Mailwatch(ed) Forum

You're welcome.

Boiler wrote: ↑Sat Jul 05, 2025 9:23 pm

Oboogie wrote: ↑Sat Jul 05, 2025 8:32 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Sat Jul 05, 2025 8:18 pmHa ha

I don't get it? If not the Mail, which paper was it from?

Guardian.

Much the same.

Nah the Mail ran with a headline of Badenoch criticising the year of “failure and lies”, I do wish I had their self confidence.

Desmond Tutu once observed that the difference between the Boers and the English was that the Boers would call you all sorts of names to your face, and the English would smile and betray you. That is basically the difference between the Mail and the Guardian.

Something that sounds like Sure Start is coming back. This is a good thing, but there's nothing like the social infrastructure there was then to tap into.

We'll have to wait for the Budget. Sounds like tax rises coming. Perhaps these can fill some gaps.

The press are full of fevered speculation about SEND.

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 1:03 pm The press are full of fevered speculation about SEND.

The Guardian certainly is, based purely on speculation.

This more measured view is from the Times Education Supplement (I like them because they once interviewed me about my cutting-edge pastoral work...)

The government has not yet made a decision on future changes to education, health and care plans and is not looking to end “effective provision” for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), a minister has told MPs.

Schools minister Catherine McKinnell faced MPs’ questions today in the final session of the Commons Education Select Committee’s inquiry into solving the SEND crisis.

Tes previously revealed that, as part of the government’s ongoing reforms of the SEND system, it is considering whether education, health and care plans (EHCPs) are “the right vehicle” to continue with.

A White Paper setting out planned SEND reforms is expected to be published in the autumn.

Ms McKinnell told the committee that the government was yet to decide on changes to EHCPs.

The government has said it believes more pupils could be educated within mainstream schools.

Tes revealed in May that the government is considering the future of EHCPs - a system of statutory support for pupils that was created in 2014.

Ms McKinnell said today: “We have been clear that we will avoid removing effective provision, that is evidence-based and is working and delivering for children and young people.”

Select committee member and former education secretary James Cleverly asked if this meant that the government was not guaranteeing a continuity of provision.

“You’re saying where it’s good quality it will continue but you’re not giving a 100 per cent guarantee of continuity of provision?” he asked.

Ms McKinnell responded by repeating her comment that the government was not going to remove effective provision.

So I'm not sure what the pearl-clutching is for. Perhaps if Foz reads this she could give us a more in-depth insider opinion.

The pearl clutching is for the benefit of SEND parents.

SEND speculation (England only, so I didn't really pay attention) featured on the World at One, too.

I am pleased beyond measure that Phillipson has reincarnated Sure Start.

Won't get any credit for it, though.

SEND changes sound like they're coming. The current system is appalling, and the fact the Tories didn't even try and reform it is a sure sign that they knew they'd lose the election Labour's stuck with rocketing costs and a completely unsustainable system that everybody agrees is awful. They'll get no thanks for improving that either, if they can. And the usual MPs (principled, the principle being more spending on this and everything else, funded by a wealth tax) will kick up a fuss about "to the right of the Tories".

Corbyn published 2 manifestos. 2017 accepted £7bn of benefit cuts pencilled in but yet carried out by the Tories. I think in fairness that 2019 didn't have benefit cuts in, though there was some dubious tax revenues. But how would that look now with the growth of SEND and PIP costs? Anybody care to put it to him?

“You’re saying where it’s good quality it will continue but you’re not giving a 100 per cent guarantee of continuity of provision?” he asked.

Ms McKinnell responded by repeating her comment that the government was not going to remove effective provision.

This led to "minister fails to deny that lots will lose provision". I think McKinnell's response is perfectly sensible. If something is expensive and not very good, there's a strong argument that the government stops funding it.

Interesting article in Rail Magazine this week about new stations. There are more of these opening than people think, but the cost and quality is often not what they should be. Some of the worst examples of value for money were Soham and Kenilworth. In both of these cases, LAs led the development. We're told all the time with devolution that "the Treasury needs to relax its grip, let us get on with it". I don't know how much the Treasury committed to these but the LAs did get on with it, and did badly, because they didn't know about building stations. I wonder if there's a bit of a "how difficult can it be?" naivety about some of the devolution agenda?

By contrast, another devolved organisation performed very well, consistently delivering new stations for a good price. That's Scotrail. The difference is that it's been about much longer, and knows what it's doing. So I guess the message is, don't rush devolution.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 8:05 pm SEND changes sound like they're coming. The current system is appalling, and the fact the Tories didn't even try and reform it is a sure sign that they knew they'd lose the election Labour's stuck with rocketing costs and a completely unsustainable system that everybody agrees is awful. They'll get no thanks for improving that either, if they can. And the usual MPs (principled, the principle being more spending on this and everything else, funded by a wealth tax) will kick up a fuss about "to the right of the Tories".

Corbyn published 2 manifestos. 2017 accepted £7bn of benefit cuts pencilled in but yet carried out by the Tories. I think in fairness that 2019 didn't have benefit cuts in, though there was some dubious tax revenues. But how would that look now with the growth of SEND and PIP costs? Anybody care to put it to him?

My own MP spoke about SEND during our lsast exec meeting he blames a lot of the problems on the childrens and familes act 2014 responsible. Meanwhile from the Guardian

Phillipson has said that the government will protect the “legal right to the additional support children with Send [special educational needs and disabilities] need” when it reforms the Send system later this year. (See 6.09pm.) But the government has not said that all Send children who currently get extra help because they have an education, health and care plan (EHCP) will continue to receive that when the changes are implemented.

Of course this hasn't stopped John Crace from sticking the knife in.

John Crace is the sketch writer, so shouldn't be taken seriously. It's the other coverage that annoys me, no sense of trade offs at all. Just "here's a single issuecampaigning group saying Labour are shitty bastards" and "here's a comment article saying they're shitty bastards".

Here's more. Government inherited a completely shitty situation with the courts. Government tries to sort it out.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... ers-courts

Removing the right to a jury trial for more offences would disadvantage people of colour and other minorities and lead to more miscarriages of justice, reformers have warned.

One way of looking at the current system is that it's avoiding miscarriages of justice. Sadly, not be being fair and efficient, but by sticking the cases on an apparently indefinite waiting list. All those cases have victims- very many of them from ethnic minorities. Surely actually getting those trials done has to be the priority?

In fairness, one of the campaign groups quoted does recognize the trade offs, and suggests the (likely) government proposals are OK if they're temporary. That might be a way forward, though like anything, temporary will come to mean indefinitely.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Tue Jul 08, 2025 11:46 am John Crace is the sketch writer, so shouldn't be taken seriously. It's the other coverage that annoys me, no sense of trade offs at all. Just "here's a single issuecampaigning group saying Labour are shitty bastards" and "here's a comment article saying they're shitty bastards".

Here's more. Government inherited a completely shitty situation with the courts. Government tries to sort it out.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... ers-courts

Removing the right to a jury trial for more offences would disadvantage people of colour and other minorities and lead to more miscarriages of justice, reformers have warned.

One way of looking at the current system is that it's avoiding miscarriages of justice. Sadly, not be being fair and efficient, but by sticking the cases on an apparently indefinite waiting list. All those cases have victims- very many of them from ethnic minorities. Surely actually getting those trials done has to be the priority?

In fairness, one of the campaign groups quoted does recognize the trade offs, and suggests the (likely) government proposals are OK if they're temporary. That might be a way forward, though like anything, temporary will come to mean indefinitely.

Unfortunately people are taking his piece seriously.

Oh, great doctors strikes are back on.

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Tue Jul 08, 2025 12:22 pm Oh, great doctors strikes are back on.

As with any trade union, we'll have to see what sort of settlement they're open to. The very large opening figure they've mentioned may not be much of a guide. I remember firefighters doing that and it didn't end well for them. My feeling is that a different health secretary might get a more sympathetic hearing from the doctors, but that would come at a cost to the Government if the workforce were seen to able to force him out.

Early days yet, but this all has the air of the late 70s. Let's stick it to these sell-outs! Followed by "oh shit".

Don't assume that a Reform-Tory Government couldn't be popular. People did that with Thatcher.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/ni ... y-uk-bills

Time for some straight talking on the cost of clean energy. It isn’t a free lunch
Nils Pratley

Not sure how much straight talking the public want to hear, Nils, but fair point. The green left (not just the Greens) are very starry eyed on costs, citing figures for green energy without the back up that's needed, for instance.

Whatever the government does, it'll doubtless be something that "no true Labour government would even consider". Try "we're a true Labour government" with the markets, see how that goes.