writing – John Vincent

Patch?

Hobbyists built it. So, how come billions are invested by the huge corporations that use it? Only a fraction of their resource was used to create it in the first place. The INTERNET is as much a wonder of the world as the pyramids. I don’t say that lightly. Today’s level of interconnection, intercommunication and interaction across the whole globe was merely speculated about 50-years ago. In historic terms that’s the blink of an eyelid.

Where we are now it’s impossible to imagine a future without the facilities that are at my fingertips. Tap out recognisable words and they can go anywhere, everywhere, or nowhere.

[That part is poor. Keyboards are where my fingertips connect with the world. Surely there will come a better way in the not-too-distant future? Evolution didn’t make us this way.]

Looking at some other major advances of civilisations, they came about in separate ways.

Long distant roads were originally military assets. Getting legions of troops from one place to another in a sprawling empire. Dominating the landscape. Reinforcing even the most remote outpost. Crossing a great distance on land has moved through several phases, waterways gave way to railways and they back to roads, as a primary means of transportation.

The telegraph was more, what I might call, can do technology. Experimentalists like Marconi put two and two together to make five. Scientific investigation provided the possibilities. He, and his like, were entrepreneurs. They saw the piece parts of technology as a business opportunity.

Aviation was more of an evolutionary advancement. A dream that the ancients held and wrote about. Slowly down the centuries theories and experimentation came together until powered flight became viable. Then decade after decade, more technical possibilities were exploited. Warfare, enterprise and adventurers have driven continuous development.

The INTERNET wasn’t seen as a commercial opportunity at its inception. It was a put together simply as a means for scientists to share their work. Maybe more than hobbyists doing the work but technicians with no master plan for world domination. They certainly were not Bond villains.

That is one possible one reason for the vulnerabilities inherent in our global electronic infrastructure. This week, the implications of those intrinsic vulnerabilities are becoming all too apparent. Embedded code that only a few experts take any notice of, that is until something bad happens. Their vital work never especially celebrated or significantly rewarded.

I don’t say it will ever happen but what if there was a practical plan for an INTERNET-2. A whole new set of protocols? An attempt to build-in integrity, expandability, and security from day one. Learning from experience.

The word “patch” is an indication of how crazy the current situation remains. It’s like that silly word “glitch.” Even the word “junk” seems quite inadequate if a crook “hacks” someone’s private account. These words make serious issues seem like minor inconveniences. Distinguishing between annoyances and harmful situations has become muddy waters.

Why is this the case? Is this the only way to communicate what’s going on.

I think it goes back to simple utility. Is the INTERNET, in its current form, so incredibly useful that society can tolerate any number of “inconveniences.” I wonder. Or will the story be like the waterways and the railways. Neither will ever go away but one will dramatically improve on the other. Push past the other. Thus, civilisation advances.

pipeline clogged up

Education policy over the last 40-years has a lot to answer for. Not at its best. Sadly, its best is only available to less than a quarter of the population. When you have classes on how to design a cereal packet taking precedence over how to cut a piece or wood or wire a plug or cook and egg or check a shopping bill then we are in ridiculous territory.

Do I jump on the bandwagon and blame Margaret Thatcher? We’ll it’s a nice conspiracy theory of politics. That said, there’s a hint of truth in the assertion. The Thatcher governments did start the drive towards a service-based economy where the importance of manufacturing industry was diminished. So, practical and vocational skills training were reshaped. They became unrecognisable. Then successive governments took money out of post 16 education.

Waking up in 2026 to a drift that started in 1986 is great, if a little late. A new education and training transformation is surely needed but is it the one that the current Prime Minister (PM) has in mind? His writings suggest that he’s a nostalgic sentiment towards vocational skills.

Former Health Secretary Alan Milburn is working on the subject. His report is expected soon. Recommendations centred on a redistribution of government funds towards employment support are likely to be on the cards.

I know it’s a repetitive complaint to make because it’s said often. Now, what schools are obliged to teach and life as it’s lived are miles apart. In fact, life as it will be lived, in the lifetime of pupils in school now. A gap, that has always been there has been encouraged to grow.

Shall I blame another Conservative politician? An admirer of the Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher. That “ever-popular” past Brexit promoting ex-Minister. Mr Gove to be precise. Yes, that blame would be more than appropriate. Obsessions with narrow national performance statistics was misguided. Not unimportant but overly prioritised.

It’s time to urgently get more young people into places that provide opportunity and personal growth. Totally regardless of their background and the places where they grew-up.

One recent comment I’ve heard from industry is this; we’d like to take on more apprentices if we had more experienced people to mentor them at work. Not only that but the apprentice levy hasn’t kept up with inflation. Not only that but business is tough so the focus must be on the here and now, if we want to be here tomorrow. In otherwards, the recruitment pipeline is clogged up.

There’s a degree of uncertainty too. Not that this is new either. The shape of the jobs of 10-years’ time isn’t easy to plan for given the race to implement ever more advanced technology. I say that’s not new. What I may be underestimating is the pace of change.

The plus here. Young people are the digital natives. They stand a much better chance of adapting to the rapid pace of change than anyone who, like me, grew up in the analogue world.

If Burnhamism is to mean anything this problem must be cracked[1]. It’s urgent. A subject for several red boxes. For the PM to push hard on.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq0melgpre23o

Traitors

I always was a great fan of The Prisoner. A British TV series that makes little sense other than being the twists and turns of a tapped man’s journey through an endless maze. Trying to understand what’s going on. Knowing that sometime the game must be played. All the time fighting to beat the system.

Until recently, I’d resisted watching The Traitors. This British TV series has retained its popularity as it’s regularly refreshed with a new cohort of players. It’s a parlour game that has walls. Walls of rules. The contestants are trapped in an unreality they must navigate. Unlike Patrick McGoohan, they are not alone.

Why resist? I guess it’s a strange reaction to popularity. It was like my thinking was based on the idea that if something gets such a massive round of hype it must be flawed. Let’s face it, recent peak viewing time TV tends to scrape the barrel. Frantically chasing ratings, it often goes for the lowest common denominator. TV is no longer king.

I’ve revised my opinion. It’s the complex social interactions that elevate this TV show above most “reality” TV. Yes, it’s a gameshow but not one with inane stupidly and overly polished lines.

The contestants are not abducted. In fact, they are all keen to be part of each week’s challenges. Each with the feeling that they are uniquely placed to win. Once they step through the doors of the gothic Scottish castle it’s as if they were abducted. The tables get turned and any sense of being in control starts to fade.

I’d say that the popularity of the British version of The Traitors owes a great deal to the show’s host. Winkleman fits the dark cloak as if she were made for it. Despite her deadpan expressions there’s a hit of glee behind her eyes.

My analogy with The Prisoner centres on the psychodrama of deception. Who can be trusted? Like sitting around a card table trying to throw fellow players off the scent. The show’s reality is that no one can be trusted but some people can be trusted more than others.

The contestants are tested at every stage of the day and night. We watch on in a voyeuristic way, knowing what they don’t know. Evaluating who’s smart and who’s destined for the chop.

Celebrity Traitors is an odd mix. Because some of the contestants are known names, it’s easy to assume that their reactions are predicable. For the most part, this assumption is misleading. Viewers start to see the veneer of performance rubbed away. Not for everyone. At distinct stages, actors act, comics make jokes and personalities do their thing. But at moments of high pressure any veneer is eroded, exposing the real person.

One revealing part of the show does disappoint me. Maybe this is a part of human behaviour that I don’t like to admit exists. The round table gives the impression of equality. Like a setting in an Arthurian legend. It doesn’t playout like that when time is short and decisions must be made.

Instinctively contestants expose or kill off first those who are perceived to be the clever contestants. Could that be primitive instinct. Reduce the competition to improve the odds of winning. Not sure I like the message that this human behaviour contains.

“I can’t seem to face up to the facts.” The theme for the show should be The Talking Heads song “Psycho Killer”.

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.

No more – please!

I would not ban Christmas. I think it was one of Oliver Cromwell’s biggest mistakes[1]. He may not have been the author of the legal ban but upholding it was a mistake (from 1644 to 1660).

But and there’s a but. Here the sun is shining and the temperature is mild. There are still bees landing on the flowers in my garden. Wander into a British supermarket or garden centre on the first of October and guess what I find. Rows and rows of Christmas goods. Anything from food in fancy tins to cheap toys from the far east. One or two shops take this to ridiculous extremes. Enter the front door and the first encounter is piles of Christmas goods. No possibility of ignoring the day that’s nearly 3-months away.

I find it insulting. It’s like we (shopkeepers) must shift this stuff, so we are going to make you pay attention. Make you loop your way through brightly coloured isles. For parents it must be awful.

The world turned upside down. Let’s bypass Halloween. Let’s bypass 5^th November (Gunpower plot). Let’s bypass any other traditional winter festivals. Let’s go straight to Christmas.

I’m not alone. One local garden centre is especially bad. With the idea of continuing my efforts to eke out the last Autumnal colours and buy some compost, I walked through the doors. As I weaved may way through cavalcades of shiny lights and stuffed Farther Christmases my heart sank. Totally unimpressed with the tinsel and plastic trees. Popping out the other side, into the part of the garden centre that is a garden centre, I sighed. Others around me sighed too.

“I didn’t come here for that” and we agreed. It was too much. I wouldn’t have said the same in mid-November but, so early in the season, I was in no mood for tacky festive celebrations.

Should I lobby my Member of Parliament to ban the display of Christmas goods in the shops more than a month before the day of celebration? It’s worth thinking about. Today, I can’t say we have a puritan-dominated Parliament so there’d be little risk of igniting a religious conflict. That said, I imagine most parliamentarians have bigger fish to fry just now.

Let’s not ban Christmas but a modicum of common sense from the commercial sector wouldn’t go amiss. Ramming Christmas goods down our throats is bad practice. I know that the takings for a lot of commercial businesses go up in the festive season.

My question is – are shops there to serve customers or is it the other way around. We all like celebrations. A saturation of homogonous red and white for weeks and weeks is not celebration. It’s jolly depressing.

Shopkeepers may say – you have a choice. Don’t go in our shops if that’s your reaction. That’s a viewpoint that could drive a call to outlaw the unloading of artificial jollity on an unsuspecting public. Forcing us to grind our way through layers of stuff destined for landfills in January next.

Oliver Cromwell’s era came to an end as foolishness took over. 365 years later I think we can do without 365 days of Christmas. British winter festivities amount to more than colourful biscuits.

[1] https://cromwellmuseum.org/did-oliver-cromwell-ban-christmas/

Be fair

Here’s an example of why the public interest needs protection. It’s easy to assume that an App in common usage is comprehensive, unbiased, and trustworthy. But is it?

Sitting in a theatre there’s music playing as people fill the auditorium. Sounds a bit fancy. I’m talking about a local arts centre on a Saturday night. Playing was a compilation of songs and comic tunes few of which I knew. This kept the audience entertained as they shuffled in.

It’s the digital age. One tap on an App on my phone and the result is usually a whirring symbol whilst the App does its analysis to eventually show me what was playing. The whirring symbol kept going. This is hard, so the App excused itself. Then it drew a blank.

The next approach was to pick what seemed to be a theme in the song and look it up on a search engine. There’s the answer. A children’s show theme.

That made me think. Did the App not know the answer or did the App not bother to have reference to that type of song? I went down this line of thinking because what the App normally does is “helpfully” show where a song it has found can be purchased (streamed).

What interest could the App’s algorithm have if there’s nothing available to buy at the end of the process? Any presumption of coverage, fairness and objectivity is merely something I projected on the App’s internal workings. It’s not necessarily there.

The wider point is that placing trust on Apps that are free to download and for the most part produce useful results, as if by magic, maybe not be quite what they seem. Afterall nobody reads the small print – do they?

Some Apps compose data that is extracted from reputable sources. These become popular because of the love of convenience. Within bounds, the information provided can be trusted. This is the general assumption I may make about a freely available weather App.

A key factor here is trust. However, most often that trust only comes about by a regular “try it and see” experience. There’s no mark of quality. There’s no organisation looking after the public interest. Now, if you say to me – that’s what Ofcom[1] does in the UK, I’ll have a little laugh. That regulatory may keep a watching eye on the worst offenders as far as lawbreaking is concerned, but they are not much help in saying this App is a gold star, and this one is equivalent to a dodgy doorstep salesman.

For Apps with mechanical algorithms that chunter out information this may not be a problem. Even if their display includes advertisements and enticements to win a holiday.

What comes next with AI is more concerning. The commercial interests of a smart music identifier are evident. Making recommendations is not to my detriment. Although purposefully fishing in a restricted pool of information could be.

With general purpose Apps, which are a front to AI systems, there’s the potential for manipulation. Where commercial interests are the primary motivator there does need to be someone looking after the public interest. My interests. Yes, I am in favour of regulation.

[1] https://www.ofcom.org.uk/

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

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