Connect with us

Opinion

Underground data fortresses: the nuclear bunkers, mines and mountains being transformed to protect our ‘new gold’ from attack

Published

on

Read more on post.

It’s a sunny June day in southeast England. I’m driving along a quiet, rural road that stretches through the Kent countryside. The sun flashes through breaks in the hedgerow, offering glimpses of verdant crop fields and old farmhouses.

Thick hawthorn and brambles make it difficult to see the 10ft high razor-wire fence that encloses a large grassy mound. You’d never suspect that 100ft beneath the ground, a hi-tech cloud computing facility is whirring away, guarding the most valuable commodity of our age: digital data.

This subterranean data centre is located in a former nuclear bunker that was constructed in the early 1950s as a command-and-control centre for the Royal Air Force’s radar network. You can still see the decaying concrete plinths that the radar dish once sat upon. Personnel stationed in the bunker would have closely watched their screens for signs of nuclear missile-carrying aircraft.

After the end of the cold war, the bunker was purchased by a London-based internet security firm for use as an ultra-secure data centre. Today, the site is operated by the Cyberfort Group, a cybersecurity services provider.

The side entrance to a bunker showing a hill and barbed wire fencing

The Cyberfort bunker is a solid inclined mass of grass-covered concrete that emerges in the centre of the compound.
Cyberfort/A.R.E. Taylor, CC BY

I’m an anthropologist visiting the Cyberfort bunker as part of my ethnographic research exploring practices of “extreme” data storage. My work focuses on anxieties of data loss and the effort we take – or often forget to take – to back-up our data.

As an object of anthropological enquiry, the bunkered data centre continues the ancient human practice of storing precious relics in underground sites, like the tumuli and burial mounds of our ancestors, where tools, silver, gold and other treasures were interred.

The Cyberfort facility is one of many bunkers around the world that have now been repurposed as cloud storage spaces. Former bomb shelters in China, derelict Soviet command-and-control centres in Kyiv and abandoned Department of Defense bunkers across the United States have all been repackaged over the last two decades as “future-proof” data storage sites.

I’ve managed to secure permission to visit some of these high-security sites as part of my fieldwork, including Pionen, a former defence shelter in Stockholm, Sweden, which has attracted considerable media interest over the last two decades because it looks like the hi-tech lair of a James Bond villain.

Many abandoned mines and mountain caverns have also been re-engineered as digital data repositories, such as the Mount10 AG complex, which brands itself as the “Swiss Fort Knox” and has buried its operations within the Swiss Alps. Cold war-era information management company Iron Mountain operates an underground data centre 10 minutes from downtown Kansas City and another in a former limestone mine in Boyers, Pennsylvania.

The National Library of Norway stores its digital databanks in mountain vaults just south of the Arctic Circle, while a Svalbard coal mine was transformed into a data storage site by the data preservation company Piql. Known as the Arctic World Archive (AWA), this subterranean data preservation facility is modelled on the nearby Global Seed Vault.

Just as the seeds preserved in the Global Seed Vault promise to help re-build biodiversity in the aftermath of future collapse, the digitised records stored in the AWA promise to help re-boot organisations after their collapse.

A diagram showing the cross section of a bunker buried in a mountain.

A diagram of the Mount 10 bunker in Switzerland.
Mount10, CC BY

Bunkers are architectural reflections of cultural anxieties. If nuclear bunkers once mirrored existential fears about atomic warfare, then today’s data bunkers speak to the emergence of a new existential threat endemic to digital society: the terrifying prospect of data loss.

Data, the new gold?

After parking my car, I show my ID to a large and muscular bald-headed guard squeezed into a security booth not much larger than a pay-phone box. He’s wearing a black fleece with “Cyberfort” embroidered on the left side of the chest. He checks my name against today’s visitor list, nods, then pushes a button to retract the electric gates.

I follow an open-air corridor constructed from steel grating to the door of the reception building and press a buzzer. The door opens on to the reception area: “Welcome to Cyberfort,” receptionist Laura Harper says cheerfully, sitting behind a desk in front of a bulletproof window which faces the car park. I hand her my passport, place my bag in one of the lockers, and take a seat in the waiting area.


The Insights section is committed to high-quality longform journalism. Our editors work with academics from many different backgrounds who are tackling a wide range of societal and scientific challenges.


Big-tech pundits have heralded data as the “new gold” – a metaphor made all the more vivid when data is stored in abandoned mines. And as the purported economic and cultural value of data continues to grow, so too does the impact of data loss.

For individuals, the loss of digital data can be a devastating experience. If a personal device should crash or be hacked or stolen with no recent back-ups having been made, it can mean the loss of valuable work or cherished memories. Most of us probably have a data-loss horror story we could tell.

For governments, corporations and businesses, a severe data loss event – whether through theft, erasure or network failure – can have a significant impact on operations or even result in their collapse. The online services of high-profile companies like Jaguar and Marks & Spencer have recently been impacted by large-scale cyber-attacks that have left them struggling to operate, with systems shutdown and supply chains disrupted. But these companies have been comparatively lucky: a number of organisations had to permanently close down after major data loss events, such as the TravelEx ransomware attack in 2020, and the MediSecure and National Public Data breaches, both in 2024.

With the economic and societal impact of data loss growing, some businesses are turning to bunkers with the hope of avoiding a data loss doomsday scenario.

The concrete cloud

One of the first things visitors to the Cyberfort bunker encounter in the waiting area is a 3ft cylinder of concrete inside a glass display cabinet, showcasing the thickness of the data centre’s walls. The brute materiality of the bunkered data centre stands in stark contrast to the fluffy metaphor of the “cloud”, which is often used to discuss online data storage.

Data centres, sometimes known as “server farms”, are the buildings where cloud data is stored. When we transfer our data into the cloud, we are transferring it on to servers in a data centre (hence the meme “there is no cloud, just someone else’s computer”). Data centres typically take the form of windowless, warehouse-scale buildings containing hundreds of servers (pizza box-shaped computers) stored in cabinets that are arranged in aisles.

Data centres are responsible for running many of the services that underpin the systems we interact with every day. Transportation, logistics, energy, finance, national security, health systems and other lifeline services all rely on up-to-the-second data stored in and accessed through data centres. Everyday activities such as debit and credit card payments, sending emails, booking tickets, receiving text messages, using social media, search engines and AI chatbots, streaming TV, making video calls and storing digital photos all rely on data centres.

These buildings now connect such an incredible range of activities and utilities across government, business and society that any downtime can have major consequences. The UK government has officially classified data centres as forming part of the country’s critical national infrastructure – a move that also conveniently enables the government to justify building many more of these energy-guzzling facilities.

As I sit pondering the concrete reality of the cloud in Cyberfort’s waiting area, the company’s chief digital officer, Rob Arnold, emerges from a corridor. It was Arnold who arranged my visit, and we head for his office – through a security door with a biometric fingerprint lock – where he talks me through the logic of the bunkered data centre.

“The problem with most above-ground data centres is they are often constructed quickly, and not built to withstand physical threats like strong winds, car bombs or server theft from breaking and entering.” Arnold says that “most people tend to think of the cyber-side of data security – hackers, viruses and cyber-attacks – which dangerously overlooks the physical side”.

Amid increasing geopolitical tension, internet infrastructure is now a high-value target as “hybrid” or “cyber-physical” sabotage (when cyber-attacks are combined with physical attacks) becomes increasingly common.

The importance of physical internet security has been highlighted by the war in Ukraine, where drone strikes and other attacks on digital infrastructure have led to internet shutdowns. While precise details about the number of data centres destroyed in the conflict remain scant, it has been observed that Russian attacks on local data centres in Ukraine have led many organisations to migrate their data to cloud facilities located outside of the conflict zone.

Bunkers appeal to what Arnold calls “security-conscious” clients. He says: “It’s difficult to find a structure more secure than a bunker” – before adding drily: “The client might not survive the apocalypse, but their data will.”

Cyberfort specialises in serving regulated industries. Its customer base includes companies working in defence, healthcare, finance and critical infrastructure. “Our core offering focuses on providing secure, sovereign and compliant cloud and data-centre services,” Arnold explains in a well-rehearsed sales routine. “We do more for our customers than just host systems – we protect their reputations.”

Arnold’s pitch is disrupted by a knock at the door. The head of security (who I’m calling Richard Thomas here) enters – a 6ft-tall ex-royal marine wearing black cargo trousers, black combat boots and a black Cyberfort-branded polo shirt. Thomas is going to show me around the facility today.

Two green armour-plated doors.
The bunker’s external armour-plated door.
Cyberfort/A.R.E. Taylor, CC BY

The entrance to the bunker is located up a short access road. Engineered to withstand the blast and radiation effects of megaton-level thermonuclear detonations, this cloud storage bunker promises its clients that their data will survive any eventuality.

At the armour-plated entrance door, Thomas taps a passcode into the electronic lock and swipes his card through the access control system. Inside, the air is cool and musty. Another security guard sits in a small room behind bulletproof plexiglass. He buzzes us through a metal mantrap and we descend into the depths of the facility via a steel staircase, our footsteps echoing in this cavernous space.

A full-height turnstile security gate (mantrap) inside the bunker.
Cyberfort/A.R.E. Taylor, CC BY

The heavy blast doors and concrete walls of the bunker appear strangely at odds with the virtual “walls” we typically associate with data security: firewalls, anti-virus vaults, and spyware and spam filters. Similarly, the bunker’s military logics of enclosure and isolation seem somewhat outdated when faced with the transgressive digital “flows” of networked data.

However, to dismiss the bunkered data centre as merely an outmoded piece of security theatre is to overlook the importance of physical security – today and in the future.

We often think of the internet as an immaterial or ethereal realm that exists in an electronic non-place. Metaphors like the now retro-sounding cyberspace and, more recently, the cloud perpetuate this way of thinking.

But the cloud is a material infrastructure composed of thousands of miles of cables and rows upon rows of computing equipment. It always “touches the ground” somewhere, making it vulnerable to a range of non-cyber threats – from thieves breaking into data centres and stealing servers, to solar storms disrupting electrical supplies, and even to squirrels chewing through cables.

A red blast-proof metal door in a bunker.

A blast-proof door in the Cyberfort bunker, behind which lies the server room containing the digital ‘gold’.
Cyberfort/A.R.E. Taylor, CC BY

If data centre services should go down, even for a few seconds, the economic and societal impact can be calamitous. In recent years we have seen this first-hand.

In July 2020, the 27-minute Cloudflare outage led to a 50% collapse in traffic across the globe, disrupting major platforms like Discord, Shopify, Feedly and Politico. In June 2021, the Fastly outage left some of the world’s most visited websites completely inaccessible, including Amazon, PayPal, Reddit, and the New York Times. In October 2021, Meta, which owns Facebook, WhatsApp and Instagram, experienced an outage for several hours that affected millions of social media users as well as hundreds of businesses.

Perhaps the largest internet outage yet occurred in July 2024 when the CrowdStrike outage left supermarkets, doctors’ surgeries, pharmacies, airports, train providers and banks (among other critical services) unable to operate. This was described by some in the industry as “one of the largest mass outages in IT history”.

Internet architecture now relies on such a complex and fragile ecosystem of interdependencies that major outages are getting bigger and occurring more often. Downtime events can have a lasting financial and reputational impact on data centre providers. Some attempts to quantify the average cost of an unplanned data centre outage range from US$9,000 to US$17,000 (about £12,500) per minute.

The geographic location of a data centre is also hugely important for data protection regulations, Thomas explains, as we make our way down a brightly lit corridor. “Cyberfort’s facilities are all located in the UK, which gives our clients peace of mind, knowing they comply with data sovereignty laws.”

Data sovereignty regulations subject data to the legal and privacy standards of the country in which it is stored. This means businesses and organisations must be careful about where in the world their data is being relocated when they move it into the cloud. For example, if a UK business opts to store its data with a cloud provider that uses data centres based in the US, then that data will be subject to US privacy standards which do not fully comply with UK standards.

In contrast to early perceptions of the internet as transcending space, eradicating national borders and geopolitics, data sovereignty regulations endow locality with renewed significance in the cloud era.

The survival of data at all costs

Towards the end of the corridor, Thomas opens a large red blast-proof door – beyond which is a smaller air-tight door. Thomas waves his card in front of an e-reader, initiating an unlocking process: we’re about to enter one of the server rooms.

“Get ready” he says, smiling, “it’s going to be cold and loud!” The door opens, releasing a rush of cold air. The server room is configured and calibrated for the sole purpose of providing optimal conditions for data storage.

Like any computer, servers generate a huge amount of heat when they are running, and must be stored in constantly air-conditioned rooms to ensure they do not overheat. If for any reason a server should crash or fail, it can lead to the loss of a client’s valuable data. Data centre technicians work in high-pressure conditions where any unexpected server downtime could mean the end of their job.

Rows of black metal data hubs.
The server room at Cyberfort.
Cyberfort/A.R.E. Taylor, CC BY

To try and make sure the servers run optimally, data centres rely on huge amounts of water and energy, which can significantly limit the availability of these resources for the people who live in the vicinity of the buildings.

An average data centre consumes an estimated 200-terawatt hours of electricity each year. That’s around 1% of total global electricity demand, which is more than the national energy consumption of some countries. Many of these facilities are powered by non-renewable energy sources, and the data centre industry is expected to emit 2.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide by 2030.

In addition, to meet expectations for “uninterruptible” service levels, data centres rely on an array of fossil fuel-based back-up infrastructure – primarily diesel generators. For this reason, the Green Web Foundation – a non-profit organisation working to decarbonise the internet – has described the internet as the world’s largest coal-powered machine. Data centres are also noisy and have become sites of protest for local residents concerned about noise pollution.

Amid hype and speculation about the rise of AI, which is leading to a boom in the construction of energy-hungry data centres, the carbon footprint of the industry is under increasing scrutiny. Keen to highlight Cyberfort’s efforts to address these issues, Thomas informs me that “environmental impact is a key consideration for Cyberfort, and we take our commitment to these issues very seriously”.

As we walk down a cold aisle of whirring servers, he explains that Cyberfort actively sources electricity from renewable energy supply chains, and uses what he calls a “closed loop” cooling infrastructure which consumes minimal fresh water.

‘Like the pyramids’

After our walk through the server room, we begin to make our way out of the bunker, heading through another heavy-duty blast door. As we walk down the corridor, Thomas promotes the durability of bunkers as a further security selling point. Patting the cold concrete wall with the palm of his hand, he says: “Bunkers are built to last, like the pyramids.”

A red metal blast door.
Another heavy duty blast door.
Cyberfort/A.R.E. Taylor, CC BY

Bunker scholars have long noted that these buildings are as much about time as they are about space. Bunkers are designed to preserve and transport their contents through time, from an apocalyptic present into a safe future.

Writers such as Paul Virilio, W.G. Sebald and J.G. Ballard were drawn to the decaying bunkers of the second world war and, like Thomas, compared them with enduring megastructures which have outlived the civilisations that built them. In his 1975 book Bunker Archaeology, Virilio famously compared the abandoned Nazi bunkers along the coast of France with “the Egyptian mastabas, the Etruscan tombs, the Aztec structures”.

The bunker’s durability invites us to take a long-term view of our own data storage needs, which will only increase over the course of our lives.

For technology behemoths like Apple and Google, cloud storage is a key strategic avenue for long-term revenue growth. While the phones, laptops and other digital devices they make have limited lifespans, their cloud services offer potentially lifelong data storage. Apple and Google encourage us to perpetually hoard our data rather than delete it, because this locks us into their cloud subscription services, which become increasingly expensive the more storage we need.

Apple’s marketing for its cloud storage service, iCloud, encourages users to “take all the photos you want without worrying about space on your devices”. Google has made “archive” rather than “delete” the default option on Gmail. While this reduces the likelihood of us accidentally deleting an email, it also means we are steadily consuming more of our Gmail capacity, leading some to purchase more Google Drive storage space.

Cloud hoarders

It is also increasingly difficult to operate off-cloud. Internal storage space on our digital devices is dwindling as the cloud becomes the default storage option on the majority of digital products being developed. Users must pay a premium if they want more than the basic local storage on their laptop or smartphone. Ports to enable expandable, local storage – such as CD drives or SD card slots – are also being removed by tech manufacturers.

As our personal digital archives expand, our cloud storage needs will continue to grow over our lifetimes, as will the payments for more and more cloud storage space. And while we often imagine we will one day take the time to prune our accumulations of digital photos, files, and emails, that task is often indefinitely postponed. In the meantime, it is quicker and easier to simply purchase more cloud storage.

Many consumers simply use whichever cloud storage service is already pre-installed on their devices – often these are neither the cheapest nor most secure option. But once we commit to one provider, it is very difficult to move our data to another if we want a cheaper monthly storage rate, or simply want to switch – this requires investing in enough hard drives on which to download the data from one cloud provider and upload it to another. Not everyone is tech-savvy enough to do that.

A huge tunnel in a mine data centre
Underground: inside the Lefdal Mine Data Centers in Norway.
Lefdal, CC BY-ND

In 2013, bank reforms in the UK introduced a switching service which enabled consumers to easily move their money and payments to different banks, in order to access more favourable rates. Cloud migration services are available for businesses, but until a cloud storage equivalent of the bank switching service is developed for the general public, many of us are essentially locked into whichever cloud provider we have been using. If our data really is the new gold, perhaps we should require cloud providers to offer incentives to deposit it with them.

Some providers now offer “lifetime” cloud packages with no monthly or yearly payments and no inactivity clause. However, the cloud market is volatile, defined by cycles of boom-and-bust, with providers and their data centres constantly rebranding, closing and relocating. In this landscape of mergers and acquisitions, there is no guarantee that lifetime cloud providers will be around long enough to honour these promises.

In addition, the majority of consumer cloud providers currently only offer a maximum of a few terabytes of storage. In the future, most of us will probably need a lot more than this, which could mean a lot more data centres (roughly 100 new data centres are set to be constructed in the UK alone within the next five years). We may also see more bunkers being repurposed as data centres – while some providers, such as Florida-based Data Shelter, are considering building entirely new bunker structures from scratch to house digital data.

Resurfacing

Thomas and I arrive at the steel staircase leading back up to the outside world. The guard buzzes us back through the turnstile, and Thomas unlocks and opens the door. The sunlight stings my eyes.

Back in the reception area, I thank Arnold and Thomas for my surreal trip into the depths of subterranean data storage. The Cyberfort data centre is a site of extreme contrasts, where the ethereal promise of the cloud jars with the concrete reality of the bunker.

Sitting in my car, I add to my fieldnotes that the survival of data – whether entombed in bunkers or stored in “lifetime” cloud accounts – is bound to the churn of markets, and depends upon the durability of the infrastructure and organisations behind it.

Permanence, in the digital age, is always provisional. One can’t help but imagine future archaeologists discovering this bunker and rummaging through the unreadable remains of our lost digital civilisation.


For you: more from our Insights series:

To hear about new Insights articles, join the hundreds of thousands of people who value The Conversation’s evidence-based news. Subscribe to our newsletter.

Opinion

Starmerism has almost destroyed the Labour party, but I still have hope for renewal | Clive Lewis

Published

on

Read more on post.

image

So choppy are the waters of the UK’s permacrisis, and so flat-bottomed the life raft known as Starmerism, that ideas once thought impossible at the outset of Keir Starmer’s initial soft-left, “Corbyn-in-a-suit” journey have become the defining realities of Labour’s present course. As its conference begins in Liverpool this weekend, the party must ask itself whether the political culture it is building is one that can inspire a country, or merely discipline it into compliance. Without a shift towards democracy, discussion and pluralism, Labour risks forfeiting the very moral and political authority it needs to confront the authoritarian voices shouting so loudly beyond our own ranks, and increasingly within them.

The Corbyn wave that swept Labour in 2015 was more than just a political surge. It was a redefinition of the possible, a moment when grassroots activism, radical ideas and the audacity of political hope took centre stage. It represented a demand for genuine democracy, pluralism and change. For many, it was the first time in living memory that Labour had felt like a movement rather than a machine. Today, Starmer’s absolute determination to distance Labour from that era speaks volumes.

The current party leadership views unity not as something cultivated through respectful dialogue and diverse perspectives, but something enforced through control. The Corbyn moment threatened Labour precisely because it signalled a party potentially ungovernable by conventional managerial methods. This is a party unsure how to reconcile democratic participation with electoral success.

Parliamentary candidate selections have been increasingly centralised, and grassroots members and leftwing voices within the party marginalised. A party once brimming with energy, ideas and volunteers has become a professionalised bureaucracy aimed at maintaining power rather than transforming society.

Labour’s aversion to pluralism is most obvious in its rejection of coalition politics. It wants to be an electoral juggernaut capable of winning alone or not at all. Yet contemporary crises – climate breakdown, authoritarian populism, stark economic inequality – demand cooperation beyond narrow party lines. Collaboration between Labour, the Greens, the Liberal Democrats and other progressive forces is not a sign of weakness, but maturity. And the stakes are as high as the very future of our democracy, our planet. Such a refusal to share power becomes not just strategically foolish, but morally questionable.

Nowhere is Labour’s aversion to transformative politics clearer than in its avoidance of public ownership. Consider water. Public opinion consistently favours renationalisation – not as nostalgia, but as a pragmatic response to corporate failures, ecological crises and profound erosion of trust in privatised utilities. Refusing public ownership signals abandonment of democratic control over our collective future, showing Labour’s alignment with a neoliberal orthodoxy that has repeatedly failed.

This alignment finds its starkest symbol in the party’s embrace of corporate influence. This undermines democracy itself by nourishing popular cynicism. When voters see politicians cosying up to the same firms that profited from the 2008 crash, the social contract frays further.

Labour’s timidity on the climate emergency underscores this problem further. This defining crisis of our times demands bold, courageous and imaginative responses. Yet Labour’s approach has been cautious and timid, perpetually afraid of alienating swing voters or corporate backers. Net zero is framed only in terms of competitiveness, not adaptation and survival. Green investment is promised, but always secondary to fiscal rules set by an economic consensus long past its sell-by date. While floods devastate communities and air quality worsens, Labour dithers.

Part of the problem is that the party is paralysed by institutional pressures and geopolitical alignments. Of course, balancing these forces is what makes for great governments and leaders. But Starmer has shown no such inclination. As prime minister, he faces substantial constraints, particularly regarding established alliances such as those with the US. But his careful neutrality over the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and quiet acquiescence to harsh immigration policies reflect an inclination toward diplomatic continuity rather than ethical clarityor moral leadership.

In this vacuum, the populist right seizes ground, offering nativist, nationalist solutions to problems that demand internationalist, ecological and equitable solidarity.

skip past newsletter promotion

And yet, despite these profound concerns, hope persists. Not because the current Labour leadership inspires it, but in spite of it. Hope survives in the growing networks of community organisers, cooperative movements, union branches, citizen assemblies and environmental campaigns. It flourishes in places ignored by Westminster – municipal projects reclaiming public land, local councils experimenting with participatory budgeting, workers organising in Amazon warehouses and Uber ranks. These spaces show that politics is not the property of party elites, but of people acting in concert to change their lives.

Ultimately, Starmerism risks rendering Labour unfit for the purpose it was created for: to give a political voice to working people and deliver collective solutions to collective problems. Openly addressing this is essential for Labour – and British politics broadly.

The crisis is real, yet so too is the potential for renewal. But that renewal cannot come from above. It must come from below – from a revitalised political culture that sees people not as voters to be harvested, but as citizens to be empowered. Recognising this is the first critical step toward a politics daring enough to imagine and urgently act upon the challenges we collectively face. And if this moment is indeed one of endings, then let it also be a moment of beginnings – a time to organise, to imagine and to build anew.

  • Clive Lewis is the Labour MP for Norwich South. This is an edited extract from Clive Lewis’s foreword to The Starmer Symptom, by Mark Perryman

Continue Reading

Opinion

Paddy Monahan: New primary school curriculum baulks at the chance to get religion out of the classroom

Published

on

Read more on post.

The new primary school curriculum may have an increased focus on Stem subjects, languages and personal wellbeing, but it is a missed opportunity to tackle the religious discrimination that is sewn into the fabric of the Irish primary education system.

Parents will continue to be frustrated as non-Catholic children remain isolated and segregated during school. Teachers will go on holding their tongues for fear of risking their careers under the vague and broad prohibition against “undermining the religious ethos” of a school under Section 37.1 of the Employment Equality Act.

Almost 90 per cent of Irish primary schools remain controlled by the Catholic Church. Although they are entirely funded by taxpayers, the patron (in Dublin that means the Archbishop) appoints the board of management, which in turn appoints the principal and teachers. Under the existing curriculum, 2½ hours per week are devoted to Catholic faith formation – almost as much as history, geography and science combined. And this timetabled “faith formation” does not include daily prayers, clerical visits and, crucially, sacramental preparation – to which endless hours are sacrificed in the months leading up to Confirmation and Holy Communion.

What changes are proposed under the new curriculum? Well, under social and environmental education children are now to learn about other religions. “About” is the key word here – children will learn about world religions from a historical and geographical perspective. This is not indoctrination and is not objectionable.

On the other hand, timetabled Catholic faith formation is to continue as always – albeit, reduced from 2½ to two hours per week for children from first class onwards; or one hour and 40 minutes for younger classes. In itself this reduction is pretty unremarkable – 20 per cent less religious discrimination for older classes is a poor achievement in a 21st-century democracy. Regardless, sacramental preparation will remain unaffected by the new curriculum. In reality, the time spent on religious faith formation will be as long as a piece of string.

Rachel O’Dwyer: A WhatsApp message about the secular ‘non-Communion’ makes my heart sinkOpens in new window ]

Meanwhile, the Minister for Education, Helen McEntee, has offered confused messaging about the faith formation aspect of the new curriculum.

At the heart of the issue for many families is the deeply flawed “opt-out” system. The Constitution sets out at Article 44.2.4 “the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that school”. But in practice this means parents having to proactively contact schools to request their child not receive faith formation. Many hesitate at this point, not wishing to stigmatise their child in the classroom or mark them out as different. If they proceed their child will, in any event, remain in the classroom during faith formation, absorbing the lesson regardless while engaged in non-curricular busywork.

The situation is significantly worse in the sacramental years, when opted-out children are brought to church again and again to sit at the back and kill time while their friends prepare for the big day.

On The Last Word with Matt Cooper on Monday, McEntee was asked whether the new curriculum will give parents an effective choice as to whether their child remains in the classroom during daily religious faith formation lessons. She responded that “there is already a very clear structure set out. So if a child is attending a school where the particular patronage, for example, if it’s a Catholic patronage, but they don’t wish to be involved in that particular patronage programme, there is already very clear guidelines set out as to what that child should be doing at that time”.

Churches are half-empty. So why does the Catholic Church still control so many of our primary schools?Opens in new window ]

This will be news to countless parents around the country who have been run ragged by schools when seeking a clear answer to the question of how they will accommodate their opted-out child. The Education (Admissions to Schools) Act 2018 was welcomed for stating that a school’s admissions policy must “provide details of the schools arrangements” where a child’s parents have “requested that the student attend the school without attending religious instruction”. However, in the intervening years, it has become clear that schools are simply refusing to supply any such written “details”.

Instead, in clear breach of the legislation, schools simply say a meeting must be arranged with the principal. For this reason, Education Equality, the organisation I represent, has repeatedly called on McEntee and her predecessors to provide guidelines for schools on “opting out”. None have ever been forthcoming. Nevertheless, the Minister claims these guidelines are in place.

However, in reality, there is no effective way to opt out of faith formation that does not lead to exclusion and discrimination. Even removing a child from the room for these periods is stigmatising – and something schools are quick to point out is beyond their resources. The obvious answer is for any religious faith formation to take place outside school hours on an opt-in basis. This upholds the rights of all and surely could not cause offence to anyone.

The new curriculum was an opportunity to disentangle religious discrimination from education once and for all. Instead, we have an Irish solution to an Irish problem. What we will have now is teachers saying “Christians believe Jesus was the son of God” in one lesson followed by “Jesus was the son of God” in the next. And if they want to keep their jobs they won’t dig any deeper than that.

Paddy Monahan: Teachers want religion out of the classroom. Here’s what has to happen nextOpens in new window ]

Paddy Monahan is a teacher, Social Democrats councillor and policy officer with Education Equality

Continue Reading

Opinion

Starmer should have conference in his hands – instead, power is slipping through his fingers | Frances Ryan

Published

on

Read more on post.

image

A little over a year since Labour took office in a landslide and, with the Conservatives flatlining, by any measure, Keir Starmer should be riding into next week’s party conference as, if not quite a conquering hero, a leader in his prime. Instead, he is mired in tanking poll ratings, three scandalous exits and plots by his own MPs to oust him. If the early days of Starmer’s leadership ran with such ease that it spawned the joke he must have found a genie’s lamp, it appears his wishes have well and truly run out.

The idea that Labour’s return to power has been a crushing disappointment is now a well-worn one. From shirking on Gaza and crashing on benefit reform to trusting Peter Mandelson, so far, Starmer’s premiership is a lesson in lost potential, where if a poor decision can be made, it will be and then some.

If it has felt at times to Starmer’s supporters over the past year that he is held to account too harshly, to others, he has unforgivably thrown away not only a precious opportunity but an obligation. You did not have to believe Starmer was going to be Britain’s saviour in July last year to hope he would at least offer some respite after a decade and a half of Tory misrule. That after the public endured austerity, Brexit and Partygate, and at last rid itself of their architects, there could actually be something better around the corner.

Instead, we have been plunged into a groundhog day loop of missed chances: Starmer makes a bad call, a varying-sized chunk of the parliamentary Labour party complain, and a clique-based Downing Street operation – steered by under fire chief of staff Morgan McSweeney – dig their heels in (typically making the situation 10 times worse). Meanwhile, the reasons to elect a Labour government – say, tackling child poverty or building a humane benefits system – go largely unmet and unfulfilled. It is why the latest talk about scrapping the two-child benefit limit feels empty, as we are forced yet again to play the game where a government with a working majority of 156 pretends all of this is out of its hands.

This would be infuriating at any time but has become deeply worrying in light of the surge of Reform UK and wider nationalism. That Starmer will pledge at the Global Progress Action Summit on Friday that his government will lead the fight against the “decline and division” fomented by the far right – a move in stark contrast to the passivity of recent months – suggests he is at least partly aware of the urgent need to reset. But one speech will not compensate for an agenda that fails to make the positive case for immigration and asylum rights. The fact Labour will never be able to satisfy the staunch anti-immigration vote when Reform offers mass deportations (and the claim migrants are eating our swans) makes the chase more tragic still. On its worst days, Starmer’s government is akin to a mediocre tribute band playing cover versions to a crowd who will always prefer the original.

It is often remarked that Starmer finds himself in trouble because he favours managerialism over a vision for the country. That’s true in a way. More than a year in, it is no clearer what Starmerism is “for”, with posturing on flags and the value of work used as a substitute for any sort of narrative. But the issue is also that, far from a break from the chaos associated with the Conservatives, Starmer’s administration has been beset by avoidable errors, inaction and crisis, all on top of the broken public realm and tough finances it inherited. Or to put it another way: basing your project around “delivery, delivery, delivery” only works if you actually deliver. Most voters don’t care about a prime minister’s lack of charisma or sweeping oratory if they can get a GP appointment and pay the weekly food shop. The problem is they still can’t.

skip past newsletter promotion

The public might be inclined to be more patient if the early signs from Starmer were trustworthy and consistent. After all, no one can overturn 15 years of Tory decline in 15 months. But, after his first year in office, few voters would say they know who their prime minister is, and what they do see seems inauthentic. The son of a toolmaker who is a knight of the realm. The human rights barrister who acts tough on asylum seekers. Add in his chameleon behaviour on policy and early missteps, and the PM has already been defined by frequent U-turns, freezing pensioners and gifted designer glasses. That, in contrast, the genuinely good stuff – from introducing family hubs and the workers’ rights bill to fixing crumbling infrastructure – has barely registered is both deeply unfair and a mess of Starmer’s own making. If you want credit for, say, extending sick pay for workers, stop banging on about taking chronically ill people’s benefits.

And yet the really worrying thing for Starmer is not the critiques from his own side, but that many feel it is not worth trying any more. That some insiders are now plotting about how to make Andy Burnham Labour leader – a figure who is not currently even an MP – suggests the dial has been moved. Critics are no longer at the stage of vainly hoping Starmer will be someone else. That there is a principled and politically savvy leader lurking there, who – with enough nudges – will make the right choices and listen to a diversity of voices, despite all evidence to the contrary. They know who Starmer is and the question now is: is that going to be enough? And if not, what comes next? That’s a remarkable state of affairs for a premiership with almost four years left on the clock, and a sign of just how horribly things have gone.

Starmer’s trailed rebuff to the far right and investment in deprived areas may be the beginnings of a wider fightback. But if he wishes to turn things around, he must first grasp it is not only his career or even the Labour party at stake – it is the country. Because if Starmer does not change tack, he will not just have failed to heal the damage the Conservatives inflicted – he will have opened the door wide for a Reform government. As things stand, it is already ajar.

  • Frances Ryan is a Guardian columnist

Continue Reading

Trending