Reader compares Eluned Morgan interview to Titanic captain
The Welsh Labour Government are doing exactly the same to the proud Welsh public, gaslighting and hoodwinking us all into believing that all is well in the circus that is the Senedd.
Let's quickly look at Welsh Labour's legacy over the last 24 years:
Longer waiting lists in ALL of the Welsh hospitals. Some in special measures or just out of special measures
£130million (estimate) squandered on the scoping exercise for the new M4 relief road
£120million (estimate) in unspent covid funds returned to Westminster
£15million wasted on a white elephant that was the Blaenau Gwent race track
Severn Bridge Tolls scrapped completely.
It is my humble opinion that every Labour Government, whether devolved or national, will leave the public purse in a poorer condition, and with the economy in a worse state than when it gained office, which post covid takes some doing.
What was it that Margaret Thatcher once said: 'The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.'
How true this is.
Paul Graham
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
44 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Labour's next hit to independent schools could be far more insidious
Is Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson about to launch her latest onslaught on independent schools? Over the last year Labour has already imposed 20pc VAT on school fees and scrapped mandatory business rate relief for schools with charitable status, vindictively treating them differently from all other charities. Those two measures were unambiguous, public attacks on private education. What might now follow is rather more subtle, but all the more insidious. Phillipson has announced the Government is considering scrapping Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCP) for children with special educational needs (SEN), and planning to replace them with a less onerous and cheaper system. This may sound like good news to anyone who rightly thinks that public spending is out of control. Nearly 483,000 children, or 5.3pc of the school population, had an EHCP in the 2024-25 school year, according to government figures – an increase of 11pc on the previous year and a doubling since 2016. The numbers are clearly unsustainable. But might Phillipson's conversion to sound public finances be motivated by another factor? EHCPs are an essential part of why the state pays, either in whole or in part, for some children to go to independent schools. Local authorities are obliged to provide schooling to children living within its boundaries. But what if it is unable to provide adequate education to a given child due to their specific needs? This may be due to the fact that the child would not be able to cope with larger class sizes, or it might be because their dyslexia is at such a level that the local school is not set up to deal with it. More often than not, the local authority will do all in its power to avoid paying up for the independent school which can provide an adequate education suitable for that child. In 2024, less than half of EHCPs were issued by local authorities within the 20-week time limit required by law, according to the Department for Education. Many parents have to appeal the initial decision to the national SEN tribunal to try and achieve a satisfactory outcome. But some parents do eventually succeed in getting their local authority to pay for private provision. This school year there were 7,200 children with an EHCP attending mainstream independent schools, with more than 20,000 at specialist independent schools. When the Government imposed VAT on school fees the only category that remained exempted were local authorities paying fees for children with an EHCP. If these plans no longer exist, how will it be decided whether a local authority is obliged to pay for private provision? And what mechanism of appeal will there be? Will local authorities continue to pay for the education of children with existing EHCPs? These are questions that may be worrying many parents this weekend. It is also of concern to the schools themselves. For the independent mainstream schools, local authority-funded places for children with an EHCP will only be a very modest proportion of their total intake. But for specialist schools it is a different story. At one school in London, which is a world leader for children with dyslexia, around 60pc of pupils have their school fees paid for by their local authority. Paying for independent schooling is undoubtedly a heavy burden, but it is not the fault of parents that a local authority is unable to provide an adequate education for their child within its own schools. A move from Phillipson could turn out to be akin to what Michael Gove did as education secretary, when he increased the required employer contributions for teachers' pensions. Historically, most independent schools have been part of the state's pay-as-you-go, unfunded Teachers' Pension Scheme. In 2012, the employer contribution to the pension scheme was 14.1pc; this year it has reached double that at 28.68pc. Those who support sound public finances and are appalled by unaffordable public sector pensions may have been tempted to applaud that move. But in truth the measure has amounted to a levy on independent schools. Those in the state sector have had their funding increase commensurately – and in any case employer pension contributions for public sector employees in a pay-as-you-go scheme are only a matter of churning government funds. Gove's move is a major part of the reason for that fees at independent schools soared even before Labour imposed VAT, as the increased pension costs have been passed on to parents. As a result, middle-class parents have increasingly found themselves priced out of them. Whether the extra funding for the pension scheme is a saving to the state at all is debatable, if it pushed parents out of choosing an independent education. We do not have the details of what Phillipson may be planning to replace EHCPs with. But whatever Labour introduces, it is unlikely to be favourable to the private sector. As well as being a world leader in private education generally, some of the UK's specialist independent schools are also at the very pinnacle of what can be done for children with special needs. EHCP reform must not imperil these centres of excellence and damage the future prospects of thousands of children.
Spectator
2 hours ago
- Spectator
Why the Lords doesn't have to accept the Assisted Dying Bill
In an effort to hasten the Assisted Dying/Suicide Bill on to the statute books, Esther Rantzen and Lord Falconer have offered a novel interpretation of the role of the House of Lords. Falconer suggested that the Lords must 'uphold' what 'the Commons have decided to go ahead with'. Meanwhile, Rantzen said of Parliament's upper chamber: 'Their job is to scrutinise, to ask questions, but not to oppose.' Someone like Rantzen may be forgiven for playing so loose with conventions, but a former Lord Chancellor may not. Labour's manifesto made no reference to assisted suicide nor assisted dying The reality is that both the House of Commons and the House of Lords play an equal role in the passing of legislation, except when it comes to matters of financial privilege. For legislation to become law, it must be approved by both Houses; where there is disagreement on the detail, there is negotiation through 'ping pong' until agreement is reached or the Bill falls. This encourages both Houses to compromise and find a way through. Both adopt the same legislative stages, requiring MPs and Peers to approve the Bill as a whole, as well as the detail. If the Lords were not entitled to take a position on any Bill, then second and third reading would simply not exist. The second major convention of the Lords is the Salisbury-Addison Convention, which holds that the Lords does not try to vote down at second or third reading a government bill which implements a manifesto commitment. That convention is founded, as Viscount Cranborne spelt out in the 1940s, on the principle that 'it would be constitutionally wrong, to oppose proposals which have been put before the electorate'. In the case of the Assisted Dying/Suicide Bill, these conditions are not met. Labour's manifesto made no reference to assisted suicide nor assisted dying. Nor is this a Government Bill, despite the Prime Minister's personal support for the legislation. At every stage of the Bill's passage through the Commons, ministers told MPs that the Government is neutral on the Bill and the Bill represents the policy intent of the sponsor and not ministers. The Noble Lords are also entitled to feel frustrated that Lord Falconer expects the more diligent of the two Houses to cut short scrutiny. On legislation of any significance the Lords will typically take twice the time that the Commons does. The Commons took 15 days in Committee, two days for Report stage, and a day for Third Reading. The brevity of report stage was achieved only by curtailing debate, and the procedural controls that exist in the Commons. As such, while more than 90 concerns were identified by MPs at report stage, 80 were not even selected for a decision, eight were rejected, and just two that were not in Kim Leadbeater's name were accepted. If the sponsors of the Bill had been serious about securing the quick passage of the Bill through the Lords, more work should have been done in the Commons to ease the responsibility of the second House. The Lords should also be comforted that the end of the session is penciled in for May 2026. This means that they can take the time to look at the detail of the legislation. The thirteen sitting Fridays set aside in the Commons for the consideration of private members bills will have already run their course before second reading, which is due to take place on 12 September. The Lords is therefore under no pressure to return the Bill to meet a specific date, and it is the Government that will need to makeshift – should it chose to do so – to provide more time when the Bill completes its passage through the Lords. Nor is there any impact on the Government programme as the Bill can be dealt with on sitting Fridays, while Government legislation steadily progresses on other days. Finally, we turn to the risk that the Lords are not done with the Bill by the time the session ends. This is plausible: there might be simply too many problems to patch, particularly in the absence of any consultative work to guide deliberations. Here all sides should take comfort in the existence of the Parliament Acts and the specific provisions. The Royal Commission on Lords Reform concluded that the Parliament Acts – which enable the Commons to 'achieve almost any result it desired' – provided 'another reason for the existence of a second chamber sufficiently confident and authoritative to require the House of Commons, at the very least, to think again'. Should the Bill flounder in the Lords with too many unanswered questions, it would be perfectly permissible for the Government to take responsibility for setting up a Commission or Committee similar to the Warnock Commission or Peel Committee for IVF and Abortion to test the validity of the provisions and the policy approach taken in the Bill. If it was established that the Bill was safe, MPs could return with the same Bill. If the Bill was established as inadequate, a revised version could be developed. In the former scenario, Peers need not worry that amendments made the first-time round would be lost if the Parliament Acts were used. The Acts and Erskine May are clear that if the Bill were to be reintroduced a second time, it can include amendments 'made by the House of Lords in the former bill in the preceding session'; and if the Commons wished to propose further amendments recognising the debates in the Lords and indicating that the Commons is prepared to compromise, the Commons could also suggest these for insertion into the Bill. On three occasions, bills have been introduced in a second successive parliamentary session to potentially allow the Parliament Acts to be used – only for the Lords to agree to the bills, with the passage of time helping to establish a way forward. There are more than adequate mechanisms for the Commons to prevail should it wish to do so, but the Lords must not be bludgeoned into signing off a Bill of such complexity and significance. To do so is to abdicate responsibility and risks sacrificing some people, particularly the vulnerable, to secure the choice for others.
The National
3 hours ago
- The National
Welsh Labour can call out their UK boss. Why can't Scottish Labour?
Some people might be tempted to think this is proof positive that devolution works; that there is no need for Scotland to follow slavishly in English and Welsh footsteps. They could not be more wrong. The truth of the matter is that taking a different path from our southern neighbours is a costly business. According to Shirley-Anne Somerville, the Social Justice Secretary, we spent a not-so-small fortune last year trying to stop Westminster policies affecting Scots voters. Mitigating the iniquitous bedroom tax cost us a kick in the pants off £75 million, while ignoring the benefit cap rushed us another £7.8m with even more spent ameliorating hardship payments in housing. A grand total of more than £90m annually. READ MORE: Pat Kane: Scotland is heading back into a cycle of 'extraction without consent' All of which has to be found from an annual grant which also restricts our ability to borrow and expressly forbids bursting our budget. These are the penalties of proffering a begging bowl rather than demanding independence of thought and making our own fiscal rules. Not so much an indication that devolution works, but evidence in scarce cash of how demanding it has become to do our own thing. We're not alone. The Welsh First Minister made a speech last month which emphasised what she called the 'Red Welsh Way'. The kind of speech Labour voters in Scotland never hear from Anas Sarwar; a speech making it clear that Wales needs and enjoys a seat at the top table. Eluned Morgan told her troops at Labour's Welsh conference: 'Here in Wales, we don't follow the crowd. We lead in our own way – shaped by our Welsh values, our people and our priorities. The Red Welsh Way … proudly distinct, rooted in justice.' Welsh Labour leader and First Minister Eluned MorganShe was careful, of course, to talk up the partnership with Keir Starmer and endorse devolution, but left little doubt that where London and Cardiff differed, she would encourage Wales to go its own way. It went down rather well. Given that eradicating child poverty is a stated aim of both the Scottish and Westminster governments, it's instructive to note that only in Scotland do we have the child support payment, widely regarded as a major source of poverty relief for hard-pressed families, while the hated two-child cap on benefits – and the associated rape clause – will go in Scotland from early March next year, while Westminster continues to prevaricate and dither. Already there are dark hints that scrapping the two-child cap will be among the collateral damage of the recent Commons rebellion if Rachel Reeves continues to play hardball. Here in Scotland, it will mean that families already in receipt of universal benefits will be able to access monthly payments matching the Universal Credit child element: £292.81 per eligible child. READ MORE: Poverty levels in Scotland below UK for 20 years, graphs show Now that we have our own Social Security agency, you might think this offers a layer of protection. It has meant we no longer use Pip or personal independence payments. Instead, we use Adult Disability Payments, which means that any alteration in the Commons won't apply here. Unalloyed good news you might think, except that the London-based Department of Work and Pensions still operates Universal Credit payments. Any alteration to them will inevitably impact on the Barnett formula, which is used to calculate the block grant to Scotland. Or, as I prefer to think of it, Scotland's pocket money. Just the same, we do now have a range of payments which are unique to this country – as I say, an expensive but necessary hobby. Social Security Scotland is now responsible for delivering a range of benefits, including some that are new and unique to Scotland, such as the Scottish Child Payment and Best Start Payments. The Best Start element covers a whole range of payments, many of which start during pregnancy and continue through early learning and school years. John Swinney's SNP Government has said ending child poverty is its top priority (Image: Jane Barlow) Of course, these are only available to families already poor enough to qualify for other benefits, but isn't that the point? Giving money to people who don't need it is what irritates the hell out of many taxpayers, even when they acknowledge the eye-watering cost of means testing. The massive row which engulfed Labour over proposed 'reforms' to the benefits system wasn't just because of the ballooning cost of sickness benefit, but because the folk who promised change to their new constituents on their doorsteps never envisaged that the change in question was to emerge as red Tories. The UK Government will argue that they have done many fine things which go largely unacknowledged. That may be so, but when among your first acts in office are to hit pensioners, threaten to disenfranchise thousands of benefit recipients and get the farming community on the march, you can hardly blame people for muttering that this was certainly not why they voted for the people's party. The other morning, I heard a GP pushing back very hard on the idea that the people going through her consulting room were swinging the lead rather than avoiding paid employment. She said that the Covid years had changed her clients beyond recognition and that we were facing an explosion in mental health problems. READ MORE: Reform UK attack King Charles over small boats comments in UK-France speech When you look at the waiting lists for appointments in that area, it's difficult to disagree. Bit by bit, we are beginning to learn how profoundly those three years of social restrictions have impacted huge swathes of society. Some of the people most severely affected were those who did work during the pandemic, who kept the show on the road for the rest of us. Everyone from health professionals to delivery drivers didn't have the luxury of observing social distancing. That period also saw the birth of them and us – the people stuck up high rises with small children who tried to marry their own need to keep working and put food on the table with the imperative to ensure their children were still being home-schooled. And those of us who had ready access to wide open spaces and could construct a social bubble in our own locality. That divide was mirrored in the teaching profession – I know of teachers who worked their socks off providing oven-ready lessons for the children of already stressed parents, and some others who didn't seem to give too much of a stuff. Let's hope we can recall some of the fallout from those years, because most of the scientific community is convinced that we are not that far away from another pandemic, given the nature of globalisation and travel. Not a pretty thought, but one essential to confront. Let's hope that if there is a next time round, the door won't be flung open to all the chancers who thought it perfectly OK to line their own pockets on the back of national misery. Let's hope too that if there is a next time round, Scotland will finally be in charge of its own destiny. It has become fashionable in some quarters to decry any notion that Scotland is in any way exceptional. That we are somehow more thirled to social justice than elsewhere and less racist with it. In truth, so many people in this country are too preoccupied with surviving, with trying to have some month left at the end of their money, to fret about matters constitutional. It doesn't mean they can't be inspired and motivated by clarion calls to a different future. Morgan in Wales has doubtless got more than half an eye on the Welsh elections next year. Surely time for some Scots politicians to enthuse their troops too. The electoral clock is ticking ever more loudly.
