Labour. Our next Government.

I also went from state primary to state grammar. No private tuition (a laughable concept for my parents), however, throughout my final year at primary school we used to do regular exam practice so fully prepped, by the school, when the 11+ came round. I didn’t / don’t consider myself ‘bright’ because I passed. My grammar school was high pressure. Academic success was valued to the exclusion of any pastoral care. I experienced significant trauma during my teenage years and the school absolutely didn’t know what to do with me - no support at all. I’m not suggesting current grammar schools are this bad, but I would still assert they are still high pressure environments - they have to maintain high results.

Oh yes, the class system was alive and well at my grammar school too. I was very aware that some came from privileged backgrounds with fathers who had a profession. Nothing like that in my little village primary school.

Just read that Labour want to make gender change easier and simpler by having just one doctor to decide instead of the usual panel of experts.
Have they learned nothing from the SNP debacle? True, it’s not exactly the same as the Scottish idea was to allow self ID, but having just one person to decide the case isn’t great and is open to all kinds of mistakes and mis-use.
I’m worried that Labour won’t be able to change much for a long time in the general way so will tinker at the edges with woke stuff.

Well, here are the L party's 6 stated "Starting points"

"The plan is as follows

Step 1: Deliver economic stability with tough spending rules, so we can grow our economy and keep taxes, inflation and mortgages as low as possible.

Step 2: Cut NHS waiting times with 40,000 more appointments each week, during evenings and weekends, paid for by cracking down on tax avoidance and non-dom loopholes.

Step 3: Launch a new Border Security Command with hundreds of new specialist investigators and use counter-terror powers to smash the criminal boat gangs.

Step 4: Set up Great British Energy, a publicly-owned clean power company, to cut bills for good and boost energy security, paid for by a windfall tax on oil and gas giants.

Step 5: Crack down on antisocial behaviour, with more neighbourhood police paid for by ending wasteful contracts, tough new penalties for offenders, and a new network of youth hubs.

Step 6: Recruit 6,500 new teachers in key subjects to set children up for life, work and the future, paid for by ending tax breaks for private schools.

These missions are ambitious. And ambitions start with first steps."

Oreo

Just read that Labour want to make gender change easier and simpler by having just one doctor to decide instead of the usual panel of experts.
Have they learned nothing from the SNP debacle? True, it’s not exactly the same as the Scottish idea was to allow self ID, but having just one person to decide the case isn’t great and is open to all kinds of mistakes and mis-use.
I’m worried that Labour won’t be able to change much for a long time in the general way so will tinker at the edges with woke stuff.

They’ll be able to partner up with the Greens in Scotland. They have a candidate who, according to his X post is offering to pay £300 to someone who will lie and say he’s a woman.
Is lying going to be an essential qualification for being an MP now?

That's the main thing that puts me off Labour Oreo. Has KS been able to say what a woman is yet?

Wyllow3

Well, here are the L party's 6 stated "Starting points"

"The plan is as follows

Step 1: Deliver economic stability with tough spending rules, so we can grow our economy and keep taxes, inflation and mortgages as low as possible.

Step 2: Cut NHS waiting times with 40,000 more appointments each week, during evenings and weekends, paid for by cracking down on tax avoidance and non-dom loopholes.

Step 3: Launch a new Border Security Command with hundreds of new specialist investigators and use counter-terror powers to smash the criminal boat gangs.

Step 4: Set up Great British Energy, a publicly-owned clean power company, to cut bills for good and boost energy security, paid for by a windfall tax on oil and gas giants.

Step 5: Crack down on antisocial behaviour, with more neighbourhood police paid for by ending wasteful contracts, tough new penalties for offenders, and a new network of youth hubs.

Step 6: Recruit 6,500 new teachers in key subjects to set children up for life, work and the future, paid for by ending tax breaks for private schools.

These missions are ambitious. And ambitions start with first steps."

1. What does ‘tough new spending rules’ mean? Inflation is now down to 3.2%. Keeping taxes ‘as low ^as possible^’ is meaningless - what is ‘possible’ is largely dependent on their spending.

2. You don’t just pay for extra appointments, you need appropriate clinical staff to execute them. Non dom status was abolished in the March budget. Tax avoidance is legal - which avoidance measures do they intend to get rid of? ISAs?

3. I heard an interview with a Border Force official who says these proposals will do nothing. Rwanda is proving to be a deterrent. Hundreds of new specialists investigators - where are they coming from and at what cost?

4. I think we’ve already heard the mix up about the cost of this. How will clean energy help people who rely on gas or oil heating and drive petrol or diesel vehicles? There is already a windfall tax.

5. Which wasteful contracts will be ended, and how? Despite recruitment drives, fewer people want to join the police. Tough new penalties? The prisons are full.

6. Adding VAT to school fees will push some children into the state system. Higher tax burdens for independent schools may cause some to close. Labour’s view that no child should receive a private education comes through loud and clear.

Ambitious? No, they are playing the electorate for fools.

Oreo

Just read that Labour want to make gender change easier and simpler by having just one doctor to decide instead of the usual panel of experts.
Have they learned nothing from the SNP debacle? True, it’s not exactly the same as the Scottish idea was to allow self ID, but having just one person to decide the case isn’t great and is open to all kinds of mistakes and mis-use.
I’m worried that Labour won’t be able to change much for a long time in the general way so will tinker at the edges with woke stuff.

That is appalling. Truly appalling.

Please note - this is not Labour Party policy as stated above.

*this news is from todays Times newspaper front page and it is not Labour Party policy

To quote from the actual article as opposed to what has been seized upon above "the Party is considering" ie is discussing

not policy

My personal POV is that it should be 2 doctors and from specialist units.

But I suspect it just going to be used in anti Labour election smear tactics, as the reality in the L Party is that its still very much in debate.

See front page of the Times to confirm

www.frontpages.com/the-times/

It’s clear that they want to make gender change easier. That is their intention and they are considering how to do it. Why, just why? Are they so desperate that they’re going for the trans vote?

For the few grammar schools left now there may well be cramming and extra tuition but there was none when I took the 11+. I remember our Headteacher telling us just a couple of weeks before a little about the 11+ and explaining that for some grammar school would suit them and for others the secondary modern. He said both schools in our catchment area were very good and he was sure we would be happy wherever we went. It was no big deal at all.

Whoever suggested on here that it was the kids with pushy or well off parents who went to grammar school is very wrong. One of the brightest girls in our school was one of 8 kids and daughter of a bin man. She excelled at every subject. Another girl lived in a house miles from anywhere and they didn’t even have electricity. She did her homework by paraffin lamp but she was super clever with an almost photographic memory.

Germanshepherdsmum

It’s clear that they want to make gender change easier. That is their intention and they are considering how to do it. Why, just why? Are they so desperate that they’re going for the trans vote?

At the moment there is no workable legal process to indicate gender change. (The 2004 act has not proved workable). Result - chaos as we've seen.

We need guidelines/clarity. It's a tiny part of the electorate. So it's quite rightly under discussion.

Oreo

Just read that Labour want to make gender change easier and simpler by having just one doctor to decide instead of the usual panel of experts.
Have they learned nothing from the SNP debacle? True, it’s not exactly the same as the Scottish idea was to allow self ID, but having just one person to decide the case isn’t great and is open to all kinds of mistakes and mis-use.
I’m worried that Labour won’t be able to change much for a long time in the general way so will tinker at the edges with woke stuff.

My words were ‘just read’ and never said it was decided Labour policy.It’s being considered tho.
As a Labour voter am not interested in any smears!
Am just worried that this is even being talked about within the Party, newspapers got this story and will run with it until it’s absolutely denied which I hope it will be, and soon!

There’s no need to look at changing anything around gender, keep it as it is, no quickie decisions.

Here is the procedure for applying for a GRC. Should it be any easier? Approval by just one doctor - unbelievable.
www.gov.uk/apply-gender-recognition-certificate

I agree 2 doctors. And no quickie decisions.

Thank you for outlining the act. In theory, it covers the bases.

But.....in practice, it's resourcing, and just hasn't worked out. Locally, it's always been over 18's only and I agree with this, but the waiting lists are 4 years to even start.

I don’t think it should be quick and easy. Time to reflect is no bad thing.

Oreo

There’s no need to look at changing anything around gender, keep it as it is, no quickie decisions.

Are you an expert in this field Oreo? I’m not, and I’d prefer this decision to be made by experts rather than lay people.

Primrose53

For the few grammar schools left now there may well be cramming and extra tuition but there was none when I took the 11+. I remember our Headteacher telling us just a couple of weeks before a little about the 11+ and explaining that for some grammar school would suit them and for others the secondary modern. He said both schools in our catchment area were very good and he was sure we would be happy wherever we went. It was no big deal at all.

Whoever suggested on here that it was the kids with pushy or well off parents who went to grammar school is very wrong. One of the brightest girls in our school was one of 8 kids and daughter of a bin man. She excelled at every subject. Another girl lived in a house miles from anywhere and they didn’t even have electricity. She did her homework by paraffin lamp but she was super clever with an almost photographic memory.

That was not the case (pushy parents and tutoring) but it certainly is the case now in our County and has been since my now 38 year old son went to Grammar School.

The way it worked it our day was the right way. ALL pupils sitting the rest within their own schools with little fuss or pressure.

Good Comprehensives can work very well.

My son went to a comprehensive and did very well. He enjoyed his time there. There was a cohort who misbehaved and got into trouble (he heard that one was jailed for murder a few years ago) but fortunately he had decent friends who worked hard, as he did, and have done well for themselves.

For me, practice for the 11+ was done in school by using Progress Papers and all children did them (except the R class). The test was in school and all children sat it.
By the time my children got to that stage, practice was done in school with similar papers and the test was still done in school
If there was cramming, (and there probably was), no one was boasting about it.
DGC faced practice in school and many children got cramming outside if parents could afford it.
The test was done at the grammar school. Anyone could enter, but the head advised parents whether their child was likely to succeed and that information was also passed to the school in question.
Putting the grammar school first affected your chances of getting your next choice school, so that advise was useful.

Casdon

Oreo

There’s no need to look at changing anything around gender, keep it as it is, no quickie decisions.

Are you an expert in this field Oreo? I’m not, and I’d prefer this decision to be made by experts rather than lay people.

It already is carried out by experts in this field, that’s why I don’t want any changes made by non experts like Labour or any other politicians.
A single doctor deciding on this is wrong.

It is.

A single doctor deciding on this is wrong.
Actually even two doctors wouldn’t make it right if the person wishing to change gender is then going to claim that they have changed sex.