Meanwhile, here's a telling anecdote about Toby:
They've been at this for a long time:Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2018 1:03 pmWhat's below the surface here (and the press rarely reports on anything but the surface) is the way in which government policy is abandoning evidence, good sense or hard-won experience for political and ideological direction.
Remember when Chris Grayling refused to allow the failed Southern network to be absorbed into the highly effective and successful Overground system because it would mean control passing to a Labour mayor? This is the same.
This is important because we are seeing the politicisation of elements of our national endeavour where once good will from all sides made actual progress possible. Henceforward decisions will be made on the basis of political expediency rather than the national interest. The Brexit infection.
I would like to see this recognised by the Labour and Lib Dem parties, and a commitment made to reverse these changes. However, I think that most of the 'new' Labour members would just do the same from their own tribe, and the Lib Dems lost the Liberal part about 2000.
Amen to that, although politicising BBC appointments goes back all the way to the Milne/Hussey era. And both political parties are guilty of it, I am afraid.Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2018 9:25 pmThis isn't about appointing the inexperienced or unsuitable, this is about creating an environment in which expertise (yes) is downgraded below party allegiance, not in individual cases but as a planned progression towards all appointments being essentially political in nature.
As Cameron did with the BBC.
Who sits on the board of the OfS is less significant than the largescale transformation of higher education, of which the introduction of a ‘market regulator’ is the final act. It implies that any debate over whether or not higher education should be a market is now closed. The question remaining – on which we are encouraged to focus – is how the market should be managed. Students and academics are likely to have as little influence over the second question as they have had over the first. But, more important, if we allow ourselves even to entertain that second question, we have already lost.
The attempt to commodify education and to subject it to market forces has so far proved even more shambolic than the privatisation of other sectors, such as energy and transport, on which the ongoing reforms of universities are modelled. But the government doesn’t see this as a reason to reconsider the process. Any imperfection in a publicly administered institution is held up as instant and incontrovertible proof of the fatal inefficiency of a ‘public goods’ model; but whenever something goes wrong with a marketised system, it proves only the need for a further extension of market forces.
The function of this "committee" was to provide Young, his parliamentary allies, and assorted drinking pals / pamphleteers to produce a handy squirrell every time education debate went a bit sour.
They wouldn't have formed a committeee if there wasn't a problem.
O.k chums, let's get serious. I know nothing abou[…]
Ah, I'd forgotten that, good point. She should ph[…]
Jez musing on NATO today. Our role will be "r[…]
Roll on thou great and horrible ocean, roll over […]