Kemi elected leader of the Tory party

[cariadlet]

Let's hope she really holds Labour to account about women's rights and the dangers of gender ideology.

Turn your question around - why are they allowed to ignore the needs of kids who don't fall into those categories?

How convenient for the author and Dawn to claim that publicly labelling Kemi a “white supremicist in blackface” was a bit of harmless satire after the enormous public outcry. Rather than owning their own offensive and rank racism. What a strange co-incidence. Uncanny really.

I don't think it's at all clear there needs to be a hierarchy like that. Obvioulsly there needs to be a way to decide what kinds of things are funded, but it should involve a principle of fairness, as well as access.

Right now, a child with a disability can get funding, potentially, for a drive to school farther away. Another child, who is really suffering in a particular school, has no access to help like that, and so will be left to make do. Irrespective of the parents ability to pay.

My suspicion is that it is because certain principles become elevated at the expense of others. Access and inclusion - but these only apply to some children. Fairness to all is not included.

(What's worse is the current government looks at this, and then concludes it's a luxury for parents of children to go outside of what the state system chooses to provide for their kids' education. So it's very - take what we offer and like it - not only won't we prioritize your kids, you will pay extra if you want to do so.)

Most people want kids that need help to get it, but they also want to feel that the needs of all kids are being considered in the system, and right now the way it's structured, it doesn't seem like that.

I'm not suggesting anyone 'ignore' any child's needs, just saying that I think it's right and proper that children with MH issues and other conditions that put them at a disadvantage get some help, not to give them an imagined 'advantage' but to neutralise or minimise their disadvantage and allow them to start from a level closer to that of a child who (for example) can get themselves to school or focus on a lesson without one-on-one help from a TA.
I have said what my ideal scenario is: that all state schools be excellent. By this I mean with enough excellent staff and enough internal resources (books, buildings, playing fields etc) and external ones (funding for transport, extra staff as needed, etc) to support all their pupils – the ones who need help getting to school, the ones who will flourish even more with a quiet study space and/or more individual encouragement, and each one in between.

What is your ideal scenario?

The problem is with only so much money in the system some kids get prioritized over others, kids see this and know it's unfair.

It is partly ideological and it's also about which parents have the resilience to shout the loudest. There are plenty of SEND kids with undiagnosed SEND quietly suffering.

The whole system of funding allocation around SEND needs a complete overhaul. Not least the expectation schools - within their current normal funding - can pay for a certain amount of support when in reality this means making very tough decisions such as reduced support / resources for all the other children.

Even if an EHCP says a child needs a 1 to 1 what is the school supposed to do if they cannot recruit someone on a TA pay scale (because they earn the same with less stress working in Tesco's)? Schools are being pushed into impossible decisions and the current funding approach just doesn't work and in some cases can cause safeguarding failures where not all children and staff can be kept safe.

Elevating one child's needs above the others also isn't good for that child. The others notice and you can't force children to be friends.

Some kids get 'prioritized', yes, because they need additional support. This attitude and language on this thread I find questionable, to put it mildly. Do people really, genuinely think that providing support to a child with additional needs is in some way wanting to put them above the rest?

'Elevating one child's needs above the others also isn't good for that child. The others notice and you can't force children to be friends.'
You mean (for example) a child who is NT is aware that a child with autism is getting TA support or a taxi to school, and they resent/refuse to be friends with that child? Is it not on parents and the school culture in that scenario to model and learn why that child has extra support? In other words to model understanding and compassion?

No I'm talking more about when a child is repeatedly hit / verbally abused by another child, or made to feel unsafe e.g by another child blocking access to doors etc. Where's the compassion for the other children?

Well, that's of a quite different order to 'The others notice and you can't force children to be friends.' in your previous post, but OK.

I don't disagree that the whole system needs an overhaul, and I think schools urgently need much more funding too. More funding and resources would mean fewer instances of children being hit/verbally abused, or made to feel unsafe by another child blocking access to doors.

That was the exact example I was thinking of when I typed my previous post. Children being told that they have to put up with different standards of behaviour than they are held to.

Whilst they generally do understand other children have different needs it's also wearing and miserable to cope with constant negative behaviour as a primary aged child and to constantly be told by adults to be 'understanding' whilst feeling that no-one is doing anything about how unpleasant it is for you nor understanding the impact on you (and others). Plus seeing the child doing this to you seemingly rewarded by time in the playground during lessons being allowed to use Lego in class (that you'd like too) during lessons whilst you get no perks despite being very resilient of behaviour that would be considered abusive between adults.

Obviously it's the lack of funding at fault, it's schools having to do the best they can with not enough specialist resource.

New Shadow Cabinet

Mims Davis is now the Shadow Minister For Women, and Claire Coutinho holds the Women and Equalities brief.

But still no Tories at the Women and Equalities Committee!!

Never having heard of Poe's Law I had to look it up.

But in the end this is just about another form of virtue signalling and which one makes you most virtuous.

To applaud a Black Woman making history, or saying being Black doesn't make up for being right wing.

Women for Refugee Women
@4refugeewomen

Who is in Badenoch’s new Shadow Cabinet?

There are some familiar faces who have been appointed to key roles in the Cabinet, and it isn’t good for refugee rights.

Robert Jenrick is the new Shadow Justice Secretary.

From calling Sunak’s Rwanda plan ‘too weak’ to ordering cartoon paintings designed to welcome children to be painted over, Jenrick’s record on refugee rights is disturbing.

Ordered cartoon murals to be painted over as they were too ‘welcoming’.

A reception centre at Kent was told to paint over cartoon murals of characters such as Mickey Mouse - which were designed to welcome young children - as Jenrick thought they were too ‘welcoming’.

Jenrick called Sunak’s Rwanda plan - that would have forcibly deported people thousands of miles away - ‘too weak’.

Instead, confirming he’d want to bring back a ‘stronger version’ of the Rwanda plan.

Jenrick has stated that the Conservative Party will ‘die’ unless it advocates for leaving the European Convention on Human Rights.

The ECHR doesn’t only protect people who are seeking safety from persecution, violence and torture, it protects us all

And there’s more…

When Immigration Minister, Jenrick barred a charity from offering support to people seeking asylum at a Home Office accommodation centre.

The organisation were supporting people to access legal advice, as well as clothing and haircuts.

Jenrick has also made dangerous and inflammatory statements, including:

The unsubstantiated claim that ‘pensioners are waking up with migrants in their bedrooms’.

Priti Patel is Shadow Foreign Secretary.

Patel’s tenure as Home Secretary (2019-2022) marked an extremely hostile and cruel period for people seeking safety in the UK.

As Home Secretary, under Boris Johnson’s leadership, Patel announced the cruel Rwanda plan.

Under the proposed plan, people seeking safety in the UK would be forcibly deported thousands of miles away.

The plan, despite no flights ever taking off, caused HUGE harm.

Patel also oversaw the passing of the Nationality and Borders Act, dubbed the #AntiRefugeeBill, which saw an extremely dangerous overhaul to the asylum system in the UK.

The Act was not only anti-refugee, but anti-women too.

Under Patel’s tenure, Derwentside detention centre for women opened in County Durham.

The cruel centre first detained women just before Christmas 2021.

Since, the centre has caused huge harm to women seeking safety in the UK.

We continue to campaign to SHUT IT DOWN.

Women were being locked up at Derwentside without access to justice.

Without access to in-person legal advice, women were unnecessarily harmed.

It was okay for Patel, but far from okay for us.

That’s why, for the first time ever, we took the Government to court!

Patel also made dangerous and inflammatory comments, including a claim in front of Parliament that 70% of people entering the UK on small boats are ‘economic migrants’.

Everyone deserves a fair hearing.

Unsubstantiated claims like such whip up hatred and hostility.

When Patel resigned as Home Secretary, she said it had been ‘the honour of my life’.

But the legacy she left was one of cruelty and hostility for people in need of protection.

Previous Conservative Home Secretaries include Priti Patel, Suella Braverman and James Cleverly - leaving legacies of cruelty, hostility and harm.

What’s Philp’s track record on refugee rights?

Philp has made some concerning statements, including calling people seeking safety ‘cheeky’ for complaining about living in poor conditions.

Everyone deserves somewhere safe to call home.

People seeking safety are no exception to this.

During his previous role as Immigration Minister, Philp was accused of slamming the door on children seeking safety in the UK.

He then, worryingly, used the language of Nigel Farage to justify his standpoint, stating that the UK is at ‘breaking point’.

And Philp is perhaps most well-known for his gaffe on BBC Question Time where he appeared to ask whether Rwanda and Congo are the same country

We urge Badenoch and her Cabinet ministers to lead with compassion and care.

People seeking safety in our communities deserve to be welcomed.

Failure to do so will continue to stoke hatred and legitimise far-right views about people seeking safety in our communities.

Now is an opportunity for change. We hope Badenoch and her Cabinet take it.

https://x.com/4refugeewomen/status/1853792793174372418

(I may have missed some, but thought as some have problems accessing twitter would copy and paste.)

A reception centre at Kent was told to paint over cartoon murals of characters such as Mickey Mouse - which were designed to welcome young children - as Jenrick thought they were too ‘welcoming’.

I wonder if he thought of adding machine gun towers and barbed wire?

Good to be reminded that despite Kemi's lucidity and intelligence, Tories gonna Tory.

Good to be reminded that despite Kemi's lucidity and intelligence, Tories gonna Tory.

Indeed. I assume her "job" right now is to woo back the voters who defected to Reform.... Having Priti Patel overseeing foreign policy challenges in parliament and Robert Jenrick doing the same for justice should just about do that.

In a way I find it reassuring that my reaction to her choices means my politics haven't shifted overall. I'm still a liberal at heart who is disillusioned with the approach from the left on gender identity. And I'm also still very impressed at how she articulates herself on a range of issues (even when I disagree - see my comments above re SEN provision) and pleased that she won.

The Conservatives were the most likely candidates to have a black woman as leader. They are not interested in your colour, only in your wealth and that you hold economic views that will preserve their wealth.

There will be Claire Couthino at the least, won't there?

I think she'll do better to win back those that voted Lib Dem, but who would normally have voted Conservative. She needs to stay true to her values and if she articulates them clearly enough, those Reform voters who chime with them may well come back. Those that don't are probably best left with Reform.

Labour lost some votes to Reform too. Where I live Reform took lots of votes off Labour to come second in many constituencies, reducing Labour's majority considerably.

Agreed. It's the liberal wing that the Tories need back.

No it doesn't work like that. The committee is there to scrutinise the work of the Equalities Office and the EHRC. Given its dreadful bias towards gender ideology I imagine most Conservative MPs can't see the point if being on it.

I know it was hard enough to get MPs to fill vacancies when the Conservatives were in government.

I'm sure Kemi will be on to that, don't you think?