- Oct 17, 2008
- 16,223
That’s who I meant, sorry I wasn’t clear
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Are Labour going to turn this country around?
- Thread starter Flounce
- Start date
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
She just happened to have photographers standing by when the police called?
She had complained about Labour councillors (quite rightly) on the dodgy WhatsApp group, on FB, when persons unknown made a complaint of harassment against her.
Now right wing media are shouting foul, thought police etc etc.
All very convenient.
Ring door bell wasn't it?
Why wouldn't the police come out and say it didn't happen?
Fair points and achieving ‘discriminate’ growth would be something of a holy grail. So, you are chancellor: what policies would you announce?
- Oct 17, 2008
- 16,223
The images were taken as stills from a video doorbell
Agree with most of this except that Heathrow and the house building targets are described as unrealistic because they are….. unrealistic
As would tanks in a sea war….
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
But she still went running to the press. For someone who was so frightened and intimidated, it’s a strange move.
She’s also 54 yrs old, not some frail old grandmother.
Crawley Dingo
Political thread tourist.
- Mar 31, 2022
- 1,172
No, please explain.
Crawley Dingo
Political thread tourist.
- Mar 31, 2022
- 1,172
Its called lying by omission, its the modus operandi of the left/establishment media.
If they lie by omission how do fact checkers work?
Did you enjoy the football last night?
Machiavelli
Well-known member
Tax assets/wealth not labour (so withdraw employer NICs rise), and do all you can to do so via progressive asset taxation, eg CGT and, even more so, clamping down on loopholes to bring back all the wealth that has found its way into treasure islands -- this would require postnational and international coordination and cooperation, something that Brexit, the nativist and the nationalist turn is seeking to eliminate.
Tax conspicuous carbon consumption, eg frequent flyers -- half the UK population don't fly each year, allow a flight and/or mileage budget and once that's exceeded, taxation kicks in, and ramps up substantially. The notion of a carbon budget isn't the worst idea, but will have to be carefully implemented -- so a review on that, and incorporating nimble responses into the legislation in order to counteract avoidance.
Change the narrative away from indiscriminate growth, and move it towards the benefits that can be yielded from discriminating about growth -- and deliver those benefits, eg reduced working weeks/lifetimes.
Invest in healthcare, social care and education. This will help improve productivity which brings growth, and will enable higher wages or, better, more free time.
Invest in renewables, both public and develop investment vehicles for private investment. Also do so on those things that facilitate renewables, eg batteries and more efficient pipelines/pylons/etc to transport that energy from source of production to source of consumption.
And no doubt lots of other stuff, but that's all I've got at the moment.
I've been thinking about this alot and I've come up with a list of areas that I would bring to my cabinet for discussion. All will need working on and some binning but all (I (believe) have the potential to make up a strategy for responsible growth (not in any order) and I have assumed my gov hasn't made stupid political promises to get elected:
- Raise higher rate of income tax (paid after earnings so does not damage growth)
- Raise corporation tax (paid after earnings so does not damage growth)
- Reduce employers NI and return the thresholds to the pre Reeves budget level
- Start a journey towards abolishing business rates (charged before a business even trades) and incorporate the loss of income in the rise in corporation tax
- Consider an online sales tax for business trading over a certain level (eg £10M). This would balance the unfair competition for the high street retailers but also ensure the likes of Amazon pay tax in the UK
- Review the use of charity status to avoid tax (to make massively wealthy institutions like the C of E, The Crown Estate pay tax on development land sales etc) my higher rate of corporation tax)
- Maintain and expand tax breaks for investment in UK manufacturing, agriculture, tech industries etc (which helps companies grow and when they have done they pay it back through income or corp tax).
- Open negotiations with the EU to get the best trade deal possible with the largest trade bloc in the world
- A significant investment scheme in training for the skills we need. Stop funding universities unless they deliver people with skills we need and divert funding to training people with skills such as bricklaying, carpentry, electronics etc so that we can build houses and re build a manufacturing base
- Re design employment laws so that good employees are protected from bad employers but also vice versa. Legislate to reduce the tribunal culture so that only the genuinely wronged can make a claim and so that SME employers are not scared to hire.
- Legislate that any imported good has to be produced to the same standards required from a UK manufacture, food producer etc. Ie we don't lower our standards which are high and incur added costs but we expect importers to play by the same rules and thus incur the same costs. This is fair to our industries but is still free trade based.
- Overhaul the whole benefits system so that only those most in need are supported by the state (and NB: some of those people need more , not less support) and those that can work but don't, get nothing. We will then not need to import labour except for very particular skills. This also takes the wind out of Reform which will also be good for growth!
- Have a structured environmental strategy that recognises the need to transition to a net zero economy but recognises that it cannot be done overnight without damaging growth. So huge investment in, for example, renewable energy but accepting in the short term we still need fossil fuels and without them the cost of energy crises will only exacerbate further restricting household expenditure and the ability of manufacturing industry to grow (or survive)
- In the same vein, recognise green washing or just self interested bullshit for what it is eg. Heathrow. It will probably never happen, will cost £ billions making it never happen and is politically justified on the concept of net zero jet fuel which is not even close to being a reality -if ever.
- In the same vein, vanity projects can restrict growth egHS2. Not only has this waste £billions that could have been spent of supporting economic growth across the UK but the sheer scale pushed up the cost of things like steel and concrete to all businesses and reduced the availability of skilled labour to all other industries that wanted to grow.
- Recognise the importance of strategic policies for the industries we need to survive in our troubled global society: Energy, food, and defence. All industries that can contribute to growth whilst also essential to our personal and national survival
- Invest in infrastructure that will improve the health of the workforce (and reduce the pressure of the NHS) eg divert the billions spent on new roads to a proper national cycle path network that makes cycling to work etc possible and safe. (Sweden is a nation of cyclists but they have much less cycling friendly weather than we do)
- Abolish or re set gov organisations that exist to add 'red tape' and thus cost to business with no benefit to growth: eg The Environment Agency who create their own laws and rules, police them, enforce them and are funded entirely on the charges and fines they raise.
- Remove any tax breaks that benefit higher rate tax payers more than basic rate payers e.g. pension contributions. Limiting this to the basic rate would raise £billions
- Change the FPTP political system, give more power to independent bodies such as the OBR and B of E, so that consumers and businesses regain a trust in our economy and so are willing to spend and invest.
- Recognise the value and importance of Unions but restrict their ability to damage the wider economy for their own gains (I don't have the answer here but I guess balance is needed somehow)
- Introduce limited rent controls eg Annual increases not permitted above the rate of inflation and start a true council house type building programme without the right to buy.
- Devise a coordinated national strategy to improve productivity (we are one of the worst in europe). Encourage (through tax breaks but also by creating economic confidence) investment in technology and infrastructure but also accept that WFH reduces productivity in most (not all) cases and the majority can't WFH anyway
- Invest in communities, particularly those that have (generally through poverty) have become disconnected from the bulk of society and thus have no reason or ability 'to contribute'
- Use part of the above savings and increased income streams to lift more of the poorest paid (but are working) out of tax
I'm sure you cand and will pull this apart but I would like to think its a positive set of ideas at least. What consumers and business need above all is positivity and hope. Neither are being offered by this gov (or the last)You will see that I was writing my list for @HarryWilson'sTackle at the same time. I wish I had included some of yours but I suspect we are largely thinking along the same lines.
Machiavelli
Well-known member
Yes, plenty of overlap. Also some points of difference, but that's a healthy thing. My hunch is your post took longer than mine to write, and mine was -- how shall we put this -- too long.I've been thinking about this alot and I've come up with a list of areas that I would bring to my cabinet for discussion. All will need working on and some binning but all (I (believe) have the potential to make up a strategy for responsible growth (not in any order) and I have assumed my gov hasn't made stupid political promises to get elected:
That's enough for now!
- Raise higher rate of income tax (paid after earnings so does not damage growth)
- Raise corporation tax (paid after earnings so does not damage growth)
- Reduce employers NI and return the thresholds to the pre Reeves budget level
- Start a journey towards abolishing business rates (charged before a business even trades) and incorporate the loss of income in the rise in corporation tax
- Consider an online sales tax for business trading over a certain level (eg £10M). This would balance the unfair competition for the high street retailers but also ensure the likes of Amazon pay tax in the UK
- Review the use of charity status to avoid tax (to make massively wealthy institutions like the C of E, The Crown Estate pay tax on development land sales etc) my higher rate of corporation tax)
- Maintain and expand tax breaks for investment in UK manufacturing, agriculture, tech industries etc (which helps companies grow and when they have done they pay it back through income or corp tax).
- Open negotiations with the EU to get the best trade deal possible with the largest trade bloc in the world
- A significant investment scheme in training for the skills we need. Stop funding universities unless they deliver people with skills we need and divert funding to training people with skills such as bricklaying, carpentry, electronics etc so that we can build houses and re build a manufacturing base
- Re design employment laws so that good employees are protected from bad employers but also vice versa. Legislate to reduce the tribunal culture so that only the genuinely wronged can make a claim and so that SME employers are not scared to hire.
- Legislate that any imported good has to be produced to the same standards required from a UK manufacture, food producer etc. Ie we don't lower our standards which are high and incur added costs but we expect importers to play by the same rules and thus incur the same costs. This is fair to our industries but is still free trade based.
- Overhaul the whole benefits system so that only those most in need are supported by the state (and NB: some of those people need more , not less support) and those that can work but don't, get nothing. We will then not need to import labour except for very particular skills. This also takes the wind out of Reform which will also be good for growth!
- Have a structured environmental strategy that recognises the need to transition to a net zero economy but recognises that it cannot be done overnight without damaging growth. So huge investment in, for example, renewable energy but accepting in the short term we still need fossil fuels and without them the cost of energy crises will only exacerbate further restricting household expenditure and the ability of manufacturing industry to grow (or survive)
- In the same vein, recognise green washing or just self interested bullshit for what it is eg. Heathrow. It will probably never happen, will cost £ billions making it never happen and is politically justified on the concept of net zero jet fuel which is not even close to being a reality -if ever.
- In the same vein, vanity projects can restrict growth egHS2. Not only has this waste £billions that could have been spent of supporting economic growth across the UK but the sheer scale pushed up the cost of things like steel and concrete to all businesses and reduced the availability of skilled labour to all other industries that wanted to grow.
- Recognise the importance of strategic policies for the industries we need to survive in our troubled global society: Energy, food, and defence. All industries that can contribute to growth whilst also essential to our personal and national survival
- Invest in infrastructure that will improve the health of the workforce (and reduce the pressure of the NHS) eg divert the billions spent on new roads to a proper national cycle path network that makes cycling to work etc possible and safe. (Sweden is a nation of cyclists but they have much less cycling friendly weather than we do)
- Abolish or re set gov organisations that exist to add 'red tape' and thus cost to business with no benefit to growth: eg The Environment Agency who create their own laws and rules, police them, enforce them and are funded entirely on the charges and fines they raise.
- Remove any tax breaks that benefit higher rate tax payers more than basic rate payers e.g. pension contributions. Limiting this to the basic rate would raise £billions
- Change the FPTP political system, give more power to independent bodies such as the OBR and B of E, so that consumers and businesses regain a trust in our economy and so are willing to spend and invest.
- Recognise the value and importance of Unions but restrict their ability to damage the wider economy for their own gains (I don't have the answer here but I guess balance is needed somehow)
- Introduce limited rent controls eg Annual increases not permitted above the rate of inflation and start a true council house type building programme without the right to buy.
- Devise a coordinated national strategy to improve productivity (we are one of the worst in europe). Encourage (through tax breaks but also by creating economic confidence) investment in technology and infrastructure but also accept that WFH reduces productivity in most (not all) cases and the majority can't WFH anyway
- Invest in communities, particularly those that have (generally through poverty) have become disconnected from the bulk of society and thus have no reason or ability 'to contribute'
- Use part of the above savings and increased income streams to lift more of the poorest paid (but are working) out of tax
RE big tech + corp taxation. I should have mentioned this and am a little surprised that RR didn't go after Amazon et al in the budget. The only explanation I can gather for not doing so is that because implementing it is basically a tax solely on US businesses that it might have made the meeting SKS is having with the transactionist somewhat more difficult.
Terrific! I love ideas. Some great ones there and others that could be beta tested and modified.I've been thinking about this alot and I've come up with a list of areas that I would bring to my cabinet for discussion. All will need working on and some binning but all (I (believe) have the potential to make up a strategy for responsible growth (not in any order) and I have assumed my gov hasn't made stupid political promises to get elected:
That's enough for now!
- Raise higher rate of income tax (paid after earnings so does not damage growth)
- Raise corporation tax (paid after earnings so does not damage growth)
- Reduce employers NI and return the thresholds to the pre Reeves budget level
- Start a journey towards abolishing business rates (charged before a business even trades) and incorporate the loss of income in the rise in corporation tax
- Consider an online sales tax for business trading over a certain level (eg £10M). This would balance the unfair competition for the high street retailers but also ensure the likes of Amazon pay tax in the UK
- Review the use of charity status to avoid tax (to make massively wealthy institutions like the C of E, The Crown Estate pay tax on development land sales etc) my higher rate of corporation tax)
- Maintain and expand tax breaks for investment in UK manufacturing, agriculture, tech industries etc (which helps companies grow and when they have done they pay it back through income or corp tax).
- Open negotiations with the EU to get the best trade deal possible with the largest trade bloc in the world
- A significant investment scheme in training for the skills we need. Stop funding universities unless they deliver people with skills we need and divert funding to training people with skills such as bricklaying, carpentry, electronics etc so that we can build houses and re build a manufacturing base
- Re design employment laws so that good employees are protected from bad employers but also vice versa. Legislate to reduce the tribunal culture so that only the genuinely wronged can make a claim and so that SME employers are not scared to hire.
- Legislate that any imported good has to be produced to the same standards required from a UK manufacture, food producer etc. Ie we don't lower our standards which are high and incur added costs but we expect importers to play by the same rules and thus incur the same costs. This is fair to our industries but is still free trade based.
- Overhaul the whole benefits system so that only those most in need are supported by the state (and NB: some of those people need more , not less support) and those that can work but don't, get nothing. We will then not need to import labour except for very particular skills. This also takes the wind out of Reform which will also be good for growth!
- Have a structured environmental strategy that recognises the need to transition to a net zero economy but recognises that it cannot be done overnight without damaging growth. So huge investment in, for example, renewable energy but accepting in the short term we still need fossil fuels and without them the cost of energy crises will only exacerbate further restricting household expenditure and the ability of manufacturing industry to grow (or survive)
- In the same vein, recognise green washing or just self interested bullshit for what it is eg. Heathrow. It will probably never happen, will cost £ billions making it never happen and is politically justified on the concept of net zero jet fuel which is not even close to being a reality -if ever.
- In the same vein, vanity projects can restrict growth egHS2. Not only has this waste £billions that could have been spent of supporting economic growth across the UK but the sheer scale pushed up the cost of things like steel and concrete to all businesses and reduced the availability of skilled labour to all other industries that wanted to grow.
- Recognise the importance of strategic policies for the industries we need to survive in our troubled global society: Energy, food, and defence. All industries that can contribute to growth whilst also essential to our personal and national survival
- Invest in infrastructure that will improve the health of the workforce (and reduce the pressure of the NHS) eg divert the billions spent on new roads to a proper national cycle path network that makes cycling to work etc possible and safe. (Sweden is a nation of cyclists but they have much less cycling friendly weather than we do)
- Abolish or re set gov organisations that exist to add 'red tape' and thus cost to business with no benefit to growth: eg The Environment Agency who create their own laws and rules, police them, enforce them and are funded entirely on the charges and fines they raise.
- Remove any tax breaks that benefit higher rate tax payers more than basic rate payers e.g. pension contributions. Limiting this to the basic rate would raise £billions
- Change the FPTP political system, give more power to independent bodies such as the OBR and B of E, so that consumers and businesses regain a trust in our economy and so are willing to spend and invest.
- Recognise the value and importance of Unions but restrict their ability to damage the wider economy for their own gains (I don't have the answer here but I guess balance is needed somehow)
- Introduce limited rent controls eg Annual increases not permitted above the rate of inflation and start a true council house type building programme without the right to buy.
- Devise a coordinated national strategy to improve productivity (we are one of the worst in europe). Encourage (through tax breaks but also by creating economic confidence) investment in technology and infrastructure but also accept that WFH reduces productivity in most (not all) cases and the majority can't WFH anyway
- Invest in communities, particularly those that have (generally through poverty) have become disconnected from the bulk of society and thus have no reason or ability 'to contribute'
- Use part of the above savings and increased income streams to lift more of the poorest paid (but are working) out of tax
I will comment on one of your suggestions about universities. You may well know a lot of this already so apologies....
I will also say that my analysis/narrative probably applies, with different parameters of course, to all the issue you raise
Which is why your ideas may be great, but making a set of policies that people will vote for and that have tangible and achievable deliverables is a very different ask...
Ten years ago the Lib Dems has a leader that the cognoscenti regarded as having the best policies,
But getting into power requires more than being right.....anyway...
There are two elements to Universities, bot of which are dysfunctional. The first is teaching.
I teach about medicines in a biomedical science context where we have an annual intake of 600-800 students PA, all with at least A*AA A levels.
I don't know what sort of careers the end up in. Many want to get into medicine, but maybe only 10 a year will succeed in doing so.
Move away from core biomed teaching and the professions (medicine, nursing, pharmacy) and things start getting sketchy.
At my place we still have a good record and feedback on the value of the biomedical science degree
Ironically the degree course that gets pelters from students is medicine
That's because too many of the teaching staff (medics) are arrogant and often don't turn up to teach (the 'firms' of clinical teaching)
And here is the main problem. The second element. Research.
To become a lecturer these days, especially in the 'sciences' you get a job based on research
That means a track record of raising research grants (external funding).
So the attitude to teaching is 'it has to be done' but 'not by me'
Many of our high earner researchers do little or no teaching,
and young staff are squeezed into having to raise research funds while dealing with a heavy teaching load....
But what is the value of all this research?
Most of it is pointless.
Even that which is published in 'high impact' journals like Science, Nature and in my field, Circulation and Circ. Research.
Supposedly good research is reproducible.
But what does that mean?
I can't get funded to reproduce someone else's work, and if I did I couldn't publish it - not 'original' or 'novel'.
So everyone works in their niche area, and most publications are never examined by 'replication' and 'reproducibility' testing
Nature, which publishes work that 'if true will have major impact' has more retractions than any other journal.
A retraction is a label that says 'this work was wrong'. It is usually put down to an 'honest error'.
The 'if true' bit is not properly examined in peer review.
What happens with a false finding is someone publishes they have created cold fusion or discovered how you can cure covid with Heinz beans,
Then others rush to find out how and do it better, and they then find they can't and it doesn't and it won't.
So then 5 labs around the world send an email to Nature to say 'there is something amiss'
Then Nature contacts the original finding lab....
They say 'oh sorry, we made a mistake'
A retraction is published and everyone jogs on.
In reality there are many labs in universities with 10-20 staff (PhD students and post doctoral researchers, lots from China and East Europe),
They bring in lots of money from the MRC, charities like BHF, and private investors.
They publish lots of papers that are not quite interesting enough to trigger other labs round the world taking the ideas on.
The lead investigator becomes a professor, maybe an FRS, and eventually retires.
The unis love these people because their publications are ranked and measured and the outcome is judged by the government
in a process that was called REF (research excellence framework) that ranks institutions.
If I publish 4 papers in Circulation in the 7 year REF window I am ranked 4* (top) and am 'returned' in the college REF bid
My division (not my whole college) spent £2 million gaming the REF return last time round.
So the measure of excellence is the impact factor of the journal in which I publish. Called the JIF.
The JIF is the total number of citations of all papers published in a journal in 2 years divided by the total number of papers published.
So a JIF of 10 means that each paper published was cited by other researchers 10 times.
And if I get a paper in a journal with a JIF of 40 (Nature) but my work is cited only 10 times, my CV and the ref return is informed by the JIF, not how much impact my paper has had. I get the 40 score not the 10.
This is a bit like ranking someone who has made 3 appearances for Liverpool this season as one of the 11 best players in the UK,
Along with the other 28 players who have made a first team appearance. They are all the best 11. Er, OK mate.
This has been tweaked a bit lately but....
So get this. My research effectiveness is not measured on the basis of invention, tangible benefit.
It is measured a bit like trending on X.
If people are citing you (talking about you) that's worth points and money from HMG.
I am doing some research on the pointless waste of research in drug discovery at the moment
We have data that shows that measures of research quality have no impact on discovery of new medicines
It is largely the outcome of luck.
What does this all mean?
University quality and value are measured using false indices
It is in effect a self serving, self-quantifying racket.
And of course to do well you have to play the game.
The amount of bad practice (ranging from wishful thinking to outright fraud) is staggering.
It doesn't get caught because most of it doesn't matter.
You publish a paper and move on. It is a treadmill, but not as portrayed by the unions.
It is a treadmill where if you keep the motion going you win a prize (a job for life).
Unless you have claimed you have cured cancer nobody will follow up your work and you can bugger about in peace.
It is like having an organization whose purpose is to throw stones into the sea.
The more stones you throw, the more money you are given.
And this is sold to the public as the noble pursuit of catching fish for the nation
One of them stones is bound to hit a fish at some point, innit?
I could tell you a few tales about the intellectual dishonesty and 'pragmatism' of many of my academic colleagues, but it is all hard to prove.
Making 'honest mistakes' is apparently fine.
When I point out that mistakes can be avoided by proper training in design and analysis I am fobbed off.
I teach design and analysis, but what I tell students is at odds with what their PhD supervisors make them do.
And being pragmatic rather than idealistic (a tragedy, by the way) the students accommodate.
They tell me what they think I want them to say when I assess them.
And they go off and do something different in their lab as they complete their PhD.
Most of them get disillusioned and move out of research after they graduate.
But the money keeps flowing into the host lab.....
(Whisper it but this is why I am only 99.9% opposed to Trump-think.
I could see much to be said for someone coming into the HE sector wearing a pair of steel-toe capped boots.
But I would say that wouldn't I, now I have a fat pension and am working beyond retirement age without jeopardy.
Well, I have always been the same , which is why I have not 'got on' as some say I should have.
I don't give a shit and never have about personal glory. I try to do what's right.
But I am in a minority.
So I welcome a fire, I think.)
HisBetterBall
New member
- Sep 5, 2023
- 25
Harry, I was exhausted just reading all that, let alone having to deal with it throughout one’s career!Terrific! I love ideas. Some great ones there and others that could be beta tested and modified.
I will comment on one of your suggestions about universities. You may well know a lot of this already so apologies....
I will also say that my analysis/narrative probably applies, with different parameters of course, to all the issue you raise
Which is why your ideas may be great, but making a set of policies that people will vote for and that have tangible and achievable deliverables is a very different ask...
Ten years ago the Lib Dems has a leader that the cognoscenti regarded as having the best policies,
But getting into power requires more than being right.....anyway...
There are two elements to Universities, bot of which are dysfunctional. The first is teaching.
I teach about medicines in a biomedical science context where we have an annual intake of 600-800 students PA, all with at least A*AA A levels.
I don't know what sort of careers the end up in. Many want to get into medicine, but maybe only 10 a year will succeed in doing so.
Move away from core biomed teaching and the professions (medicine, nursing, pharmacy) and things start getting sketchy.
At my place we still have a good record and feedback on the value of the biomedical science degree
Ironically the degree course that gets pelters from students is medicine
That's because too many of the teaching staff (medics) are arrogant and often don't turn up to teach (the 'firms' of clinical teaching)
And here is the main problem. The second element. Research.
To become a lecturer these days, especially in the 'sciences' you get a job based on research
That means a track record of raising research grants (external funding).
So the attitude to teaching is 'it has to be done' but 'not by me'
Many of our high earner researchers do little or no teaching,
and young staff are squeezed into having to raise research funds while dealing with a heavy teaching load....
But what is the value of all this research?
Most of it is pointless.
Even that which is published in 'high impact' journals like Science, Nature and in my field, Circulation and Circ. Research.
Supposedly good research is reproducible.
But what does that mean?
I can't get funded to reproduce someone else's work, and if I did I couldn't publish it - not 'original' or 'novel'.
So everyone works in their niche area, and most publications are never examined by 'replication' and 'reproducibility' testing
Nature, which publishes work that 'if true will have major impact' has more retractions than any other journal.
A retraction is a label that says 'this work was wrong'. It is usually put down to an 'honest error'.
The 'if true' bit is not properly examined in peer review.
What happens with a false finding is someone publishes they have created cold fusion or discovered how you can cure covid with Heinz beans,
Then others rush to find out how and do it better, and they then find they can't and it doesn't and it won't.
So then 5 labs around the world send an email to Nature to say 'there is something amiss'
Then Nature contacts the original finding lab....
They say 'oh sorry, we made a mistake'
A retraction is published and everyone jogs on.
In reality there are many labs in universities with 10-20 staff (PhD students and post doctoral researchers, lots from China and East Europe),
They bring in lots of money from the MRC, charities like BHF, and private investors.
They publish lots of papers that are not quite interesting enough to trigger other labs round the world taking the ideas on.
The lead investigator becomes a professor, maybe an FRS, and eventually retires.
The unis love these people because their publications are ranked and measured and the outcome is judged by the government
in a process that was called REF (research excellence framework) that ranks institutions.
If I publish 4 papers in Circulation in the 7 year REF window I am ranked 4* (top) and am 'returned' in the college REF bid
My division (not my whole college) spent £2 million gaming the REF return last time round.
So the measure of excellence is the impact factor of the journal in which I publish. Called the JIF.
The JIF is the total number of citations of all papers published in a journal in 2 years divided by the total number of papers published.
So a JIF of 10 means that each paper published was cited by other researchers 10 times.
And if I get a paper in a journal with a JIF of 40 (Nature) but my work is cited only 10 times, my CV and the ref return is informed by the JIF, not how much impact my paper has had. I get the 40 score not the 10.
This is a bit like ranking someone who has made 3 appearances for Liverpool this season as one of the 11 best players in the UK,
Along with the other 28 players who have made a first team appearance. They are all the best 11. Er, OK mate.
This has been tweaked a bit lately but....
So get this. My research effectiveness is not measured on the basis of invention, tangible benefit.
It is measured a bit like trending on X.
If people are citing you (talking about you) that's worth points and money from HMG.
I am doing some research on the pointless waste of research in drug discovery at the moment
We have data that shows that measures of research quality have no impact on discovery of new medicines
It is largely the outcome of luck.
What does this all mean?
University quality and value are measured using false indices
It is in effect a self serving, self-quantifying racket.
And of course to do well you have to play the game.
The amount of bad practice (ranging from wishful thinking to outright fraud) is staggering.
It doesn't get caught because most of it doesn't matter.
You publish a paper and move on. It is a treadmill, but not as portrayed by the unions.
It is a treadmill where if you keep the motion going you win a prize (a job for life).
Unless you have claimed you have cured cancer nobody will follow up your work and you can bugger about in peace.
It is like having an organization whose purpose is to throw stones into the sea.
The more stones you throw, the more money you are given.
And this is sold to the public as the noble pursuit of catching fish for the nation
One of them stones is bound to hit a fish at some point, innit?
I could tell you a few tales about the intellectual dishonesty and 'pragmatism' of many of my academic colleagues, but it is all hard to prove.
Making 'honest mistakes' is apparently fine.
When I point out that mistakes can be avoided by proper training in design and analysis I am fobbed off.
I teach design and analysis, but what I tell students is at odds with what their PhD supervisors make them do.
And being pragmatic rather than idealistic (a tragedy, by the way) the students accommodate.
They tell me what they think I want them to say when I assess them.
And they go off and do something different in their lab as they complete their PhD.
Most of them get disillusioned and move out of research after they graduate.
But the money keeps flowing into the host lab.....
(Whisper it but this is why I am only 99.9% opposed to Trump-think.
I could see much to be said for someone coming into the HE sector wearing a pair of steel-toe capped boots.
But I would say that wouldn't I, now I have a fat pension and am working beyond retirement age without jeopardy.
Well, I have always been the same , which is why I have not 'got on' as some say I should have.
I don't give a shit and never have about personal glory. I try to do what's right.
But I am in a minority.
So I welcome a fire, I think.)
Machiavelli
Well-known member
Yes, and also think of the poor soul having to type it.Harry, I was exhausted just reading all that, let alone having to deal with it throughout one’s career!