Future – John Vincent

Upbeat

I don’t like to say it. I will. The campaign for the next UK General Election (GE) has started.

That’s not to say that it didn’t start on Thursday, 4 July 2024. Sorry about the double negative. The Labour Party won a landslide victory as the Conservative Party vote collapsed just over 2-years ago. The electorate had finally had enough of 14-years of Conservative-led government.

Naturally, I wonder if it’s the case that government’s lose elections rather than opposition parties win them. There was a general mood in 2024 that the government had to go. I believe, it wasn’t so much a distaste for the Prime Minister (PM) of the day.

Part of the Conservative collapse was a surge in Liberal Democrat support. Parliamentary seats that had been “blue” for decades fell like nine pins.

Between a dissolution of parliament and polling day there can be less than 3-months. The process doesn’t have to be that speedy. However, PM’s who choose to go early often want to strike while the iron is hot. In terms of windows of opportunity, there’s a lot to be said for elections early in the year. Before the summer heat takes hold and on or after the local elections in early May each year. Winter elections are rarely preferred given the dark evenings and likelihood of poor weather.

So, that puts May-July 2027 and May-July 2028 in the frame. No PM can wish for the prospect of going right up against the wire in 2029. It can seem an act of desperation. Opposition parties would capitalise on that position as a sign of weakness.

Since we have a different Labour PM from the one who won on 2024, it seems reasonable that he would want to have a mandate to govern of his own. A renewed agenda, a new manifesto.

So, is the UK no more than 8 months, or so, away from a GE? Frankly, I don’t know. Many of the 650 members of the House of Commons elected in 2024 are still getting their feet under that table. Working out what the job of an MP is all about. I can’t imagine that they will be pushing the PM to throw caution to the wind. That said, if the main opposition parties remain struggling to find their feet, and haven’t organised themselves for a national election, then the door is open for the governing party to push through.

Would a PM calling an early election be punished by the electorate? Feed-up with all the instability of recent years. Or has volatility become such a part of the UK’s political landscape that no one will bat an eyelid. Just another roll of the dice.

Whether I like it or not, the UK has become more presidential. The personality of the PM is a factor in play. In not many of the electorate will be deeply engaged in reading every line of a new party manifesto.

In that popular political game, the national press like to build people up only to knock them down and do that as many times as it commands attention (clicks). The fate of Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer is a case in point. I couldn’t describe either of them as bad men. Certainly not egotists, idiots, or fools. Social media postings did that in abundance.

In this pseudo-presidential system, which has evolved in the UK, the popularists politicians have an advantage. Their formula is to use a megaphone to magnify prejudices and grievances. Can that onslaught be countered by the forces of hopefulness, openness, and positiveness? It’s a challenge to Liberals and Progressives who embrace an upbeat vision. Possible. I do remember the 1990s slogan – things can only get better. I wonder if they can in this decade.

As I said in [insert conference venue]

It’s Autumn. This morning, my garden is getting some desperately needed rain. On the News, stories are of the Conference season ending. That’s the part of the year when UK political parties gather their members and supporters at venues up and down the country. Conference rooms buzz and hotel bars sell out of snacks (and beer). Several themes keep popping up. These themes are regardless of the political party or their philosophy. They fit nicely into speeches. They get a hearty round of applause. It’s not that 2026 is different from other years. What’s remarkable is that it should be different.

The three recurrent popular themes I have in mind are:

Offer of give aways or a policy announcement focused on potential supporters.
Majoring on the unique powers one party has, as opposed to others.
An announcement that’s magical thinking dressed up as seriousness.

The first is about planning for future elections. It’s no good expecting voters to flock to a party unless the members and supporters of that party are lined up ready to go. Door-stepping, leaflet deliveries, donations, local meetings all depend on voluntary engagement. Big money can shift the dial by paying campaigners to do some groundwork. There’s no substitute for local people doing their best in every constituency. Whatever the financial situation.

Second. Answering the question of – why vote for us? There must be a USP. This is often more to do with personal belief than practical reality. Wrapped up in a projection of values, there must be a specialness that motivates people. It can be irrational, unrealistic, and colourful rhetoric.

Say, Conservatives cut taxes. Although history shows that they don’t. Labour protects workers. Only that they often cosy up to big business when in power. Liberals herald freedom and equality. Only to agonise over both, perpetually. Greens are ambassadors for the planet. Only to see their ill-considered efforts backfire. Reform is businesslike. Only that every week there’s resignations and scandals.

Third. To capture the national News cycle at least one new announcement must make a splash. This eye-catching commitment or instant policy may be forgotten in just a few of days. For example, the Conservatives “iron dome” is a godsend for newspaper cartoonists. Next general election the proposal will be locked away in a cupboard.

I don’t want you to think that the list above is a grumpy old man being too cynical. There’s a political legacy here that is incredibly difficult to shift. I can report, contrary to business as usual, there are developments this year. Perhaps another list of three will help.

Firstly, the UK political landscape is unusual. There are five national parties vying for the public’s attention. All five parties have a chance of making breakthroughs. All five party leaders are smiling about their own prospects.

Second. Huge issues leave all politicians scratching their heads. Stumped. Rapidly advancing technology and its impact on society and the workforce of the future remain a minority interests. Big answers to big questions are not forthcoming.

Third. Turbulence experienced every day, whether it be volatile world affairs, climatic changes or the rising cost of living seems to have politicians clutching at straws. Unable to show it but all to conscious of the unpredictability of the electorate. The impact of events.

We live in interesting times.

Qualitative and Quantitative

Do I need to define these two? Yes, because they are not words that automatically come up in everyday conversation. Not even in technical conversations.

A qualitative approach to an argument deals with words, meanings, and experiences. Not so much opinions but defensible objective judgements based on best available information.

A quantitative approach to an argument deals with analysis, numbers and statistics. A scientific approach rooted in believable evidence that is reliable, repeatable, rational deduction.

In the aviation safety world, we use both. It’s my view that one is not subordinate to the other. However, the persuasiveness of one is greater than the other. At the end of the day, persuasiveness matters. If a key decision is to be predicated on an argument, then how it is constructed and presented matters a lot.

Many is the time when I have sat in a room listening to a person make a case in as elegant and enthusiastic a way that they can, but the results have been less than impressive. I’ve made the mistake myself. Coming prepared with a barrage load of sound evidence accompanied by a flaky presentation that misses the mark.

That is why the order needs to be thus. Establish a qualitative argument supported by quantitative information. Not the other way around.

In the field of aircraft system safety assessment this is vital. Probabilistic analysis is a powerful tool. Relating numbers to human experience is not so easy. So, detailed charts and logic diagrams sprinkled with numbers are unlikely to be enough on their own.

Stating an objective is met by handing over a pile of calculations is half the job. However impartial and truthful the numbers may be, arguments are not made until they are explained.

Many is the time when I have lifted a large report from my in-tray, studied it and concluded that there’s something missing in that gap between the QED and the statement of compliance.

Maybe this an element of safety regulatory psychology. It’s difficult to approve something if it becomes difficult to explain to others what’s been done. That evidence trail needs to be explainable. And easily explainable to a wide audience.

This doesn’t change with digitalisation. Replacing large piles of paper with large files of results puts the reader in the same position. Impenetrable evidence needs understandable explanation. Presenting a qualitative argument supported by quantitative information is a good way to go.

What’s next?

Brexit hasn’t gone away. Hushing up the debate doesn’t solve a problem. It makes it worse. Trying to run a marathon whilst carrying a weighty load of baggage on our backs is never going to get easier. Knowing that those weights can only get heavier makes it even worse.

If I remember rightly, which I do, those promoting this failed enterprise talked of a Singapore-on-Thames[1] like Britain that would stroll the world like a colossus. Free of entanglement with our neighbours. We’d be able to command cheap goods in the shops for all. Costs would go down and standards of living would go up. A mighty English lion would roar, and the rest of the world would tremble. The deception was criminal. It still is. What’s been delivered is the exact opposite. It’ tragic.

Now, we have a Prime Minister (PM) who must go out of his way to defend the Union. The United Kingdom (UK). Making passionate speeches about the world his parents inhabited. Kindling nostalgic emotions to emphasis the government’s commitment to holding our Union together.

If the Brexit vote was motivated by a public concern over immigration and freedom of movement, then what the UK has as a result is significantly worse than what we had during our membership of the European Union (EU). I know these subjects remain of great concern, but the direction of travel post-Brexit is 180 degrees from where we need to be.

Listening to industry in the UK amongst the issue that make them very unhappy, Brexit is never far from the top. The uncertainty and red tape that persists makes trading difficult. Finding, training, and retaining the skilled workforce they need has got harder. Costs keep rising as UK influence over world affairs weakens. Brexit is like a weighty millstone around our necks.

It would be nice to think that the advocates of Brexit have a solution to the problem that they caused. However, painful as it maybe, if you listen to them all they do is carp. Point the figure of blame. Then propose even more Brexity type ideas that mean digging an even bigger hole for us.

There’s hope. At least hope in rhetorical terms. This week, the PM has been floating a set of possibilities[2]. It’s characteristically vague. I don’t criticise him for the caution, given the volatility the political landscape and the financial boost his opponents have gained.

A decade ago, I continue to think that the Leavers did not win the Brexit vote. It was lost by the Remainers. The Leave campaign deployed their arguments with passion and marketing knowhow. Remainers, of which I was a guilty party, majored on logic and rational debate. Sticking to the facts. Sadly, being as attractive as an economics lecture by the gloomiest professor in town. Besuited business highbrows boring the pants off the public.

That’s the dilemma. We know, not only by facts, but now by experience that Brexit was a massive mistake. We also know that pure facts alone do not cut through however conclusive the arguments may be. Charts and statistics have their place only when they move the heart.

I hear this with industry people I talk to. It goes like this; surely the public can see that we need to reengage with Europe. Especially with the conflicts that are raging around the globe. Those words that – we are stronger together – have never been truer.

If there is another UK referendum soon, then the case for being an EU member must be an enthusiastic and visibly patriotic one. No castigating former Leave voters. Such a national campaign must be forward looking, positive and inspiring. An emotional anthem to unite us around the cause. A real world approach to the real world.

[1] https://www.culs.org.uk/per-incuriam/brexit-could-singapore-on-thames-become-reality

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cmlyewr0lnj3o

Servicing the future

Extrapolation is a dodgy game. That is to take a set of figures from past performance and then projecting them into the future. All too often, even in the world of artificial intelligence, a linear projection is deemed sufficient. Having a mass of collected data and then plotting a line that nicely fits somewhere in the middle. Assuming that there’s a value that is atypical of the accumulated data set.

It’s well accepted that predicting the future is fraught with assumptions. Real life is multidimensional and full of combinations and permutations of possibilities that are off the charts. However, everyday there is enough stability to make planning a useful activity.

There’s the phenomenon of the step change. Overnight a new law may be applicable. In the morning a new system may be switched on. In the evening, a major crash may stop transport links for hours. Events, both predicable and unpredictable throw a spanner in the works.

Trying to predict future workforce needs based on current facts and historic trends is something every major industry must do. I say “must” accepting some struggling and pathological organisations survive on a day-to-day basis.

So, if I start with a 100 people and expect a growth of 5% each year, it’s not unreasonable to think that I might need 105 people next year. It’s surprising how often this basic calculation is presented. Same with the predicable response from a chief executive who would prefer an improvement in productivity. Deliver the same output with the same, or less, people.

Predicting one year ahead is a must. Predicting 10-years ahead is nice. However, in certain industries where, say the products have long lives or the demand for services isn’t going away a long-term projection has meaning.

The search for productivity goes on. Digitisation has made inroads into the paper-based world of a couple of decades ago. I remember when I first held a digital camera in the office. In the mid-1990s it was a whizzy bit of kit to be loaned out on rare occasions.

Artificial intelligence, and all the technology wrapped around it, are reshaping business strategy, risk assessments and workforce planning. Everyone is seeking a competitive advantage.

This morning when I woke up, I was introduced to a new word. It was a BBC radio broadcast called: Rethink: manufacturing or services?[1] It doesn’t exactly roll off the tong. It’s servitization.

The premise is that the line between organisations manufacturing products and those who provide services isn’t a ridged one. Progressively, whatever the product, train, plane or automobile, they use masses of data not only to make but to operate. The data flows rapidly backwards and forwards between maker and operator. And lots of it too.

So, if I had to estimate the number of service engineers that would be needed in the next 10-years, I’d better be aware that their jobs are going to change dramatically. Radically.

However, overall will the numbers of people needed by an industry decrease or not? Or is it just that the nature of work will change for roughly the same overall numbers? That’s not so easy as a straight-line graph. Maybe, as productivity increases so it becomes possible to take on new tasks that previously were not viable. The performance of a product continuously improves.

I’d buy a service and not so much a product. I’ll buy 100,000 miles, not a car.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00325dd

Stop and think

Anthropomorphism is more than the world of “Alice in Wonderland”. A talking rabbit is not the least bit strange fictional tale. Our minds happily accept this as a normal part of storytelling. The anthropomorphic qualities of an animal, or an object is not so easy to explain. But we do it all the time. That is thinking of non-human objects as human in a mystical transformative way.

A teddy bear is an object. One eye, fur, fluff and stuffing however shabby. It’s an object but the teddy bear I had when I was 6-years old is something more. It has a personality. Having travelled with me, over the decades, it’s not an object to be thrown away without a thought.

Like others, I do the same with animals. Not always. Occasionally, I go to the bottom of the garden where it adjoins a grassy field. I may talk to the cows. That’s if they are grazing up against the fence. Now, I know those Dexter cows have no idea what I’m saying but that’s unimportant.

Personal computers haven’t been in our lives as long as teddy bears and animals. From the unwieldy plastic boxes that filled our desks they have transformed into tablets, lap-tops and super smart phones. These devices can be sources of great utility or, on bad days, incredible annoyance. Fliting with both times saving or time destroying.

It’s likely that a machine’s anthropomorphic qualities come out when we are most frustrated. That instantly takes me to the scene from the BBC’s Fawlty Towers[1]. It’s a memorable comic scene. It’s Basil Fawlty’s frustration peeks when his car breaks down at the most inconvenient moment possible. He gives his car a damn good trashing. The car doesn’t flinch or runaway.

Who hasn’t sworn at a computer? I’d label you untrustworthy if you answered – never. I’ve done it more times than I can remember, as if my computer could feel my annoyance. An inanimate black box, full of integrated circuits, memory chips, circuit boards, components, connectors, and multi-coloured wires.

One aspect of computing, that I can state without fear of contradiction. They don’t care. Not one bit. How can they? Caring is a human reaction.

By the way, in 1975, Basil Fawlty’s Austin 1100 Countryman (Estate) car had negligible electronics even if it was probably the car’s electrics at the root of his overwhelming frustration.

I’ve lead you down this path because the thought I have in mind is – will AI make a difference?

We humans are highly influenced by the nature of tasks. Having to read a simple advertising slogan is a million miles from learning from a dense book packed with complex detail.

It’s easy to forget that a computer has no opinion on the tasks that it’s given. Big or small. Awkward or easy. There may be ten lines of code to execute, or a thousand or millions.

My question is – are we anthropomorphising AI? When I read some articles about the future there’s a suggestion that computer code has become like the talking rabbit. It’s more than a synthetic voice composed from trillions on electrical ones and noughts. Blind we become to the reality of billions of machine instructions being crunched. Invisible is the reality of the billions of semiconductor junctions working at unfathomable speeds.

Using jazzy description like; “super intelligence” gives machines a mythical god like status. This is way off the mark in 2026. Powerful computing is truly amazing. AI is developing at an astonishing speed. That said, it’s an exceedingly long way from being anything like us. It’s true I may not be able to say the same in 2046, but we are not there now. What we can say confidently is that nature has had a head start of billions of years. And conscious creatures are vast orders of magnitude more complex than silicon-based electronics.

[1] https://youtu.be/78b67l_yxUc

Two worlds

So, Hogarth’s print of Gin Lane[1] is revived as a template for UK Conservative Party policy. It’s a classical appeal to class prejudice. In their eyes there are the deserving and undeserving poor. And it’s easy to spot the difference.

A lower class of people have a long list of vices whist another has fortitude in the face of hardship. One drinks, gambles and brawls in the streets whilst the other will do a hard day’s work for a penny and not complain. To top it all the Conservative Party’s rush to travel back 275 years isn’t based on any principles or in-depth study. It’s merely because they are being politically out paced by the Reform Party.

UK politics is peculiar in so many respects. It may be less surprising when considering the annals of history of these islands.

Hogarth didn’t castigate those who drank alcohol as being the ultimate sinners. He drew a positive picture of those who drank beer[2]. Putting that beverage at the heart of an industrious and harmonious society.

As if the mark his place as the polar opposite to the right-wing hustle above, UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham is reported to be wanting to lift the drinking ban at football matches. Hooliganism was once the blight of English football. That brought about a ban on drinking alcohol in the stands at football matches. Now, 40-years on those concerns are faded.

In a popular move, it has been pointed out that drinking beer at a massive rock concert in a football stadium is treated entirely different from a match day gathering.

Here’s two sides of an English coin. Both with deep roots in our history. One to do with ingrained prejudices and the other to do with freedom and liberty. Both with an eye to future electoral popularity.

I expect there’s a cascade of draft proposals to introduce or scrap measures ready to flow out of policy makers lap-tops over the next couple of years. Differentiation is a key motivator. The struggle to stay in the top tier of pollical relevance continues. At the same time a sense of general discontent rumbles away.

Political competition is good, for the most part. Where it falls down is the attention it takes away from solving real problems by practical means. Hogarth’s prints can be interpreted as provoking thought about how divisive opposites can be. The truth being somewhere in the middle.

As discontent rumbles away it seems sad that politicians are running away from the pragmatic aspects of problem solving. Yes, effective governance can be dull. It can take time. It doesn’t always capture headlines. But what is it we really want? A good side show or a better society?

[1] https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/art-artists/work-of-art/gin-lane-1

[2] https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/art-artists/work-of-art/beer-street-1

AI Now

Without a long and tendinous epical on the ethical concerns raised by AI it might be as well to consider several of the practical changes that it has brought about in everyday life. Let’s go for something as simple as applying for a job. An experience that has changed considerably.

I think it’s well written up that this is not a great time to leave school or graduate. The prospect of applying for hundreds of jobs and getting a pile of rejections is an unsettling experience. Fine, during recessions, such as have happened in the past, this is not entirely unusual.

I’ve done my fair share of recruitment. That’s recruitment applying a paper based but highly bureaucratic process to address a pile of job applications. The writing of vacancy notices and setting criteria for a recruitment can be a time-consuming task. That is if the aim is to uphold the best practices that are current or even mandated. at the time.

It’s unsurprising that employers and recruitment agencies are now using AI tools to process applications as they arrive, most often via e-mail. Paper is going out of the window. That world I knew of having a file busting at the seams, and methodically working through it, are gone.

Like a vast electronic funnel applications are pushed in, are sieved through a filter, and some pop out at the at the other end of a hidden process. Hundreds of automated rejections are then created and scattered like confetti amongst those who failed to get past the AI gate keeper.

No wonder young people get a bit dejected as they accumulate masses of machine generated rejections. It’s not them, it’s a process. Easy to say but rejection can feel very personal.

However, there’s a smart fight back. AI can help (or can it). Let’s say I want a job that fits my profile. My ambitions, experience and talents. Just ask one of the AIs out there to generate a “prefect” CV. Feed it the relevant information. Next ask the AI to survey all the current vacancies for jobs that I could apply for with my generic CV. Then select the ones of interest. Having that list, feed the results into AI asking it to tailor a CV and application to fit the requirements of each one. Then automatically fire off the job applications. Error free, formatted to suite the style of the moment and fully customised.

I think you can see where I’m going with this description of events. Yes, it is dehumanising. If both applicant and potential employer are using AI, without human intervention, there’s a battle of the machines going on. Noone need communicate a single word.

It’s like a human – machine – human sandwich. There’s no malicious intention in all this processing. Objectives are set to try and match people with opportunities, but the unintended consequences are ruinous. In fact, it’s like a Monty Python sketch for today.

Not for one moment am I saying that a process is not needed. What’s getting into the realms of science fiction is the escalation that is possible with AI tools. That interface between aspiring employee and potential employer becomes an algorithmic battle.

Because AI costs are so low then this mechanism can be applied at all levels, whether it’s applying to flip burgers or become a commercial pilot.

I’m not having a downer on AI. It’s just that we much never forget the need for the human touch. More than that, if the end results of the above mass processing is cynicism and demotivation again the results are unintended consequences. So, think before creating a new process.

Unraveling Future Risks

Much talk of the end of times doesn’t make for the end of times[1]. It’s true to say that commentators have taken time on their keyboards to ponder on the apocalypse. It isn’t the first time the subject has occupied the public mind. I could say that the four horsemen of the apocalypse have been around since biblical times. They have, and now there’s a couple more of them riding around the globe.

In my lifetime, the atomic age, the jet age, being wiped out by bombs and a following nuclear winter was brightly coloured there on the chart of probability. Far too high up that chart. Then the Cold War ended and a period of moderate sensibility seemed to exist. That didn’t last long. Chewing over the masses of accumulated planetary climate data created another headache. This time, but at a slower pace, climate change became one of the horsemen. No doubt the popularity of apocalyptic science fiction and science reality comes from a deep insecurity. A realisation that the evolution of space and time is way beyond human control.

Playing my vinyl that’s been sitting in a box for too many years, I’m listening to one of my favourite David Bowie tracks. “Five Years[2]” is the ultimate apocalyptic disaster song. It asks the listener to imagine the News coming over that we’ve only 5-years left on Earth. What would happen in such a situation? Would we all scream and run around like chickens with no heads?

Now I must ask, is that a good lead into one or two words about Artificial Intelligence (AI)? Those working on this technology seem to be getting nervous about that technology which they have cherished, developed and promoted. Let’s first say that AI is not new. When I graduated, in the 1980s, it was one of those esoteric subjects that was only for those wanting to do a PhD in an obscure part of the world. Not more than 20-years ago, given that aviation research was part of my remit, academics lobbied me because they thought a complex neural network should be able to predict the next major accident in aviation. That is fed with enough safety data. They may have been ahead of their time.

What has surprised a lot of people is the speed with which industry has gone from academic research to live digital systems that exhibit astonishing abilities. Access wide open too.

I don’t know if there’s a Moore’s Law[3] for AI. There doesn’t need to be one. The observation is that every week there’s News of even more powerful technology being made available. The disruptors are disrupting themselves before the rest of us have a clue what’s happening. As David Bowie would sing: “my brain hurts a lot.” Here’s what I think is problematic.

One. Concentrated Ownership. This innovation, and its potential power are in the hands of few people and States. Specialised expertise and infrastructure are prized intellectual property.

Two. Forecasting Dilemma. Projections are fuzzy, to say the least. Who can be believed? A simple curve on a graph doesn’t cut it. Step transitions are more than likely.

Three. Sleeping Sentinels. Regulatory lag is normal. Rules and regulators take time to mature. It’s just that, in this case, this lag may be disastrous. And some prefer to sleep.

Four. Legacy Thinking. Imagining AI’s future to be a version of past progress is woefully inadequate. It’s a new game when machines exceed human intelligence.

I do not believe that the world will end in five years but it maybe unrecognisable from today’s world. AI will create as many problems as it solves. Surely the powers that be need to step back and think about how the next decade will pan out.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/sep/02/jd-vance-god-podcast-end-times

[2] https://youtu.be/8gPSGrpIlkc

[3] https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/moores-law

Ideologies and Education

Listening to a new Labour Education Minister say, for all intents and purposes, that Gove[1] caused young people classed as NEETs (Not in Education, Employment, or Training) isn’t what might be called objective thinking.

Education and training in the UK have long been a victim of the classical political ding-dong. Right leaning politicians support elitism (masquerading as aspiration). Left leaning politicians support egalitarianism (within class hierarchies). Both claim to celebrate achievement, merit and social mobility. I say “claim” because the outcomes of their polices are often so different from their utterings.

It’s not too difficult to understand why. Historic social prejudices run deep. They remain embedded in our institutions. Public and private. Comedians Cleese, Barker and Corbett star in a BBC sketch of 66 years ago[2] that sums-up stubborn in-grained British attitudes. As a 66-year-old this doesn’t sit well with me.

Although the public are gradually freeing themselves from an addiction to political creeds, the current cohort of elected members and the media moguls still perpetuate a dated world of stereotypes. From Classical Greece to now, the phrase “everything changes, but nothing changes” still has its place.

Here’s a view that might be different. On a day when examination results are published, much of what has been said this morning is about education pushing young people out into the world. Like products coming off the end of a production line. Ready to be integrated into society. Both from political right and left this is horribly mechanistic.

If something isn’t working, it’s the fault of the implementation of policies, processes and procedures dreamed up by past Ministers.

What about looking at the subject from the other end of the telescope. Our society isn’t going away. Whatever the successes or failures, in 66-years from now, that’s 2092, people will be writing articles about education and training. The good and bad.

Within the lives of this generation of young people the rivers of change will flow ever faster. Instead of pushing young people out into the world, let’s imagine the factors that will pull them into different life outcomes. What will success or failure look like in their time between leaving school and retirement. Assuming such a condition as retirement continues to exist.

[This is where Gove got it mighty wrong. Retro education policies born of imperial public-school thinking contained no vision of the future.]

To thrive in let’s say, the period between 2026 and 2066, adaptability and resilience will surely be needed. Attitude comes into the equation too. A “can do” mentality will be an asset. There’s no need to downplay achievement, merit and social mobility. More a need to supress the pigeonholes and categories that hold people back. The forces that demotivate.

Our classical two faced political ding-dong does a lot of harm.

[1]UK Education Secretary (2010–2014): Led reforms, including the expansion of the academies and changes in what’s taught in schools.

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00hhrwl