Latest news with #PollyToynbee
The Guardian
4 days ago
- Business
- The Guardian
Is Labour being outflanked on the left by Nigel Farage?
Nigel Farage seems to have upstaged the Labour government, pledging to scrap the controversial two-child benefit cap and reverse the cuts to the winter fuel allowance. So why hasn't the government – after almost a year in power – done more to end child poverty? Gaby Hinsliff, in for John Harris, speaks to the Labour MP Stella Creasy and columnist Polly Toynbee
Telegraph
6 days ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
The nanny state still thinks it can raise kids better than their parents
Sure Start – Blair's early years project and pride and joy of Labour – could be returning to a children's centre near you. According to the government-backed child poverty taskforce, the early-years service might be making a necessary comeback, albeit if the government can find the 'huge investment to do it'. Kick-starting in the early 2000s, Sure Start was sold as government support for needy families – childcare services targeting those on the lowest rung of the economic ladder. During its heyday, it did provide families across the country with places to bring their babies that were full of toys and other children to play with. But there's no such thing as a free lunch. Sure Start's catch was big – families weren't simply being offered free resources that they wouldn't have otherwise been able to afford. Instead, the programme was a social-engineering experiment, attempting to remove the influence of working-class parents and instead socialise children via 'expert' intervention from the state. Back in 2005, 18 months after Labour's flagship programme had begun, a government-funded study found that Sure Start was having no success in improving the development of children in deprived areas. In response to the findings, Polly Toynbee wrote a defence of the programme in The Guardian, in which she told parents to 'take a deep breath', as the one change the study had picked up was that Sure Start mothers were engaging in 'warmer parenting'. What did this mean? Middle-class readers could breathe a sigh of relief, as the council-estate mums who had been re-educated at these children's centres were showing signs of 'less hostility, less smacking, less negative criticism and more affection'. The Blair administration's approach to the working class was always paternalistic, but Sure Start took patronising state intervention to insulting levels. Fast forward 20 years, and the current Labour Government seems to want to pick up where Blair left off. Starmer won't give poorer parents any help when it comes to the two-child benefit cap, but he has been excited to announce a national programme of toothbrushing in schools and nurseries, to monitor the dental hygiene of the great unwashed. Let them eat Colgate. While the Left used to understand the importance of a working class independent from the state, many now believe government busybodies know how to raise children better than their parents. Rather than being a helpful resource, the era of 'parenting experts' has trashed any sense of parental authority. I've seen this in real life – mothers attending weaning classes at our local children's centre, anxiously making notes on how many centimetres long the cucumber stick should be when given to a six-month-old. There's no shame in asking for help when it comes to raising kids, but parents today have lost all confidence in common sense, or that they might be able to figure things out for themselves. The more the Government wags its finger at us, the less we feel able to trust our gut. I'm all for government intervention when it comes to cold hard cash. Hackney council, where I live, has recently raised its nursery fees through the roof. Many families will no longer be able to afford to put their children in childcare – even with the free hours – which might well scupper the Government's promise to grow the economy. Opening up more centres and employing more staff is something every parent would welcome. But not if it means surrendering our families to the scrutiny and intervention of the nanny state. Leave the kids – and the parents – alone.
The Guardian
19-05-2025
- Health
- The Guardian
Changing opinions on the assisted dying bill
Regarding Polly Toynbee's article (MPs are voting on the next stage of the assisted dying bill. This is their chance to create a legacy. 15 May), in June 2018, I received a bone marrow transplant for myelofibrosis – a condition that, only a few years earlier, would have led to a fairly uncomfortable and painful death. My consultant at the time, whom I liked and respected greatly, was not hopeful the transplant would succeed. My quality of life had been steadily deteriorating, and the two years that followed the transplant were extremely difficult. I remain immunocompromised and live with chronic health conditions that require monitoring, and yet, despite everything, I have had a number of years of life well lived. Had you asked my opinion of assisted dying eight, five or three years ago, I might have responded very differently. My views then would have been shaped by pain, the mental toll of illness, the isolation it brings and the deep sense of guilt over the burden I felt I placed on those close to me, and over the NHS resources I consume. Medical opinions often differ, and I've witnessed how care can shift depending on how a patient presents – mood, appearance and speech all have an effect on our treatment. In an unequal society, how can we ensure that a decision as final as assisted dying is truly free from undue influence or even prejudice? The risk is that the bill could unintentionally set us on a path where choosing to die becomes seen as a selfless or responsible act, disproportionately affecting the poorest and most vulnerable in our society, and safeguards will be eroded as society becomes 'trained' to see assisted dying as just another life option. Current societal norms of compassion for the weakest and the poorest in society will become eroded as assisted dying replaces improved funding for compassionate and comprehensive palliative GibbonCardiff The Royal College of Psychiatrists' position risks underestimating both the safeguards in the assisted dying bill and the capacity of terminally ill people to make autonomous, informed decisions about their lives (Royal College of Psychiatrists says it cannot yet support assisted dying bill, 14 May). Kim Leadbeater's bill applies only to mentally competent adults with a terminal diagnosis and a prognosis of six months or less. It includes clear protections to ensure that choices are freely made and not influenced by untreated mental illness. Suggesting that psychiatrists are unable to assess this not only undermines our expertise but risks denying dying individuals the right to make decisions about their own bodies in their final days. Autonomy in healthcare is a fundamental principle. Every day, patients make complex, life-altering choices about surgery, treatment refusal, even palliative sedation. That the same liberty should be withheld at the end of life is not only inconsistent but deeply unjust. With more than 25 years' experience of supporting families in their most challenging and vulnerable moments, I know that compassion and clinical rigour can and must coexist. Other countries have shown that it is possible to create safe, ethical systems of care for terminally ill patients who may be considering assisted dying. In this country, only those with the means to travel to Dignitas can exercise this choice. We have, in effect, a two-tier system: access to assisted dying is available, but only to the wealthy. That is not a safeguard, it is an elitist Sabina DosaniChild and adolescent psychiatrist; visiting researcher and ambassador for medical and health humanities, University of East Anglia We should not be surprised that MPs are changing their minds on the assisted dying bill (At least five more MPs decide to vote against England and Wales assisted dying bill, 14 May). In the House of Commons, assisted dying may present as a 'for or against' voting issue, but the reality of decision-making is far less straightforward. Besides aye and nay, other valid positions can easily be overlooked – for example, 'yes if', 'no unless', 'not yet', 'don't know'. Dividing lines run through the cabinet, parliament, the medical profession, the charitable sector, communities and families. They also run through individuals, not least those who are or may become terminally ill. The lines move as circumstances change; people change their minds – often. The legislative process has catalysed debate around assisted dying. Regrettably, the debate has been unduly affected by the process, especially since a private member's bill is being considered. More time for wider deliberation and discussion, without the pressure of parliamentary timetables, would have been welcome. Given the subject, any legislation would always be controversial – some would say rightly so – but legislation should follow a broader, more deliberate national discussion. Here, the horse appears to have found itself behind the cart. Full disclosure: I am living with an incurable illness. Before and since diagnosis, I have been firmly against assisted dying, in principle and in practice. If media coverage is anything to go by, stark realities surrounding end-of-life issues seem to be overshadowed by exchanges of sincerely held but stridently expressed views. It feels as if people are in danger of losing out to process; we must do and address supplied Thank you for Lucy Webster's measured piece on assisted dying (The assisted dying lobby isn't being honest with you – disabled people are at risk from this bill, 14 May). As a person with complex health problems, including multiple sclerosis and brain haemorrhage, I believe that the passing of this bill will be the very thin edge of a terrifying wedge. With disabled people's rights under attack by successive governments, who is to say that in 10 or 20 years' time, the supposedly 'economically inactive' will not be encouraged to cease being a burden on their families and society. I am not economically inactive – I receive personal independence payment, and I spend it; I enjoy my life immensely, despite its limitations. I never, ever thought that a Labour government would decide to consign people unable to work to the scrapheap or, potentially, open the door to an even worse ConnidesEast Finchley, London
The Guardian
08-05-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Rage against the mainstream: did UK politics just change for good?
As Reform UK reaches new highs in the polls, it feels more and more likely that Nigel Farage's triumph at local elections will be remembered as a huge turning point in UK politics. With support for the Tories at historic lows, and Keir Starmer's government in deep trouble, is there a way back for the mainstream parties? John Harris is joined by the Guardian columnists Gaby Hinsliff and Polly Toynbee to make sense of what could be the biggest political change to hit the UK in living memory
The Guardian
07-05-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Parliament wants your views on new towns
Polly Toynbee is right to point out the atmosphere of urgency around Labour's ambitious proposal for a new towns programme and the new towns taskforce's investigation (Inside Labour's top-secret plan for new towns, I see signs of hope, 24 April). The government's sweeping planning policy reforms have demonstrated its commitment to a programme that will have major consequences for the construction sector, local and regional authorities, existing and would-be homeowners, and future generations, to say the least. This policy cuts across issues of critical national importance, from infrastructure and economic growth to communities and the environment. Now is the time for persistent, thoughtful inquiry into the government's plans for new towns. As chair of the built environment committee in the House of Lords, I'm proud to be leading our inquiry into new towns and expanded settlements. The first module of our inquiry is officially under way, and we're conducting public evidence sessions focusing on the practical delivery of new towns. Our panels of experts are giving us invaluable insights into the merits and risks of different strategies, which you can read on our website. If the government chooses the right model for this generation of new towns, there could be substantial benefits for all. But a wrong move now could send their plans the way of the 2000s ecotowns policy, wasting another opportunity to deliver attractive, viable, livable housing at scale. To help guide the government in making the best possible decisions as it pushes this policy, our recommendations need to be fully informed, so we want to hear from as many people and organisations from across the country as possible. Until 12 May, you can submit your evidence for the first module of our inquiry here. Benjamin Gascoigne Chair, House of Lords built environment committee
