Should the schools budget be protected?

These cuts are nothing to do with paying off debt, they are to do with ideology. This is what the Conservatives have always wanted to do, but never had the nerve. Now they can blame it on, Labour, the banks (reluctantly), the unemployed (as ever), etc, etc, etc..
Anyone out there just has to think, if they had a debt,and by tightening their belt they could clear it in 4 year, it would not be a BIG debt.
So, smaller cuts, spread them over a longer time, allow economic growth to generate the income tax to pay for it.
Germany just paid off its debt from the 1st world war, that debt has not held its economy back much since then has it?

Quite simply, YES of course...and deeper cuts elsewhere shouldn't necessarily fund it. We need a real debate about a transaction tax on the banks, who caused so much of the debt through their recklessness and profiteering (the ConDem bank levy is really quite small and some if not much will be given back by the corporation tax cut).

I thought in the era of "new politics" that Parliament, and not the media, would be first to hear new policy announcements?
Another broken promise from the coalition.

I am about to lose my job because of the cuts in public sector spending.

This means I will probably be unemployed (but not eligable for any benefits whatsoever) for a couple of years.

Beware what you wish for.

It might come true.

Yes i think the schools budget should be protected, but again all we have are vague and ambiguous comments on how this will be achieved. Are schools protect from just "across the board" cuts only or cuts in general? What is this "pupil premium" and how much is it worth in the real world? What other departments will have to cut deeper and by how much? Until flesh has been put on the bones it`s all just words. I suspect it`s appeasement on behalf on the coalition after the savage cuts to university funding.

This debt crisis has given the tories the perfect opportunity to push through their ideology while blaming labour for the situation that allows them the chance to get away with it. A definite win/win situation.

paddington53 writes: "These cuts are nothing to do with paying off debt, they are to do with ideology."

And just what would be wrong with that?

1. At 11:00pm on 15 Oct 2010, paddinton53 wrote:

These cuts are nothing to do with paying off debt, they are to do with ideology. This is what the Conservatives have always wanted to do, but never had the nerve. Now they can blame it on, Labour, the banks (reluctantly), the unemployed (as ever), etc, etc, etc..

All political parties are, by their very nature, driven by ideology and every government blames the previous administration. Why should the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition be any different?

I became a school governor of a primary school a few years ago and was surprised how well funded schools were, and how little comprehension the teachers had of finance in the private sector. They had the view that all private companies and workers had the same financial conditions as Goldman Sachs.
Recently I have been looking around secondary schools, and again they seem needlessly over funded. I know my company would give it right arm for equipment that is frankly too good for children.
So in short - schools should face cuts like everyone else

Yes, and so should the Universities, FE colleges and Apprenticeships to boost the skilled workforce. But also there should be investment to boost business growth which will pay off the debt much more quickly. We we must not let zealot bean counters kill the economy with a thousand cuts.

3. At 11:14pm on 15 Oct 2010, billyhano wrote:

I thought in the era of "new politics" that Parliament, and not the media, would be first to hear new policy announcements?
Another broken promise from the coalition.

But how do you know that this information is accurate and not just media speculation?

I would like to see the BBC stop, effectively, moaning at budget cuts. Everything is always loaded with cuts... never-mind why there are cuts.

We have to leave that to channel 4!

From my point of view, as a single, childless person on below average wage; I have to question everyone fighting over what should or shouldn't be cut and ask: Since I'm not rich or poor, but have paid back into the system more than I took and ever will, is it fair I pay for your child benefit?

It isn't. Personal responsibility is why I will continue to vote Conservative.

When will we stop measuring success by the amount of public money we spend, instead of the results we achieve?

If we are to have schools then they need to be built and kept in good order.

One major problem is that this takes money that is ALWAYS is in short supply.

The next problem is uniformity.
Some children are financially better off than others. [Irrespective of parental wealth].
Some children get better parental attention than other children get.
Some children are gifted while others are not.

But here is my suggestions for a fairer future:

1. Free school uniforms for all children.
This ensures children are well clothed and are treated as equals.
[Many workers are entitled to free uniforms, for health, safety and well being].

2. All children should get a free school dinner.
This ensures they have at least one healthy meal a day while at school.
[If they do not wish to eat it at least it was available to them].

3. Children grow to adulthood and willingly pay tax for tangible services they received.

4. School fund-raising should be done en-mass voluntary and discreet collection.
Schools have a tendency to keep asking for financial assistance from parents to bolster government funds. I have seen notes to parents requesting set sums of money for various projects. While I am sure most parents do not object to this, poorer parents are sure to be embarrassed when a refusal is their only option.

5. If possible, adopt a UK 5 year plan.
It is well enough to plan for the future building up business then NOT if
we have to import talent from abroad to fill the gaps of short-sighted schooling.

6. Listen to business, think-tanks, parents and children to go forward together.
Business requirements change, future envision changes and families lifestyles alter.
Breaking up any one of these detrimentally affects the future of "UK PLC".

The Government's mantra should be "how can we do this as well or better for less" to maintain services while saving money. Not "cut! cut! cut!" which is all we hear on the media, and only reduces the services delivered.

6. At 11:42pm on 15 Oct 2010, corncobuk wrote:
This debt crisis has given the tories the perfect opportunity to push through their ideology while blaming labour for the situation that allows them the chance to get away with it. A definite win/win situation.

.............................................

Or alternatively - every time that Labour come to power the budget surplus left to them by the outgoing Tory aministration gives Labour the perfect opportunity to push through their ideology whilst blaming the Tories for the situation that allows them the chance to get away with it. Another win/win situation (that is, until such time as they have spent everybody else's money and need another decade of Tory administration to get us back on track).

1. At 11:00pm on 15 Oct 2010, paddinton53 wrote:
Anyone out there just has to think, if they had a debt,and by tightening their belt they could clear it in 4 year, it would not be a BIG debt.
So, smaller cuts, spread them over a longer time, allow economic growth to generate the income tax to pay for it.

..........................................

The more I think about this the more sense it makes - in fact you could go a lot further than this.
If you had a debt that you could pay off in 4 years why bother to pay it back at all? Why not increase the length of the loan to 6, 8 or even 10 years, thereby lowering your repayments. That way you could borrow even more money and everything would be wonderful.
You could even go further than this, you could spend every penny you had and then borrow something like 6 thousand pounds a minute, every minute of every day without ever paying anything back or even any idea of how you might pay it back within a generation...............And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a precis of the financial (mis)management of UK by the last Labour government.

'The new pupil premium could see the budgets of some schools increase, while other schools face a decrease since their funding will depend, in part, on the number of poorer children they educate.' - BBC article

.....................................

So here is the reality of the 'pupil premium'. This is not new money, it is not additional funding aimed at pupils from poorer backgrounds, it is merely a diversion of funds towards these poorer pupils, funds which will be taken from any pupil who has the misfortune to be reared by parents who are not so poor.
Does anyone have any idea as to how these pupils are to be identified? Is there some sort of database somewhere giving the relative wealth of the parents?

All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

"4. At 11:17pm on 15 Oct 2010, Eric Sputnik wrote:
I am about to lose my job because of the cuts in public sector spending.

This means I will probably be unemployed (but not eligable for any benefits whatsoever) for a couple of years.

Beware what you wish for.

It might come true."


EVERYBODY is entitled to basic Job Seekers Allowance if they look for work, regardless of how much you have in the way of savings and they have been employed. How do you work out that you are not eligible for anything at all?

"1. At 11:00pm on 15 Oct 2010, paddinton53 wrote:
These cuts are nothing to do with paying off debt, they are to do with ideology. This is what the Conservatives have always wanted to do, but never had the nerve. Now they can blame it on, Labour, the banks (reluctantly), the unemployed (as ever), etc, etc, etc..
Anyone out there just has to think, if they had a debt,and by tightening their belt they could clear it in 4 year, it would not be a BIG debt."


I don't know if you remember back to the last election and the coalition government being formed.

A LABOUR minister had left a note saying that there was no money left.

Even Labour had warned before the election that cuts would need to be made. So I don't quite see your point.

All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

Not much point 'protecting' our schools budget if NONE of children will be able to afford to achieve higher education is there? This governments appears to have ALL it's priorities wrong - how the hell can you justify maintaining spending on weapons of war, while at the same time destroying our education system? How can you protect the present while at the same time destroying the future? How can a government morally justify spending £40bn every year on WAR while cutting Higher education budgets by 80%? Its a perverse nasty state of affairs -

And what is the motivation of protecting schools budgets and NHS budgets - simply the fact that the Tory's want to PRIVATISE them and provide lucrative profits for their crony chums -

8. At 11:49pm on 15 Oct 2010, Magi Tatcher wrote:
1. At 11:00pm on 15 Oct 2010, paddinton53 wrote:

These cuts are nothing to do with paying off debt, they are to do with ideology. This is what the Conservatives have always wanted to do, but never had the nerve. Now they can blame it on, Labour, the banks (reluctantly), the unemployed (as ever), etc, etc, etc..

All political parties are, by their very nature, driven by ideology and every government blames the previous administration. Why should the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition be any different?
------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, I personally knew the mystic babblers would be no different - But then if you remember what they said at the election one might be forgiven for expecting a 'new' fairer, honest and different politics! I seem to remember the word 'change', and 'radical' blablabla - But then, I did warn folk at the time that voting in a fake election was a pointless exercise in self delusion... ;-)

All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

If ever there was a man who was a born leader it is David Cameron. In the short time his coalition party have held office ,he is gradually doing all the right things to pull the country out of the Blair/Brown debacle. Education is the main area that needed help, a shake-up and a recognition that teachers have been undervalued for too long.Well done David Cameron and Nick Clegg.

Typical bait and switch tactics.
The NHS in England is stuffed...so tell everyone the schools budget is safe.

The ConDems will wean the English on to the US system of healthcare and move the NHS onto a medicare footing.
2000 dollars for a dentist visit folks!

All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

libranmeg wrote:

If ever there was a man who was a born leader it is David Cameron.

That is very funny...thanks.

The overall problem, that still remains non-priority item, is that we have this overall debt burden, because we cannot earn enough income through our industrial capabilities and companies, because they are closing down, sold, taken over etc.

Until this fact is recognized and industrial outpot is a top priority then these pointless actions, comments, spending cuts etc. will rumble on for ever, until we are no more !

It is patently absurd to even think that spending cuts wherever applied and however severe, can be the solution - OK What happens when these are applied and this debt is cleared, then what !! We are bound to go back into debt again because we still will not be earning !

We have presently - Education which we cannot afford - NHS which we cannot afford - Defence which we cannot afford - Unemployment Which we cannot afford - OPbscene salary, pensions, payoffs etc for the rich which we cannot afford - etc. etc. etc. etc

Unless there is a complete new development strategy implemented so that Industrial decapitation is stopped immediately - Severe Spending into supporting Europe is stopped immediately and we concentrate implicitly on looking after our OWN COUNTRY rather than everybody else we cannot recover.

Soon all will be revealed !!!

26. At 08:01am on 16 Oct 2010, libranmeg wrote:
///If ever there was a man who was a born leader it is David Cameron. In the short time his coalition party have held office ,he is gradually doing all the right things to pull the country out of the Blair/Brown debacle. Education is the main area that needed help, a shake-up and a recognition that teachers have been undervalued for too long.Well done David Cameron and Nick Clegg.///

Wow - Just wow - I think you might require some more medicine if you believe that!!! By the time this government has finished with our education 'system' it will all be privately owned and run by fascist corporations and religious charities - and 'Mcdonalds Studies' will replace Geography and 'Jesus Studies' will replace History! As for valuing 'teachers' - just you wait and see who will be teaching your kids in a few years - Schools run by B&Q will employ folk who learned their 'teaching skills' on the shop floor stacking shelves - Hohoho....

At 00:02am on 16 Oct 2010, errogie wrote:
I became a school governor of a primary school a few years ago and was surprised how well funded schools were, and how little comprehension the teachers had of finance in the private sector. They had the view that all private companies and workers had the same financial conditions as Goldman Sachs.
Recently I have been looking around secondary schools, and again they seem needlessly over funded. I know my company would give it right arm for equipment that is frankly too good for children.
So in short - schools should face cuts like everyone else

________________________________________________________________________________________
So let us strip out anything and everything that is too good for children. Let us go back to a system that once was common. Let there be one teacher to a class, one stick of chalk and one blackboard. Let there be only useful subjects taught, however that is defined. Let there be a sense of satisfaction that, even though our children fall further and further behind their counterparts in other countries, at least we did it on the cheap. Perhaps you didn't mean this, but how far would you go?

Where does all this 'protection' of schools budgets leave special needs? Less protected?

Schools should not be protected. Cuts should be in every possible area and if schools can be trimmed a bit then thats fine. Any shortfall should be made up by parents. They get enough off the state already.

Of course, if we charge tuition fees for children at school, the same as we charge for university education, perhaps the question of cuts need never arise. Perhaps children would appreciate their education then, though I wouldn't go red in the face holding my breath.

The issue of fairness is a slippery concept as what is fair to me is not necessarily fair to my neighbour . However the scandalous and unfair subsidies to Scotland enabling them to splurge England's money on universal benefits is definitely NOT fair . The provision of free university tuition, free care for the elderly and now free prescriptions illustrates that the SNP are completely divorced from reality . The sooner scotland disappears into a Celtic black hole of financial incompetence ( remember Ireland ? ) and gets off England's back , the better

If there is an efficiency to be gained then yes there should be cuts. Schools are run by civil servants, so there will definately be efficiencies to be delivered. Protecting certain budgets from being more efficient seems somewhat absurd in the current economic climate we are in.

Britain should follow the lead of Ireland and cut all civil service salaries by 6% immediately (including our beloved teachers). They have grown too fat on the hard work of the good old taxpayer for too long - now its their turn to feel the heat

I'm disappointed that schools have been "protected" whilst Higher Education is facing an 80% cut to their teaching budget. Could someone please explain to me why it is justified to cut £4.2 billion from Higher education whilst giving £7 billion to the education of 2 year olds...?

38. Civil servants pay tax as well! And whilst 9000 of them earn more than the prime minister five times as many as that earn less than the european decency threshold. Would you cut their pay even further? That's not very nice.

Anyway, if you start making exceptions for one lot of spending where are you going to stop? Cut social security delivery and it will hit the people who need it. And cuts in the public sector hit the private sector who supply it. It's a slippery slope. Is mr clegg going to start going down it?

Why is it when budgets are cut people assume that things are going to get worse?

Private business do this maybe twice a year, and have to implement cost cutting processes to survive. So what is so different about public run "businesses" that they can just spend money irrespective of cost?

Put the challenge out to all these administrators that have appeared in schools, NHS etc. your budget is 20% less than last year but you must buy 5% more, your job, salary or bonus is based on achieving this.

Then do the same next year and so on.

PedrotheJackal writes: "Britain should follow the lead of Ireland and cut all civil service salaries by 6% immediately (including our beloved teachers). They have grown too fat on the hard work of the good old taxpayer for too long - now its their turn to feel the heat."

Quite so.

Now, add to this that the most successful educational system is Finland's. And then that they value and PAY their teachers very well.

Now take some of the money saved by your cut by 6% and pay it to the best teachers, teachers' unions be damned.

I would go further. I had dinner with a Secretary General in the Greek Ministry of Finance, and his wife, a teacher. In Greece, it seems, there has been a 10% cut in public-sector pay, and a huge consolidation of various spending projects, all under the aegis of the IMF. A few minor (if annoying) strikes ...

I propose therefore an immediate cut of 10%, using about half for proper incentive pay--based only on results.

paul tapner wrote: "38. Civil servants pay tax as well!"

So? That doesn't entitle them to a job for life.

"And whilst 9000 of them earn more than the prime minister five times as many as that earn less than the european decency threshold. Would you cut their pay even further? That's not very nice."

Nice? NICE?!?!? "Nice" is not the issue. Having the money to pay for it is.

"Anyway, if you start making exceptions for one lot of spending where are you going to stop? Cut social security delivery and it will hit the people who need it. And cuts in the public sector hit the private sector who supply it. It's a slippery slope. Is mr clegg going to start going down it?"

Where am I going to stop? Nowhere. GE under Jack Welch used to fire the lowest 10% of their workforce every year. We should do the same. We should also plan on dropping public sector expenditure by a similar amount each year.

chrisk50 asks: "Why is it when budgets are cut people assume that things are going to get worse?"

Because they don't actually care about results. They care about spending, because that spending is on THEM.

Just listen to any public-sector union leader.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

1. At 11:00pm on 15 Oct 2010, paddinton53 wrote: "These cuts are nothing to do with paying off debt, they are to do with ideology."
------------------------------------------------------------------
What absolute codswallop. The country under Gordon Brown built its debt up to more than the total of the previous 300 years of borrowing. 20% of everday expenditure by the Government has to be borrowed. Labour doubled our National Debt and it will double again in a few years time.

Of course there have to be substantial cuts and these should include schools, the NHS and foreign aid. I am bemused why these should be exempt. As for Clegg announcing a further £7 billion of extra expenditure, I think the Coalition has lost the plot as well.

At 08:58am on 16 Oct 2010, MellorSJ wrote:
PedrotheJackal writes: "Britain should follow the lead of Ireland and cut all civil service salaries by 6% immediately (including our beloved teachers). They have grown too fat on the hard work of the good old taxpayer for too long - now its their turn to feel the heat."

Quite so.

Now, add to this that the most successful educational system is Finland's. And then that they value and PAY their teachers very well.

__________________________________________________________________________________________
What's more, Finland provides the tools and resources teachers need to do the job effectively, and then trust professionalism to be efficient without government interference. Nobody says it has to be cheap. Results speak for themselves.

39. At 08:46am on 16 Oct 2010, Alex wrote:

I'm disappointed that schools have been "protected" whilst Higher Education is facing an 80% cut to their teaching budget. Could someone please explain to me why it is justified to cut £4.2 billion from Higher education whilst giving £7 billion to the education of 2 year olds...?

= = = = = = = = = =

You don't think it because as the vast majority of parents actually work however badly paid - this will save money as in effect this "education" is actually baby minding - and a great many people can't afford the usual baby minding fees. I doubt if it has anything to do with education of 2 year olds. But it sounds better to say "education" rather than a truthful "free baby minding"

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

HYS - "Should the schools budget be protected?"

NO - I think that this Budget is already TOO high. Pouring yet more money
into a failed system - as Labour did so infamously - will NOT solve our Educational problems.
Severe re-organisation of Teaching methods, targets and discipline are the REAL priorities.

HYS - 'Nick Clegg revealed plans for a "pupil premium" - extra spending on the most deprived children.'

This is just yet another MISGUIDED 'PC' dogmatic attempt at popularity.
The BIGGEST problem most of THESE Children face are their uncaring, incompetent Parents - NOT money...

STILL - our Governments refuse to tackle those Parents who continue to FAIL their own Children in SO many ways - and the rest of us have to pay more Taxes for this misguided 'Pupil-Premium' instead...

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

No area should ever be protected from cuts. That's like saying savings can never be found, which everyone knows is false.

The spending review next week will get a lot of headlines.

But I suspect there will be a continuous search for staff reduction and other efficiencies over the next years and that the government will save far more than it announces next week.

That is as it should be, since every penny wasted in the public sector does not arrive from Heaven - it belongs to the taxpayer.

Hopefully, this will see the end of Labour's approach of using public sector spending for electoral gain.

At 08:25am on 16 Oct 2010, The Ghosts of John Galt wrote:
By the time this government has finished with our education 'system' it will all be privately owned and run by fascist corporations and religious charities - and 'Mcdonalds Studies' will replace Geography and 'Jesus Studies' will replace History!

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
I remember Geography from my own school days. It involved colouring in maps showing the main products of countries of the Empire. (Does that still exist?) I remember History too. After mumble mumble decades I can still recite a long list of dates, kings and battles from 1066 to 1901, when History presumably ended. What good it does me, I never found out. Possibly 'McDonalds Studies' might prove to be a little more useful. At any rate, I never got offered a job on the basis of recalling long lists of facts without understanding. Just for the record, my schooling did not take place under the auspices of any religious charities.

Your kid doesn't go to a school with a lot of deprived children, does he/she, Tez? Or maybe you don't have kids at all. My son goes to a sink estate school, and if the teachers "disciplined" very single little hooligan they wouldn't have any time left for teaching. It's much better to have some extra people who can take these kids out of the classroom.

Anyway, will this government give me a budget for paracetamol? It's giving me a headache.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

@7. At 11:43pm on 15 Oct 2010, MellorSJ wrote:

paddington53 writes: "These cuts are nothing to do with paying off debt, they are to do with ideology."

And just what would be wrong with that?
---------------------------
They are being dishonest about their true motives and using the debt situation as a smokescreen for implementing changes based on a hidden agenda which was never presented to the electorate to vote on.

That's what's wrong with that!

So much for openness and "New Politics". Ha!!

The coalition has made it clear they aim to cut waste across the public sector. Schools largely do a good job but their systems are often antiquated and not fit for purpose. That is where much of the waste comes from and they have little opportunity to invest in new systems. As the costs rise a protected budget will still be difficult for them, so there will be a need to consider every job carefully, and of course the computers will become even more temperamental and the photocopier will break down more frequently and the support staff will be off sick more etc etc. I hope there is some long-term plan to make the back room activity in schools more streamlined, as FE Colleges have had to do over the last decade

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

There is something VERY seriously wrong with ANY Society that finds it has to farm out 2-YEAR-OLD Babies to Government-inspired 'Baby-Sitters' - in the GUISE of 'Education'.

What is the REAL reason for this - almost inhuman - farce?
Let's have an honest answer - and a SOCIALLY-acceptable remedy - not 'spin' - we've had a bellyfull of THAT from Labour...

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Dancin Pagan writes: "They are being dishonest about their true motives and using the debt situation as a smokescreen for implementing changes based on a hidden agenda which was never presented to the electorate to vote on."

Yet if you listen to the vast majority of HYSers, you will know that the Conservatives have intended to cut from Day One.

Why should they repeat what everyone knows?

9. At 00:02am on 16 Oct 2010, errogie wrote:

I became a school governor of a primary school a few years ago and was surprised how well funded schools were, and how little comprehension the teachers had of finance in the private sector. They had the view that all private companies and workers had the same financial conditions as Goldman Sachs.
Recently I have been looking around secondary schools, and again they seem needlessly over funded. I know my company would give it right arm for equipment that is frankly too good for children.
So in short - schools should face cuts like everyone else

= = = = = = = =

Sadly you are EXACTLY why I disliked SOME school governors so much. They lived in the past - with no concept of the future.

School is SUPPOSED to be education for the FUTURE of the COUNTRY - not a cost cutting exercise!

I'm sure a slate and chalk was wonderful in 1920 - NOT in 2010

You want schools to exist in the past and ignore the future - Teachers want to PREPARE the children FOR the FUTURE. That costs money.

A couple of examples - Computers for the ART ROOM - Expensive - but essential as ALL commercial Art nowadays is DONE by Computers and you need one per child - not one shared between a class. We had very intense arguments with a "living in the past" governor about this. Until we "forced" him to go along to a couple of Commercial Art establishments!!!

Another - Computer Aided Design in Technology - the cost of the CAD lathes was horrendous - yet when our Technology students left - they would face CAD systems - After all Businesses NO LONGER TRAIN - they exploit!!!!

I could go on - But in short - Only the best is good enough for our children. That includes equipment.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

To protect any budget is filled with dangers not least it gives a strong signal to waste money. I wonder how many of you opposing cuts have ever worked in Procurement or Finance especially in the Public sector, I worked in an area that was financed by payment for services, the number of times the Financial Controller argued with highly educated civil servants whose problem was they'd never heard of cash flow. I cant pay for it went above their heads usually because they'd already ordered the goods or service.
This debate would be a lot different if the Government published the full details of every spend over the last ten years, and if they do in the future look at spend in late February and March. It should be called mad March, the we have money in the budget find anything to spend it on month.
I am at a loss to understand why so many of you assume that your money as been well spent, that you have no problem with someone wasting your taxes. Are you happy that a senior civil servant had four expensive laptops in twelve months because their previous ones had fallen of the desk smashed beyond repair
The Government should set up a website for Public Employees to anonomously report waste, or spend on items like an artistic rock or a carpet that no one was allowed to step on because of the cost.
Id name the website The Diary of the Ministry of Waste and Incompetence.
British industry failure was often driven by failure to control costs and quality, Many Public Servants need to be more aware that they rely on Britain's Private sectors ability to earn money and that they need to not rush to the Media with great tales of disaster because we cant afford the latest toy.
Look hard enough and I bet every school could find a way to save five per cent without affecting their ability to teach, its all about mindset,if you believe you can't then you can't

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Why should schools be exempt? What is so special about education? They cannot vote so there are no votes there for the colition.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

63. At 09:43am on 16 Oct 2010, MellorSJ wrote:

Dancin Pagan writes:

"They are being dishonest about their true motives and using the debt situation as a smokescreen for implementing changes based on a hidden agenda which was never presented to the electorate to vote on.

That's what's wrong with that!

So much for openness and "New Politics". Ha!!"

MellorSJ replies:

Yet if you listen to the vast majority of HYSers, you will know that the Conservatives have intended to cut from Day One.

Why should they repeat what everyone knows?
--------------------------------
So it's OK to be disingenuous as long as everyone knows you are not being open and honest with them.

Sounds like spin to me!

48. At 09:22am on 16 Oct 2010, Raymond Hopkins wrote:

At 08:58am on 16 Oct 2010, MellorSJ wrote:
PedrotheJackal writes: "Britain should follow the lead of Ireland and cut all civil service salaries by 6% immediately (including our beloved teachers). They have grown too fat on the hard work of the good old taxpayer for too long - now its their turn to feel the heat."

Quite so.

Now, add to this that the most successful educational system is Finland's. And then that they value and PAY their teachers very well.

__________________________________________________________________________________________
What's more, Finland provides the tools and resources teachers need to do the job effectively, and then trust professionalism to be efficient without government interference. Nobody says it has to be cheap. Results speak for themselves

= = = = = =

I agree - The problem is a great many in the UK DO say "It has to be cheap" especially the rich about state schools. This government especially. Another difference is the social status of Teachers in Finland being far higher than Here. Here teachers are "a public servant" to produce results. There teachers are an essential professional body like Doctors and Lawyers.

56. At 09:34am on 16 Oct 2010, starlinguk wrote:
"My son goes to a sink estate school, and if the teachers "disciplined" very single little hooligan they wouldn't have any time left for teaching."

IN REPLY:
Hi! starlinguk - My 3 Children went to 'incompetent' Schools - and I did too. You will find that I was actually making the SAME point as you really - in that - if those 'hooligan' Children were disciplined better at HOME - before they started School - the Teaching of ALL Children would be far better than it is now... and we'd have no NEED to remove those 'hooligan' Children. Sorry about your headache... Tez.

41. At 08:50am on 16 Oct 2010, chrisk50 wrote:

Why is it when budgets are cut people assume that things are going to get worse?

Private business do this maybe twice a year, and have to implement cost cutting processes to survive. So what is so different about public run "businesses" that they can just spend money irrespective of cost?

Put the challenge out to all these administrators that have appeared in schools, NHS etc. your budget is 20% less than last year but you must buy 5% more, your job, salary or bonus is based on achieving this.

Then do the same next year and so on.

= = = = = = = = =

May I point out our large private sector businesses are not very successful by many critera - So cuts don't work too well there either. What does work are small businesses - but generally they need education - you know invest in schools to give that education.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

What is this to achieve ? Better education for children or to keep the already grossly overpaid and under achieving teaching profession sweet ?

Its hilarious! Cut this, cut that - cuts, cuts everywhere but somehow the government can find the cash to generously compensate private sector investors for their 'stupidity' in making investments in a dodgy company!

Mmmm....I am sure £1.5bn could go a long way toward University education or 'protecting' our children's education!

Our country is most definitely run by little gangs of thugs!

Agree. I am middle-aged. I support the idea of giving “equal opportunity” and “debt free country” to our younger generation, which the old generation fails to offer to us.

I'm inclined to go along with those who suggest that no area of public finances should be exempt from spending cuts. However sacrosanct education and the NHS might be, are we really saying that they are as efficient, financially, as they could possibly be? I can't believe that this is the case, so surely a minimum of 10% could be cut from both budgets without harming front-line services.

Those arguing against the cuts have no interest in the public good. They just want to protect their own cushy little jobs.

This point from RichardGrey deserves repeating: "Another difference is the social status of Teachers in Finland being far higher than Here. Here teachers are "a public servant" to produce results. There teachers are an essential professional body like Doctors and Lawyers."

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

· 80. At 10:19am on 16 Oct 2010, MellorSJ wrote:
This point from RichardGrey deserves repeating: "Another difference is the social status of Teachers in Finland being far higher than Here. Here teachers are "a public servant" to produce results. There teachers are an essential professional body like Doctors and Lawyers."
##########################

But you still despise them because they don’t make YOU a profit

"Should the Schools Budget be protected"? is the HYS question.(in England)

This question must be entirely new for many, it certainly is for me. It has thrown me completely. All I know is that we pay Council Tax, up 45% in the last 5yrs, and income tax in England to cover basics such as education.

Are Wales and Scotland having this worrying debate about cuts? It would be most welcome to hear from those living in devolved parts of the Un-United Kingdom too.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

83. At 10:27am on 16 Oct 2010, Jill Swinborne wrote:·"80. At 10:19am on 16 Oct 2010, MellorSJ wrote:
This point from RichardGrey deserves repeating: "Another difference is the social status of Teachers in Finland being far higher than Here. Here teachers are "a public servant" to produce results. There teachers are an essential professional body like Doctors and Lawyers."
##########################

But you still despise them because they don’t make YOU a profit"

What evidence do you have for this assertion?

Thought not.

At 08:43am on 16 Oct 2010, Pedrothejackal wrote:
If there is an efficiency to be gained then yes there should be cuts. Schools are run by civil servants, so there will definately be efficiencies to be delivered. Protecting certain budgets from being more efficient seems somewhat absurd in the current economic climate we are in.

Err no..... schools are run by unpaid Governors.

69. At 09:54am on 16 Oct 2010, yorkshiremum wrote:
"Why should schools be exempt? What is so special about education? They cannot vote so there are no votes there for the colition."

But parents vote. That's a sizeable chunk of the electorate.

All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

At 10:18am on 16 Oct 2010, David Hazel wrote:
I'm inclined to go along with those who suggest that no area of public finances should be exempt from spending cuts. However sacrosanct education and the NHS might be, are we really saying that they are as efficient, financially, as they could possibly be? I can't believe that this is the case, so surely a minimum of 10% could be cut from both budgets without harming front-line services.

Those arguing against the cuts have no interest in the public good. They just want to protect their own cushy little jobs.

______________________________________________________________________________________________
At the risk of sounding repetitive, take one stick of chalk, one teacher for each hundred pupils, all learning to be done by rote, and you can cut a sight more than ten percent from the education budget, though it's hard to see how this could be in the public good. Extreme perhaps, but then teaching might just be a cushy number. Experience shows that when cuts are made, they tend to impinge on front line services (which makes teaching sound to be a bit of a battlefield, and you know, I sometimes wonder about that, and just who the enemy is).

8. At 11:49pm on 15 Oct 2010, Magi Tatcher wrote:
1. At 11:00pm on 15 Oct 2010, paddinton53 wrote:
These cuts are nothing to do with paying off debt, they are to do with ideology. This is what the Conservatives have always wanted to do, but never had the nerve. Now they can blame it on, Labour, the banks (reluctantly), the unemployed (as ever), etc, etc, etc..
-*-
All political parties are, by their very nature, driven by ideology and every government blames the previous administration. Why should the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition be any different?
-*-
So, why do they say that they are different?
I guess that’s one thing that hasn't changed - same old, same old, lies.

if people think that by protecting schools from the proposed cuts which puppet clegg has announced ,wiil benifit the so called big society,they are being deluded. by protecting schools from the cuts this will put more cuts onto other services .PM ie(puppet master)cameron thinks people are so stupid that they cannot see what he is doing all these cuts are being graded into how they can manipulate the public sector services into doing more for less













9

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Savings can be made in any department without risking jobs or services if the effort is made so every department should be assessed for efficiency savings as a matter of course so the answer is no !

At 10:19am on 16 Oct 2010, MellorSJ wrote:
This point from RichardGrey deserves repeating: "Another difference is the social status of Teachers in Finland being far higher than Here. Here teachers are "a public servant" to produce results. There teachers are an essential professional body like Doctors and Lawyers."

___________________________________________________________________________________________
Very true, and one major reason for it is that, when a country has few natural resources, education becomes a priority. It's worth noting, by the way, that most Finnish teachers have a Master's degree, and it's almost impossible to get a job without it. Isn't it a good thing that non-existent university tuition fees make it feasible?

86. At 10:33am on 16 Oct 2010, Jill Swinborne wrote:
68. At 09:52am on 16 Oct 2010, MellorSJ wrote:
Thatcher asks: "When will we start measuring success by what it achieves rather that how much profit it makes?"

In the market, success _is_ measured by profit.

You want to measure it some other way, fine with me--as long as you pay for it.

////////////////////////////////////

I am sure that 33 miners are relieved that the rest of the world did not put Profit before compassion

Getting them out was the measure of success, not how much profit was made

#############################

MellorSJ would require that the miner’s pay for the operation to get them out, after all his catchphrase is

If you want it, you pay for it

How does this work for devolved parliaments. Will the government ring fence a parallel amount for education and health in Wales and Sotland and , if so , can they compel those governments to ring fence their spending equialently or will they be free to spend the money on new coffee machines whilst blaming the UK government for their woes?