Dominic Cummings - In his own words

[Gentleman Jim]

Irrelevant, loads of predictions made in the old forum about brexit was about to result in already fell flat.

How? Since Brexit hasn't happened yet

[sheldrake]

Irrelevant, loads of predictions made in the old forum about brexit was about to result in already fell flat.

How? Since Brexit hasn't happened yet

Many predictions were made concerning things people expected to happen in the near term, before our actual exit.

[Ken McKenzie]

Many predictions were made concerning things people expected to happen in the near term, before our actual exit.

Yes, many by Brexiteers, all of whom were also wrong. You appear have failed to notice but at the time of writing, the UK is still in the European Union. We didn't leave last March as widely predicted by your heroes, we didn't leave in April as your team confidently told us, and we didn't leave in October as your side forcefully foretold.

Arguing who was wronger is fairly pointless. The entire Brexiteer consensus was also completely wrong on Brexit.

[sheldrake]

Yes, many by Brexiteers, all of whom were also wrong.

Not on the badscience forum.

You appear have failed to notice but at the time of writing, the UK is still in the European Union. We didn't leave last March as widely predicted by your heroes, we didn't leave in April as your team confidently told us, and we didn't leave in October as your side forcefully foretold.

Arguing who was wronger is fairly pointless. The entire Brexiteer consensus was also completely wrong on Brexit.

The timing was thwarted by May's incompetence in 2017 and alliance of MPs determined to pretend to support the referendum result whilst thwarting it. The other predictions about unemployment, crashes in investment, the stance the EU would take and the impossibility of renegotiating the exit terms all turned out to be more in line with my predictions rather than the consensus on this board.

[cvb]

Tell your doctor that he needs to look for any evidence of parathesia in the extremities, midline cervical tenderness, neck pain which may be referred to the shoulder or arm, headache, a reduced range of neck movements, muscular spasm, stiffness, deafness, dysphagia or nausea, fatigue, dizziness, memory loss, temporomandibular joint pain and tinnitus.

TBH I'm impressed the whole thing didn't flip on you, you must have really good tyres.

You're kind of proving my point here.

You could try answering his question rather than being completely evasive. You are not going to though are you?

[sheldrake]

There's no question in that post

[cvb]

Not allowed to just hire wierdos

[sheldrake]

Not allowed to just hire wierdos

Yeah he is, they just get hired as SPADs rather than civl servants.

[cvb]

If it is so unethical and undemocratic for some DoE technocrat to suggest running a pilot study on the effectiveness of Phonics in 10 schools then how is it ethical and democratic for a technocrat like Cummings to implement Phonics across all 33,000 state schools?

This is the question you have avoided answering. Try answering it now.

[sheldrake]

If it is so unethical and undemocratic for some DoE technocrat to suggest running a pilot study on the effectiveness of Phonics in 10 schools then how is it ethical and democratic for a technocrat like Cummings to implement Phonics across all 33,000 state schools?

This is the question you have avoided answering. Try answering it now.

It's not more ethical or democratic, it will just be perceived as fairer by much of the electorate because many people will react against the idea that their children are getting different treatment by being 'experimented on'.

[raven]

I've been very clear. You've overfocussed on the question of the correct application of scientific method without considering the ethical or political ramificantions of experimenting on people's children without discussing it with them first. Dominic Cummings understands this. He probably wouldn't struggle as much as you on the 'understanding emotions' bit of that test.

I think you might be overestimating those ramifications. In my experience most parents are fine to go along with whatever method a school uses as long as their kids are happy and making progress.

Our secondary did various things I didn't much approve of while our two were there - VAK testing for instance, with I think is utter tosh - but if they'd been collecting data for a RCT at least that would have been one step up from just doing it because someone had been to an inset day.

[cvb]

If it is so unethical and undemocratic for some DoE technocrat to suggest running a pilot study on the effectiveness of Phonics in 10 schools then how is it ethical and democratic for a technocrat like Cummings to implement Phonics across all 33,000 state schools?

This is the question you have avoided answering. Try answering it now.

It's not more ethical or democratic, it will just be perceived as fairer by much of the electorate because many people will react against the idea that their children are getting different treatment by being 'experimented on'.

So it is unethical and undemocratic to do so but people might not perceive it as such.

That is the level at which you are happy.

[plodder]

To be fair, this is a thread about someone whose stated aim is to shake up politics. So he's absolutely going to be concerned with what he can get away with. The purity of ethics is often something that gets muddied in policy decisions (e.g. let's try teaching phonics). The CHF's idea of running trials is technically interesting but sheldrake is correct to point out that there would likely be political fallout when the Sun and Mail tell people their kids are being experimented on, and some politician has to stand up and accept that yes, this is true.

[sheldrake]

This is the question you have avoided answering. Try answering it now.

It's not more ethical or democratic, it will just be perceived as fairer by much of the electorate because many people will react against the idea that their children are getting different treatment by being 'experimented on'.

So it is unethical and undemocratic to do so but people might not perceive it as such.

That is the level at which you are happy.

He's a political advisor. This is what politics is, its steering (and being steered by) the perexptions of masses of people.

[cvb]

It's not more ethical or democratic, it will just be perceived as fairer by much of the electorate because many people will react against the idea that their children are getting different treatment by being 'experimented on'.

So it is unethical and undemocratic to do so but people might not perceive it as such.

That is the level at which you are happy.

He's a political advisor. This is what politics is, its steering (and being steered by) the perexptions of masses of people.

Admittedly unethical and undemocratic.

I will leave it at that.

[plodder]

Or "pragmatic".

[sheldrake]

It's not undemocratic if he a Tory administration make clear what their educational philosophy is then people elect them. Cummings simply understands that Tory voters are okay with things that sound rigorous and traditional and are less okay with things that sound like academics want to experiment on their children (yes 'sounds'. Real people are mostly quite fuzzy. Some of them even admit it)

You don't have to agree with those people to understand that that is a common perception and understandable for a Tory party to try to appeal to.

[dyqik]

It's not undemocratic if he a Tory administration make clear what their educational philosophy is then people elect them. Cummings simply understands that Tory voters are okay with things that sound rigorous and traditional and are less okay with things that sound like academics want to experiment on their children (yes 'sounds'. Real people are mostly quite fuzzy. Some of them even admit it)

You don't have to agree with those people to understand that that is a common perception and understandable for a Tory party to try to appeal to.

No one votes for a party based on a specific detail of an educational program that likely isn't even in the manifesto.

[sheldrake]

It's not undemocratic if he a Tory administration make clear what their educational philosophy is then people elect them. Cummings simply understands that Tory voters are okay with things that sound rigorous and traditional and are less okay with things that sound like academics want to experiment on their children (yes 'sounds'. Real people are mostly quite fuzzy. Some of them even admit it)

You don't have to agree with those people to understand that that is a common perception and understandable for a Tory party to try to appeal to.

No one votes for a party based on a specific detail of an educational program that likely isn't even in the manifesto.

I'm quoting directly from the 2010 Conservative manifesto now: -

A rigorous curriculum and
exam system
Every child who is capable of reading should
be doing so after two years in primary school.
To make this happen, we will promote the
teaching of systematic synthetic phonics and
ensure that teachers are properly trained to
teach using this method. To provide parents
with the reassurance they need that their child
is making progress, we will establish a simple
reading test at the age of six.

My bold. You can read the original here https://www.conservatives.com/~/media/F ... ifesto2010

You will find a lot of other stuff on the theme of 'getting rid of quangos set up by Labour' and 'rigour'.

This is mood music that appeals to people who like tradition mixed with a kind of stern meritocracy (i.e. most of the Tory core vote).

[Little waster]

I'm quoting directly from the 2010 Conservative manifesto now: -

As I said, a single line from a 131-page document, 99% of voters never even looked at and almost nobody would have quoted unprompted if asked to explain Conservative educational policy in the 2010 campaign.

That manifesto, of course was famously rejected by the electorate and was therefore superseded by the Coalition Agreement, which makes no mention at all of phonics or "rigour" or a bonfire of educational quangos or any other Govian educational reform. There is a solitary, meaningless, detail-less mention of "robust standards". Ironically it did pledge to simplify the regulation of standards in education and then they went on to to do the exact opposite, with a vast slew of centralised, prescriptive demands.

The 2015 manifesto (the actual one Sheldrake cites as "proof" that the Coalition's educational policies were overwhelming approved of) makes no mention at all of any of it.

[dyqik]

I'm quoting directly from the 2010 Conservative manifesto now: -

As I said, a single line from a 131-page document, 99% of voters never even looked at and almost nobody would have quoted unprompted if asked to explain Conservative educational policy in the 2010 campaign.

That manifesto, of course was famously rejected by the electorate and was therefore superseded by the Coalition Agreement, which makes no mention at all of phonics or "rigour" or a bonfire of educational quangos or any other Govian educational reform. There is a solitary, meaningless, detail-less mention of "robust standards". Ironically it did pledge to simplify the regulation of standards in education and then they went on to to do the exact opposite, with a vast slew of centralised, prescriptive demands.

The 2015 manifesto (the actual one Sheldrake cites as "proof" that the Coalition's educational policies were overwhelming approved of) makes no mention at all of any of it.

Precisely.

[sheldrake]

I'm quoting directly from the 2010 Conservative manifesto now: -

As I said, a single line from a 131-page document, 99% of voters never even looked at and almost nobody would have quoted unprompted if asked to explain Conservative educational policy in the 2010 campaign.

That manifesto, of course was famously rejected by the electorate and was therefore superseded by the Coalition Agreement, which makes no mention at all of phonics or "rigour" or a bonfire of educational quangos or any other Govian educational reform. There is a solitary, meaningless, detail-less mention of "robust standards". Ironically it did pledge to simplify the regulation of standards in education and then they went on to to do the exact opposite, with a vast slew of centralised, prescriptive demands.

The 2015 manifesto (the actual one Sheldrake cites as "proof" that the Coalition's educational policies were overwhelming approved of) makes no mention at all of any of it.

Interpreting a Tory led coalition which was then further endorsed to become a majority Tory government as rejection by the electorate does not make sense. The coalition agreement was not put to a vote.

You are really thrashing around now deliberately trying to avoid understanding why a very succesful political advisor made the call he did; the blocker seems to be that you wouldn't have made the same call yourself. Reflect on who is more likely to have been sucessful at interpreting the public mood over the last decade; do you honestly think it's you, rather than Cummings?

If not, and you're just saying 'I don't care that it was more popular, I'm certain all those people were wrong' is fine, but that's not really the point of debate here.

FWIW I'm absolutely delighted the new left is led by people with the same mentality, it's what keeps you out of power.

[Little waster]

No what doesn't make sense is to interpret the 37% support for the overall 2015 manifesto as overwhelming support for a policy which wasn't even in it.

Your claim is wrong on every level:-

1) 37% isn't majority support.
2) Support for an entire manifesto cannot be interpreted as explicit support for a single,obscure policy within that manifesto.
3) Support for the winning 2015 manifesto (which makes no mention of phonics) can not be interpreted as support for the losing 2010 manifesto (which did).

The only occasion Gove's educational reforms were ever explicitly put to the electorate they were rejected.

[sheldrake]

No what doesn't make sense is to interpret the 37% support for the overall 2015 manifesto as overwhelming support for a policy which wasn't even in it.

Your claim is wrong on every level:-

1) 37% isn't majority support.
2) Support for an entire manifesto cannot be interpreted as explicit support for a single,obscure policy within that manifesto.
3) Support for the winning 2015 manifesto (which makes no mention of phonics) can not be interpreted as support for the losing 2010 manifesto (which did).

The only occasion Gove's educational reforms were ever explicitly put to the electorate they were rejected.

Elections in the UK aren't won on percentages like that. They won the election in 2010 and 2015. By 2013 govt. guidance on teaching phonics had been published (it's still up on gov.uk) and the strategy had been implemented. Cummings is an election winner. Their judgement about what appeals to the broad mass of mildly conservative people is better than yours. Keep spitting feathers, you're just keeping yourself out of power.

You sound like Corbyn insisting he 'won the argument' back in December.

[plodder]

And you sound like someone trying to create public support for your position out of thin air. Why bother?

Cummings is a shrewd operator, and understands that most parents don't have a clue about educational theory or even care about it. What they want is for their children to come home from school looking like they've had a good day, grown up a bit and learned something useful.

This weird nitpicking about manifestos and the like is pretty excruciating point scoring and I'm thinking of keeping you all in after class to help tidy the stationary cupboard.