Bolitics The New Condem Government

[drat01]

Another day another ConDem lie exposed it would seem

School plan 'takes money from poor'

Leaked memo shows how coalition government ministers discussed raiding free meals budget

The government was today accused of draining money from schemes aimed at the poorest children to fund their flagship policy of Swedish-style "free" schools.

Headteachers said the coalition's plan to introduce hundreds of the free schools risked depriving money from existing primary and secondaries amid suggestions that Michael Gove, the education secretary, considered taking money from the free school meal programme to fund the schools. On Tuesday Gove is expected to announce the terms of a review of Labour's £55bn Building Schools for the Future programme, with a review group made up of schools, local authorities and construction experts which will report before the comprehensive spending review in the autumn.

A Whitehall source with knowledge of the programme said the review was likely to focus on removing Labour's preconditions for new school buildings, which emphasised that schools in poorer, academically struggling areas received funding ahead of thriving schools, even if their buildings were less decrepit.

Tonight it emerged that ministers considered taking millions from a budget that gives free school meals to the country's poorest children, to pay parents to set up their own schools. It was reported by Channel Four news tonight that a memo written by one of Gove's leading officials last week recommended that £35m be taken from funds for free school meals and redirected into the policy of free schools.

Gove appears to endorse the idea in the memo, which was leaked to Channel Four. Tonight the Department for Education would not deny the memo existed, but said it planned to use £50m from a pot that helped schools choose the right computer equipment to fund the new schools and to argue for more money from the Treasury in the spending review. The Department for Education said no money was coming from free school meals to fund the schools.

Gove unveiled plans for the free schools today, emphasising that most would be run by teachers. Some 750 groups are poised to apply to start a new school, which will be run independently of the local authority. He said they would reduce some costs and make the programme more flexible by scrapping planning laws to allow schools to spring up in former shops, homes or banks.

John Dunford, general secretary of the teaching union the Association of School and College Leaders, said: "These schools will not be free to local taxpayers or to the education budget as a whole. At a time when education budgets are about to be seriously cut, the priority being given to establishing these schools must be questioned.

"The government has said that it wants to establish these as 'small schools with small classes'. However, diseconomies of scale mean that smaller schools generally have larger classes. They could well end up more expensive to run than existing schools. There is concern among school leaders that the proposed 'free' schools will take funding away from other local schools."

The correspondence between Gove and his official reveals that ministers had planned to pay for the free schools with money meant to be spent on rebuilding schools. But the Treasury appeared to have said no to this. The memo said there is an "immediate challenge to find the money" to pay for free schools. Gove intends to ask the Treasury for a further £120m for free schools next year, it reveals.

Ed Balls, the shadow education secretary, said hundreds of thousands of children from poorer families would have lost their free hot lunches to pay for an experiment. "It is deeply, deeply unfair and tells you everything you need to know about the values of this new coalition," he said.

More than 430,000 pupils receive free school meals – 15% of pupils in state nursery, primary and secondary schools. They are entitled to the benefit if their parents receive welfare payments or earn below £15,575 per year. Gove has already vetoed Labour pilot projects to expand the number of children who qualify for free school meals after it emerged that 1 million children below the poverty line were not entitled. Ten days ago, the government shelved an £85m scheme to extend free school meals to 500,000 more families this September. At the time, Gove said the savings would be re-invested in "measures that most directly affect attainment for the poorest pupils".

Another ill thought out scheme that ultimately is being set up to allow for private enterprise to run schools.

[drat01]

Now the b's are just taking the piss - ConDem's - alcho's?

Government spends £18,000 topping up wine cellar

Almost £18,000 has been spent topping up the Government wine cellar since the General Election, it has emerged - leading to calls today that the entire collection should be sold off to raise money.

Foreign Office minister Henry Bellingham revealed that Government Hospitality, which manages the cellar, had spent £17,698 on new stock since May 6 - bringing the total value to £864,000 - though he insisted the standard practice of buying wines young saved money for the taxpayer.

But with public sector pay and pensions set to be squeezed in Tuesday's Budget as ministers seek further cuts to deal with the £155 billion deficit, Labour former Cabinet Office minister Tom Watson called on the coalition to sell off its fine wines to prove "we're all in this together".

Mr Bellingham revealed the latest purchase in a written Commons answer to West Bromwich East MP Mr Watson.

"Government Hospitality (GH) in Protocol Directorate of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has responsibility for the management of the stock in the Government wine cellar," Mr Bellingham said. "Apart from beverage wines that are bought on an ad hoc basis, GH usually buys new stock on two or three occasions each year, as advised by the GH Advisory Committee for the Purchase of Wine.

"GH buys wines young, when first available in the retail market and relatively less expensive, and stores them until they are ready to use. It purchases throughout the year according to its requirements, market rates, availability and value for money. Since May 6, 2010 Government Hospitality has spent £17,698 on new stock for the cellar.

"None of these wines has yet been used. Careful management of the Government wine cellar enables GH to provide wine for high profile events at significantly below the current market rate, making substantial savings for the taxpayer."

The minister also said a total of £80,662 had been spent on new stock in 2009-10, adding: "This was itself a reduction on the 2008-09 figure of over 30%."

Using a series of parliamentary questions and Freedom of Information requests, Mr Watson was also told that the total value of the cellar is now £864,000 and features high-profile wines from the likes of Chateau Latour, Chateau Lafite, Chateau Margaux and Chateau Mouton Rothschild.

But attempts to find out exactly what vintages are held by the Government - and served up to VIP guests at departmental banquets- were blocked on commercial sensitivity grounds.

Asked to make the wine database public, Mr Bellingham said it "records details of usage, pricing, charging prices, market values and comments by the Government Hospitality Advisory Committee for the Purchase of Wine on individual products".

He went on: "The database is not released into the public domain because of the likely impact on GH's commercial interests and those of its suppliers and future ability to obtain value for money."

Mr Bellingham did say that wines from the cellar had only been served at one function since the coalition took office - a dinner for the British-American Business Council on May 13.

Mr Watson criticised the latest spending and the "arcane organisation" which advises on the cellar as he called for the stock to be sold off.

"Even under the Labour government, it proved difficult to establish where political and financial accountability lay for this tiny unit of the Foreign Office," he said.

"Every three months or so, a small group of former civil servants dip into the cellar to see if the burgundies are ready for ministers to entertain their foreign guests at sumptuous banquets at Lancaster House. It's considered a vital part of diplomacy to use only the very best wine from the very best vineyards.

"The coalition Government says we are all in this together. A one-litre Merlot wine box at Asda costs £10.

"They know what they have to do. They should sell the Government wine cellar."

While the exact vintages in the cellar are not known, Mr Watson highlighted that a 1998 Latour retails at around £285 a bottle and a 1996 Margaux at £650 a bottle.

"Of course it's not cheap, but it really is the best you can get," Mr Watson said.

And he joked: "These are the little details could clinch a big deal for the minister.

"There are some people to whom you just can't serve a cheap wine. Think of England. We're all in this together."

[TrentVilla]

That is disgusting, sickening in fact.

Edit - the above relates to the article about free school meals

[Awol]

Time for visiting Ambassadors, Ministers etc to sample the delights of Lambrini. While we are at it bin the State banquets for guests of the nation and serve cheese on toast followed by poptarts.

Done.

[shambles]

I work in Engineering and I've sat here for the last 10 years and watched business after business either move it's supply base to China or fold completely. This area has lost Rover and LDV in the last 5 years alone and god knows how may of their suppliers. Labour supporters should not get all high and mighty about other parties not supporting manufacturing, especially not on a forum on which a large percentage of the users will be Brummies whose families and friends have been affected by their party looking the other way while the regions largest employers closed their doors.

[TrentVilla]

I work in Engineering and I've sat here for the last 10 years and watched business after business either move it's supply base to China or fold completely. This area has lost Rover and LDV in the last 5 years alone and god knows how may of their suppliers. Labour supporters should not get all high and mighty about other parties not supporting manufacturing, especially not on a forum on which a large percentage of the users will be Brummies whose families and friends have been affected by their party looking the other way while the regions largest employers closed their doors.

A fair point and well made to be honest.

[Chindie]

I do think it's a shame that Birmingham has lost it's manufacturing roots. I mean theres some still left, which apparently has seen a bit of a boost recently I saw on the news, but back in the day we made everything. It's what made this area great - if we didn't make it, it weren't worth making.

It's a shame to lose that. I know why it's happened, it's cheaper elsewhere and not everyone wants to work in a factory, in fact it's probably a pretty shit life. But surely we could still make some things, even if it's just picking up the lower end of society as a workforce. And it's happened so quickly, as shambles says there are many, many people whose trade in this area, even 10 years ago, was manufacturing, shop floor work, all they know.

I honestly couldn't tell you what 'Birminghams trade' is now. Perhaps now is the time to look back at what this area was good at, and given all the other problems this planet, look for an opportunity to reignite that skill for industry in much of Birmingham and see what we can do in a new area. Green solutions for instance - we need to start looking at renewable energy sources seriously, and Britain needs a foothold there. Could (or would... sadly) someone look at Birmingham and the West Midlands and see a workforce ready and able and used to high level manufacture to enter that kind of field?

The problems this planet has right now present opportunities for us... It needs someone to see them however.

[shambles]

We're already going down that road mate. We've been making parts for wind turbines recently. Price is becoming less of an issue too, as China has seen cost increases in raw materials, labour and processing too. There is also the case that people can't wait 3 months for their bits and then have to throw a third of them away when they get them. We pick up a lot of short lead time stuff on which we make nice margins. I see this all over the West Midlands, people are still making a living in manufacturing by being innovative. Unfortunately, one thing this area has not done very well since the days of Joe Chamberlain is sell itself and what it is good at. Whereas Manchester is all "look at me, look at how great and cosmopolitan I am, come and locate your business here because its great for business and we're going to be the second city etc etc", the West Midlands and it's residents just quietly do their thing. If we could let other people know what we can do and how we can still help them then we can again take the lead in what will be the next industrial revolution in the UK.

[Awol]

We're already going down that road mate. We've been making parts for wind turbines recently. Price is becoming less of an issue too, as China has seen cost increases in raw materials, labour and processing too.

Yep, the other thing that makes China so attractive is the fact they keep their currency artificially undervalued, but I'm pretty sure their Government have just agreed in principle that this cannot continue. In the near to medium term this will mean the Yuan will be revalued up making Chinese exports less competitive on a purely cost basis.

The challenge for the UK (imo) is to try and open up the technological skill gap that has narrowed - because we've sold them the knowledge - and maintain it while also becoming more competitive ourselves. What needs to be fostered is innovation backed by British venture capital, along with a genuine campaign to encourage our own to buy British. Globalisation can't be undone but its effects can be mitigated by a change in the mindset of British consumers.

[drat01]

The challenge for the UK (imo) is to try and open up the technological skill gap that has narrowed - because we've sold them the knowledge - and maintain it while also becoming more competitive ourselves. What needs to be fostered is innovation backed by British venture capital, along with a genuine campaign to encourage our own to buy British. Globalisation can't be undone but its effects can be mitigated by a change in the mindset of British consumers.

I cannot believe that you have written that Jon. Look at the whole Forgemasters loan and the fact that despite assurances from the ConDems this is now not going to happen. This loan was to put the UK at the forefront of technology for the nuclear industry. It's obvious that despite your fanciful ideas for funding that is not going to happen, the banks etc are still hiding behind the desire to pay shareholders and not lend money. The whole "buy British" thing is just fanciful ideals also. Look at the way you were quick to point out that BP were a global company, the same is all over, especially in the main players.

Buying British is just a Daily Mail headline and frankly could not happen. The truth is simple we need to make sure that companies and the economy as a whole is able to proceed with the recovery. Hitting it massively will kill it, and that is exactly what Gideon looks to be planning

[snowychap]

Is Cameron's use of the phrase 'the welfare scrounger' just laziness on his part or is it a specific attempt at trying to paint anyone in receipt of benefits as a 'scrounger' and thus a valid target for cuts (as a freeze in benefits for next year is being touted in some parts).

My imaginary pound is firmly on the latter.

Edit:

George Osborne to axe benefits in race to slash deficit

George Osborne will announce plans for the biggest-ever assault on welfare benefits in Tuesday's emergency budget as part of an estimated £85bn package of savings and tax rises to reduce Britain's unprecedented peacetime deficit.

The chancellor believes that, by slashing the £180bn-a-year welfare bill, he can help protect spending in other areas, such as education, defence and transport, as well as safeguarding capital projects vital to the economy.

"If we drive down the welfare bill, that allows more money to be allocated to departments," a government source said.

The focus on welfare and benefit reform is likely to include cuts in tax credits for wealthier families and could see the end of child benefit payment to higher earners. But it will also put Osborne on a collision course with unions, which fear the poor will be hit hardest. The coalition government hopes to soften the impact of deep reductions in public spending – and deflect criticism from those who say the cuts will put economic recovery at risk – by presenting a parallel growth strategy for the public sector, based on safeguarding infrastructure projects, education reform and tax incentives for business.

Government sources said Osborne would set an overall figure for reining in public expenditure over the next five years as he seeks to eliminate the current structural deficit.

Estimates by the Institute for Fiscal Studies suggest £85bn will have to be found in cuts and tax rises over the course of this parliament to balance the books. That is £34bn more than there would have been under Labour.

But budgets for individual departments will only be revealed in the autumn, when it is known how much can be trimmed from welfare spending after a "no-holds-barred" review.

Earlier this week, a report by the thinktank Reform, which is close to the Conservatives, called for a curb on "middle-class welfare". It proposed reducing spending on child benefit, child tax credit, the winter fuel allowance for pensioners and more. Overall, it called for a £13bn reduction in state benefits.

Meanwhile, Policy Exchange, another thinktank close to the Tories, claimed that billions paid by better-off families in taxation is handed straight back to them in benefits. It found that last year £53.5bn – 32% of all benefits – were paid to families with a higher than average income.

...more on link

[drat01]

The "bad boys" for the ConDem's seem to be public workers and anyone on benefits. The tone for all of the messages from Gideon, Clegg and of course Cameron is always attacking those groups.

[drat01]

Nick Clegg - 18th Nov 2008 when the Tory party did a complete U turn on spending

But Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg said the Conservative announcement was "economic madness".

He added: "David Cameron has learned nothing. It's exactly what the Conservatives did in the 1980s...

"To simply slash public spending when we are heading into a recession - there's no case for it whatsoever."

[drat01]

Gideon - 3rd Sept 2007 - flip / flop ideas on Gvmts spending

A Conservative government would match Labour's projected public spending totals for the next three years, shadow chancellor George Osborne has said.

He pledged two years of 2% increases. The final year total would be reviewed. [

......

Mr Osborne said: "The result of adopting these spending totals is that under a Conservative government there will be real increases in spending on public services, year after year.

"The charge from our opponents that we will cut services becomes transparently false."

He added: "At the same time the share of national income taken by the state will start to fall, as the economy grows faster than the government does.

[Awol]

The challenge for the UK (imo) is to try and open up the technological skill gap that has narrowed - because we've sold them the knowledge - and maintain it while also becoming more competitive ourselves. What needs to be fostered is innovation backed by British venture capital, along with a genuine campaign to encourage our own to buy British. Globalisation can't be undone but its effects can be mitigated by a change in the mindset of British consumers.

I cannot believe that you have written that Jon. Look at the whole Forgemasters loan and the fact that despite assurances from the ConDems this is now not going to happen. This loan was to put the UK at the forefront of technology for the nuclear industry. It's obvious that despite your fanciful ideas for funding that is not going to happen,

I accept that there isn't enough money in the government pot to cover current outgoings (remember, the money's all gone) let alone more, so for now the investment needs to come from the private sector. I find it strange that you think the idea of venture capitalists investing in business and technology is fanciful, what exactly do you think they invest in?

the banks etc are still hiding behind the desire to pay shareholders and not lend money.

VC, not banks. There is still an awful lot of money in private hands in this country and I'm sure that by ofering the right tax incentives some of that could be ploughed into long term investment at home.

The whole "buy British" thing is just fanciful ideals also. Look at the way you were quick to point out that BP were a global company, the same is all over, especially in the main players.

Buying British is just a Daily Mail headline and frankly could not happen.

A Daily Mail headline? You make me laugh sometimes Ian even when you're clearly not trying. BP IS a global corporation but thousands of small manufacturing companies are not. There is nothing wrong or fanciful (word of the day?) in encouraging people in Britain to buy British manufactured goods where the option exists, in order to support UK manufacturing. The same goes in other areas of the economy it just needs a little imagination.

The truth is simple we need to make sure that companies and the economy as a whole is able to proceed with the recovery.

Yep by removing crippling debt repayments asap. The double dip is coming and was always going to come, your idea that we can keep on pulling money we don't have out of our arses to fund everything from central government coffers is nothing but "fanciful" nonsense from the Gordon Brown school of failed economics.

[Awol]

Gideon - 3rd Sept 2007 - flip / flop ideas on Gvmts spending

A Conservative government would match Labour's projected public spending totals for the next three years, shadow chancellor George Osborne has said.

He pledged two years of 2% increases. The final year total would be reviewed. [

......

Mr Osborne said: "The result of adopting these spending totals is that under a Conservative government there will be real increases in spending on public services, year after year.

"The charge from our opponents that we will cut services becomes transparently false."

He added: "At the same time the share of national income taken by the state will start to fall, as the economy grows faster than the government does.

Come on this is truely pathetic stuff now, that was said before the banking crisis hit nearly three years ago!

Try comparing the coming budget to what they said about public sending before the election.

[snowychap]

Yep by removing crippling debt repayments asap.

Are the debt repayments 'crippling'?

From this blog, an article about debt repayments in historic terms:

The interest burden in context

Nick Clegg asks:

How will we pursue social justice with billions of pounds of taxpayers' money disappearing down a black hole every year, just to pay the interest on Labour's debt while our schools and hospitals fall apart?

But how great is this interest burden? The OBR today - in a report of admirable clarity - forecasts that, on Labour’s fiscal plans, government debt interest payments will rise to 3.7% of GDP in 2014-15.

On the one hand, this is a lot - it’s almost twice the ratio we had in the early 00s.

On the other hand, though, its not absurdly high. It’s less than we paid in the early 1980s, when debt was low but interest rates were high. And it’s less than we paid in the late 40s and early 50s, when debt was high but rates low*.

Of course, you could argue that the OBR’s forecasts are predicated on interest rates staying low - their forecast for gilt yields is simply taken from the current yield curve - but if action isn‘t taken to cut debt, rates will rise. I don’t know how to quantify this probability. And the burden will continue to rise after 2015, simply because debt will stay high on current plans.

And, of course, this is only one aspect of the burden we are placing upon future generations: there’s also high house prices, university tuition fees and so on.

All I’m saying is that, in historic context, that “black hole” isn’t unprecedented.

* My chart shows data for fiscal years. In the calendar year of 1948, debt interest payments were 4.3% of GDP.

[drat01]

Come on this is truely pathetic stuff now, that was said before the banking crisis hit nearly three years ago!

Try comparing the coming budget to what they said about public sending before the election.

Not at all - you and many others have been saying that provision should have been made for the worldwide banking crisis, but then when shown that even people like Gideon did not see it happening, it suddenly becomes just a Labour fault.

Gideon and Cameron have a history of flip flopping on any idea that will a) win votes help their paymasters - you buy into it obviously but how can you take them seriously knowing that in 2 months time they will have totally and utterly contradicted everything that they have said and promised. Clegg is the same and the BS that the anti-Labour mob spouted off is now showing to be complete and utter BS. This was and is a global issue and the severity of it for this country will be magnified by the attacks of the ConDem's on the UK economy

[drat01]

I accept that there isn't enough money in the government pot to cover current outgoings (remember, the money's all gone) let alone more, so for now the investment needs to come from the private sector. I find it strange that you think the idea of venture capitalists investing in business and technology is fanciful, what exactly do you think they invest in?

You are kidding surely? VC's are the salvation for the economy? - have you ever had the (mis)fortune to work for a company that was funded that way? Glorified loan sharks at times. Even Gideon, Clegg and Cameron have said that Gvmt have to supply impetus to any recovery - and then removing this from areas that need it

A Daily Mail headline? Laughing You make me laugh sometimes Ian even when you're clearly not trying. BP IS a global corporation but thousands of small manufacturing companies are not. There is nothing wrong or fanciful (word of the day?) in encouraging people in Britain to buy British manufactured goods where the option exists, in order to support UK manufacturing. The same goes in other areas of the economy it just needs a little imagination.

Again you conveniently avoid the point. Your ideal of "buy British" is just ludicrous. Name one major company that is able to fit your criteria of sourcing, manufacturing and supplying British goods? The reality is a simple one, the world has changed and isolationism belongs to countries such as North Korea and Albania of a few year ago. What exactly do you class as British? And dont forget the biggest funders to your party at the last election are Tax avoiders who chose to keep their wealth outside the UK.

Yep by removing crippling debt repayments asap. The double dip is coming and was always going to come, your idea that we can keep on pulling money we don't have out of our arses to fund everything from central government coffers is nothing but "fanciful" nonsense from the Gordon Brown school of failed economics.

who said we can keep pulling money? No one except those who try and justify the attack from the ConDem's on the economy of the UK in order that their paymasters can continue at the levels that they are now. The severity and targeting of the cuts are the point and your "boys" are choosing to hit those who can ill afford it and those who we will rely on to work us out of the problems

[Awol]

I accept that there isn't enough money in the government pot to cover current outgoings (remember, the money's all gone) let alone more, so for now the investment needs to come from the private sector. I find it strange that you think the idea of venture capitalists investing in business and technology is fanciful, what exactly do you think they invest in?

You are kidding surely? VC's are the salvation for the economy?

Salvation no, merely one source where further investment can be sought. In the near term at least what people need to accept is that there is no salvation.

People borrowed more than they could afford, encouraged by banks who took bigger and bigger risks and a government that was happy to maintain an illusory growth that was in fact just a charade. For a decade we've been engaged in a giant ponzi scheme and reality has now hit home. There will (imo) be a double dip and the mess we were in made it inevitable. There is no avoiding the fallout from that and the new government now have to eliminate a structural deficit of 180 billion pounds before they even start worrying about paying back the debt.

A Daily Mail headline? Laughing You make me laugh sometimes Ian even when you're clearly not trying. BP IS a global corporation but thousands of small manufacturing companies are not. There is nothing wrong or fanciful (word of the day?) in encouraging people in Britain to buy British manufactured goods where the option exists, in order to support UK manufacturing. The same goes in other areas of the economy it just needs a little imagination.

Again you conveniently avoid the point. Your ideal of "buy British" is just ludicrous. Name one major company that is able to fit your criteria of sourcing, manufacturing and supplying British goods?

Rather than writing out the A-Z of British manufacturers why not consdier a few words from your spiritual guru, Lord Peter Mandleson:

There’s a terrible, lazy assumption made about modern Britain, and that is that we don’t make anything in this country anymore.

The reality is that British Manufacturing employs more people than the financial services sector. We are the sixth largest manufacturer in the world and manufacturing is one of our biggest exports.

So much for the myth therefore that manufacturing is dead in Britain.

And for that reason it’s critical for Britain’s fight back to growth and in the decades ahead, for us to back manufacturing. And to back manufacturing means backing advanced manufacturing.

Our future is in advanced manufacturing because that is where our competitive advantage lies.

There’s no denying British manufacturing has changed dramatically over the last 30 years – and it’s been difficult change, often involving painful and difficult adjustments for companies and their workforce. But what has emerged from that transformation is a world-leading 21st century manufacturing base in Britain.

So why can UK consumers not be encouraged to buy that produce? Why is that notion ludicrous?

The reality is a simple one, the world has changed and isolationism belongs to countries such as North Korea and Albania of a few year ago. What exactly do you class as British?

Who said anything about isolationism? Not me, and I class good manufactured by British workers in the UK as British.

And dont forget the biggest funders to your party at the last election are Tax avoiders who chose to keep their wealth outside the UK.

Yawns and moves on..

Yep by removing crippling debt repayments asap. The double dip is coming and was always going to come, your idea that we can keep on pulling money we don't have out of our arses to fund everything from central government coffers is nothing but "fanciful" nonsense from the Gordon Brown school of failed economics.

who said we can keep pulling money? No one except those who try and justify the attack from the ConDem's on the economy of the UK in order that their paymasters can continue at the levels that they are now.

You don't seem to be making much/any sense. If they can't conjure money from nowhere and if the deficit is to be got under control then where does the money come from to keep up with the previous government's spending level?

The severity and targeting of the cuts are the point and your "boys" are choosing to hit those who can ill afford it and those who we will rely on to work us out of the problems

I'll wait for the budget thanks before jumping to unfounded conclusions about anything.