Welsh Tory Laura Anne Jones defects to Reform
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on talking in class: the writers speaking up for oracy education are right
Two years ago, Sir Keir Starmer enthused about teaching speaking skills. So schools campaigners were understandably dismayed when oracy – otherwise known as speaking and listening – did not appear in the interim report of the curriculum review for England headed by Prof Becky Francis. Peter Hyman, the former New Labour adviser who became a headteacher, has been a key figure behind the revival, over the past decade, of an idea developed in the 1960s. Steps to embed the importance of verbal communication in education have already been taken, with more than 1,000 schools working with the charity Voice 21, and a parallel project in Scotland. The hope expressed by children's authors and others last week is that its absence from the draft report was an oversight which will soon be rectified. The task before Prof Francis's commission is a daunting one, with reformers of all kinds looking to it for solutions. An evidence call attracted 7,000 responses, with the future of special educational needs provision, and a wish to reduce exams, among key issues raised. But it should be clear to the panel, and to ministers, that oral learning also matters. One reason is the rising number of children arriving in primary school with speech and language skills below the expected level. While some pupils catch up later, others need specialist help. Communication difficulties are one reason for the increase in the number of education, health and care plans (EHCPs), which set out what such support entails. The reasons for such complex changes are not yet fully understood, although the pandemic has had an impact. The challenge of artificial intelligence, in relation to university studies as well as schools, is another factor behind a renewed emphasis on talking. Given the easy availability of technological tools to aid writing, it is arguably more important than ever that people are equipped to share ideas and knowledge through speech as well. In many European countries oral examinations are far more common, in schools as well as universities, whereas in the UK 'vivas' are mostly reserved for postgraduate studies. In foreign language learning, the importance of speaking is taken for granted. But while oracy already features in the maths and science curriculum, as well as in English, it is often marginalised. The tricky task of reformers is to alter teaching practice so that more weight is placed on verbal communication, without making this yet another assessment hurdle to be cleared. For its champions, the core of oracy education is the ability to make connections. They want young people to be able to express themselves, and point out that this is a vital life skill – for example, in job interviews and the kinds of public‑facing work that seem least likely to be taken over by machines – for which school should prepare them. Big gaps in confidence about public speaking have long been recognised among the most glaring social inequalities. This doesn't mean that everyone should aspire to be a debating champion. Different accents, personalities and ways of relating should be valued, not ironed out. But if our schools are to keep pace with our frenetically changing world, it is surely right that they should maximise the facility for language, which is part of what makes us human.
South Wales Argus
7 hours ago
- South Wales Argus
Tories would ban doctors' strikes, Badenoch says
The Tory leader said that her party would introduce primary legislation to block medics from taking widespread industrial action, placing the same restrictions on them that apply to police officers and soldiers. Thousands of resident doctors, previously known as junior doctors, began a five-day walkout on Friday after relations between the Government and British Medical Association (BMA) soured over a dispute about pay. Health Secretary Wes Streeting has said the union will not be allowed to 'hold the country to ransom' after receiving a 28.9% pay award over the last three years, the highest across the public sector. The BMA says, despite this uplift, pay for resident doctors has declined by a fifth since 2008 once inflation is taken into account. NHS resident doctors outside Bristol Royal Infirmary (Ben Birchall/PA) On Saturday, the Conservatives said they would reintroduce minimum service level requirements, which were brought in by the previous government and scrapped by Labour, across the health service. Mrs Badenoch said: 'The BMA has become militant, these strikes are going too far, and it is time for action. 'Doctors do incredibly important work. 'Medicine is a vocation, not just a job. 'That is why in government we offered a fair deal that supported doctors, but protected taxpayers too.' She said the Tories were 'making an offer in the national interest, we will work with the Government to face down the BMA to help protect patients and the NHS.' Patients have been urged to attend appointments unless told otherwise while the action is ongoing, with NHS England saying hospitals are aiming to reschedule any cancellations due to strikes within two weeks. Mr Streeting has warned of a challenging few days for the health service but said 'we are doing everything we can to minimise' harm.
Telegraph
7 hours ago
- Telegraph
Kemi is right. We must clip the BMA's wings
Kemi Badenoch's announcement that the Conservatives would ban strikes by doctors represents a clear break with the consensus of the recent past. It is a determined response both to the Government's slow progress with NHS reform and to the Employment Rights Bill, which will make it much easier for unions to call damaging public sector strikes. At present the 'right to strike' – formally an immunity, dating from 1906, from being sued for breach of contract – is almost universal amongst UK employees. The only significant exceptions are the Armed Forces, the police and prison officers. The military are banned from industrial action in every country in the world, and police strikes have been banned here since 1919. Prison officers have at various times had the freedom to strike, but since the 2008 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act, brought in by the last Labour government as it happens, that right has been removed. Many countries have wider restrictions on strikes. Civil servants, university staff and many teachers are banned from striking in Germany, for example. Air traffic controllers, fire and rescue workers can't withdraw labour in Czechia. No federal employee can strike in the US, or even belong to a union which asserts the right to strike. We know that the current Government has made a fetish of international human rights legislation, but the International Labor Organization – to which we are signed up – specifically permits strike bans in 'those services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health' of the population. This would certainly seem to include our militant resident doctors. In practice complete bans on striking by doctors – not always and everywhere the most militant of unionists, to be fair – are confined to authoritarian countries such as Saudi Arabia and China. But many more liberal jurisdictions place considerable constraints on the right to strike. In some US states – including New York, Florida and Texas – doctors in public hospitals cannot strike. The same applies in several Australian states, while any industrial action in other states must go through complicated Fair Work Commission procedures. Where doctors' strikes are permitted there are usually requirements for notice and for minimum service levels – the latter is being abolished here by the Employment Rights Bill. In Canada, doctors in some provinces may be obliged to submit to binding arbitration. Mrs Badenoch justifies her headline-grabbing proposal by pointing to the frequency of resident doctors' strikes and their intransigence in demanding another extraordinary pay settlement despite the government stuffing their mouths with gold last time round. 'The BMA is out of control' she claims. That may also be true of some other militant unions – the RMT is gearing up for more action on our newly-nationalised railways, for example – but they do not generally threaten lives. I rather doubt that a new Conservative government would completely ban doctors' strikes, an action which would prompt massive opposition from the trade union movement as a whole and no doubt provoke the now-inevitable explosion of lawfare. But it would certainly be possible to clip the BMA's wings by tightening ballot requirements and reintroducing the power to impose binding arbitration, something which British governments used in the past. More important, however, would be reform to break up the monolithic structure of the NHS. This would have the side-effect of introducing a genuine market for the services of doctors rather than the current bilateral monopoly. Of course, the prospect of a Conservative government in the near future seems as likely as snow in August. Nevertheless Kemi Badenoch has performed a useful service in opening up debate about the future conduct of industrial relations in the health service, while putting Keir Starmer and Wes Streeting firmly on the spot. Reform should join in the action: we have yet to hear anything of significance about their position on the doctors' strike. Labour needs to abandon its ineffectual bleating about the moral responsibilities of doctors and get tough with these strikers, who do not have massive public backing: nobody is bashing pans outside their doors these days. Another capitulation to the demands of the BMA will only produce knock-on demands from other NHS workers, threatening both the prospects for genuine health reforms and the country's dire fiscal position.
