|
Post by yattongas on Sept 4, 2023 13:35:24 GMT
Anyone seen the education secretary car crash recording, she has been could on camera/mic saying no one ever thanks her for doing a ucking good job 😂 Yeah , heard it earlier. Amazing that she thinks she deserves praise 🙄 Also slippery Sunak trying to wriggle out of any blame after he cut the funding for new schools. Shysters the lot of ‘em !
|
|
|
Post by oldie on Sept 4, 2023 13:38:41 GMT
Anyone seen the education secretary car crash recording, she has been could on camera/mic saying no one ever thanks her for doing a ucking good job 😂 I watched her BBC 1 interview and listened to her getting argumentative with the R4 Today team. Trying desperately to defend the indefensible
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Sept 4, 2023 20:23:38 GMT
"Some 1,500 schools have not returned surveys used to identify the crumbling concrete. Education Secretary Gillian Keegan said she expects potentially hundreds more to be identified in the weeks to come A former top civil servant at the Department for Education said the budget for rebuilding schools was halved by Rishi Sunak while he was Chancellor in 2021 - down from 100 to 50 Keegan said £15bn has gone into capital spending for schools since 2015, delivering "value for money" to the sector The education secretary confirmed temporary mitigation measures in schools will be funded by the DofE, but other things like transport of students to new locations will be considered on a case-by-case basis Keegan said the list of schools affected by unsafe RAAC will be published this week" www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-66701626I think Sunak could have quadrupled the schools budget since 2021 and it still wouldn't have altered the fact that some of these 50 year old schools need rebuilding and temporarily being closed. It's long term neglect and a bit harsh to pin it on Sunak. He's the current incumbent and not the cause.
|
|
|
Post by oldie on Sept 4, 2023 21:02:05 GMT
"Some 1,500 schools have not returned surveys used to identify the crumbling concrete. Education Secretary Gillian Keegan said she expects potentially hundreds more to be identified in the weeks to come A former top civil servant at the Department for Education said the budget for rebuilding schools was halved by Rishi Sunak while he was Chancellor in 2021 - down from 100 to 50 Keegan said £15bn has gone into capital spending for schools since 2015, delivering "value for money" to the sector The education secretary confirmed temporary mitigation measures in schools will be funded by the DofE, but other things like transport of students to new locations will be considered on a case-by-case basis Keegan said the list of schools affected by unsafe RAAC will be published this week" www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-66701626I think Sunak could have quadrupled the schools budget since 2021 and it still wouldn't have altered the fact that some of these 50 year old schools need rebuilding and temporarily being closed. It's long term neglect and a bit harsh to pin it on Sunak. He's the current incumbent and not the cause. Correct. But his party is. It was they that cancelled the school build program in 2010 after the election that year. A decision initiated by Michael Gove.
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Sept 5, 2023 0:27:56 GMT
Still some way to go. "Mr Haldane, who stepped down from the Bank in September 2021, also said it was "an evens bet" whether the UK would fall into a recession. He further criticised what he described as a lack of investment in infrastructure such as hospitals and schools - as highlighted by the classroom concrete crisis this week. Mr Haldane described the economy as "pancake-like" and "flatlining for 18 months", even with the recent upward revisions to the UK's growth figures. He added: "The story of the last 18 months remains intact. That is to say, we have been stuck. Growth is absent. That means it would take only the tiniest of tilt for us to enter recessionary territory." " news.sky.com/story/bank-of-englands-regrettable-mistakes-fuelled-inflation-its-former-top-economist-says-12955124
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Sept 5, 2023 14:54:41 GMT
Good news, shouldn't have been so easy to veto. "The government is to loosen what is seen as an effective ban on onshore wind after a campaign from rebel backbench MPs, led by COP26 Glasgow climate talks president, Sir Alok Sharma. The changes, which come into force immediately, scrap a previous rule that allowed just one objection to stand in the way of a new onshore development. Sir Alok Sharma, president of the COP26 climate talks in Glasgow in 2021, led a group of Tory backbench MPs campaigning for the change, which came via an amendment he submitted to the Energy Bill. The new measures will also allow communities to apply to their local council to have onshore wind turbines in their area, although elected councillors would still make the final decision. Levelling Up Secretary Michael Gove said: "To increase our energy security and develop a cleaner, greener economy, we are introducing new measures to allow local communities to back onshore wind power projects. The existing rules began in 2015 under David Cameron amid a wider push-back against green policies, and many Conservative MPs had rural constituencies where turbines were unpopular. Since then, onshore wind stalled, amounting to what many have called a de-facto ban on the renewable power source. Just 16 new turbines were granted planning permission between 2016-2020, a fall of 96% on the 435 granted between 2011-2015, according to Cardiff University analysis of government data." news.sky.com/story/onshore-wind-farms-ban-to-be-eased-following-backbench-tory-pressure-12955304
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Sept 6, 2023 10:05:34 GMT
I'm not sure I can explain this any better. Expanding the ULEZ area was Khan's (Labour Mayor) plan and was only postponed because of Covid. Expanding the ULEZ area has *never* been any Conservative candidate's/Minister's/Constituency's plan, nor the overall party/government plan. So at the Uxbridge and South Ruislip by-election no one was mislead...party policies were made clear and all Shapps was doing in the letters to TFL was making sure they were raising all the money they had planned to *BEFORE* the government gave them £1bn to keep the services running.... And I cannot explain it any more clearly. Shapps made it a contractual obligation to enforce the expansion of ULEZ as part of the TFL financing arrangements. If the Tories were so against that form of taxation they wouldn't have done that. You are dancing on a pinhead my friend. Now, schools in danger of collapsing. Another Tory policy in 2010 to cancel the school building programme. Was Mr Gove not liable for that? We can do buildings later, let's stick to ULEZ. You're claiming its Conservative and/or Government policy based on a letter Shapps sent when he was giving Khan £1bn to keep the trains and buses running. But all that letter did was make sure Khan and TFL were raising all their possible revenue as soon as possible after covid, so that the government bailout (which was already going to be £1bn+) was not any larger. I've been trying to think of a decent analogy. Say your friend has a small corner shop and he's struggling financially. You know it's a popular shop that normally runs at a profit, but he's got a series of regular customers who sometimes get a few bits on 'credit' or get 'mates-rates' on some products....and now he can't afford to buy more stock as he's low on cash and asks you for a loan. He's a good mate with a good business so you say yes, but surely one of the first things you'd do when loaning him the cash is to make sure he calls in all his debts and stops undercharging people, so that he can generate the money to pay you back as soon as possible... That's exactly what the Shapps letter was. It was not stating or changing Conservative or government policy. It was contractual only in the sense that if Khan wanted the loan he desperately needed he had to start generating as much of his own revenue as possible as soon as he had originally planned to... ...and of course the other reason I know that the Conservatives were against both the first and second ULEZ expansions were that all of their politicians voted against it whenever it was put to a vote in the London Assembley...as well as pretty much every other Conservative politician or candidate standing for election before or after the two expansions also publicly going on the record as being against it.... ...one letter covering the finer details of a £1bn loan, or nearly every Conservative candidate and politician declaring they are against it and/or actually voting against it....? It's tricky....
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Sept 6, 2023 10:13:46 GMT
I think Sunak could have quadrupled the schools budget since 2021 and it still wouldn't have altered the fact that some of these 50 year old schools need rebuilding and temporarily being closed. It's long term neglect and a bit harsh to pin it on Sunak. He's the current incumbent and not the cause. Correct. But his party is. It was they that cancelled the school build program in 2010 after the election that year. A decision initiated by Michael Gove. It's a bit more complex than that,all local education authorities are given an annual Cap Ex budget and have direct accountability to maintain School infrastructure,I would be asking them what they have done to address what has been a known issue for decades.
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Sept 6, 2023 10:17:30 GMT
I think Sunak could have quadrupled the schools budget since 2021 and it still wouldn't have altered the fact that some of these 50 year old schools need rebuilding and temporarily being closed. It's long term neglect and a bit harsh to pin it on Sunak. He's the current incumbent and not the cause. Correct. But his party is. It was they that cancelled the school build program in 2010 after the election that year. A decision initiated by Michael Gove. So onto buildings. Yes Gove and Alexander cut around half of the school building projects Labour had announced at the end of their period in government, mostly because they were completely unfunded...Brown had gone from a half-competent Chancellor to a PM who was willing to splash billions he didn't have to try and win the 2010 General Election. From what I remember they cut projects that local councils had spent far too long even starting and retained those that had already begun, and if course that decision didn't stop any council funding any building work from their own budget...
|
|
|
Post by oldie on Sept 6, 2023 12:41:10 GMT
Correct. But his party is. It was they that cancelled the school build program in 2010 after the election that year. A decision initiated by Michael Gove. So onto buildings. Yes Gove and Alexander cut around half of the school building projects Labour had announced at the end of their period in government, mostly because they were completely unfunded...Brown had gone from a half-competent Chancellor to a PM who was willing to splash billions he didn't have to try and win the 2010 General Election. From what I remember they cut projects that local councils had spent far too long even starting and retained those that had already begun, and if course that decision didn't stop any council funding any building work from their own budget... Yes Of course. So the forecast for 2023 is a net PSBR of £152 billion. So two questions 1. Within that overall spending and borrowing numbers which current government programs are fully funded? 2. When private sector consumption and investment contracts to the point of a permanently loss of production capacity, does the State have a role to step in and maintain demand until the private sector recovers? Thank you
|
|
|
Post by oldie on Sept 6, 2023 12:44:43 GMT
Correct. But his party is. It was they that cancelled the school build program in 2010 after the election that year. A decision initiated by Michael Gove. It's a bit more complex than that,all local education authorities are given an annual Cap Ex budget and have direct accountability to maintain School infrastructure,I would be asking them what they have done to address what has been a known issue for decades. That only applies if centrally generated local government funding is sufficient to meet demand. Here is a clue Clive. "How has local government funding changed since 2010? Local authority 'spending power' – the amount of money authorities have to spend from government grants, council tax and business rates – fell by 17.5% between 2009/10 and 2019/20, before partially recovering." Ah well
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Sept 6, 2023 14:16:51 GMT
It's a bit more complex than that,all local education authorities are given an annual Cap Ex budget and have direct accountability to maintain School infrastructure,I would be asking them what they have done to address what has been a known issue for decades. That only applies if centrally generated local government funding is sufficient to meet demand. Here is a clue Clive. "How has local government funding changed since 2010? Local authority 'spending power' – the amount of money authorities have to spend from government grants, council tax and business rates – fell by 17.5% between 2009/10 and 2019/20, before partially recovering." Ah well Absolutely Les ,however it is also about priorities and this wasn't at the top and yes I agree entirely that for a significant number of years real spending declined. On the flip side I have been aware of a rush to spend the Cap budget at the end of financial years as it wasn't spent, something I find baffling.
|
|
|
Post by yattongas on Sept 6, 2023 15:11:10 GMT
Correct. But his party is. It was they that cancelled the school build program in 2010 after the election that year. A decision initiated by Michael Gove. So onto buildings. Yes Gove and Alexander cut around half of the school building projects Labour had announced at the end of their period in government, mostly because they were completely unfunded...Brown had gone from a half-competent Chancellor to a PM who was willing to splash billions he didn't have to try and win the 2010 General Election. From what I remember they cut projects that local councils had spent far too long even starting and retained those that had already begun, and if course that decision didn't stop any council funding any building work from their own budget... x.com/bbcrosatkins/status/1698940507517567470?s=61&t=40THHNNCsOVl4Ddwb35AKA
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Sept 7, 2023 5:17:52 GMT
So onto buildings. Yes Gove and Alexander cut around half of the school building projects Labour had announced at the end of their period in government, mostly because they were completely unfunded...Brown had gone from a half-competent Chancellor to a PM who was willing to splash billions he didn't have to try and win the 2010 General Election. From what I remember they cut projects that local councils had spent far too long even starting and retained those that had already begun, and if course that decision didn't stop any council funding any building work from their own budget... Yes Of course. So the forecast for 2023 is a net PSBR of £152 billion. So two questions 1. Within that overall spending and borrowing numbers which current government programs are fully funded? 2. When private sector consumption and investment contracts to the point of a permanently loss of production capacity, does the State have a role to step in and maintain demand until the private sector recovers? Thank you 1. Fully-funded can (of course) mean different things to different people. Alexander though made it clear what it meant in this instance. 'Normally' when government policies are announced, the department announcing them already has the money to fund them - it might not technically be in their bank account at that point but it is planned into approved department budgets which (in tough times) are funded by government borrowing. So government policies announced at the moment are using borrowed money, but that is part of the overall plan, markets are aware of that and so the money will be available at an already agreed cost. The unfunded spending commitments by the Department of Education at the end of the Brown government were found to have been based on either taking money from another department (who had already announced their intention to spend that same money on their own "...fully-funded..." commitments, and you can't spend the same money twice - so that was economic mismanagement *and* political deception) or would have been funded by unplanned borrowing. Unplanned borrowing not only has higher costs for the government but also impacts the financial markets, normally with negative consequences for the UK economy overall. 2. I understand the words but not the overall relevance of the question to the topic. Can you elaborate?
|
|
|
Post by oldie on Sept 7, 2023 9:15:00 GMT
On point one. You did not answer the question. I will rephrase (slightly) "With a projected PSBR of £150billion this fiscal, which government programmes are fully funded?
On the second point...it's philosophical question which I will link back if you express a view.
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Sept 7, 2023 9:46:05 GMT
On point one. You did not answer the question. I will rephrase (slightly) "With a projected PSBR of £150billion this fiscal, which government programmes are fully funded? On the second point...it's philosophical question which I will link back if you express a view. I did answer point one but I am happy to explain it again. Nearly all government spending pledges for projects that are new/not yet started are funded by money they don't yet have. But it's accounted for in known future income and/or borrowing plans - therefore no extra cost when they have to spend borrowed money. The Labour school building project was not funded. It was a proposal to spend money in the post 2010 years that they had either already allocated to other departments (ie a political/economic lie) *or* they would have to borrow above and beyond their announced borrowing plans. Which would be at a higher rate of interest as it would not be expected by the markets... ...currently the government runs a deficit but every project/policy is planned into published budgets, therefore in the unlikely event they win the next GE the money will be available for whatever they have pledged at the cost they have already allowed for... ...as for point 2, is private sector consumption and investment contracting? By most measures it's expanding in the short, medium and long term, so I do wonder why you're asking the question, it must be for a specific reason...?
|
|
|
Post by oldie on Sept 7, 2023 10:56:56 GMT
On point one. You did not answer the question. I will rephrase (slightly) "With a projected PSBR of £150billion this fiscal, which government programmes are fully funded? On the second point...it's philosophical question which I will link back if you express a view. I did answer point one but I am happy to explain it again. Nearly all government spending pledges for projects that are new/not yet started are funded by money they don't yet have. But it's accounted for in known future income and/or borrowing plans - therefore no extra cost when they have to spend borrowed money. The Labour school building project was not funded. It was a proposal to spend money in the post 2010 years that they had either already allocated to other departments (ie a political/economic lie) *or* they would have to borrow above and beyond their announced borrowing plans. Which would be at a higher rate of interest as it would not be expected by the markets... ...currently the government runs a deficit but every project/policy is planned into published budgets, therefore in the unlikely event they win the next GE the money will be available for whatever they have pledged at the cost they have already allowed for... ...as for point 2, is private sector consumption and investment contracting? By most measures it's expanding in the short, medium and long term, so I do wonder why you're asking the question, it must be for a specific reason...? No you didn't. You referred to 2010 and the excuses used to cancel that school building policy. So I ask again. Reworded Of the current government's programmes, which one's are fully funded? On the other question, it's a philosophical question (albeit a strongly argued case by a certain economic viewpoint) What is your position?
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Sept 7, 2023 11:37:39 GMT
I did answer point one but I am happy to explain it again. Nearly all government spending pledges for projects that are new/not yet started are funded by money they don't yet have. But it's accounted for in known future income and/or borrowing plans - therefore no extra cost when they have to spend borrowed money. The Labour school building project was not funded. It was a proposal to spend money in the post 2010 years that they had either already allocated to other departments (ie a political/economic lie) *or* they would have to borrow above and beyond their announced borrowing plans. Which would be at a higher rate of interest as it would not be expected by the markets... ...currently the government runs a deficit but every project/policy is planned into published budgets, therefore in the unlikely event they win the next GE the money will be available for whatever they have pledged at the cost they have already allowed for... ...as for point 2, is private sector consumption and investment contracting? By most measures it's expanding in the short, medium and long term, so I do wonder why you're asking the question, it must be for a specific reason...? No you didn't. You referred to 2010 and the excuses used to cancel that school building policy. So I ask again. Reworded Of the current government's programmes, which one's are fully funded? On the other question, it's a philosophical question (albeit a strongly argued case by a certain economic viewpoint) What is your position? ...fully-funded refers to how things are funded...in 2010 that money was either already allocated to other projects (so one or the other was un-funded) or it had no approved funding at all, which would have meant unexpected government borrowing at a higher cost than normal borrowing... ...today as far as I and most people can see, every government policy is fully funded (unless you can show otherwise) - there are plenty of documents on both the parliament website and the various government webpages showing planned income and expenditure for both specific departments and the government overall, and how that will be allocated to specific policies... ...in 2010 a huge chunk of the money (many billions of pounds) that was supposed to be used for the schools building project did not appear on any department budget plan nor any overall government budget plan....
|
|
|
Post by oldie on Sept 7, 2023 12:10:06 GMT
This is getting comical now.
One last try.
When Mr Sunak announced Furlough funding during COVID, was that in any previously announced spending plans?
|
|
|
Post by yattongas on Sept 7, 2023 22:23:46 GMT
No you didn't. You referred to 2010 and the excuses used to cancel that school building policy. So I ask again. Reworded Of the current government's programmes, which one's are fully funded? On the other question, it's a philosophical question (albeit a strongly argued case by a certain economic viewpoint) What is your position? ...fully-funded refers to how things are funded...in 2010 that money was either already allocated to other projects (so one or the other was un-funded) or it had no approved funding at all, which would have meant unexpected government borrowing at a higher cost than normal borrowing... ...today as far as I and most people can see, every government policy is fully funded (unless you can show otherwise) - there are plenty of documents on both the parliament website and the various government webpages showing planned income and expenditure for both specific departments and the government overall, and how that will be allocated to specific policies... ...in 2010 a huge chunk of the money (many billions of pounds) that was supposed to be used for the schools building project did not appear on any department budget plan nor any overall government budget plan.... The cost of borrowing in 2010 was historically low , now it’s much much higher . So instead of borrowing on infrastructure, your mob cut back with austerity 🙄 Thats worked out well in the long run hasn’t it ?
|
|