Prime Minister's Questions: Schools

What Balls is saying is a fudge because the funding slipped under the net - a case of Balls not having his eye on them. And yes he was mouthing shame - something he needs to go to school on. Mr Balls is far too self-important for his own good and is doing Mr Brown no favours at all.

I also doubt if Mr Brown is having more success with his reasons for being in Afghanistan if the polls are to be believed.

And Nick, shame on you - where is the bit where Clegg clogged Brown? This was rare enough to be in your post!

It's odd, Nick.

Brown was stumped by two questions today. The one you have chosen to focus on and the issue of "limiting" the papers the Chjicolt Inquiry will be allowed to release.

The Academy issue does need resolving, but remains unclear.

However, Clegg produced a document, issued by governmenbt to the Chilcot group which apparently says that there are several reasons why several ministries could ensure that some documents are not released.

If Clegg and his team are correct, then Brown misled the House by saying it would be only tight areas, where security may be at risk, within which Chilcot evidence could not be made public.

I'd have thought that was actually a more pressing matter...

Nick

I saw this exchange and also the analysis on the Daily Politics. It was clear that there is some questionable practices both at DCSF and also the local Councils. Also, it was clear that GB had not had a briefing and Balls knew about this issue and not briefed Brown.

Also it was interesting that the schools concerned web site removed huge amounts of the web content whilst the Daily Politics was on air.

Brown clearly didnt have a grip on this nor did he have a grasp of the points raised by Nick Clegg either to do with departments witholding information from the Iraq inquiry and was getting an"on the hoof" briefing from Jack Straw before he answered.

Not a good day for Brown at PMQs.

By the way Nick we have only had ONE poll showing a narrowing lead so that is not the same as "few tighter polls " as you state in your blog. A little bit biased maybe.

Whitewash.

Call an election.

If, as Balls says,
"Balls is about to reply insisting that:
• Both have been inspected by Ofsted since 2007
• Both are registered with the Department for Schools, Children and Families
• As a result both schools have legitimately received government funding"

Why was funding cut for the schools in October? (As per your colleague Laura's tweet) Surely this means that this Labour goverment has been funding extremism in our own country given that they (the schools) had until October been recieving state funds. Now that is shameful.

The schools issue is bad enough. Funding extreme organisations, is there not an ongoing case around a Jewish School?

Add the secret bank loans, no mention of the fact to shareholders in the prospectus, (did we the tax payer take a stake in Lloyds knowing this)we have a government who appear to play fast and loose with the law of the land.

Then we have the dossier from Clegg, now either the dossier is a forgery or somebody very high in the government has misled the house and the country.

who do we believe?

Nick I agree with post 3 that the latter is perhaps the more interesting of the faux pas made at question time by our leader.

The majority of politicing is being carried out at Brown's expense by Mandy, Balls and Straw.

It's clear that Labour dropped the ball on this one.

As it was quite clearly pointed out to Jaqui Smith, if the organisation is openly calling on their members to kill jews, it is indefensible and they should have been prosecuted under law and their funding recovered.

How can the governemnt support this.

I think that this one slipped under the net and in typical Labour style they will deny it completely, bring out the race card and blame the Tories for anti-muslim comments rather than admit they made a mistake.

I saw the analysis too, and very clearly the schools pulled off the content of their site very quickly, not the actions of an organisation with nothing to hide.

Luckily with the marvellous tool of the waybackmachine available on the internet, it should be possible to recover that web information. That said, aren't the government watching everything we say and do anyway?

"..a few tighter polls.."

Can you cite more than one?

"the Tories are playing politics with a dangerous issue"

Hi Nick,

Yes, that is exactly what's happening here.

There's a considerable amount of fear/distrust of Islam in the country at the moment, and Cameron would like to tap into that - it IS rather dangerous, I hope he doesn't make a habit of it.

Sorry it was post2 that was pushing the Clegg dossier. Been a long day.

Saga; come, come the point was that Brown et al had taken their eye of the Ball(s) and missed something. Not that Cameron is an Islamaphobe.

but you accepted that in another post or have I misread you?

Nick

"There's nothing like a looming election and a few tighter polls to liven up exchanges at Question Time"

Agreed QT will get livelier the nearer we get to the Election.

But surely you know that there is only one significantly "tighter" poll, which most commentators think is both a rogue and affected by the different methodology used by Ipsos MORI.

What about the latest poll by AngusReid which is back to the same sort of lead as previous ones (C39% / L22% / LD21%) - you and your colleagues have not reported this. Us ordinary mortals only know about it because of the bloggers!

And as for Ed Balls accusing the opposition parties of being "shameful" and playing politics... the words "pot" and "kettle" spring to mind. It seems that Gordon Brown was caught out by both Cameron and Clegg, and the Government found it uncomfortable.

Nick,

Why the Sinicism directed at the Tories? Ed Balls received a letter about this subject last week, Tory spokesmen have been raising this issue for over a month and yet before today the GVN had failed to respond to these allegations. It's this GVN's lethargy in the face of growing Islamic fascism that is shameful Mr Balls, and not David Cameron's absolute right to raise this issue at PMQ's.

Consider for a moment – if the Tories had revealed that a BNP member was a serving headmaster; how would the media and Labour MP's for that matter, have responded to such a revelation? Quite rightly, there would have been an outcry – Racism has no place in our society, let alone our schools. Hizb ut-Tahrir and the BNP are two sides of the same coin – anyone care to disagree? One promotes hatred based on race, the other religion. How can a headmaster foster an atmosphere of tolerance, peace and lawfulness in his or her school, while simultaneously belonging to an organization that has in the past openly advocated the murder of Jews? An organization that has also claimed that it is Islamic and virtuous to steal and use violence against infidel(s)… The fact that such views are allowed into the classroom via the headmaster’s office, is not just an offence against non-Muslims, it is also a slap in the face to the overwhelming majority of law abiding, peaceful Muslims who follow the true teaching of Allah.

I also agree with a previous poster on the subject of the Iraq enquiry; why haven't you blogged on this issue Nick? Mr. Clegg wrong-footed the PM today and on a point of national interest – why doesn’t the BBC give him a fair crack of the whip?

Sagamix @9

Can you clarify if you support the funding of these schools if they are linked to an extreme group?

I am quite happy for any faith school to receive funding providing its not extreme.

'Labour believes the Tories are playing politics with a dangerous issue.'

Hmm bit hypocritical there on a number of dangerous political levels from Labour.
On the terrorism issue, then this should be investigated thoroughly and if so Balls should be sacked - oh wait no that can't happen.

Is it not inevitable that when public funds are given to private organisations to run schools and other facilities, some of the money will end up financing activities which many of us consider undesirable?

David Cameron, judging by the speech he made recently promoting the benefits of what he called "social entrepreneurship", would do even more of this if he became Prime Minister.

David Cameron should not be using Question Time to make allegations about Muslim groups based upon hearsay. Is there not enough Islamophobia in this country already?

I bet the BNP and groups like the English Defence League will have loved Cameron's little twirl today - that sort of rhetoric based upon hearsay rather than hard evidence is what the anti-Muslim groups feed on.

Anyway, I thought he accuses the government of eroding civil liberties or does he plan to continue the McCarthyite era we're in.

Expect to hear the accustomed howls of "Islamophobia" over the next few days.

gthebounceranddavincimaster @15

I agree with you.

It was a very interesting PMQs today.

exiled @ 11

"the point was that Brown et al had taken their eye of the Ball(s) and missed something. Not that Cameron is an Islamaphobe"

:-) the Balls joke.

But no. I'm not calling DC an Islamophobe, he's a Notting Hill sophisticate and such types are not prone to that sort of thing. And he was perfectly entitled to raise the point at PMQs on the grounds of embarassing the government, such is PMQs. All okay. However, if the Tories bang on too much about what isn't really much of an issue - and let's see if they do - then I will conclude that they are pitching for the racist vote. I don't like it when mainstream politicians (of any party) do that. They should be above it. Hated Brown doing it with his "BJs for BWs!" and don't hate it any the less when it comes from Cameron. But as I say, let's monitor for a while before we conclude the worst. He might drop it.

9#

What do you base that on, Saga? Isnt that the BNP's job?

Or are you suggesting that there isnt much of a rizla paper between HM Opposition and Griffin's odious bunch?

16. At 5:13pm on 25 Nov 2009, stanblogger wrote:
"Is it not inevitable that when public funds are given to private organisations to run schools and other facilities, some of the money will end up financing activities which many of us consider undesirable?"
"Activities which many of us consider undesirable" is the most feeble criticism of Hizb ut-Tahrir that it is possible to make. These people advocate the murder of unbelievers for gods' sake!

"Culverin wrote:
David Cameron should not be using Question Time to make allegations about Muslim groups based upon hearsay. Is there not enough Islamophobia in this country already?"

If this is based on hearsay then I would agree, however if Cameron has done some research and has more then hearsay to fall back on then this is actually an important issue. We could find that on one hand the Government is funding a war on terror and on the other hand they have not noticed government funding going to extremist groups.

"I bet the BNP and groups like the English Defence League will have loved Cameron's little twirl today - that sort of rhetoric based upon hearsay rather than hard evidence is what the anti-Muslim groups feed on."

At the moment we don't know if this is on hearsay rather than hard evidence, Cameron may actually have solid proof.

Mandelson,Blair and Brown will do all that is within their collective capability to ensure that Blair is left as untainted as possible following the Chilcott Inquiry. These three and whoever they may be who pull their strings have been duplicitous secretive and politically dubious from the years leading up to the usurpation of the old Labour Party until the present time.

No doubt Cameron's aim today was to discomfort Brown.This is poor behaviour.It smacks of the unsophisticated vote chasing politicking that has gone on in this country far too long. The reason for it is simply the undemocratic style of politics we have to endure here.

The first past the post system of choosing a government causes the immaturity and lack of sophistication from celebrity seeking MPs that sends objective,intelligent and discerning people up the wall.

Not only do we discover today that Chilcott may already have been "got at" as usual in a way that the political establishment reckons is somewhat too clever for the average voter to suss but also we learn that that man Balls may have been paying out tax money to two schools that have very dubious characters, possibly fermenting radicalisation of pupils, involved in running them.

On the basis of innocent until proven guilty, could we please be appraised before the next election of the clear physical evidence that Blair on behalf of New Labour did not lie to Parliament and the British people over Iraq and similarly that Balls has not overseen the funding from taxes intended to support schools desiring to do Britain harm?

Playing at popularity seeking during PMQs is one thing but not over matters so serious. The voters in this country deserve to know exactly what is going on in our own land.

Balls might like to show similar evidence that he doesn't intend teachers to become the nation's snitchers regarding domestic problems that pupils share with them. I spent years working near East Berlin perfectly well aware how the Stasi was being used to help the subjugation of a nation's people.I don't need the same or similar here thank you.

Why don't you blog on the issue raised by Nick Clegg in PMQ ? You were listening to it.

Either Nick Clegg or Gordon Brown is a liar. As uaual I doubt we will hear from you unless Brown can be spun out of his predicament.

If Nick Clegg is telling the truth and he has a genuine document, then it shows that the Iraq inquiry is a total farce. A much more important subject to blog about, eh?

What about it Nick ? Dare you. Show us all you are impartial.

#13 ngodinhdiem

"Hizb ut-Tahrir and the BNP are two sides of the same coin – anyone care to disagree? One promotes hatred based on race, the other religion."

Errrrrr, I care to disagree. Knowing a little about Hizb ut-Tahrir, I struggle to see anywhere where they have promoted religious hatred. On the contrary in fact.

I know nothing about these schools or their headmasters, however, if they've been promoting religious hatred as individuals it doesn't mean that they're promoting the view of the group they happen to be a member of.

Having known some Tories in the past and knowing their anti-just about anyone views (including Jewish - remember, the Jewish community used to be hated pre-9/11 by your average white British extremist), I'm sensible enough to say that it certainly doesn't make the Conservative Party an extremist party. Or does it in your book??????

On the point of the Iraq Review, it's true, why the blog based upon David Cameron's hearsay and nothing about Nick Clegg's fact that carries such serious implications?

So basically if Balls had done his job properly and answered the Tories letter promptly, there would have been no question from Cameron and no embarassment for Brown. And Balls is supposed to be an ally of Brown?

Equally Brown was asked about this group in 2007 at his first PMQs, and said he would do something about it. Yet again it is the lack of doing that is the problem, not a policy decision. Simply determine if the group should be proscribed or not.

This inaction also sends the wrong message to the real nasties out there, who will now think that they should push the boundary a bit further to see what happens. If the government is not decisive it will be seen as a soft touch and this weakness will be exploited. Our standing with our Muslim allies will also suffer, as they often employ a hardline stance against such groups whereas our Human Rights legislation gives the perception of acceding to these groups. Perception is a very important feeling in the Muslim world.

civil @ 14

"Can you clarify if you support the funding of these schools if they are linked to an extreme group? I am quite happy for any faith school to receive funding providing it's not extreme"

I'm a bit more militant on this than you.

Please accept this in the positive "forward looking" spirit in which it's intended but I oppose ALL faith schools. And all private schools for that matter, but we can argue that some other time. For me, religious belief should be like sexuality - a purely private matter which has no place whatsoever in our public life. I particularly disapprove of it playing a part in education.

As regards this issue, it sounds like a mistake has been made. Two schools, a small amount of money. No big deal in my view. Certainly not a reason to revisit the enlightened policy of funding moderate Muslim groups as a counterweight to extremism. Enlightened apart from the faith schools aspect, rather. But as long as we DO have faith schools (there are numerous Catholic ones, for example) then we have to allow Muslim schools too. Would be discriminatory, otherwise.

The particular Muslim extremist organisation involved (can't spell it, sorry) sounds to me as if it ought to be banned. Likewise a much larger and considerably more dangerous group, the BNP - don't remember getting much support for that view on here, the last time we discussed it.

So Labour think it's acceptable to ban US talk show host Michael Savage from the UK, yet it is acceptable to fund schools teaching Islamic supremacy to impressionable children?

RE: No. 17

Hearsay Culverin? Two of the four trustees + the headmaster at one of the schools belong to Hizb ut-Tahrir. A group that one Tony Blair promised to ban, because the group openly advocated violence against non-Musilms. This is a FACT. Just as it is a fact, that anybody with any links to racist and extremist groups like the BNP, Hizab ut-Tahrir shouldn't be allowed anywhere within the school gates.... If Mr Balls can't grasp thsi simple principle then he isn't fit to be a minister of the crown.

Mark_WE @ 23 wrote

If this is based on hearsay then I would agree, however if Cameron has done some research and has more then hearsay to fall back on then this is actually an important issue. We could find that on one hand the Government is funding a war on terror and on the other hand they have not noticed government funding going to extremist groups.


====================================================================

Mark_we

For those who did not see PMQs and Daily Politics today you should watch it.

DC presented information that had been sent by Gove in a letter to Balls concerning the evidence about 2 schools that had received funds with links to a group, Hizb ut-Tahrir, that Brown had said he would proscribe back in Summer 2007 just after he became PM; He has not done this.

After PMQs Daily Politics with Nick presnt spent sometime look at this issue. Live on the programme they looked at the curriculum on the School Trust web site that demonstrated some less than plesant views about other religious groups. Then after a few minutes the School Trust web site appeared to remove a significant amount of the information.

So to those who blame DC for raising an issue based on hearsay i believe are wrong as it was trailed by Gove to Balls in writing over a week ago. Brown did not know these facts and had problems answering.

The point DC was making is that govt money should not fund organisations that have extreme views.

Watch the programme if it is on iPlayer before you comment about hearsay or not. Andrew Neil did a very good job on the Daily Politics today.

Balls was forced to react immediately this came up at PMQ's. Brown was greatly embarrassed when the questions from Cameron came up and clearly was not briefed so wasn't in control. Angry is an understatement.

The questions raised were informed and obviously well researched. The very fact that information on the schools in question was being wiped off the website as we watched the Daily Politics says it all.

As far as an Ofsted inspection goes even if there had been one after everthing we have seen this week on this not fit for purpose quango all they would do is tick the right boxes whatever they may be.

Balls has had to stall this story as long as possible for what sort of a government would send our soldiers to die and then rewards those at home who vow to kill them.

Is this really the way to keep terrorism off the streets of this country?

I actually do not believe there is a hidden agenda here with Cameron. We have troops fighting, the reason given for them losing their lives is to make our streets safe from extremists. Now it would be very important indeed if our education system was creating the very problem we are supposed to be fighting against in another Country.

The media and political journalists it seems, are always looking for some angle to everything these days. However we all, including Cameron, should be very concerned about what is being taught to our children. These are the formative years at school and any extremism that is being introduced into the education system, no matter how remote, should be investigated very thoroughly. Despite evidence, Brown and Balls have not done this it seems and any oversight like this could cost us very dearly in the future.

17 culverin

"David Cameron should not be using Question Time to make allegations about Muslim groups based upon hearsay. Is there not enough Islamophobia in this country already?"
==============================

I think they are perfectly reasonable questions to ask, and Cameron (and anyone else) should be able to raise this issue with being branded in the manner that you have done. Gordon Brown didn't seem to disagree with him, but then again he didn't seem to know much about it.

Perhaps we should all just keep quiet about it as you seem to be suggesting, though this approach on other issues has actually helped the BNP cause.

Nick @ 0 said:

"There's nothing like a looming election and a few tighter polls to liven up exchanges at Question Time."

===

One tighter poll Nick, not a few.

And a point of order, Question Time is a BBC programme on a Thursday evening at 10.35p.m.

Today we had Prime Minister's Questions.

9 sagamix

I admire the way you play the race card while calling on Cameron not to play the race card. That's sneaking typing, for sure.

"2. At 4:19pm on 25 Nov 2009, fairlyopenmind wrote:
It's odd, Nick.

Brown was stumped by two questions today. The one you have chosen to focus on and the issue of "limiting" the papers the Chjicolt Inquiry will be allowed to release."

actually 3 questions, the one "When did the prime minister realise he was infallible?" in which he admited that he reacted to issues and not plan for them!

Just go and have a look at Slough! It is a country all of its own on its own. Most of its residents are IN this country but not OF this country. Nothing would surprise me about extremism in such circumstances. This government has allowed people in willy nilly and then holds up its hands in horror if accused of allowing extremism to thrive - nay be financially supported no less! If true it is utterly disgraceful of course.

That is not racism it is realism.

As for the Iraq war inquiry - of course they had WMD there. Weapons of Medieval Destruction - knives, cutlasses etc. That's got to be it then.

"9. At 5:01pm on 25 Nov 2009, sagamix wrote:
"the Tories are playing politics with a dangerous issue"

Hi Nick,

Yes, that is exactly what's happening here.

There's a considerable amount of fear/distrust of Islam in the country at the moment, and Cameron would like to tap into that - it IS rather dangerous, I hope he doesn't make a habit of it."

What SHOULD we do then?

Are you saying that the fear and distrust that led us to invade Afghanistan and Iraq were justified but fear and distrust of people with similar views in this country is wrong? that it isn't a political point.

So if Cameron is playing a dangerous poitical game, what is Brown doing? He's the man leading the party that took us into two wars.

#235, Previous Blog, sagamix wrote:
PMQs today, no mention of Osborne's energy saving schemes. Slightly surprising, I thought, given we're all talking about it. Solid performance by Brown - came over as a bit of a Prime Minister. Not so, Cameron I'm sorry to say. Tried to tickle up some Islamaphobia. Not impressed.

Seems you got the wrong end of the stick there old chap. Was that:

A) Deliberate

or

B) Deliberate

Sagamix @28 wrote

I'm a bit more militant on this than you.

Please accept this in the positive "forward looking" spirit in which it's intended but I oppose ALL faith schools. And all private schools for that matter, but we can argue that some other time.

==================================================================

Thanks for the response Sagamix. Happy to have the debate at the appropriate time.

In this case no extreme organisation that has responsibility for children should get government cash. The three issues here are:-

Did Brown promise to proscribe the organisation? according to Andrew Neil and Nick he did during PMQs in Summer 2007; but has not yet done so.

Did Balls know in advance about this issue and then not brief Brown? yes Balls did know after a letter last week.

Did an apparently extreme organisation get funding from the Government / local council? yes it did.

However, in the longer term I agree that the point Nick Clegg made are far more important.

Watch PMQs

No 26.“Knowing a little about Hizb ut-Tahrir, I struggle to see anywhere where they have promoted religious hatred. On the contrary in fact.”

Culverin – Sorry to disagree, but Hizb ut-Tahrir is an extremist and highly dangerous group, which does nothing but stir religious intolerance on both sides of the multicultural divide. It has in the past – before the law was changed – advocated religious based violence against all infidels, especially Jews. And quite frankly to suggest that membership of Hizb ut-Tahrir is no more of a bar to the teaching profession, than membership of the Tory party is ridiculous. Yes individual Tory members have been guilty of racism, anti-Semitism etc… ditto every other political and social grouping in the UK – more’s the pity! The difference, is you don’t have to be a racist or an anti-Semite to be a member of the Tory party, but just as only a racist would be happy in the BNP, only a Islamic extremist would be happy in Hizb ut-Tahrir. The two groups are based on hate and if you knew more than ‘a little’ about Hizb ut-Tahrir, you would know that is a fact. Hence Blair’s attempt’s to ban them.

9 sagamix

"the Tories are playing politics with a dangerous issue"

Hi Nick,

Yes, that is exactly what's happening here.
========================================

I watched PMQs today, and whilst this may be a dangerous issue, Gordon Brown didn't give the impression that he knew anything much about it. Not very reassuring IMO, and it's certainly possible to make a case that this may be more dangerous. I wouldn't criticise Cameron for raising the issue, he is perfectly entitled to do so. I'm not sure about playing politics, it looks a legitimate question to me.


PS Nick, do tell us about the other polls which make up the "few" polls which you speak of. We'd all really love to know all about them.

#41

You seem to be missing the point. Whenever Labour make a mistake, it doesn't really matter but when Cameron (or Clegg or anyone else) points it out, this is political point scoring.

It's a bit like driving whilst on your mobile, crashing, driving off but then claim that anyone pointing this out was point scoring, neatly attempting to turn your culpability into injured innocence....

#28, sagamix wrote:

"I'm a bit more militant on this than you."

No surprise!

"... but I oppose ALL faith schools. And all private schools for that matter, but we can argue that some other time. For me, religious belief should be like sexuality - a purely private matter which has no place whatsoever in our public life. I particularly disapprove of it playing a part in education.
Certainly not a reason to revisit the enlightened policy of funding moderate Muslim groups as a counterweight to extremism. Enlightened apart from the faith schools aspect, rather. But as long as we DO have faith schools (there are numerous Catholic ones, for example) then we have to allow Muslim schools too. Would be discriminatory, otherwise."

Saga, on that basis, do/would you accept Voodoo schools, Animism schools, Scientology schools?

Be discriminatory not too, wouldn't it?

#9. At 5:01pm on 25 Nov 2009, weaslemix wrote:
"the Tories are playing politics with a dangerous issue"

I think if you scroll back up you'll find that Nick said "Labour believes the Tories are playing politics with a dangerous issue."

Doesn't quite imply the same then though, does it?

An addition to 46

Also, "Labour believes the Tories..." should really read "Labour have asked me to spin that the Tories...", shouldn't it?

#23 Mark_WE

Yes, that was thrown in deliberately to illustrate my point.

I think it's important for the country not to react just because Dave says so. It's not just because Dave's a politician but many sources of information that we receive can't be relied upon in my mind.... have you ever been to the 'Daily Mail Watch' website?

Anyway, to address Dave's 'research', yes, I'm sure he probably has at least referred to someone, where is it and who's it from?

Perhaps it's the Quilliam Foundation and if that's the case, I won't openly criticise them because they have threatened a blogger with legal action. Bit of a shame really, Hizb ut-Tahrir are open season but one of their critics is beyond criticism because they threaten legal action.

What makes it even more sour is the fact that Quilliam, a limited company, have been the recipient of large sums of government money.

Gotta agree with a small portion of Saga's *20*. 'Let's monitor it for a while'
If Cameron's wrong he has made a big mistake. However if he's right, then Brown and Balls have some serious questions to answer.

#30 ngodinhdiem

I'm happy to concede your 'FACT', but please show it to me first.

Or was it just hearsay?

you could say that allowing millions of emigrants in just to change the type of country we live in as per leaks back in 2000'ish was far more dangerous than the odd school

so cameroon was wrong he should have gone for the really big issue of uncontrolled imigration for political reasons playing fast and lose with
our own safety in the UK.

that will upset sagamix.

for the work I do I have to be security checked which makes it difficult to protest on children issues. so why ar ethese people not being checked to the same degree. I pose no threat to this country but might to SANU_LIEBOUR political future

AndyC555 @44 wrote:

You seem to be missing the point. Whenever Labour make a mistake, it doesn't really matter.....

=========================================================

This is a serious mistake and does matter.

DC points out that an extreme organisation that Brown said in 2007 he would proscribe has not been and is receiving Government money, our taxes, but that does not matter.

NC points out that Government Departments have been given 9 reasons not to pass information to the Chilcott Iraq inquiry when at PMQs Brown gave only one reason then changed that to two reasons following NCs second question; but that does not really matter either.

I understood that it was the oppositions responsibility to hold the Government to account; today DC and NC did and Brown was not at all happy.

So yes I am affraid these issues do matter.

fairly @ 45

"Saga, on that basis, would you accept Voodoo schools?"

Odd question. I'd like NO faith schools but as long as they ARE allowed (all those Catholic schools, for example) then we can't outlaw Muslim schools, that's all I'm saying. What are you saying? That you WOULD ban Muslim schools but not Catholic schools? Or you'd allow both? Or do you agree with me that it'd be best to have neither?

I will resist concluding that you're comparing the Muslim faith (but not the Catholoic faith) to Voodoo until you clarify.

(They're both about equally strange to me, btw)

Nick, please could you point us to the 'few tighter polls' of which you speak? I am aware of only one tighter poll. The left seem very keen to play up this one poll; perhaps, in an attempt to create a new narrative.

NuLabour`s defence is the usual one. Broadly translated - " We know, that you know, that we know that public funds have been misused; but unless you can prove it, we are going to continue to deny knowing anything wrong has taken place." A bit like the three wise monkeys really - see no evil, hear no evil and certainly say nothing about it. NuLabour certianly don`t want to upset the pro Labour immigrant vote this side of the general election.

With some much of the schools web site being cleared while the PM was on his feet, I smell a rat.

Brown was all over the place, being battered by both Cameron and Clegg. Some of his answers were extraordinary, especially when for no reason at all he started on about the tories and IHT. Bit rich really when you look at the wealth in his own government and that of Mr T.B. Esq.

Brown is ok when fed lines by his patsies; but I noticed even when this happened one of his front bench had to help him find the relevant answer amongst his papers, which he then porceeded to read out verbatim. Brown totally lost it at one stage.

Although Labour may try and spin the truth about this extraodinary funding debacle, mud sticks and Brown too boot had a terrible day. One of his worst for ages.

If a good poll causes Brown to react like this, what on earth will a bad poll cause him to do?

17#

Hearsay, was it?

When even the BBC's evening news had two face to face interviews with senior school staff at both locations who said that one had a member of the board of governors who was an existing member of Hizb-Ut-Tahrir and didnt see anything that was wrong with that and the other one where the husband of a former member of the board of governors was a member. They said when they found out, they asked for her resignation and got it.

Now, I have no way of disproving that, so I have to take what they said at face value. I still think it was a waste of a parliamentary question, and there were more relevant lines that Cameron could have took, but thats by the by. There may still be a case to answer.

But I know this much.

Swap "school board of governors contains members of Hizb-Ut-Tahrir"

for

"school board of governors contains members of BNP"

and you'd all go off the deep end. Especially the left leaning rent a mob. Had it happened under any other government than this one we would be up to our a*ses in astroturfing alligators.

Go and have a look on wiki and see what is there about Hizb-Ut-Tahrir and compare it to the BNP. They aint so far apart, ideologically. Just a different colour flag.

Surely there is a wider issue here? Why do we allow any kind of independant schools in this country?

Private education perpetuates the oligarchy that we live under, private religeous education also fosters division within communities and in my opinion is in itself a form of child abuse.

We do not talk about conservative children or labour children do we? No becuase we accept they are too young to have formed a opinion on such a subject. Yet when it comes to the most fundamental philosophical question a child might ever ponder we allow them to be brain washed from birth.

Sure that is a difficult issue to deal with but banning any kind of religeon in any UK school would be a big start.

At the very least we shouldn't be funding these places with tax payers money.

I still consider this to be a Christian country. Catholics, Anglicans, Baptists, Methodists and their ilk are all Christian. Moslem is not Christian. Therefore the basis of argument for faith schools should start from that point. You cannot lump them altogether because some of their basic tenets are different (and dogmatic and dangerous).

Because of Henry VIII wanting to divorce he changed himself as the Head of the Church of England instead of the country being under the direct rule of the Pope in Rome. The apostolic succession means though that the catholic religion is still inherent in the Anglican religion with the laying on of hands from the Bishops right down from St Peter in Rome and it has never changed.

Why is since this government has been in we have an ever more complicated society? I have always maintained simple and uncomplicated is usually best.

From Religion, Race, Society's behaviour, education, health care, this government has tried to re-invent the wheel with disastrous consequences.

This argument at PMQ's is a question that we would have never needed to ask had someone with COMMON SENSE been in power.

andy @ 39

"Are you saying that the fear and distrust that led us to invade Afghanistan and Iraq were justified but fear and distrust of people with similar views in this country is wrong?"

No, I'm very much saying BOTH are wrong. I would love to see Islam wither and die, ditto ALL religions - and in time they will - but while we're waiting (the next thousand years or so) I think it's important not to demonise.

28#

The difference is Saga, the BNP are a political party and stand for office in a nominally liberal democracy. People either vote for them or they dont.

H.U.T, as an Islamist organisation do not recognise any western organisation (such as the UN, Red Cross, etc) and do not believe in democracy. Democracy suggests that people are elected to make laws. Radical Islam says that no-one makes laws but God and that he is the highest authority. Democracy and Radical Islam are diametrically opposed. They would never stand in a western European election of any kind.

#56 Fubarrrr

There, you're at it again, speaking for others. What do you say abpout the these people being on a school governing body, whether BNP or Tahrir. What do you think? That is the point of these blogs, it makes no sense in you telling us what the lefties will do given a situation. What do you think, that's if you are not too afraid to tell us.

55#

" We know, that you know, that we know that public funds have been misused; but unless you can prove it, we are going to continue to deny knowing anything wrong has taken place."

could also add....

"............And even if you CAN prove it, even if we're caught bang to rights... we dont care! The plebs'll never buy it! [blows huuuuge raspberry] Yahboo sucks to you Toff-boy! What ya gonna do about it, eh?"

#57 "Why do we allow any kind of independant schools in this country?"

becaus we live in a democracy.

Within your budget, you can choose what car to buy, what clothes to wear, where to live, who to associate with, what restaurant to dine in.

How can you be in favour of allowing the choice between something as trivial as whether to buy a kitkat or an apple and yet seek to restrict choice over somethng so important as your own child's education?

Many people send children to private schools because they see continual Government inteference undermining the education process in the sate sector. You'd FORCE people to send their children somewhere they didn't want to send them? Some democracy that. What next? State sponsered summer camps, all children to attend? Perhaps some sort of youth league every child has to join? they could have parades and sing the national anthem. If you hand over one spect of your child's upbringing why not all of them?

Balls certainly lives up to his name. Brown should be ashamed of his lack of control over his own ministers. It is shameful that PMQs starts with his drooling words of condolence for the deaths of soldiers fighting Islamic extremism while his schools minister sits fidgeting in the front benches knowing that his department may well be fostering and funding extremism here in Britain.

57#

You are Sagamix in disguise and I hereby claim my £5 :o)

#56 Fubar

Ah yes, 'Wiki' which as we all know that everything it says is pure unadulterated fact.

Have you tried Hizb ut-Tahrir's website? Try finding extremism on that.

Anyway, my point is that if a school has a governor who happens to hold extremist views but keeps it to themselves, it does not make that school extremist.

45, 53

For once I'm with Saga.

If people want to believe in "God" it's their personal affair, though I think it'd be a better world if they didn't indoctrinate their children. And religious teaching is NOT something the taxpayer should subsidise.

Personally I'm against fee-paying schools generally, but unless and until they are banned (maybe too big a step for most), then it's OK for private schools to have a religious dimension.

But not paid for by my taxes, thanks. And that includes "charitable" status, unless thay are genuine charities and don't charge fees.

All schools receiving ANY funding from the tacpayer (including currently C of E ones) should be non-religious. Teach comparative religion in philosophy classes and history lessons by all means, but no religious instruction and no selecting pupils based on the real or professed faith of their parents.

Can't see either of the main parties touching this with a disinfected bargepole, of course, but there you go...

(and before anyone goes on about the high-quality education faith schools deliver, the research says that's very little to do with the "faith" bit but a reflection on the social mix of the pupils [parental wealth, basically], quality of teachers and leadership and the funding per pupil of the school.)

#59

Well perhaps all religions will die. But in the meantime should we view all religions the same. Or should we note that some sectors of some religions would seek to impose their values on us or kill us if we didn't accept them?

As always, you come up with the grand 'future vision' where everything is lovely but in talking about the 'here and now' you can't bring yourself to face the unpleasant reality. You talk of not 'demonising'. I don't know what a demon looks like but I think those who planned 9/11 and 7/7 share some of the traits of wickedness that i would expect of a demon. Should we demonise these people? Or try to understand them. If you were sat round a table, do you think for a second, they'd say, 'hey, here's a clear progressive thinker, what he says makes sense, let's abondon the jihad now and have a cup of tea instead'

Again, it's all just theory with you, what OUGHT to happen in a much better world rather than what IS happening in this not so perfect world.

Were we right to round up and intern Germans in Britain in WWII? Would you have said 'no, most of them aren't nazis so let's leave them be'?

(and no, I'm not suggesting we intern all muslims - just saying that we are fools if we are not straying sometimes a little over the line of vigilence)

#28 sagamix

Hizb ut-Tahrir sounds like it ought to be banned? Why, where's the evidence and who's provided it? Saga, I thought you were meant to be progressive.

I've known Tories with pretty vile and extreme views, does that mean the Tories should be banned too? Don't answer that.

Regarding the BNP, are they not just a product of our pitiful political situation? I think the parties should be sorting themselves out so that they start to appeal to those voters who've been attracted by the BNP's anti-sleaze, anti-immigration ticket.

66#

Yes, I figured you'd have nothing constructive to offer short of covering Gordons butt.... for a change.

I notice you avoided the other part of the post didnt you?

Had there been BNP members on the school's board of governors, you'd have gone off the deep end and you know you would have done. You'd have been outside the schoolgates with Peter Hain and the rest of the UAF flashmob with your placard and giving the old Bill a good kicking thinking you're rebelling against the system.

H.U.T and the BNP are not far apart ideologically. Both could legitimately classified as extremist, regardless of what you think about wiki.

Or would you - and indeed do you - approve of a school governor belonging to a such an organisation?

Or are you far too partisan to be objective?

I am a little more concerned about the public funds spent at universities that educated bankers and fund managers as they did more damage to the world than some group of terrorist. We spend billions tracking down terrorist yet the bankers blow up the economy and are rewarded with shameful retirements or allowed to develop the new regulations, none forthcoming, that would supposedly protect the public from their abuse. Interesting how we have been unable to actually assess blame to any bank, investment house or others who created the financial misdeeds. They can hide much better than terrorist, but of course no one is looking for them. We could find the terrorist in Afghanistan but apparently were unware of the impending financial collapse in London and New York...well they knew, just didn't do anything about it.
Prespective is often disconcerting.

Thanks Saga; having spent time being shot at in Ireland I agree on faith schools. Also let's wait and see what happens.

More concerned about Clegg's question though. That is a binary situation one of them is not telling the truth.

The simple solution would be to scrap ALL faith schools. Treat everyone equally. Caledonian Comment

56#

Whats your damn problem, Comrade Zampoliti?? Where in heavens name in that post am I speaking for anyone else? Bloody apparatchiks....

Jesus, you're obsessed. I'm beginning to think that Saga isnt the only one on here who's got a stalker.... You sure you're not from Scientology or the Moonies or something like that?

What I said was perfectly simple. There maybe a case to answer, despite the fact that in my own (no-one elses) personal opinion that it was a waste of a parliamentary question. And that both of the schools gave interviews to BBC News South East about the subject. The Hizb-Ut-Tahrir section was not factually inaccurate and does not slur them in any way. It doesnt matter that I dont like what they stand for, thats irrelevant.

And I made the point that those who are toying with the race card and whispering "Islamaphobia" through their fingers are exactly the same sort who would, had the word H-U-T been replaced with BNP would have gone off the deep end. And, I speculated, had it happened under a Cameron administration that there would have been apoplexy on the Labour benches and a flurry of bloggers making a much bigger deal of it. Speculation on my part does not mean I'm speaking for them.

Just like I dont speak for you and you most certainly do not speak for me.

Who the that Hannah "stuart" who work with the 'centre of social cohesion'.
She sounds like a diluted BNP official. Definitely Islam-phobic... Off course she would deny it.
She was making it sound like there was some truth to the, Cameron argument on the groundless accusations the Tory light-weight leader , made against Gordon Brown.
The is just a preview of the kind of society we can expect under the Tories. Fear, fear, fear... something that had eased-up since Tony Blair resigned.

Social Cohesion?.... That lady belongs with the BNP.

briangare @ 55

"Brown to boot had a terrible day. One of his worst for ages"

I disagree. I thought the very fact that he wasn't briefed meant he came over as spontaneous and thoughtful. Nice to see.

pdavies, you asked a question earlier on as to where they all were....



In the words of a famous 1970's film.....

".....they're here...."

Common all Tory-hacks, are you not a bit embarrassed by Cameron groping in the dark, in an attempt to make something out of nothing(All in a bid to get elected). Cameron practically accused the government of funding terrorism. And the kind of tone Cameron used just goes to show the kind of climate the Tories would ussher in.... a BNP-light climate of hate.

Talking about Demons, I can't remember seeing that many gods around lately either.

So what's the difference between a religious belief and a political one? If it is wrong for Islamists to dictate what is taught in schools, is it right for the Labour Government to do the same?

Both religious and political creeds seem to believe they have all the ideas and the right way to live.

So if you're in favour of a political democracy banning religious schools, would you support a relious state banning the teaching of politics? Bit of a conundrum if you do think of it.

Except i know there are some who can always think why THEM doing something is right but someone else doing the same thing is wrong.

I went to a catholic school and found it to be far more pastorally aware than a secular school. The academic record was higher too.

I believe we should keep the Christian faith schools. We had them until now with no problems. All of a sudden everybody in this country is going hyper ballistic about religion, schools and that stupid global warming (which is caused by the sun not us by the way).

Oh, let's regain our inner calm, change the government and get on with our own lives in the sensible British way we have done up until now.

big sammy @ 57

"Private education perpetuates the inequality we live under, religous education fosters division within communities"

Bang.

badger @ 67

"Teach comparative religion in philosophy classes and history lessons by all means, but no religious instruction and no selecting pupils based on the real or professed faith of their parents"

Bang Bang.

73. Caledonian Comment.

I don't think we should ban all faith schools. It is the newer types of faith schools which are causing the problem. It's not rocket science. Things were jogging along very well before they came on the scene. Like it or not.

"73. At 7:27pm on 25 Nov 2009, CaledonianComment wrote:
The simple solution would be to scrap ALL faith schools. Treat everyone equally."

So people who wanted to send their children to a certain school would be banned from doing so and forced to do what you wanted them to. One group's rights denied by another group who think they know better.

Good equality that.

thrower @ 58

"Why is it, since this government has been in, we have an ever more complicated society? I have always maintained simple and uncomplicated is usually best"

Code for "Too many Foreigners" am I right?

fubar @ 60

"The difference is Saga, the BNP are a political party and stand for office"

That makes them MORE dangerous not less.

andy @ 63

"How can you be in favour of allowing the choice between something as trivial as whether to buy a kitkat or an apple and yet seek to restrict choice over somethng so important as your own child's education?"

Because buying a kitkat (or even an apple) doesn't serve to perpetuate the gross inequality in society, stunting the life chances of millions of our fellow citizens. Not usually it doesn't, anyway.

#63

Being able to buy a nice car, house etc are all rewards we can obtain for ourselves through hard work and is a good thing. However what exactly has your child done to deserve to have an unfair advantage over a child from a more humble background?

Once a child attains a private school it joins a very elite club, hence why the majority of politicians and business leaders have been privately educated.

This creates an oligrachy and undermines the concept of a free democrasy.

Also, might i add, we have a very good education system in this country and anybody from any background can excel within it and many do every year.

76 sagamix

"I thought the very fact that he wasn't briefed meant he came over as spontaneous and thoughtful. Nice to see."

Sagamix, the only people with whom your remarks here will have any traction are those who didn't see PMQs today: one of whom was you yourself, I suspect. As I have already said elsewhere, if you take off your red spectacles and take adavantage of the excellent I-player to review Brown's stammering answers to Cameron's questions, I think you will have to agree they were unsure, evasive and anything but prime ministerial.

#69 and hom say the tories have extremist and vile views

what about Liebour and equality for women only and the lets teach
DV in schools but it only happens female view

that quite vile and its going to be done with taxpayers moneythe goverenors will not get a choice

81#

What did you shoot him for? I thought he was on your side??

culverin @ 69

"Hizb ut-Tahrir sounds like it ought to be banned? Why, where's the evidence and who's provided it? Saga, I thought you were meant to be progressive"

I don't mean because of the name! - difficult though it is.

No, by "sounds like" it should be banned, I mean if they really ARE an organisation which preaches racial/religious hatred. I have no evidence myself of that - so, it's an "If" okay?

And same goes for the BNP. Except there I HAVE seen the evidence.

Progressive doesn't mean Libertarian, btw, although I very much respect TRUE libertarian views. Perhaps that's you, is it? You'd oppose the banning of either HuT or the BNP, would you? Fair enough.

I'd ban the both (subject to the "if" above regarding evidence)

What I don't like (and don't respect too much) is the view that one should ban an Islamic extremist group such as this one but yet NOT ban the BNP. That's a dead giveaway of the "Thing Which Dare Not Speak It's Name".

IR35 @ 51

"that will upset sagamix"

Yes it has.

If that was your objective then, you know ... Mission Accomplished.

86 sagamix

"Because buying a kitkat (or even an apple) doesn't serve to perpetuate the gross inequality in society,"

=============================
It did during the 1980s - my University student union banned the sale of KitKats because Rowntree had dealing in South Africa - all in the name of anti-aparteid - and they won !

87. At 7:53pm on 25 Nov 2009, bigsammyb wrote:

.....Also, might i add, we have a very good education system in this country and anybody from any background can excel within it and many do every year.

**************************

Is your very good education system the one which manages to produce 33% of kids per annum who leave school unable to read or write?

76 sagamix

"I thought the very fact that he wasn't briefed meant he came over as spontaneous and thoughtful. Nice to see."
===================================
Nice to see? Did you actually watch PMQs ?

The same cannot be said about the question put to him by Nick Clegg. Perhaps you could answer that one for us as well, as you seem to know everything else.

#70 Fubar

Please don't be silly.

As for covering Gordon's butt, the source of there HUT facts have probably come from a limited company that his government funds so he deserves everything he got.

Believe it or not, the political orientation of school governors is boring regardless of their views and you don't have to have any affiliation to any group to hold extremist views.

87#

Missed out did we Sammy??

Hizb ut-Tahrir was a bad choice of topic for Cameron. If funding has gone to a school which has links to an extremist organization (as yet unproven) I doubt the government will defend it; they will almost certainly acknowledge that it was an error. Errors like this are obviously more likely if you pursue a policy of engaging with and supporting the more moderate Muslim institutions in the UK because things are always hazy around the margins. But it's a good policy to pursue, despite the risk of error, because it helps in the battle for hearts and minds. Basically, it's good for our national security.

I don't think the Conservatives should be using an isolated error to undermine a delicate policy aimed at marginalizing extremists and improving our national security. It's point-scoring, not responsible politics.

#53, sagamix wrote:
fairly @ 45
"Saga, on that basis, would you accept Voodoo schools?"
Odd question. I'd like NO faith schools but as long as they ARE allowed (all those Catholic schools, for example) then we can't outlaw Muslim schools, that's all I'm saying. What are you saying? That you WOULD ban Muslim schools but not Catholic schools? Or you'd allow both? Or do you agree with me that it'd be best to have neither?
I will resist concluding that you're comparing the Muslim faith (but not the Catholoic faith) to Voodoo until you clarify."

saga,
You wrote that, if one faith school is permitted, then it would be wrong (discriminatory) to block others.

I was trying to explore whether Hampstead Man had any deptyh, or was simply rattling around in a world of ideas that didn't really matter because there's no DELIVERY.

The Muslim faith acknowledges Christian and Judaeo backgrounds.

People from all three groups and many other religious or "political-philosophy" (which can be even more strict than religious groupings) backgrounds have provided mankind with wonderful ideas that could be translated into practical use.

I don't like schools that fail their children. OFSTED reckons that 30% of schools are pretty crap. After 12 years of Education, Education, Education, shouldn't they be better? Regardless of whether their philosophical leaning is Jewish, Christian, Ismalic, Bhuddist or New Labour?

At least I'd feel that the first four would have some basic principles.

#91 sagamix

No, fine, understood re - HuT, like everyone else you're very much in the dark.

Sorry to infurr that you might be a libertarian. I think you're actually right thinking about it... the BNP must be banned because they attract voters with anti-sleaze, tough immigration and lie about their real beliefs.

Regarding Brown at PMQs, it would seem strange that he wasn't briefed on either of the main issues raised - does that mean there's something brewing? Are they going to get rid of him or am I reading too much into it?