A reader of this blog, who to protect her identity shall be known as Janet, wrote to her MP about the John Redwood revelation that the deficit was no big deal that I published earlier this month. The MP in question wrote back:
There it is: confirmation if it were needed that the debt is borrowing that must be repaid at cost to future generations even though £435 billion of quantitative easing proves otherwise and we have never repaid public debt, or attempted to do so, because the truth is that this would destroy the money supply.
Philip Dunne needs to read the House of Commons library briefing on quantitative easing that includes phrases like:
Under QE, the Bank creates money which it uses to buy assets (mainly government bonds). This increases the amount of money in the economy.
It's sad to say that Redwood gets this. Dunne doesn't. It must be tough to find yourself behind Redwood in class.
The fact is that the national debt is just part of the money supply: that's why our cash (notes and coin) is included in it. And the money supply comes and goes as the economy requires it. But the one thing that does not happen is that it is paid for by the next generation. And I'll tell you how I know that. If they did repay it all then there would, paradoxically, be nothing left to pay it with. Which is very good reason why they won't and actually, can't do what Dunne says.
Mr Dunne clearly needs a new excuse for austerity. No doubt he will find one. But this one has really run out of road.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
He says ‘ I do believe eliminating the current budget surplus ( sic ) is important . News the UK is running a current deficit ( sic ) represents ……… ‘ I guess he didn’t bother to read what he had written before he sent it.
“I do believe eliminating the current budget surplus is important.”
Fine,
Wrong, but fine.
The explanation that follows is unintelligible.
Andy –
Thank God that was your conclusion too. I read it and read it and read it and… well, all I got was gobbledegook.
As long as it’s the correspondence talking bollocks and not just me losing my reading comprehension, that’s fine.
It is pure drivel
Apparently this guy has worked in banking and has sat on the Work and Pensions and Public Accounts Select Committees.
Encouraging…
I have to disagree with your “wrong – but fine”.
Beliefs are not amenable to proof (or indeed disproof).
In his letter Dunne equates monetrary systems and economic systems with belief systems. This is nonesense, And whilst some might think so – economics and finance are not religions – they are not belief systems. They are systems which function based on rules and can be described using things such as MMT. One can then have an (objective) discussion as to how well (or badly) MMT describes, for example, national economics & government finance.
I have no problem with people that have beliefs in Gods & such like.
However, national economics is not the place for beleifs. In suggesting that it is, I’d question Dunne’s fitness to be an MP or indeed to hold any elected post whatsoever. Perhaps he would be better as a vicar or priest or some such. He has no place in the HoC & anybody that votes for him is an idiot.
Mike parr say:
Concerning the inappropriate application of belief systems.
Yes, Mike, on reflection, you are quite right.
I hear this morning that Nick Ferrari has won an award for the best interview of the year – the one where D. Abbot could not specify the cost to the public sector of employing extra police.
As I recall the interview was conducted on the basis of, say, 10,000 (number of police) times 20,000 (salary cost) equals X. Abbot could not answer.
The fact that employers and employees NIC, PAYE, VAT, Council Tax and other income are recouped to the public purse, with the residual spend increasing the corporate tax take and other tax takes within the local community, was completely ignored.
Unknowingly perhaps Abbot was closer to the answer than Ferrari.
So our press hand out an award for confirmation of the prevailing orthodoxy. This award should be renamed – the Paul Johnson Award for the Public Understanding of Economics.
Did you mean ‘misunderstanding of economics’?
Such publicly professed ignorance among our lawmakers is depressing beyond belief and holding the country to ransom when there is so much needed to maximise its potential and improve the quality of life for everyone.
The economic truth must eventually surface but, in the meantime, we could do with spokespeople like Stephanie Kelton in the US – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FYS3z45Zqc&t=2s.
Stephanie Kelton were she to meet Mr Dunne would very diplomatically explain to him that he doesn’t understand balance sheet accounting. She would say he’s failing to ask what colour ink the red ink government sector deficit is on the other side of the balance sheet the non-government sector and, of course, its black ink!
Indeed should Mr Dunne be asked to explain why the UK’s central bank’s balance sheet shows red ink on one side in regard to supply of reserves for the payment settlement system and black ink on the other for the clearing banks he would be totally flummoxed. No doubt he would quickly come up with some nonsense that the private sector provides the money from taxes conveniently failing to ask himself what the balance sheet for tax money reveals in terms of a sustainable and rational source for this money supply. If it’s the clearing banks why indirectly should citizens pay “rent” to the few for the money to pay taxes and why when the clearing banks along with the shadow banks cause financial crashes should the government and its central bank be involved in massive bail-outs involving increases in taxes. It would in theory be much simpler and cheaper to get rid of clearing banks and let the central bank be the sole creator of the nation’s money, its medium of exchange.
It’s quite bizarre that those who like the household analogy have only got as far as income statements in their acco8utning and not balance sheets
We should expect more of MPs
She would
Stephanie is devastatingly polite
Should all prospective MPs be asked to ‘pass’ a civic’s test?
Multiple choice of course. Say 50 questions.
A 90% pass rate is required.
We don’t mind if they memorise the answers.
Some thing like:
Is the deficit owed to anyone?
Yes
No
Is the deficit a central tenet in creating demand?
Yes
No
Is democracy mob rule with constitutional safeguards?
Should the safeguards be protection of human rights?
By accepting that crowd wisdom exists?
By protecting your human rights do I protect mine?
You guys seem to be able to a much better job of this than I.
In writing to her MP Janet has encountered the complacent and illusionary belief prevalent amongst the majority of the UK’s voters and politicians that even a coherent beginner’s guide to how money is created and used in the country and between countries is totally unnecessary for the well-beginning of the nation.
Should Janet write back to her MP and ask him to supply or point to the modern money basics guide he uses to justify his comments she will likely be met with a hail of ad hominems, strawmen arguments, hyper-inflation hysteria and absurd fallacy of extension arguments. Such a hail of “knowledge” will be used to mask the fact that he doesn’t have and can’t point to such a guide!
As the late Stephen Hawking wisely once said:
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it’s the illusion of knowledge.”
Here is a beginners guide to modern money basics Janet should reference in reply to her MP:
https://modernmoneybasics.com/facts/
If she wishes to really hammer home the point she might add the absence of a widely available and understood beginners guide to modern money basics has resulted in a counter-productive austerity programme both in the UK and EU and lack of a clear-sighted and coherent Brexit plan. Both of these she should state surely qualify the UK being in the Guinness Book of Records for Self-Harming!
I hope you had chance to listen to Oliver Kamm on the national debt Richard. I suspect the audience wasn’t that big, especially amongst MPs.
Not yet
It’s downloaded for a journey this afternoon
A tenner says that that Dunne never did the mail or even saw it. As MP for Ludlow it is likely he was much better occupied having lunch at The Wheatsheaf Inn or if on expenses at The Feathers. The local farmers, I suspect may be much more interested in the agricultural subsidies.
Thomas Knott says:
“The local farmers, I suspect may be much more interested in the agricultural subsidies.”
As well they might, because if Michael Gove gets his way ‘agriculture’ is going to be about park maintenance, animal habitat and topiary. Farmers may need to reskill.
They would do well to keep an eye on vanishing promises made to the fishing industry and wonder if promises to the agriculture industry might be any more robust.
https://wingsoverscotland.com/?s=Pups+on+Parade
I’ve just listened to it . It’s short, to the point, but not very helpful because although he understands the principle that government debt and household debt are not at all the same thing he still clings to the idea that because the deficit was 10% of GDP in 2010 that was somehow a magic number ( perhaps borrowing from Ken Rogoff; and the less said about him the better ) and the deficit did need cutting and secondly he refuses to countenance the possibility that economics can be explained in plain language and only a degree of understanding of the jargon will enable you to grasp the operational realities of economics. And this coming from a pedant about the use of English is bit rich. If you detect a degree of ire coming from me I admit it . I had a run in with him many years ago on his blog when he supported the invasion of Iraq.
I was deeply unimpressed
I think we can speak plainly
And he did get the debt, but hardly communicated it well
Quite . Kamm and his pal Nick Cohen are unrepentant Neo-Cons , neoliberals who parade themselves as ‘ left of centre ‘ . Seriously ! Just read Cohen in the Guardian . He hates Corbyn . They are no more left-of-centre than Ghengis Khan . They don’t want anything to change . Why would they, the present set up works for them just fine.
“Quite . Kamm and his pal Nick Cohen are unrepentant Neo-Cons , neoliberals who parade themselves as ‘ left of centre ‘ . Seriously ! Just read Cohen in the Guardian . He hates Corbyn . They are no more left-of-centre than Ghengis Khan . They don’t want anything to change . Why would they, the present set up works for them just fine.”
You can add that dreadful woman who constantly appears on the Moral Maze just before I switch to either R5 or R4extra. Marxism Today-my life!
Cohen doesn’t count. He supported the illegal invasion of Iraq & cannot admit it was a hideous crime as well as a catastrophic error. He’ d literally tear his knackers off with rusty pliers before admitting he was wrong.
John Hope says:
“…. ( perhaps borrowing from Ken Rogoff; and the less said about him the better )…”
I’m gladdened to know somebody else regards Rogoff as a prat.
The last piece of his output that I read was such drivel from the start it couldn’t possibly have gone anywhere useful except by accidental meandering. I didn’t bother to finish it.
Richard – You kindly answered a question regarding gilts bought by the BofE using QE which have matured. You mentioned they roll over where the same size tranche is issued. Where this has happened has the entire tranche been sold through open market operations to conventional investors or has, pro rata, the BofE retained ownership? If it is the former then the money supply is the same but the level of QE has gone down?
This is a redemption activity
The BoE pays its subsidiary that owns the gilts for their redemption on behalf of the Treasury and that subsidiary then spends the money to buy new gilts in the market
I am not sure your description of the process is correct
Respectfully and in the interests of balance, it is by no means only Tory MPs who don’t understand…
I agree
But they have used their ignorance as a weapon against the people of this country
Tim Smith says:
“… by no means only Tory MPs who don’t understand…”
Sadly all too apparent Tim. But how did they ever convince themselves, let alone enough people to gain office that they are the party of competent financial management ?
There must be something in the water besides fluoride. 🙂
I need to ask you a question that’s off-topic. How do I do That?
email
Details here http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/about/
@ Richard
Does this programme mean that Oliver Kamm understand the national debt?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09wg786
Sort of
And he even got some of MMT
Just listened to this. Like the curate’s egg, it was good in parts. I wasn’t totally convinced of his economic credentials. But, hey, it was a step in the right direction.
That’s a generous interpretation
“That’s a generous interpretation”
It’s a shift in the ‘overton type widow orifice thingy”.
It’s discussable. It wasn’t last week. That’s progress.
That’s what you get up at stupid o’clock every morning and blog for.
In ten years it won’t be remotely contentious, but only if we (people like you in particular who know what they are talking about) and people like me who get the gist and are periodically inclined to be argumentative on social media keep hammering away at it.
You are winning, but there is no damascene conversion going to happen and the more the subject is discussed the more sense it will make.
Ironically it may be that someone making half a job of it might just be more provocative of rational thought than laying it all out ready to eat. The people who get an inkling and then do their own legwork will own what they discover. You can’t deliver that. Nobody can deliver that. And it’s priceless.
Now I know why I do it
Seriously, if you believe in change there is little short-term gratification
I may never see the benefit of what I am working for
So what? It’s still worth having
“I may never see the benefit of what I am working for
So what? It’s still worth having”
Spot -on, Richard. Let’s face it evolution of Homo Sapiens is a work in progress.
Gandhi, when smugly asked what he thought of (our) Western Civilisation, is reputed to have replied that he thought it would be a good idea.
Andy Crow
Smugly asked – and smugly answered …
Brian faux says:
“Smugly asked — and smugly answered … ”
Touché.
Well thank goodness Osborne and Cameron both understood and were fulsome in their tweets earlier this month as the ONS recorded a budget surplus. And Hammond gets it too and has no plans to ease up on austerity which has succeeded in its aim of trickling wealth up from the poor to the rich.
What a way to run a country. You need no qualifications other than a political dogma. It IS a belief system.
I blame myself, I taught maths for 40 years. Many of the concepts of economics are well beyond the innumerate. Unfortunately I believe that it is held as a badge of honour to hate numbers and belittle those that try to. Good luck.
I would nit blame yourself. This is cultural and you fough5 5he culture.
The shame is maths is liberating.
Denis Swaine says:
“I blame myself, I taught maths for 40 years. Many of the concepts of economics are well beyond the innumerate. Unfortunately I believe that it is held as a badge of honour to hate numbers and belittle those that try to. ”
I’m inclined to disagree with you here, Denis. I was brilliant with numbers at primary school. We had a dragon-lady who made us do lots of arithmetic and we applied it to ‘problems’. So many men dig a hole in so many days, how many holes would it take to fill the Albert Hall?…that sort of thing. We had the number skills and the concept of applying them .
Where I got lost was when we ‘graduated’ to mathematics. Suddenly the men digging holes became shy and anonymous. They hid behind the secret identities of ‘x’ and ‘y’.
Gradually they were replaced by a new workforce of Greeks called ‘Alpha and Beta’ etc.
I could do the calculations of differential calculus, but I never understood what the (usually correct) answer meant.
I believe, perhaps erroneously, that maths is all about concept and relatively little to do with numbers.
If pupils don’t ‘get’ the concepts the mechanisms of calculation are meaningless.
As for economics …That has bugger-all to do with numbers. Understanding maths is not helpful to people in understanding the economy.
The maths only becomes important in making the concepts work. That’s ‘grunt’ work and absolutely vital, but totally a waste of time if the answers are spot on but don’t apply to real world.
Clever mathematicians can do ‘hard sums’, (mostly in Greek ) they can even make budgets balance if they take long enough over it, but if the budget doesn’t need to balance and in fact won’t work at all if it does balance what are the ‘sums’ for?
I have a theory that mathematicians are lazy linguists –
Mathematicians probably think I’m a bit dim.
CP Snow was talking about this problem af mutual incomprehension sixty years ago and we still don’t ‘get it’.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnbiVw_1FNs
The only person to get a 1st when I did my BA Econ took all the econometrics options. I got a 2.2 (running family with 2 toddlers is my excuse). Maths 16 years after O Level meant a struggle. I think I knew and know far more economics than him.
Almost certainly you do
Nice summary Andy –
I think that leap you describe from the substantial to the abstract leaves a lot of kids left standing asking a “Why?”which is never explained . Ive often thought we should take the approach of beginning with a “History of Maths” “History of Physics.” “History of Chemistry” etc: elucidating “why” we do things rather than merely the “how to…”.
I spend quite a lot of time in the land of alpha, beta and delta. When it has a purpose I use it. When it has not it is best avoided. Knowing the difference is key.
Ah, the brilliance of Flanders & Swann. Thanks for the memory, Andy. We could do with their high-quality satire today. Not directly on topic but worth a minute of anyone’s time (IMHO) – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ecEMxrdULQ.
John D says:
Ah, the brilliance of Flanders & Swann. Thanks for the memory, Andy. We could do with their high-quality satire today. Not directly on topic but worth a minute of anyone’s time (IMHO) — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ecEMxrdULQ.
I particularly enjoyed ‘Dear Eyebrows My dear’. Haven’t heard that for a long while.
Nearest thing to F&S I’ve come across in the field of adult (as in intelligence rather than filth terms) is Kit and the Widow.
Highly recommended. Though I’m told they do also do ‘rude’ material, they were clean and witty and erudite and moving and very, very funny when I saw them perform. A class act.
Wonderful subject Maths. It’s what makes Physics even more fascinating.
Rod White says:
“Wonderful subject Maths. It’s what makes Physics even more fascinating.”
Yes. I’m beginning to realise it might have done. 🙁
Denis Swaine says:
“I blame myself, I taught maths for 40 years. Many of the concepts of economics are well beyond the innumerate. Unfortunately I believe that it is held as a badge of honour to hate numbers and belittle those that try to. ”
@ Denis Swaine
I was one of those who held as a badge of honour that I was rubbish at maths when young. But that was only because I was the nearest my family had ever had to a child prodigy. I wasn’t, but was a very good artist at a very young age. As such I was always being told that because I was such a talented artist I must be bad at maths. I believed them and, subconsciously, made myself bad at maths. I thought it made me somehow a better artist!!!
There are as many reasons for disliking/being bad at maths as there are people. I only became ‘good’ at maths when I wanted to do Latin.
I became obsessed with the Book of Kells when I was 13 and wanted to read it in its original Latin. I had to up-grade to the ‘S’ stream in school to do Latin and in order to do that I had to be good at maths. I studied maths in my spare time, found it easy and was furious I’d been made to believe I was crap at maths. I’ve since forgotten all the Latin I learnt and never did get to see the Book of Kells in the flesh.
Andy Crow says:
“I could do the calculations of differential calculus, but I never understood what the (usually correct) answer meant.”
@ Andy Crow
Me too; I relate so much to your description of maths and eventually the dreaded calculus. I simply couldn’t ‘crack’ it despite memorising the formulas and applying them usually correctly. One day I lost my temper with the maths teacher demanding to know of what possible use those stupid formuli had in the real world. Surprisingly, for such an impatient man, he happily wittered on about architects/engineers using it to work out loft extensions or some such thing.
I replied, “You mean it’s nothing more than a way of working out a 3 dimensional graph… why didn’t you say so in the first place?”
Once I realised those blasted formula had a point & purpose, other than looking pretty and esoteric, I could do calculus standing on my head.
But, as with the Latin, I’ve forgotten how to do it now, and never once had to use it once I’d left school at 16.
I too believe being good at maths is not essential to understanding economics. Having a basic grasp of maths is important (for everyday life in general) but not an expert.
I’ve had my ‘Joy of Tax’ for approx 2 weeks now and am struggling like mad with it. Not because it’s badly or boringly written; it very well written for economic numpties like me. But because the concepts are doing my head in as I predicted.
But I’m sticking with it because I’m also finding it totally fascinating. I must like reading it because I’m being very, very disciplined with it.
I usually cherry pick reading non-fiction books. I jump around such books all over the place, like a magpie on speed reading what I think are the most interesting and choicest bits first.
I’m not doing that this time, but reading each chapter in their proper order and refusing to read the next one until I understand the current chapter to my satisfaction.
So far I’m on chapter 3. At this rate it’ll take me till the year 3000 to finish the book. Can’t wait to get on to the ‘Naysayer’ chapter. But like I said, I’m being ‘disciplined’ despite my itchy fingers wanting to skip to other chapters.
My ‘Joy of Tax’ is second-hand and was clearly a pressie from (I think) a son. The inscription reads:
Dad,
Now you can take your wol/woh/wal/wah(?) love with you!
Yey!
Gesiat
Can’t make out what the ‘wol’ word is, and have no idea if Gesiat is a male or female name. Somehow I think it’s male.
Sandra
What can I say but thanks?
Richard
An opportunity to bring up my experience with maths at uni. I got an A grade for my O level, liked maths but didn’t find it a doddle. When I started my economics degree 16 years later I had to take a course on maths for economics for dummies (with no A level). So for the first time I was introduced to calculus – just one term of that and one term of stats. I was eager to learn but the lecturer rattled on and scribbled on the board so carelessly that I found it hard to follow. I was not familiar with the use of Greek alphabet, only Roman so found that very confusing. Being so ‘mature’ I stood up and asked if he could go a bit slower. He told me, no, he was used to a better class of students and he had no intention of slowing down for stupid little me. When I started the second year, 9 months after calculus which I had, of course, not mastered, I was thrown into applying it.
I’m glad I did my degree but actually learned very little. As a mature student I had had experience of the real world and considered much of what I was being taught was bunkum. This was much later confirmed when I received Steve Keen’s ‘Debunking Economics’ as a xmas prezzie. The only thing I really valued was reading about market failure and always felt thereafter that a little economics is a dangerous thing.
Whilst I’m rattling on, I’d like to mention that I went to a talk by SteveK last week and in Q&A did my usual piece about LVT. He dismissed it, but sitting at the front, I got to make a retort, which was that LVT isn’t so much important as a revenue raiser but as a correction for land market failure – one of the most important markets there is.
Carol
The one thing I always know is that when you’re in the audience you will ask a question!
Keep going!
Richard
Carol Wilcox,
Richard is inclined to be a bit dismissive about LVT aswell, I’ve noticed, and he said recently that he only sees it applicable as a sort of local ‘rates’ substitute (apologies if I’m misinterpreting your comments Richard).
In days of yore I never quite ‘got’ Marx’s assertion that ‘property is theft’, but I’m coming round to that way of thinking. Ownership is very much the mainstay and raison d’etre of so much of what we take for granted, but we seem to be fixated on ownership being by the individual and you have to question the sanctity of ownership displayed by forty years of denying any rights of public and collective ownership.
I see no logical reason why some form of LVT (if it would work for a local tax) shouldn’t be an important basis of national taxation policy and perhaps Richard will expand on the reasons for that at some stage when he has nothing more immediate to discuss/explain.
The obsession we have with tax on income is a matter of historic convenience. A means by which the government gets somebody else to foot the bill for tax collection (rather as retailers pick-up the tab for collecting VAT)
The essential logic that we do not so much own, as borrow, the land we occupy (to the dis-benefit of others) is to me quite compelling. The government should be entitled to charge rent (as it should on the use of it’s currency by the private banking sector).
And don’t get me started on the curious concept of ‘intellectual property’. A great deal of that stinks and Donald Trump is keen on it so it has to be well dubious. 🙂
I wish I had the patent royalties on the idea of reverse engineering 🙂
When I get time
Remind me…
Sandra Harvey, who “never did get to see the Book of Kells in the flesh.”
I hope you do get to see it. They’ve kept it a long time for you 🙂
(I’d offer to come with you if I could afford the fare; I’ve never seen it either)
Perhaps I should have got cross with my maths teacher too. Goodness knows where that would have taken me rather than to art school. (Which I have never regretted, despite having been ‘not very good at’ art.)
Don’t be dismayed if you need to read the ‘Joy of Tax’ more than once. It’s seriously ‘off the wall’ relative what we’ve been told all our lives, and what most people believe about how the economy works and should work.
And if you think it’s hard work you should try reading Mervyn King – now that is hard work and not very rewarding either.
Yes!
I am a better read than Mervyn King
Not that I ever really doubted it….
Actually Mervyn King’s The British Tax System (co-author John Kay) first enthused me about taxing land. It was the standard text on tax at the beginning of the 80s. I have the second edition and cannot see from that what enthused me. One day I’ll get my hands on the first edition, where I’m sure all will be revealed.
🙂
“I am a better read than Mervyn King”
No question.
“The End of Alchemy” is a lame apologia. Not my fault, mate. I was just following the herd. (And struggling to keep up).
I came across an interesting quote the other day which I’m still digesting:
In the beginner’s mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert’s there are few.
Attributed to one Suzuki Roshi.
I’ve been reading also commentary on Richard Dawkins ‘The Selfish Gene’; essays by people from different academic disciplines about the impact of a revolutionary interpretation of Darwin’s theorising from his observations. (None of which was exclusively his own work because he was standing , like Newton, on other shoulders to see as far as he did.) A very interesting essay tells of the stalling of understanding by the mathematical geniuses who managed to convincingly disprove something which was not right anyway and put the understanding of evolution back by decades.
I had not realised just how politically contentious evolutionary theory was in the States even as recently as the 1970s. By which time it made imperfect sense to me and I wondered why I hadn’t thought of it myself.
Interesting how difficult is to discuss evolution without falling into the trap of using the active voice, when the selection process is an entirely passive default process. Evolution is entirely blind to the future.
I think there is a parallel with the failure to see taxation as a process of destroying money rather than ‘stealing’ what people think they possess. I can’t quite make that add up, but there’s something ringing faint bells.
Carol Wilcox says:
“Actually Mervyn King’s The British Tax System (co-author John Kay)….”
Perhaps there’s a clue in the co-authorship 🙂
All roads lead to ….intellectual propery today it seems.
“never did get to see the Book of Kells in the flesh.”
Sandra, you must! It is a alive-enhancing experience & its in Dublin FFS. No-one’s asking you to go to Azerbaijan.
Maths is, ime, v hard to explain. Some people see it instantaneously & others can’t see it at all. You or I could kick a ball against a wall til the wall fell down & we’d never be Ronaldo. Way it is. The vast bulk of my Maths A Level class got ‘A’s, the remainder got ‘D’s & ‘E’s. No ‘B’s. You either get it or don’t.
I almost killed my elder lad through ‘maths stress’ & it was entirely my fault. After going through the questions again & again I was reduced to shouting at him “don’t do it wrong do it right!” Not good coaching I know.
In fairness, he says I was good at teaching history & philosophy but I couldn’t teach Maths at all. Anyone who can has my utmost admiration.