The long game 29th November 2005
The answer to Peter Rose's question (Letters, December) "was there four-day cricket at Hambledon?" is yes. Frederick Lillywhite's Cricket Scores and Biographies of Celebrated Cricketers: 1746 to 1826 reports a match at Windmill Downs, Hambledon on 26th-29th August 1783. What is more, "This match was put off, on account of bad weather, and never resumed." That might mean it was a four-day game, or that it was timeless.
George Smith Hove
Thorium and uranium 7th November 2005 In his special report on Britain's energy problems (November), Richard Barry says that thorium is more expensive than uranium, and that there are no technical reasons why thorium could not be used in a nuclear reactor. In fact, thorium is far more abundant than uranium, and easier to mine, and a nuclear reactor with thorium would not work. The reason is that during fission the thorium nucleus does not produce enough neutrons to induce further fission in its neighbourhood; any self-sustained chain reaction is thus impossible. But it would become possible with some "outside help": a proton accelerator. Enough additional neutrons could be produced this way to permit a chain reaction, as has been shown by Nobel prize-winning physicist Carlo Rubbia. A thorium reactor would furthermore have two advantages over uranium: it cannot explode (remember Chernobyl), and it does not produce plutonium.
Reinhard Budde Begnins, Switzerland
Fanon on the riots 28th November 2005 It is almost half a century since Frantz Fanon pointed out the destructive consequences of the French colonial policy that required oppressed peoples to mimic their oppressors in return for a false promise of equality. Today the French political class still turns an uncomprehending eye upon the "irrational" behaviour of their intellectually colonised subjects in the banlieues, and vaunts the superiority of French intégration over Anglo-Saxon "multiculturalism." Meanwhile, the world ignores both and rolls on to the globalised future of cultural métissage.
John Roberts Labastide-Paumés, France
The Stuckists on Ofili 18th November 2005 Emma Crichton-Miller (December) mentions two glowing reviews of Chris Ofili's The Upper Room and concludes there is a "critical consensus." Here are two alternative ones: "The Upper Room in Tate Britain fades from memory in minutes" (Jonathan Jones, the Guardian); "You couldn't … describe it as profound, nor even as wonderful painting" (Michael Glover, the Times).
However, let us take the Tate's evaluation that the work is his "most important work to date." Ofili chose to become a trustee and thereby accept the Nolan principles of conduct in public life, the first of which is "selflessness." He also called for other artists to donate work because of a shortage of Tate funds for acquisitions, knowing at the time that a major fund-raising drive was in progress to buy his own work. I have written to him urging that he practices what he preaches and refund the money for The Upper Room (thereby donating it). By doing this he would set an example that artists should donate their best work to the Tate. By offering to donate another work, he sets the example that artists' donations will be second best, thus leaving a second-rate legacy for the future.
Charles Thomson Co-founder, the Stuckists
Colonial dreams in Iraq 24th November 2005 Rory Stewart (November) writes interestingly about southern Iraq, and he is right to conclude that the government that has come to power is not the one that the coalition provisional authority (CPA) and the British authorities in Iraq had hoped for. However, his depiction of a local Iraqi politician struggling to articulate political ideas would look more convincing without some of his own errors in understanding. Stewart says he was "taken aback" when someone serving him tea called him "'A-Khoi,' a distant term," and the politician he was interviewing "'Molai,' or 'comrade in Islam.'" He needn't have been so startled: the latter word, means "my brother," and the former is a term of respect roughly meaning "my master."
As for Stewart's description of himself as having been "deputy governor" of two provinces in southern Iraq, this seems to be tinged by some colonial nostalgia. The official title, at least according to the CPA, was "deputy governorate co-ordinator"—from as early as July 2003 the CPA had been appointing Iraqis as interim governors and deputy interim governors in Iraq's governorates or provinces.
Richard Barltrop St Antony's College, Oxford
Lipsey on choice 123rd November 2005 David Lipsey's critique of choice in public services (December) is, paradoxically, both too theoretical and not theoretical enough. It is not theoretical enough because he fails to see that "choice" is only a species of a wider genus, and that it has to be theorised alongside its fellow-species. The genus in this case is "accountability," to which there are at least three different approaches. The question each answers is: who determines whether a public service is "good"?
One approach sees this in terms of professional competence: teachers and doctors know best. Another approach sees it as a matter for government, either or both central and local: elected people decide what is good and apply performance indicators and targets to measure its attainment. The "choice" agenda sees it in terms of the judgment of users: public services should be structured so as to reflect the values and experience of those they serve. David Lipsey applies his cost-benefit analysis only to "choice"—as if similar patterns of pluses and minuses cannot be traced in each of these three approaches. His theory is thus inadequate.
At the same time his analysis is also too theoretical, because it fails to recognise that in practice all three approaches will continue to operate in our public services. He writes as if it were being proposed by the government that "choice" should be the only approach. This is not in fact the case. Meanwhile, in practice, "choice" is still the least well-developed accountability mechanism in British public services. This seems wrong, since most disinterested people naturally think that accountability to users is a good idea. Lipsey should think again. His energy and clout would be better used supporting the government's efforts to give more weight to the "bottom-up," rather than providing ammunition for the vested interest defence of "top-down."
Robert Jackson London WC2
Lipsey on choice 25th December 2005 I agree with David Lipsey's view that, "The sensible view on choice is that it is sometimes appropriate and sometimes not; that it has costs as well as benefits." However, the choice is no longer simply that between the private and public provision of services. Since the May election, both cabinet ministers and shadow cabinet ministers, including David Cameron, have talked more openly about the role of an enterprising modern third sector.
The state is too often a large bureaucratic monolith unresponsive to people's needs. The Beveridge report, and Beveridge's 1948 pamphlet on voluntary action show no conflict between the idea of the state's universal safety net and diversity of provision outside the state. The third sector can add value to public service delivery in terms of innovation, flexibility and choice, especially by involving service-users more. And it is already doing so, through organisations such as the National Children's Home, Pecan, Rethink, RNID and CFBT, which all deliver high quality front-line public services.
Stephen Bubb Chief Executive of Acevo
How bad are the kids? 7th December 2005 Fran Abrams is wide of the mark on several counts in her article on behaviour in British schools (December). She never was going to find major problems in Seven Kings high school. Further-more, she seemed to be looking for cases of major breakdown of order, and while these undoubtedly occur, they remain rare. Of much greater concern is the change in the amount of low-level disruption that teachers face. And the discipline problem is coming not from the "serious villains," but often from children from "respectable" backgrounds.
It is always difficult to translate the anecdotal experience of individuals into a broader analysis, but to me, after having worked for nearly two decades in a well-respected comprehensive, it is clear that there have been major and troubling shifts in the nature of the young people we seek to educate.
I am struck by the minimal understanding that many children have of authority; they appear unable to differentiate between talking to an adult in a position of authority and one of their peers. Many have scant concept of limits on their behaviour, believing that their preference for a certain action is all the justification necessary for it. When reprimanded, children seem to have little understanding that someone may have the authority to compel them to behave in a certain way, or to issue sanctions if they do not.
Many see little shame in blatant and straight-faced lying. Likewise, they do not link poor reports or results to their own performance; they expect to receive what they want on demand irrespective of whether they might merit it or not, and they make their feelings known if they don't get their own way.
Of course, children have never all been hard-working model pupils, but what is missing now is even minimal patience. If work is not short-term and instantly gratifying, today's pupils simply down tools; they are unembarrassed in being found to have done little, usually blaming the lesson for being "boring." One encounters even sixth-formers who are utterly unprepared to work through a problem at any length, and who will often produce only the minimum effort, safe in the knowledge that the teacher will bail them out.
Finally, we encounter daily examples of children who seem physically unable to sit still and concentrate on anything for more than a few seconds. There have always been peaks and troughs of concentration during the school day, but I believe that the availability of junk food and drink is a key factor in explaining this behaviour.
Teachers have complained about the shortcomings of their pupils since time immemorial, but I can say with certainty that we have been forced to introduce techniques and policies to deal with issues that were simply not present when I started teaching. There is a new and antisocial undertone to "traditional" school misbehaviour. We are unable to dispense either sanctions or rewards that are significant enough to this over-indulged generation to modify their outlook in any noticeable way.
I find fewer genuinely likeable children by the year, and more and more who, while very "occupied" and materially comfortable, seem to live passive, superficial lives filled mostly with trivia and conspicuous consumption, no longer balanced by the shoots of the deeper values and awareness that one hopes will inform their later lives.
Ian Stock Coggeshall, Essex
George Smith Hove
Thorium and uranium 7th November 2005 In his special report on Britain's energy problems (November), Richard Barry says that thorium is more expensive than uranium, and that there are no technical reasons why thorium could not be used in a nuclear reactor. In fact, thorium is far more abundant than uranium, and easier to mine, and a nuclear reactor with thorium would not work. The reason is that during fission the thorium nucleus does not produce enough neutrons to induce further fission in its neighbourhood; any self-sustained chain reaction is thus impossible. But it would become possible with some "outside help": a proton accelerator. Enough additional neutrons could be produced this way to permit a chain reaction, as has been shown by Nobel prize-winning physicist Carlo Rubbia. A thorium reactor would furthermore have two advantages over uranium: it cannot explode (remember Chernobyl), and it does not produce plutonium.
Reinhard Budde Begnins, Switzerland
Fanon on the riots 28th November 2005 It is almost half a century since Frantz Fanon pointed out the destructive consequences of the French colonial policy that required oppressed peoples to mimic their oppressors in return for a false promise of equality. Today the French political class still turns an uncomprehending eye upon the "irrational" behaviour of their intellectually colonised subjects in the banlieues, and vaunts the superiority of French intégration over Anglo-Saxon "multiculturalism." Meanwhile, the world ignores both and rolls on to the globalised future of cultural métissage.
John Roberts Labastide-Paumés, France
The Stuckists on Ofili 18th November 2005 Emma Crichton-Miller (December) mentions two glowing reviews of Chris Ofili's The Upper Room and concludes there is a "critical consensus." Here are two alternative ones: "The Upper Room in Tate Britain fades from memory in minutes" (Jonathan Jones, the Guardian); "You couldn't … describe it as profound, nor even as wonderful painting" (Michael Glover, the Times).
However, let us take the Tate's evaluation that the work is his "most important work to date." Ofili chose to become a trustee and thereby accept the Nolan principles of conduct in public life, the first of which is "selflessness." He also called for other artists to donate work because of a shortage of Tate funds for acquisitions, knowing at the time that a major fund-raising drive was in progress to buy his own work. I have written to him urging that he practices what he preaches and refund the money for The Upper Room (thereby donating it). By doing this he would set an example that artists should donate their best work to the Tate. By offering to donate another work, he sets the example that artists' donations will be second best, thus leaving a second-rate legacy for the future.
Charles Thomson Co-founder, the Stuckists
Colonial dreams in Iraq 24th November 2005 Rory Stewart (November) writes interestingly about southern Iraq, and he is right to conclude that the government that has come to power is not the one that the coalition provisional authority (CPA) and the British authorities in Iraq had hoped for. However, his depiction of a local Iraqi politician struggling to articulate political ideas would look more convincing without some of his own errors in understanding. Stewart says he was "taken aback" when someone serving him tea called him "'A-Khoi,' a distant term," and the politician he was interviewing "'Molai,' or 'comrade in Islam.'" He needn't have been so startled: the latter word, means "my brother," and the former is a term of respect roughly meaning "my master."
As for Stewart's description of himself as having been "deputy governor" of two provinces in southern Iraq, this seems to be tinged by some colonial nostalgia. The official title, at least according to the CPA, was "deputy governorate co-ordinator"—from as early as July 2003 the CPA had been appointing Iraqis as interim governors and deputy interim governors in Iraq's governorates or provinces.
Richard Barltrop St Antony's College, Oxford
Lipsey on choice 123rd November 2005 David Lipsey's critique of choice in public services (December) is, paradoxically, both too theoretical and not theoretical enough. It is not theoretical enough because he fails to see that "choice" is only a species of a wider genus, and that it has to be theorised alongside its fellow-species. The genus in this case is "accountability," to which there are at least three different approaches. The question each answers is: who determines whether a public service is "good"?
One approach sees this in terms of professional competence: teachers and doctors know best. Another approach sees it as a matter for government, either or both central and local: elected people decide what is good and apply performance indicators and targets to measure its attainment. The "choice" agenda sees it in terms of the judgment of users: public services should be structured so as to reflect the values and experience of those they serve. David Lipsey applies his cost-benefit analysis only to "choice"—as if similar patterns of pluses and minuses cannot be traced in each of these three approaches. His theory is thus inadequate.
At the same time his analysis is also too theoretical, because it fails to recognise that in practice all three approaches will continue to operate in our public services. He writes as if it were being proposed by the government that "choice" should be the only approach. This is not in fact the case. Meanwhile, in practice, "choice" is still the least well-developed accountability mechanism in British public services. This seems wrong, since most disinterested people naturally think that accountability to users is a good idea. Lipsey should think again. His energy and clout would be better used supporting the government's efforts to give more weight to the "bottom-up," rather than providing ammunition for the vested interest defence of "top-down."
Robert Jackson London WC2
Lipsey on choice 25th December 2005 I agree with David Lipsey's view that, "The sensible view on choice is that it is sometimes appropriate and sometimes not; that it has costs as well as benefits." However, the choice is no longer simply that between the private and public provision of services. Since the May election, both cabinet ministers and shadow cabinet ministers, including David Cameron, have talked more openly about the role of an enterprising modern third sector.
The state is too often a large bureaucratic monolith unresponsive to people's needs. The Beveridge report, and Beveridge's 1948 pamphlet on voluntary action show no conflict between the idea of the state's universal safety net and diversity of provision outside the state. The third sector can add value to public service delivery in terms of innovation, flexibility and choice, especially by involving service-users more. And it is already doing so, through organisations such as the National Children's Home, Pecan, Rethink, RNID and CFBT, which all deliver high quality front-line public services.
Stephen Bubb Chief Executive of Acevo
How bad are the kids? 7th December 2005 Fran Abrams is wide of the mark on several counts in her article on behaviour in British schools (December). She never was going to find major problems in Seven Kings high school. Further-more, she seemed to be looking for cases of major breakdown of order, and while these undoubtedly occur, they remain rare. Of much greater concern is the change in the amount of low-level disruption that teachers face. And the discipline problem is coming not from the "serious villains," but often from children from "respectable" backgrounds.
It is always difficult to translate the anecdotal experience of individuals into a broader analysis, but to me, after having worked for nearly two decades in a well-respected comprehensive, it is clear that there have been major and troubling shifts in the nature of the young people we seek to educate.
I am struck by the minimal understanding that many children have of authority; they appear unable to differentiate between talking to an adult in a position of authority and one of their peers. Many have scant concept of limits on their behaviour, believing that their preference for a certain action is all the justification necessary for it. When reprimanded, children seem to have little understanding that someone may have the authority to compel them to behave in a certain way, or to issue sanctions if they do not.
Many see little shame in blatant and straight-faced lying. Likewise, they do not link poor reports or results to their own performance; they expect to receive what they want on demand irrespective of whether they might merit it or not, and they make their feelings known if they don't get their own way.
Of course, children have never all been hard-working model pupils, but what is missing now is even minimal patience. If work is not short-term and instantly gratifying, today's pupils simply down tools; they are unembarrassed in being found to have done little, usually blaming the lesson for being "boring." One encounters even sixth-formers who are utterly unprepared to work through a problem at any length, and who will often produce only the minimum effort, safe in the knowledge that the teacher will bail them out.
Finally, we encounter daily examples of children who seem physically unable to sit still and concentrate on anything for more than a few seconds. There have always been peaks and troughs of concentration during the school day, but I believe that the availability of junk food and drink is a key factor in explaining this behaviour.
Teachers have complained about the shortcomings of their pupils since time immemorial, but I can say with certainty that we have been forced to introduce techniques and policies to deal with issues that were simply not present when I started teaching. There is a new and antisocial undertone to "traditional" school misbehaviour. We are unable to dispense either sanctions or rewards that are significant enough to this over-indulged generation to modify their outlook in any noticeable way.
I find fewer genuinely likeable children by the year, and more and more who, while very "occupied" and materially comfortable, seem to live passive, superficial lives filled mostly with trivia and conspicuous consumption, no longer balanced by the shoots of the deeper values and awareness that one hopes will inform their later lives.
Ian Stock Coggeshall, Essex
