Who’s Who in the Monstrous Tory Party?

Is this who’s really running the country?

Back as long ago as the summer of 2010 All Change Please! first broke the story that the Tory Party were in fact being run by members of International Rescue in disguise: ‘Thunderbirds are Gove’. Then in 2012 it published further startling revelations that International Rescue had quit, and been replaced by the ‘Carry On’ cast: ‘Carry On Up the Conservatives’.

Now All Change Please! is proud to announce a further scoop. Following extensive phone-tapping and email hacking, but primarily the use of Google Image search, it has discovered that our current Government actually consists of a gathering of terrifying monsters from Dr Who. They have their own time machine, known as The BORIS – its entrance cleverly disguised as the door to 10 Downing Street – though unfortunately it only travels back as far as the 1950s, and not into the future at all, and it’s much smaller-minded inside than on the outside.

What? You want proof? OK – here it is…

The first clue that alerted All Change Please! as to what was going on was a comparison of the photos below. One is of Rishi Sunak, the new Chancellor of the Exchequer. The other is the latest incarnation of The Master. But which one is which?

And then here’s the old Chancellor, Sajid Javid who in reality is quite clearly a Sontaran – a race of ruthless male-gender-only clones that prize discipline and honour. They have a stocky build and a distinctive dome-shaped head and can be regularly seen practicing a Power Stance.

These menacing, macabre versions of peg dolls with broad, blank faces appeared in ‘Night Terrors’, an episode from series Six. They turn their victims into other peg dolls in a state of living death.

When these three peg dolls emerge from behind the door at Number 10 they instantly transform into Elizabeth Truss, Nicky Morgan and Dominic Raab.

Now we get to the really evil ones. First here’s one of the Whisper Men – featureless beings, hollow on the inside and dressed in Victorian clothes. They are easily mistaken for Jacob Rees Mogg.

Meanwhile it takes two evil monstrosities – The Weeping Angels and The Gangers – working closely together to take on the form of Priti Patel.

The Weeping Angels are known to be ‘the deadliest, most powerful, most malevolent life-form evolution has ever produced.’ With a single touch, a Weeping Angel can send a person into the past to a point before his/her own birth, and can then feed off the potential energy of the years which that victim would have lived in the present. However they can only move when not being observed. So just don’t blink. Particularly if you are an immigrant.

The Gangers (above right) are clones created from living programmable matter. Due to their unstable molecules they have developed their abilities to extend their limbs and neck. Ms Patel (middle, in case you can’t tell) is clearly willing to stick her neck out – clear proof she is of alien descent.

As is well known, the country is mainly being run by two Dr Who villains in particular. The first is Lady Cassandra (above left). Her life was extended through a series of seven hundred and eight plastic surgery operations until she was nothing but a piece of skin stretched onto a frame with eyes and a mouth, connected to a brain in a jar below. She was also shown to be selfish, thick-skinned, devious and willing to sacrifice people just for profit, hence the phrase ‘the unacceptable face of capitalism’. On the way out of the Number 10 BORIS she morphs into Carrie Symonds, the PM’s current companion.

But finally – the most scary, evil, cunning monster of all that will decide our future. This one doesn’t even need to change or disguise its hideous form outside the door of Number 10 – it hides in plain sight, exactly as it is…. Demonic Cummings.

You’ve seen the evidence. It’s time to hide behind the settee and be afraid. Be very afraid.

Where are you, Doctor Who? We urgently need your help!

Education through Art, Design and Technology

All Change Please! has recently read several accounts of the distinction between Art & Design and Design & Technology as separate school subjects. Obviously they are not exactly the same, but at the same time they do share a great deal in common, and their similarities and overlap seem to be being ignored and thus marginalised. Too many schools have completely separate departments which could just as well be called ‘Painting and drawing’ and ‘Resistant Materials Technology’. The two subjects are inter-dependent, with each informing the other, and we need to be reflecting that in our primary and secondary schools.

All Change Please! is not suggesting here that the two subjects should be merged into one – but it would be good to occasionally hear a D&T teacher reminding a class to apply a concept they have covered in A&D, and vice-versa, and to think that the departments sometimes get together to discuss and plan their curricula for their students that connect and develop the concepts and skills they have in common. To deliver Art & Design and Design & Technology in a way that encourages the perception that they are entirely un-related is not in the best interests of students.

Perhaps the most obvious similarity is that – to a greater or lesser extent – both subjects involve students in creative problem-solving, being it deciding on the composition of a painting or the arrangement of components of a 3D product. They both involve developing approaches to thinking and doing with an open-mind, and being willing to explore and iterate solutions through critical analysis and decision-making. Like all open-ended project-based work that occupies more than a single teacher-led lesson, they require learning how to plan and organise actions and resources. They both involve the use of a range of modelling skills to develop and communicate ideas along with the acquisition of knowledge of the properties and working characteristics of a range of different materials. Meanwhile the understanding and application of the ‘formal elements’ – line, tone, colour, texture, shape, pattern and form – are entirely common to both. Meanwhile Art & Design and Design & Technology together involve students exploring contemporary and historical issues and learning about them in other cultures.

There are differences of course. Perhaps the greatest difference is that Fine Art is, quite rightly, primarily concerned with self-expression whereas Design & Technology is orientated towards a client and meeting the needs of others. While A&D involves developing considerable expertise with a variety of graphic media, D&T demands a broad knowledge of a wide range of 3D materials – though many sculptors and craftspeople can benefit from this too. Paintings and sculptures are usually ‘one-offs’ – unless the work is specifically intended for a reprographic process – while many of the products of Design & Technology will be developed for either batch or mass-production.

Back in the 1970s and 80s the thinking in schools – derived largely from the mid 20th Century influence of the Bauhaus Basic Course – was to bring Art, Design and Technology together to explore and develop their connections rather than their differences. Art teachers often included work in graphics, fashion, textiles, theatre, interior, architecture and product design, while ‘CDT’ teachers directed children to produce high quality artefacts using woods, metals, plastics and ceramics. A few schools had the vision to go beyond that and take on board the fact that Art, Design and Technology are dimensions of the whole school curriculum and have much to offer, and learn from, every other subject.

But of course the reality is that the present move towards the separation of the two – which actually began with the introduction of the discrete National Curriculum subjects, Attainment Targets and Programmes of Study in the late 1980s – is actually about their survival in the school. Heads of Art and Heads of D&T are often required to justify their individual existence at the expense of each other, lest they be merged or disbanded in the rush for urgent economies in staffing and resources.

While an education through Art & Design and Design & Technology has its own inherent value, some children will go on to become professional artists, designers and technologists where they will discover that the two so-called ‘subjects’ do not exist as separate disciplines, but closely interact with each other, and we need to be reflecting that in our primary and secondary schools. At the same time, Art, Design and Technology have an essential contribution that they need to be making to STEAM – the inter-disciplinary approach to education through Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts and Mathematics.

And finally… All Change Please! recently came across this post:

Welcome to the intelligent twenties, or why Art Teaching isn’t ready for the new era

which poses some interesting, and doubtless controversial, challenges for teachers of Art, Design and Technology in the future.

“What can art teachers teach kids who will spend their lives working alongside robots and who have to change career every few years? What skills will art teachers need to teach for this emerging world?”

“Art teachers need to rapidly re-skill….to understand more philosophy and how to operate in a world where their children operate across silos, where boundaries don’t exist between subjects and where this third presence of intelligence is now working alongside us. They will also need to feed into their approach the changes…[to] our understanding of art and creativity wrought by the explosion in neuro-scientific research. Once we actually know what creativity actually is, how will we change our approach to teaching it?”

“The age of mass production was one of power, control and certainty, the coming era is one of mathematical chaos, systems and emergence. The art teachers of the next decade will have to tackle and work out how to teach art for this new age of unnatural intelligence.”

Or, as someone once said, “All Change Please!