October 24, 2005


Blair hails 'real parent power' reforms (ePolitix, 10/24/05)

Tony Blair will today say that radical plans for a new generation of independent state secondary schools will create "real parent power" and the changes will be "irreversible".

In a major speech on education the prime minister will say that this week marks a "pivotal moment in the life of this parliament and this government".

The speech comes ahead of the publication of the education white paper tomorrow which will contain plans to grant all schools independence from local authorities under new elected councils of parents.

Critics, including deputy prime minister John Prescott, fear the move goes too far and will destroy the comprehensive school ideal.

Some Labour MPs are already vowing to vote against the legislation when it comes to the Commons next year.

But in a bid to cement an educational reform legacy from his three term premiership, Blair will today make clear that the system is about to change fundamentally.

No Democrat in America would vote for such reforms.

Blunkett in push to take 1m off benefit (FRASER NELSON, 10/24/05, The Scotsman)

DAVID Blunkett has said he believes one million of Britain's 2.7 million incapacity benefit claimants are capable of work - and can be coaxed out of welfare by greater benefits alongside their salaries.

The Work & Pensions Secretary has told The Scotsman that next month's green paper on welfare reform will give a "two-handed" approach of providing work, and guaranteeing a return to welfare if their job does not work out. [...]

"We think that there are at least a million people across the UK who could return to work if they were given the right support and right circumstances," he said. "We have a very large number of vacancies in the economy and we must equip people to fill them."

At present, incapacity benefit pays out for life - and normally comes with a suite of benefits which can exceed the minimum wage. Critics argue this creates a clear disincentive to work, and encourages welfare dependency.

Posted by Orrin Judd at October 24, 2005 8:04 AM

"... independence from local authorities under new elected councils of parents."

Sounds very good, but what's to prevent these councils from being taken over by Muslims.

In Scandinavia elected officials are fearful of offending their Islamic immigrants and the schools pander to their needs. The Danes even going so far as opening schools in Pakistan, so their Pakistani students can maintain close ties to their native land.

Posted by: tefta at October 24, 2005 8:59 AM

Why shouldn't Muslim parents run their kids schools?

Posted by: oj at October 24, 2005 9:11 AM

Muslims shouldn't run their kids schools because Islam isn't only a religion, it's a life style inimical to our anglospheric values of openness, equal rights, individual freedom, free trade, etc.

Posted by: tefta at October 24, 2005 10:04 AM

That's what they used to say about Catholicism.

Posted by: oj at October 24, 2005 12:26 PM

I've been around for more than seventy years, and I don't remember anyone saying that Catholics dogma included the admonition to kill all non-Catholics. Neither were Catholic men given license to kill their women who offended the prophet.

Catholicism doesn't seek to impose their religion on the state as does Islam. In fact, didn't Jesus say, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's"

Jesus was a smart guy. Too bad Mohammad didn't pick up a few pointers from him.

Posted by: tefta at October 24, 2005 12:44 PM

What were the Crusades, Inquisitions, religious wars, etc. Why are we called to Evangelize?

Posted by: oj at October 24, 2005 2:41 PM

oj. You're using events far removed in time and place from the public school system. We've learned a thing or two since the crusades, that's why our idea of a melting pot works so well.

You list the religious wars separately. I don't what you mean by that? All wars are religious wars.

Posted by: tefta at October 24, 2005 6:43 PM


Yes, so in the midst of our religious war to radically Reform the Islamic world isn't it foolish to pretend we don't fight jihads?

Posted by: oj at October 24, 2005 8:52 PM

oj. We aren't fighting a religious war to reform Islam? We're fighting to protect ourselves from Islamic terrorists bent on our destruction.

If we have to destroy Islam in the process, it's okay with me.

Posted by: tefta at October 24, 2005 10:11 PM


They're no threat and the war has only bred more, however, we are transforming the region.

Posted by: oj at October 25, 2005 12:12 AM