Press Office - Astrid Goldman

Your opportunity to communicate with your adoring public.
Post Reply
User avatar
Noah Adamu
Labour MP
Labour MP
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2021 11:30 am
Constituency: Loughborough
XP: 0
Trait(s): None
Discord username: Aaron

Press Office - Astrid Goldman

Post by Noah Adamu »

Image

Press Office of Astrid Goldman, Lady Goldman MP
Member of Parliament for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford

For all enquiries, please ask for the manager and cite Karen.
Noah Adamu | Labour
Member of Parliament for Loughborough
User avatar
Noah Adamu
Labour MP
Labour MP
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2021 11:30 am
Constituency: Loughborough
XP: 0
Trait(s): None
Discord username: Aaron

Re: Press Office - Astrid Goldman

Post by Noah Adamu »

LAB PR: Scrap Trident? Yes and No.


Image
Lady Goldman proposes a middle ground on Trident renewal: scrap it and replace it with a fully-funded cybersecurity strategy

WESMINSTER - The Labour Party has had an admittedly difficult relationship with nuclear weapons. There is a strident, proud tradition of disarmament among many members but many of us have recognised that the reality of Government means toleration of a nuclear arsenal for national self-defence is often a key expectation of the public. Recent comments by friends and colleagues have once again raised this issue and the question of what a Labour Government in 2024 would do with Trident.

On one side of the argument are those who proclaim that to get into Government and be taken seriously on defence and national security, Labour must adapt to the reality of a nuclear world. In Government, these members would ask us to put aside our moral objections, perhaps make it clear they're too "idealistic" and articulate to the public our "maturity" by renewing the submarine missile systems or developing new ones. Some of these members would offer rationale for doing so by pointing to the manufacturing jobs that Trident creates or to the deterrent it supposedly provides.

On the flip side of the issue are our members who call for the party to stand by our principles of peace, internationalism, social justice and cooperation. They would argue that nuclear weapons belong in a Cold War mentality and moralistically, should not exist in 2019. Many of our members are also members of the CND and push for Labour to enter Government with a clear agenda to dismantle unilaterally our nuclear arsenal in the name of peace. One of the most popular arguments for this is that the money saved, which still have dubious pricetags claimed from both sides of the debate, would be better spent on public services. Dismantle Trident, comes the cry, and give the savings to the NHS. Sound familiar? You don't need to put it on a bus to realise this is unlikely to happen. My respected colleague Eva Phillips wrote the other day that the money could be spent on a whole plethora of items including ensuring "every child is fed, where every pensioner is kept warm and where every school and hospital has the resources it needs… solve the climate crisis… improve air quality… clean up our oceans."

Of course, as with most political issues, both sides are right and both sides are wrong. We should absolutely stand by our convictions and promote internationalism and cooperation and peace. We should also absolutely accept that in 2019, it is ludicrous to spend so much money on something that in reality deters nothing. Since Britain obtained our nuclear arsenal, we have seen; the Korean War, the Suez Crisis, the Vietnam War, half a dozen Cold War proxy wars, the Falklands, the First and Second Gulf Wars, the Arab-Israeli conflict, the War in Iraq, the War in Afghanistan, military actions in Kosovo, Libya and Syria. Who exactly are we deterring?

That said, it would remiss of us to assume that we are safe in simply scrapping Trident and not replacing it with something more robust, more efficient, more effective and more relevant to conflict and security in the 2020s. All academic and expert research highlights three key trends in how our security is developing;
1) "Weapons" are becoming more technological and effective over time, including developing of online cybersecurity threats
2) These weapons are increasingly being used by a wider range of actors beyond the traditional Superpowers definition
3) These weapons are harder to track, quicker to use and are more readily available than every before
Trident does not address increasingly technological security threats. Trident does not address weapons being used by the likes of ISIS or terrorist organisations who are typically less concerned about protecting a civilian population. Trident doesn't help us tackle new and emerging threats. However, neither does simply pouring the money saved into social care, education or climate change, as admirable and worthwhile these causes may be.

Rather, we should use the money saved in decommissioning Trident, for both moral and strategic reasons, to research and development Britain's cybersecurity defences, our counter-terrorism expertise and our intelligence services. Only then can we say with certainly that our strategy is one of this centuty and not of the last. To prepare Britain adequately for the trends of the 2030s, rather than the 1930s, we must be bold and ambitious in our approach to national security. However, we should also be unapologetic about our commitment to our values. Labour, and Britain, should now scrap Trident, and replace it with a comprehensively resourced strategy to tackle cybersecurity treats and terrorism.
Noah Adamu | Labour
Member of Parliament for Loughborough
User avatar
Noah Adamu
Labour MP
Labour MP
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2021 11:30 am
Constituency: Loughborough
XP: 0
Trait(s): None
Discord username: Aaron

Re: Press Office - Astrid Goldman

Post by Noah Adamu »

Testing chaos for 3 and 4 year olds


Image
Astrid Goldman, former Headteacher and Ofsted Inspector, has said parents of 3 and 4 year olds deserve honesty and clarity from the DfE

WESMINSTER - Astrid Goldman, former Headteacher and Ofsted Inspector, has slammed the Government for the "chaos" caused by policy shifts over baseline testing for 3 and 4 year olds. She said the Government's lack of clarity and constant changing of the goalposts meant parents faced anxiety and uncertainty in September. She added that Labour policy was clear; scrap tests for Reception children.

Teachers, schools and Earl Years providers were plunged into uncertainty when the Government announced new tests for children as they enter school for the first time. The National Education Union and the National Association of Headteachers have both criticised the policy and outlined their rationale as to why but the Department for Education was determined to go ahead. Many parents were shocked to hear that their child's first day at school would be marred with stress and worry over testing rather than play and experiential learning usually expected in the Early Years curriculum.

Lady Goldman, a former teacher herself and an Ofsted Inspector of many years, asked the Government to clarify timescales after it was unclear if testing would begin this September or next. What followed was a serious of unclear answers from then-Education Secretary Patricia Carmichael. Ms Carmichael was uncertain if 3 and 4 year olds would face tests in September and would need to consult.

After a round of further questions, a new Education Secretary and many attempts by incoming Education Secretary Juliet Manning, Lady Goldman was successful in achieving a definitive answer from the DfE when they accepted they were unprepared for testing after all and confirmed the first round of assessments would not start until next year.

Lady Goldman explained; "Their attitude has been atrocious. All I sought was a definitive answer for parents so they knew what to expect in September for their kids. Instead we get denials, blunders, kicking the decision into the long-grass, personal attacks on me. Anything but an answer. I am pleased that after a tough round of questioning, Ms Manning relented and accepted the Department was underprepared."

Labour Party policy is to scrap the tests, the results of which are not shared with teachers, schools, parents or local authorities. "If nobody sees the results, why put a child through that stress anyway?" Lady Goldman added.
Noah Adamu | Labour
Member of Parliament for Loughborough
Post Reply

Return to “Press Office”