The trailer had me hooked, too. Saw it recommended on a (usually) quite cynical football forum, with (unusually) no dissenting comments, then watched the trailer. Enjoy, you've got a treat ahead!

I think 'Detectorists' is probably the best comparison I can think of in terms of the warm, gentle, meandering... though in other ways it's nothing like it.

Bonus points for the character of Shelley not being written as a manic pixie dream girl.

Thought for a while that a major political problem is misuse of term "middle class". Sometimes it means ppl like us on comfortable (if shrinking) university salaries, but other times means those getting paid 6 figures..They're not "middle" in any sense & shouldn't be allowed to think they are.

It's an odd one. We were considering it. We're definitely middle class, but (a) it was a pretty marginal investment case even with the grant; and (b) I doubt we could afford it without it. I guess it depends what the aim of the policy actually is.

I'm glad that bit worked!

Here is the public-facing version (should be accessible to all):
www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-euro...

Think we used to have academic promotion procedures that actively incentivised ruthlessly self-serving behaviour through not even acknowledging the existence of collegiate, pro-social behaviour and roles, never mind rewarding them. I hope that things are changing.

Of course, I don't see much prospect of increasing funding from anywhere. Nationally, we're skint, everything is broken & crying out for investment. Pay has been eroded over decades, and even our annual pay cut isn't baling fast enough any more to keep things afloat.

I am a ray of sunshine atm :)

Think we either need to fund UG properly or more QR, which is supposed to be a dual support system. Or both. If we can't do either, sector owes it to academics not to blame them for this with insulting "hobby research" narratives. One thing saying we can't afford X, another saying X isn't valuable.

That's a big question, and how do we and how should we are different questions. Traditionally, REF ££ plus a cross subsidy from teaching and other activities. Whether "cross subsidy" is a fair characterisation I'm not sure, given the importance of research informed teaching.

Well, quite. In a sane system, researchers who can consistently produce high quality research without the jeopardy and costs of having to compete for external funding would be valued. You'd want grant-getters in a Dept too, of course. Balanced portfolio etc.

I honestly wonder how many humanities profs could even productively spend that amount, even if a funder wrote them a cheque tomorrow! I dont have a problem with group-level income targets taking FTE into account, but individualised targets are dangerous and wrong.

If I'm feeling mischievous, I ask about plans for all the extra support that's going to be put in place to support both the submission of all these applications and the administration of this new flood of grants. Can't spend an award you don't have the capacity to administer. There's never a plan.

It's bizarre... every scrap of research funding out there is already fiercely fought over. For some to win more, others need to win less. Any institution that thinks it can win substantially more needs to do something differently and better, and if that's just 'apply moar', that's not going to work.

My challenge (if it's good faith) would be to demonstrate pathway to £25k research funding per year. Which funders, which schemes. With details of success rates. With details of the support available to grant applicants and holders. I've written more about funding targets (£, probably. Ironically)

This is either madness (from people who have no idea about either competitiveness of schemes, what schemes actually exist , or both), or - as you say - just a bad faith pretext.

Seriously? Individualised targets? Or is that averaged across schools/groups?