1. 建议大家练习的时候录音。这点真的超重要，不听录音你永远不知道自己翻的有多么糟糕。很多人在翻译的时候会有emm a之类的停顿，录音之后会发现自己的不好习惯进行改正。同时可以控制自己的时间，毕竟高口真的有点坑…语速需要很快。
2. 平时多去比赛+public speaking
Great to see the article I’d written on the role of charities in health published this morning. It reads well (he says modestly!). Here it is in case you missed it;
Charities can offer better service than the NHS
Stop arguing over private or public delivery on health and choose what is best for patients
St John’s Hospital in Bath was established in 1180 to provide healing and homes by the bubbling spa springs for the poor and infirm. The charity is still there 830 years later: a much valued health and care service for the elderly.
This demonstrates our country’s great charitable tradition in health. The Government’s desire to put citizens and patients first is both core to the current health reforms and a guiding mission for the country’s great charities and social enterprises. The words of the Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley, “no decision about me, without me”, are our driving passion.
We have a dual role: to deliver health services, undertake research and provide care and compassion to those most in need; and to act as an advocate and adviser. We are sometimes a challenger of the health establishment and always a doughty champion for patients.
For these reforms to be a success we must ensure a much stronger role for the third sector. That is why we strongly support the policy of “any willing provider”. The previous Government was profoundly mistaken in pursuing a policy of the NHS as “preferred provider”, which implied that services from our sector were less valued than the State’s. In fact, through a big expansion of the role of charities and social enterprises in providing care, we can provide more cost-effective and citizen-focused services.
This is not about privatisation. What matters is what is delivered, not who delivers it. This must be at the heart of health service reform.
Charities can offer a better deal in so many ways. In 2008 the NHS spent just over 0.05 per cent of its healthcare budget through charities. In other words this is a virtually untapped resource waiting to be used.
To me, competition in the NHS means British Red Cross volunteers being able to help more people to adapt to life at home after a lengthy spell in hospital, so preventing the need for readmission. Those who get this support are often aged over 65 and have experienced a fall. Volunteers bring them home, settle them in, advise neighbours or relatives of their return, check on pets, help to prepare a meal and make a further visit to ensure that they are safe and well. Such schemes can save the typical NHS commissioner up to ￡1 million a year.
Competition in the NHS would also mean an environmental charity such as BTCV running more “green gyms”, which give people a physical workout while taking part in environmental projects. So far, more than 10,000 people ― often referred by GPs ― have taken part. An evaluation found that the positive impact on mental and physical health, not to mention the acquisition of new skills, means that the State saves ￡153 for every ￡100 it invests. On top of that, it has a positive impact on local communities and the environment. Do we want less of this or more? I suspect that for most of us the answer is obvious.
Those who rely most on the NHS are the vulnerable, the very people charities were set up to help, precisely because they were being let down by the status quo. If groups such as the Red Cross and BTCV can do a better job than the NHS, we should let them.
Promoting wellbeing and preventing ill health have for too long been neglected aspects of the NHS’s role. These reforms rightly put emphasis on public health. Giving a role in health back to local councils is long overdue. The new health and wellbeing boards may provide the opportunity to get more resources behind public health as well as, for the first time, giving elected councillors the chance to scrutinise NHS resources. Preventing diabetes through better education, diet and exercise is always a better approach than picking up the costs of a growing number of people with diabetes. Charities such as Diabetes UK, working with councils and GPs, are critical to achieving that.
Of course there are challenges in introducing reforms. Of course proper funding is crucial. We want to ensure that there is a strategic approach to commissioning, including national guidelines. We want the new GP consortia to take full advantage of the opportunity to expand their work with our sector.
The challenge we face as a country is to build on the sure foundations of our NHS to provide service that recognises and expands the work of charities, promotes partnerships between State, third and private sectors and moves on from arcane arguments over privatisation.
And The Times also had a brilliant summary of the problems of Big Society and how to solve them by Phil Collins and a great letter from my Chair in response to the Francis Maude MP article.
I’m blogging from H M Treasury where the Prime Minister has been announcing new procurement and commissioning arrangements to free up the process for SMEs and charities and social enterprises. He was clear that we are part of the SME community and contracting has to be changed so that we can bid easier and better. He must have mentioned charities some 10 times in his speech and even referred to me directly. Then shook my hand on the way out! I made the point to him that we welcome the initiatives and I referred to Chris White MP’s Social Clause Bill and how important that is.
And now the weekend beckons. Though I’m spending Sunday morning on Sky News. There you go; no rest for the wicked!
John Lewis: never knowingly undersold?
It is possibly the most famous promise in British retailing: "Never knowingly undersold" has been at the heart of John Lewis’s business since 1925. But a quietly introduced change has infuriated loyal customers, who claim the price-match promise is now slipping away.
For many years John Lewis customers have been safe in the knowledge that if they found their purchase for a lower price elsewhere the company would refund the difference. Carrier bags and marketing campaigns have proudly proclaimed to the world that John Lewis won’t be beaten on price.
Yet since September some customers who have asked John Lewis to match the price of goods found cheaper elsewhere on the high street have been turned away.
A Guardian Money reader from Roydon, Essex, contacted us after he bought a Hotpoint washing machine in John Lewis’s Welwyn store for ￡279. A few days later he saw the same model in Argos for ￡219 ? ￡60 cheaper. John Lewis turned down his claim made under the never knowingly undersold policy, because it said it guaranteed the washing machines for two years, while Argos offered only one year.
The customer complained ? unsuccessfully ? that the store wasn’t being fair as this was not made clear in the literature.
When Money investigated, we found that John Lewis had made a fundamental change to its policy.
In a statement in September, which at the time drew positive headlines, it said it would for the first time match online prices from other retailers as long as they also had a physical high street presence. What was made less clear was that the store would no longer match a price unless its rival offers the exact same warranty.
The policy change might not sound much, but it in effect allows the store to avoid almost all price matching of electrical items ? because John Lewis has adopted a policy of offering two-year warranties on almost every such item. Most stores in the UK offer just one year.
When we first raised the reader’s complaint with John Lewis it told us: "As part of our commitment to be never knowingly undersold, we match prices based on the combined cost of the product plus charges the competitor may make for a comparable warranty or guarantee. We evaluate price-match claims on a like-for-like basis, and breakdown cover is a crucial part of our proposition to our customers."
What it failed to mention was that prior to the September policy rewrite, it would have paid the complainant the ￡60 difference between the John Lewis and Argos washing machines.
Interestingly, the store confirmed it would not price match the cost of buying a product plus a warranty from a third party company, but would consider a claim if the cheaper retailer offered the chance to buy both together.
David Suddock, head of buying support at John Lewis, who revised the policy, says: "As a result of our commitment to expand our never knowingly undersold policy to include other retailers with online presences we now put a great deal of resources into checking the prices charged by our rivals and lowering ours where appropriate. Our customers are benefiting through significantly reduced prices. They tell us they value the extra warranty periods we offer, and we think it is only fair we should include that in our price match scheme. The terms of the never knowingly undersold policy are clearly presented in both our stores and on the website."
But if the Money postbag is to be believed, most John Lewis customers were unaware of the change. And Martyn Hocking, editor of Which? says: "John Lewis is known for its great customer service, so the change to its never knowingly undersold policy is very disappointing. Customers would naturally expect any price matching policy to relate to the up-front cost of a product, excluding the value of added extras such as warranties and guarantees. As such, we feel that the amended policy is misleading and will lead to frustration for many shoppers."
But Natalie Berg, research director at retail analysts Planet Retail, says John Lewis’s move was perhaps inevitable: "The internet has put the power to compare prices in the hands of all of us; some shoppers now use smart phones to check prices as they walk around a store. John Lewis has realised that while price is important, it’s not the factor in where to buy. The fact that John Lewis has been one of the winners on the high street in recent months suggests consumers are not just looking for the lowest prices, but they want value ? and the perception is that John Lewis delivers this."