Education minister recalls own A Level results day in Malvern
The minister told BBC Hereford & Worcester that many people had done really well and there was help available for those who had done less well than expected.She added: "There will be lots of people today who deserve massive congratulations for the hard work that these results represent."The former Worcestershire teacher said advice could be sought from schools and universities and the National Careers Service for those who wanted to think about apprenticeships, employment or other qualifications."What's important is that there are a whole range of choices for students, both at 16 and then at 18 and older," she said."Alongside opportunities for other vocational and technical qualifications like BTecs, there are all sorts of options out there."What your strengths are can be recognised in the qualifications, in the options that there are, for the rest of your life."
'Opportunities are expanding'
Herefordshire Council said young people in the county had an "impressive" 98.4% A level pass rate - above both the national average in the West Midlands and England.Councillor Ivan Powell said special thanks went to teachers, support staff and all those who worked in schools and colleges."Opportunities are expanding for young people in our county and I hope many of them will stay with us in Herefordshire."
Follow BBC Hereford & Worcester on BBC Sounds, Facebook, X and Instagram.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
8 hours ago
- The Sun
Rank unfairness of UK today means Starmer's Two Tier Kier nickname has stuck – but here's how he can shed it
FOR those enraged at growing evidence of 'two-tier' Britain, the acquittal of Ricky Jones last week was just the latest depressing example. Here was a Labour councillor being cleared of encouraging violent disorder despite calling for far-right protesters to have their throats slit. 3 3 Reform and the Tories seized on the case as yet another blinding display of courtroom double standards. Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp wasted no time laying the travesty squarely at the feet of Sir Keir Starmer. In a tweet viewed more than two million times, he said 'as far as I can see, this Labour Government seems to be quite happy with two-tier justice'. Cue howls of anger from online liberals, who breathlessly crowed that not only was he disrespecting the decision of a jury, he was unfairly meting out blame to ministers. 'You ought to know this has nothing to do with them', retorted the arch-Conservative wet Dominic Grieve. 'That is the hallmark of a rabble rouser.' Rank unfairness But people are roused. In fact, they are bloody furious about what they perceive to be rampant 'two-tierism'. The refrain thundered into the political lexicon like a bullet train in the tinderbox aftermath of last year's Southport riots. In that sticky, angry summer, there was a feeling the clunking fist of the British state was being disproportionately brought down upon a certain kind of protester. For a public that routinely watches paedophiles walk free, the case of Lucy Connolly — slung in the slammer for a disgraceful but quite clearly stupid tweet — became a lightning rod. Even now, her 31-month jail sentence is the yardstick held up against some of the more mind-boggling outcomes from our judiciary. 'Two-tier' justice savaged by Kemi Badenoch who blasts 'extraordinary' decision to spare Huw Edwards You can argue the toss over how much blame ministers should shoulder for policing and court decisions. We have an independent judiciary but it is of course Parliament that makes our laws and ministers who make the political weather. Rightly or wrongly, Starmer is the man at the sharp end of the criticism. And much more dangerously for him, allegations of two-tier standards have now stretched well beyond the orbit of crime and seeped into every cranny of public life. It has become a byword for the rank unfairness voters see in modern day Britain. Charges of two-tierism are so common I'd eat my notebook if it is not the 2025 Oxford word of the year. For voters who feel they are being taken for a ride, they now see two-tierism everywhere they look Of all the unfortunate nicknames bestowed upon our Prime Minister, none has stuck quite so solidly as Two Tier Keir. For voters who feel they are being taken for a ride, they now see two-tierism everywhere they look. Ordinary British families struggling to pay the rent watch in fury as undocumented illegal migrants waltz into hotels for free bed and board. Law-abiding citizens paying full whack for council services and leisure activities read revelations in The Sun about small-boat migrants getting discounts. Millions of workers setting their alarm clocks for crack of dawn see an ever-growing number of their countrymen and women signing on for welfare with zero requirements to look for work. Taxpayers squeezed more than ever wonder where the improvement in public services is to show for it. Passengers paying hefty Tube fares rattle with rage as guards turn a blind eye to entitled oiks bumping the barriers. And just last week, we saw Birmingham council tear down St George flags from lamp-posts while turning a blind eye to Palestinian ones. Two-tierism is more than just a buzzword — it captures the mood of a nation fed up with a system they increasingly feel is not on their side. The PM's political enemies are alive to just how damaging the Two Tier Keir narrative has become. Consider how just last year those who brandished allegations of two-tierism were dismissed as cranks and nutjobs, whereas now these are mainstream complaints. Even when Starmer was shoving Netflix show Adolescence down our throats, but neglected to watch a documentary about grooming gangs, he was accused of 'two-tier telly'. How does Sir Keir neutralise these attacks and restore the faith of a nation that loves rules and loathes unfairness? Winning the trust of voters always starts by showing them you get it. Starmer will never himself use the T-word — a refrain adopted mainly by the political Right. And it is unlikely this former lawyer will start openly criticising his old profession, although it is a good first step that he has pledged new legislation to stop dinghy-chasing lawyers weaponising European human-rights laws. Kick up backside Expect him to start wrapping himself up in the language of 'fairness' over the next few months, though, as he tries to show he does in fact get it. He tweeted yesterday: 'I will do what it takes to uphold the law and ensure fairness for the British people. 'If someone doesn't have the right to be in this country, we won't allow them to stay.' Which is all well and good, but the rhetoric has to be matched by results. Whitehall departments have been given a kick up the backside to deliver positive stories about this Government to sell. At a recent summer bash, No10 chiefs told Cabinet aides that the Health, Treasury and Environment departments had churned out the most 'top of the grid' stories — a pointed reminder to slackers to up their game. Stopping the boats, closing hotels, driving living standards, going after genuine criminals and getting more people into work — voters don't ask the world of their politicians, they just want the basics done right so they can get on in life. Sir Keir needs to restore that uniquely British sense of fairness — or it could all end in tiers. NEVER wrestle with a pig – you both get dirty but the pig likes it. I fear Sir Keir Starmer's latest mud-slinging campaign against Nigel Farage could see him end up on the wrong end of that old political slogan. 3 New Labour attack ads claim the Reform leader 'wants to make it easier to share revenge porn online' and would 'put women and girls at risk'. Another one attempts to portray him as best mates with social media misogynist Andrew Tate. It all comes shortly after ministers lampooned Farage, right, as 'on the side' of modern day Jimmy Saviles. Politics can be a dirty business and sometimes it pays dividends to go below the belt. But if the gloves are off, the PM should not be surprised if he now gets hit back twice as hard. And Reform are hardly the sort who will pull their punches. I suspect the real reason Labour has ratcheted up the criticism is that nothing else is sticking to Teflon Nige, or knocking him off his perch atop the polls. A No10 insider recently told me their attempts to undermine the costs of Farage's policies were futile. They said: 'We are so far out from a general election that nobody cares about whether the sums add up. It's all vibes.'
Telegraph
8 hours ago
- Telegraph
Corbyn was wrong to ‘capitulate' over anti-Semitism, says Sultana
Jeremy Corbyn 'capitulated' over anti-Semitism as Labour leader, the co-founder of his new political party has claimed. Zarah Sultana, who launched a new hard-Left movement with Mr Corbyn last month, said he was wrong to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism. The definition includes the examples of holding Jews responsible for the actions of Israel and comparing its policy to that of the Nazis. On Sunday night, the Board of Deputies of British Jews accused Ms Sultana of a 'grave insult' to the Jewish community and questioned her 'wider commitment' to anti-racism. Labour initially refused to accept the IHRA wording under Mr Corbyn, whose five-year leadership of the party was repeatedly dogged by complaints of anti-Semitism. Following a backlash, it eventually incorporated all 11 examples in the IHRA definition in 2018, including a line warning against claiming the existence of Israel as a state was a 'racist endeavour'. In an interview with The New Left Review, Ms Sultana was asked how Mr Corbyn's time in charge of Labour from 2015 to 2020 should be adapted for the present day. She replied: 'I think we're in a very different political moment. We have to build on the strengths of Corbynism – its energy, mass appeal and bold policy platform – and we also have to recognise its limitations. 'It capitulated to the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, which famously equates it with anti-Zionism and which even its lead author Kenneth Stern has now publicly criticised.' Andrew Gilbert, the vice-president of the Board of Deputies, said: 'The IHRA definition has been adopted by the government and public institutions in this country and around the world, and is supported by the overwhelming majority of British Jews as it is clear and measured in defining anti-Semitism. 'Calling the recognition of the IHRA definition of antisemitism a 'capitulation' is a grave insult. Labour's real betrayal under Corbyn was unlawfully harassing and discriminating against Jews. 'Those who seek to delegitimise and mis-define the IHRA definition in this way prove themselves to be no friend to the Jewish community and also all into question their wider commitment to anti-racism, the wellbeing of the Jewish community and social cohesion.' A spokesman for Campaign Against Antisemitism added: 'If Jews do not have the right to define the hatred that targets them, then who does? Does Zarah Sultana think that it should be herself?' Alex Hearn, the director of Labour Against Antisemitism, said: 'Zarah Sultana has fundamentally misrepresented the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism. It is unsurprising that she opposes it, given her history. 'There should be no place in a mainstream political party for the likes of Ms Sultana, and it is surprising that the Labour Party tolerated her for so long. 'Hopefully she will remain on the fringes of politics for the remainder of her career, which is where her extremist views belong.' In the same interview, Ms Sultana referred to Israel as a 'genocidal apartheid state' and said Sir Keir Starmer should have stopped arms sales to the country long ago. A Labour source said: 'The electorate has twice made their view clear about a Jeremy Corbyn-led party. 'Keir Starmer's Labour Party rightly tore anti-Semitism out at its roots. Corbyn almost led the Party to extinction. We're not going back.' Sir Keir faced a backlash over his refusal to call for an immediate ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas war, which broke out after Hamas killed around 1,200 Israelis on Oct 7 2023. Labour has shed significant amounts of support among Muslim and Left-wing voters at every election since the start of the conflict. Launching their party last month with the temporary name of 'Your Party', Mr Corbyn and Ms Sultana made clear pro-Palestinian activism would be a central part of its policy platform. They said: 'We believe in the radical idea that all human life has equal value. That is why we defend the right to protest for Palestine. 'That is why we demand an end to all arms sales to Israel. And that is why we will carry on campaigning for the only path to peace: a free and independent Palestine.' Ms Sultana's remarks came as she also claimed her and Mr Corbyn's new party was currently too much of a 'boys' club'. She is currently the only female MP out of the six independents who will eventually represent the new party in the Commons. Alongside Mr Corbyn, the others are Adnan Hussain, Ayoub Khan, Iqbal Mohamed, Shockat Adam, all of whom were elected on a pro-Gaza ticket at the general election last year. Ms Sultana insisted that the new organisation 'can't just be led by MPs', adding: 'Right now there are six of us MPs in the Independent Alliance, five of whom are men. 'This shouldn't be what our party looks like going forward, so the committee that's organising the conference should be gender balanced as well as racially and regionally diverse, all with an equal stake and voting rights. Anything less would be a boys' club.' Later in the interview, Ms Sultana expressed her hope that her new party would represent 'a politics of fun and joy'. 'One of the best parts of Corbynism was the rallies and the music and the performances,' she said. 'We need to get that back.'
Telegraph
9 hours ago
- Telegraph
Farage is not selling out, he is just preparing Reform for government
There's a whisper on t'internet that Nigel Farage has sold out. It's based on things he's said – ie 'it's impossible' to deport every illegal alien – or the dissenting views of individual Reformers. Vanessa Frake, his new justice adviser, recently opined that it's impractical to ban all trans women from all prisons, contra the position of Farage himself. Journalists said Reform must be divided; the Tories, that Reform has turned wet. 'Men belong in men's prisons,' wrote Rob Jenrick. 'End of.' In a sign of how far the Overton window has shifted, even Labour is now attacking Farage as soft on crime. Its latest ad says he 'wants to make it easier to share revenge porn online', as if Nigel had secreted a camera into Rupert Lowe's bedroom and uploaded the grim results on YouTube. What is going on? The fuss around Frake needs to be contextualised: she was speaking for herself, and there's nowt wrong with that. Reform is a start-up. The whole premise is to offer a platform to those who hate machine politics but still want to serve the public. Such people, completely new to this business, are going to be opinionated; they will speak their mind. Isn't that what we want? Voters complain that politicians are robotic, yet the minute one of them demonstrates free will, commentators leap on it as evidence of civil war. Moreover, pluralism of thought is inevitable in any organisation growing this fast. A year ago, Reform was a one-man band. Today it has around 230,000 members, 450 branches and over 850 councillors, with competitive elections under way to staff the board. Farage could've banked winning 10 councils and moved on: instead he has set them a task, chiefly to save money, and invited voters to judge the national party on how local officials, operating beyond his direct control, do. That's brave; a hostage to fortune. But it reflects Farage's personal transformation from spoiler vote to potential PM. If he's moderating his rhetoric, it's probably not just because it's necessary to win. I think that Farage believes he will win. This is a man of conscience on the cusp of power, being careful not to over-hype expectations of what a Reform government can actually achieve. Consider past mistakes. Rishi Sunak said 'stop the boats', and didn't. Keir Starmer said 'smash the gangs', and he still hasn't. The failure to deliver promises on immigration has done as much damage to the country as mass migration itself, fuelling perceptions of elite failure – or lies – and eroding faith in democracy. The Left assumes that when Farage says Britain is on the verge of 'social collapse', of disorder and riots, this is what he wants to happen, but the opposite is true. He means it as a warning. Instinctual conservatives like Farage abhor revolution, and it's precisely because he has long operated on the interzone between centre and radical Right that he knows the anger that's out there and the potential for violent upheaval. Hence a Reform government, far from being fascist, might be the last chance to do the things that quell nativist anger. Saving our system from itself is the historic role Farage played in the late 2000s, when the rise of Ukip drained support from the BNP, channelling it into the safer waters of euroscepticism. He is the last gasp of the 20th century, defending its liberality and patriotism, and has an old-fashioned reading of British identity rooted in history and constitutionalism, not race or religion. 'I haven't fought the change,' caused by immigration, he once said, 'provided it comes with integration.' I'm sure that to him, men like Zia Yusuf – Reform's former chairman, Muslim and stinking rich – exemplify a British Dream that stretches from the beaches of Dunkirk to Ibiza, the freedom not to be told what to do, the right to have a laugh. To populist critics, however, Yusuf is a suspicious character who kept dragging Reform back to an illusionary centre-ground – compromise and betrayal – and Nigel's tolerance of him epitomised a lack of intellectual rigour. Farage might be tougher than the establishment on immigration, they say, but he's out-of-date. Doesn't see how bad things have got, doesn't get the existential threat posed by Islam. Lowe has speculated that he was driven out of Reform, in part, because the leadership didn't want him talking about 'mass deportation'. Spying an opportunity, the Tories are triangulating against Reform, suggesting Farage has embraced full communism by seeking to expand child benefit or nationalise industries. Arguably this illustrates their own, very unconservative addiction to economic dogma. Farage has evolved with circumstances – this is an insecure age that demands more babies, more manufacturing – and out of loyalty to constituencies that have been loyal to him. In short: if Scunthorpe wants its steel protected, he'll do it. The alternative is to offer the working class a dry lecture on supply and demand and what the country cannot afford. A bitter pill given Westminster earmarked £7bn to relocate Afghan refugees to the UK. Indeed, the basic problem the Conservatives have with trying to attack Farage from the Right is that we can remember what they did in office. Even if the Tories dumped Kemi and brought in Jenrick, who Farage has said will 'almost certainly' end up to the Right of him on immigration, Farage will turn to him at that first debate in 2029 and ask: 'Why did your party open the borders and refuse to leave the ECHR?' Jenrick has undergone a genuine conversion on these points, but my gut tells me the Tories are essentially a liberal party that occasionally says conservative things, whereas Reform is a conservative party that occasionally says liberal things. I am therefore more willing to give Reform the benefit of the doubt. The physical comparison between the slimline Jenrick and old Nigel, in a blazer, beneath a halo of cigarette smoke, would also be significant. Farage embodies his conservatism. So does Donald Trump. Trump, too, has said things at odds with his base – on abortion or war – and several Republicans ran against him from the Right in presidential primaries. They lost. Ultimately, politics is about vibes, and you are never going to convince the voters that Nigel Farage is a globalist cross-dressing as a nationalist.
