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

[chrisp65]

7 hours ago, itdoesntmatterwhatthissay said:

The fact is the waste is incredible
 

I obviously can't go in to any level of detail at all, so file this under world's most vague unsubstantiated anecdote. 

But I have a 'client' at the moment that has tasked me with spending as much of a budget as possible and putting bills in for it, before the end of this month. An entire building programme framed around maximum possible spend now for a job that won't really start until the summer hols..

I've even been asked to 'front load' my fees for doing it.

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

16 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

Am I reading this correctly? You have tasked yourself with reducing waste in procurement in order to improve education in the UK?

You have read it right. Many millions is taken out of education because of waste, especially in the schools building programme. That money needs to be used for students, not to cover mismanagement.

As I pointed out earlier 56k saved could be a teacher and teaching assistant, that's a huge benefit to students. But not just that, the rush to buy iPad's ignored the fact we were also running a campaign for more coders at Primary and Secondary school.
The waste on IT (and IT is just one example) really is shocking; the cost/maintenance of interactive whiteboards for example should make anyone with a tiny amount of technical knowledge shudder.

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

13 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

I obviously can't go in to any level of detail at all, so file this under world's most vague unsubstantiated anecdote. 

But I have a 'client' at the moment that has tasked me with spending as much of a budget as possible and putting bills in for it, before the end of this month. An entire building programme framed around maximum possible spend now for a job that won't really start until the summer hols..

I've even been asked to 'front load' my fees for doing it.

Good luck with the job, I guess congrats are in order!

Edited March 2, 2017 by itdoesntmatterwhatthissay

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

1 hour ago, Xann said:

You're a lobbyist, interesting.

Strange, all the classroom assistants, teachers, heads of department, heads of year and headmasters I know think the Tories are shit.

I don't know any 'super heads' in the academy business though.

Perhaps that's where I'm going wrong?

I am indeed. I bloody love my job despite it being really difficult as typically I've chosen to fight for the small guys. I'm also the guy who tried to save the Aston Arena and I wrote a draft judicial review during that process. That actually led me to getting the job in lobbying.
Btw the Aston Arena was a policy/political mess clouded by PFI and selfishness/ignorance by all three major parties, one in particular. It still bloody hurts to think about.

For the perspective presented in here, I never said the Tories were any better at 'education'; however, they have delivered a strategy post mandatory learning that has real potential. So did Labour actually, but sadly they didn't realise it.
Tbh the majority of complaints I hear are from teachers at Academy schools, and generally not about cuts but school management. And most of them are secondary schools, though they are the most academised sector..
It's sad that when we talk about education we still need to recognise academies as being different, but that's not anything new for the 'public' sector; JCP and Ingeus (formerly WorkDirections) are a great example of dismantling the public sectors ability to provide a competitive service. 

At the end of the day the quality of someones education is firmly routed in the teaching and learning opportunities. Yes there are barriers (and the Tories have now added some more to Cameron/Gove's mistakes) but high quality teachers and Heads improve difficult/deprived areas. I've seen it first hand and delivered it myself, especially in areas with disengaged family units.

I've also seen a quarter of staff be sacked when a new head came in, because they weren't up to the task (old and new staff)....perhaps some of the people you speak to simply aren't quality teachers and are struggling now the pressure is on? 
Now I'm not going to say the people you know are struggling, because I'm sure they're not, but if you look at how policy delivered educators over the previous 15 years you could suggest there might be a hidden problem with teaching quality.......that's before we move to SEN reports and illiterate students being moved from primary to secondary school. The secondary schools problem now!

Actually on teaching, how someone becomes a teacher is vital. Earlier on I mentioned people with high degrees getting their teacher training paid for (which doesn't select on ability to connect with students). Well you should ask the Heads you know how many TA's they've considered/put through to be teachers, or parents to be TA's? They can do it and they should, but how many do? Also how many heads/deputies still teach regularly? How many manage their own schools building/maintenance budgets? How many know the names of the majority of their students?
Also the gap between Primary and Secondary is huge, it's time that was recognised in the way we report/discuss education.

I should probably leave this subject in terms of technical knowledge. I have a lot of info I can't share but also I clearly let my passion for the subject get in the way of banter

[MakemineVanilla]

32 minutes ago, itdoesntmatterwhatthissay said:

You have read it right. Many millions is taken out of education because of waste, especially in the schools building programme. That money needs to be used for students, not to cover mismanagement.

As I pointed out earlier 56k saved could be a teacher and teaching assistant, that's a huge benefit to students. But not just that, the rush to buy iPad's ignored the fact we were also running a campaign for more coders at Primary and Secondary school.
The waste on IT (and IT is just one example) really is shocking; the cost/maintenance of interactive whiteboards for example should make anyone with a tiny amount of technical knowledge shudder.

One of the few quotes I remember from The Drucker Book on Management, was that the difference between private enterprise and public services, is that the former's aim was to produce a profit and the latter is to ensure you spend your budget.

The problem being that if you didn't spend your budget it would be assumed you didn't need it and the money would be given to someone else.

I have heard several anecdotes from teachers which confirmed that reality.

It seems impossible to think of a way to change such a culture which incentivises waste.

Edited March 2, 2017 by MakemineVanilla

[Xann]

14 minutes ago, itdoesntmatterwhatthissay said:

...JCP and Ingeus (formerly WorkDirections) are a great example of dismantling the public sectors ability to provide a competitive service.

This is happening to the NHS too. You don't think there might be money in it for someone if the systems fail?

14 minutes ago, itdoesntmatterwhatthissay said:

... high quality teachers and Heads improve difficult/deprived areas. I've seen it first hand and delivered it myself, especially in areas with disengaged family units.

I've also seen a quarter of staff be sacked when a new head came in, because they weren't up to the task (old and new staff)....perhaps some of the people you speak to simply aren't quality teachers and are struggling now the pressure is on?

I know a fair spread of teachers, none of them in the UK seem to have it easy.

Two are in proper warzones, Brixton and Hackney. Both of them do it because they love it, this seems to give them infinite patience with their unruly charges. I couldn't do it.

The Brixton one has seen one of her class awake and untended in the early hours of the morning in a barbers. The barber being the front for a knocking shop. The children rob from each other and her, if her desk is unlocked? One child showed her how to make a joint - Her class are 5 years old. She adores them. Not enough that she has them at work, she adopted two children whose mother was a junkie. At 7 and 9 they were pretty damaged already. Before Brixton she had a pretty cushy number at a French speaking private school. It was a much easier job, the lavish gifts she got from parents at Christmas were unreal. She's chosen difficult paths knowingly.

Hackney teaches older kids. The damage from poor parenting is more apparent with these, and they're less easy to control when they freak out than the Brixton 5 year olds. His calm is legendary and the kids love him.

It was him that posted the website that shows how much each school is to lose under the Tory proposals that I linked a while back.

Brixton was already pissed off with the goal posts moving from successive changes in government policy. Both of them are incandescent about the Tory changes in funding.

Kids where they are need smaller class sizes, not larger ones.

Neither of these drifted in to teaching because of the holidays. Corny as it sounds, it's because they want the best for the children.

1 hour ago, itdoesntmatterwhatthissay said:

Well you should ask the Heads you know how many TA's they've considered/put through to be teachers, or parents to be TA's? They can do it and they should, but how many do? Also how many heads/deputies still teach regularly? How many manage their own schools building/maintenance budgets? How many know the names of the majority of their students?

Will endeavor to remember to ask. Though I'm often under instruction to avoid these subjects as they often trigger rants

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

@Xann

All this generalising has probably led me to do what I criticise Ministers/journalists for; not recognising geographical differences. Waste is nationwide but education delivery definitely varies by need in differing locations.

My knowledge around London schooling is definitely light, though if you're talking construction skills in London I can add a lot about its failure. It will be interesting to see what your friends think. That website is great btw.

Good points brought up and I've definitely seen it in inner Birmingham too. No doubt your friends are more than a credit to the profession.
Historically, teachers always helped with a students family life but the modern burden is almost insurmountable. I have a huge amount of respect for teachers that believe their pupils welfare may need help after the bell goes. That side of the problem identifies a real lack of understanding from successive governments.

Class sizes really are important. It's good to see schools split up rooms to make smaller groups but it doesn't half put pressure on the teacher as many teaching assistants aren't teachers. Actually that's one thing Labour should be commended for, the class size discussion was prominent and in the early years (of govt, not the foundation) they did a lot to make changes.

Edited March 2, 2017 by itdoesntmatterwhatthissay

[blandy]

On 02/03/2017 at 10:53, MakemineVanilla said:

One of the few quotes I remember from The Drucker Book on Management, was that the difference between private enterprise and public services, is that the former's aim was to produce a profit and the latter is to ensure you spend your budget.

It's more like the difference between any large organisation and any small one - i.e. the large ones do that "spend the budget whatever" thing and the small ones watch every penny in order to make a profit. It's not a public/private divide in my experience.

Edited March 3, 2017 by blandy
edited for clarity

[peterms]

On 3/2/2017 at 10:53, MakemineVanilla said:

One of the few quotes I remember from The Drucker Book on Management, was that the difference between private enterprise and public services, is that the former's aim was to produce a profit and the latter is to ensure you spend your budget.

You might want to check it again.  Drucker's view was surely more that the aim of business should be to create and serve customers; profit was a necessary condition of organisational survival in order to meet this goal, not the goal itself.  It's a different focus than the more shallow and self-interested one you suggest.

And the aim of public services is obviously to provide the vast range of things that the private sector cannot or will not do in a sensible, equitable and effective way.

[chrisp65]

the primary purpose of listed companies is to make tangible return for the share holders

anything other than profit for the owner is secondary

[peterms]

9 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

the primary purpose of listed companies is to make tangible return for the share holders

anything other than profit for the owner is secondary

That is what Drucker was challenging.

Peter F. Drucker, Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices, New York: Harper & Row, 1973

Quote

The prevailing economic theory of business enterprise and behavior, the maximization of profit—which is simply a complicated way of phrasing the old saw of buying cheap and selling dear—may adequately explain how Richard Sears operated. But it cannot explain how Sears, Roebuck or any other business enterprise operates, nor how it should operate. The concept of profit maximization is, in fact, meaningless.

(A little off topic here)

[HanoiVillan]

30 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

the primary purpose of listed companies is to make tangible return for the share holders

anything other than profit for the owner is secondary

This seemingly simple view masks an incredible logical tangle. 

[MakemineVanilla]

17 minutes ago, peterms said:

That is what Drucker was challenging.

Peter F. Drucker, Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices, New York: Harper & Row, 1973

(A little off topic here)

The other quote I remember from Drucker was that a company only need make enough profit to cover its capital costs.

This is the sort of thinking which went out of the window post 1979 (which brings it back on topic). 

I can think of a few companies who damaged their business by ignoring this advice by lowering quality and increasing margins (M&S for example).

[Xann]

Quote

Housing benefit is to be axed for 18-21 year-olds within weeks after ministers decided to go ahead with controversial plans to force young unemployed people to live with their parents or pay their own rent.

Labour condemned the move, which was slipped out on a quiet Friday in new regulations published to Parliament when the House of Commons was not sitting.

The new Universal Credit regulations, which are secondary not primary legislation and open to less scrutiny by MPs, state that jobless under-22s will no longer qualify for help with their rental costs.

The policy - which will affect new claimants - was first unveiled by David Cameron and George Osborne in 2015 and was a key plank of the Tory manifesto.

Huffington Post

[snowychap]

44 minutes ago, Xann said:

Huffington Post

Quote

WPA Pool via Getty Images

The cut is George Osborne’s legacy

Well, that and austerity and Brexit &c

[StefanAVFC]

Long live imperialism I guess,

[Davkaus]

He seems to have removed it.

Was he actually quoting somebody?

Edited March 6, 2017 by Davkaus

[StefanAVFC]

Never mind, it was last year,

My friend retweeted it, thought it was recent.

Says something about the attitudes of those leading our negotiations though.

[Davkaus]

It actually didn't occur to me that the year is now 2017. I'll have it in my head by December. 

[chrisp65]

written commitment in tory manifesto at last general election 'no increase in National Insurance during the course of the next parliament'

March 2017 budget 'National insurance to rise twice in next two years for self employed'

same old same old