Morning:
10°c
One of the subjects that the Prince of Wales feels most passionately about is education.
And in our interview today with Bernice McCabe, the co-director of the Prince's Teaching Institute, it is clear that Prince Charles believes strongly that traditional subjects on the primary school curriculum, notably history and geography, should not be done away with.
These are to be replaced with six broad-based areas of learning under reforms due to be implemented in 2011.
Mrs McCabe says that the Prince would be unwilling to criticise the Government openly. But through her, he has made his views known and they are trenchant.
On this matter, at least, Prince Charles's concerns are well founded. There is much that is good in the reforms proposed in the spring and accepted by Ed Balls, the Children's Secretary.
On the positive side, they give teachers greater autonomy about what to teach and place a premium on children being able to speak clearly.
But the proposals to do away with the old subject divisions and to replace them with the new areas of understanding, including "historical, geographical and social understanding" are likely to mean that children will leave school knowing less of substance than they do now.
There is everything to be said for collaboration across subjects, but if history is taught as a distinct subject, with a specified body of knowledge that children must learn, preferably chronologically rather than thematically, it provides pupils with something substantial.
A more diffuse, interdisciplinary approach would not have the same result. Mrs McCabe says the Prince "is passionate that these subjects should remain in the curriculum".
Most parents and teachers feel just the same. Children do not need new subjects; the old ones make sense - they just need to be taught coherently and well.
The speech, a day on
It has not taken much time for the criticism of the Government's legislative programme in the Queen's speech to come under attack.
Disconcertingly for Gordon Brown, some criticism is from his own side. Lord Lipsey, a care expert, and Lord Warner, a former health minister, have criticised the bill to provide free at-home care for the most vulnerable elderly, saying that the measure has not been properly costed and thought through.
The Tories say that to pay for the measure, it would be necessary for pensioners to lose their disability allowance.
Meanwhile, Sir Christopher Kelly has criticised the absence of any legislation to put into effect his proposals for reforming MPs' pay and privileges.
This is less fair; the central reforms can be implemented without new laws. What matters is that MPs back the spirit of the measures.
As for the Government's measures to reduce youth unemployment, it is made possible because not all the Treasury's funds put aside for joblessness have been used.
But the proposed work and training scheme also looks like a way to ensure that the figure for young jobless does not reach a million before the next election.
What is more, a day's reflection does not make the bill to oblige the Government to halve the budget deficit in four years look any more sensible. It should be doing that anyway; the question is, will it be with higher taxes?
Don't do it
The Tube unions have issued notices for four strike ballots and they may follow with a fifth. What this could mean in practice is a strike over the festive season.
Let's hear it from passengers first: don't do it. Please.
