4 ms·

You understand the broader point I'm making, right? He has no interest in this. From birth to today he has had zero interaction with state mathematics education

You understand the broader point I'm making, right? He has no interest in this. From birth to today he has had zero interaction with state mathematics education and even given the opportunity, has chosen to go nowhere near it. I was illustrating my agreement with you by showing the May example because that's what genuine intervention on a topic looks like - which is not what Sunak is doing here. I do wonder if he just genuinely hasn't been in parliament long enough to know what actual strategy would look like. I personally think Michael Gove is a terrible human being, but if Gove decided to intervene around improving the standard of Maths in the UK, he'd atleast intervene in a way that is effective (even if weirdly ideological). This just makes Sunak look like a dilletante. In a thousand ways it's a dumb policy thought up by someone who didn't spend 2 seconds actually thinking. It's what a 6th former at Winchester who is into Maths would think would be good govenrment policy.

mft_ 4y ago
Likewise, I’m not sure you’re understanding the points I’m trying to make :) I’m lucky enough to never have been homeless (and I’ve never worked in that area either) but if I was Prime Minister, it’s an area I’d focus on. But… as PM, I’d likely delegate the details to whichever Secretary of State was most logical, and be happy to act as a sponsor, or figurehead. Does this mean whatever my government did in this would be worthless, and I’d just be being superficial? Not necessarily: the policies and delivery should be judged on their merit, independently of how they were developed or pushed. This is my point. It doesn’t matter whether Sunak is historically deeply invested in the area - as PM, he’s just supporting something he believes (not incorrectly) is worthwhile. That’s absolutely okay. The policy itself will have likely been worked in by a plethora of different folk: civil servants, special advisors, domain experts, ministers - and probably least of all Sunak himself. So judge the content and delivery of the policy on its merits. It may be a terrible policy - but that’s independent of whether the PM is expert or deeply invested in the area.
- SilverBirch 4y ago
  I agree in principle that you can care about and adopt an issue you know nothing about. The problem is to do that in a productive way you have to actually delegate authority and then back whoever you delegated to. That's not what's happening here - the PM has decided on a nonsensical policy, and is pushing it despite not knowing anything about the subject area. We've seen this re-inforced today - they wanted to launch a PR campaign to support this policy. Who did they get to head this campaign? Stephen Follows, a film data analyst. Does Stephen agree with the policy? Nope! And I quote > Nobody thought to ask me whether I support this policy My concern is this - there are policy aims, like ending modern slavery or improving maths education (or even just improving the status of maths in the UK), and then there are actual policies. What Sunak is doing here is endorsing a policy in order to achieve a policy aim. But the policy he's endorsing is a policy that will be totally ineffective at achieving that aim. You're right - ideally the policy would've been worked on by Spads, domain experts, etc. But it wasn't. It was a half-cocked idea that he came up with by himself. How do we know this? The policy is nonsense! No one seriously thinks it will achieve the policy aim, you can't actually endorse a policy that both insists on more maths education and endorse a policy to give maths teachers a massive pay cut. I understand how this is meant to work, what i'm saying is it very clearly isn't working that way.

mft_ 4y ago

Likewise, I’m not sure you’re understanding the points I’m trying to make :) I’m lucky enough to never have been homeless (and I’ve never worked in that area either) but if I was Prime Minister, it’s an area I’d focus on. But… as PM, I’d likely delegate the details to whichever Secretary of State was most logical, and be happy to act as a sponsor, or figurehead. Does this mean whatever my government did in this would be worthless, and I’d just be being superficial? Not necessarily: the policies and delivery should be judged on their merit, independently of how they were developed or pushed. This is my point. It doesn’t matter whether Sunak is historically deeply invested in the area - as PM, he’s just supporting something he believes (not incorrectly) is worthwhile. That’s absolutely okay. The policy itself will have likely been worked in by a plethora of different folk: civil servants, special advisors, domain experts, ministers - and probably least of all Sunak himself. So judge the content and delivery of the policy on its merits. It may be a terrible policy - but that’s independent of whether the PM is expert or deeply invested in the area.

SilverBirch 4y ago
I agree in principle that you can care about and adopt an issue you know nothing about. The problem is to do that in a productive way you have to actually delegate authority and then back whoever you delegated to. That's not what's happening here - the PM has decided on a nonsensical policy, and is pushing it despite not knowing anything about the subject area. We've seen this re-inforced today - they wanted to launch a PR campaign to support this policy. Who did they get to head this campaign? Stephen Follows, a film data analyst. Does Stephen agree with the policy? Nope! And I quote > Nobody thought to ask me whether I support this policy My concern is this - there are policy aims, like ending modern slavery or improving maths education (or even just improving the status of maths in the UK), and then there are actual policies. What Sunak is doing here is endorsing a policy in order to achieve a policy aim. But the policy he's endorsing is a policy that will be totally ineffective at achieving that aim. You're right - ideally the policy would've been worked on by Spads, domain experts, etc. But it wasn't. It was a half-cocked idea that he came up with by himself. How do we know this? The policy is nonsense! No one seriously thinks it will achieve the policy aim, you can't actually endorse a policy that both insists on more maths education and endorse a policy to give maths teachers a massive pay cut. I understand how this is meant to work, what i'm saying is it very clearly isn't working that way.