Today is the vote in the Bundestag on reforming the debt brake. It's still unclear if it will get the 2 thirds majority needed.
If the Russians agree to the ceasefire Ukraine has accepted it may not be needed for the moment anyway
Nonsense
Putin has said he won't even accept European and NATO peacekeepers, it would likely be Turkish, Brazilian, Indian troops etc enforcing any ceasefire.
It would just be future deterrence NATO nations needed to increase their militaries for
Sorry to be picky but Turkey is in NATO so you could have Australian or New Zealand troops I suppose though I agree more likely are Brazilians, Nigerians or Indians. To be honest, if someone else is paying for them (who?), I imagine some countries would be happy to have their soldiers billeted somewhere else at someone else's expense.
Putin gets on with Erdogan so would probably accept Turkish troops, the Russians already rejected Australian involvement
It is time that the Russians are told to FUCK OFF over what they will and won't accept. The suggestion that they should be able to veto who is president and what nationality of troops are allowed in a sovereign country is beyond outrageous. Every concession is a reward for their aggression. Europe needs to keep all sanctions in place and continue to isolate Russia where possible. More appeasement only encourages the aggressor.
It seems to me the only way Trump can force a quick end to the war that isn't a clear win for Russia is to threaten Putin with a continuation (or even escalation) of US military support for Ukraine if he doesn't make big meaningful concessions. However he can't threaten this with any credibility because he's already made it clear he isn't prepared to stay involved militarily. "You make a deal or we're out" he said to Zelensky in the WH, and for once I think he was speaking the truth. That is his position.
So otoh he wants to get his big moment and live up to his self-image as the great dealmaker, but otoh he can't and won't force Russia to back down from its red lines (being they keep what they've taken and Ukraine gets no Art 5 type protection on the rest). Any deal would therefore be mainly on Russia's terms and can happen only if Ukraine feels forced to sign it due to having no realistic alternative. I think that's what this boils down to now. Will Europe's offer allow Zelensky to genuinely feel that no deal is better than a bad deal?
I think this a pretty good summary of where we are. It's why Europe building up its own military strength is so important, £6bn being cut from benefits should be just the start. Outsourcing our security to America means we have to live with the politics of America, I think a few cuts to the welfare state is a small price to end our obsession with the USA.
We could pop taxes up to French levels, spend 9% of GDP on defence and have military expenditure 3x as high as Russia. The funniest thing about this debate is the rather blatant attempts to shoehorn personal political obsessions into the debate.
My version of this is put fuel duty up to where it should be without the incessant freezes since 2010. That gets you 0.8 per cent of GDP while primarily taxing higher income people, who drive 3x as much as poorer people. And it pushes people off an OPEC controlled commodity onto EVs. Easy. Next.
That massively pushes up inflation and the idea that people can afford to just pop over onto EVs is for the birds. Again it is Robert's comment on elasticity. When you push on something as fundemental as transport, something else gets pushed out in away that not only reduces your return but can actively reverse what you are trying to do.
I'm just using it as an example of how the link between defence and welfare spending is a bit contrived.
But it's weird how fuel duty is always described as inflationary, but other taxes, bus/rail fares etc are not. Fuel is 20% cheaper than it was in 2010, so that's consistent deflationary pressure for higher income households. In terms of elasticities, we've disincentivised switching to EVs throughout that period as a result.
Well for a start bus and train fares don't affect the cost of transporting goods.
Moreover, there were 64 billion passenger km travelled by train in 2022. In the same year there were 532 billion km travelled by car - and that is only based on a driver in each car and ignoring passengers.
As we see everytime there has been a jump in fuel prices, it is far more inflationary compared to public transport costs. The OBR said that the reduction in 5p reduction in fuel duty in 2022 reduced CPI by 0.2%
That putting the price of something up is inflationary is not the most startling insight. It's literally the definition, and a bizarre reason to argue against fuel duty increases in particular.
I understand there may be other commercial reasons for not doing it, but in terms of consumers it represents a 20% cut in costs while bus fares, used by the poorest people in the country, have gone up by 17%. Meanwhile electricity is over 60% higher - no wonder the transition to EVs has been slow with that relative difference.
At the moment energy and fuel is actually providing deflationary pressure on CPI, oddly enough.
Listening to Birbelsingh on Nick Ferrari. This woman is out of control. I recommend anyone with interest in schools policy to listen to this on Global Player. I was shocked. Those of a more conservative point of view will be cheered.
She's flavour of the month with the Christian Nationalists because she banned prayer rituals in school policy (no religious groups such as a Christian Union) then won a court case defending it against a challenge by Muslim pupil. I'll have a listen to Nick Ferrari. As far as I have tracked her, she seems consistent since her first speech to the Conservative Party conference 15 or 16 years ago when she was identified; I'm not sure of the process by which she was identified as Miss Snuffy.
(Religion in Public Life has been an area of interest of mine for decades, as you know.)
That lets the CNats (and GBNews etc) pretend that it's about Muslims, and reflects desire to stir things up, when it was more like a victory for "secular" school cultures excluding religion, which is one groups like the National Secular Society have been on for decades. @BartholomewRoberts may be more up to date than me on that side of it.
It was a somewhat complex argument, because iirc it was about prayer ritual in the playground as effectively a form of protest when her school refused to provide a prayer room for pupils.
The self-described "freedom of XYZ" groups take the other side than they do on "silent prayer" (ie intimidation and interference) outside abortion clinics - for some reason .
It’s interesting to see the reactions.
@Mexicanpete is shocked because it seems like restricting the *requirements* of a minority.
The GBNews take it as anti-Muslim.
Most people don’t want more religion in our schools - even the weak-tea-and-biscuits form of Christianity.
They do when the only outstanding state primary or secondary school in their area is a C of E or Roman Catholic school.
Then you get parents queuing round the block to get into the church congregation on a Sunday for the months leading up to the decision on who gets places so they can get the Vicar's reference
That's 'they have to put up with it' rather than 'want it', on your own testimony.
No they want it as it offers choice from the bog standard comp or academy down the road
No, look at your own language and logic. They only want religious schools when there is no alternative. Ergo they don't want the religion bit.
My own language is clear, as a Conservative I want as many private schools, grammar schools, religious schools, free schools, academies etc as possible ie offer a real alternative. As do parents who choose such schools.
You as a statist socialist want to give consumers one bog standard comp option in education as you dislike choice elsewhere
The illusion of choice.
My son's state primary school is non-religious until year 2, then (mildly) C of E from years 3-6. There is no religious element of the admissions process.
But we chose it because it was the best school we were in the catchment area for.
If we'd ended up living the other side of town -which we almost did until a sale fell through - he would that gone to a different, non-religious state primary school. Which is just as good.
The focus for government should be on improving the standards of all schools. The religious element is outdated and doesn't reflect the beliefs of the vast majority of parents of young children.
Just the usual one size fits all rubbish from secular leftists like you.
Nope, we need more choice and more variety of schools including more good faith schools, you could afford to buy into the catchment area of a good school, many in poorer areas can't
One huge problem with faith schools in my area, is that they are essentially selective of the better off children.
All the rules around admission mean that settled families, who can plan their children's education years in advance, have time to rack up the points their local church is handing out, and navigate the various rules, are much more likely to get places. That leads to a huge middle class bias, which in turn leads to better results, which leads to more competition for places, and the cycle goes on.
The schools get to the top of the results charts, but have shockingly few children on free school meals when compared with neighbouring non-faith schools.
I'm not religious myself, but did attend a Catholic school, and I'm not sure the Jesus that they taught us about would have approved at all. It's almost the exact opposite of "Christian", yet the local ministers seem delighted with their full churches, apparently turn a blind eye, and ignore their actual mission.
If more parents of children on free school meals went to church they would get a place at their nearest top church school, it is not difficult.
Churches still provide food banks for the poor anyway
It's "not difficult", and yet it doesn't happen.
I'm sure I don't need to tell you, but consider the reasons why people might be poor. Relationship breakdowns, losing a job, lack of education, dealing with disabilities, death of a partner, spent time in the care system. You're much more likely to be in less secure rented accommodation and moving area more regularly. You're likely to be working in a low paid, more insecure job. You're more likely to be a single parent.
These are all reasons why planning three or even four years in advance for a school place, attending masses, and spending time doing the extra-curricular bits and pieces that all form part of the application process are much more difficult. People with better jobs, their own homes, fewer money worries, are in a much better position, and that's exactly why that middle class selection occurs.
I'm actually surprisingly angry at that response, coming from someone who I assume considers themselves a Christian (and I do apologise if you hadn't intended it to sound so dismissive). I can only hope that maybe you've had such a fortunate life, that you simply don't have an understanding of why some people have more immediate stresses on their lives, and can't spend time jumping through hoops for some benefit years down the line.
So what? You can be jobless with no money and rental accomodation and still attend church, there is no charge for it.
You can be as sanctimoniously angry as you want but you have no problem with secular outstanding state schools selected by house price which poorer parents have sod all chance of getting their kids into
Unison says handling of NHS England abolition announcement 'shambolic'
"The health service needs thousands more staff and to be able to hold on to experienced employees. At the moment, it’s struggling to do that. Giving staff a decent pay rise would help no end. But this announcement will have left NHS England staff reeling. Just days ago they learned their numbers were to be slashed by half, now they discover their employer will cease to exist. The way the news of the axing has been handled is nothing short of shambolic. It could surely have been managed in a more sympathetic way."
Can confirm: my NHS England staff who I have as students are reeling.
Do you believe the 50% headcount cut can or will happen? Seems very DOGE...
I don't know. NHS England has already undergone a 40% cut in staff a few years back, so a 50% cut now is actually a smaller cut in terms of number of people! There will be some savings from not having NHSE separate from DHSC. I guess, yes, they can cut jobs if they want to.
Remember that NHS England is not the NHS in England. Most NHS staff are in hospital Trusts or primary care, etc.
Is it a good idea? I suspect not. A big reorganisation like this eats up everyone's attention and what you get at the end of it isn't going to sway many votes. If you actually want changes that patients and the public can see, then focus on making those and don't spend your political capital on a reorganisation. You could have brought NHS England closer to the DHSC in a more gradual manner, in a less revolutionary/DOGE-y way.
Also, NHS England has the potential to do great things. Managers can be a very cost effective way of spending money. I work mostly in digital health. If you're going to realise the potential for digital, including AI, to transform healthcare, you need people in NHS England or DHSC doing that work, supporting that transformation. Cutting those roles and everyone who still has a job having to spend all their time worrying about the reorganisation, that's not going to help anything.
WATO had Jeremy Hunt on. He is broadly supportive. Sarah Montague wasn't expecting that and tried to paint it as a Lansleyesque root and branch disaster.
I too am nervous that Tories seem to like the abolition of NHS England.
I don't, it is just shifting power back to Dept of Health
Unison says handling of NHS England abolition announcement 'shambolic'
"The health service needs thousands more staff and to be able to hold on to experienced employees. At the moment, it’s struggling to do that. Giving staff a decent pay rise would help no end. But this announcement will have left NHS England staff reeling. Just days ago they learned their numbers were to be slashed by half, now they discover their employer will cease to exist. The way the news of the axing has been handled is nothing short of shambolic. It could surely have been managed in a more sympathetic way."
Can confirm: my NHS England staff who I have as students are reeling.
Do you believe the 50% headcount cut can or will happen? Seems very DOGE...
I don't know. NHS England has already undergone a 40% cut in staff a few years back, so a 50% cut now is actually a smaller cut in terms of number of people! There will be some savings from not having NHSE separate from DHSC. I guess, yes, they can cut jobs if they want to.
Remember that NHS England is not the NHS in England. Most NHS staff are in hospital Trusts or primary care, etc.
Is it a good idea? I suspect not. A big reorganisation like this eats up everyone's attention and what you get at the end of it isn't going to sway many votes. If you actually want changes that patients and the public can see, then focus on making those and don't spend your political capital on a reorganisation. You could have brought NHS England closer to the DHSC in a more gradual manner, in a less revolutionary/DOGE-y way.
Also, NHS England has the potential to do great things. Managers can be a very cost effective way of spending money. I work mostly in digital health. If you're going to realise the potential for digital, including AI, to transform healthcare, you need people in NHS England or DHSC doing that work, supporting that transformation. Cutting those roles and everyone who still has a job having to spend all their time worrying about the reorganisation, that's not going to help anything.
WATO had Jeremy Hunt on. He is broadly supportive. Sarah Montague wasn't expecting that and tried to paint it as a Lansleyesque root and branch disaster.
I too am nervous that Tories seem to like the abolition of NHS England.
I don't, it is just shifting power back to Dept of Health
Jeremy Hunt is probably a bit more knowledgeable about the NHS than either you or me.
Listening to Birbelsingh on Nick Ferrari. This woman is out of control. I recommend anyone with interest in schools policy to listen to this on Global Player. I was shocked. Those of a more conservative point of view will be cheered.
She's flavour of the month with the Christian Nationalists because she banned prayer rituals in school policy (no religious groups such as a Christian Union) then won a court case defending it against a challenge by Muslim pupil. I'll have a listen to Nick Ferrari. As far as I have tracked her, she seems consistent since her first speech to the Conservative Party conference 15 or 16 years ago when she was identified; I'm not sure of the process by which she was identified as Miss Snuffy.
(Religion in Public Life has been an area of interest of mine for decades, as you know.)
That lets the CNats (and GBNews etc) pretend that it's about Muslims, and reflects desire to stir things up, when it was more like a victory for "secular" school cultures excluding religion, which is one groups like the National Secular Society have been on for decades. @BartholomewRoberts may be more up to date than me on that side of it.
It was a somewhat complex argument, because iirc it was about prayer ritual in the playground as effectively a form of protest when her school refused to provide a prayer room for pupils.
The self-described "freedom of XYZ" groups take the other side than they do on "silent prayer" (ie intimidation and interference) outside abortion clinics - for some reason .
It’s interesting to see the reactions.
@Mexicanpete is shocked because it seems like restricting the *requirements* of a minority.
The GBNews take it as anti-Muslim.
Most people don’t want more religion in our schools - even the weak-tea-and-biscuits form of Christianity.
They do when the only outstanding state primary or secondary school in their area is a C of E or Roman Catholic school.
Then you get parents queuing round the block to get into the church congregation on a Sunday for the months leading up to the decision on who gets places so they can get the Vicar's reference
That's 'they have to put up with it' rather than 'want it', on your own testimony.
No they want it as it offers choice from the bog standard comp or academy down the road
No, look at your own language and logic. They only want religious schools when there is no alternative. Ergo they don't want the religion bit.
My own language is clear, as a Conservative I want as many private schools, grammar schools, religious schools, free schools, academies etc as possible ie offer a real alternative. As do parents who choose such schools.
You as a statist socialist want to give consumers one bog standard comp option in education as you dislike choice elsewhere
The illusion of choice.
My son's state primary school is non-religious until year 2, then (mildly) C of E from years 3-6. There is no religious element of the admissions process.
But we chose it because it was the best school we were in the catchment area for.
If we'd ended up living the other side of town -which we almost did until a sale fell through - he would that gone to a different, non-religious state primary school. Which is just as good.
The focus for government should be on improving the standards of all schools. The religious element is outdated and doesn't reflect the beliefs of the vast majority of parents of young children.
Just the usual one size fits all rubbish from secular leftists like you.
Nope, we need more choice and more variety of schools including more good faith schools, you could afford to buy into the catchment area of a good school, many in poorer areas can't
One huge problem with faith schools in my area, is that they are essentially selective of the better off children.
All the rules around admission mean that settled families, who can plan their children's education years in advance, have time to rack up the points their local church is handing out, and navigate the various rules, are much more likely to get places. That leads to a huge middle class bias, which in turn leads to better results, which leads to more competition for places, and the cycle goes on.
The schools get to the top of the results charts, but have shockingly few children on free school meals when compared with neighbouring non-faith schools.
I'm not religious myself, but did attend a Catholic school, and I'm not sure the Jesus that they taught us about would have approved at all. It's almost the exact opposite of "Christian", yet the local ministers seem delighted with their full churches, apparently turn a blind eye, and ignore their actual mission.
If more parents of children on free school meals went to church they would get a place at their nearest top church school, it is not difficult.
Churches still provide food banks for the poor anyway
"it is not difficult"
School uniforms, school transport for a school that may be on the other side of the city, school outings, school field trips, pressure to make donations to match well off parents ...
AND as already explained today, needing to live in one place for years.
Does your church food bank provide brioche, I wonder?
Those are costs at any school, faith or not, Outstanding faith schools also admit by church attendance unlike Outstanding secular state schools which admit on whether you can afford to buy a house in their catchment area.
Fuck the renters, then?
So let me get this right. The Conservative Party policy has been to manage state schools so badly that only approved Tory voters, ie house owners, can afford to buy in certain areas, or to pay the extra costs of sending children to faith schools?
And in all cases to pay the extre, no not fees no sir, but, erm, donations to actually help the school achieve basic work?
And to hell with the rest.
No Tory policy is to expand choice ie more free schools, faith schools, grammar schools, private schools etc so bog standard comps (and even they have top ups for trips and lunches etc) lose pupils and gradually disappear.
That is part of the point of being a Conservative, choice not enforced equality like socialists like you demand
Unison says handling of NHS England abolition announcement 'shambolic'
"The health service needs thousands more staff and to be able to hold on to experienced employees. At the moment, it’s struggling to do that. Giving staff a decent pay rise would help no end. But this announcement will have left NHS England staff reeling. Just days ago they learned their numbers were to be slashed by half, now they discover their employer will cease to exist. The way the news of the axing has been handled is nothing short of shambolic. It could surely have been managed in a more sympathetic way."
Can confirm: my NHS England staff who I have as students are reeling.
Do you believe the 50% headcount cut can or will happen? Seems very DOGE...
I don't know. NHS England has already undergone a 40% cut in staff a few years back, so a 50% cut now is actually a smaller cut in terms of number of people! There will be some savings from not having NHSE separate from DHSC. I guess, yes, they can cut jobs if they want to.
Remember that NHS England is not the NHS in England. Most NHS staff are in hospital Trusts or primary care, etc.
Is it a good idea? I suspect not. A big reorganisation like this eats up everyone's attention and what you get at the end of it isn't going to sway many votes. If you actually want changes that patients and the public can see, then focus on making those and don't spend your political capital on a reorganisation. You could have brought NHS England closer to the DHSC in a more gradual manner, in a less revolutionary/DOGE-y way.
Also, NHS England has the potential to do great things. Managers can be a very cost effective way of spending money. I work mostly in digital health. If you're going to realise the potential for digital, including AI, to transform healthcare, you need people in NHS England or DHSC doing that work, supporting that transformation. Cutting those roles and everyone who still has a job having to spend all their time worrying about the reorganisation, that's not going to help anything.
WATO had Jeremy Hunt on. He is broadly supportive. Sarah Montague wasn't expecting that and tried to paint it as a Lansleyesque root and branch disaster.
I too am nervous that Tories seem to like the abolition of NHS England.
I don't, it is just shifting power back to Dept of Health
Jeremy Hunt is probably a bit more knowledgeable about the NHS than either you or me.
The European Union, one of the most hostile and abusive taxing and tariffing authorities in the World, which was formed for the sole purpose of taking advantage of the United States, has just put a nasty 50% Tariff on Whisky. If this Tariff is not removed immediately, the U.S. will shortly place a 200% Tariff on all WINES, CHAMPAGNES, & ALCOHOLIC PRODUCTS COMING OUT OF FRANCE AND OTHER E.U. REPRESENTED COUNTRIES. This will be great for the Wine and Champagne businesses in the U.S.
Popcorn all round - apart from the whisky industry
I think we can expect some USA legal actions on some of these tariffs, as well as responses. Trump's basis for being able to do all of these himself, is - I think - National Emergency. And that is questionable, apart from the national emergency he is creating himself.
WTO is not being pursued yet because of snail's pace (and Canada lost some cases last time round).
He believes in power, not, law. We are about to find out what happens.
The Republicans in the House have voted to stop Congressional overview of the tariffs.
They might just as well vote to abolish themselves. They are a parcel of craven fools.
They *are* voting to abolish themselves.
Trump. Ruling by Decree. With Congress voting to remove their right of oversight and to censure any member who dissents.
This is how it ends. How the midterms get removed from the agenda. When the legislature has no intention of impinging on the dictatorial rights of the executive.
And just in case there is a problem, have a distraction. The government has directed the military to prepare a spread of options to take the Panama Canal. You can guarantee that options for Greenland and Canada are also being done.
Want an excuse for no election? WE ARE AT WAR
The USA held elections on the regular cycle in all previous wars, including 1864 in the middle of their Civil War, though not all states voted.
Unison says handling of NHS England abolition announcement 'shambolic'
"The health service needs thousands more staff and to be able to hold on to experienced employees. At the moment, it’s struggling to do that. Giving staff a decent pay rise would help no end. But this announcement will have left NHS England staff reeling. Just days ago they learned their numbers were to be slashed by half, now they discover their employer will cease to exist. The way the news of the axing has been handled is nothing short of shambolic. It could surely have been managed in a more sympathetic way."
Can confirm: my NHS England staff who I have as students are reeling.
Do you believe the 50% headcount cut can or will happen? Seems very DOGE...
I don't know. NHS England has already undergone a 40% cut in staff a few years back, so a 50% cut now is actually a smaller cut in terms of number of people! There will be some savings from not having NHSE separate from DHSC. I guess, yes, they can cut jobs if they want to.
Remember that NHS England is not the NHS in England. Most NHS staff are in hospital Trusts or primary care, etc.
Is it a good idea? I suspect not. A big reorganisation like this eats up everyone's attention and what you get at the end of it isn't going to sway many votes. If you actually want changes that patients and the public can see, then focus on making those and don't spend your political capital on a reorganisation. You could have brought NHS England closer to the DHSC in a more gradual manner, in a less revolutionary/DOGE-y way.
Also, NHS England has the potential to do great things. Managers can be a very cost effective way of spending money. I work mostly in digital health. If you're going to realise the potential for digital, including AI, to transform healthcare, you need people in NHS England or DHSC doing that work, supporting that transformation. Cutting those roles and everyone who still has a job having to spend all their time worrying about the reorganisation, that's not going to help anything.
WATO had Jeremy Hunt on. He is broadly supportive. Sarah Montague wasn't expecting that and tried to paint it as a Lansleyesque root and branch disaster.
I too am nervous that Tories seem to like the abolition of NHS England.
Listening to Birbelsingh on Nick Ferrari. This woman is out of control. I recommend anyone with interest in schools policy to listen to this on Global Player. I was shocked. Those of a more conservative point of view will be cheered.
She's flavour of the month with the Christian Nationalists because she banned prayer rituals in school policy (no religious groups such as a Christian Union) then won a court case defending it against a challenge by Muslim pupil. I'll have a listen to Nick Ferrari. As far as I have tracked her, she seems consistent since her first speech to the Conservative Party conference 15 or 16 years ago when she was identified; I'm not sure of the process by which she was identified as Miss Snuffy.
(Religion in Public Life has been an area of interest of mine for decades, as you know.)
That lets the CNats (and GBNews etc) pretend that it's about Muslims, and reflects desire to stir things up, when it was more like a victory for "secular" school cultures excluding religion, which is one groups like the National Secular Society have been on for decades. @BartholomewRoberts may be more up to date than me on that side of it.
It was a somewhat complex argument, because iirc it was about prayer ritual in the playground as effectively a form of protest when her school refused to provide a prayer room for pupils.
The self-described "freedom of XYZ" groups take the other side than they do on "silent prayer" (ie intimidation and interference) outside abortion clinics - for some reason .
It’s interesting to see the reactions.
@Mexicanpete is shocked because it seems like restricting the *requirements* of a minority.
The GBNews take it as anti-Muslim.
Most people don’t want more religion in our schools - even the weak-tea-and-biscuits form of Christianity.
They do when the only outstanding state primary or secondary school in their area is a C of E or Roman Catholic school.
Then you get parents queuing round the block to get into the church congregation on a Sunday for the months leading up to the decision on who gets places so they can get the Vicar's reference
That's 'they have to put up with it' rather than 'want it', on your own testimony.
No they want it as it offers choice from the bog standard comp or academy down the road
No, look at your own language and logic. They only want religious schools when there is no alternative. Ergo they don't want the religion bit.
My own language is clear, as a Conservative I want as many private schools, grammar schools, religious schools, free schools, academies etc as possible ie offer a real alternative. As do parents who choose such schools.
You as a statist socialist want to give consumers one bog standard comp option in education as you dislike choice elsewhere
The illusion of choice.
My son's state primary school is non-religious until year 2, then (mildly) C of E from years 3-6. There is no religious element of the admissions process.
But we chose it because it was the best school we were in the catchment area for.
If we'd ended up living the other side of town -which we almost did until a sale fell through - he would that gone to a different, non-religious state primary school. Which is just as good.
The focus for government should be on improving the standards of all schools. The religious element is outdated and doesn't reflect the beliefs of the vast majority of parents of young children.
Just the usual one size fits all rubbish from secular leftists like you.
Nope, we need more choice and more variety of schools including more good faith schools, you could afford to buy into the catchment area of a good school, many in poorer areas can't
One huge problem with faith schools in my area, is that they are essentially selective of the better off children.
All the rules around admission mean that settled families, who can plan their children's education years in advance, have time to rack up the points their local church is handing out, and navigate the various rules, are much more likely to get places. That leads to a huge middle class bias, which in turn leads to better results, which leads to more competition for places, and the cycle goes on.
The schools get to the top of the results charts, but have shockingly few children on free school meals when compared with neighbouring non-faith schools.
I'm not religious myself, but did attend a Catholic school, and I'm not sure the Jesus that they taught us about would have approved at all. It's almost the exact opposite of "Christian", yet the local ministers seem delighted with their full churches, apparently turn a blind eye, and ignore their actual mission.
If more parents of children on free school meals went to church they would get a place at their nearest top church school, it is not difficult.
Churches still provide food banks for the poor anyway
"it is not difficult"
School uniforms, school transport for a school that may be on the other side of the city, school outings, school field trips, pressure to make donations to match well off parents ...
AND as already explained today, needing to live in one place for years.
Does your church food bank provide brioche, I wonder?
Those are costs at any school, faith or not, Outstanding faith schools also admit by church attendance unlike Outstanding secular state schools which admit on whether you can afford to buy a house in their catchment area.
Fuck the renters, then?
So let me get this right. The Conservative Party policy has been to manage state schools so badly that only approved Tory voters, ie house owners, can afford to buy in certain areas, or to pay the extra costs of sending children to faith schools?
And in all cases to pay the extre, no not fees no sir, but, erm, donations to actually help the school achieve basic work?
And to hell with the rest.
No Tory policy is to expand choice ie more free schools, faith schools, grammar schools, private schools etc so bog standard comps (and even they have top ups for trips and lunches etc) lose pupils and gradually disappear.
That is part of the point of being a Conservative, choice not enforced equality like socialists like you demand
Enforced equality = actually giving most people a chance.
You have been claiming today that for one's children to have a good education it is necessary to live in an expensive house or send them to a sectarian school. Which last means much the same thing plus spending years pretending to be sectarian.
This is the system your party set up and maintained, under the housing market your party massively inflated.
As JC did not say, fuck the renters and fuck the poor.
Listening to Birbelsingh on Nick Ferrari. This woman is out of control. I recommend anyone with interest in schools policy to listen to this on Global Player. I was shocked. Those of a more conservative point of view will be cheered.
She's flavour of the month with the Christian Nationalists because she banned prayer rituals in school policy (no religious groups such as a Christian Union) then won a court case defending it against a challenge by Muslim pupil. I'll have a listen to Nick Ferrari. As far as I have tracked her, she seems consistent since her first speech to the Conservative Party conference 15 or 16 years ago when she was identified; I'm not sure of the process by which she was identified as Miss Snuffy.
(Religion in Public Life has been an area of interest of mine for decades, as you know.)
That lets the CNats (and GBNews etc) pretend that it's about Muslims, and reflects desire to stir things up, when it was more like a victory for "secular" school cultures excluding religion, which is one groups like the National Secular Society have been on for decades. @BartholomewRoberts may be more up to date than me on that side of it.
It was a somewhat complex argument, because iirc it was about prayer ritual in the playground as effectively a form of protest when her school refused to provide a prayer room for pupils.
The self-described "freedom of XYZ" groups take the other side than they do on "silent prayer" (ie intimidation and interference) outside abortion clinics - for some reason .
It’s interesting to see the reactions.
@Mexicanpete is shocked because it seems like restricting the *requirements* of a minority.
The GBNews take it as anti-Muslim.
Most people don’t want more religion in our schools - even the weak-tea-and-biscuits form of Christianity.
They do when the only outstanding state primary or secondary school in their area is a C of E or Roman Catholic school.
Then you get parents queuing round the block to get into the church congregation on a Sunday for the months leading up to the decision on who gets places so they can get the Vicar's reference
That's 'they have to put up with it' rather than 'want it', on your own testimony.
No they want it as it offers choice from the bog standard comp or academy down the road
No, look at your own language and logic. They only want religious schools when there is no alternative. Ergo they don't want the religion bit.
My own language is clear, as a Conservative I want as many private schools, grammar schools, religious schools, free schools, academies etc as possible ie offer a real alternative. As do parents who choose such schools.
You as a statist socialist want to give consumers one bog standard comp option in education as you dislike choice elsewhere
The illusion of choice.
My son's state primary school is non-religious until year 2, then (mildly) C of E from years 3-6. There is no religious element of the admissions process.
But we chose it because it was the best school we were in the catchment area for.
If we'd ended up living the other side of town -which we almost did until a sale fell through - he would that gone to a different, non-religious state primary school. Which is just as good.
The focus for government should be on improving the standards of all schools. The religious element is outdated and doesn't reflect the beliefs of the vast majority of parents of young children.
Just the usual one size fits all rubbish from secular leftists like you.
Nope, we need more choice and more variety of schools including more good faith schools, you could afford to buy into the catchment area of a good school, many in poorer areas can't
One huge problem with faith schools in my area, is that they are essentially selective of the better off children.
All the rules around admission mean that settled families, who can plan their children's education years in advance, have time to rack up the points their local church is handing out, and navigate the various rules, are much more likely to get places. That leads to a huge middle class bias, which in turn leads to better results, which leads to more competition for places, and the cycle goes on.
The schools get to the top of the results charts, but have shockingly few children on free school meals when compared with neighbouring non-faith schools.
I'm not religious myself, but did attend a Catholic school, and I'm not sure the Jesus that they taught us about would have approved at all. It's almost the exact opposite of "Christian", yet the local ministers seem delighted with their full churches, apparently turn a blind eye, and ignore their actual mission.
If more parents of children on free school meals went to church they would get a place at their nearest top church school, it is not difficult.
Churches still provide food banks for the poor anyway
It's "not difficult", and yet it doesn't happen.
I'm sure I don't need to tell you, but consider the reasons why people might be poor. Relationship breakdowns, losing a job, lack of education, dealing with disabilities, death of a partner, spent time in the care system. You're much more likely to be in less secure rented accommodation and moving area more regularly. You're likely to be working in a low paid, more insecure job. You're more likely to be a single parent.
These are all reasons why planning three or even four years in advance for a school place, attending masses, and spending time doing the extra-curricular bits and pieces that all form part of the application process are much more difficult. People with better jobs, their own homes, fewer money worries, are in a much better position, and that's exactly why that middle class selection occurs.
I'm actually surprisingly angry at that response, coming from someone who I assume considers themselves a Christian (and I do apologise if you hadn't intended it to sound so dismissive). I can only hope that maybe you've had such a fortunate life, that you simply don't have an understanding of why some people have more immediate stresses on their lives, and can't spend time jumping through hoops for some benefit years down the line.
So what? You can be jobless with no money and rental accomodation and still attend church, there is no charge for it.
You can be as sanctimoniously angry as you want but you have no problem with secular outstanding state schools selected by house price which poorer parents have sod all chance of getting their kids into
I haven't mentioned anything to do with house prices once, so where you get that from I don't know. It's a total straw man.
Your first words on the other hand are simply callous. I suspect even God is shaking his head, and he's apparently quite the tolerant and forgiving type.
Unison says handling of NHS England abolition announcement 'shambolic'
"The health service needs thousands more staff and to be able to hold on to experienced employees. At the moment, it’s struggling to do that. Giving staff a decent pay rise would help no end. But this announcement will have left NHS England staff reeling. Just days ago they learned their numbers were to be slashed by half, now they discover their employer will cease to exist. The way the news of the axing has been handled is nothing short of shambolic. It could surely have been managed in a more sympathetic way."
Can confirm: my NHS England staff who I have as students are reeling.
Do you believe the 50% headcount cut can or will happen? Seems very DOGE...
I don't know. NHS England has already undergone a 40% cut in staff a few years back, so a 50% cut now is actually a smaller cut in terms of number of people! There will be some savings from not having NHSE separate from DHSC. I guess, yes, they can cut jobs if they want to.
Remember that NHS England is not the NHS in England. Most NHS staff are in hospital Trusts or primary care, etc.
Is it a good idea? I suspect not. A big reorganisation like this eats up everyone's attention and what you get at the end of it isn't going to sway many votes. If you actually want changes that patients and the public can see, then focus on making those and don't spend your political capital on a reorganisation. You could have brought NHS England closer to the DHSC in a more gradual manner, in a less revolutionary/DOGE-y way.
Also, NHS England has the potential to do great things. Managers can be a very cost effective way of spending money. I work mostly in digital health. If you're going to realise the potential for digital, including AI, to transform healthcare, you need people in NHS England or DHSC doing that work, supporting that transformation. Cutting those roles and everyone who still has a job having to spend all their time worrying about the reorganisation, that's not going to help anything.
WATO had Jeremy Hunt on. He is broadly supportive. Sarah Montague wasn't expecting that and tried to paint it as a Lansleyesque root and branch disaster.
I too am nervous that Tories seem to like the abolition of NHS England.
Which is odd (!) since they set it up.
He was hinting that the problem is the cost of two tiers of management within NHS England. He said initially he was supportive but it eventually became an out of control beast.thst wouldn't stop growing.
We'd have had to have persuaded the EU, but the history of the last decade and a half could have been very different.
Exactly the opposite of the post-Thatcherite "not picking winners" approacg, which was half the problem. The Chinese just sprayed money to tens of companies, and then chose the best two or three
Listening to Birbelsingh on Nick Ferrari. This woman is out of control. I recommend anyone with interest in schools policy to listen to this on Global Player. I was shocked. Those of a more conservative point of view will be cheered.
She's flavour of the month with the Christian Nationalists because she banned prayer rituals in school policy (no religious groups such as a Christian Union) then won a court case defending it against a challenge by Muslim pupil. I'll have a listen to Nick Ferrari. As far as I have tracked her, she seems consistent since her first speech to the Conservative Party conference 15 or 16 years ago when she was identified; I'm not sure of the process by which she was identified as Miss Snuffy.
(Religion in Public Life has been an area of interest of mine for decades, as you know.)
That lets the CNats (and GBNews etc) pretend that it's about Muslims, and reflects desire to stir things up, when it was more like a victory for "secular" school cultures excluding religion, which is one groups like the National Secular Society have been on for decades. @BartholomewRoberts may be more up to date than me on that side of it.
It was a somewhat complex argument, because iirc it was about prayer ritual in the playground as effectively a form of protest when her school refused to provide a prayer room for pupils.
The self-described "freedom of XYZ" groups take the other side than they do on "silent prayer" (ie intimidation and interference) outside abortion clinics - for some reason .
It’s interesting to see the reactions.
@Mexicanpete is shocked because it seems like restricting the *requirements* of a minority.
The GBNews take it as anti-Muslim.
Most people don’t want more religion in our schools - even the weak-tea-and-biscuits form of Christianity.
They do when the only outstanding state primary or secondary school in their area is a C of E or Roman Catholic school.
Then you get parents queuing round the block to get into the church congregation on a Sunday for the months leading up to the decision on who gets places so they can get the Vicar's reference
That's 'they have to put up with it' rather than 'want it', on your own testimony.
No they want it as it offers choice from the bog standard comp or academy down the road
No, look at your own language and logic. They only want religious schools when there is no alternative. Ergo they don't want the religion bit.
My own language is clear, as a Conservative I want as many private schools, grammar schools, religious schools, free schools, academies etc as possible ie offer a real alternative. As do parents who choose such schools.
You as a statist socialist want to give consumers one bog standard comp option in education as you dislike choice elsewhere
The illusion of choice.
My son's state primary school is non-religious until year 2, then (mildly) C of E from years 3-6. There is no religious element of the admissions process.
But we chose it because it was the best school we were in the catchment area for.
If we'd ended up living the other side of town -which we almost did until a sale fell through - he would that gone to a different, non-religious state primary school. Which is just as good.
The focus for government should be on improving the standards of all schools. The religious element is outdated and doesn't reflect the beliefs of the vast majority of parents of young children.
Just the usual one size fits all rubbish from secular leftists like you.
Nope, we need more choice and more variety of schools including more good faith schools, you could afford to buy into the catchment area of a good school, many in poorer areas can't
One huge problem with faith schools in my area, is that they are essentially selective of the better off children.
All the rules around admission mean that settled families, who can plan their children's education years in advance, have time to rack up the points their local church is handing out, and navigate the various rules, are much more likely to get places. That leads to a huge middle class bias, which in turn leads to better results, which leads to more competition for places, and the cycle goes on.
The schools get to the top of the results charts, but have shockingly few children on free school meals when compared with neighbouring non-faith schools.
I'm not religious myself, but did attend a Catholic school, and I'm not sure the Jesus that they taught us about would have approved at all. It's almost the exact opposite of "Christian", yet the local ministers seem delighted with their full churches, apparently turn a blind eye, and ignore their actual mission.
If more parents of children on free school meals went to church they would get a place at their nearest top church school, it is not difficult.
Churches still provide food banks for the poor anyway
"it is not difficult"
School uniforms, school transport for a school that may be on the other side of the city, school outings, school field trips, pressure to make donations to match well off parents ...
AND as already explained today, needing to live in one place for years.
Does your church food bank provide brioche, I wonder?
Those are costs at any school, faith or not, Outstanding faith schools also admit by church attendance unlike Outstanding secular state schools which admit on whether you can afford to buy a house in their catchment area.
Fuck the renters, then?
So let me get this right. The Conservative Party policy has been to manage state schools so badly that only approved Tory voters, ie house owners, can afford to buy in certain areas, or to pay the extra costs of sending children to faith schools?
And in all cases to pay the extre, no not fees no sir, but, erm, donations to actually help the school achieve basic work?
And to hell with the rest.
No Tory policy is to expand choice ie more free schools, faith schools, grammar schools, private schools etc so bog standard comps (and even they have top ups for trips and lunches etc) lose pupils and gradually disappear.
That is part of the point of being a Conservative, choice not enforced equality like socialists like you demand
That may be Tory policy, but it isn't what happened. You can't offer choice if you are running at full capacity. Round here there is almost no choice at all - you go to the school which has space. I am getting quite nervous about my youngest even getting into the local bog standard - it is 0.9 miles away, and this year if you were over 1.0 miles away you couldn't get in and instead are offered a failing school six miles away. Choice may exist in London, but it doesn't here.
If you didn't already have enough reasons to not buy a Swastikar...
The Highway Patrol’s investigation into a November Cybertruck crash in Piedmont where three college kids died is finding two very Tesla problems: the vehicle immediately caught fire, and its doors would not open.
Unison says handling of NHS England abolition announcement 'shambolic'
"The health service needs thousands more staff and to be able to hold on to experienced employees. At the moment, it’s struggling to do that. Giving staff a decent pay rise would help no end. But this announcement will have left NHS England staff reeling. Just days ago they learned their numbers were to be slashed by half, now they discover their employer will cease to exist. The way the news of the axing has been handled is nothing short of shambolic. It could surely have been managed in a more sympathetic way."
Can confirm: my NHS England staff who I have as students are reeling.
Do you believe the 50% headcount cut can or will happen? Seems very DOGE...
I don't know. NHS England has already undergone a 40% cut in staff a few years back, so a 50% cut now is actually a smaller cut in terms of number of people! There will be some savings from not having NHSE separate from DHSC. I guess, yes, they can cut jobs if they want to.
Remember that NHS England is not the NHS in England. Most NHS staff are in hospital Trusts or primary care, etc.
Is it a good idea? I suspect not. A big reorganisation like this eats up everyone's attention and what you get at the end of it isn't going to sway many votes. If you actually want changes that patients and the public can see, then focus on making those and don't spend your political capital on a reorganisation. You could have brought NHS England closer to the DHSC in a more gradual manner, in a less revolutionary/DOGE-y way.
Also, NHS England has the potential to do great things. Managers can be a very cost effective way of spending money. I work mostly in digital health. If you're going to realise the potential for digital, including AI, to transform healthcare, you need people in NHS England or DHSC doing that work, supporting that transformation. Cutting those roles and everyone who still has a job having to spend all their time worrying about the reorganisation, that's not going to help anything.
WATO had Jeremy Hunt on. He is broadly supportive. Sarah Montague wasn't expecting that and tried to paint it as a Lansleyesque root and branch disaster.
I too am nervous that Tories seem to like the abolition of NHS England.
I don't, it is just shifting power back to Dept of Health
Jeremy Hunt is probably a bit more knowledgeable about the NHS than either you or me.
If you didn't already have enough reasons to not buy a Swastikar...
The Highway Patrol’s investigation into a November Cybertruck crash in Piedmont where three college kids died is finding two very Tesla problems: the vehicle immediately caught fire, and its doors would not open.
If you didn't already have enough reasons to not buy a Swastikar...
The Highway Patrol’s investigation into a November Cybertruck crash in Piedmont where three college kids died is finding two very Tesla problems: the vehicle immediately caught fire, and its doors would not open.
Listening to Birbelsingh on Nick Ferrari. This woman is out of control. I recommend anyone with interest in schools policy to listen to this on Global Player. I was shocked. Those of a more conservative point of view will be cheered.
She's flavour of the month with the Christian Nationalists because she banned prayer rituals in school policy (no religious groups such as a Christian Union) then won a court case defending it against a challenge by Muslim pupil. I'll have a listen to Nick Ferrari. As far as I have tracked her, she seems consistent since her first speech to the Conservative Party conference 15 or 16 years ago when she was identified; I'm not sure of the process by which she was identified as Miss Snuffy.
(Religion in Public Life has been an area of interest of mine for decades, as you know.)
That lets the CNats (and GBNews etc) pretend that it's about Muslims, and reflects desire to stir things up, when it was more like a victory for "secular" school cultures excluding religion, which is one groups like the National Secular Society have been on for decades. @BartholomewRoberts may be more up to date than me on that side of it.
It was a somewhat complex argument, because iirc it was about prayer ritual in the playground as effectively a form of protest when her school refused to provide a prayer room for pupils.
The self-described "freedom of XYZ" groups take the other side than they do on "silent prayer" (ie intimidation and interference) outside abortion clinics - for some reason .
It’s interesting to see the reactions.
@Mexicanpete is shocked because it seems like restricting the *requirements* of a minority.
The GBNews take it as anti-Muslim.
Most people don’t want more religion in our schools - even the weak-tea-and-biscuits form of Christianity.
They do when the only outstanding state primary or secondary school in their area is a C of E or Roman Catholic school.
Then you get parents queuing round the block to get into the church congregation on a Sunday for the months leading up to the decision on who gets places so they can get the Vicar's reference
That's 'they have to put up with it' rather than 'want it', on your own testimony.
No they want it as it offers choice from the bog standard comp or academy down the road
No, look at your own language and logic. They only want religious schools when there is no alternative. Ergo they don't want the religion bit.
My own language is clear, as a Conservative I want as many private schools, grammar schools, religious schools, free schools, academies etc as possible ie offer a real alternative. As do parents who choose such schools.
You as a statist socialist want to give consumers one bog standard comp option in education as you dislike choice elsewhere
The illusion of choice.
My son's state primary school is non-religious until year 2, then (mildly) C of E from years 3-6. There is no religious element of the admissions process.
But we chose it because it was the best school we were in the catchment area for.
If we'd ended up living the other side of town -which we almost did until a sale fell through - he would that gone to a different, non-religious state primary school. Which is just as good.
The focus for government should be on improving the standards of all schools. The religious element is outdated and doesn't reflect the beliefs of the vast majority of parents of young children.
Just the usual one size fits all rubbish from secular leftists like you.
Nope, we need more choice and more variety of schools including more good faith schools, you could afford to buy into the catchment area of a good school, many in poorer areas can't
One huge problem with faith schools in my area, is that they are essentially selective of the better off children.
All the rules around admission mean that settled families, who can plan their children's education years in advance, have time to rack up the points their local church is handing out, and navigate the various rules, are much more likely to get places. That leads to a huge middle class bias, which in turn leads to better results, which leads to more competition for places, and the cycle goes on.
The schools get to the top of the results charts, but have shockingly few children on free school meals when compared with neighbouring non-faith schools.
I'm not religious myself, but did attend a Catholic school, and I'm not sure the Jesus that they taught us about would have approved at all. It's almost the exact opposite of "Christian", yet the local ministers seem delighted with their full churches, apparently turn a blind eye, and ignore their actual mission.
If more parents of children on free school meals went to church they would get a place at their nearest top church school, it is not difficult.
Churches still provide food banks for the poor anyway
"it is not difficult"
School uniforms, school transport for a school that may be on the other side of the city, school outings, school field trips, pressure to make donations to match well off parents ...
AND as already explained today, needing to live in one place for years.
Does your church food bank provide brioche, I wonder?
Those are costs at any school, faith or not, Outstanding faith schools also admit by church attendance unlike Outstanding secular state schools which admit on whether you can afford to buy a house in their catchment area.
Fuck the renters, then?
So let me get this right. The Conservative Party policy has been to manage state schools so badly that only approved Tory voters, ie house owners, can afford to buy in certain areas, or to pay the extra costs of sending children to faith schools?
And in all cases to pay the extre, no not fees no sir, but, erm, donations to actually help the school achieve basic work?
And to hell with the rest.
No Tory policy is to expand choice ie more free schools, faith schools, grammar schools, private schools etc so bog standard comps (and even they have top ups for trips and lunches etc) lose pupils and gradually disappear.
That is part of the point of being a Conservative, choice not enforced equality like socialists like you demand
That may be Tory policy, but it isn't what happened. You can't offer choice if you are running at full capacity. Round here there is almost no choice at all - you go to the school which has space. I am getting quite nervous about my youngest even getting into the local bog standard - it is 0.9 miles away, and this year if you were over 1.0 miles away you couldn't get in and instead are offered a failing school six miles away. Choice may exist in London, but it doesn't here.
Even more reason for more free schools, grammar schools, faith schools etc and not just in London
Listening to Birbelsingh on Nick Ferrari. This woman is out of control. I recommend anyone with interest in schools policy to listen to this on Global Player. I was shocked. Those of a more conservative point of view will be cheered.
She's flavour of the month with the Christian Nationalists because she banned prayer rituals in school policy (no religious groups such as a Christian Union) then won a court case defending it against a challenge by Muslim pupil. I'll have a listen to Nick Ferrari. As far as I have tracked her, she seems consistent since her first speech to the Conservative Party conference 15 or 16 years ago when she was identified; I'm not sure of the process by which she was identified as Miss Snuffy.
(Religion in Public Life has been an area of interest of mine for decades, as you know.)
That lets the CNats (and GBNews etc) pretend that it's about Muslims, and reflects desire to stir things up, when it was more like a victory for "secular" school cultures excluding religion, which is one groups like the National Secular Society have been on for decades. @BartholomewRoberts may be more up to date than me on that side of it.
It was a somewhat complex argument, because iirc it was about prayer ritual in the playground as effectively a form of protest when her school refused to provide a prayer room for pupils.
The self-described "freedom of XYZ" groups take the other side than they do on "silent prayer" (ie intimidation and interference) outside abortion clinics - for some reason .
It’s interesting to see the reactions.
@Mexicanpete is shocked because it seems like restricting the *requirements* of a minority.
The GBNews take it as anti-Muslim.
Most people don’t want more religion in our schools - even the weak-tea-and-biscuits form of Christianity.
They do when the only outstanding state primary or secondary school in their area is a C of E or Roman Catholic school.
Then you get parents queuing round the block to get into the church congregation on a Sunday for the months leading up to the decision on who gets places so they can get the Vicar's reference
That's 'they have to put up with it' rather than 'want it', on your own testimony.
No they want it as it offers choice from the bog standard comp or academy down the road
No, look at your own language and logic. They only want religious schools when there is no alternative. Ergo they don't want the religion bit.
My own language is clear, as a Conservative I want as many private schools, grammar schools, religious schools, free schools, academies etc as possible ie offer a real alternative. As do parents who choose such schools.
You as a statist socialist want to give consumers one bog standard comp option in education as you dislike choice elsewhere
The illusion of choice.
My son's state primary school is non-religious until year 2, then (mildly) C of E from years 3-6. There is no religious element of the admissions process.
But we chose it because it was the best school we were in the catchment area for.
If we'd ended up living the other side of town -which we almost did until a sale fell through - he would that gone to a different, non-religious state primary school. Which is just as good.
The focus for government should be on improving the standards of all schools. The religious element is outdated and doesn't reflect the beliefs of the vast majority of parents of young children.
Just the usual one size fits all rubbish from secular leftists like you.
Nope, we need more choice and more variety of schools including more good faith schools, you could afford to buy into the catchment area of a good school, many in poorer areas can't
One huge problem with faith schools in my area, is that they are essentially selective of the better off children.
All the rules around admission mean that settled families, who can plan their children's education years in advance, have time to rack up the points their local church is handing out, and navigate the various rules, are much more likely to get places. That leads to a huge middle class bias, which in turn leads to better results, which leads to more competition for places, and the cycle goes on.
The schools get to the top of the results charts, but have shockingly few children on free school meals when compared with neighbouring non-faith schools.
I'm not religious myself, but did attend a Catholic school, and I'm not sure the Jesus that they taught us about would have approved at all. It's almost the exact opposite of "Christian", yet the local ministers seem delighted with their full churches, apparently turn a blind eye, and ignore their actual mission.
If more parents of children on free school meals went to church they would get a place at their nearest top church school, it is not difficult.
Churches still provide food banks for the poor anyway
"it is not difficult"
School uniforms, school transport for a school that may be on the other side of the city, school outings, school field trips, pressure to make donations to match well off parents ...
AND as already explained today, needing to live in one place for years.
Does your church food bank provide brioche, I wonder?
Those are costs at any school, faith or not, Outstanding faith schools also admit by church attendance unlike Outstanding secular state schools which admit on whether you can afford to buy a house in their catchment area.
Fuck the renters, then?
So let me get this right. The Conservative Party policy has been to manage state schools so badly that only approved Tory voters, ie house owners, can afford to buy in certain areas, or to pay the extra costs of sending children to faith schools?
And in all cases to pay the extre, no not fees no sir, but, erm, donations to actually help the school achieve basic work?
And to hell with the rest.
No Tory policy is to expand choice ie more free schools, faith schools, grammar schools, private schools etc so bog standard comps (and even they have top ups for trips and lunches etc) lose pupils and gradually disappear.
That is part of the point of being a Conservative, choice not enforced equality like socialists like you demand
That may be Tory policy, but it isn't what happened. You can't offer choice if you are running at full capacity. Round here there is almost no choice at all - you go to the school which has space. I am getting quite nervous about my youngest even getting into the local bog standard - it is 0.9 miles away, and this year if you were over 1.0 miles away you couldn't get in and instead are offered a failing school six miles away. Choice may exist in London, but it doesn't here.
Even more reason for more free schools, grammar schools, faith schools etc and not just in London
Well I quite agree. But why didn't that happen when the Tories were in power, if that was their policy?
Unison says handling of NHS England abolition announcement 'shambolic'
"The health service needs thousands more staff and to be able to hold on to experienced employees. At the moment, it’s struggling to do that. Giving staff a decent pay rise would help no end. But this announcement will have left NHS England staff reeling. Just days ago they learned their numbers were to be slashed by half, now they discover their employer will cease to exist. The way the news of the axing has been handled is nothing short of shambolic. It could surely have been managed in a more sympathetic way."
Can confirm: my NHS England staff who I have as students are reeling.
Do you believe the 50% headcount cut can or will happen? Seems very DOGE...
I don't know. NHS England has already undergone a 40% cut in staff a few years back, so a 50% cut now is actually a smaller cut in terms of number of people! There will be some savings from not having NHSE separate from DHSC. I guess, yes, they can cut jobs if they want to.
Remember that NHS England is not the NHS in England. Most NHS staff are in hospital Trusts or primary care, etc.
Is it a good idea? I suspect not. A big reorganisation like this eats up everyone's attention and what you get at the end of it isn't going to sway many votes. If you actually want changes that patients and the public can see, then focus on making those and don't spend your political capital on a reorganisation. You could have brought NHS England closer to the DHSC in a more gradual manner, in a less revolutionary/DOGE-y way.
Also, NHS England has the potential to do great things. Managers can be a very cost effective way of spending money. I work mostly in digital health. If you're going to realise the potential for digital, including AI, to transform healthcare, you need people in NHS England or DHSC doing that work, supporting that transformation. Cutting those roles and everyone who still has a job having to spend all their time worrying about the reorganisation, that's not going to help anything.
WATO had Jeremy Hunt on. He is broadly supportive. Sarah Montague wasn't expecting that and tried to paint it as a Lansleyesque root and branch disaster.
I too am nervous that Tories seem to like the abolition of NHS England.
Listening to Birbelsingh on Nick Ferrari. This woman is out of control. I recommend anyone with interest in schools policy to listen to this on Global Player. I was shocked. Those of a more conservative point of view will be cheered.
She's flavour of the month with the Christian Nationalists because she banned prayer rituals in school policy (no religious groups such as a Christian Union) then won a court case defending it against a challenge by Muslim pupil. I'll have a listen to Nick Ferrari. As far as I have tracked her, she seems consistent since her first speech to the Conservative Party conference 15 or 16 years ago when she was identified; I'm not sure of the process by which she was identified as Miss Snuffy.
(Religion in Public Life has been an area of interest of mine for decades, as you know.)
That lets the CNats (and GBNews etc) pretend that it's about Muslims, and reflects desire to stir things up, when it was more like a victory for "secular" school cultures excluding religion, which is one groups like the National Secular Society have been on for decades. @BartholomewRoberts may be more up to date than me on that side of it.
It was a somewhat complex argument, because iirc it was about prayer ritual in the playground as effectively a form of protest when her school refused to provide a prayer room for pupils.
The self-described "freedom of XYZ" groups take the other side than they do on "silent prayer" (ie intimidation and interference) outside abortion clinics - for some reason .
It’s interesting to see the reactions.
@Mexicanpete is shocked because it seems like restricting the *requirements* of a minority.
The GBNews take it as anti-Muslim.
Most people don’t want more religion in our schools - even the weak-tea-and-biscuits form of Christianity.
They do when the only outstanding state primary or secondary school in their area is a C of E or Roman Catholic school.
Then you get parents queuing round the block to get into the church congregation on a Sunday for the months leading up to the decision on who gets places so they can get the Vicar's reference
That's 'they have to put up with it' rather than 'want it', on your own testimony.
No they want it as it offers choice from the bog standard comp or academy down the road
No, look at your own language and logic. They only want religious schools when there is no alternative. Ergo they don't want the religion bit.
My own language is clear, as a Conservative I want as many private schools, grammar schools, religious schools, free schools, academies etc as possible ie offer a real alternative. As do parents who choose such schools.
You as a statist socialist want to give consumers one bog standard comp option in education as you dislike choice elsewhere
The illusion of choice.
My son's state primary school is non-religious until year 2, then (mildly) C of E from years 3-6. There is no religious element of the admissions process.
But we chose it because it was the best school we were in the catchment area for.
If we'd ended up living the other side of town -which we almost did until a sale fell through - he would that gone to a different, non-religious state primary school. Which is just as good.
The focus for government should be on improving the standards of all schools. The religious element is outdated and doesn't reflect the beliefs of the vast majority of parents of young children.
Just the usual one size fits all rubbish from secular leftists like you.
Nope, we need more choice and more variety of schools including more good faith schools, you could afford to buy into the catchment area of a good school, many in poorer areas can't
One huge problem with faith schools in my area, is that they are essentially selective of the better off children.
All the rules around admission mean that settled families, who can plan their children's education years in advance, have time to rack up the points their local church is handing out, and navigate the various rules, are much more likely to get places. That leads to a huge middle class bias, which in turn leads to better results, which leads to more competition for places, and the cycle goes on.
The schools get to the top of the results charts, but have shockingly few children on free school meals when compared with neighbouring non-faith schools.
I'm not religious myself, but did attend a Catholic school, and I'm not sure the Jesus that they taught us about would have approved at all. It's almost the exact opposite of "Christian", yet the local ministers seem delighted with their full churches, apparently turn a blind eye, and ignore their actual mission.
If more parents of children on free school meals went to church they would get a place at their nearest top church school, it is not difficult.
Churches still provide food banks for the poor anyway
"it is not difficult"
School uniforms, school transport for a school that may be on the other side of the city, school outings, school field trips, pressure to make donations to match well off parents ...
AND as already explained today, needing to live in one place for years.
Does your church food bank provide brioche, I wonder?
Those are costs at any school, faith or not, Outstanding faith schools also admit by church attendance unlike Outstanding secular state schools which admit on whether you can afford to buy a house in their catchment area.
Fuck the renters, then?
So let me get this right. The Conservative Party policy has been to manage state schools so badly that only approved Tory voters, ie house owners, can afford to buy in certain areas, or to pay the extra costs of sending children to faith schools?
And in all cases to pay the extre, no not fees no sir, but, erm, donations to actually help the school achieve basic work?
And to hell with the rest.
No Tory policy is to expand choice ie more free schools, faith schools, grammar schools, private schools etc so bog standard comps (and even they have top ups for trips and lunches etc) lose pupils and gradually disappear.
That is part of the point of being a Conservative, choice not enforced equality like socialists like you demand
Enforced equality = actually giving most people a chance.
You have been claiming today that for one's children to have a good education it is necessary to live in an expensive house or send them to a sectarian school. Which last means much the same thing plus spending years pretending to be sectarian.
This is the system your party set up and maintained, under the housing market your party massively inflated.
As JC did not say, fuck the renters and fuck the poor.
No enforced equality being your top down lowest common denominator, enforced acceptance of bog standard mediocrity for all, the usual socialist crap you come out with.
My party created outstanding free schools like Birbalsingh's. It is mainly in local authorities my party runs grammar schools still exist.
The Bible is of course Old Testament as much as New though even JC believed in charity not near statist Marxism like you
Unison says handling of NHS England abolition announcement 'shambolic'
"The health service needs thousands more staff and to be able to hold on to experienced employees. At the moment, it’s struggling to do that. Giving staff a decent pay rise would help no end. But this announcement will have left NHS England staff reeling. Just days ago they learned their numbers were to be slashed by half, now they discover their employer will cease to exist. The way the news of the axing has been handled is nothing short of shambolic. It could surely have been managed in a more sympathetic way."
Can confirm: my NHS England staff who I have as students are reeling.
Do you believe the 50% headcount cut can or will happen? Seems very DOGE...
I don't know. NHS England has already undergone a 40% cut in staff a few years back, so a 50% cut now is actually a smaller cut in terms of number of people! There will be some savings from not having NHSE separate from DHSC. I guess, yes, they can cut jobs if they want to.
Remember that NHS England is not the NHS in England. Most NHS staff are in hospital Trusts or primary care, etc.
Is it a good idea? I suspect not. A big reorganisation like this eats up everyone's attention and what you get at the end of it isn't going to sway many votes. If you actually want changes that patients and the public can see, then focus on making those and don't spend your political capital on a reorganisation. You could have brought NHS England closer to the DHSC in a more gradual manner, in a less revolutionary/DOGE-y way.
Also, NHS England has the potential to do great things. Managers can be a very cost effective way of spending money. I work mostly in digital health. If you're going to realise the potential for digital, including AI, to transform healthcare, you need people in NHS England or DHSC doing that work, supporting that transformation. Cutting those roles and everyone who still has a job having to spend all their time worrying about the reorganisation, that's not going to help anything.
WATO had Jeremy Hunt on. He is broadly supportive. Sarah Montague wasn't expecting that and tried to paint it as a Lansleyesque root and branch disaster.
I too am nervous that Tories seem to like the abolition of NHS England.
I don't, it is just shifting power back to Dept of Health
Jeremy Hunt is probably a bit more knowledgeable about the NHS than either you or me.
Good afternoon
It seems sensible by Starmer and I agree with Hunt
Indeed it is a pity Hunt isn't more involved for the conservatives
The question the conservatives have to answer as Starmer becomes more a conservative politician each day is why didn't they do it
My only response is since 2019 Brexit, covid and the war in Ukraine overwhelmed everything especially the 2 years of covid lockdown
The bigger issue is it will fail until social care becomes the priority, and it seems Labour just refuses to address it kicking it into the next parliament
And as for all labour's plans and talk the only thing that will matter is if the public feel better off in 2028 and things are working again
Listening to Birbelsingh on Nick Ferrari. This woman is out of control. I recommend anyone with interest in schools policy to listen to this on Global Player. I was shocked. Those of a more conservative point of view will be cheered.
She's flavour of the month with the Christian Nationalists because she banned prayer rituals in school policy (no religious groups such as a Christian Union) then won a court case defending it against a challenge by Muslim pupil. I'll have a listen to Nick Ferrari. As far as I have tracked her, she seems consistent since her first speech to the Conservative Party conference 15 or 16 years ago when she was identified; I'm not sure of the process by which she was identified as Miss Snuffy.
(Religion in Public Life has been an area of interest of mine for decades, as you know.)
That lets the CNats (and GBNews etc) pretend that it's about Muslims, and reflects desire to stir things up, when it was more like a victory for "secular" school cultures excluding religion, which is one groups like the National Secular Society have been on for decades. @BartholomewRoberts may be more up to date than me on that side of it.
It was a somewhat complex argument, because iirc it was about prayer ritual in the playground as effectively a form of protest when her school refused to provide a prayer room for pupils.
The self-described "freedom of XYZ" groups take the other side than they do on "silent prayer" (ie intimidation and interference) outside abortion clinics - for some reason .
It’s interesting to see the reactions.
@Mexicanpete is shocked because it seems like restricting the *requirements* of a minority.
The GBNews take it as anti-Muslim.
Most people don’t want more religion in our schools - even the weak-tea-and-biscuits form of Christianity.
They do when the only outstanding state primary or secondary school in their area is a C of E or Roman Catholic school.
Then you get parents queuing round the block to get into the church congregation on a Sunday for the months leading up to the decision on who gets places so they can get the Vicar's reference
That's 'they have to put up with it' rather than 'want it', on your own testimony.
No they want it as it offers choice from the bog standard comp or academy down the road
No, look at your own language and logic. They only want religious schools when there is no alternative. Ergo they don't want the religion bit.
My own language is clear, as a Conservative I want as many private schools, grammar schools, religious schools, free schools, academies etc as possible ie offer a real alternative. As do parents who choose such schools.
You as a statist socialist want to give consumers one bog standard comp option in education as you dislike choice elsewhere
The illusion of choice.
My son's state primary school is non-religious until year 2, then (mildly) C of E from years 3-6. There is no religious element of the admissions process.
But we chose it because it was the best school we were in the catchment area for.
If we'd ended up living the other side of town -which we almost did until a sale fell through - he would that gone to a different, non-religious state primary school. Which is just as good.
The focus for government should be on improving the standards of all schools. The religious element is outdated and doesn't reflect the beliefs of the vast majority of parents of young children.
Just the usual one size fits all rubbish from secular leftists like you.
Nope, we need more choice and more variety of schools including more good faith schools, you could afford to buy into the catchment area of a good school, many in poorer areas can't
One huge problem with faith schools in my area, is that they are essentially selective of the better off children.
All the rules around admission mean that settled families, who can plan their children's education years in advance, have time to rack up the points their local church is handing out, and navigate the various rules, are much more likely to get places. That leads to a huge middle class bias, which in turn leads to better results, which leads to more competition for places, and the cycle goes on.
The schools get to the top of the results charts, but have shockingly few children on free school meals when compared with neighbouring non-faith schools.
I'm not religious myself, but did attend a Catholic school, and I'm not sure the Jesus that they taught us about would have approved at all. It's almost the exact opposite of "Christian", yet the local ministers seem delighted with their full churches, apparently turn a blind eye, and ignore their actual mission.
If more parents of children on free school meals went to church they would get a place at their nearest top church school, it is not difficult.
Churches still provide food banks for the poor anyway
It's "not difficult", and yet it doesn't happen.
I'm sure I don't need to tell you, but consider the reasons why people might be poor. Relationship breakdowns, losing a job, lack of education, dealing with disabilities, death of a partner, spent time in the care system. You're much more likely to be in less secure rented accommodation and moving area more regularly. You're likely to be working in a low paid, more insecure job. You're more likely to be a single parent.
These are all reasons why planning three or even four years in advance for a school place, attending masses, and spending time doing the extra-curricular bits and pieces that all form part of the application process are much more difficult. People with better jobs, their own homes, fewer money worries, are in a much better position, and that's exactly why that middle class selection occurs.
I'm actually surprisingly angry at that response, coming from someone who I assume considers themselves a Christian (and I do apologise if you hadn't intended it to sound so dismissive). I can only hope that maybe you've had such a fortunate life, that you simply don't have an understanding of why some people have more immediate stresses on their lives, and can't spend time jumping through hoops for some benefit years down the line.
So what? You can be jobless with no money and rental accomodation and still attend church, there is no charge for it.
You can be as sanctimoniously angry as you want but you have no problem with secular outstanding state schools selected by house price which poorer parents have sod all chance of getting their kids into
I haven't mentioned anything to do with house prices once, so where you get that from I don't know. It's a total straw man.
Your first words on the other hand are simply callous. I suspect even God is shaking his head, and he's apparently quite the tolerant and forgiving type.
No God in the Ten Commandments made clear you must worship him and no other God but him, if you choose to ignore his commands that is your decision
Listening to Birbelsingh on Nick Ferrari. This woman is out of control. I recommend anyone with interest in schools policy to listen to this on Global Player. I was shocked. Those of a more conservative point of view will be cheered.
She's flavour of the month with the Christian Nationalists because she banned prayer rituals in school policy (no religious groups such as a Christian Union) then won a court case defending it against a challenge by Muslim pupil. I'll have a listen to Nick Ferrari. As far as I have tracked her, she seems consistent since her first speech to the Conservative Party conference 15 or 16 years ago when she was identified; I'm not sure of the process by which she was identified as Miss Snuffy.
(Religion in Public Life has been an area of interest of mine for decades, as you know.)
That lets the CNats (and GBNews etc) pretend that it's about Muslims, and reflects desire to stir things up, when it was more like a victory for "secular" school cultures excluding religion, which is one groups like the National Secular Society have been on for decades. @BartholomewRoberts may be more up to date than me on that side of it.
It was a somewhat complex argument, because iirc it was about prayer ritual in the playground as effectively a form of protest when her school refused to provide a prayer room for pupils.
The self-described "freedom of XYZ" groups take the other side than they do on "silent prayer" (ie intimidation and interference) outside abortion clinics - for some reason .
It’s interesting to see the reactions.
@Mexicanpete is shocked because it seems like restricting the *requirements* of a minority.
The GBNews take it as anti-Muslim.
Most people don’t want more religion in our schools - even the weak-tea-and-biscuits form of Christianity.
They do when the only outstanding state primary or secondary school in their area is a C of E or Roman Catholic school.
Then you get parents queuing round the block to get into the church congregation on a Sunday for the months leading up to the decision on who gets places so they can get the Vicar's reference
That's 'they have to put up with it' rather than 'want it', on your own testimony.
No they want it as it offers choice from the bog standard comp or academy down the road
No, look at your own language and logic. They only want religious schools when there is no alternative. Ergo they don't want the religion bit.
My own language is clear, as a Conservative I want as many private schools, grammar schools, religious schools, free schools, academies etc as possible ie offer a real alternative. As do parents who choose such schools.
You as a statist socialist want to give consumers one bog standard comp option in education as you dislike choice elsewhere
The illusion of choice.
My son's state primary school is non-religious until year 2, then (mildly) C of E from years 3-6. There is no religious element of the admissions process.
But we chose it because it was the best school we were in the catchment area for.
If we'd ended up living the other side of town -which we almost did until a sale fell through - he would that gone to a different, non-religious state primary school. Which is just as good.
The focus for government should be on improving the standards of all schools. The religious element is outdated and doesn't reflect the beliefs of the vast majority of parents of young children.
Just the usual one size fits all rubbish from secular leftists like you.
Nope, we need more choice and more variety of schools including more good faith schools, you could afford to buy into the catchment area of a good school, many in poorer areas can't
One huge problem with faith schools in my area, is that they are essentially selective of the better off children.
All the rules around admission mean that settled families, who can plan their children's education years in advance, have time to rack up the points their local church is handing out, and navigate the various rules, are much more likely to get places. That leads to a huge middle class bias, which in turn leads to better results, which leads to more competition for places, and the cycle goes on.
The schools get to the top of the results charts, but have shockingly few children on free school meals when compared with neighbouring non-faith schools.
I'm not religious myself, but did attend a Catholic school, and I'm not sure the Jesus that they taught us about would have approved at all. It's almost the exact opposite of "Christian", yet the local ministers seem delighted with their full churches, apparently turn a blind eye, and ignore their actual mission.
If more parents of children on free school meals went to church they would get a place at their nearest top church school, it is not difficult.
Churches still provide food banks for the poor anyway
"it is not difficult"
School uniforms, school transport for a school that may be on the other side of the city, school outings, school field trips, pressure to make donations to match well off parents ...
AND as already explained today, needing to live in one place for years.
Does your church food bank provide brioche, I wonder?
Those are costs at any school, faith or not, Outstanding faith schools also admit by church attendance unlike Outstanding secular state schools which admit on whether you can afford to buy a house in their catchment area.
Fuck the renters, then?
So let me get this right. The Conservative Party policy has been to manage state schools so badly that only approved Tory voters, ie house owners, can afford to buy in certain areas, or to pay the extra costs of sending children to faith schools?
And in all cases to pay the extre, no not fees no sir, but, erm, donations to actually help the school achieve basic work?
And to hell with the rest.
No Tory policy is to expand choice ie more free schools, faith schools, grammar schools, private schools etc so bog standard comps (and even they have top ups for trips and lunches etc) lose pupils and gradually disappear.
That is part of the point of being a Conservative, choice not enforced equality like socialists like you demand
Enforced equality = actually giving most people a chance.
You have been claiming today that for one's children to have a good education it is necessary to live in an expensive house or send them to a sectarian school. Which last means much the same thing plus spending years pretending to be sectarian.
This is the system your party set up and maintained, under the housing market your party massively inflated.
As JC did not say, fuck the renters and fuck the poor.
No enforced equality being your top down lowest common denominator, enforced acceptance of bog standard mediocrity for all, the usual socialist crap you come out with.
My party created outstanding free schools like Birbalsingh's. It is mainly in local authorities my party runs grammar schools still exist.
The Bible is of course Old Testament as much as New though even JC believed in charity not near statist Marxism like you
We've had this argument before, and your declarations of dogma are as boring as last time around.
Listening to Birbelsingh on Nick Ferrari. This woman is out of control. I recommend anyone with interest in schools policy to listen to this on Global Player. I was shocked. Those of a more conservative point of view will be cheered.
She's flavour of the month with the Christian Nationalists because she banned prayer rituals in school policy (no religious groups such as a Christian Union) then won a court case defending it against a challenge by Muslim pupil. I'll have a listen to Nick Ferrari. As far as I have tracked her, she seems consistent since her first speech to the Conservative Party conference 15 or 16 years ago when she was identified; I'm not sure of the process by which she was identified as Miss Snuffy.
(Religion in Public Life has been an area of interest of mine for decades, as you know.)
That lets the CNats (and GBNews etc) pretend that it's about Muslims, and reflects desire to stir things up, when it was more like a victory for "secular" school cultures excluding religion, which is one groups like the National Secular Society have been on for decades. @BartholomewRoberts may be more up to date than me on that side of it.
It was a somewhat complex argument, because iirc it was about prayer ritual in the playground as effectively a form of protest when her school refused to provide a prayer room for pupils.
The self-described "freedom of XYZ" groups take the other side than they do on "silent prayer" (ie intimidation and interference) outside abortion clinics - for some reason .
It’s interesting to see the reactions.
@Mexicanpete is shocked because it seems like restricting the *requirements* of a minority.
The GBNews take it as anti-Muslim.
Most people don’t want more religion in our schools - even the weak-tea-and-biscuits form of Christianity.
They do when the only outstanding state primary or secondary school in their area is a C of E or Roman Catholic school.
Then you get parents queuing round the block to get into the church congregation on a Sunday for the months leading up to the decision on who gets places so they can get the Vicar's reference
That's 'they have to put up with it' rather than 'want it', on your own testimony.
No they want it as it offers choice from the bog standard comp or academy down the road
No, look at your own language and logic. They only want religious schools when there is no alternative. Ergo they don't want the religion bit.
My own language is clear, as a Conservative I want as many private schools, grammar schools, religious schools, free schools, academies etc as possible ie offer a real alternative. As do parents who choose such schools.
You as a statist socialist want to give consumers one bog standard comp option in education as you dislike choice elsewhere
The illusion of choice.
My son's state primary school is non-religious until year 2, then (mildly) C of E from years 3-6. There is no religious element of the admissions process.
But we chose it because it was the best school we were in the catchment area for.
If we'd ended up living the other side of town -which we almost did until a sale fell through - he would that gone to a different, non-religious state primary school. Which is just as good.
The focus for government should be on improving the standards of all schools. The religious element is outdated and doesn't reflect the beliefs of the vast majority of parents of young children.
Just the usual one size fits all rubbish from secular leftists like you.
Nope, we need more choice and more variety of schools including more good faith schools, you could afford to buy into the catchment area of a good school, many in poorer areas can't
One huge problem with faith schools in my area, is that they are essentially selective of the better off children.
All the rules around admission mean that settled families, who can plan their children's education years in advance, have time to rack up the points their local church is handing out, and navigate the various rules, are much more likely to get places. That leads to a huge middle class bias, which in turn leads to better results, which leads to more competition for places, and the cycle goes on.
The schools get to the top of the results charts, but have shockingly few children on free school meals when compared with neighbouring non-faith schools.
I'm not religious myself, but did attend a Catholic school, and I'm not sure the Jesus that they taught us about would have approved at all. It's almost the exact opposite of "Christian", yet the local ministers seem delighted with their full churches, apparently turn a blind eye, and ignore their actual mission.
If more parents of children on free school meals went to church they would get a place at their nearest top church school, it is not difficult.
Churches still provide food banks for the poor anyway
"it is not difficult"
School uniforms, school transport for a school that may be on the other side of the city, school outings, school field trips, pressure to make donations to match well off parents ...
AND as already explained today, needing to live in one place for years.
Does your church food bank provide brioche, I wonder?
Those are costs at any school, faith or not, Outstanding faith schools also admit by church attendance unlike Outstanding secular state schools which admit on whether you can afford to buy a house in their catchment area.
Fuck the renters, then?
So let me get this right. The Conservative Party policy has been to manage state schools so badly that only approved Tory voters, ie house owners, can afford to buy in certain areas, or to pay the extra costs of sending children to faith schools?
And in all cases to pay the extre, no not fees no sir, but, erm, donations to actually help the school achieve basic work?
And to hell with the rest.
No Tory policy is to expand choice ie more free schools, faith schools, grammar schools, private schools etc so bog standard comps (and even they have top ups for trips and lunches etc) lose pupils and gradually disappear.
That is part of the point of being a Conservative, choice not enforced equality like socialists like you demand
That may be Tory policy, but it isn't what happened. You can't offer choice if you are running at full capacity. Round here there is almost no choice at all - you go to the school which has space. I am getting quite nervous about my youngest even getting into the local bog standard - it is 0.9 miles away, and this year if you were over 1.0 miles away you couldn't get in and instead are offered a failing school six miles away. Choice may exist in London, but it doesn't here.
Even more reason for more free schools, grammar schools, faith schools etc and not just in London
Well I quite agree. But why didn't that happen when the Tories were in power, if that was their policy?
There are now 650 free schools UK wide there weren't before the last Tory government
Listening to Birbelsingh on Nick Ferrari. This woman is out of control. I recommend anyone with interest in schools policy to listen to this on Global Player. I was shocked. Those of a more conservative point of view will be cheered.
She's flavour of the month with the Christian Nationalists because she banned prayer rituals in school policy (no religious groups such as a Christian Union) then won a court case defending it against a challenge by Muslim pupil. I'll have a listen to Nick Ferrari. As far as I have tracked her, she seems consistent since her first speech to the Conservative Party conference 15 or 16 years ago when she was identified; I'm not sure of the process by which she was identified as Miss Snuffy.
(Religion in Public Life has been an area of interest of mine for decades, as you know.)
That lets the CNats (and GBNews etc) pretend that it's about Muslims, and reflects desire to stir things up, when it was more like a victory for "secular" school cultures excluding religion, which is one groups like the National Secular Society have been on for decades. @BartholomewRoberts may be more up to date than me on that side of it.
It was a somewhat complex argument, because iirc it was about prayer ritual in the playground as effectively a form of protest when her school refused to provide a prayer room for pupils.
The self-described "freedom of XYZ" groups take the other side than they do on "silent prayer" (ie intimidation and interference) outside abortion clinics - for some reason .
It’s interesting to see the reactions.
@Mexicanpete is shocked because it seems like restricting the *requirements* of a minority.
The GBNews take it as anti-Muslim.
Most people don’t want more religion in our schools - even the weak-tea-and-biscuits form of Christianity.
They do when the only outstanding state primary or secondary school in their area is a C of E or Roman Catholic school.
Then you get parents queuing round the block to get into the church congregation on a Sunday for the months leading up to the decision on who gets places so they can get the Vicar's reference
That's 'they have to put up with it' rather than 'want it', on your own testimony.
No they want it as it offers choice from the bog standard comp or academy down the road
No, look at your own language and logic. They only want religious schools when there is no alternative. Ergo they don't want the religion bit.
My own language is clear, as a Conservative I want as many private schools, grammar schools, religious schools, free schools, academies etc as possible ie offer a real alternative. As do parents who choose such schools.
You as a statist socialist want to give consumers one bog standard comp option in education as you dislike choice elsewhere
The illusion of choice.
My son's state primary school is non-religious until year 2, then (mildly) C of E from years 3-6. There is no religious element of the admissions process.
But we chose it because it was the best school we were in the catchment area for.
If we'd ended up living the other side of town -which we almost did until a sale fell through - he would that gone to a different, non-religious state primary school. Which is just as good.
The focus for government should be on improving the standards of all schools. The religious element is outdated and doesn't reflect the beliefs of the vast majority of parents of young children.
Just the usual one size fits all rubbish from secular leftists like you.
Nope, we need more choice and more variety of schools including more good faith schools, you could afford to buy into the catchment area of a good school, many in poorer areas can't
One huge problem with faith schools in my area, is that they are essentially selective of the better off children.
All the rules around admission mean that settled families, who can plan their children's education years in advance, have time to rack up the points their local church is handing out, and navigate the various rules, are much more likely to get places. That leads to a huge middle class bias, which in turn leads to better results, which leads to more competition for places, and the cycle goes on.
The schools get to the top of the results charts, but have shockingly few children on free school meals when compared with neighbouring non-faith schools.
I'm not religious myself, but did attend a Catholic school, and I'm not sure the Jesus that they taught us about would have approved at all. It's almost the exact opposite of "Christian", yet the local ministers seem delighted with their full churches, apparently turn a blind eye, and ignore their actual mission.
If more parents of children on free school meals went to church they would get a place at their nearest top church school, it is not difficult.
Churches still provide food banks for the poor anyway
"it is not difficult"
School uniforms, school transport for a school that may be on the other side of the city, school outings, school field trips, pressure to make donations to match well off parents ...
AND as already explained today, needing to live in one place for years.
Does your church food bank provide brioche, I wonder?
Those are costs at any school, faith or not, Outstanding faith schools also admit by church attendance unlike Outstanding secular state schools which admit on whether you can afford to buy a house in their catchment area.
Fuck the renters, then?
So let me get this right. The Conservative Party policy has been to manage state schools so badly that only approved Tory voters, ie house owners, can afford to buy in certain areas, or to pay the extra costs of sending children to faith schools?
And in all cases to pay the extre, no not fees no sir, but, erm, donations to actually help the school achieve basic work?
And to hell with the rest.
No Tory policy is to expand choice ie more free schools, faith schools, grammar schools, private schools etc so bog standard comps (and even they have top ups for trips and lunches etc) lose pupils and gradually disappear.
That is part of the point of being a Conservative, choice not enforced equality like socialists like you demand
Enforced equality = actually giving most people a chance.
You have been claiming today that for one's children to have a good education it is necessary to live in an expensive house or send them to a sectarian school. Which last means much the same thing plus spending years pretending to be sectarian.
This is the system your party set up and maintained, under the housing market your party massively inflated.
As JC did not say, fuck the renters and fuck the poor.
No enforced equality being your top down lowest common denominator, enforced acceptance of bog standard mediocrity for all, the usual socialist crap you come out with.
My party created outstanding free schools like Birbalsingh's. It is mainly in local authorities my party runs grammar schools still exist.
The Bible is of course Old Testament as much as New though even JC believed in charity not near statist Marxism like you
We've had this argument before, and your declarations of dogma are as boring as last time around.
Also, Matthew 19;21
Your parents don't need any money at all to attend a church school, just to regularly worship the Lord
We'd have had to have persuaded the EU, but the history of the last decade and a half could have been very different.
Exactly the opposite of the post-Thatcherite "not picking winners" approacg, which was half the problem. The Chinese just sprayed money to tens of companies, and then chose the best two or three
They have an advantage on long term strategy since they don't have to show quick results to avoid losing the next election.
Unison says handling of NHS England abolition announcement 'shambolic'
"The health service needs thousands more staff and to be able to hold on to experienced employees. At the moment, it’s struggling to do that. Giving staff a decent pay rise would help no end. But this announcement will have left NHS England staff reeling. Just days ago they learned their numbers were to be slashed by half, now they discover their employer will cease to exist. The way the news of the axing has been handled is nothing short of shambolic. It could surely have been managed in a more sympathetic way."
Can confirm: my NHS England staff who I have as students are reeling.
Do you believe the 50% headcount cut can or will happen? Seems very DOGE...
I don't know. NHS England has already undergone a 40% cut in staff a few years back, so a 50% cut now is actually a smaller cut in terms of number of people! There will be some savings from not having NHSE separate from DHSC. I guess, yes, they can cut jobs if they want to.
Remember that NHS England is not the NHS in England. Most NHS staff are in hospital Trusts or primary care, etc.
Is it a good idea? I suspect not. A big reorganisation like this eats up everyone's attention and what you get at the end of it isn't going to sway many votes. If you actually want changes that patients and the public can see, then focus on making those and don't spend your political capital on a reorganisation. You could have brought NHS England closer to the DHSC in a more gradual manner, in a less revolutionary/DOGE-y way.
Also, NHS England has the potential to do great things. Managers can be a very cost effective way of spending money. I work mostly in digital health. If you're going to realise the potential for digital, including AI, to transform healthcare, you need people in NHS England or DHSC doing that work, supporting that transformation. Cutting those roles and everyone who still has a job having to spend all their time worrying about the reorganisation, that's not going to help anything.
WATO had Jeremy Hunt on. He is broadly supportive. Sarah Montague wasn't expecting that and tried to paint it as a Lansleyesque root and branch disaster.
I too am nervous that Tories seem to like the abolition of NHS England.
Which is odd (!) since they set it up.
Seen the error of their ways perhaps?
It is to be hoped so. I had just left the NHS when the Tories started on Lansley's reforms and I was very glad to be out of it. Struck me as a mess from top to bottom.
Unison says handling of NHS England abolition announcement 'shambolic'
"The health service needs thousands more staff and to be able to hold on to experienced employees. At the moment, it’s struggling to do that. Giving staff a decent pay rise would help no end. But this announcement will have left NHS England staff reeling. Just days ago they learned their numbers were to be slashed by half, now they discover their employer will cease to exist. The way the news of the axing has been handled is nothing short of shambolic. It could surely have been managed in a more sympathetic way."
Can confirm: my NHS England staff who I have as students are reeling.
Do you believe the 50% headcount cut can or will happen? Seems very DOGE...
I don't know. NHS England has already undergone a 40% cut in staff a few years back, so a 50% cut now is actually a smaller cut in terms of number of people! There will be some savings from not having NHSE separate from DHSC. I guess, yes, they can cut jobs if they want to.
Remember that NHS England is not the NHS in England. Most NHS staff are in hospital Trusts or primary care, etc.
Is it a good idea? I suspect not. A big reorganisation like this eats up everyone's attention and what you get at the end of it isn't going to sway many votes. If you actually want changes that patients and the public can see, then focus on making those and don't spend your political capital on a reorganisation. You could have brought NHS England closer to the DHSC in a more gradual manner, in a less revolutionary/DOGE-y way.
Also, NHS England has the potential to do great things. Managers can be a very cost effective way of spending money. I work mostly in digital health. If you're going to realise the potential for digital, including AI, to transform healthcare, you need people in NHS England or DHSC doing that work, supporting that transformation. Cutting those roles and everyone who still has a job having to spend all their time worrying about the reorganisation, that's not going to help anything.
I'm not sure it fully counts as a "reorganisation" that would slow things down. Labour have been briefing for the last month, that it was the duplication of leadership that was the biggest problem. Even if everyone is doing a good job, there are going to be differing opinions with NHS England and the DHSC both "in charge". Their hope is that this will speed things up, rather than slow them down. Whether that turns out to be true, we'll find out, but at least the Government will have nowhere to hide if it doesn't.
The jobs issue I understand. Aren't there a lot of vacancies throughout the NHS though? I completely agree with the management point, and it's been argued that, if anything, the NHS is undermanaged, so you'd hope that they are offered new roles where their contribution is more appreciated.
Listening to Birbelsingh on Nick Ferrari. This woman is out of control. I recommend anyone with interest in schools policy to listen to this on Global Player. I was shocked. Those of a more conservative point of view will be cheered.
She's flavour of the month with the Christian Nationalists because she banned prayer rituals in school policy (no religious groups such as a Christian Union) then won a court case defending it against a challenge by Muslim pupil. I'll have a listen to Nick Ferrari. As far as I have tracked her, she seems consistent since her first speech to the Conservative Party conference 15 or 16 years ago when she was identified; I'm not sure of the process by which she was identified as Miss Snuffy.
(Religion in Public Life has been an area of interest of mine for decades, as you know.)
That lets the CNats (and GBNews etc) pretend that it's about Muslims, and reflects desire to stir things up, when it was more like a victory for "secular" school cultures excluding religion, which is one groups like the National Secular Society have been on for decades. @BartholomewRoberts may be more up to date than me on that side of it.
It was a somewhat complex argument, because iirc it was about prayer ritual in the playground as effectively a form of protest when her school refused to provide a prayer room for pupils.
The self-described "freedom of XYZ" groups take the other side than they do on "silent prayer" (ie intimidation and interference) outside abortion clinics - for some reason .
It’s interesting to see the reactions.
@Mexicanpete is shocked because it seems like restricting the *requirements* of a minority.
The GBNews take it as anti-Muslim.
Most people don’t want more religion in our schools - even the weak-tea-and-biscuits form of Christianity.
They do when the only outstanding state primary or secondary school in their area is a C of E or Roman Catholic school.
Then you get parents queuing round the block to get into the church congregation on a Sunday for the months leading up to the decision on who gets places so they can get the Vicar's reference
That's 'they have to put up with it' rather than 'want it', on your own testimony.
No they want it as it offers choice from the bog standard comp or academy down the road
No, look at your own language and logic. They only want religious schools when there is no alternative. Ergo they don't want the religion bit.
My own language is clear, as a Conservative I want as many private schools, grammar schools, religious schools, free schools, academies etc as possible ie offer a real alternative. As do parents who choose such schools.
You as a statist socialist want to give consumers one bog standard comp option in education as you dislike choice elsewhere
The illusion of choice.
My son's state primary school is non-religious until year 2, then (mildly) C of E from years 3-6. There is no religious element of the admissions process.
But we chose it because it was the best school we were in the catchment area for.
If we'd ended up living the other side of town -which we almost did until a sale fell through - he would that gone to a different, non-religious state primary school. Which is just as good.
The focus for government should be on improving the standards of all schools. The religious element is outdated and doesn't reflect the beliefs of the vast majority of parents of young children.
Just the usual one size fits all rubbish from secular leftists like you.
Nope, we need more choice and more variety of schools including more good faith schools, you could afford to buy into the catchment area of a good school, many in poorer areas can't
One huge problem with faith schools in my area, is that they are essentially selective of the better off children.
All the rules around admission mean that settled families, who can plan their children's education years in advance, have time to rack up the points their local church is handing out, and navigate the various rules, are much more likely to get places. That leads to a huge middle class bias, which in turn leads to better results, which leads to more competition for places, and the cycle goes on.
The schools get to the top of the results charts, but have shockingly few children on free school meals when compared with neighbouring non-faith schools.
I'm not religious myself, but did attend a Catholic school, and I'm not sure the Jesus that they taught us about would have approved at all. It's almost the exact opposite of "Christian", yet the local ministers seem delighted with their full churches, apparently turn a blind eye, and ignore their actual mission.
If more parents of children on free school meals went to church they would get a place at their nearest top church school, it is not difficult.
Churches still provide food banks for the poor anyway
It's "not difficult", and yet it doesn't happen.
I'm sure I don't need to tell you, but consider the reasons why people might be poor. Relationship breakdowns, losing a job, lack of education, dealing with disabilities, death of a partner, spent time in the care system. You're much more likely to be in less secure rented accommodation and moving area more regularly. You're likely to be working in a low paid, more insecure job. You're more likely to be a single parent.
These are all reasons why planning three or even four years in advance for a school place, attending masses, and spending time doing the extra-curricular bits and pieces that all form part of the application process are much more difficult. People with better jobs, their own homes, fewer money worries, are in a much better position, and that's exactly why that middle class selection occurs.
I'm actually surprisingly angry at that response, coming from someone who I assume considers themselves a Christian (and I do apologise if you hadn't intended it to sound so dismissive). I can only hope that maybe you've had such a fortunate life, that you simply don't have an understanding of why some people have more immediate stresses on their lives, and can't spend time jumping through hoops for some benefit years down the line.
So what? You can be jobless with no money and rental accomodation and still attend church, there is no charge for it.
You can be as sanctimoniously angry as you want but you have no problem with secular outstanding state schools selected by house price which poorer parents have sod all chance of getting their kids into
I haven't mentioned anything to do with house prices once, so where you get that from I don't know. It's a total straw man.
Your first words on the other hand are simply callous. I suspect even God is shaking his head, and he's apparently quite the tolerant and forgiving type.
No God in the Ten Commandments made clear you must worship him and no other God but him, if you choose to ignore his commands that is your decision
Well, that's the best way to kill an argument stone dead
Listening to Birbelsingh on Nick Ferrari. This woman is out of control. I recommend anyone with interest in schools policy to listen to this on Global Player. I was shocked. Those of a more conservative point of view will be cheered.
She's flavour of the month with the Christian Nationalists because she banned prayer rituals in school policy (no religious groups such as a Christian Union) then won a court case defending it against a challenge by Muslim pupil. I'll have a listen to Nick Ferrari. As far as I have tracked her, she seems consistent since her first speech to the Conservative Party conference 15 or 16 years ago when she was identified; I'm not sure of the process by which she was identified as Miss Snuffy.
(Religion in Public Life has been an area of interest of mine for decades, as you know.)
That lets the CNats (and GBNews etc) pretend that it's about Muslims, and reflects desire to stir things up, when it was more like a victory for "secular" school cultures excluding religion, which is one groups like the National Secular Society have been on for decades. @BartholomewRoberts may be more up to date than me on that side of it.
It was a somewhat complex argument, because iirc it was about prayer ritual in the playground as effectively a form of protest when her school refused to provide a prayer room for pupils.
The self-described "freedom of XYZ" groups take the other side than they do on "silent prayer" (ie intimidation and interference) outside abortion clinics - for some reason .
It’s interesting to see the reactions.
@Mexicanpete is shocked because it seems like restricting the *requirements* of a minority.
The GBNews take it as anti-Muslim.
Most people don’t want more religion in our schools - even the weak-tea-and-biscuits form of Christianity.
They do when the only outstanding state primary or secondary school in their area is a C of E or Roman Catholic school.
Then you get parents queuing round the block to get into the church congregation on a Sunday for the months leading up to the decision on who gets places so they can get the Vicar's reference
That's 'they have to put up with it' rather than 'want it', on your own testimony.
No they want it as it offers choice from the bog standard comp or academy down the road
No, look at your own language and logic. They only want religious schools when there is no alternative. Ergo they don't want the religion bit.
My own language is clear, as a Conservative I want as many private schools, grammar schools, religious schools, free schools, academies etc as possible ie offer a real alternative. As do parents who choose such schools.
You as a statist socialist want to give consumers one bog standard comp option in education as you dislike choice elsewhere
The illusion of choice.
My son's state primary school is non-religious until year 2, then (mildly) C of E from years 3-6. There is no religious element of the admissions process.
But we chose it because it was the best school we were in the catchment area for.
If we'd ended up living the other side of town -which we almost did until a sale fell through - he would that gone to a different, non-religious state primary school. Which is just as good.
The focus for government should be on improving the standards of all schools. The religious element is outdated and doesn't reflect the beliefs of the vast majority of parents of young children.
Just the usual one size fits all rubbish from secular leftists like you.
Nope, we need more choice and more variety of schools including more good faith schools, you could afford to buy into the catchment area of a good school, many in poorer areas can't
One huge problem with faith schools in my area, is that they are essentially selective of the better off children.
All the rules around admission mean that settled families, who can plan their children's education years in advance, have time to rack up the points their local church is handing out, and navigate the various rules, are much more likely to get places. That leads to a huge middle class bias, which in turn leads to better results, which leads to more competition for places, and the cycle goes on.
The schools get to the top of the results charts, but have shockingly few children on free school meals when compared with neighbouring non-faith schools.
I'm not religious myself, but did attend a Catholic school, and I'm not sure the Jesus that they taught us about would have approved at all. It's almost the exact opposite of "Christian", yet the local ministers seem delighted with their full churches, apparently turn a blind eye, and ignore their actual mission.
If more parents of children on free school meals went to church they would get a place at their nearest top church school, it is not difficult.
Churches still provide food banks for the poor anyway
It's "not difficult", and yet it doesn't happen.
I'm sure I don't need to tell you, but consider the reasons why people might be poor. Relationship breakdowns, losing a job, lack of education, dealing with disabilities, death of a partner, spent time in the care system. You're much more likely to be in less secure rented accommodation and moving area more regularly. You're likely to be working in a low paid, more insecure job. You're more likely to be a single parent.
These are all reasons why planning three or even four years in advance for a school place, attending masses, and spending time doing the extra-curricular bits and pieces that all form part of the application process are much more difficult. People with better jobs, their own homes, fewer money worries, are in a much better position, and that's exactly why that middle class selection occurs.
I'm actually surprisingly angry at that response, coming from someone who I assume considers themselves a Christian (and I do apologise if you hadn't intended it to sound so dismissive). I can only hope that maybe you've had such a fortunate life, that you simply don't have an understanding of why some people have more immediate stresses on their lives, and can't spend time jumping through hoops for some benefit years down the line.
So what? You can be jobless with no money and rental accomodation and still attend church, there is no charge for it.
You can be as sanctimoniously angry as you want but you have no problem with secular outstanding state schools selected by house price which poorer parents have sod all chance of getting their kids into
I haven't mentioned anything to do with house prices once, so where you get that from I don't know. It's a total straw man.
Your first words on the other hand are simply callous. I suspect even God is shaking his head, and he's apparently quite the tolerant and forgiving type.
No God in the Ten Commandments made clear you must worship him and no other God but him, if you choose to ignore his commands that is your decision
Evangelical Christianity like the Church of England is becoming a cult and frankly is dying on it's feet and it is not hard to see why
Some of the stuff you spout in the name of Christ is the polar opposite of His thinking, and you are not the judge of any persons relationship with his/her God as that is personal to all peoples and their faiths
You need to understand the wise words of Dave Allen who ended his shows with the lovely advice
If you didn't already have enough reasons to not buy a Swastikar...
The Highway Patrol’s investigation into a November Cybertruck crash in Piedmont where three college kids died is finding two very Tesla problems: the vehicle immediately caught fire, and its doors would not open.
Listening to Birbelsingh on Nick Ferrari. This woman is out of control. I recommend anyone with interest in schools policy to listen to this on Global Player. I was shocked. Those of a more conservative point of view will be cheered.
She's flavour of the month with the Christian Nationalists because she banned prayer rituals in school policy (no religious groups such as a Christian Union) then won a court case defending it against a challenge by Muslim pupil. I'll have a listen to Nick Ferrari. As far as I have tracked her, she seems consistent since her first speech to the Conservative Party conference 15 or 16 years ago when she was identified; I'm not sure of the process by which she was identified as Miss Snuffy.
(Religion in Public Life has been an area of interest of mine for decades, as you know.)
That lets the CNats (and GBNews etc) pretend that it's about Muslims, and reflects desire to stir things up, when it was more like a victory for "secular" school cultures excluding religion, which is one groups like the National Secular Society have been on for decades. @BartholomewRoberts may be more up to date than me on that side of it.
It was a somewhat complex argument, because iirc it was about prayer ritual in the playground as effectively a form of protest when her school refused to provide a prayer room for pupils.
The self-described "freedom of XYZ" groups take the other side than they do on "silent prayer" (ie intimidation and interference) outside abortion clinics - for some reason .
It’s interesting to see the reactions.
@Mexicanpete is shocked because it seems like restricting the *requirements* of a minority.
The GBNews take it as anti-Muslim.
Most people don’t want more religion in our schools - even the weak-tea-and-biscuits form of Christianity.
They do when the only outstanding state primary or secondary school in their area is a C of E or Roman Catholic school.
Then you get parents queuing round the block to get into the church congregation on a Sunday for the months leading up to the decision on who gets places so they can get the Vicar's reference
That's 'they have to put up with it' rather than 'want it', on your own testimony.
No they want it as it offers choice from the bog standard comp or academy down the road
No, look at your own language and logic. They only want religious schools when there is no alternative. Ergo they don't want the religion bit.
My own language is clear, as a Conservative I want as many private schools, grammar schools, religious schools, free schools, academies etc as possible ie offer a real alternative. As do parents who choose such schools.
You as a statist socialist want to give consumers one bog standard comp option in education as you dislike choice elsewhere
The illusion of choice.
My son's state primary school is non-religious until year 2, then (mildly) C of E from years 3-6. There is no religious element of the admissions process.
But we chose it because it was the best school we were in the catchment area for.
If we'd ended up living the other side of town -which we almost did until a sale fell through - he would that gone to a different, non-religious state primary school. Which is just as good.
The focus for government should be on improving the standards of all schools. The religious element is outdated and doesn't reflect the beliefs of the vast majority of parents of young children.
Just the usual one size fits all rubbish from secular leftists like you.
Nope, we need more choice and more variety of schools including more good faith schools, you could afford to buy into the catchment area of a good school, many in poorer areas can't
One huge problem with faith schools in my area, is that they are essentially selective of the better off children.
All the rules around admission mean that settled families, who can plan their children's education years in advance, have time to rack up the points their local church is handing out, and navigate the various rules, are much more likely to get places. That leads to a huge middle class bias, which in turn leads to better results, which leads to more competition for places, and the cycle goes on.
The schools get to the top of the results charts, but have shockingly few children on free school meals when compared with neighbouring non-faith schools.
I'm not religious myself, but did attend a Catholic school, and I'm not sure the Jesus that they taught us about would have approved at all. It's almost the exact opposite of "Christian", yet the local ministers seem delighted with their full churches, apparently turn a blind eye, and ignore their actual mission.
If more parents of children on free school meals went to church they would get a place at their nearest top church school, it is not difficult.
Churches still provide food banks for the poor anyway
"it is not difficult"
School uniforms, school transport for a school that may be on the other side of the city, school outings, school field trips, pressure to make donations to match well off parents ...
AND as already explained today, needing to live in one place for years.
Does your church food bank provide brioche, I wonder?
Those are costs at any school, faith or not, Outstanding faith schools also admit by church attendance unlike Outstanding secular state schools which admit on whether you can afford to buy a house in their catchment area.
Fuck the renters, then?
So let me get this right. The Conservative Party policy has been to manage state schools so badly that only approved Tory voters, ie house owners, can afford to buy in certain areas, or to pay the extra costs of sending children to faith schools?
And in all cases to pay the extre, no not fees no sir, but, erm, donations to actually help the school achieve basic work?
And to hell with the rest.
No Tory policy is to expand choice ie more free schools, faith schools, grammar schools, private schools etc so bog standard comps (and even they have top ups for trips and lunches etc) lose pupils and gradually disappear.
That is part of the point of being a Conservative, choice not enforced equality like socialists like you demand
That may be Tory policy, but it isn't what happened. You can't offer choice if you are running at full capacity. Round here there is almost no choice at all - you go to the school which has space. I am getting quite nervous about my youngest even getting into the local bog standard - it is 0.9 miles away, and this year if you were over 1.0 miles away you couldn't get in and instead are offered a failing school six miles away. Choice may exist in London, but it doesn't here.
Even more reason for more free schools, grammar schools, faith schools etc and not just in London
Well I quite agree. But why didn't that happen when the Tories were in power, if that was their policy?
There are now 650 free schools UK wide there weren't before the last Tory government
Yet when the Tories came to power there was a choice of schools here. There isn't now. There are fewer and fewer school places available. In Trafford, in the last sixteen years, the growth in 11-18 year olds has massively outstripped the growth in school places.
Listening to Birbelsingh on Nick Ferrari. This woman is out of control. I recommend anyone with interest in schools policy to listen to this on Global Player. I was shocked. Those of a more conservative point of view will be cheered.
She's flavour of the month with the Christian Nationalists because she banned prayer rituals in school policy (no religious groups such as a Christian Union) then won a court case defending it against a challenge by Muslim pupil. I'll have a listen to Nick Ferrari. As far as I have tracked her, she seems consistent since her first speech to the Conservative Party conference 15 or 16 years ago when she was identified; I'm not sure of the process by which she was identified as Miss Snuffy.
(Religion in Public Life has been an area of interest of mine for decades, as you know.)
That lets the CNats (and GBNews etc) pretend that it's about Muslims, and reflects desire to stir things up, when it was more like a victory for "secular" school cultures excluding religion, which is one groups like the National Secular Society have been on for decades. @BartholomewRoberts may be more up to date than me on that side of it.
It was a somewhat complex argument, because iirc it was about prayer ritual in the playground as effectively a form of protest when her school refused to provide a prayer room for pupils.
The self-described "freedom of XYZ" groups take the other side than they do on "silent prayer" (ie intimidation and interference) outside abortion clinics - for some reason .
It’s interesting to see the reactions.
@Mexicanpete is shocked because it seems like restricting the *requirements* of a minority.
The GBNews take it as anti-Muslim.
Most people don’t want more religion in our schools - even the weak-tea-and-biscuits form of Christianity.
They do when the only outstanding state primary or secondary school in their area is a C of E or Roman Catholic school.
Then you get parents queuing round the block to get into the church congregation on a Sunday for the months leading up to the decision on who gets places so they can get the Vicar's reference
That's 'they have to put up with it' rather than 'want it', on your own testimony.
No they want it as it offers choice from the bog standard comp or academy down the road
No, look at your own language and logic. They only want religious schools when there is no alternative. Ergo they don't want the religion bit.
My own language is clear, as a Conservative I want as many private schools, grammar schools, religious schools, free schools, academies etc as possible ie offer a real alternative. As do parents who choose such schools.
You as a statist socialist want to give consumers one bog standard comp option in education as you dislike choice elsewhere
The illusion of choice.
My son's state primary school is non-religious until year 2, then (mildly) C of E from years 3-6. There is no religious element of the admissions process.
But we chose it because it was the best school we were in the catchment area for.
If we'd ended up living the other side of town -which we almost did until a sale fell through - he would that gone to a different, non-religious state primary school. Which is just as good.
The focus for government should be on improving the standards of all schools. The religious element is outdated and doesn't reflect the beliefs of the vast majority of parents of young children.
Just the usual one size fits all rubbish from secular leftists like you.
Nope, we need more choice and more variety of schools including more good faith schools, you could afford to buy into the catchment area of a good school, many in poorer areas can't
One huge problem with faith schools in my area, is that they are essentially selective of the better off children.
All the rules around admission mean that settled families, who can plan their children's education years in advance, have time to rack up the points their local church is handing out, and navigate the various rules, are much more likely to get places. That leads to a huge middle class bias, which in turn leads to better results, which leads to more competition for places, and the cycle goes on.
The schools get to the top of the results charts, but have shockingly few children on free school meals when compared with neighbouring non-faith schools.
I'm not religious myself, but did attend a Catholic school, and I'm not sure the Jesus that they taught us about would have approved at all. It's almost the exact opposite of "Christian", yet the local ministers seem delighted with their full churches, apparently turn a blind eye, and ignore their actual mission.
If more parents of children on free school meals went to church they would get a place at their nearest top church school, it is not difficult.
Churches still provide food banks for the poor anyway
"it is not difficult"
School uniforms, school transport for a school that may be on the other side of the city, school outings, school field trips, pressure to make donations to match well off parents ...
AND as already explained today, needing to live in one place for years.
Does your church food bank provide brioche, I wonder?
Those are costs at any school, faith or not, Outstanding faith schools also admit by church attendance unlike Outstanding secular state schools which admit on whether you can afford to buy a house in their catchment area.
Fuck the renters, then?
So let me get this right. The Conservative Party policy has been to manage state schools so badly that only approved Tory voters, ie house owners, can afford to buy in certain areas, or to pay the extra costs of sending children to faith schools?
And in all cases to pay the extre, no not fees no sir, but, erm, donations to actually help the school achieve basic work?
And to hell with the rest.
No Tory policy is to expand choice ie more free schools, faith schools, grammar schools, private schools etc so bog standard comps (and even they have top ups for trips and lunches etc) lose pupils and gradually disappear.
That is part of the point of being a Conservative, choice not enforced equality like socialists like you demand
Enforced equality = actually giving most people a chance.
You have been claiming today that for one's children to have a good education it is necessary to live in an expensive house or send them to a sectarian school. Which last means much the same thing plus spending years pretending to be sectarian.
This is the system your party set up and maintained, under the housing market your party massively inflated.
As JC did not say, fuck the renters and fuck the poor.
No enforced equality being your top down lowest common denominator, enforced acceptance of bog standard mediocrity for all, the usual socialist crap you come out with.
My party created outstanding free schools like Birbalsingh's. It is mainly in local authorities my party runs grammar schools still exist.
The Bible is of course Old Testament as much as New though even JC believed in charity not near statist Marxism like you
We've had this argument before, and your declarations of dogma are as boring as last time around.
Also, Matthew 19;21
Your parents don't need any money at all to attend a church school, just to regularly worship the Lord
If you believes that then you are more naive then I thought
Unison says handling of NHS England abolition announcement 'shambolic'
"The health service needs thousands more staff and to be able to hold on to experienced employees. At the moment, it’s struggling to do that. Giving staff a decent pay rise would help no end. But this announcement will have left NHS England staff reeling. Just days ago they learned their numbers were to be slashed by half, now they discover their employer will cease to exist. The way the news of the axing has been handled is nothing short of shambolic. It could surely have been managed in a more sympathetic way."
Can confirm: my NHS England staff who I have as students are reeling.
Do you believe the 50% headcount cut can or will happen? Seems very DOGE...
I don't know. NHS England has already undergone a 40% cut in staff a few years back, so a 50% cut now is actually a smaller cut in terms of number of people! There will be some savings from not having NHSE separate from DHSC. I guess, yes, they can cut jobs if they want to.
Remember that NHS England is not the NHS in England. Most NHS staff are in hospital Trusts or primary care, etc.
Is it a good idea? I suspect not. A big reorganisation like this eats up everyone's attention and what you get at the end of it isn't going to sway many votes. If you actually want changes that patients and the public can see, then focus on making those and don't spend your political capital on a reorganisation. You could have brought NHS England closer to the DHSC in a more gradual manner, in a less revolutionary/DOGE-y way.
Also, NHS England has the potential to do great things. Managers can be a very cost effective way of spending money. I work mostly in digital health. If you're going to realise the potential for digital, including AI, to transform healthcare, you need people in NHS England or DHSC doing that work, supporting that transformation. Cutting those roles and everyone who still has a job having to spend all their time worrying about the reorganisation, that's not going to help anything.
WATO had Jeremy Hunt on. He is broadly supportive. Sarah Montague wasn't expecting that and tried to paint it as a Lansleyesque root and branch disaster.
I too am nervous that Tories seem to like the abolition of NHS England.
I don't, it is just shifting power back to Dept of Health
Jeremy Hunt is probably a bit more knowledgeable about the NHS than either you or me.
Good afternoon
It seems sensible by Starmer and I agree with Hunt
Indeed it is a pity Hunt isn't more involved for the conservatives
The question the conservatives have to answer as Starmer becomes more a conservative politician each day is why didn't they do it
My only response is since 2019 Brexit, covid and the war in Ukraine overwhelmed everything especially the 2 years of covid lockdown
The bigger issue is it will fail until social care becomes the priority, and it seems Labour just refuses to address it kicking it into the next parliament
And as for all labour's plans and talk the only thing that will matter is if the public feel better off in 2028 and things are working again
Most of the work that I do is commissioned locally by the Integrated Care Board (ICB, the successors to PCT's), but some of my work is commissioned nationally by NHS England, as they deal with and quality control work that spreads over broader areas, and also certain regional and national specialist services that are beyond the remit of a single ICB. Our junior doctors training is fia NHS England too.
It looks to me like a further centralisation bringing that directly under the control of the DHSC. I don't think there are going to be significant savings unless there are fewer demands. We could simply scrap some reporting and budget lines, but does the DHSC really not want data on our waiting times, outcomes, complication rates etc? If they still want all that then someone somewhere else will be diverted to that work.
The way to cut bureaucracy is to cut demands, but that is something that Ministers never want to do.
Isn't that quite a serious mental health issue? Munchausen? Patients typically have a history of child abuse, severe illness etc. If you spend a lot of time in hospital as a kid you can get it.
It would be typical of the Telegraph to take a real problem that causes a great deal of hurt and use it as an example of a dodgy welfare system. And only 23 people, lol. There are millions of people on incapacity benefits, and most them are physical issues for people aged over 50.
Listening to Birbelsingh on Nick Ferrari. This woman is out of control. I recommend anyone with interest in schools policy to listen to this on Global Player. I was shocked. Those of a more conservative point of view will be cheered.
She's flavour of the month with the Christian Nationalists because she banned prayer rituals in school policy (no religious groups such as a Christian Union) then won a court case defending it against a challenge by Muslim pupil. I'll have a listen to Nick Ferrari. As far as I have tracked her, she seems consistent since her first speech to the Conservative Party conference 15 or 16 years ago when she was identified; I'm not sure of the process by which she was identified as Miss Snuffy.
(Religion in Public Life has been an area of interest of mine for decades, as you know.)
That lets the CNats (and GBNews etc) pretend that it's about Muslims, and reflects desire to stir things up, when it was more like a victory for "secular" school cultures excluding religion, which is one groups like the National Secular Society have been on for decades. @BartholomewRoberts may be more up to date than me on that side of it.
It was a somewhat complex argument, because iirc it was about prayer ritual in the playground as effectively a form of protest when her school refused to provide a prayer room for pupils.
The self-described "freedom of XYZ" groups take the other side than they do on "silent prayer" (ie intimidation and interference) outside abortion clinics - for some reason .
It’s interesting to see the reactions.
@Mexicanpete is shocked because it seems like restricting the *requirements* of a minority.
The GBNews take it as anti-Muslim.
Most people don’t want more religion in our schools - even the weak-tea-and-biscuits form of Christianity.
They do when the only outstanding state primary or secondary school in their area is a C of E or Roman Catholic school.
Then you get parents queuing round the block to get into the church congregation on a Sunday for the months leading up to the decision on who gets places so they can get the Vicar's reference
That's 'they have to put up with it' rather than 'want it', on your own testimony.
No they want it as it offers choice from the bog standard comp or academy down the road
No, look at your own language and logic. They only want religious schools when there is no alternative. Ergo they don't want the religion bit.
My own language is clear, as a Conservative I want as many private schools, grammar schools, religious schools, free schools, academies etc as possible ie offer a real alternative. As do parents who choose such schools.
You as a statist socialist want to give consumers one bog standard comp option in education as you dislike choice elsewhere
The illusion of choice.
My son's state primary school is non-religious until year 2, then (mildly) C of E from years 3-6. There is no religious element of the admissions process.
But we chose it because it was the best school we were in the catchment area for.
If we'd ended up living the other side of town -which we almost did until a sale fell through - he would that gone to a different, non-religious state primary school. Which is just as good.
The focus for government should be on improving the standards of all schools. The religious element is outdated and doesn't reflect the beliefs of the vast majority of parents of young children.
Just the usual one size fits all rubbish from secular leftists like you.
Nope, we need more choice and more variety of schools including more good faith schools, you could afford to buy into the catchment area of a good school, many in poorer areas can't
One huge problem with faith schools in my area, is that they are essentially selective of the better off children.
All the rules around admission mean that settled families, who can plan their children's education years in advance, have time to rack up the points their local church is handing out, and navigate the various rules, are much more likely to get places. That leads to a huge middle class bias, which in turn leads to better results, which leads to more competition for places, and the cycle goes on.
The schools get to the top of the results charts, but have shockingly few children on free school meals when compared with neighbouring non-faith schools.
I'm not religious myself, but did attend a Catholic school, and I'm not sure the Jesus that they taught us about would have approved at all. It's almost the exact opposite of "Christian", yet the local ministers seem delighted with their full churches, apparently turn a blind eye, and ignore their actual mission.
If more parents of children on free school meals went to church they would get a place at their nearest top church school, it is not difficult.
Churches still provide food banks for the poor anyway
"it is not difficult"
School uniforms, school transport for a school that may be on the other side of the city, school outings, school field trips, pressure to make donations to match well off parents ...
AND as already explained today, needing to live in one place for years.
Does your church food bank provide brioche, I wonder?
Those are costs at any school, faith or not, Outstanding faith schools also admit by church attendance unlike Outstanding secular state schools which admit on whether you can afford to buy a house in their catchment area.
Fuck the renters, then?
So let me get this right. The Conservative Party policy has been to manage state schools so badly that only approved Tory voters, ie house owners, can afford to buy in certain areas, or to pay the extra costs of sending children to faith schools?
And in all cases to pay the extre, no not fees no sir, but, erm, donations to actually help the school achieve basic work?
And to hell with the rest.
No Tory policy is to expand choice ie more free schools, faith schools, grammar schools, private schools etc so bog standard comps (and even they have top ups for trips and lunches etc) lose pupils and gradually disappear.
That is part of the point of being a Conservative, choice not enforced equality like socialists like you demand
Enforced equality = actually giving most people a chance.
You have been claiming today that for one's children to have a good education it is necessary to live in an expensive house or send them to a sectarian school. Which last means much the same thing plus spending years pretending to be sectarian.
This is the system your party set up and maintained, under the housing market your party massively inflated.
As JC did not say, fuck the renters and fuck the poor.
No enforced equality being your top down lowest common denominator, enforced acceptance of bog standard mediocrity for all, the usual socialist crap you come out with.
My party created outstanding free schools like Birbalsingh's. It is mainly in local authorities my party runs grammar schools still exist.
The Bible is of course Old Testament as much as New though even JC believed in charity not near statist Marxism like you
We've had this argument before, and your declarations of dogma are as boring as last time around.
Also, Matthew 19;21
Your parents don't need any money at all to attend a church school, just to regularly worship the Lord
If you believes that then you are more naive then I thought
It is true, church state schools where they select do so by parental church attendance not parental wallet
In economic terms, can Europe survive an American collapse by allying with China ?
It may become the only option for Europe, including Britain.
The UK, and the big economies of Europe, need to stand on their own two feet, rather than looking for some big boy to protect them.
The US has played that role for 80 years. I doubt without similar patronage from a much larger partner the UK could survive, especially outside the E.U. It would need very much stronger trade links with China just to start with, I expect.
Bollocks. Switzerland manages fine.
But with a population of just 8 million, who are docile, highly conscientious, and well-organised.
The UK is pretty different.
Switzerland is not in the EU, or indeed even the EEA any more, but it is very close integrated with the EU. It is as closely integrated as you can be without actually being in it. You can definitely count it as part of the European/EU bloc.
But without the political interference from the EU. Seems a very good solution to me.
Switzerland is very definitely not free of political interference from the EU. They have negotiated a special relationship and managed to maintain certain rules that they wanted to, but by and large they are rule followers not rule makers on most EU rules.
They have an absolute choice whether or not to follow EU rules with the decisions being made by the people via regular referendums. That seems a far preferable situation to EU membership where there is no choice but to follow EU legislation and the people gave no say in the decision making.
Listening to Birbelsingh on Nick Ferrari. This woman is out of control. I recommend anyone with interest in schools policy to listen to this on Global Player. I was shocked. Those of a more conservative point of view will be cheered.
She's flavour of the month with the Christian Nationalists because she banned prayer rituals in school policy (no religious groups such as a Christian Union) then won a court case defending it against a challenge by Muslim pupil. I'll have a listen to Nick Ferrari. As far as I have tracked her, she seems consistent since her first speech to the Conservative Party conference 15 or 16 years ago when she was identified; I'm not sure of the process by which she was identified as Miss Snuffy.
(Religion in Public Life has been an area of interest of mine for decades, as you know.)
That lets the CNats (and GBNews etc) pretend that it's about Muslims, and reflects desire to stir things up, when it was more like a victory for "secular" school cultures excluding religion, which is one groups like the National Secular Society have been on for decades. @BartholomewRoberts may be more up to date than me on that side of it.
It was a somewhat complex argument, because iirc it was about prayer ritual in the playground as effectively a form of protest when her school refused to provide a prayer room for pupils.
The self-described "freedom of XYZ" groups take the other side than they do on "silent prayer" (ie intimidation and interference) outside abortion clinics - for some reason .
It’s interesting to see the reactions.
@Mexicanpete is shocked because it seems like restricting the *requirements* of a minority.
The GBNews take it as anti-Muslim.
Most people don’t want more religion in our schools - even the weak-tea-and-biscuits form of Christianity.
They do when the only outstanding state primary or secondary school in their area is a C of E or Roman Catholic school.
Then you get parents queuing round the block to get into the church congregation on a Sunday for the months leading up to the decision on who gets places so they can get the Vicar's reference
That's 'they have to put up with it' rather than 'want it', on your own testimony.
No they want it as it offers choice from the bog standard comp or academy down the road
No, look at your own language and logic. They only want religious schools when there is no alternative. Ergo they don't want the religion bit.
My own language is clear, as a Conservative I want as many private schools, grammar schools, religious schools, free schools, academies etc as possible ie offer a real alternative. As do parents who choose such schools.
You as a statist socialist want to give consumers one bog standard comp option in education as you dislike choice elsewhere
The illusion of choice.
My son's state primary school is non-religious until year 2, then (mildly) C of E from years 3-6. There is no religious element of the admissions process.
But we chose it because it was the best school we were in the catchment area for.
If we'd ended up living the other side of town -which we almost did until a sale fell through - he would that gone to a different, non-religious state primary school. Which is just as good.
The focus for government should be on improving the standards of all schools. The religious element is outdated and doesn't reflect the beliefs of the vast majority of parents of young children.
Just the usual one size fits all rubbish from secular leftists like you.
Nope, we need more choice and more variety of schools including more good faith schools, you could afford to buy into the catchment area of a good school, many in poorer areas can't
One huge problem with faith schools in my area, is that they are essentially selective of the better off children.
All the rules around admission mean that settled families, who can plan their children's education years in advance, have time to rack up the points their local church is handing out, and navigate the various rules, are much more likely to get places. That leads to a huge middle class bias, which in turn leads to better results, which leads to more competition for places, and the cycle goes on.
The schools get to the top of the results charts, but have shockingly few children on free school meals when compared with neighbouring non-faith schools.
I'm not religious myself, but did attend a Catholic school, and I'm not sure the Jesus that they taught us about would have approved at all. It's almost the exact opposite of "Christian", yet the local ministers seem delighted with their full churches, apparently turn a blind eye, and ignore their actual mission.
If more parents of children on free school meals went to church they would get a place at their nearest top church school, it is not difficult.
Churches still provide food banks for the poor anyway
"it is not difficult"
School uniforms, school transport for a school that may be on the other side of the city, school outings, school field trips, pressure to make donations to match well off parents ...
AND as already explained today, needing to live in one place for years.
Does your church food bank provide brioche, I wonder?
Those are costs at any school, faith or not, Outstanding faith schools also admit by church attendance unlike Outstanding secular state schools which admit on whether you can afford to buy a house in their catchment area.
Fuck the renters, then?
So let me get this right. The Conservative Party policy has been to manage state schools so badly that only approved Tory voters, ie house owners, can afford to buy in certain areas, or to pay the extra costs of sending children to faith schools?
And in all cases to pay the extre, no not fees no sir, but, erm, donations to actually help the school achieve basic work?
And to hell with the rest.
No Tory policy is to expand choice ie more free schools, faith schools, grammar schools, private schools etc so bog standard comps (and even they have top ups for trips and lunches etc) lose pupils and gradually disappear.
That is part of the point of being a Conservative, choice not enforced equality like socialists like you demand
That may be Tory policy, but it isn't what happened. You can't offer choice if you are running at full capacity. Round here there is almost no choice at all - you go to the school which has space. I am getting quite nervous about my youngest even getting into the local bog standard - it is 0.9 miles away, and this year if you were over 1.0 miles away you couldn't get in and instead are offered a failing school six miles away. Choice may exist in London, but it doesn't here.
Even more reason for more free schools, grammar schools, faith schools etc and not just in London
Well I quite agree. But why didn't that happen when the Tories were in power, if that was their policy?
There are now 650 free schools UK wide there weren't before the last Tory government
Yet when the Tories came to power there was a choice of schools here. There isn't now. There are fewer and fewer school places available. In Trafford, in the last sixteen years, the growth in 11-18 year olds has massively outstripped the growth in school places.
You said there were no new free schools under the Tories I just showed you were completely wrong. Trafford also has excellent grammar schools.
As every 11 year old to 18 year old has to go to school they will all get places ultimately (and of course the birth rate is well below what it has been going forward)
Listening to Birbelsingh on Nick Ferrari. This woman is out of control. I recommend anyone with interest in schools policy to listen to this on Global Player. I was shocked. Those of a more conservative point of view will be cheered.
She's flavour of the month with the Christian Nationalists because she banned prayer rituals in school policy (no religious groups such as a Christian Union) then won a court case defending it against a challenge by Muslim pupil. I'll have a listen to Nick Ferrari. As far as I have tracked her, she seems consistent since her first speech to the Conservative Party conference 15 or 16 years ago when she was identified; I'm not sure of the process by which she was identified as Miss Snuffy.
(Religion in Public Life has been an area of interest of mine for decades, as you know.)
That lets the CNats (and GBNews etc) pretend that it's about Muslims, and reflects desire to stir things up, when it was more like a victory for "secular" school cultures excluding religion, which is one groups like the National Secular Society have been on for decades. @BartholomewRoberts may be more up to date than me on that side of it.
It was a somewhat complex argument, because iirc it was about prayer ritual in the playground as effectively a form of protest when her school refused to provide a prayer room for pupils.
The self-described "freedom of XYZ" groups take the other side than they do on "silent prayer" (ie intimidation and interference) outside abortion clinics - for some reason .
It’s interesting to see the reactions.
@Mexicanpete is shocked because it seems like restricting the *requirements* of a minority.
The GBNews take it as anti-Muslim.
Most people don’t want more religion in our schools - even the weak-tea-and-biscuits form of Christianity.
They do when the only outstanding state primary or secondary school in their area is a C of E or Roman Catholic school.
Then you get parents queuing round the block to get into the church congregation on a Sunday for the months leading up to the decision on who gets places so they can get the Vicar's reference
That's 'they have to put up with it' rather than 'want it', on your own testimony.
No they want it as it offers choice from the bog standard comp or academy down the road
No, look at your own language and logic. They only want religious schools when there is no alternative. Ergo they don't want the religion bit.
My own language is clear, as a Conservative I want as many private schools, grammar schools, religious schools, free schools, academies etc as possible ie offer a real alternative. As do parents who choose such schools.
You as a statist socialist want to give consumers one bog standard comp option in education as you dislike choice elsewhere
The illusion of choice.
My son's state primary school is non-religious until year 2, then (mildly) C of E from years 3-6. There is no religious element of the admissions process.
But we chose it because it was the best school we were in the catchment area for.
If we'd ended up living the other side of town -which we almost did until a sale fell through - he would that gone to a different, non-religious state primary school. Which is just as good.
The focus for government should be on improving the standards of all schools. The religious element is outdated and doesn't reflect the beliefs of the vast majority of parents of young children.
Just the usual one size fits all rubbish from secular leftists like you.
Nope, we need more choice and more variety of schools including more good faith schools, you could afford to buy into the catchment area of a good school, many in poorer areas can't
One huge problem with faith schools in my area, is that they are essentially selective of the better off children.
All the rules around admission mean that settled families, who can plan their children's education years in advance, have time to rack up the points their local church is handing out, and navigate the various rules, are much more likely to get places. That leads to a huge middle class bias, which in turn leads to better results, which leads to more competition for places, and the cycle goes on.
The schools get to the top of the results charts, but have shockingly few children on free school meals when compared with neighbouring non-faith schools.
I'm not religious myself, but did attend a Catholic school, and I'm not sure the Jesus that they taught us about would have approved at all. It's almost the exact opposite of "Christian", yet the local ministers seem delighted with their full churches, apparently turn a blind eye, and ignore their actual mission.
If more parents of children on free school meals went to church they would get a place at their nearest top church school, it is not difficult.
Churches still provide food banks for the poor anyway
It's "not difficult", and yet it doesn't happen.
I'm sure I don't need to tell you, but consider the reasons why people might be poor. Relationship breakdowns, losing a job, lack of education, dealing with disabilities, death of a partner, spent time in the care system. You're much more likely to be in less secure rented accommodation and moving area more regularly. You're likely to be working in a low paid, more insecure job. You're more likely to be a single parent.
These are all reasons why planning three or even four years in advance for a school place, attending masses, and spending time doing the extra-curricular bits and pieces that all form part of the application process are much more difficult. People with better jobs, their own homes, fewer money worries, are in a much better position, and that's exactly why that middle class selection occurs.
I'm actually surprisingly angry at that response, coming from someone who I assume considers themselves a Christian (and I do apologise if you hadn't intended it to sound so dismissive). I can only hope that maybe you've had such a fortunate life, that you simply don't have an understanding of why some people have more immediate stresses on their lives, and can't spend time jumping through hoops for some benefit years down the line.
So what? You can be jobless with no money and rental accomodation and still attend church, there is no charge for it.
You can be as sanctimoniously angry as you want but you have no problem with secular outstanding state schools selected by house price which poorer parents have sod all chance of getting their kids into
I haven't mentioned anything to do with house prices once, so where you get that from I don't know. It's a total straw man.
Your first words on the other hand are simply callous. I suspect even God is shaking his head, and he's apparently quite the tolerant and forgiving type.
No God in the Ten Commandments made clear you must worship him and no other God but him, if you choose to ignore his commands that is your decision
Evangelical Christianity like the Church of England is becoming a cult and frankly is dying on it's feet and it is not hard to see why
Some of the stuff you spout in the name of Christ is the polar opposite of His thinking, and you are not the judge of any persons relationship with his/her God as that is personal to all peoples and their faiths
You need to understand the wise words of Dave Allen who ended his shows with the lovely advice
'May your God go with you'
In fact the reverse, the main growth in the C of E is in evangelical and bible based churches as globally Christianity is still growing via evangelical Pentecostal and independent evangelical churches in particular
Today is the vote in the Bundestag on reforming the debt brake. It's still unclear if it will get the 2 thirds majority needed.
If the Russians agree to the ceasefire Ukraine has accepted it may not be needed for the moment anyway
Nonsense
Putin has said he won't even accept European and NATO peacekeepers, it would likely be Turkish, Brazilian, Indian troops etc enforcing any ceasefire.
It would just be future deterrence NATO nations needed to increase their militaries for
Sorry to be picky but Turkey is in NATO so you could have Australian or New Zealand troops I suppose though I agree more likely are Brazilians, Nigerians or Indians. To be honest, if someone else is paying for them (who?), I imagine some countries would be happy to have their soldiers billeted somewhere else at someone else's expense.
Putin gets on with Erdogan so would probably accept Turkish troops, the Russians already rejected Australian involvement
It is time that the Russians are told to FUCK OFF over what they will and won't accept. The suggestion that they should be able to veto who is president and what nationality of troops are allowed in a sovereign country is beyond outrageous. Every concession is a reward for their aggression. Europe needs to keep all sanctions in place and continue to isolate Russia where possible. More appeasement only encourages the aggressor.
It seems to me the only way Trump can force a quick end to the war that isn't a clear win for Russia is to threaten Putin with a continuation (or even escalation) of US military support for Ukraine if he doesn't make big meaningful concessions. However he can't threaten this with any credibility because he's already made it clear he isn't prepared to stay involved militarily. "You make a deal or we're out" he said to Zelensky in the WH, and for once I think he was speaking the truth. That is his position.
So otoh he wants to get his big moment and live up to his self-image as the great dealmaker, but otoh he can't and won't force Russia to back down from its red lines (being they keep what they've taken and Ukraine gets no Art 5 type protection on the rest). Any deal would therefore be mainly on Russia's terms and can happen only if Ukraine feels forced to sign it due to having no realistic alternative. I think that's what this boils down to now. Will Europe's offer allow Zelensky to genuinely feel that no deal is better than a bad deal?
I think this a pretty good summary of where we are. It's why Europe building up its own military strength is so important, £6bn being cut from benefits should be just the start. Outsourcing our security to America means we have to live with the politics of America, I think a few cuts to the welfare state is a small price to end our obsession with the USA.
We could pop taxes up to French levels, spend 9% of GDP on defence and have military expenditure 3x as high as Russia. The funniest thing about this debate is the rather blatant attempts to shoehorn personal political obsessions into the debate.
My version of this is put fuel duty up to where it should be without the incessant freezes since 2010. That gets you 0.8 per cent of GDP while primarily taxing higher income people, who drive 3x as much as poorer people. And it pushes people off an OPEC controlled commodity onto EVs. Easy. Next.
That massively pushes up inflation and the idea that people can afford to just pop over onto EVs is for the birds. Again it is Robert's comment on elasticity. When you push on something as fundemental as transport, something else gets pushed out in away that not only reduces your return but can actively reverse what you are trying to do.
I'm just using it as an example of how the link between defence and welfare spending is a bit contrived.
But it's weird how fuel duty is always described as inflationary, but other taxes, bus/rail fares etc are not. Fuel is 20% cheaper than it was in 2010, so that's consistent deflationary pressure for higher income households. In terms of elasticities, we've disincentivised switching to EVs throughout that period as a result.
Well for a start bus and train fares don't affect the cost of transporting goods.
Moreover, there were 64 billion passenger km travelled by train in 2022. In the same year there were 532 billion km travelled by car - and that is only based on a driver in each car and ignoring passengers.
As we see everytime there has been a jump in fuel prices, it is far more inflationary compared to public transport costs. The OBR said that the reduction in 5p reduction in fuel duty in 2022 reduced CPI by 0.2%
That putting the price of something up is inflationary is not the most startling insight. It's literally the definition, and a bizarre reason to argue against fuel duty increases in particular.
I understand there may be other commercial reasons for not doing it, but in terms of consumers it represents a 20% cut in costs while bus fares, used by the poorest people in the country, have gone up by 17%. Meanwhile electricity is over 60% higher - no wonder the transition to EVs has been slow with that relative difference.
At the moment energy and fuel is actually providing deflationary pressure on CPI, oddly enough.
The point being that fuel duty is inflationary and does also hit the poorest because it affects every single thing they buy. Since poorer sections of society spend more of their income on food and there is a direct impact on food prices when you increase transport costs, the lower and middle income levels are more directly affected by ramping fuel duty than the better off.
Markets aren't perking up despite the sniff of a ceasefire, which is interesting
I doubt anybody trusts Trump and Putin on anything they say !!!
Ruth Deyermond @ruthdeyermond.bsky.social · 4m Stage 1 of the classic Putin approach: We'd like to, but there are just one or two issues [demands things he knows won'te be accepted]. Oh you won't accept our entirely reasonable demands to address the historic wrongs done to us? Then it's all your fault. *kills more civilians*
Listening to Birbelsingh on Nick Ferrari. This woman is out of control. I recommend anyone with interest in schools policy to listen to this on Global Player. I was shocked. Those of a more conservative point of view will be cheered.
She's flavour of the month with the Christian Nationalists because she banned prayer rituals in school policy (no religious groups such as a Christian Union) then won a court case defending it against a challenge by Muslim pupil. I'll have a listen to Nick Ferrari. As far as I have tracked her, she seems consistent since her first speech to the Conservative Party conference 15 or 16 years ago when she was identified; I'm not sure of the process by which she was identified as Miss Snuffy.
(Religion in Public Life has been an area of interest of mine for decades, as you know.)
That lets the CNats (and GBNews etc) pretend that it's about Muslims, and reflects desire to stir things up, when it was more like a victory for "secular" school cultures excluding religion, which is one groups like the National Secular Society have been on for decades. @BartholomewRoberts may be more up to date than me on that side of it.
It was a somewhat complex argument, because iirc it was about prayer ritual in the playground as effectively a form of protest when her school refused to provide a prayer room for pupils.
The self-described "freedom of XYZ" groups take the other side than they do on "silent prayer" (ie intimidation and interference) outside abortion clinics - for some reason .
It’s interesting to see the reactions.
@Mexicanpete is shocked because it seems like restricting the *requirements* of a minority.
The GBNews take it as anti-Muslim.
Most people don’t want more religion in our schools - even the weak-tea-and-biscuits form of Christianity.
They do when the only outstanding state primary or secondary school in their area is a C of E or Roman Catholic school.
Then you get parents queuing round the block to get into the church congregation on a Sunday for the months leading up to the decision on who gets places so they can get the Vicar's reference
That's 'they have to put up with it' rather than 'want it', on your own testimony.
No they want it as it offers choice from the bog standard comp or academy down the road
No, look at your own language and logic. They only want religious schools when there is no alternative. Ergo they don't want the religion bit.
My own language is clear, as a Conservative I want as many private schools, grammar schools, religious schools, free schools, academies etc as possible ie offer a real alternative. As do parents who choose such schools.
You as a statist socialist want to give consumers one bog standard comp option in education as you dislike choice elsewhere
The illusion of choice.
My son's state primary school is non-religious until year 2, then (mildly) C of E from years 3-6. There is no religious element of the admissions process.
But we chose it because it was the best school we were in the catchment area for.
If we'd ended up living the other side of town -which we almost did until a sale fell through - he would that gone to a different, non-religious state primary school. Which is just as good.
The focus for government should be on improving the standards of all schools. The religious element is outdated and doesn't reflect the beliefs of the vast majority of parents of young children.
Just the usual one size fits all rubbish from secular leftists like you.
Nope, we need more choice and more variety of schools including more good faith schools, you could afford to buy into the catchment area of a good school, many in poorer areas can't
One huge problem with faith schools in my area, is that they are essentially selective of the better off children.
All the rules around admission mean that settled families, who can plan their children's education years in advance, have time to rack up the points their local church is handing out, and navigate the various rules, are much more likely to get places. That leads to a huge middle class bias, which in turn leads to better results, which leads to more competition for places, and the cycle goes on.
The schools get to the top of the results charts, but have shockingly few children on free school meals when compared with neighbouring non-faith schools.
I'm not religious myself, but did attend a Catholic school, and I'm not sure the Jesus that they taught us about would have approved at all. It's almost the exact opposite of "Christian", yet the local ministers seem delighted with their full churches, apparently turn a blind eye, and ignore their actual mission.
If more parents of children on free school meals went to church they would get a place at their nearest top church school, it is not difficult.
Churches still provide food banks for the poor anyway
"it is not difficult"
School uniforms, school transport for a school that may be on the other side of the city, school outings, school field trips, pressure to make donations to match well off parents ...
AND as already explained today, needing to live in one place for years.
Does your church food bank provide brioche, I wonder?
Those are costs at any school, faith or not, Outstanding faith schools also admit by church attendance unlike Outstanding secular state schools which admit on whether you can afford to buy a house in their catchment area.
Fuck the renters, then?
So let me get this right. The Conservative Party policy has been to manage state schools so badly that only approved Tory voters, ie house owners, can afford to buy in certain areas, or to pay the extra costs of sending children to faith schools?
And in all cases to pay the extre, no not fees no sir, but, erm, donations to actually help the school achieve basic work?
And to hell with the rest.
No Tory policy is to expand choice ie more free schools, faith schools, grammar schools, private schools etc so bog standard comps (and even they have top ups for trips and lunches etc) lose pupils and gradually disappear.
That is part of the point of being a Conservative, choice not enforced equality like socialists like you demand
Enforced equality = actually giving most people a chance.
You have been claiming today that for one's children to have a good education it is necessary to live in an expensive house or send them to a sectarian school. Which last means much the same thing plus spending years pretending to be sectarian.
This is the system your party set up and maintained, under the housing market your party massively inflated.
As JC did not say, fuck the renters and fuck the poor.
No enforced equality being your top down lowest common denominator, enforced acceptance of bog standard mediocrity for all, the usual socialist crap you come out with.
My party created outstanding free schools like Birbalsingh's. It is mainly in local authorities my party runs grammar schools still exist.
The Bible is of course Old Testament as much as New though even JC believed in charity not near statist Marxism like you
We've had this argument before, and your declarations of dogma are as boring as last time around.
Also, Matthew 19;21
Your parents don't need any money at all to attend a church school, just to regularly worship the Lord
If you believes that then you are more naive then I thought
It is true, church state schools where they select do so by parental church attendance not parental wallet
If it means parents children can attend the school of their choice than faking their devotion is quite simple
Indeed with my experience of the church I would win an Oscar
Sounds like a serious psychological disorder. I would think there are better targets, amusing though that one sounds.
Illness can be difficult, as pain can come and go. When I was younger, I spent well over ten years in periodic pain. There were periods when I would have no pain; at others pain so intense I could not sleep. It was hell. Months pain-free, only for the pain to come back like a sledgehammer to the gonads.
But even when I was in pain, I would sometimes walk seven or eight miles. Because, despite the pain being in an ankle, it made no difference if I walked or not. The pain was not made much worse by walking, and I got a sense of achievement from walking - and a sense of 'beating' the pain. This made some wonder if I was actually in pain at all.
Listening to Birbelsingh on Nick Ferrari. This woman is out of control. I recommend anyone with interest in schools policy to listen to this on Global Player. I was shocked. Those of a more conservative point of view will be cheered.
She's flavour of the month with the Christian Nationalists because she banned prayer rituals in school policy (no religious groups such as a Christian Union) then won a court case defending it against a challenge by Muslim pupil. I'll have a listen to Nick Ferrari. As far as I have tracked her, she seems consistent since her first speech to the Conservative Party conference 15 or 16 years ago when she was identified; I'm not sure of the process by which she was identified as Miss Snuffy.
(Religion in Public Life has been an area of interest of mine for decades, as you know.)
That lets the CNats (and GBNews etc) pretend that it's about Muslims, and reflects desire to stir things up, when it was more like a victory for "secular" school cultures excluding religion, which is one groups like the National Secular Society have been on for decades. @BartholomewRoberts may be more up to date than me on that side of it.
It was a somewhat complex argument, because iirc it was about prayer ritual in the playground as effectively a form of protest when her school refused to provide a prayer room for pupils.
The self-described "freedom of XYZ" groups take the other side than they do on "silent prayer" (ie intimidation and interference) outside abortion clinics - for some reason .
It’s interesting to see the reactions.
@Mexicanpete is shocked because it seems like restricting the *requirements* of a minority.
The GBNews take it as anti-Muslim.
Most people don’t want more religion in our schools - even the weak-tea-and-biscuits form of Christianity.
They do when the only outstanding state primary or secondary school in their area is a C of E or Roman Catholic school.
Then you get parents queuing round the block to get into the church congregation on a Sunday for the months leading up to the decision on who gets places so they can get the Vicar's reference
That's 'they have to put up with it' rather than 'want it', on your own testimony.
No they want it as it offers choice from the bog standard comp or academy down the road
No, look at your own language and logic. They only want religious schools when there is no alternative. Ergo they don't want the religion bit.
My own language is clear, as a Conservative I want as many private schools, grammar schools, religious schools, free schools, academies etc as possible ie offer a real alternative. As do parents who choose such schools.
You as a statist socialist want to give consumers one bog standard comp option in education as you dislike choice elsewhere
The illusion of choice.
My son's state primary school is non-religious until year 2, then (mildly) C of E from years 3-6. There is no religious element of the admissions process.
But we chose it because it was the best school we were in the catchment area for.
If we'd ended up living the other side of town -which we almost did until a sale fell through - he would that gone to a different, non-religious state primary school. Which is just as good.
The focus for government should be on improving the standards of all schools. The religious element is outdated and doesn't reflect the beliefs of the vast majority of parents of young children.
Just the usual one size fits all rubbish from secular leftists like you.
Nope, we need more choice and more variety of schools including more good faith schools, you could afford to buy into the catchment area of a good school, many in poorer areas can't
One huge problem with faith schools in my area, is that they are essentially selective of the better off children.
All the rules around admission mean that settled families, who can plan their children's education years in advance, have time to rack up the points their local church is handing out, and navigate the various rules, are much more likely to get places. That leads to a huge middle class bias, which in turn leads to better results, which leads to more competition for places, and the cycle goes on.
The schools get to the top of the results charts, but have shockingly few children on free school meals when compared with neighbouring non-faith schools.
I'm not religious myself, but did attend a Catholic school, and I'm not sure the Jesus that they taught us about would have approved at all. It's almost the exact opposite of "Christian", yet the local ministers seem delighted with their full churches, apparently turn a blind eye, and ignore their actual mission.
If more parents of children on free school meals went to church they would get a place at their nearest top church school, it is not difficult.
Churches still provide food banks for the poor anyway
It's "not difficult", and yet it doesn't happen.
I'm sure I don't need to tell you, but consider the reasons why people might be poor. Relationship breakdowns, losing a job, lack of education, dealing with disabilities, death of a partner, spent time in the care system. You're much more likely to be in less secure rented accommodation and moving area more regularly. You're likely to be working in a low paid, more insecure job. You're more likely to be a single parent.
These are all reasons why planning three or even four years in advance for a school place, attending masses, and spending time doing the extra-curricular bits and pieces that all form part of the application process are much more difficult. People with better jobs, their own homes, fewer money worries, are in a much better position, and that's exactly why that middle class selection occurs.
I'm actually surprisingly angry at that response, coming from someone who I assume considers themselves a Christian (and I do apologise if you hadn't intended it to sound so dismissive). I can only hope that maybe you've had such a fortunate life, that you simply don't have an understanding of why some people have more immediate stresses on their lives, and can't spend time jumping through hoops for some benefit years down the line.
So what? You can be jobless with no money and rental accomodation and still attend church, there is no charge for it.
You can be as sanctimoniously angry as you want but you have no problem with secular outstanding state schools selected by house price which poorer parents have sod all chance of getting their kids into
I haven't mentioned anything to do with house prices once, so where you get that from I don't know. It's a total straw man.
Your first words on the other hand are simply callous. I suspect even God is shaking his head, and he's apparently quite the tolerant and forgiving type.
No God in the Ten Commandments made clear you must worship him and no other God but him, if you choose to ignore his commands that is your decision
Evangelical Christianity like the Church of England is becoming a cult and frankly is dying on it's feet and it is not hard to see why
Some of the stuff you spout in the name of Christ is the polar opposite of His thinking, and you are not the judge of any persons relationship with his/her God as that is personal to all peoples and their faiths
You need to understand the wise words of Dave Allen who ended his shows with the lovely advice
'May your God go with you'
In fact the reverse, the main growth in the C of E is in evangelical and bible based churches as globally Christianity is still growing via evangelical Pentecostal and independent evangelical churches in particular
Sounds like a serious psychological disorder. I would think there are better targets, amusing though that one sounds.
It's otherwise known as Munchenhausens syndrome. It's quite a severe psychological disorder, and sadly these people very often make themselves so ill, for example via self poisoning that they become physically ill or permanently disabled.
I remember a patient with it who invented so many bowel complaints that she had multiple investigations and surgeries, eventually winding up with a permanent colostomy before her Psychological condition was diagnosed. I was seeing her for something else, and did my best to do nothing to her. One characteristic of the condition is that they have very little insight into what is causing their distress, and as they refuse the diagnosis, often vociferously, it is very hard to treat.
Listening to Birbelsingh on Nick Ferrari. This woman is out of control. I recommend anyone with interest in schools policy to listen to this on Global Player. I was shocked. Those of a more conservative point of view will be cheered.
She's flavour of the month with the Christian Nationalists because she banned prayer rituals in school policy (no religious groups such as a Christian Union) then won a court case defending it against a challenge by Muslim pupil. I'll have a listen to Nick Ferrari. As far as I have tracked her, she seems consistent since her first speech to the Conservative Party conference 15 or 16 years ago when she was identified; I'm not sure of the process by which she was identified as Miss Snuffy.
(Religion in Public Life has been an area of interest of mine for decades, as you know.)
That lets the CNats (and GBNews etc) pretend that it's about Muslims, and reflects desire to stir things up, when it was more like a victory for "secular" school cultures excluding religion, which is one groups like the National Secular Society have been on for decades. @BartholomewRoberts may be more up to date than me on that side of it.
It was a somewhat complex argument, because iirc it was about prayer ritual in the playground as effectively a form of protest when her school refused to provide a prayer room for pupils.
The self-described "freedom of XYZ" groups take the other side than they do on "silent prayer" (ie intimidation and interference) outside abortion clinics - for some reason .
It’s interesting to see the reactions.
@Mexicanpete is shocked because it seems like restricting the *requirements* of a minority.
The GBNews take it as anti-Muslim.
Most people don’t want more religion in our schools - even the weak-tea-and-biscuits form of Christianity.
They do when the only outstanding state primary or secondary school in their area is a C of E or Roman Catholic school.
Then you get parents queuing round the block to get into the church congregation on a Sunday for the months leading up to the decision on who gets places so they can get the Vicar's reference
That's 'they have to put up with it' rather than 'want it', on your own testimony.
No they want it as it offers choice from the bog standard comp or academy down the road
No, look at your own language and logic. They only want religious schools when there is no alternative. Ergo they don't want the religion bit.
My own language is clear, as a Conservative I want as many private schools, grammar schools, religious schools, free schools, academies etc as possible ie offer a real alternative. As do parents who choose such schools.
You as a statist socialist want to give consumers one bog standard comp option in education as you dislike choice elsewhere
The illusion of choice.
My son's state primary school is non-religious until year 2, then (mildly) C of E from years 3-6. There is no religious element of the admissions process.
But we chose it because it was the best school we were in the catchment area for.
If we'd ended up living the other side of town -which we almost did until a sale fell through - he would that gone to a different, non-religious state primary school. Which is just as good.
The focus for government should be on improving the standards of all schools. The religious element is outdated and doesn't reflect the beliefs of the vast majority of parents of young children.
Just the usual one size fits all rubbish from secular leftists like you.
Nope, we need more choice and more variety of schools including more good faith schools, you could afford to buy into the catchment area of a good school, many in poorer areas can't
One huge problem with faith schools in my area, is that they are essentially selective of the better off children.
All the rules around admission mean that settled families, who can plan their children's education years in advance, have time to rack up the points their local church is handing out, and navigate the various rules, are much more likely to get places. That leads to a huge middle class bias, which in turn leads to better results, which leads to more competition for places, and the cycle goes on.
The schools get to the top of the results charts, but have shockingly few children on free school meals when compared with neighbouring non-faith schools.
I'm not religious myself, but did attend a Catholic school, and I'm not sure the Jesus that they taught us about would have approved at all. It's almost the exact opposite of "Christian", yet the local ministers seem delighted with their full churches, apparently turn a blind eye, and ignore their actual mission.
If more parents of children on free school meals went to church they would get a place at their nearest top church school, it is not difficult.
Churches still provide food banks for the poor anyway
"it is not difficult"
School uniforms, school transport for a school that may be on the other side of the city, school outings, school field trips, pressure to make donations to match well off parents ...
AND as already explained today, needing to live in one place for years.
Does your church food bank provide brioche, I wonder?
Those are costs at any school, faith or not, Outstanding faith schools also admit by church attendance unlike Outstanding secular state schools which admit on whether you can afford to buy a house in their catchment area.
Fuck the renters, then?
So let me get this right. The Conservative Party policy has been to manage state schools so badly that only approved Tory voters, ie house owners, can afford to buy in certain areas, or to pay the extra costs of sending children to faith schools?
And in all cases to pay the extre, no not fees no sir, but, erm, donations to actually help the school achieve basic work?
And to hell with the rest.
No Tory policy is to expand choice ie more free schools, faith schools, grammar schools, private schools etc so bog standard comps (and even they have top ups for trips and lunches etc) lose pupils and gradually disappear.
That is part of the point of being a Conservative, choice not enforced equality like socialists like you demand
That may be Tory policy, but it isn't what happened. You can't offer choice if you are running at full capacity. Round here there is almost no choice at all - you go to the school which has space. I am getting quite nervous about my youngest even getting into the local bog standard - it is 0.9 miles away, and this year if you were over 1.0 miles away you couldn't get in and instead are offered a failing school six miles away. Choice may exist in London, but it doesn't here.
Even more reason for more free schools, grammar schools, faith schools etc and not just in London
Well I quite agree. But why didn't that happen when the Tories were in power, if that was their policy?
There are now 650 free schools UK wide there weren't before the last Tory government
Yet when the Tories came to power there was a choice of schools here. There isn't now. There are fewer and fewer school places available. In Trafford, in the last sixteen years, the growth in 11-18 year olds has massively outstripped the growth in school places.
You said there were no new free schools under the Tories I just showed you were completely wrong. Trafford also has excellent grammar schools.
As every 11 year old to 18 year old has to go to school they will all get places ultimately (and of course the birth rate is well below what it has been going forward)
Right: 1) First para, first sentence. Yes you did. And looking back at what I said, yes, that's what I said - what I should have added was 'round here'. But yes, they have added free school places and I support that and wish they had done more.
2) First para, second sentence: Yes, it does. I have two children at them. However they are very very hard to get into (top, what, 10% in Trafford now go there?) because a) they have not been allowed to expand as other schools have so amount to an ever-shrinking proportion of the state-educated cohort, b) immigration, which (especially from HK) has been massive in Trafford, increasing pressure on the schools, and c) they don't just select from Trafford - it would be much less difficult to access them if other neighbouring authorities also had them. Net outcome of this is that the trend at the state primary schools in Trafford are seeing a trend of smaller and smaller proportions of children going to grammar schools. But I think part of your view is that we should expand grammar school provision along with expanding various other types of specialist school - and if that is so, I agree with you.
3) Ultimately every 11 to 18 year old will get a place, yes - but not much consolation if the only place available is at the 15th-nearest secondary school, 6 miles away in a sink town, and it has places because it is failing. Which is what is happening to people close to me this year. Because school places have not been expanded to match population growth.
4) The birth rate is falling, yes - but this is being counterbalanced by immigration. In Trafford the school age population is increasing significantly. Policymakers don't think this is a problem because they all live in London and it isn't a problem in London because there genuinely is a choice. Not so here.
Ultimately, you and I are not very far apart in our views on this. Increase school places of all sorts to allow genuine parental choice and make schools responsive to parental demand. (In practice, this is much more workable in an urban area like mine where there are four or five schools reasonably accessible by foot, bike or simple public transport journey than in small towns or rural areas where geography might dictate a choice of no more than one or perhaps two.) But the view from on the ground with kids going through the system is that for the last ten years it has been getting increasingly hard to get a place at a secondary school - we have gone from: 'genuine choice of at least four, and, if you are one of the c. 25% who pass the 11+, choice of another three or four grammar schools on top of that. Or be Catholic.' - which was the situation in 2016 or so - to: 'no actual choice, but hopefully the one school you are in catchment for has a place for you - but if not, you'll be on the bus to a crappy school Partington for the next five years - or, if you pass the 11+ you'll be ok, but that only applies to the top 10%. Or be Catholic.'
Isn't that quite a serious mental health issue? Munchausen? Patients typically have a history of child abuse, severe illness etc. If you spend a lot of time in hospital as a kid you can get it.
It would be typical of the Telegraph to take a real problem that causes a great deal of hurt and use it as an example of a dodgy welfare system. And only 23 people, lol. There are millions of people on incapacity benefits, and most them are physical issues for people aged over 50.
Its a good number of years in the past now, but I spent nearly 5 weeks in hospital being treated for leukemia in a single room for infection control, with a TV and (slow) internet. It wasn't a great experience but I do sometimes get nostalgic for a simpler time of my life when all I needed to do was rest up and try/hope to get better. It passes pretty quickly.
Sounds like a serious psychological disorder. I would think there are better targets, amusing though that one sounds.
It's otherwise known as Munchenhausens syndrome. It's quite a severe psychological disorder, and sadly these people very often make themselves so ill, for example via self poisoning that they become physically ill or permanently disabled.
I remember a patient with it who invented so many bowel complaints that she had multiple investigations and surgeries, eventually winding up with a permanent colostomy before her Psychological condition was diagnosed. I was seeing her for something else, and did my best to do nothing to her. One characteristic of the condition is that they have very little insight into what is causing their distress, and as they refuse the diagnosis, often vociferously, it is very hard to treat.
It isn't the gotcha that the DT has in mind.
Yes and no. The ability to upgrade to a BMW means that said patient could have afforded less and been given less by the tax payer, regardless of the actual condition.
Listening to Birbelsingh on Nick Ferrari. This woman is out of control. I recommend anyone with interest in schools policy to listen to this on Global Player. I was shocked. Those of a more conservative point of view will be cheered.
She's flavour of the month with the Christian Nationalists because she banned prayer rituals in school policy (no religious groups such as a Christian Union) then won a court case defending it against a challenge by Muslim pupil. I'll have a listen to Nick Ferrari. As far as I have tracked her, she seems consistent since her first speech to the Conservative Party conference 15 or 16 years ago when she was identified; I'm not sure of the process by which she was identified as Miss Snuffy.
(Religion in Public Life has been an area of interest of mine for decades, as you know.)
That lets the CNats (and GBNews etc) pretend that it's about Muslims, and reflects desire to stir things up, when it was more like a victory for "secular" school cultures excluding religion, which is one groups like the National Secular Society have been on for decades. @BartholomewRoberts may be more up to date than me on that side of it.
It was a somewhat complex argument, because iirc it was about prayer ritual in the playground as effectively a form of protest when her school refused to provide a prayer room for pupils.
The self-described "freedom of XYZ" groups take the other side than they do on "silent prayer" (ie intimidation and interference) outside abortion clinics - for some reason .
It’s interesting to see the reactions.
@Mexicanpete is shocked because it seems like restricting the *requirements* of a minority.
The GBNews take it as anti-Muslim.
Most people don’t want more religion in our schools - even the weak-tea-and-biscuits form of Christianity.
They do when the only outstanding state primary or secondary school in their area is a C of E or Roman Catholic school.
Then you get parents queuing round the block to get into the church congregation on a Sunday for the months leading up to the decision on who gets places so they can get the Vicar's reference
That's 'they have to put up with it' rather than 'want it', on your own testimony.
No they want it as it offers choice from the bog standard comp or academy down the road
No, look at your own language and logic. They only want religious schools when there is no alternative. Ergo they don't want the religion bit.
My own language is clear, as a Conservative I want as many private schools, grammar schools, religious schools, free schools, academies etc as possible ie offer a real alternative. As do parents who choose such schools.
You as a statist socialist want to give consumers one bog standard comp option in education as you dislike choice elsewhere
The illusion of choice.
My son's state primary school is non-religious until year 2, then (mildly) C of E from years 3-6. There is no religious element of the admissions process.
But we chose it because it was the best school we were in the catchment area for.
If we'd ended up living the other side of town -which we almost did until a sale fell through - he would that gone to a different, non-religious state primary school. Which is just as good.
The focus for government should be on improving the standards of all schools. The religious element is outdated and doesn't reflect the beliefs of the vast majority of parents of young children.
Just the usual one size fits all rubbish from secular leftists like you.
Nope, we need more choice and more variety of schools including more good faith schools, you could afford to buy into the catchment area of a good school, many in poorer areas can't
One huge problem with faith schools in my area, is that they are essentially selective of the better off children.
All the rules around admission mean that settled families, who can plan their children's education years in advance, have time to rack up the points their local church is handing out, and navigate the various rules, are much more likely to get places. That leads to a huge middle class bias, which in turn leads to better results, which leads to more competition for places, and the cycle goes on.
The schools get to the top of the results charts, but have shockingly few children on free school meals when compared with neighbouring non-faith schools.
I'm not religious myself, but did attend a Catholic school, and I'm not sure the Jesus that they taught us about would have approved at all. It's almost the exact opposite of "Christian", yet the local ministers seem delighted with their full churches, apparently turn a blind eye, and ignore their actual mission.
If more parents of children on free school meals went to church they would get a place at their nearest top church school, it is not difficult.
Churches still provide food banks for the poor anyway
It's "not difficult", and yet it doesn't happen.
I'm sure I don't need to tell you, but consider the reasons why people might be poor. Relationship breakdowns, losing a job, lack of education, dealing with disabilities, death of a partner, spent time in the care system. You're much more likely to be in less secure rented accommodation and moving area more regularly. You're likely to be working in a low paid, more insecure job. You're more likely to be a single parent.
These are all reasons why planning three or even four years in advance for a school place, attending masses, and spending time doing the extra-curricular bits and pieces that all form part of the application process are much more difficult. People with better jobs, their own homes, fewer money worries, are in a much better position, and that's exactly why that middle class selection occurs.
I'm actually surprisingly angry at that response, coming from someone who I assume considers themselves a Christian (and I do apologise if you hadn't intended it to sound so dismissive). I can only hope that maybe you've had such a fortunate life, that you simply don't have an understanding of why some people have more immediate stresses on their lives, and can't spend time jumping through hoops for some benefit years down the line.
So what? You can be jobless with no money and rental accomodation and still attend church, there is no charge for it.
You can be as sanctimoniously angry as you want but you have no problem with secular outstanding state schools selected by house price which poorer parents have sod all chance of getting their kids into
I haven't mentioned anything to do with house prices once, so where you get that from I don't know. It's a total straw man.
Your first words on the other hand are simply callous. I suspect even God is shaking his head, and he's apparently quite the tolerant and forgiving type.
No God in the Ten Commandments made clear you must worship him and no other God but him, if you choose to ignore his commands that is your decision
Evangelical Christianity like the Church of England is becoming a cult and frankly is dying on it's feet and it is not hard to see why
Some of the stuff you spout in the name of Christ is the polar opposite of His thinking, and you are not the judge of any persons relationship with his/her God as that is personal to all peoples and their faiths
You need to understand the wise words of Dave Allen who ended his shows with the lovely advice
'May your God go with you'
In fact the reverse, the main growth in the C of E is in evangelical and bible based churches as globally Christianity is still growing via evangelical Pentecostal and independent evangelical churches in particular
It will destroy itself from within-
Far from it, those churches which are growing will have more influence in it and it of course has £8 billion in assets and investments to sustain itself too
The Chinese govt poured $29 billion into EV development between 2009-2022.
And we are giving Miliband £22bn/$28bn to build plans to suck magic gas from the air.
We are not serious people.
If you believe that carbon dioxide is an existential threat to our way of life then ways to reduce that threat are not stupid. Just electrifying cars doesn't mitigate against releasing carbon dioxide if you are not generating the electricity cleanly. How many coal power stations do the Chinese run?
Listening to Birbelsingh on Nick Ferrari. This woman is out of control. I recommend anyone with interest in schools policy to listen to this on Global Player. I was shocked. Those of a more conservative point of view will be cheered.
She's flavour of the month with the Christian Nationalists because she banned prayer rituals in school policy (no religious groups such as a Christian Union) then won a court case defending it against a challenge by Muslim pupil. I'll have a listen to Nick Ferrari. As far as I have tracked her, she seems consistent since her first speech to the Conservative Party conference 15 or 16 years ago when she was identified; I'm not sure of the process by which she was identified as Miss Snuffy.
(Religion in Public Life has been an area of interest of mine for decades, as you know.)
That lets the CNats (and GBNews etc) pretend that it's about Muslims, and reflects desire to stir things up, when it was more like a victory for "secular" school cultures excluding religion, which is one groups like the National Secular Society have been on for decades. @BartholomewRoberts may be more up to date than me on that side of it.
It was a somewhat complex argument, because iirc it was about prayer ritual in the playground as effectively a form of protest when her school refused to provide a prayer room for pupils.
The self-described "freedom of XYZ" groups take the other side than they do on "silent prayer" (ie intimidation and interference) outside abortion clinics - for some reason .
It’s interesting to see the reactions.
@Mexicanpete is shocked because it seems like restricting the *requirements* of a minority.
The GBNews take it as anti-Muslim.
Most people don’t want more religion in our schools - even the weak-tea-and-biscuits form of Christianity.
They do when the only outstanding state primary or secondary school in their area is a C of E or Roman Catholic school.
Then you get parents queuing round the block to get into the church congregation on a Sunday for the months leading up to the decision on who gets places so they can get the Vicar's reference
That's 'they have to put up with it' rather than 'want it', on your own testimony.
No they want it as it offers choice from the bog standard comp or academy down the road
No, look at your own language and logic. They only want religious schools when there is no alternative. Ergo they don't want the religion bit.
My own language is clear, as a Conservative I want as many private schools, grammar schools, religious schools, free schools, academies etc as possible ie offer a real alternative. As do parents who choose such schools.
You as a statist socialist want to give consumers one bog standard comp option in education as you dislike choice elsewhere
The illusion of choice.
My son's state primary school is non-religious until year 2, then (mildly) C of E from years 3-6. There is no religious element of the admissions process.
But we chose it because it was the best school we were in the catchment area for.
If we'd ended up living the other side of town -which we almost did until a sale fell through - he would that gone to a different, non-religious state primary school. Which is just as good.
The focus for government should be on improving the standards of all schools. The religious element is outdated and doesn't reflect the beliefs of the vast majority of parents of young children.
Just the usual one size fits all rubbish from secular leftists like you.
Nope, we need more choice and more variety of schools including more good faith schools, you could afford to buy into the catchment area of a good school, many in poorer areas can't
One huge problem with faith schools in my area, is that they are essentially selective of the better off children.
All the rules around admission mean that settled families, who can plan their children's education years in advance, have time to rack up the points their local church is handing out, and navigate the various rules, are much more likely to get places. That leads to a huge middle class bias, which in turn leads to better results, which leads to more competition for places, and the cycle goes on.
The schools get to the top of the results charts, but have shockingly few children on free school meals when compared with neighbouring non-faith schools.
I'm not religious myself, but did attend a Catholic school, and I'm not sure the Jesus that they taught us about would have approved at all. It's almost the exact opposite of "Christian", yet the local ministers seem delighted with their full churches, apparently turn a blind eye, and ignore their actual mission.
If more parents of children on free school meals went to church they would get a place at their nearest top church school, it is not difficult.
Churches still provide food banks for the poor anyway
"it is not difficult"
School uniforms, school transport for a school that may be on the other side of the city, school outings, school field trips, pressure to make donations to match well off parents ...
AND as already explained today, needing to live in one place for years.
Does your church food bank provide brioche, I wonder?
Those are costs at any school, faith or not, Outstanding faith schools also admit by church attendance unlike Outstanding secular state schools which admit on whether you can afford to buy a house in their catchment area.
Fuck the renters, then?
So let me get this right. The Conservative Party policy has been to manage state schools so badly that only approved Tory voters, ie house owners, can afford to buy in certain areas, or to pay the extra costs of sending children to faith schools?
And in all cases to pay the extre, no not fees no sir, but, erm, donations to actually help the school achieve basic work?
And to hell with the rest.
No Tory policy is to expand choice ie more free schools, faith schools, grammar schools, private schools etc so bog standard comps (and even they have top ups for trips and lunches etc) lose pupils and gradually disappear.
That is part of the point of being a Conservative, choice not enforced equality like socialists like you demand
That may be Tory policy, but it isn't what happened. You can't offer choice if you are running at full capacity. Round here there is almost no choice at all - you go to the school which has space. I am getting quite nervous about my youngest even getting into the local bog standard - it is 0.9 miles away, and this year if you were over 1.0 miles away you couldn't get in and instead are offered a failing school six miles away. Choice may exist in London, but it doesn't here.
Even more reason for more free schools, grammar schools, faith schools etc and not just in London
Well I quite agree. But why didn't that happen when the Tories were in power, if that was their policy?
There are now 650 free schools UK wide there weren't before the last Tory government
Yet when the Tories came to power there was a choice of schools here. There isn't now. There are fewer and fewer school places available. In Trafford, in the last sixteen years, the growth in 11-18 year olds has massively outstripped the growth in school places.
You said there were no new free schools under the Tories I just showed you were completely wrong. Trafford also has excellent grammar schools.
As every 11 year old to 18 year old has to go to school they will all get places ultimately (and of course the birth rate is well below what it has been going forward)
Right: 1) First para, first sentence. Yes you did. And looking back at what I said, yes, that's what I said - what I should have added was 'round here'. But yes, they have added free school places and I support that and wish they had done more.
2) First para, second sentence: Yes, it does. I have two children at them. However they are very very hard to get into (top, what, 10% in Trafford now go there?) because a) they have not been allowed to expand as other schools have so amount to an ever-shrinking proportion of the state-educated cohort, b) immigration, which (especially from HK) has been massive in Trafford, increasing pressure on the schools, and c) they don't just select from Trafford - it would be much less difficult to access them if other neighbouring authorities also had them. Net outcome of this is that the trend at the state primary schools in Trafford are seeing a trend of smaller and smaller proportions of children going to grammar schools. But I think part of your view is that we should expand grammar school provision along with expanding various other types of specialist school - and if that is so, I agree with you.
3) Ultimately every 11 to 18 year old will get a place, yes - but not much consolation if the only place available is at the 15th-nearest secondary school, 6 miles away in a sink town, and it has places because it is failing. Which is what is happening to people close to me this year. Because school places have not been expanded to match population growth.
4) The birth rate is falling, yes - but this is being counterbalanced by immigration. In Trafford the school age population is increasing significantly. Policymakers don't think this is a problem because they all live in London and it isn't a problem in London because there genuinely is a choice. Not so here.
Ultimately, you and I are not very far apart in our views on this. Increase school places of all sorts to allow genuine parental choice and make schools responsive to parental demand. (In practice, this is much more workable in an urban area like mine where there are four or five schools reasonably accessible by foot, bike or simple public transport journey than in small towns or rural areas where geography might dictate a choice of no more than one or perhaps two.) But the view from on the ground with kids going through the system is that for the last ten years it has been getting increasingly hard to get a place at a secondary school - we have gone from: 'genuine choice of at least four, and, if you are one of the c. 25% who pass the 11+, choice of another three or four grammar schools on top of that. Or be Catholic.' - which was the situation in 2016 or so - to: 'no actual choice, but hopefully the one school you are in catchment for has a place for you - but if not, you'll be on the bus to a crappy school Partington for the next five years - or, if you pass the 11+ you'll be ok, but that only applies to the top 10%. Or be Catholic.'
Chris Philip has supported expanded grammar school provision and I back that.
Immigration is also now starting to fall after Sunak and Cleverly tightened visa requirements to £38k a year before could get one
Listening to Birbelsingh on Nick Ferrari. This woman is out of control. I recommend anyone with interest in schools policy to listen to this on Global Player. I was shocked. Those of a more conservative point of view will be cheered.
She's flavour of the month with the Christian Nationalists because she banned prayer rituals in school policy (no religious groups such as a Christian Union) then won a court case defending it against a challenge by Muslim pupil. I'll have a listen to Nick Ferrari. As far as I have tracked her, she seems consistent since her first speech to the Conservative Party conference 15 or 16 years ago when she was identified; I'm not sure of the process by which she was identified as Miss Snuffy.
(Religion in Public Life has been an area of interest of mine for decades, as you know.)
That lets the CNats (and GBNews etc) pretend that it's about Muslims, and reflects desire to stir things up, when it was more like a victory for "secular" school cultures excluding religion, which is one groups like the National Secular Society have been on for decades. @BartholomewRoberts may be more up to date than me on that side of it.
It was a somewhat complex argument, because iirc it was about prayer ritual in the playground as effectively a form of protest when her school refused to provide a prayer room for pupils.
The self-described "freedom of XYZ" groups take the other side than they do on "silent prayer" (ie intimidation and interference) outside abortion clinics - for some reason .
It’s interesting to see the reactions.
@Mexicanpete is shocked because it seems like restricting the *requirements* of a minority.
The GBNews take it as anti-Muslim.
Most people don’t want more religion in our schools - even the weak-tea-and-biscuits form of Christianity.
They do when the only outstanding state primary or secondary school in their area is a C of E or Roman Catholic school.
Then you get parents queuing round the block to get into the church congregation on a Sunday for the months leading up to the decision on who gets places so they can get the Vicar's reference
That's 'they have to put up with it' rather than 'want it', on your own testimony.
No they want it as it offers choice from the bog standard comp or academy down the road
No, look at your own language and logic. They only want religious schools when there is no alternative. Ergo they don't want the religion bit.
My own language is clear, as a Conservative I want as many private schools, grammar schools, religious schools, free schools, academies etc as possible ie offer a real alternative. As do parents who choose such schools.
You as a statist socialist want to give consumers one bog standard comp option in education as you dislike choice elsewhere
The illusion of choice.
My son's state primary school is non-religious until year 2, then (mildly) C of E from years 3-6. There is no religious element of the admissions process.
But we chose it because it was the best school we were in the catchment area for.
If we'd ended up living the other side of town -which we almost did until a sale fell through - he would that gone to a different, non-religious state primary school. Which is just as good.
The focus for government should be on improving the standards of all schools. The religious element is outdated and doesn't reflect the beliefs of the vast majority of parents of young children.
Just the usual one size fits all rubbish from secular leftists like you.
Nope, we need more choice and more variety of schools including more good faith schools, you could afford to buy into the catchment area of a good school, many in poorer areas can't
One huge problem with faith schools in my area, is that they are essentially selective of the better off children.
All the rules around admission mean that settled families, who can plan their children's education years in advance, have time to rack up the points their local church is handing out, and navigate the various rules, are much more likely to get places. That leads to a huge middle class bias, which in turn leads to better results, which leads to more competition for places, and the cycle goes on.
The schools get to the top of the results charts, but have shockingly few children on free school meals when compared with neighbouring non-faith schools.
I'm not religious myself, but did attend a Catholic school, and I'm not sure the Jesus that they taught us about would have approved at all. It's almost the exact opposite of "Christian", yet the local ministers seem delighted with their full churches, apparently turn a blind eye, and ignore their actual mission.
If more parents of children on free school meals went to church they would get a place at their nearest top church school, it is not difficult.
Churches still provide food banks for the poor anyway
It's "not difficult", and yet it doesn't happen.
I'm sure I don't need to tell you, but consider the reasons why people might be poor. Relationship breakdowns, losing a job, lack of education, dealing with disabilities, death of a partner, spent time in the care system. You're much more likely to be in less secure rented accommodation and moving area more regularly. You're likely to be working in a low paid, more insecure job. You're more likely to be a single parent.
These are all reasons why planning three or even four years in advance for a school place, attending masses, and spending time doing the extra-curricular bits and pieces that all form part of the application process are much more difficult. People with better jobs, their own homes, fewer money worries, are in a much better position, and that's exactly why that middle class selection occurs.
I'm actually surprisingly angry at that response, coming from someone who I assume considers themselves a Christian (and I do apologise if you hadn't intended it to sound so dismissive). I can only hope that maybe you've had such a fortunate life, that you simply don't have an understanding of why some people have more immediate stresses on their lives, and can't spend time jumping through hoops for some benefit years down the line.
So what? You can be jobless with no money and rental accomodation and still attend church, there is no charge for it.
You can be as sanctimoniously angry as you want but you have no problem with secular outstanding state schools selected by house price which poorer parents have sod all chance of getting their kids into
I haven't mentioned anything to do with house prices once, so where you get that from I don't know. It's a total straw man.
Your first words on the other hand are simply callous. I suspect even God is shaking his head, and he's apparently quite the tolerant and forgiving type.
No God in the Ten Commandments made clear you must worship him and no other God but him, if you choose to ignore his commands that is your decision
Evangelical Christianity like the Church of England is becoming a cult and frankly is dying on it's feet and it is not hard to see why
Some of the stuff you spout in the name of Christ is the polar opposite of His thinking, and you are not the judge of any persons relationship with his/her God as that is personal to all peoples and their faiths
You need to understand the wise words of Dave Allen who ended his shows with the lovely advice
'May your God go with you'
In fact the reverse, the main growth in the C of E is in evangelical and bible based churches as globally Christianity is still growing via evangelical Pentecostal and independent evangelical churches in particular
I'm puzzled that this growth in "bible based churches" hasn't made more headlines.
One would have thought that large numbers of people selling all their possessions and giving the money to the poor would have been pretty newsworthy.
The Chinese govt poured $29 billion into EV development between 2009-2022.
And we are giving Miliband £22bn/$28bn to build plans to suck magic gas from the air.
We are not serious people.
If you believe that carbon dioxide is an existential threat to our way of life then ways to reduce that threat are not stupid...
The energy required to suck the gas from the air will exceed the saving of removing the gas. There's no free gifts here. Reducing the amount of CO2 produced in the first place is far more productive.
The Chinese govt poured $29 billion into EV development between 2009-2022.
And we are giving Miliband £22bn/$28bn to build plans to suck magic gas from the air.
We are not serious people.
If you believe that carbon dioxide is an existential threat to our way of life then ways to reduce that threat are not stupid...
The energy required to suck the gas from the air will exceed the saving of removing the gas. There's no free gifts here. Reducing the amount of CO2 produced in the first place is far more productive.
The Chinese govt poured $29 billion into EV development between 2009-2022.
And we are giving Miliband £22bn/$28bn to build plans to suck magic gas from the air.
We are not serious people.
If you believe that carbon dioxide is an existential threat to our way of life then ways to reduce that threat are not stupid...
The energy required to suck the gas from the air will exceed the saving of removing the gas. There's no free gifts here. Reducing the amount of CO2 produced in the first place is far more productive.
I don't disagree but simply making more electric cars doesn't address that unless the electricity in production and in use is also carbon neutral.
Unison says handling of NHS England abolition announcement 'shambolic'
"The health service needs thousands more staff and to be able to hold on to experienced employees. At the moment, it’s struggling to do that. Giving staff a decent pay rise would help no end. But this announcement will have left NHS England staff reeling. Just days ago they learned their numbers were to be slashed by half, now they discover their employer will cease to exist. The way the news of the axing has been handled is nothing short of shambolic. It could surely have been managed in a more sympathetic way."
Can confirm: my NHS England staff who I have as students are reeling.
Unison says handling of NHS England abolition announcement 'shambolic'
"The health service needs thousands more staff and to be able to hold on to experienced employees. At the moment, it’s struggling to do that. Giving staff a decent pay rise would help no end. But this announcement will have left NHS England staff reeling. Just days ago they learned their numbers were to be slashed by half, now they discover their employer will cease to exist. The way the news of the axing has been handled is nothing short of shambolic. It could surely have been managed in a more sympathetic way."
Can confirm: my NHS England staff who I have as students are reeling.
Xx
What a Trump-like lack of empathy.
Even in recessions the vast majority of people stay employed. But it could be you, so people ought to have some fellow feeling.
Unless they are just heartless dicks.*
*Would have used a banned word, but I'm not Robert or TSE...
The European Union, one of the most hostile and abusive taxing and tariffing authorities in the World, which was formed for the sole purpose of taking advantage of the United States, has just put a nasty 50% Tariff on Whisky. If this Tariff is not removed immediately, the U.S. will shortly place a 200% Tariff on all WINES, CHAMPAGNES, & ALCOHOLIC PRODUCTS COMING OUT OF FRANCE AND OTHER E.U. REPRESENTED COUNTRIES. This will be great for the Wine and Champagne businesses in the U.S.
Popcorn all round - apart from the whisky industry
I think we can expect some USA legal actions on some of these tariffs, as well as responses. Trump's basis for being able to do all of these himself, is - I think - National Emergency. And that is questionable, apart from the national emergency he is creating himself.
WTO is not being pursued yet because of snail's pace (and Canada lost some cases last time round).
He believes in power, not, law. We are about to find out what happens.
The Republicans in the House have voted to stop Congressional overview of the tariffs.
They might just as well vote to abolish themselves. They are a parcel of craven fools.
They *are* voting to abolish themselves.
Trump. Ruling by Decree. With Congress voting to remove their right of oversight and to censure any member who dissents.
This is how it ends. How the midterms get removed from the agenda. When the legislature has no intention of impinging on the dictatorial rights of the executive.
And just in case there is a problem, have a distraction. The government has directed the military to prepare a spread of options to take the Panama Canal. You can guarantee that options for Greenland and Canada are also being done.
Want an excuse for no election? WE ARE AT WAR
The USA held elections on the regular cycle in all previous wars, including 1864 in the middle of their Civil War, though not all states voted.
Yebbut Trump is no Lincoln.
Indeed. He's BETTER than Lincoln.
'Trump launches NFTs with bizarre claim he was better president than Lincoln and Washington'
Unison says handling of NHS England abolition announcement 'shambolic'
"The health service needs thousands more staff and to be able to hold on to experienced employees. At the moment, it’s struggling to do that. Giving staff a decent pay rise would help no end. But this announcement will have left NHS England staff reeling. Just days ago they learned their numbers were to be slashed by half, now they discover their employer will cease to exist. The way the news of the axing has been handled is nothing short of shambolic. It could surely have been managed in a more sympathetic way."
Can confirm: my NHS England staff who I have as students are reeling.
Do you believe the 50% headcount cut can or will happen? Seems very DOGE...
I don't know. NHS England has already undergone a 40% cut in staff a few years back, so a 50% cut now is actually a smaller cut in terms of number of people! There will be some savings from not having NHSE separate from DHSC. I guess, yes, they can cut jobs if they want to.
Remember that NHS England is not the NHS in England. Most NHS staff are in hospital Trusts or primary care, etc.
Is it a good idea? I suspect not. A big reorganisation like this eats up everyone's attention and what you get at the end of it isn't going to sway many votes. If you actually want changes that patients and the public can see, then focus on making those and don't spend your political capital on a reorganisation. You could have brought NHS England closer to the DHSC in a more gradual manner, in a less revolutionary/DOGE-y way.
Also, NHS England has the potential to do great things. Managers can be a very cost effective way of spending money. I work mostly in digital health. If you're going to realise the potential for digital, including AI, to transform healthcare, you need people in NHS England or DHSC doing that work, supporting that transformation. Cutting those roles and everyone who still has a job having to spend all their time worrying about the reorganisation, that's not going to help anything.
WATO had Jeremy Hunt on. He is broadly supportive. Sarah Montague wasn't expecting that and tried to paint it as a Lansleyesque root and branch disaster.
I too am nervous that Tories seem to like the abolition of NHS England.
I don't, it is just shifting power back to Dept of Health
Jeremy Hunt is probably a bit more knowledgeable about the NHS than either you or me.
Unison says handling of NHS England abolition announcement 'shambolic'
"The health service needs thousands more staff and to be able to hold on to experienced employees. At the moment, it’s struggling to do that. Giving staff a decent pay rise would help no end. But this announcement will have left NHS England staff reeling. Just days ago they learned their numbers were to be slashed by half, now they discover their employer will cease to exist. The way the news of the axing has been handled is nothing short of shambolic. It could surely have been managed in a more sympathetic way."
Can confirm: my NHS England staff who I have as students are reeling.
Do you believe the 50% headcount cut can or will happen? Seems very DOGE...
I don't know. NHS England has already undergone a 40% cut in staff a few years back, so a 50% cut now is actually a smaller cut in terms of number of people! There will be some savings from not having NHSE separate from DHSC. I guess, yes, they can cut jobs if they want to.
Remember that NHS England is not the NHS in England. Most NHS staff are in hospital Trusts or primary care, etc.
Is it a good idea? I suspect not. A big reorganisation like this eats up everyone's attention and what you get at the end of it isn't going to sway many votes. If you actually want changes that patients and the public can see, then focus on making those and don't spend your political capital on a reorganisation. You could have brought NHS England closer to the DHSC in a more gradual manner, in a less revolutionary/DOGE-y way.
Also, NHS England has the potential to do great things. Managers can be a very cost effective way of spending money. I work mostly in digital health. If you're going to realise the potential for digital, including AI, to transform healthcare, you need people in NHS England or DHSC doing that work, supporting that transformation. Cutting those roles and everyone who still has a job having to spend all their time worrying about the reorganisation, that's not going to help anything.
I'm not sure it fully counts as a "reorganisation" that would slow things down. Labour have been briefing for the last month, that it was the duplication of leadership that was the biggest problem. Even if everyone is doing a good job, there are going to be differing opinions with NHS England and the DHSC both "in charge". Their hope is that this will speed things up, rather than slow them down. Whether that turns out to be true, we'll find out, but at least the Government will have nowhere to hide if it doesn't.
The jobs issue I understand. Aren't there a lot of vacancies throughout the NHS though? I completely agree with the management point, and it's been argued that, if anything, the NHS is undermanaged, so you'd hope that they are offered new roles where their contribution is more appreciated.
Streeting has, I believe, said the reorg will take 2 years. That’s a cost of 2 years distraction before you can get on with the things that matter. Having the right organisational structure does matter, but I think governments (and indeed many big companies) generally underestimate the cost of going through the process of re-organisation.
Comments
I understand there may be other commercial reasons for not doing it, but in terms of consumers it represents a 20% cut in costs while bus fares, used by the poorest people in the country, have gone up by 17%. Meanwhile electricity is over 60% higher - no wonder the transition to EVs has been slow with that relative difference.
At the moment energy and fuel is actually providing deflationary pressure on CPI, oddly enough.
You can be as sanctimoniously angry as you want but you have no problem with secular outstanding state schools selected by house price which poorer parents have sod all chance of getting their kids into
• Sold 4 Million EVs in 2024 (Twice that of Tesla)
• Tesla, Ford, and Toyota fight over its batteries
• Warren Buffett invested $232M for a 10% stake
How China quietly built BYD into the world's biggest EV empire
https://x.com/Chr1stopherHo/status/1899828229638422724
That is part of the point of being a Conservative, choice not enforced equality like socialists like you demand
Sadly, that's also difficult in a true democracy.
China realized they would never catch up to Japan or Germany in combustion engines. That race was already lost.
So they made a key decision: Skip gasoline cars entirely and dominate EVs instead.
The Chinese govt poured $29 billion into EV development between 2009-2022.
https://x.com/Chr1stopherHo/status/1899828320205955576
We'd have had to have persuaded the EU, but the history of the last decade and a half could have been very different.
You have been claiming today that for one's children to have a good education it is necessary to live in an expensive house or send them to a sectarian school. Which last means much the same thing plus spending years pretending to be sectarian.
This is the system your party set up and maintained, under the housing market your party massively inflated.
As JC did not say, fuck the renters and fuck the poor.
Your first words on the other hand are simply callous. I suspect even God is shaking his head, and he's apparently quite the tolerant and forgiving type.
The Chinese just sprayed money to tens of companies, and then chose the best two or three
Choice may exist in London, but it doesn't here.
Predictions that US firms could retain manufacturing plants in Ireland but move profits back to America
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/mar/13/ireland-could-lose-pharma-tax-to-us-after-trump-accusations-experts-warn\
One of the few areas of policy where the US administration is just applying common sense principles.
My party created outstanding free schools like Birbalsingh's. It is mainly in local authorities my party runs grammar schools still exist.
The Bible is of course Old Testament as much as New though even JC believed in charity not near statist Marxism like you
It seems sensible by Starmer and I agree with Hunt
Indeed it is a pity Hunt isn't more involved for the conservatives
The question the conservatives have to answer as Starmer becomes more a conservative politician each day is why didn't they do it
My only response is since 2019 Brexit, covid and the war in Ukraine overwhelmed everything especially the 2 years of covid lockdown
The bigger issue is it will fail until social care becomes the priority, and it seems Labour just refuses to address it kicking it into the next parliament
And as for all labour's plans and talk the only thing that will matter is if the public feel better off in 2028 and things are working again
Also, Matthew 19:21
https://educationhub.blog.gov.uk/2023/08/free-schools-how-we-are-creating-12000-new-school-places-in-disadvantaged-areas/#:~:text=There are over 650 free,with more than 350,000 pupils.
The jobs issue I understand. Aren't there a lot of vacancies throughout the NHS though? I completely agree with the management point, and it's been argued that, if anything, the NHS is undermanaged, so you'd hope that they are offered new roles where their contribution is more appreciated.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/03/13/state-funded-bmws-epitomise-britains-dysfunctional-welfare/
Some of the stuff you spout in the name of Christ is the polar opposite of His thinking, and you are not the judge of any persons relationship with his/her God as that is personal to all peoples and their faiths
You need to understand the wise words of Dave Allen who ended his shows with the lovely advice
'May your God go with you'
BREAKING via CNN:
“The Trump administration is expected to invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a sweeping wartime authority, in the coming days.
The move is designed to speed up the president’s mass deportation pledge.”
Although it hilariously did not work very well in the demonstration.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMWwImDX3ks
A video which I fear sums up Musk's hype and lies.
In Trafford, in the last sixteen years, the growth in 11-18 year olds has massively outstripped the growth in school places.
It looks to me like a further centralisation bringing that directly under the control of the DHSC. I don't think there are going to be significant savings unless there are fewer demands. We could simply scrap some reporting and budget lines, but does the DHSC really not want data on our waiting times, outcomes, complication rates etc? If they still want all that then someone somewhere else will be diverted to that work.
The way to cut bureaucracy is to cut demands, but that is something that Ministers never want to do.
It would be typical of the Telegraph to take a real problem that causes a great deal of hurt and use it as an example of a dodgy welfare system. And only 23 people, lol. There are millions of people on incapacity benefits, and most them are physical issues for people aged over 50.
As every 11 year old to 18 year old has to go to school they will all get places ultimately (and of course the birth rate is well below what it has been going forward)
NEW THREAD
Ruth Deyermond @ruthdeyermond.bsky.social
·
4m
Stage 1 of the classic Putin approach: We'd like to, but there are just one or two issues [demands things he knows won'te be accepted]. Oh you won't accept our entirely reasonable demands to address the historic wrongs done to us? Then it's all your fault. *kills more civilians*
https://bsky.app/profile/ruthdeyermond.bsky.social/post/3lkbiopn2fs2i
Indeed with my experience of the church I would win an Oscar
But even when I was in pain, I would sometimes walk seven or eight miles. Because, despite the pain being in an ankle, it made no difference if I walked or not. The pain was not made much worse by walking, and I got a sense of achievement from walking - and a sense of 'beating' the pain. This made some wonder if I was actually in pain at all.
Gits.
We are not serious people.
I remember a patient with it who invented so many bowel complaints that she had multiple investigations and surgeries, eventually winding up with a permanent colostomy before her Psychological condition was diagnosed. I was seeing her for something else, and did my best to do nothing to her. One characteristic of the condition is that they have very little insight into what is causing their distress, and as they refuse the diagnosis, often vociferously, it is very hard to treat.
It isn't the gotcha that the DT has in mind.
1) First para, first sentence. Yes you did. And looking back at what I said, yes, that's what I said - what I should have added was 'round here'. But yes, they have added free school places and I support that and wish they had done more.
2) First para, second sentence: Yes, it does. I have two children at them. However they are very very hard to get into (top, what, 10% in Trafford now go there?) because a) they have not been allowed to expand as other schools have so amount to an ever-shrinking proportion of the state-educated cohort, b) immigration, which (especially from HK) has been massive in Trafford, increasing pressure on the schools, and c) they don't just select from Trafford - it would be much less difficult to access them if other neighbouring authorities also had them. Net outcome of this is that the trend at the state primary schools in Trafford are seeing a trend of smaller and smaller proportions of children going to grammar schools. But I think part of your view is that we should expand grammar school provision along with expanding various other types of specialist school - and if that is so, I agree with you.
3) Ultimately every 11 to 18 year old will get a place, yes - but not much consolation if the only place available is at the 15th-nearest secondary school, 6 miles away in a sink town, and it has places because it is failing. Which is what is happening to people close to me this year. Because school places have not been expanded to match population growth.
4) The birth rate is falling, yes - but this is being counterbalanced by immigration. In Trafford the school age population is increasing significantly. Policymakers don't think this is a problem because they all live in London and it isn't a problem in London because there genuinely is a choice. Not so here.
Ultimately, you and I are not very far apart in our views on this. Increase school places of all sorts to allow genuine parental choice and make schools responsive to parental demand. (In practice, this is much more workable in an urban area like mine where there are four or five schools reasonably accessible by foot, bike or simple public transport journey than in small towns or rural areas where geography might dictate a choice of no more than one or perhaps two.) But the view from on the ground with kids going through the system is that for the last ten years it has been getting increasingly hard to get a place at a secondary school - we have gone from:
'genuine choice of at least four, and, if you are one of the c. 25% who pass the 11+, choice of another three or four grammar schools on top of that. Or be Catholic.' - which was the situation in 2016 or so -
to:
'no actual choice, but hopefully the one school you are in catchment for has a place for you - but if not, you'll be on the bus to a crappy school Partington for the next five years - or, if you pass the 11+ you'll be ok, but that only applies to the top 10%. Or be Catholic.'
Immigration is also now starting to fall after Sunak and Cleverly tightened visa requirements to £38k a year before could get one
One would have thought that large numbers of people selling all their possessions and giving the money to the poor would have been pretty newsworthy.
Unless they are just heartless dicks.*
*Would have used a banned word, but I'm not Robert or TSE...
He's BETTER than Lincoln.
'Trump launches NFTs with bizarre claim he was better president than Lincoln and Washington'
https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/crypto-donald-trump-president-nfts-b2246104.html
Westminster Voting Intention:
RFM: 27% (+1)
LAB: 24% (-1)
CON: 21% (=)
LDM: 11% (-1)
GRN: 10% (=)
SNP: 3% (=)
Via @FindoutnowUK, 12 Mar.
Changes w/ 5 Mar.