer is that productivity has dropped.
How do we improve productivity? Is it by sacking staff? Or is it by investing in training and capital equipment like every other organisation?
Instead we strip bare training and capital budgets in favour of "front line services" and act surprised when it doesn't work.
Why do we need a huge Department of Health, a huge NHS England, huge NHS Trusts, all sitting above anyone who actually delivers a service?
Despite this, my local hospital hasn't even caught up with the fact that people use email, and still makes appointments by letter. I support you in your task of putting people back together. I don't support ludicrous paper pushing when the economy is on its knees.
I might argue that some of these are necessary. For instance, AIUI we pay relatively little for drugs because the NHS gives us mass purchasing power - or something like that. How much does that save, compared to the cost of the relevant bureaucracy?
The email thing is interesting: but I would point out that a fair few people *still* don't have access to email. Quite a few, in fact: 7 million households in the UK have no Internet.
"Ofcom (the Office of Communications) and ONS (the Office of National Statistics) show that 6 per cent of UK households have no access to the internet and 4.2 million adults have either never used the internet or have not used it in the past three months."
Which is still quite an arresting figure.
Living in the north in a WWC community I know quite a few people who have never accessed the internet; all older people. Many have family members who will assist with bits and pieces. Those who don't increasingly struggle with the way in which the default position of absolutely everything assumes access.
What's a WWC community?
I'd estimate that half the people I see at Citizens Advice can't use the internet, mainly because they have never learned and lack the confidence to start now.
I used to teach compulsory digital skills for the unemployed. Another programme hugely cut.
The Tory membership still rates JRM so that says it all really.
That's the real trouble. There will be bright young Tories in Notting Hill or similar, but they have to be acceptable to my mother, and yes she does like JRM...
it will take a couple of bad defeats before the parliamentary party starts to look to who can win an election rather than who can do the best right wing politics.
Rishi's failure to 'do right wing politics' is why he's on course to lose. We have the highest tax burden ever, a disastrously bloated and inefficient state that needs an axe taking to it, untramelled immigration - right wing politics have never been more important.
Let me guess: the bits of the "disastrously bloated and inefficient state" that you want to put an axe to are the parts you don't use, need or interact with?
Not really; I'd be quite happy to see an axe taken to the parts I have regular dealings with. The administrative parts of quangos and Government departments are ludicrously overmanned and they need a rocket up them.
Really? What evidence do you have for that?
You do realise you're asking for worse public services?
On the contrary, staffing in (as an example) the NHS has grown vastly in recent years. Its headcount is comparable to the worldwide headcount of MacDonald's. Yet things have got shitter and shitter. Efficiencies are vital and I don't think they will harm the service - quite the opposite.
Staffing has grown, output has not grown in proportion is true enough. So the answer is that productivity has dropped.
How do we improve productivity? Is it by sacking staff? Or is it by investing in training and capital equipment like every other organisation?
Instead we strip bare training and capital budgets in favour of "front line services" and act surprised when it doesn't work.
Why do we need a huge Department of Health, a huge NHS England, huge NHS Trusts, all sitting above anyone who actually delivers a service?
Despite this, my local hospital hasn't even caught up with the fact that people use email, and still makes appointments by letter. I support you in your task of putting people back together. I don't support ludicrous paper pushing when the economy is on its knees.
I might argue that some of these are necessary. For instance, AIUI we pay relatively little for drugs because the NHS gives us mass purchasing power - or something like that. How much does that save, compared to the cost of the relevant bureaucracy?
The email thing is interesting: but I would point out that a fair few people *still* don't have access to email. Quite a few, in fact: 7 million households in the UK have no Internet.
"Ofcom (the Office of Communications) and ONS (the Office of National Statistics) show that 6 per cent of UK households have no access to the internet and 4.2 million adults have either never used the internet or have not used it in the past three months."
Which is still quite an arresting figure.
Living in the north in a WWC community I know quite a few people who have never accessed the internet; all older people. Many have family members who will assist with bits and pieces. Those who don't increasingly struggle with the way in which the default position of absolutely everything assumes access.
What's a WWC community?
I'd estimate that half the people I see at Citizens Advice can't use the internet, mainly because they have never learned and lack the confidence to start now.
I used to teach compulsory digital skills for the unemployed. Another programme hugely cut.
And British productivity remains poor. A real mystery isn't it?
The Tory membership still rates JRM so that says it all really.
That's the real trouble. There will be bright young Tories in Notting Hill or similar, but they have to be acceptable to my mother, and yes she does like JRM...
it will take a couple of bad defeats before the parliamentary party starts to look to who can win an election rather than who can do the best right wing politics.
Rishi's failure to 'do right wing politics' is why he's on course to lose. We have the highest tax burden ever, a disastrously bloated and inefficient state that needs an axe taking to it, untramelled immigration - right wing politics have never been more important.
Let me guess: the bits of the "disastrously bloated and inefficient state" that you want to put an axe to are the parts you don't use, need or interact with?
Not really; I'd be quite happy to see an axe taken to the parts I have regular dealings with. The administrative parts of quangos and Government departments are ludicrously overmanned and they need a rocket up them.
Really? What evidence do you have for that?
You do realise you're asking for worse public services?
On the contrary, staffing in (as an example) the NHS has grown vastly in recent years. Its headcount is comparable to the worldwide headcount of MacDonald's. Yet things have got shitter and shitter. Efficiencies are vital and I don't think they will harm the service - quite the opposite.
Staffing has grown, output has not grown in proportion is true enough. So the answer is that productivity has dropped.
How do we improve productivity? Is it by sacking staff? Or is it by investing in training and capital equipment like every other organisation?
Instead we strip bare training and capital budgets in favour of "front line services" and act surprised when it doesn't work.
Why do we need a huge Department of Health, a huge NHS England, huge NHS Trusts, all sitting above anyone who actually delivers a service?
Despite this, my local hospital hasn't even caught up with the fact that people use email, and still makes appointments by letter. I support you in your task of putting people back together. I don't support ludicrous paper pushing when the economy is on its knees.
I might argue that some of these are necessary. For instance, AIUI we pay relatively little for drugs because the NHS gives us mass purchasing power - or something like that. How much does that save, compared to the cost of the relevant bureaucracy?
The email thing is interesting: but I would point out that a fair few people *still* don't have access to email. Quite a few, in fact: 7 million households in the UK have no Internet.
"Ofcom (the Office of Communications) and ONS (the Office of National Statistics) show that 6 per cent of UK households have no access to the internet and 4.2 million adults have either never used the internet or have not used it in the past three months."
Which is still quite an arresting figure.
Living in the north in a WWC community I know quite a few people who have never accessed the internet; all older people. Many have family members who will assist with bits and pieces. Those who don't increasingly struggle with the way in which the default position of absolutely everything assumes access.
Of course, the reduction in family size makes it more and more likely that older people in particular will lack family members for support. Even then, it's still not enough - one key issue is security, with passwords, mobile phones that are still being updated, etc. etc. It's almost impossible to provide complete and consistent support [edit] at a distance for an elderly relative for all sorts of practical reasons.
Has anyone honestly had a good fish and chips and thought: that fish was better for being battered? I'm not sure I have, unless the fish is frozen and awful. A decent piece of fish should be grilled or quickly fried, how does smothering it in thick chunky batter make it "better"?
It's a melancholy admission. It is our national dish. It just disappoints me
On the other hand I love chips fried in beef dripping: they are the biz
I've had very good battered fish in Tyndrum, Oban and Troon in the recent past. Local chippies are a disappointment these days though. Coating the fish in panko breadcrumbs seems to mean they can charge a lot more without putting any effort in to the fish itself.
I believe I've eaten chish and fips from that same chippy in Oban. It is quite famous, right?
Very good, tho again the batter felt a little.... extra
It was just a random chippy in Oban - no idea if it was famous or not. Just 'somewhere to hand' while waiting on a ferry.
I learned via YouTube earlier this year that there are still one or two fish and chip shops with 1930s coal fired fish fryers. It won't make the fish taste any better, but I like the survival of that kind of anachronism.
The Tory membership still rates JRM so that says it all really.
That's the real trouble. There will be bright young Tories in Notting Hill or similar, but they have to be acceptable to my mother, and yes she does like JRM...
it will take a couple of bad defeats before the parliamentary party starts to look to who can win an election rather than who can do the best right wing politics.
Rishi's failure to 'do right wing politics' is why he's on course to lose. We have the highest tax burden ever, a disastrously bloated and inefficient state that needs an axe taking to it, untramelled immigration - right wing politics have never been more important.
“If we hadn't had Keir Starmer putting up with Corbyn during all that nonsense…he would not have been elected."
@DannytheFink asks Peter Mandelson if Keir Starmer was wrong to serve in Jeremy Corbyn’s shadow cabinet.
Peter Mandelson is as usual, correct.
But what if Corbyn had won? Saying “Oh I only pretended to agree with him, and campaigned for him to be PM because I thought we’d lose and then I’d take over” wouldn’t be the most believable excuse for promoting someone Sir Keir and Mandelson consider an anti semite who would be terrible at running the country
If Corbyn had become PM, I suspect that a VONC would have been engineered so that a PM more to the liking of the PLP could be installed.
And you don’t see that as a democratic outrage? Johnson was given 2-3 years
It wouldn't have been engineered; it would have happened organically.
The first thing to pin down in this counterfactual is when Corbyn became PM, and on what basis. Both matter massively. In 2017 - by far the more likely - it's not difficult to construct a narrative where the Tories screw up even more during the campaign (or earlier), and there's an anti-Tory / Brexit-sceptic majority. In 2019, that's much harder - though had the May government fallen in Spring 2019, who knows what parliament might have resulted.
But we do know that after the Labour MPs No Confidenced Corbyn by 80-20, then lost their challenge, they pretty much all fell back into line. That effect would have been magnified several times had Corbyn's mandate come from the electorate rather than the party.
Either way though, how Corbyn handled Salisbury, Brexit, Ukraine or Covid - to name just the most obvious policy challenges - could have led to his downfall. He could have seriously alienated his MPs, coalition colleagues and public on any of them. And had he led a minority government, that could have ended his government. Indeed, in a weak 2019 win, the Lib Dems might have been able to demand a different PM as their price of support, though Labour could (and probably would) have said 'no'.
But sooner or later, he would have made so big a political failure with serious real world consequences that his government would have become unsustainable.
The interpretation I put on @SandyRentool proposition was directly after the election. If he had been a fair run at it and then failed that’s a different matter
So you are saying the 2015 Tory campaign was fraudulent?
No. Firstly Cameron chose to resign and I am not a supporter of indentured servitude.
Secondly he had failed in a key policy, of keeping the UK in the EU, so felt he didn’t have the ability to continue to lead the government effectively
This is the parallel I am thinking about:
Mr Livingstone found himself in the middle of controversy within 24 hours of Labour winning the GLC election on May 7, 1981, when he led a coup against the then Labour leader, Andrew Macintosh, now Lord Macintosh of Haringey.
My memory of that though, and it may be faulty, was that that was widely trailed as being what would likely happen after the election. You can't have a "coup" when it's no great surprise to anyone.
Then why did they present a false prospectus to the electorate?
The Tory membership still rates JRM so that says it all really.
That's the real trouble. There will be bright young Tories in Notting Hill or similar, but they have to be acceptable to my mother, and yes she does like JRM...
it will take a couple of bad defeats before the parliamentary party starts to look to who can win an election rather than who can do the best right wing politics.
Rishi's failure to 'do right wing politics' is why he's on course to lose. We have the highest tax burden ever, a disastrously bloated and inefficient state that needs an axe taking to it, untramelled immigration - right wing politics have never been more important.
Let me guess: the bits of the "disastrously bloated and inefficient state" that you want to put an axe to are the parts you don't use, need or interact with?
Not really; I'd be quite happy to see an axe taken to the parts I have regular dealings with. The administrative parts of quangos and Government departments are ludicrously overmanned and they need a rocket up them.
Really? What evidence do you have for that?
You do realise you're asking for worse public services?
On the contrary, staffing in (as an example) the NHS has grown vastly in recent years. Its headcount is comparable to the worldwide headcount of MacDonald's. Yet things have got shitter and shitter. Efficiencies are vital and I don't think they will harm the service - quite the opposite.
Unfortunately, efficiencies will be run by managers, who will sacrifice frontline staff in order to safeguard their own jobs.
Comments
If every OFSTED inspector was like my friend, even the catastrophic curriculum framework wouldn't be so bad to deal with.
I know Spielman and the DfE disagree. However, I consider their views utterly worthless.
Are there any others?
This at a time when American domestic wines available, at least on eastern seaboard, where New York State wines. Which unfortunately (though probably correctly) were considered undrinkable in high society as product of "foxy" grapes.
He advised me on how to design the curriculum to support learning and development (incidentally I also had input from an HMI on that as well)
He also taught me more on book scrutinies in ten minutes than I would have learned on my own in five years, which was enormously helpful in making sure these things were being done correctly
He taught me a new system of data tracking that genuinely revolutionised the way we monitored performance and was swiftly rolled out across the school.
And he never asked for anything at all in exchange. He thought helping children learn was more than reward enough.
Sadly, he left a year into Spielman's tenure. He was past retirement age, but he was also completely fed up. He said that what he was being asked to do was not what he went into OFSTED to achieve.
The Elysee and the Royals do. Perhaps the US presidency?*
*EDIT: Apparently not
https://www.californiawineadvisors.com/wine-in-the-white-house-a-glimpse-into-a-presidents-glass/
I cannot say it was worth the money (tho I got it free)
But one thing I did notice about his work - which he talked about a lot because he had a real passion for it - was that the learning of children was front and centre of absolutely everything. If they were learning, he was happy. If they weren't, the only thing he wanted was to find a way for them to improve.
I'd not be afraid of being inspected by somebody with that attitude. If I get my ears twisted, I'll know I deserve it and that I need to improve things. And, moreover, I'll be willing to be told what to do to get it right.
Somebody out to build a report on forged evidence to fit a preconceived agenda is a horse of a different colour.
Again, two years ago if you'd told me OFSTED inspectors were doing that I would have laughed at you. Because although I sometimes wondered how complete their information was or whether they tended to see facts that fit their theories I would never have accused them of making stuff up.
Now - well, now I don't feel I can trust them.
I think everyone knows I have an even more jaundiced view of the ISI than OFSTED. However, I would say that one thing their new framework is triumphantly right on is that if they spot a problem they will immediately offer guidance on how to fix it, and if it's sorted by the end of the inspection they will not include it in the report on the grounds that it's all good now.
If OFSTED had taken that approach they'd have several other problems but they wouldn't have the law on their case.
There are about 28 25ml shots in a 70cl bottle, so that's a £3,500 bottle - though they've probably marked it up a fair bit. That's usually the price of a 40 year old malt from a pretty good distillery (though Macallan the prices are different for some reason). You don't see many blended whiskies command that sort of price, even very aged ones.
Another part of OFSTED's work is their inspection regimen for local authorities. Counties in particular can be utterly paralysed by an impending OFSTED inspection but said inspections do tend to highlight problems in either social care in general or SEN provision in particular which can be embarrassing to ruling groups and Cabinet members.
A poor OFSTED report is often a catalyst for changes at senior management level with a number of "retirements" suddenly being announced.
I'd argue special needs provision is a huge issue facing all local authorities - quite apart from the assessment process itself being hampered by a lack of qualified staff, the accommodation available within schools (dedicated units) just can't deal with the numbers of children deemed to be requiring SEN teaching.
The latter may or may not be a direct consequence of the pandemic - those asserting lockdowns did huge damage to some children do have some evidence supporting their argument.
I guess I got the better deal.
Really interesting article. Thank you @ydoethur.
PS For @viewcode: I was never told what the word limit for headers was. I have done short ones long before you started monitoring mine. I have different styles and lengths depending on where I am writing. Those on my work website are very short usually. For clients it depends on their requirements and for the legal feminist group, it's around 1600 words because those tend to be scholarly legal articles. On my personal website I please myself.
If so, that matches with what has been seen in other fields. There are numerous stories, in aviation, of personnel from the FAA and similar organisations providing invaluable information (based on years of inspection) to operators and designers of aircraft.
Once the stakes of the assessment were pushed that high (and at the good/outstanding boundary as well) it became too much about the show on both sides.
And since the consequences of the reports were so weighty, Ofsted had to maintain a "we don't make mistakes" facade, and the framework had to become over mechanistic, because you can't destroy careers on impressions.
I remember meeting Spielman shortly after she took over and being optimistic; she didn't have Wilshaw's "I embody Outstanding" bombast. I was wrong.
So I went immediately to the fanciest bar on the vessel and told the bartender that I'd like a brandy - specifically, the Super-XXXXXXXXX top-of-the line brandy I'd noticed previously.
Not sure it was really worth the price . . . but didn't have to pay a dime. It was very nice.
@Malmesbury yes. His knowledge of good practice was because he saw so much. And, of course, the reason I went to him in the first place.
One point though - this wasn't about getting an outstanding OFSTED grade, as it would be now. It was about delivering an outstanding education which was recognised in an 'outstanding' grade.
Note the very carefully crafted statement about the Post Office which leaves a lot of questions unanswered.
I would very much like to understand the internal structure of Fujitsu during this time, its governance etc. Because even though Gareth Jenkins is obviously someone with a lot of explaining to do, there will have been lots of other much more senior people than him involved in the tendering process, in the design, development and management of Horizon, in the contractual arrangements with the Post Office and in the legal and other decisions taken throughout this whole period, including in relation to the prosecutions, investigations and so on.
They should not be allowed to develop sloping shoulders, any more than all the PO managers in addition to Paula Vennells, civil servants and Ministers should be allowed to.
You do realise you're asking for worse public services?
Mine is a much better story; yours was much more satisfying
Also watch out for Kim Leadbeater.
Andy Burnham is finished IMHO
Has anyone honestly had a good fish and chips and thought: that fish was better for being battered? I'm not sure I have, unless the fish is frozen and awful. A decent piece of fish should be grilled or quickly fried, how does smothering it in thick chunky batter make it "better"?
It's a melancholy admission. It is our national dish. It just disappoints me
On the other hand I love chips fried in beef dripping: they are the biz
Grilled. Pffft.
Cincinnati is a sad place. Lots of potential, but pretty much fucked in that contemporary urban American way: hollowed out centre, too much parking, freeways in the middle of the city, homelessness and crime. And fairly shit food
In the 19th century it was the Queen of the West, and images show that to be true. The automobile destroyed it
You're just saying you don't like batter. Which is fair enough.
How do we improve productivity? Is it by sacking staff? Or is it by investing in training and capital equipment like every other organisation?
Instead we strip bare training and capital budgets in favour of "front line services" and act surprised when it doesn't work.
Who said that?
I find British batter too heavy and claggy
1) Staff count has gone up; but AIUI so has workload. The problem is demand as much as laziness or inefficiency. Not that there can not be improvements, especially in terms of structure: but reorganisations often end up with things being more expensive, not less.
2) We have had thirteen years of trying to find efficiencies. A few were found; but a problem is that one person's 'waste' is another person's necessity. There may not actually be that many 'efficiencies' left to find.
If you care to give good, solid examples that make a large difference, feel free.
That really isn't productive.
Was name checked in the header too. (A minor point, I don't work in a PRU. I work in a special intervention unit at an SEN school. It's a technical difference).
Agree about the vastly positive impact on standards in FE. I witnessed those first hand, too. And possibly Councils, though I have no particular knowledge of those.
Very much agree on the "school is a school" point. It isn't. My Unit can't function on a timetable. Or a curriculum. Or necessarily be planned.
We keep being made to try. But it doesn't work.
But it is forced academisation which is the nub of the issue here. The raison d'etre of inspection ought to be to improve standards. That has been lost.
Replaced by a default attitude that if you make a school into an academy that IS an automatic improvement.
The evidence for that is mixed to say the very least.
Very good, tho again the batter felt a little.... extra
Many moons ago, a pub here in Cambridge managed to serve a fish that was piping hot on the inside, but still frozen solid on the inside. Quite a feat: a kind of piscine baked Alaska.
Despite this, my local hospital hasn't even caught up with the fact that people use email, and still makes appointments by letter. I support you in your task of putting people back together. I don't support ludicrous paper pushing when the economy is on its knees.
The fundamental difference is between “could” and “should”.
Compared to other countries health systems, admin and management roles are already very spartan. Indeed that may well be part of the problem..
Then it is like the Cornish pasty, where most of the pastry was meant to be discarded, especially the crimped "handle" as that is how your filthy fingers held it. It is only now post-mining that people eat "the whole pasty"
And a truly well made pasty is a beautiful thing, if you have an appetite. It needs crucial adherence to the original recipe, especially the white pepper, beef skirt, turnip/swede - no fucking carrots!
OBAN FISH & CHIP SHOP, ARGYLL
Awarded a Tripadvisor Certificate of Excellence in 2018, Oban’s forty-seat Fish and Chip Shop has the honour of being named one of the ‘best fish and chips he’s tasted’ by celebrity chef Rick Stein. Family-run in the centre of Oban, the sea is just steps away with panoramic views of the local islands. You can enjoy delicious, freshly cooked fish, as well as seafood platters, homemade desserts and meat dishes.
It’s been pointed out many times on here about the ridiculous way the British - really the English - like their posh elite educated overlords. That there is a sort of class based cultural cringe of doffing the cap to a Cameron et Al because they went to public schools and top universities.
It’s an embarrassed aspirational thing where if you vote for your betters you are part of their thing.
So when it comes to Rayner I don’t think you can discount the opposite of above. There will be a massive amount of people who see how she dresses (sorry but she is the worst kind of grown up who hasn’t grown up and thinks it’s edgy to dress like a student) and hear her speak and be aghast that she is their “better”. The English don’t mind someone being above them if they can justify it because of their wealth/class/education but John Prescott was never going to be taken seriously and neither will Rayner.
There is also that thing about how the English can hate someone by virtue of their accent regardless of what they actually have to say and there aren’t enough swing seats where people won’t hate how she speaks.
It’s not nice what I’ve written but it’s how we are.
The email thing is interesting: but I would point out that a fair few people *still* don't have access to email. Quite a few, in fact: 7 million households in the UK have no Internet.
What is a 'waste' to you may be vital for others.
https://thefinanser.com/2023/07/britains-digital-divide-7-million-households-have-no-internet-access
Secondly he had failed in a key policy, of keeping the UK in the EU, so felt he didn’t have the ability to continue to lead the government effectively
This is the parallel I am thinking about:
Mr Livingstone found himself in the middle of controversy within 24 hours of Labour winning the GLC election on May 7, 1981, when he led a coup against the then Labour leader, Andrew Macintosh, now Lord Macintosh of Haringey.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/1999/oct/20/londonmayor.london
Perhaps this reflects that the NHS serves people from one day old to over one hundred years and that there will be different expectations across those people?
One other thing - beware targets. While they may be seen to drive performance they also distort activity.
Was OFSTED doomed from the start (was the basic way it was formluated wrong)? Or is it subsequent changes and poor leadership that has made it so bad?
In asking this question I am making two assumptions which ydoethur has made explicit in his header. Firstly that inspections are necessary in some form and secondly that OFSTED is now a complete failure and not fit for purpose.
"Ofcom (the Office of Communications) and ONS (the Office of National Statistics) show that 6 per cent of UK households have no access to the internet and 4.2 million adults have either never used the internet or have not used it in the past three months."
Which is still quite an arresting figure.
You can't have a "coup" when it's no great surprise to anyone.
My current little scheme is teaching myself to swim - at least, I can swim, but not well. I can do 1,500 metres backstroke, but I can barely do a 25m length front crawl. It seems my little brain cannot cope with counting strokes, kicking legs, moving my arms and breathing at the same time - at least without taking in mouthfuls of water!
Good luck with your running - it sounds like you've got a considered plan there.
Ramsey MacDonald was the illegitimate son of a farm worker and a domestic servant. The new colonial secretary was a Welsh engine driver. The home secretary a Glaswegian iron moulder. There were several ex coal miners in cabinet.
It's hard to imagine such a cabinet now.
Every credit to her!
that the turning point was when its purpose ceased to be to drive up standards, and instead became a vehicle for forcing academisation on schools.
Chris Woodhead, as a very antagonistic figure, a poor administrator and a man with a grudge for having failed as a teacher, caused OFSTED significant reputational damage in the early days. He fostered an atmosphere of suspicion and mistrust that's never been entirely dispelled.
That said, under Tomlinson in particular and his successors it did some very good work in raising standards (as @Northern_Al quite rightly notes) and seemed to be getting past its earlier difficulties.
However, in I think 2008 it was simultaneously made a non-ministerial department, so lost all oversight, and had its remit massively expanded to include things like social care and local council provision. The first in particular is a complex highly specialised field and should have its own separate inspectorate. At the same time, this lack of specialisation meant inspectors who were not qualified in any field of inspection (including ex-police officers and school receptionists) were being recruited. That didn't do any favours to standards.
Finally, they have become deeply involved in the academisation drive. Academy schools are not a bad thing in and of themselves but using an OFSTED report to force a school to join a particular academy chain nominated by some fool at the DfE is a bad idea. Especially if that report has been deliberately written using false information to justify that outcome, as was the case at Caversham. (Interestingly despite the fact the SoS has a statutory duty to force academise a school given a 4 on leadership - another thing Derry lied to the inquest about - that doesn't seem to have happened at Caversham. That tells me all I need to know about what was happening.)
There have been issues with leadership. Gilbert was a very poor choice. Wilshaw definitely made mistakes. But since 2016 it's been ruination. What Morgan was thinking when she appointed Spielman (assuming she was) I have no idea.
As I say, I don't see a way back for OFSTED. Certainly not in its current form. I think breaking it up and expunging the name is the optimum solution from here but it might require a wholesale upheaval in staffing too.
Which is ironic, really!
On the election timing question, an interesting claim from Labour that the government is running down the clock on a load of stuff like this booze report and that this indicates a spring election in the offing.
I'd estimate that half the people I see at Citizens Advice can't use the internet, mainly because they have never learned and lack the confidence to start now.
Perhaps the most traduced and misunderstood of all the groupings.
Another programme hugely cut.