I read that the Prime Minister is considering reforming A levels. It is not something I have ever urged and I would be interested in views from readers.

The case seems to revolve around the idea that everyone should do maths beyond GCSE level, and maybe continue with English.  To accommodate this presumably the  depth and range of other subjects at A levels would be reduced to allow more time for extra maths and English.

If someone wanted to retain the current range and depth of maths and English as A level subjects perhaps they could be retained as they would not need to study the general English and  maths options for all other students. Or maybe the aim is to get all students taking more subjects in the sixth form so those wanting to specialise in maths and or English would still do the general courses and offer more other subjects.

The impact of these reforms would be people would have more range of knowledge but less depth of knowledge at the end of school, with a bigger gap to the degree level on arriving at university. All should have better skills in maths and English.

I will comment tomorrow on my own experiences at school.

Department for Energy Security and Net Zero provided the following answer to your written parliamentary question (198577):

Question:
To ask the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, how many jobs have been created in the UK to manufacture wind turbine (a) motors and (b) blades in the last 12 months. (198577)

Tabled on: 11 September 2023

Answer:
Graham Stuart:

The Government does not hold this data.

The Office for National Statistics estimate that the offshore wind sector employed around 10,600 people across the UK in 2021.

The answer was submitted on 19 Sep 2023 at 11:38.

Comment.  World data tells us China is the dominant supplier of wind turbines and solar panels. The much vaunted green jobs so far have largely been created in China.

The Bank of England decided this week to get rid of £100bn of bonds over the next year, £20bn more than last. I agree they should not buy more bonds to replace the ones that mature, like the ECB. I strongly disagree with their aggressive policy of selling bonds at big losses which would lose us less money if they held them to maturity. They have notched up £24 bn of losses, all paid for by the Treasury , this year since April. They have provided no good reason why they do this.

Maybe they want to qualify as one of the worst bond managers in the world. They certainly paid sky high prices for the bonds when rates were near zero. They then hiked rates and sold bonds to force the prices down so they could make colossal losses. They defend the rate rises on the good grounds they needed to do that for monetary policy purposes, as their bond buying and low rates had proved very inflationary. They tell us selling the bonds has little impact on anything, so why do it?

It is difficult to believe what they say. They say buying the bonds at ultra high prices was essential to buttress the economy and help output, but apparently selling them does not do the opposite! Buying stimulates, selling does  nothing!

They say their sales, large and low priced as they are, does not depress the market. Of course it does. They point out the prices do not particularly dip on the days of the sales. That is because the sales have been well heralded in advance and are carried out to a stated timetable, so they are in the price. Last autumn when they first announced a big £80 bn bond reduction programme it was followed by bond meltdown, exacerbated by the LDI collapse it helped trigger. The Bank had to reverse policy and buy bonds again to stabilise the market. This showed Bank buying and selling has a big impact as they are the dominant presence in this market.

The public finances ex Bank of England are badly damaged by the extent of the losses, which the needless selling makes worse. As the Bank does not think the sales make any difference, why do them when their balance sheet will come down as the bonds mature? More likely these sales have raised longer term interest rates, have weakened bond prices further and very visibly have worsened the public spending and borrowing figures ex Bank of England.  Why do other MPs ignore £24 bn of losses so far this year with so many more to come?

I recently visited the centre and spoke to the Barclays staff member present. I renewed the  case for Wokingham based arrangements for banking services in person. I was told few people are visiting the Bradbury facility, which is mainly designed to offer help for those who have had problems accessing services on line. Barclays does not offer paying in or cash withdrawal services at the Centre.