Jump to content
blandy

The banker loving, baby-eating Tory party thread (regenerated)

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, TrentVilla said:

they are now attacking pupil funding in education

Some comments on radio this morning about how average spending per child will be x% above a previous level, can't recall the dates.

It would be worth knowing whether that stands up having separated out the costs of PFI contracts (which represent spending on speculators not children) and free schools.

R5 this evening interviewed a head who said she's leaving because she can't stomach administering their cuts and gradually chipping away at the quality of service.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, peterms said:

Unless they're rich, of course, in which case they are welcomed with open arms.

I liked your post. The bit quoted - I'm fine with it and I know you're not saying there's a problem with the rich people being allowed to stay here, it's just, I dunno, sort of not quite what you intended to say, maybe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, peterms said:

Some comments on radio this morning about how average spending per child will be x% above a previous level, can't recall the dates.

It would be worth knowing whether that stands up having separated out the costs of PFI contracts (which represent spending on speculators not children) and free schools.

R5 this evening interviewed a head who said she's leaving because she can't stomach administering their cuts and gradually chipping away at the quality of service.

I didn't hear it but I can say with a fair degree of confidence that such a claim is subject to more spin than a Shane Warne special.

As for senior management getting out, it's a common picture.

The moral in education is as bad as I've known in in the 16 years I've been working with the sector.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

The moral in education is as bad as I've known in in the 16 years I've been working with the sector.

I really hate to say this, honestly, but should that be 'morale':D 'Cos I agree with you 100% otherwise !!!!

Edited by veloman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, veloman said:

I really hate to say this, honestly, but should that be 'morale':D 'Cos I agree with you 100% otherwise !!!!

See... education in this country is going to pot... tsk :)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, blandy said:

I liked your post. The bit quoted - I'm fine with it and I know you're not saying there's a problem with the rich people being allowed to stay here, it's just, I dunno, sort of not quite what you intended to say, maybe?

I mean two things, and should have said so more clearly.

First, the requirement that in order to be eligible for entry people earn a salary which half the people in this country don't earn, is both morally insupportable and (as some of their own supporters will be telling them) pretty destructive of some sectors: curry houses, fruit and veg farms to take the most obvious examples; newly graduated students, at the lowest point of their lifetime income curve and with valuable skills to offer, as another example.

Second, we seem to fall over ourselves to allow wealthy foreigners to move in and out as they please, to buy up our national assets like productive companies and media, and to bid up the price of housing to levels where for example ordinary people can't live in London any more unless they are prepared to accept dreadful conditions and value.

These two things are a statement that the internationally footloose assetstrippers are welcome, and ordinary people, whether born here or elsewhere, can take a walk.

We need to say that this is unacceptable, and hound out the people who propose such policies.

We need to take back control.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Davkaus said:

the acts of war against disabled people

I don't like the phraseology but on this I see there is a bit of a hoo-ha being stirred up by the decision announced last week (by-election day when everyone was looking elsewhere) about the PIP assessments and the attitude of the government to tribunal decisions and recommendations.

The worst of it is the line that I've heard yet again today in that 'there will be no losers' and the claim that no one will have their PIP cut. That may be the case but it doesn't say anything about those people who, whilst being moved from DLA to PIP (and reassessed in the process), may lose out under the new criteria for the new benefit.

It's a little different to the old 'no cash losers' that Lord Fraud used to trot out (where he nowadays?) about people moving from Incapacity Benefit to ESA or from either of those to Universal Credit but not much though it really doesn't appear at all different to the 'no cuts for existing ESA claimants' line as the rate (for 'new claims') is reduced to £73 per week from £101 odd per week.

Edited by snowychap
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, peterms said:

Some comments on radio this morning about how average spending per child will be x% above a previous level, can't recall the dates.

It would be worth knowing whether that stands up having separated out the costs of PFI contracts (which represent spending on speculators not children) and free schools.

R5 this evening interviewed a head who said she's leaving because she can't stomach administering their cuts and gradually chipping away at the quality of service.

Radio 4 this morning at about 7:45am had, I presume, the same female head teacher announcing she was quitting due to budgets.

They mentioned that per pupil budgets had risen 'in real terms' by 70% since 1990 and were due to further increase this year by 3% according to union figures. On hearing that, her response was that she didn't know about the actual funding figures involved. 

They asked if it was true that almost all the increased budget had gone on staff wages, making up 85% of all education spending.

She said she didn't know about that.

That struck me as an odd couple of answers from somebody resigning due to funding issues.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Radio 4 this morning at about 7:45am had, I presume, the same female head teacher announcing she was quitting due to budgets.

They mentioned that per pupil budgets had risen 'in real terms' by 70% since 1990 and were due to further increase this year by 3% according to union figures. On hearing that, her response was that she didn't know about the actual funding figures involved. 

They asked if it was true that almost all the increased budget had gone on staff wages, making up 85% of all education spending.

She said she didn't know about that.

That struck me as an odd couple of answers from somebody resigning due to funding issues.

The questions were about the whole education budget, her concerns were with the funding actually available to her in her school.

Which is why I would like to see the global figures disaggregated to separate out things like PFI and free schools, which represent an increase in education spending as reported by government department, while also acting to reduce the amount spent on education in most schools.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, peterms said:

The questions were about the whole education budget, her concerns were with the funding actually available to her in her school.

Which is why I would like to see the global figures disaggregated to separate out things like PFI and free schools, which represent an increase in education spending as reported by government department, while also acting to reduce the amount spent on education in most schools.

Would her school be significantly different to 'the norm' for some reason? If budgets have indeed risen by 70% in real terms (I have no idea if that is true) then there is no way that increase has totally missed her school. The rise in spending this year was a union estimate not a government  estimate. They offered her the fact there were more teaching assistants etc to explain the wedge taken out by salaries.

She didn't come over very well for someone agreeing to a radio interview to discuss the resignation due to budgets. Prep and revision, anyone?

As ever, I'm not anti teacher. I'm happy to be corrected on the budget increase. Happy to hear some facts.

If I was making a political statement on national radio about my resignation I'd get myself familiar with the issues, not just say there's not enough money.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The '70% higher in real terms' comment appears to have come from the DoE response to the IFS report released today:

Quote

Grauniad

A Department for Education spokesman said: “School funding is now at its highest level on record at more than £40bn in 2016-17 and the IFS has shown that by 2020 per pupil spending in schools is set to be at least 70% higher in real terms than it was in 1990.

The IFS report is summarized on this page:

Quote

Long-run comparisons of spending per pupil across different stages of education

Education spending is the second-largest element of public service spending in the UK behind health, representing about 4.5% of national income in 2015–16. The level of UK education spending has also risen significantly in real terms over time. Growth was particularly fast from the late 1990s through to the late 2000s, with real-terms growth averaging about 5% per year between 1998–99 and 2010–11. Education spending has since fallen in real terms as spending cuts began to take effect from 2010 onwards. Between 2010–11 and 2015–16, it has fallen by about 14% in real terms, taking it back to the same level it was in 2005–06 and a similar share of national income to that last seen through most of the 1990s.

...

Schools    
Total spending on schools in England represented just under £37 billion (2016–17 prices) in 2015–16, accounting for 11.5% of total public service spending in England.   This represents £4,900 per pupil at primary school and £6,300 per pupil at secondary school. To better understand how the level of resources available to pupils has changed over time, we focus on these figures of primary and secondary school spending per pupil. This excludes spending by local authorities on central services, as well as spending by special schools.
     
Primary and secondary school spending per pupil have almost doubled in real terms between 1997–98 and 2015–16.   Primary school spending per pupil has increased by 114% in real terms and secondary school spending per pupil by 90%. This is the result of successive governments prioritising school spending, with per-pupil spending rising 5% per year in real terms during the 2000s and then being protected in real terms since spending cuts took effect from 2010.
     
Spending per pupil is expected to fall by 6.5% in real terms between 2015–16 and 2019–20.   This will be the first time schools have seen real-terms cuts in spending per pupil since the mid 1990s.
     
The introduction of the National Funding Formula in 2018–19 will represent the largest shake-up in school funding in England for at least 25 years.   This single national formula will replace the 152 different formulae currently used by local authorities to allocate funding to schools. This will lead to both winners and losers. Transitional protections, however, will mean that no school will see cuts of more than 3% by 2019–20 and no school will see an increase of more than 5.6%.

...more on link

Link to full text of 45 page report at the bottom of that page

 

Edited by snowychap
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Would her school be significantly different to 'the norm' for some reason? If budgets have indeed risen by 70% in real terms (I have no idea if that is true) then there is no way that increase has totally missed her school. The rise in spending this year was a union estimate not a government  estimate. They offered her the fact there were more teaching assistants etc to explain the wedge taken out by salaries.

She didn't come over very well for someone agreeing to a radio interview to discuss the resignation due to budgets. Prep and revision, anyone?

As ever, I'm not anti teacher. I'm happy to be corrected on the budget increase. Happy to hear some facts.

If I was making a political statement on national radio about my resignation I'd get myself familiar with the issues, not just say there's not enough money.

 

The government figures claim credit for the spending increase under Labour and to some extent protected immediately after the change of government.  Tory cuts are now having an effect.

Snowy's post is helpful in explaning this - see especially

Quote

Growth was particularly fast from the late 1990s through to the late 2000s, with real-terms growth averaging about 5% per year between 1998–99 and 2010–11. Education spending has since fallen in real terms as spending cuts began to take effect from 2010 onwards. Between 2010–11 and 2015–16, it has fallen by about 14% in real terms, taking it back to the same level it was in 2005–06 and a similar share of national income to that last seen through most of the 1990s.

 

 

Quote

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, I get all that, we'll soon be funding education as poorly as we were ten or twelve years ago. I'm not arguing in favour of government spending plans, I'm arguing that historically schools are still relatively well funded, better funded in real terms than at any time other than during the last 10 years.

Better funded in real terms than in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's and the start of the 2000's.

Overall, education is substantially better funded than it ever was. Better funded than many other european countries.

In very crude terms, the UK is about 8th for education spending and 15th for educational attainment. If we are relatively high up the spending league table and relatively lower down the achievement league table, then budgets surely aren't the resigning issue? Make red tape or performance tables or the curriculum or whatever your resigning issue.

I dunno, perhaps I just expected a head teacher to be able to explain themselves with facts and numbers. I'm probably being hyper critical, we should just give them more money. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.seren.bangor.ac.uk/news-politics/uk-news/2017/02/27/breaking-the-deportation-of-bangor-student-shiromini-satkunarajah-lifted/

Quote

A successful third year Bangor University student has been released hours before she was due to be deported following a failed asylum application. Shiromini Satkunarajah and her mother Roshani were released from the Yarl’s Wood Detention Centre, Bedfordshire, where they have been held since Thursday after being arrested at Bangor Police station.

This decision follows days of campaigning against the deportation order from the local MP Hywel Williams, Bangor University, Undeb Bangor and a massive social media campaign that saw over 80,000 people sign a change.org petition. It is believed that the Bishops of London and Bangor were among the many to sign for her release.

The news was announced by Plaid Cymru MP Hywel Williams, who had been busy in the Houses of Parliament trying to raise the case with the Immigration Minister Robert Goodwill MP. After multiple failed attempts to speak to the Minister, Hywel Williams had to raise a point of order in the house to finally make a breakthrough. The Immigration Minister then finally met Mr Williams and informed him that Shiromini and her mother would be released immediately.

Good.

(I used to write for this paper, represent)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Major coming out and criticising Brexit and the damage it will cause to the NHS is interesting.

For me it shows the jump the Tories have made to the right in recent years. And also, ex-politicians from either side of the aisle, ones with nothing to lose, are condemning it but the silence from current MPs (who could lose their seats for stating their opinion) is deafening; aside from Ken Clarke.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, StefanAVFC said:

Major coming out and criticising Brexit and the damage it will cause to the NHS is interesting.

For me it shows the jump the Tories have made to the right in recent years. And also, ex-politicians from either side of the aisle, ones with nothing to lose, are condemning it but the silence from current MPs (who could lose their seats for stating their opinion) is deafening; aside from Ken Clarke.

Clarke will not stand again but I actually think he would have been outspoken anyway.

I am bewildered by what is going on here. We voted out, fine, but this will of the people and anyone anti Brexit should now pipe down and toe the line is a load of bollocks. It was the will of the people, those who voted, to elect a Tory Government does that mean the opposing parties should shut the f up and sit on their hands for 5 years.

Blair gave out the right message the other day but was the wrong messenger. Again Major spoke a lot of sense yesterday. It would be nice to see a few more who can actually now impact on decisions grow a pair and stand up and be counted.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, markavfc40 said:

I am bewildered by what is going on here. We voted out, fine, but this will of the people and anyone anti Brexit should now pipe down and toe the line is a load of bollocks. It was the will of the people, those who voted, to elect a Tory Government does that mean the opposing parties should shut the f up and sit on their hands for 5 years.

This is it for me.

I've accepted we're leaving. I detest the divisive manner in which May is pursuing it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â