“We put in a bid for 200 buildings but what Rishi agreed to was to continue the rebuilding programme at 50 a year." Schools minister Nick Gibb on @BBCr4today .
Fucking hell. That's quite a thing for a minister to say.
Can I dream that Gibb will be fired by lunchtime?
It is different to what our civil servant was saying though.
He said that the budget was for more and it was cut.
It looks more like the budget was for 50 and Rishi kept it at 50.
Departments put "bids" into the Treasury all the time. How many of them actually get all the money?
Even better.
So I can still think Sunak and Gibb are both lying, and hopefully see Gibb fired for accidentally feeding the narrative by trying to deny it.
I think we can be pretty certain that everyone is lying, even if only by omission.
Yep - the journos all sniff blood, which is perpetuating the story.
I have a feeling that after the next election the Tories are going to be interesting. Buy popcorn while you can.
To be honest after the next election Starmer and labour will be far more interesting as they finally have to make unpopular decisions and deal with insurmountable problems going forward
It reads like you can't wait for them to fall over.
Can you honestly say they have put forward any answers to our problems
No tax increases, no wealth taxes, retain the triple lock, and this morning no answer on how many schools they would build annually
Best to stick with what we have then?
You can hold the opinion that the current government are a shit show, and that the government the opposition are offering would also be a shit show.
But they could surprise on the upside. We pretty much know as fact that Johnsonian/ Sunakian Tories are unlikely so to do.
Do I want the Tories out - yes. Does that mean Labour likely leading the next government - also yes. Do I have hope, based on the evidence presented to me by SKS, that his government will be good - no.
There is very unlikely to be a smoking gun with this one. No "unless we have the money these schools could collapse on kids' heads" email which Sunak cooly said no to. Won't have happened like that.
Sadly for the few remaining Tories it is much worse. For the last 13 years the schools budget has been slashed. The new schools program was axed and money diverted into building free schools and paying hipster/crook CEOs of trusts. Actual front line budgets cut and cut and cut again whilst pressure was ramped up on service provision by making so many schools have kids coming in growing states of crisis.
Yes, we have these specific buildings now in a state of collapse. But that isn't the end of the problem. The backlog in maintenance is vast, the holes in the budgets even of schools not in this state of near collapse are vast.
A one-off specific issue with Sunak's fingerprints on would be bad for Sunak. Instead we have a general state of decay over a decade-plus period, and that is bad for the whole party. If education was an outlier and all was rosy elsewhere, then perhaps less bad. But decay is everywhere in every service...
“We put in a bid for 200 buildings but what Rishi agreed to was to continue the rebuilding programme at 50 a year." Schools minister Nick Gibb on @BBCr4today .
Fucking hell. That's quite a thing for a minister to say.
Can I dream that Gibb will be fired by lunchtime?
It is different to what our civil servant was saying though.
He said that the budget was for more and it was cut.
It looks more like the budget was for 50 and Rishi kept it at 50.
Departments put "bids" into the Treasury all the time. How many of them actually get all the money?
HMT: Budget was 50
DoE: We need to rebuild 200 schools for x years because of we have x00 schools about to fall down killing people
HMT: Regardless of that your budget is 50
Looks like Sunak has a problem because the problem sat on his desk at the time the decision was made.
Surely this is a huge problem for Sunak? If he was aware but did nothing to resolve or, at the very least, mitigate. This is a problem a long time in the making where has been unfortunate that it has landed upon him to address. But it has, and had to be, addressed.
Yesterday we were told on the today program by the “former top civil servant” that the building program was running at 100 schools / year & that was cut to 50 by Sunak instead of being increased to the necessary replacement rate requested by DfE.
So someone is being economical with the actualités here, I wonder who?
He’s absolutely clear that they were rebuilding 100/year, that 300-400 were needed & that the phrase “critical risk to life” was used to obtain that 100 & that Sunak halved the program to 50.
Sunak is on a very sticky wicket. HMT needs cast iron evidence that none of this is true.
Although one suspects Slater is possessed of concrete evidence...
I do wonder if there's a small chance of Sunak just saying "fuck it" and quitting - whether by stepping down or by calling a suicidal General Election.
He doesn't need the money. He manifestly isn't any good at the job. He's not achieving anything.
Literally the only point of Rishi Sunak right now is postponing a Labour Government. And yes, if you're a Conservative, that's a pretty big deal. But it's just putting off the inevitable. There's an argument to say that the sooner the Tories embark on their process of rebuilding in opposition, the better it'll be for the party. It's not like they're going to be any more harmonious (or competent) in 2024/2025.
I guess stepping down would require some degree of self-reflection, which - going on his public performances - doesn't appear to be a skill that Sunak has.
I don't think this will be what HMT were approving, as that's not the order of how things happen.
As I understand it, the DoE will have bid to accelerate the programme from 50 per year to 200 per year, and HMT (Sunak at the time) said "no". That's not a shocker in itself - HMT has to say "no" to a lot of departmental bids.
DoE almost certainly won't have given HMT a list of specific schools - both because it's meaningless to HMT, and because they'd actually plan the detailed programme, including hard decisions on who makes the cut, after budget is confirmed.
What is interesting is the justification DoE gave. If DoE were saying, "It's be nice to get some shiny new buildings in place in time for the General Election" that's less bad for Sunak than if they said, "We're really struggling to keep up with what we need to do to ensure roofs don't collapse on kiddies - in particular, we've got issues with buildings with RAAC".
In reality, it will be something more nuanced, but it'd be interesting to know. This feels potentially very dangerous for Sunak. The DoE request for quite a large increase suggests an identified issue, not necessarily with RAAC but with a pace of renewal giving serious cause for concern in terms of deteriorating stock of school buildings. If that was communicated to him and he said "no" (not even "no but have an increase" - it looks like a flat "no") that's bad.
If they didn't say 'the schools are falling down' they were fools. Because the first failure happened in 2018, which is when they suggested that if schools had time and money they might want to check their buildings for this stuff. This didn't happen in a big way because (1) lack of time (2) lack of money and (3) Covid probably didn't help either.
But they are fools so it's eminently possible.
If you say “the schools are falling down” then you force the hand of the treasury. Because it is now in the written record.
Putting unpleasant shit in the written record and making people aware of it officially, is the biggest offence in NU10K world. Burning their mothers house down, for LOLs would less gross.
I actually made this mistake early in my career. I commented, out loud, in a minuted meeting, on the effects of a certain action. My manager saved my job. Just.
I don't think this will be what HMT were approving, as that's not the order of how things happen.
As I understand it, the DoE will have bid to accelerate the programme from 50 per year to 200 per year, and HMT (Sunak at the time) said "no". That's not a shocker in itself - HMT has to say "no" to a lot of departmental bids.
DoE almost certainly won't have given HMT a list of specific schools - both because it's meaningless to HMT, and because they'd actually plan the detailed programme, including hard decisions on who makes the cut, after budget is confirmed.
What is interesting is the justification DoE gave. If DoE were saying, "It's be nice to get some shiny new buildings in place in time for the General Election" that's less bad for Sunak than if they said, "We're really struggling to keep up with what we need to do to ensure roofs don't collapse on kiddies - in particular, we've got issues with buildings with RAAC".
In reality, it will be something more nuanced, but it'd be interesting to know. This feels potentially very dangerous for Sunak. The DoE request for quite a large increase suggests an identified issue, not necessarily with RAAC but with a pace of renewal giving serious cause for concern in terms of deteriorating stock of school buildings. If that was communicated to him and he said "no" (not even "no but have an increase" - it looks like a flat "no") that's bad.
Do you not think that the fact the request was in 2021 when the pressure on Government finances was at its worst in 80 years due to Covid might be a mitigating issue. I very much doubt the request said if you dont give us money school roofs will collapse.
I don't understand how LAs have got off so lightly in this. They are responsible for the day to day maintenace/upkeep/refurbishment of tens of thousands of schools. If they were concerned about a particular school why haven't they raised the issue before. They employ surveyors directly who should know what the school roofs are made from.
I've specifically said it might be a mitigating factor... that HMT has to say "no" to a lot of departmental bids.
This bid troubles me because it was for an increase from 50 to 200. That's a huge increase. Now it may be DoE are just exceptionally cheeky in their departmental bids. But the scale of this one raises the distinct possibility that they had a serious concern - not necessarily about RAAC but end of life buildings.
The LA point is a bit of a red herring. Firstly, LA's aren't responsible for coming up with rebuilding money - that is specifically the DoE budget line we're talking about. Secondly, the Government advice changed on this material at short notice.
I think Keegan is safe. It’s a fuck-up, but she does “human” reasonably ok, which is a rare thing in Tory politics.
As for Sunak, he is of course fucked. Unlike Keegan, he’s *personally* responsible for slashing school repair budgets.
The Mail AND the Telegraph are turning against him. Not just with these front pages, you can see the commentariat start to re-position itself, too.
Meanwhile, Keir’s re-shuffle has quietly impressed the more thoughtful analysts with its decisive and lack of sentimental focus on being a government-in-waiting.
I would not rule out a kamikaze leadership bid by Suella Braverman, but not until after next year’s locals.
In the shorter-term, I think the Tories lose Mid-Beds even if Labour/LD cannot agree who to rally behind.
Tories third? If so, they are not even in for a 97 shellacking, but something worse...
Third is very possible. It would be interesting to see a betting market on that.
Why would anyone vote for this shitshow?
Because it's in me and my family's interests to do so.
I don't share the values of SKS, or their hangers-on quite frankly, and I know Labour will be coming for me.
Playing devil's advocate: why is it bad for Labour to come for you?
You're apparently in a well-paid job, and have a comfortable life. You live in a society where lots - millions, in fact - of people don't have the advantages you have. Yes, you pay lots of tax. But many of the things that are wrong with this country can only be fixed with an increased tax take - and the question is where that comes from.
Someone has to pay tax - the question, as always, is how much of the burden falls on which individuals.
I pay 62% marginal rate on my income at the moment.
How much would you like me to pay? 70%? 80%? 100%?
Sentiments like this are stagnating the country and will lead to a brain drain from Britain, which will cost the exchequer not add to it.
It depends on how much you earn (as it happens, we're in a similar situation).
But if you want improved public services, it will hurt people financially. The questions become: do you want improved public services, and do you want people who can already not afford to put food on the table to have *less* money, or reduced services?
You're in a blooming fortunate position. Yes, there are iniquities in the way tax brackets are arranged, which should be fixed. But lots of people work just as hard as you, or even harder, and don't get the same rewards.
And comments like this highlight the death of the aspiration society.
I have only been in the position I am in now for the last 22 months. It took nearly 20 years of building a career to get there. Now I am there, you think there's no level of taxation I cannot bear because I earn a bit more than you.
This is a socialist sentiment and it's a well-worn path that ends up impoverishing the whole country.
Work has to pay and be rewarded. Both @MaxPB and myself, and even @NickPalmer, have highlighted on here before how the current tax burden is distorting incentives to work and leading people to work fewer hours, and thus holding back productivity, whilst also contributing to a brain drain.
Your guttural politics will lead to less tax, and worse public services, not more. That's what happens when you put envy at the heart of it.
Your politics has led to a country where you feel you pay too much tax, and yet the schools, the roads, and the hospitals are crumbling, much of the NHS aren't able to attract good staff, the train service is not quite getting there and the water companies are shitting into the rivers and coastal waters.
What then *has* the Conservative government done with your tax money in the last 13 years?
Covid, cost of living or did you miss that ?
Yes. important to remember the Covid crisis, which the Tories used to shovel our taxes to their chums for dodgy PPE contracts.
Thats right, all the money was spent on dodgy PPE, Furlough did not happen, the vaccine did not happen, the huge business support scheme did not happen. the increase in Benefits did not happen. .
Is there anything that this Government has executed that you couldn't apply a 10/10 to?
A huge number of things, for example UC is too generous and they were far too weak when a footballer earning £250k per week was demanding yet more benefits. Due to its generosity UC is now a lifestyle, there needs to be more incentive to work.
The HMRC is a complete joke and needs reforming.
The Child Maintenance Service is pathetic.
Your use of the word "generous" is satire, surely? The big crisis in education isn't these crumbling schools. They are acute in a handful of places. Across the country schools have pupils coming in hungry. Schools are having to feed them because there is no food in the house. Some are dirty.
This is the generous welfare system you speak of. It is generous - to the CEO of Asda and other businesses who get to pay starvation wages which are topped up by government.
I've proposed that we stop subsidising the likes of Asda and instead incentivise them to pay a living wage through targeted Corporation Tax rebates. If your alternative proposal is "cut UC" then it would rather expose a teeny tiny problem in your worldview. Work doesn't pay.
That isn't because of UC. Its because people can work absurd hours doing grafting jobs and not have enough money to feed their kids before they go to school. Making these kids go ever more hungry will cost more money as the economy shrinks because of a generation of morons. Taking these kids off their parents (usually described as "feckless" or "workshy" also costs more money.
So whats the plan? Other than angry slogans about why the plebs aren't working hard enough?
Kids go hungry because their parents choose to not feed them. A non working mother of 2 living in a 2 bedroom house with rent of £800 per month gets £2500 per month in benefits. That is a fact. Tell me how a person in such a situation cannot feed their children?
You may be correct. But you can't get away without a citation. Citation please.
I used an online benefits calculator recommended by DWP and got £2000 per month based on the hypothetical situation described. That's £1200 after rent, or £276 per week for food, utilities, council tax, transport, clothes, birthdays, school trips... Probably just about okay with careful budgeting and meal planning as long as there are no financial emergencies but a thin margin away from hunger.
I don't think this will be what HMT were approving, as that's not the order of how things happen.
As I understand it, the DoE will have bid to accelerate the programme from 50 per year to 200 per year, and HMT (Sunak at the time) said "no". That's not a shocker in itself - HMT has to say "no" to a lot of departmental bids.
DoE almost certainly won't have given HMT a list of specific schools - both because it's meaningless to HMT, and because they'd actually plan the detailed programme, including hard decisions on who makes the cut, after budget is confirmed.
What is interesting is the justification DoE gave. If DoE were saying, "It's be nice to get some shiny new buildings in place in time for the General Election" that's less bad for Sunak than if they said, "We're really struggling to keep up with what we need to do to ensure roofs don't collapse on kiddies - in particular, we've got issues with buildings with RAAC".
In reality, it will be something more nuanced, but it'd be interesting to know. This feels potentially very dangerous for Sunak. The DoE request for quite a large increase suggests an identified issue, not necessarily with RAAC but with a pace of renewal giving serious cause for concern in terms of deteriorating stock of school buildings. If that was communicated to him and he said "no" (not even "no but have an increase" - it looks like a flat "no") that's bad.
Do you not think that the fact the request was in 2021 when the pressure on Government finances was at its worst in 80 years due to Covid might be a mitigating issue. I very much doubt the request said if you dont give us money school roofs will collapse.
I don't understand how LAs have got off so lightly in this. They are responsible for the day to day maintenace/upkeep/refurbishment of tens of thousands of schools. If they were concerned about a particular school why haven't they raised the issue before. They employ surveyors directly who should know what the school roofs are made from.
They're not - not entirely. They used to be. Now academy chains are responsible for well over half of them.
And the LEAs are broke and broken. There are an awful lot of things they need to do - some statutory - which cash starvation makes very difficult.
Still, academy chains did alright. Shiny management tiers added and an awful lot of education cash diverted away from stupid things like education and into more beneficial things like their spivvy pockets. Doubly so for the Free Schools.
I think Keegan is safe. It’s a fuck-up, but she does “human” reasonably ok, which is a rare thing in Tory politics.
As for Sunak, he is of course fucked. Unlike Keegan, he’s *personally* responsible for slashing school repair budgets.
The Mail AND the Telegraph are turning against him. Not just with these front pages, you can see the commentariat start to re-position itself, too.
Meanwhile, Keir’s re-shuffle has quietly impressed the more thoughtful analysts with its decisive and lack of sentimental focus on being a government-in-waiting.
I would not rule out a kamikaze leadership bid by Suella Braverman, but not until after next year’s locals.
In the shorter-term, I think the Tories lose Mid-Beds even if Labour/LD cannot agree who to rally behind.
Tories third? If so, they are not even in for a 97 shellacking, but something worse...
Third is very possible. It would be interesting to see a betting market on that.
Why would anyone vote for this shitshow?
Because it's in me and my family's interests to do so.
I don't share the values of SKS, or their hangers-on quite frankly, and I know Labour will be coming for me.
Playing devil's advocate: why is it bad for Labour to come for you?
You're apparently in a well-paid job, and have a comfortable life. You live in a society where lots - millions, in fact - of people don't have the advantages you have. Yes, you pay lots of tax. But many of the things that are wrong with this country can only be fixed with an increased tax take - and the question is where that comes from.
Someone has to pay tax - the question, as always, is how much of the burden falls on which individuals.
I pay 62% marginal rate on my income at the moment.
How much would you like me to pay? 70%? 80%? 100%?
Sentiments like this are stagnating the country and will lead to a brain drain from Britain, which will cost the exchequer not add to it.
If you're paying the 62% marginal tax rate you earn between £100k and £120k; your take home pay will be around £70-75k? That's double the median average household income; double the average income of a nurse or teacher.
And about 1/10th that of a senior consultant performing also in private practice.
So what? Nurses can become investment bankers if they so wish, or project managers.
It's not like the nursing payscales are a state secret, only revealed upon qualification.
I am reminded of the Oscar Wilde quote: you know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
If every nurse had decided to be an investment banker instead, our society wouldn't function. If every investment banker had instead decided to be nurses, whilst I'm sure society would be wildly different, I think it would still function.
Again, so what. People make choices. Nurses decided to be nurses, knowing the pay scale. If they want to overthrow the current system and pay themselves £1m/yr then go for their lives. Form that party and agitate for it.
But as it stands, as an 18yr old (or 16yr old) you have the choice of being anything you want.
Lecherous banker = $$$ Saintly nurse = not much enough to scrape by, perhaps.
I don't see what the whining is about. "Oh but nurses earn XX% less than investment bankers (or project managers)" is fatuous in the extreme.
I'd have some time for that argument if being a merchant banker was open to all. It isn't: it's still very much in the who-you-know or which-school-you-went-to style of job.
Absolute 100% gold-plated bollocks.
It is open to everyone. Like being an MP.
I beg to differ, and the comparison you make is rather off-mark as well.
I do wonder if there's a small chance of Sunak just saying "fuck it" and quitting - whether by stepping down or by calling a suicidal General Election.
He doesn't need the money. He manifestly isn't any good at the job. He's not achieving anything.
Literally the only point of Rishi Sunak right now is postponing a Labour Government. And yes, if you're a Conservative, that's a pretty big deal. But it's just putting off the inevitable. There's an argument to say that the sooner the Tories embark on their process of rebuilding in opposition, the better it'll be for the party. It's not like they're going to be any more harmonious (or competent) in 2024/2025.
I guess stepping down would require some degree of self-reflection, which - going on his public performances - doesn't appear to be a skill that Sunak has.
I think he may well call an early general election if the Tories manage to somehow hold the Mid Beds by-election.
I don't think this will be what HMT were approving, as that's not the order of how things happen.
As I understand it, the DoE will have bid to accelerate the programme from 50 per year to 200 per year, and HMT (Sunak at the time) said "no". That's not a shocker in itself - HMT has to say "no" to a lot of departmental bids.
DoE almost certainly won't have given HMT a list of specific schools - both because it's meaningless to HMT, and because they'd actually plan the detailed programme, including hard decisions on who makes the cut, after budget is confirmed.
What is interesting is the justification DoE gave. If DoE were saying, "It's be nice to get some shiny new buildings in place in time for the General Election" that's less bad for Sunak than if they said, "We're really struggling to keep up with what we need to do to ensure roofs don't collapse on kiddies - in particular, we've got issues with buildings with RAAC".
In reality, it will be something more nuanced, but it'd be interesting to know. This feels potentially very dangerous for Sunak. The DoE request for quite a large increase suggests an identified issue, not necessarily with RAAC but with a pace of renewal giving serious cause for concern in terms of deteriorating stock of school buildings. If that was communicated to him and he said "no" (not even "no but have an increase" - it looks like a flat "no") that's bad.
Do you not think that the fact the request was in 2021 when the pressure on Government finances was at its worst in 80 years due to Covid might be a mitigating issue. I very much doubt the request said if you dont give us money school roofs will collapse.
I don't understand how LAs have got off so lightly in this. They are responsible for the day to day maintenace/upkeep/refurbishment of tens of thousands of schools. If they were concerned about a particular school why haven't they raised the issue before. They employ surveyors directly who should know what the school roofs are made from.
They're not - not entirely. They used to be. Now academy chains are responsible for well over half of them.
And the LEAs are broke and broken. There are an awful lot of things they need to do - some statutory - which cash starvation makes very difficult.
Still, academy chains did alright. Shiny management tiers added and an awful lot of education cash diverted away from stupid things like education and into more beneficial things like their spivvy pockets. Doubly so for the Free Schools.
One of the side effects of pushing schools into academy chains has been to move responsibility for school rebuilding from LEA budgets to the central DfE budget.
Centralisation means that you end up responsible when things go wrong, as the government is now discovering.
I don't think this will be what HMT were approving, as that's not the order of how things happen.
As I understand it, the DoE will have bid to accelerate the programme from 50 per year to 200 per year, and HMT (Sunak at the time) said "no". That's not a shocker in itself - HMT has to say "no" to a lot of departmental bids.
DoE almost certainly won't have given HMT a list of specific schools - both because it's meaningless to HMT, and because they'd actually plan the detailed programme, including hard decisions on who makes the cut, after budget is confirmed.
What is interesting is the justification DoE gave. If DoE were saying, "It's be nice to get some shiny new buildings in place in time for the General Election" that's less bad for Sunak than if they said, "We're really struggling to keep up with what we need to do to ensure roofs don't collapse on kiddies - in particular, we've got issues with buildings with RAAC".
In reality, it will be something more nuanced, but it'd be interesting to know. This feels potentially very dangerous for Sunak. The DoE request for quite a large increase suggests an identified issue, not necessarily with RAAC but with a pace of renewal giving serious cause for concern in terms of deteriorating stock of school buildings. If that was communicated to him and he said "no" (not even "no but have an increase" - it looks like a flat "no") that's bad.
Do you not think that the fact the request was in 2021 when the pressure on Government finances was at its worst in 80 years due to Covid might be a mitigating issue. I very much doubt the request said if you dont give us money school roofs will collapse.
I don't understand how LAs have got off so lightly in this. They are responsible for the day to day maintenace/upkeep/refurbishment of tens of thousands of schools. If they were concerned about a particular school why haven't they raised the issue before. They employ surveyors directly who should know what the school roofs are made from.
They're not - not entirely. They used to be. Now academy chains are responsible for well over half of them.
There are around 10,000 academy schools in the UK, so that would mean 22,000 are run by LAs. All LAs employ Building surveyors so the idea that these schools cannot be surveyed is a bit silly.
@JAHeale Theresa May’s parliamentary painting just dropped
The new Doctor Who looks shit.
Unbelievable. When this popped up on PB last night I thought it was some AI generated thing our @Leon had set up.
Seems it is the real official portrait for HoC.
I think it's a good portrait. It captures the sense (a bit literally but still) of the office of PM hanging heavily on her shoulders. Which is true of her FAR more than either her immediate predecessor or successor.
There is very unlikely to be a smoking gun with this one. No "unless we have the money these schools could collapse on kids' heads" email which Sunak cooly said no to. Won't have happened like that.
Sadly for the few remaining Tories it is much worse. For the last 13 years the schools budget has been slashed. The new schools program was axed and money diverted into building free schools and paying hipster/crook CEOs of trusts. Actual front line budgets cut and cut and cut again whilst pressure was ramped up on service provision by making so many schools have kids coming in growing states of crisis.
Yes, we have these specific buildings now in a state of collapse. But that isn't the end of the problem. The backlog in maintenance is vast, the holes in the budgets even of schools not in this state of near collapse are vast.
A one-off specific issue with Sunak's fingerprints on would be bad for Sunak. Instead we have a general state of decay over a decade-plus period, and that is bad for the whole party. If education was an outlier and all was rosy elsewhere, then perhaps less bad. But decay is everywhere in every service...
Education was £1 in £8 of Government spending in 2009, £1 in £20 now - from a comment on the 10pm news last night.
I think Keegan is safe. It’s a fuck-up, but she does “human” reasonably ok, which is a rare thing in Tory politics.
As for Sunak, he is of course fucked. Unlike Keegan, he’s *personally* responsible for slashing school repair budgets.
The Mail AND the Telegraph are turning against him. Not just with these front pages, you can see the commentariat start to re-position itself, too.
Meanwhile, Keir’s re-shuffle has quietly impressed the more thoughtful analysts with its decisive and lack of sentimental focus on being a government-in-waiting.
I would not rule out a kamikaze leadership bid by Suella Braverman, but not until after next year’s locals.
In the shorter-term, I think the Tories lose Mid-Beds even if Labour/LD cannot agree who to rally behind.
Tories third? If so, they are not even in for a 97 shellacking, but something worse...
Third is very possible. It would be interesting to see a betting market on that.
Why would anyone vote for this shitshow?
Because it's in me and my family's interests to do so.
I don't share the values of SKS, or their hangers-on quite frankly, and I know Labour will be coming for me.
Playing devil's advocate: why is it bad for Labour to come for you?
You're apparently in a well-paid job, and have a comfortable life. You live in a society where lots - millions, in fact - of people don't have the advantages you have. Yes, you pay lots of tax. But many of the things that are wrong with this country can only be fixed with an increased tax take - and the question is where that comes from.
Someone has to pay tax - the question, as always, is how much of the burden falls on which individuals.
I pay 62% marginal rate on my income at the moment.
How much would you like me to pay? 70%? 80%? 100%?
Sentiments like this are stagnating the country and will lead to a brain drain from Britain, which will cost the exchequer not add to it.
It depends on how much you earn (as it happens, we're in a similar situation).
But if you want improved public services, it will hurt people financially. The questions become: do you want improved public services, and do you want people who can already not afford to put food on the table to have *less* money, or reduced services?
You're in a blooming fortunate position. Yes, there are iniquities in the way tax brackets are arranged, which should be fixed. But lots of people work just as hard as you, or even harder, and don't get the same rewards.
And comments like this highlight the death of the aspiration society.
I have only been in the position I am in now for the last 22 months. It took nearly 20 years of building a career to get there. Now I am there, you think there's no level of taxation I cannot bear because I earn a bit more than you.
This is a socialist sentiment and it's a well-worn path that ends up impoverishing the whole country.
Work has to pay and be rewarded. Both @MaxPB and myself, and even @NickPalmer, have highlighted on here before how the current tax burden is distorting incentives to work and leading people to work fewer hours, and thus holding back productivity, whilst also contributing to a brain drain.
Your guttural politics will lead to less tax, and worse public services, not more. That's what happens when you put envy at the heart of it.
Your politics has led to a country where you feel you pay too much tax, and yet the schools, the roads, and the hospitals are crumbling, much of the NHS aren't able to attract good staff, the train service is not quite getting there and the water companies are shitting into the rivers and coastal waters.
What then *has* the Conservative government done with your tax money in the last 13 years?
Covid, cost of living or did you miss that ?
Yes. important to remember the Covid crisis, which the Tories used to shovel our taxes to their chums for dodgy PPE contracts.
Thats right, all the money was spent on dodgy PPE, Furlough did not happen, the vaccine did not happen, the huge business support scheme did not happen. the increase in Benefits did not happen. .
Is there anything that this Government has executed that you couldn't apply a 10/10 to?
A huge number of things, for example UC is too generous and they were far too weak when a footballer earning £250k per week was demanding yet more benefits. Due to its generosity UC is now a lifestyle, there needs to be more incentive to work.
The HMRC is a complete joke and needs reforming.
The Child Maintenance Service is pathetic.
Your use of the word "generous" is satire, surely? The big crisis in education isn't these crumbling schools. They are acute in a handful of places. Across the country schools have pupils coming in hungry. Schools are having to feed them because there is no food in the house. Some are dirty.
This is the generous welfare system you speak of. It is generous - to the CEO of Asda and other businesses who get to pay starvation wages which are topped up by government.
I've proposed that we stop subsidising the likes of Asda and instead incentivise them to pay a living wage through targeted Corporation Tax rebates. If your alternative proposal is "cut UC" then it would rather expose a teeny tiny problem in your worldview. Work doesn't pay.
That isn't because of UC. Its because people can work absurd hours doing grafting jobs and not have enough money to feed their kids before they go to school. Making these kids go ever more hungry will cost more money as the economy shrinks because of a generation of morons. Taking these kids off their parents (usually described as "feckless" or "workshy" also costs more money.
So whats the plan? Other than angry slogans about why the plebs aren't working hard enough?
Kids go hungry because their parents choose to not feed them. A non working mother of 2 living in a 2 bedroom house with rent of £800 per month gets £2500 per month in benefits. That is a fact. Tell me how a person in such a situation cannot feed their children?
You may be correct. But you can't get away without a citation. Citation please.
I used an online benefits calculator recommended by DWP and got £2000 per month based on the hypothetical situation described. That's £1200 after rent, or £276 per week for food, utilities, council tax, transport, clothes, birthdays, school trips... Probably just about okay with careful budgeting and meal planning as long as there are no financial emergencies but a thin margin away from hunger.
Has to be said, though, that's about the take-home pay of a newly qualified teacher in London (if anything, slightly more).
So it's not surprising if it's difficult to wean people off it given they would almost certainly be earning much less for much more work.
So either our economic model is completely broken or we need to have a fairly radical think about how our benefits system works.
I think Keegan is safe. It’s a fuck-up, but she does “human” reasonably ok, which is a rare thing in Tory politics.
As for Sunak, he is of course fucked. Unlike Keegan, he’s *personally* responsible for slashing school repair budgets.
The Mail AND the Telegraph are turning against him. Not just with these front pages, you can see the commentariat start to re-position itself, too.
Meanwhile, Keir’s re-shuffle has quietly impressed the more thoughtful analysts with its decisive and lack of sentimental focus on being a government-in-waiting.
I would not rule out a kamikaze leadership bid by Suella Braverman, but not until after next year’s locals.
In the shorter-term, I think the Tories lose Mid-Beds even if Labour/LD cannot agree who to rally behind.
Tories third? If so, they are not even in for a 97 shellacking, but something worse...
Third is very possible. It would be interesting to see a betting market on that.
Why would anyone vote for this shitshow?
Because it's in me and my family's interests to do so.
I don't share the values of SKS, or their hangers-on quite frankly, and I know Labour will be coming for me.
Playing devil's advocate: why is it bad for Labour to come for you?
You're apparently in a well-paid job, and have a comfortable life. You live in a society where lots - millions, in fact - of people don't have the advantages you have. Yes, you pay lots of tax. But many of the things that are wrong with this country can only be fixed with an increased tax take - and the question is where that comes from.
Someone has to pay tax - the question, as always, is how much of the burden falls on which individuals.
I pay 62% marginal rate on my income at the moment.
How much would you like me to pay? 70%? 80%? 100%?
Sentiments like this are stagnating the country and will lead to a brain drain from Britain, which will cost the exchequer not add to it.
If you're paying the 62% marginal tax rate you earn between £100k and £120k; your take home pay will be around £70-75k? That's double the median average household income; double the average income of a nurse or teacher.
And about 1/10th that of a senior consultant performing also in private practice.
So what? Nurses can become investment bankers if they so wish, or project managers.
It's not like the nursing payscales are a state secret, only revealed upon qualification.
I am reminded of the Oscar Wilde quote: you know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
If every nurse had decided to be an investment banker instead, our society wouldn't function. If every investment banker had instead decided to be nurses, whilst I'm sure society would be wildly different, I think it would still function.
Again, so what. People make choices. Nurses decided to be nurses, knowing the pay scale. If they want to overthrow the current system and pay themselves £1m/yr then go for their lives. Form that party and agitate for it.
But as it stands, as an 18yr old (or 16yr old) you have the choice of being anything you want.
Lecherous banker = $$$ Saintly nurse = not much enough to scrape by, perhaps.
I don't see what the whining is about. "Oh but nurses earn XX% less than investment bankers (or project managers)" is fatuous in the extreme.
I'd have some time for that argument if being a merchant banker was open to all. It isn't: it's still very much in the who-you-know or which-school-you-went-to style of job.
Absolute 100% gold-plated bollocks.
It is open to everyone. Like being an MP.
I beg to differ, and the comparison you make is rather off-mark as well.
You are mistaken and I'm guessing have no idea whatsoever.
It is nothing to do with what school you went to. It is how you did at school and uni, I would say it is 95% meritocratic (sure, you might get your father to introduce you to someone who will interview you, but you will only get the job if you are better than other candidates).
If it suits you to think that it is somehow loaded against those who went to the wrong school then by all means stay in that comfort zone but that ain't how it is.
Global pandemic, children often at home, and 2-3% of schools had some issue with some concrete but as yet we haven't had a twin towers-type collapse of anything. Number of children injured because of RAAC = zero (pls correct me if I'm wrong).
So I get that decision.
Sure. And they will try and argue it out. Politically it isn't a good look and that is a problem.
But can we also go back to money? School replacement will cost a notional £1m. Don't want to spend that, so it is refused. 2 years later and the school is too dangerous to reopen. So the cost of mitigation (replacement places / buildings / management) is £500k. The cost of replacement is now £1.1m, so your saving from 2021 is -£600k.
This is reality. As I keep pointing out, it is a pitiful fallacy for the government to pretend that not spending money was an option. So using my notional figures they now have a massive political scandal and a 60% bigger bill. How is that Conservative?
The problem is that there are undoubtedly many issues on which investment now will save money later, and Government literally can't do them all at once. If the Government said that they had instituted an urgent survey to look into which buildings, if any, were critical, but wasn't able to rebuild them all instantly, I'd have some sympathy. But that's why the allegation that Keegan said in effect "Let's keep it quiet, it'll be someone else's problem in 2 years" is utterly damning.
“We put in a bid for 200 buildings but what Rishi agreed to was to continue the rebuilding programme at 50 a year." Schools minister Nick Gibb on @BBCr4today .
Fucking hell. That's quite a thing for a minister to say.
Can I dream that Gibb will be fired by lunchtime?
It is different to what our civil servant was saying though.
He said that the budget was for more and it was cut.
It looks more like the budget was for 50 and Rishi kept it at 50.
Departments put "bids" into the Treasury all the time. How many of them actually get all the money?
HMT: Budget was 50
DoE: We need to rebuild 200 schools for x years because of we have x00 schools about to fall down killing people
HMT: Regardless of that your budget is 50
Looks like Sunak has a problem because the problem sat on his desk at the time the decision was made.
Surely this is a huge problem for Sunak? If he was aware but did nothing to resolve or, at the very least, mitigate. This is a problem a long time in the making where has been unfortunate that it has landed upon him to address. But it has, and had to be, addressed.
Yesterday we were told on the today program by the “former top civil servant” that the building program was running at 100 schools / year & that was cut to 50 by Sunak instead of being increased to the necessary replacement rate requested by DfE.
So someone is being economical with the actualités here, I wonder who?
He’s absolutely clear that they were rebuilding 100/year, that 300-400 were needed & that the phrase “critical risk to life” was used to obtain that 100 & that Sunak halved the program to 50.
Sunak is on a very sticky wicket. HMT needs cast iron evidence that none of this is true.
That is what he is saying now. And it may be true. But we don't have any actual evidence that that is what was said then (Orally? In writing? By whom? To whom? What else was said etc.,?).
See my post upthread about how I would approach this if this were a proper whistleblowing investigation.
I appreciate that the political consequences are very different and it is politics which largely matter here. But I would also say that one or two statements from whistleblowers may not necessarily accurately describe the totality of the discussions, statements made or the reasons for the decisions taken.
Education minister confirms that in 2021, Education Department put in a bid to rebuild 200 schools to the Treasury when Rishi Sunak was Chancellor....
... but got 50
Do you think there was loads of money available in 2021 ?
Yes. The government was literally hosing the stuff against the walls and into their friend's pockets.
Again again because some of you Tories post like morons on this subject. There was not a "do not spend money" option. This was not discretionary spending. You can't avoid repairing and / or replacing these buildings and hope they repair themselves.
We had a choice. Spend the money then. Or spend the money now plus the same again on top with emergency measures. We were going to spend the money regardless of whether they wanted to or not. A Conservative approach is to spend the least amount possible and get value for money. Instead you Tories did the opposite - spend as much as possible in a panic.
Isn't "wasting other people's money" what you accuse Labour of?
Global pandemic, children often at home, and 2-3% of schools had some issue with some concrete but as yet we haven't had a twin towers-type collapse of anything. Number of children injured because of RAAC = zero (pls correct me if I'm wrong).
So I get that decision.
Sure. And they will try and argue it out. Politically it isn't a good look and that is a problem.
But can we also go back to money? School replacement will cost a notional £1m. Don't want to spend that, so it is refused. 2 years later and the school is too dangerous to reopen. So the cost of mitigation (replacement places / buildings / management) is £500k. The cost of replacement is now £1.1m, so your saving from 2021 is -£600k.
This is reality. As I keep pointing out, it is a pitiful fallacy for the government to pretend that not spending money was an option. So using my notional figures they now have a massive political scandal and a 60% bigger bill. How is that Conservative?
Of course. Don't disagree. Just that at the time, over the past few years, there have been bigger fish to fry for the government's budget. Covid cost billions upon billions and Sunak was perhaps smart enough to realise the juggernaut was coming down the road and thought he would make some savings where he could.
Was he right? With 20:20 hindsight maybe, maybe not.
We are still talking 2-3% of schools and it's not as though there is an unexploded WWII bomb underneath the assembly hall. No portakabins? Prop. Can't prop? What about the gym. No gym? Find somewhere else.
Edit: and yes politically it doesn't play well and if I were a Cons spad I would be raking through the documents to see if or where Lab fingerprints were on RAAC decisions.
Doubt that would work - most of these buildings will have been built when Thatcher was PM...
I don't think this will be what HMT were approving, as that's not the order of how things happen.
As I understand it, the DoE will have bid to accelerate the programme from 50 per year to 200 per year, and HMT (Sunak at the time) said "no". That's not a shocker in itself - HMT has to say "no" to a lot of departmental bids.
DoE almost certainly won't have given HMT a list of specific schools - both because it's meaningless to HMT, and because they'd actually plan the detailed programme, including hard decisions on who makes the cut, after budget is confirmed.
What is interesting is the justification DoE gave. If DoE were saying, "It's be nice to get some shiny new buildings in place in time for the General Election" that's less bad for Sunak than if they said, "We're really struggling to keep up with what we need to do to ensure roofs don't collapse on kiddies - in particular, we've got issues with buildings with RAAC".
In reality, it will be something more nuanced, but it'd be interesting to know. This feels potentially very dangerous for Sunak. The DoE request for quite a large increase suggests an identified issue, not necessarily with RAAC but with a pace of renewal giving serious cause for concern in terms of deteriorating stock of school buildings. If that was communicated to him and he said "no" (not even "no but have an increase" - it looks like a flat "no") that's bad.
Do you not think that the fact the request was in 2021 when the pressure on Government finances was at its worst in 80 years due to Covid might be a mitigating issue. I very much doubt the request said if you dont give us money school roofs will collapse.
I don't understand how LAs have got off so lightly in this. They are responsible for the day to day maintenace/upkeep/refurbishment of tens of thousands of schools. If they were concerned about a particular school why haven't they raised the issue before. They employ surveyors directly who should know what the school roofs are made from.
They're not - not entirely. They used to be. Now academy chains are responsible for well over half of them.
There are around 10,000 academy schools in the UK, so that would mean 22,000 are run by LAs. All LAs employ Building surveyors so the idea that these schools cannot be surveyed is a bit silly.
To judge your sums, you seem to have googled the figures for 'percentage of schools that are academies' and come up with 40% are academies. That is correct for primary schools, not for secondaries, not for secondaries. It is 80% for them.
As secondaries also tend to be much larger than primary schools, they suck a greater pile of cash out of LEAs when they convert, leaving more schools with diseconomies of scale chasing rather fewer resources.
Finally, many of the primary schools that are academised were religious foundations, where the sponsoring church paid the fabric costs anyway, so it's even worse than described.
And the operator is responsible for the maintenance of the fabric. Maybe they shouldn't be, but they are.
And therefore we're back to, if we didn't have such a damn silly (to use your word) structure dreamed up by the less than brilliantly intelligent Sam Freedman after he'd had a few, we could legitimately blame LAs. But we can't.
I think Keegan is safe. It’s a fuck-up, but she does “human” reasonably ok, which is a rare thing in Tory politics.
As for Sunak, he is of course fucked. Unlike Keegan, he’s *personally* responsible for slashing school repair budgets.
The Mail AND the Telegraph are turning against him. Not just with these front pages, you can see the commentariat start to re-position itself, too.
Meanwhile, Keir’s re-shuffle has quietly impressed the more thoughtful analysts with its decisive and lack of sentimental focus on being a government-in-waiting.
I would not rule out a kamikaze leadership bid by Suella Braverman, but not until after next year’s locals.
In the shorter-term, I think the Tories lose Mid-Beds even if Labour/LD cannot agree who to rally behind.
Tories third? If so, they are not even in for a 97 shellacking, but something worse...
Third is very possible. It would be interesting to see a betting market on that.
Why would anyone vote for this shitshow?
Because it's in me and my family's interests to do so.
I don't share the values of SKS, or their hangers-on quite frankly, and I know Labour will be coming for me.
Playing devil's advocate: why is it bad for Labour to come for you?
You're apparently in a well-paid job, and have a comfortable life. You live in a society where lots - millions, in fact - of people don't have the advantages you have. Yes, you pay lots of tax. But many of the things that are wrong with this country can only be fixed with an increased tax take - and the question is where that comes from.
Someone has to pay tax - the question, as always, is how much of the burden falls on which individuals.
I pay 62% marginal rate on my income at the moment.
How much would you like me to pay? 70%? 80%? 100%?
Sentiments like this are stagnating the country and will lead to a brain drain from Britain, which will cost the exchequer not add to it.
It depends on how much you earn (as it happens, we're in a similar situation).
But if you want improved public services, it will hurt people financially. The questions become: do you want improved public services, and do you want people who can already not afford to put food on the table to have *less* money, or reduced services?
You're in a blooming fortunate position. Yes, there are iniquities in the way tax brackets are arranged, which should be fixed. But lots of people work just as hard as you, or even harder, and don't get the same rewards.
And comments like this highlight the death of the aspiration society.
I have only been in the position I am in now for the last 22 months. It took nearly 20 years of building a career to get there. Now I am there, you think there's no level of taxation I cannot bear because I earn a bit more than you.
This is a socialist sentiment and it's a well-worn path that ends up impoverishing the whole country.
Work has to pay and be rewarded. Both @MaxPB and myself, and even @NickPalmer, have highlighted on here before how the current tax burden is distorting incentives to work and leading people to work fewer hours, and thus holding back productivity, whilst also contributing to a brain drain.
Your guttural politics will lead to less tax, and worse public services, not more. That's what happens when you put envy at the heart of it.
Your politics has led to a country where you feel you pay too much tax, and yet the schools, the roads, and the hospitals are crumbling, much of the NHS aren't able to attract good staff, the train service is not quite getting there and the water companies are shitting into the rivers and coastal waters.
What then *has* the Conservative government done with your tax money in the last 13 years?
Covid, cost of living or did you miss that ?
Yes. important to remember the Covid crisis, which the Tories used to shovel our taxes to their chums for dodgy PPE contracts.
Thats right, all the money was spent on dodgy PPE, Furlough did not happen, the vaccine did not happen, the huge business support scheme did not happen. the increase in Benefits did not happen. .
Is there anything that this Government has executed that you couldn't apply a 10/10 to?
A huge number of things, for example UC is too generous and they were far too weak when a footballer earning £250k per week was demanding yet more benefits. Due to its generosity UC is now a lifestyle, there needs to be more incentive to work.
The HMRC is a complete joke and needs reforming.
The Child Maintenance Service is pathetic.
Your use of the word "generous" is satire, surely? The big crisis in education isn't these crumbling schools. They are acute in a handful of places. Across the country schools have pupils coming in hungry. Schools are having to feed them because there is no food in the house. Some are dirty.
This is the generous welfare system you speak of. It is generous - to the CEO of Asda and other businesses who get to pay starvation wages which are topped up by government.
I've proposed that we stop subsidising the likes of Asda and instead incentivise them to pay a living wage through targeted Corporation Tax rebates. If your alternative proposal is "cut UC" then it would rather expose a teeny tiny problem in your worldview. Work doesn't pay.
That isn't because of UC. Its because people can work absurd hours doing grafting jobs and not have enough money to feed their kids before they go to school. Making these kids go ever more hungry will cost more money as the economy shrinks because of a generation of morons. Taking these kids off their parents (usually described as "feckless" or "workshy" also costs more money.
So whats the plan? Other than angry slogans about why the plebs aren't working hard enough?
Kids go hungry because their parents choose to not feed them. A non working mother of 2 living in a 2 bedroom house with rent of £800 per month gets £2500 per month in benefits. That is a fact. Tell me how a person in such a situation cannot feed their children?
You may be correct. But you can't get away without a citation. Citation please.
I used an online benefits calculator recommended by DWP and got £2000 per month based on the hypothetical situation described. That's £1200 after rent, or £276 per week for food, utilities, council tax, transport, clothes, birthdays, school trips... Probably just about okay with careful budgeting and meal planning as long as there are no financial emergencies but a thin margin away from hunger.
Council tax would be free, plus Child Benefit, plus the regular Cost of living allowances, £300 will be paid next week. Presrciptions, glasses, dentists are all free.
Global pandemic, children often at home, and 2-3% of schools had some issue with some concrete but as yet we haven't had a twin towers-type collapse of anything. Number of children injured because of RAAC = zero (pls correct me if I'm wrong).
So I get that decision.
Sure. And they will try and argue it out. Politically it isn't a good look and that is a problem.
But can we also go back to money? School replacement will cost a notional £1m. Don't want to spend that, so it is refused. 2 years later and the school is too dangerous to reopen. So the cost of mitigation (replacement places / buildings / management) is £500k. The cost of replacement is now £1.1m, so your saving from 2021 is -£600k.
This is reality. As I keep pointing out, it is a pitiful fallacy for the government to pretend that not spending money was an option. So using my notional figures they now have a massive political scandal and a 60% bigger bill. How is that Conservative?
The problem is that there are undoubtedly many issues on which investment now will save money later, and Government literally can't do them all at once. If the Government said that they had instituted an urgent survey to look into which buildings, if any, were critical, but wasn't able to rebuild them all instantly, I'd have some sympathy. But that's why the allegation that Keegan said in effect "Let's keep it quiet, it'll be someone else's problem in 2 years" is utterly damning.
Her response screams ‘why should I have to take responsibility?’
She’s the education secretary. Even if the problem is not of her making, it’s her responsibility to sort out. That is leadership. I recently changed jobs and found all manner of nonsense left for me by my predecessor. Yes, I had a private moan, uttered rude words under my breath from time to time. But the idea that it was not my problem would not have occurred to me, nor would it to most normal people.
This is the state of the Tory party. They have no interest in running the country, only in saving their arses.
Very funny but actually if anyone bothered to think about it, it's absolutely true and counts against Lab's point. Or should do for thinking people. Or are you saying that all (or even a huge majority of) beachgoers should be worried about big sharks and mitigation actions put in place on all beaches?
Global pandemic, children often at home, and 2-3% of schools had some issue with some concrete but as yet we haven't had a twin towers-type collapse of anything. Number of children injured because of RAAC = zero (pls correct me if I'm wrong).
So I get that decision.
Sure. And they will try and argue it out. Politically it isn't a good look and that is a problem.
But can we also go back to money? School replacement will cost a notional £1m. Don't want to spend that, so it is refused. 2 years later and the school is too dangerous to reopen. So the cost of mitigation (replacement places / buildings / management) is £500k. The cost of replacement is now £1.1m, so your saving from 2021 is -£600k.
This is reality. As I keep pointing out, it is a pitiful fallacy for the government to pretend that not spending money was an option. So using my notional figures they now have a massive political scandal and a 60% bigger bill. How is that Conservative?
The problem is that there are undoubtedly many issues on which investment now will save money later, and Government literally can't do them all at once. If the Government said that they had instituted an urgent survey to look into which buildings, if any, were critical, but wasn't able to rebuild them all instantly, I'd have some sympathy. But that's why the allegation that Keegan said in effect "Let's keep it quiet, it'll be someone else's problem in 2 years" is utterly damning.
Her response screams ‘why should I have to take responsibility?’
She’s the education secretary. Even if the problem is not of her making, it’s her responsibility to sort out. That is leadership. I recently changed jobs and found all manner of nonsense left for me by my predecessor. Yes, I had a private moan, uttered rude words under my breath from time to time. But the idea that it was not my problem would not have occurred to me, nor would it to most normal people.
This is the state of the Tory party. They have no interest in running the country, only in saving their arses.
"Taking responsibility"
"Leadership".
What quaint old-fashioned notions. Largely out of fashion now. Like cheques and cash.
I do wonder if there's a small chance of Sunak just saying "fuck it" and quitting - whether by stepping down or by calling a suicidal General Election.
He doesn't need the money. He manifestly isn't any good at the job. He's not achieving anything.
Literally the only point of Rishi Sunak right now is postponing a Labour Government. And yes, if you're a Conservative, that's a pretty big deal. But it's just putting off the inevitable. There's an argument to say that the sooner the Tories embark on their process of rebuilding in opposition, the better it'll be for the party. It's not like they're going to be any more harmonious (or competent) in 2024/2025.
I guess stepping down would require some degree of self-reflection, which - going on his public performances - doesn't appear to be a skill that Sunak has.
I think he may well call an early general election if the Tories manage to somehow hold the Mid Beds by-election.
If I were Sunak (and I'm glad I am not) I would call a GE if I felt I was about to be removed from office by the Party. I'd hold it as the nuclear option, and be prepared to use it.
I’m not sure exactly what the problem is with Heathener’s posts according to some. Yes they’re very Labour-biased/anti-Tory but then lots of posts are pro-Tory and they don’t have the same predictable replies.
This site is as its best when we have a variety of opinions, I really think the attacking of Heathener really has gone on too long when the posts are far more interesting to read than “why is everything so woke” or “aliens” or “COVID was started in a lab this far-right blog post says so”.
“We put in a bid for 200 buildings but what Rishi agreed to was to continue the rebuilding programme at 50 a year." Schools minister Nick Gibb on @BBCr4today .
Fucking hell. That's quite a thing for a minister to say.
Can I dream that Gibb will be fired by lunchtime?
It is different to what our civil servant was saying though.
He said that the budget was for more and it was cut.
It looks more like the budget was for 50 and Rishi kept it at 50.
Departments put "bids" into the Treasury all the time. How many of them actually get all the money?
HMT: Budget was 50
DoE: We need to rebuild 200 schools for x years because of we have x00 schools about to fall down killing people
HMT: Regardless of that your budget is 50
Looks like Sunak has a problem because the problem sat on his desk at the time the decision was made.
Surely this is a huge problem for Sunak? If he was aware but did nothing to resolve or, at the very least, mitigate. This is a problem a long time in the making where has been unfortunate that it has landed upon him to address. But it has, and had to be, addressed.
Yesterday we were told on the today program by the “former top civil servant” that the building program was running at 100 schools / year & that was cut to 50 by Sunak instead of being increased to the necessary replacement rate requested by DfE.
So someone is being economical with the actualités here, I wonder who?
He’s absolutely clear that they were rebuilding 100/year, that 300-400 were needed & that the phrase “critical risk to life” was used to obtain that 100 & that Sunak halved the program to 50.
Sunak is on a very sticky wicket. HMT needs cast iron evidence that none of this is true.
That is what he is saying now. And it may be true. But we don't have any actual evidence that that is what was said then (Orally? In writing? By whom? To whom? What else was said etc.,?).
See my post upthread about how I would approach this if this were a proper whistleblowing investigation.
I appreciate that the political consequences are very different and it is politics which largely matter here. But I would also say that one or two statements from whistleblowers may not necessarily accurately describe the totality of the discussions, statements made or the reasons for the decisions taken.
I feel if this civil servant is willing to say this on the radio, he knows the paper trail backing him up is there. I'm sure it's FOI'able.
“We put in a bid for 200 buildings but what Rishi agreed to was to continue the rebuilding programme at 50 a year." Schools minister Nick Gibb on @BBCr4today .
Fucking hell. That's quite a thing for a minister to say.
Can I dream that Gibb will be fired by lunchtime?
It is different to what our civil servant was saying though.
He said that the budget was for more and it was cut.
It looks more like the budget was for 50 and Rishi kept it at 50.
Departments put "bids" into the Treasury all the time. How many of them actually get all the money?
HMT: Budget was 50
DoE: We need to rebuild 200 schools for x years because of we have x00 schools about to fall down killing people
HMT: Regardless of that your budget is 50
Looks like Sunak has a problem because the problem sat on his desk at the time the decision was made.
Surely this is a huge problem for Sunak? If he was aware but did nothing to resolve or, at the very least, mitigate. This is a problem a long time in the making where has been unfortunate that it has landed upon him to address. But it has, and had to be, addressed.
Yesterday we were told on the today program by the “former top civil servant” that the building program was running at 100 schools / year & that was cut to 50 by Sunak instead of being increased to the necessary replacement rate requested by DfE.
So someone is being economical with the actualités here, I wonder who?
He’s absolutely clear that they were rebuilding 100/year, that 300-400 were needed & that the phrase “critical risk to life” was used to obtain that 100 & that Sunak halved the program to 50.
Sunak is on a very sticky wicket. HMT needs cast iron evidence that none of this is true.
That is what he is saying now. And it may be true. But we don't have any actual evidence that that is what was said then (Orally? In writing? By whom? To whom? What else was said etc.,?).
See my post upthread about how I would approach this if this were a proper whistleblowing investigation.
I appreciate that the political consequences are very different and it is politics which largely matter here. But I would also say that one or two statements from whistleblowers may not necessarily accurately describe the totality of the discussions, statements made or the reasons for the decisions taken.
It's very unusual for a former top civil servant (top man in the DfE) to go public like this; normally, they keep their counsel. This is Jonathan Slater, who I knew at one time. He's very bright and has oodles of integrity. He must have been absolutely furious to be persuaded, or volunteer, to do the R4 interview. So, I know who I believe.
Education minister confirms that in 2021, Education Department put in a bid to rebuild 200 schools to the Treasury when Rishi Sunak was Chancellor....
... but got 50
Do you think there was loads of money available in 2021 ?
Yes. The government was literally hosing the stuff against the walls and into their friend's pockets.
Again again because some of you Tories post like morons on this subject. There was not a "do not spend money" option. This was not discretionary spending. You can't avoid repairing and / or replacing these buildings and hope they repair themselves.
We had a choice. Spend the money then. Or spend the money now plus the same again on top with emergency measures. We were going to spend the money regardless of whether they wanted to or not. A Conservative approach is to spend the least amount possible and get value for money. Instead you Tories did the opposite - spend as much as possible in a panic.
Isn't "wasting other people's money" what you accuse Labour of?
Global pandemic, children often at home, and 2-3% of schools had some issue with some concrete but as yet we haven't had a twin towers-type collapse of anything. Number of children injured because of RAAC = zero (pls correct me if I'm wrong).
So I get that decision.
Sure. And they will try and argue it out. Politically it isn't a good look and that is a problem.
But can we also go back to money? School replacement will cost a notional £1m. Don't want to spend that, so it is refused. 2 years later and the school is too dangerous to reopen. So the cost of mitigation (replacement places / buildings / management) is £500k. The cost of replacement is now £1.1m, so your saving from 2021 is -£600k.
This is reality. As I keep pointing out, it is a pitiful fallacy for the government to pretend that not spending money was an option. So using my notional figures they now have a massive political scandal and a 60% bigger bill. How is that Conservative?
Of course. Don't disagree. Just that at the time, over the past few years, there have been bigger fish to fry for the government's budget. Covid cost billions upon billions and Sunak was perhaps smart enough to realise the juggernaut was coming down the road and thought he would make some savings where he could.
Was he right? With 20:20 hindsight maybe, maybe not.
We are still talking 2-3% of schools and it's not as though there is an unexploded WWII bomb underneath the assembly hall. No portakabins? Prop. Can't prop? What about the gym. No gym? Find somewhere else.
Edit: and yes politically it doesn't play well and if I were a Cons spad I would be raking through the documents to see if or where Lab fingerprints were on RAAC decisions.
Doubt that would work - most of these buildings will have been built when Thatcher was PM...
Do we know whether it is a room, the whole school, one classroom? I see that Northampton Theatre has closed because of RAAC. How worried as a nation should we be?
I don't think this will be what HMT were approving, as that's not the order of how things happen.
As I understand it, the DoE will have bid to accelerate the programme from 50 per year to 200 per year, and HMT (Sunak at the time) said "no". That's not a shocker in itself - HMT has to say "no" to a lot of departmental bids.
DoE almost certainly won't have given HMT a list of specific schools - both because it's meaningless to HMT, and because they'd actually plan the detailed programme, including hard decisions on who makes the cut, after budget is confirmed.
What is interesting is the justification DoE gave. If DoE were saying, "It's be nice to get some shiny new buildings in place in time for the General Election" that's less bad for Sunak than if they said, "We're really struggling to keep up with what we need to do to ensure roofs don't collapse on kiddies - in particular, we've got issues with buildings with RAAC".
In reality, it will be something more nuanced, but it'd be interesting to know. This feels potentially very dangerous for Sunak. The DoE request for quite a large increase suggests an identified issue, not necessarily with RAAC but with a pace of renewal giving serious cause for concern in terms of deteriorating stock of school buildings. If that was communicated to him and he said "no" (not even "no but have an increase" - it looks like a flat "no") that's bad.
Do you not think that the fact the request was in 2021 when the pressure on Government finances was at its worst in 80 years due to Covid might be a mitigating issue. I very much doubt the request said if you dont give us money school roofs will collapse.
I don't understand how LAs have got off so lightly in this. They are responsible for the day to day maintenace/upkeep/refurbishment of tens of thousands of schools. If they were concerned about a particular school why haven't they raised the issue before. They employ surveyors directly who should know what the school roofs are made from.
They're not - not entirely. They used to be. Now academy chains are responsible for well over half of them.
There are around 10,000 academy schools in the UK, so that would mean 22,000 are run by LAs. All LAs employ Building surveyors so the idea that these schools cannot be surveyed is a bit silly.
To judge your sums, you seem to have googled the figures for 'percentage of schools that are academies' and come up with 40% are academies. That is correct for primary schools, not for secondaries, not for secondaries. It is 80% for them.
As secondaries also tend to be much larger than primary schools, they suck a greater pile of cash out of LEAs when they convert, leaving more schools with diseconomies of scale chasing rather fewer resources.
Finally, many of the primary schools that are academised were religious foundations, where the sponsoring church paid the fabric costs anyway, so it's even worse than described.
And the operator is responsible for the maintenance of the fabric. Maybe they shouldn't be, but they are.
And therefore we're back to, if we didn't have such a damn silly (to use your word) structure dreamed up by the less than brilliantly intelligent Sam Freedman after he'd had a few, we could legitimately blame LAs. But we can't.
Sorry, as I know you hate them for other reasons.
LAs employ Building Surveyors, I deal with them all the time. Why was that Academy head on the TV this morning acting so confused about who he should approach to get a survey especially as the LA would have all the historical plans/history of works on the school and in a large number of cases the LA is still used by the Academy to get work carried out on the school.
Logically it doesn't make any sense for Sunak to call a general election just because the Tories scrape home in Mid Beds with 35% of the vote compared to 60% at the GE. But it's the sort of odd thing that does sometimes happen in politics. Any sort of good news is better than none.
Education minister confirms that in 2021, Education Department put in a bid to rebuild 200 schools to the Treasury when Rishi Sunak was Chancellor....
... but got 50
Do you think there was loads of money available in 2021 ?
Yes. The government was literally hosing the stuff against the walls and into their friend's pockets.
Again again because some of you Tories post like morons on this subject. There was not a "do not spend money" option. This was not discretionary spending. You can't avoid repairing and / or replacing these buildings and hope they repair themselves.
We had a choice. Spend the money then. Or spend the money now plus the same again on top with emergency measures. We were going to spend the money regardless of whether they wanted to or not. A Conservative approach is to spend the least amount possible and get value for money. Instead you Tories did the opposite - spend as much as possible in a panic.
Isn't "wasting other people's money" what you accuse Labour of?
Global pandemic, children often at home, and 2-3% of schools had some issue with some concrete but as yet we haven't had a twin towers-type collapse of anything. Number of children injured because of RAAC = zero (pls correct me if I'm wrong).
So I get that decision.
Sure. And they will try and argue it out. Politically it isn't a good look and that is a problem.
But can we also go back to money? School replacement will cost a notional £1m. Don't want to spend that, so it is refused. 2 years later and the school is too dangerous to reopen. So the cost of mitigation (replacement places / buildings / management) is £500k. The cost of replacement is now £1.1m, so your saving from 2021 is -£600k.
This is reality. As I keep pointing out, it is a pitiful fallacy for the government to pretend that not spending money was an option. So using my notional figures they now have a massive political scandal and a 60% bigger bill. How is that Conservative?
Of course. Don't disagree. Just that at the time, over the past few years, there have been bigger fish to fry for the government's budget. Covid cost billions upon billions and Sunak was perhaps smart enough to realise the juggernaut was coming down the road and thought he would make some savings where he could.
Was he right? With 20:20 hindsight maybe, maybe not.
We are still talking 2-3% of schools and it's not as though there is an unexploded WWII bomb underneath the assembly hall. No portakabins? Prop. Can't prop? What about the gym. No gym? Find somewhere else.
Edit: and yes politically it doesn't play well and if I were a Cons spad I would be raking through the documents to see if or where Lab fingerprints were on RAAC decisions.
Doubt that would work - most of these buildings will have been built when Thatcher was PM...
Do we know whether it is a room, the whole school, one classroom? I see that Northampton Theatre has closed because of RAAC. How worried as a nation should we be?
Whole buildings or extensions would be my expectations...
Very funny but actually if anyone bothered to think about it, it's absolutely true and counts against Lab's point. Or should do for thinking people. Or are you saying that all (or even a huge majority of) beachgoers should be worried about big sharks and mitigation actions put in place on all beaches?
It’s pretty obviously a Jaws reference and as such right on the nose.
I don't think this will be what HMT were approving, as that's not the order of how things happen.
As I understand it, the DoE will have bid to accelerate the programme from 50 per year to 200 per year, and HMT (Sunak at the time) said "no". That's not a shocker in itself - HMT has to say "no" to a lot of departmental bids.
DoE almost certainly won't have given HMT a list of specific schools - both because it's meaningless to HMT, and because they'd actually plan the detailed programme, including hard decisions on who makes the cut, after budget is confirmed.
What is interesting is the justification DoE gave. If DoE were saying, "It's be nice to get some shiny new buildings in place in time for the General Election" that's less bad for Sunak than if they said, "We're really struggling to keep up with what we need to do to ensure roofs don't collapse on kiddies - in particular, we've got issues with buildings with RAAC".
In reality, it will be something more nuanced, but it'd be interesting to know. This feels potentially very dangerous for Sunak. The DoE request for quite a large increase suggests an identified issue, not necessarily with RAAC but with a pace of renewal giving serious cause for concern in terms of deteriorating stock of school buildings. If that was communicated to him and he said "no" (not even "no but have an increase" - it looks like a flat "no") that's bad.
Do you not think that the fact the request was in 2021 when the pressure on Government finances was at its worst in 80 years due to Covid might be a mitigating issue. I very much doubt the request said if you dont give us money school roofs will collapse.
I don't understand how LAs have got off so lightly in this. They are responsible for the day to day maintenace/upkeep/refurbishment of tens of thousands of schools. If they were concerned about a particular school why haven't they raised the issue before. They employ surveyors directly who should know what the school roofs are made from.
They're not - not entirely. They used to be. Now academy chains are responsible for well over half of them.
There are around 10,000 academy schools in the UK, so that would mean 22,000 are run by LAs. All LAs employ Building surveyors so the idea that these schools cannot be surveyed is a bit silly.
To judge your sums, you seem to have googled the figures for 'percentage of schools that are academies' and come up with 40% are academies. That is correct for primary schools, not for secondaries, not for secondaries. It is 80% for them.
As secondaries also tend to be much larger than primary schools, they suck a greater pile of cash out of LEAs when they convert, leaving more schools with diseconomies of scale chasing rather fewer resources.
Finally, many of the primary schools that are academised were religious foundations, where the sponsoring church paid the fabric costs anyway, so it's even worse than described.
And the operator is responsible for the maintenance of the fabric. Maybe they shouldn't be, but they are.
And therefore we're back to, if we didn't have such a damn silly (to use your word) structure dreamed up by the less than brilliantly intelligent Sam Freedman after he'd had a few, we could legitimately blame LAs. But we can't.
Sorry, as I know you hate them for other reasons.
LAs employ Building Surveyors, I deal with them all the time. Why was that Academy head on the TV this morning acting so confused about who he should approach to get a survey especially as the LA would have all the historical plans/history of works on the school and in a large number of cases the LA is still used by the Academy to get work carried out on the school.
I actually agree.
But that confusion is still a function of the flawed system which has smashed management into a million tiny pieces and left things like this in limbo.
I am in no doubt things wouldn't have gone more smoothly under our bankrupt local councils, but at least there'd be one clearly defined group we could tell to get their shit together.
Very funny but actually if anyone bothered to think about it, it's absolutely true and counts against Lab's point. Or should do for thinking people. Or are you saying that all (or even a huge majority of) beachgoers should be worried about big sharks and mitigation actions put in place on all beaches?
It’s pretty obviously a Jaws reference and as such right on the nose.
Jaws did a huge amount of damage or have influence on the public perception of sharks. Poor little sharky warkies getting blamed for everything. That and cellists.
Logically it doesn't make any sense for Sunak to call a general election just because the Tories scrape home in Mid Beds with 35% of the vote compared to 60% at the GE. But it's the sort of odd thing that does sometimes happen in politics. Any sort of good news is better than none.
I mean, how many political decisions are based on logic? If this is the first two days back after the summer holiday, it ain't getting better. Does the party want to rip the plaster off and clean up quickly, or allow things to keep festering?
I think Keegan is safe. It’s a fuck-up, but she does “human” reasonably ok, which is a rare thing in Tory politics.
As for Sunak, he is of course fucked. Unlike Keegan, he’s *personally* responsible for slashing school repair budgets.
The Mail AND the Telegraph are turning against him. Not just with these front pages, you can see the commentariat start to re-position itself, too.
Meanwhile, Keir’s re-shuffle has quietly impressed the more thoughtful analysts with its decisive and lack of sentimental focus on being a government-in-waiting.
I would not rule out a kamikaze leadership bid by Suella Braverman, but not until after next year’s locals.
In the shorter-term, I think the Tories lose Mid-Beds even if Labour/LD cannot agree who to rally behind.
Tories third? If so, they are not even in for a 97 shellacking, but something worse...
Third is very possible. It would be interesting to see a betting market on that.
Why would anyone vote for this shitshow?
Because it's in me and my family's interests to do so.
I don't share the values of SKS, or their hangers-on quite frankly, and I know Labour will be coming for me.
Playing devil's advocate: why is it bad for Labour to come for you?
You're apparently in a well-paid job, and have a comfortable life. You live in a society where lots - millions, in fact - of people don't have the advantages you have. Yes, you pay lots of tax. But many of the things that are wrong with this country can only be fixed with an increased tax take - and the question is where that comes from.
Someone has to pay tax - the question, as always, is how much of the burden falls on which individuals.
I pay 62% marginal rate on my income at the moment.
How much would you like me to pay? 70%? 80%? 100%?
Sentiments like this are stagnating the country and will lead to a brain drain from Britain, which will cost the exchequer not add to it.
It depends on how much you earn (as it happens, we're in a similar situation).
But if you want improved public services, it will hurt people financially. The questions become: do you want improved public services, and do you want people who can already not afford to put food on the table to have *less* money, or reduced services?
You're in a blooming fortunate position. Yes, there are iniquities in the way tax brackets are arranged, which should be fixed. But lots of people work just as hard as you, or even harder, and don't get the same rewards.
And comments like this highlight the death of the aspiration society.
I have only been in the position I am in now for the last 22 months. It took nearly 20 years of building a career to get there. Now I am there, you think there's no level of taxation I cannot bear because I earn a bit more than you.
This is a socialist sentiment and it's a well-worn path that ends up impoverishing the whole country.
Work has to pay and be rewarded. Both @MaxPB and myself, and even @NickPalmer, have highlighted on here before how the current tax burden is distorting incentives to work and leading people to work fewer hours, and thus holding back productivity, whilst also contributing to a brain drain.
Your guttural politics will lead to less tax, and worse public services, not more. That's what happens when you put envy at the heart of it.
Your politics has led to a country where you feel you pay too much tax, and yet the schools, the roads, and the hospitals are crumbling, much of the NHS aren't able to attract good staff, the train service is not quite getting there and the water companies are shitting into the rivers and coastal waters.
What then *has* the Conservative government done with your tax money in the last 13 years?
Covid, cost of living or did you miss that ?
Yes. important to remember the Covid crisis, which the Tories used to shovel our taxes to their chums for dodgy PPE contracts.
Thats right, all the money was spent on dodgy PPE, Furlough did not happen, the vaccine did not happen, the huge business support scheme did not happen. the increase in Benefits did not happen. .
Is there anything that this Government has executed that you couldn't apply a 10/10 to?
A huge number of things, for example UC is too generous and they were far too weak when a footballer earning £250k per week was demanding yet more benefits. Due to its generosity UC is now a lifestyle, there needs to be more incentive to work.
The HMRC is a complete joke and needs reforming.
The Child Maintenance Service is pathetic.
Your use of the word "generous" is satire, surely? The big crisis in education isn't these crumbling schools. They are acute in a handful of places. Across the country schools have pupils coming in hungry. Schools are having to feed them because there is no food in the house. Some are dirty.
This is the generous welfare system you speak of. It is generous - to the CEO of Asda and other businesses who get to pay starvation wages which are topped up by government.
I've proposed that we stop subsidising the likes of Asda and instead incentivise them to pay a living wage through targeted Corporation Tax rebates. If your alternative proposal is "cut UC" then it would rather expose a teeny tiny problem in your worldview. Work doesn't pay.
That isn't because of UC. Its because people can work absurd hours doing grafting jobs and not have enough money to feed their kids before they go to school. Making these kids go ever more hungry will cost more money as the economy shrinks because of a generation of morons. Taking these kids off their parents (usually described as "feckless" or "workshy" also costs more money.
So whats the plan? Other than angry slogans about why the plebs aren't working hard enough?
Kids go hungry because their parents choose to not feed them. A non working mother of 2 living in a 2 bedroom house with rent of £800 per month gets £2500 per month in benefits. That is a fact. Tell me how a person in such a situation cannot feed their children?
You may be correct. But you can't get away without a citation. Citation please.
I used an online benefits calculator recommended by DWP and got £2000 per month based on the hypothetical situation described. That's £1200 after rent, or £276 per week for food, utilities, council tax, transport, clothes, birthdays, school trips... Probably just about okay with careful budgeting and meal planning as long as there are no financial emergencies but a thin margin away from hunger.
Has to be said, though, that's about the take-home pay of a newly qualified teacher in London (if anything, slightly more).
So it's not surprising if it's difficult to wean people off it given they would almost certainly be earning much less for much more work.
So either our economic model is completely broken or we need to have a fairly radical think about how our benefits system works.
Or both...
The teacher would be getting some of the child related benefits too though, plus the prospect of earning more in the future. UC is set up so work pays in purely financial terms - whether that holds in quality of life adjusted terms is less obvious and the taper is quite precipitous. Our main problem isn't people on benefits not working, it is people who are working who are on benefits too because they don't earn enough to raise a family. We need to fix housing and improve productivity, both easier said than done but those are the solutions.
Very funny but actually if anyone bothered to think about it, it's absolutely true and counts against Lab's point. Or should do for thinking people. Or are you saying that all (or even a huge majority of) beachgoers should be worried about big sharks and mitigation actions put in place on all beaches?
It’s pretty obviously a Jaws reference and as such right on the nose.
Jaws did a huge amount of damage or have influence on the public perception of sharks. Poor little sharky warkies getting blamed for everything. That and cellists.
I don't think this will be what HMT were approving, as that's not the order of how things happen.
As I understand it, the DoE will have bid to accelerate the programme from 50 per year to 200 per year, and HMT (Sunak at the time) said "no". That's not a shocker in itself - HMT has to say "no" to a lot of departmental bids.
DoE almost certainly won't have given HMT a list of specific schools - both because it's meaningless to HMT, and because they'd actually plan the detailed programme, including hard decisions on who makes the cut, after budget is confirmed.
What is interesting is the justification DoE gave. If DoE were saying, "It's be nice to get some shiny new buildings in place in time for the General Election" that's less bad for Sunak than if they said, "We're really struggling to keep up with what we need to do to ensure roofs don't collapse on kiddies - in particular, we've got issues with buildings with RAAC".
In reality, it will be something more nuanced, but it'd be interesting to know. This feels potentially very dangerous for Sunak. The DoE request for quite a large increase suggests an identified issue, not necessarily with RAAC but with a pace of renewal giving serious cause for concern in terms of deteriorating stock of school buildings. If that was communicated to him and he said "no" (not even "no but have an increase" - it looks like a flat "no") that's bad.
Do you not think that the fact the request was in 2021 when the pressure on Government finances was at its worst in 80 years due to Covid might be a mitigating issue. I very much doubt the request said if you dont give us money school roofs will collapse.
I don't understand how LAs have got off so lightly in this. They are responsible for the day to day maintenace/upkeep/refurbishment of tens of thousands of schools. If they were concerned about a particular school why haven't they raised the issue before. They employ surveyors directly who should know what the school roofs are made from.
They're not - not entirely. They used to be. Now academy chains are responsible for well over half of them.
There are around 10,000 academy schools in the UK, so that would mean 22,000 are run by LAs. All LAs employ Building surveyors so the idea that these schools cannot be surveyed is a bit silly.
To judge your sums, you seem to have googled the figures for 'percentage of schools that are academies' and come up with 40% are academies. That is correct for primary schools, not for secondaries, not for secondaries. It is 80% for them.
As secondaries also tend to be much larger than primary schools, they suck a greater pile of cash out of LEAs when they convert, leaving more schools with diseconomies of scale chasing rather fewer resources.
Finally, many of the primary schools that are academised were religious foundations, where the sponsoring church paid the fabric costs anyway, so it's even worse than described.
And the operator is responsible for the maintenance of the fabric. Maybe they shouldn't be, but they are.
And therefore we're back to, if we didn't have such a damn silly (to use your word) structure dreamed up by the less than brilliantly intelligent Sam Freedman after he'd had a few, we could legitimately blame LAs. But we can't.
Sorry, as I know you hate them for other reasons.
LAs employ Building Surveyors, I deal with them all the time. Why was that Academy head on the TV this morning acting so confused about who he should approach to get a survey especially as the LA would have all the historical plans/history of works on the school and in a large number of cases the LA is still used by the Academy to get work carried out on the school.
I actually agree.
But that confusion is still a function of the flawed system which has smashed management into a million tiny pieces and left things like this in limbo.
I am in no doubt things wouldn't have gone more smoothly under our bankrupt local councils, but at least there'd be one clearly defined group we could tell to get their shit together.
Before WFH I found LAs very good in dealing with maintenance on schools, and they have very extensive records of the works carried out right from construction, so they would know which roofs are made from this psuedo concrete.
“We put in a bid for 200 buildings but what Rishi agreed to was to continue the rebuilding programme at 50 a year." Schools minister Nick Gibb on @BBCr4today .
Fucking hell. That's quite a thing for a minister to say.
Can I dream that Gibb will be fired by lunchtime?
It is different to what our civil servant was saying though.
He said that the budget was for more and it was cut.
It looks more like the budget was for 50 and Rishi kept it at 50.
Departments put "bids" into the Treasury all the time. How many of them actually get all the money?
HMT: Budget was 50
DoE: We need to rebuild 200 schools for x years because of we have x00 schools about to fall down killing people
HMT: Regardless of that your budget is 50
Looks like Sunak has a problem because the problem sat on his desk at the time the decision was made.
Surely this is a huge problem for Sunak? If he was aware but did nothing to resolve or, at the very least, mitigate. This is a problem a long time in the making where has been unfortunate that it has landed upon him to address. But it has, and had to be, addressed.
Yesterday we were told on the today program by the “former top civil servant” that the building program was running at 100 schools / year & that was cut to 50 by Sunak instead of being increased to the necessary replacement rate requested by DfE.
So someone is being economical with the actualités here, I wonder who?
He’s absolutely clear that they were rebuilding 100/year, that 300-400 were needed & that the phrase “critical risk to life” was used to obtain that 100 & that Sunak halved the program to 50.
Sunak is on a very sticky wicket. HMT needs cast iron evidence that none of this is true.
That is what he is saying now. And it may be true. But we don't have any actual evidence that that is what was said then (Orally? In writing? By whom? To whom? What else was said etc.,?).
See my post upthread about how I would approach this if this were a proper whistleblowing investigation.
I appreciate that the political consequences are very different and it is politics which largely matter here. But I would also say that one or two statements from whistleblowers may not necessarily accurately describe the totality of the discussions, statements made or the reasons for the decisions taken.
It's very unusual for a former top civil servant (top man in the DfE) to go public like this; normally, they keep their counsel. This is Jonathan Slater, who I knew at one time. He's very bright and has oodles of integrity. He must have been absolutely furious to be persuaded, or volunteer, to do the R4 interview. So, I know who I believe.
I do not know him so I accept that you have reasons to believe him.
I will only make a few general points, based on my experience with many whistleblowers.
The motives for doing something like this may be mixed. There is usually - though not always - some element of self-preservation involved, particularly for more senior people. It does not make what they say untrue but there may be more going on.
What is missing here is what the other options facing the Chancellor were and who else was involved in the decisions. For instance, there may have been two equally unpalatable options and a very fine judgment to be made between an item in the Education budget and one in another budget. I don't know. And Jonathan Slater may not know either.
Statements made in hindsight can be very clear and people can genuinely believe that they were also clear in their recommendations at the time. Sometimes though what was understood - or intended to be understood - at the time was not clearly set out in writing. That may or may not have been the case here.
To me what has already come out seems damning enough and the chances of there being a comprehensive review of all the relevant evidence is unlikely to happen.
But it is damning largely because it reinforces a widespread perception that the government has been penny wise/pound foolish, that it wastes money and that it is uninterested in spending money on unflashy projects like maintenance, repair etc in favour of nonsense, eye-catching initiatives or shovelling money to intermediaries.
Even if the Treasury has some compelling answer to what Slater is saying that perception is not going to be unwound because it is largely true. That is why this story resonates so much. It is yet another example of two deep seated problems we have:-
- the shoddy way we approach vital tasks in this country and - our disregard for our children - the country's future.
I think Keegan is safe. It’s a fuck-up, but she does “human” reasonably ok, which is a rare thing in Tory politics.
As for Sunak, he is of course fucked. Unlike Keegan, he’s *personally* responsible for slashing school repair budgets.
The Mail AND the Telegraph are turning against him. Not just with these front pages, you can see the commentariat start to re-position itself, too.
Meanwhile, Keir’s re-shuffle has quietly impressed the more thoughtful analysts with its decisive and lack of sentimental focus on being a government-in-waiting.
I would not rule out a kamikaze leadership bid by Suella Braverman, but not until after next year’s locals.
In the shorter-term, I think the Tories lose Mid-Beds even if Labour/LD cannot agree who to rally behind.
Tories third? If so, they are not even in for a 97 shellacking, but something worse...
Third is very possible. It would be interesting to see a betting market on that.
Why would anyone vote for this shitshow?
Because it's in me and my family's interests to do so.
I don't share the values of SKS, or their hangers-on quite frankly, and I know Labour will be coming for me.
Playing devil's advocate: why is it bad for Labour to come for you?
You're apparently in a well-paid job, and have a comfortable life. You live in a society where lots - millions, in fact - of people don't have the advantages you have. Yes, you pay lots of tax. But many of the things that are wrong with this country can only be fixed with an increased tax take - and the question is where that comes from.
Someone has to pay tax - the question, as always, is how much of the burden falls on which individuals.
I pay 62% marginal rate on my income at the moment.
How much would you like me to pay? 70%? 80%? 100%?
Sentiments like this are stagnating the country and will lead to a brain drain from Britain, which will cost the exchequer not add to it.
It depends on how much you earn (as it happens, we're in a similar situation).
But if you want improved public services, it will hurt people financially. The questions become: do you want improved public services, and do you want people who can already not afford to put food on the table to have *less* money, or reduced services?
You're in a blooming fortunate position. Yes, there are iniquities in the way tax brackets are arranged, which should be fixed. But lots of people work just as hard as you, or even harder, and don't get the same rewards.
And comments like this highlight the death of the aspiration society.
I have only been in the position I am in now for the last 22 months. It took nearly 20 years of building a career to get there. Now I am there, you think there's no level of taxation I cannot bear because I earn a bit more than you.
This is a socialist sentiment and it's a well-worn path that ends up impoverishing the whole country.
Work has to pay and be rewarded. Both @MaxPB and myself, and even @NickPalmer, have highlighted on here before how the current tax burden is distorting incentives to work and leading people to work fewer hours, and thus holding back productivity, whilst also contributing to a brain drain.
Your guttural politics will lead to less tax, and worse public services, not more. That's what happens when you put envy at the heart of it.
Your politics has led to a country where you feel you pay too much tax, and yet the schools, the roads, and the hospitals are crumbling, much of the NHS aren't able to attract good staff, the train service is not quite getting there and the water companies are shitting into the rivers and coastal waters.
What then *has* the Conservative government done with your tax money in the last 13 years?
Covid, cost of living or did you miss that ?
Yes. important to remember the Covid crisis, which the Tories used to shovel our taxes to their chums for dodgy PPE contracts.
Thats right, all the money was spent on dodgy PPE, Furlough did not happen, the vaccine did not happen, the huge business support scheme did not happen. the increase in Benefits did not happen. .
Is there anything that this Government has executed that you couldn't apply a 10/10 to?
A huge number of things, for example UC is too generous and they were far too weak when a footballer earning £250k per week was demanding yet more benefits. Due to its generosity UC is now a lifestyle, there needs to be more incentive to work.
The HMRC is a complete joke and needs reforming.
The Child Maintenance Service is pathetic.
Your use of the word "generous" is satire, surely? The big crisis in education isn't these crumbling schools. They are acute in a handful of places. Across the country schools have pupils coming in hungry. Schools are having to feed them because there is no food in the house. Some are dirty.
This is the generous welfare system you speak of. It is generous - to the CEO of Asda and other businesses who get to pay starvation wages which are topped up by government.
I've proposed that we stop subsidising the likes of Asda and instead incentivise them to pay a living wage through targeted Corporation Tax rebates. If your alternative proposal is "cut UC" then it would rather expose a teeny tiny problem in your worldview. Work doesn't pay.
That isn't because of UC. Its because people can work absurd hours doing grafting jobs and not have enough money to feed their kids before they go to school. Making these kids go ever more hungry will cost more money as the economy shrinks because of a generation of morons. Taking these kids off their parents (usually described as "feckless" or "workshy" also costs more money.
So whats the plan? Other than angry slogans about why the plebs aren't working hard enough?
Kids go hungry because their parents choose to not feed them. A non working mother of 2 living in a 2 bedroom house with rent of £800 per month gets £2500 per month in benefits. That is a fact. Tell me how a person in such a situation cannot feed their children?
You may be correct. But you can't get away without a citation. Citation please.
I used an online benefits calculator recommended by DWP and got £2000 per month based on the hypothetical situation described. That's £1200 after rent, or £276 per week for food, utilities, council tax, transport, clothes, birthdays, school trips... Probably just about okay with careful budgeting and meal planning as long as there are no financial emergencies but a thin margin away from hunger.
Council tax would be free, plus Child Benefit, plus the regular Cost of living allowances, £300 will be paid next week. Presrciptions, glasses, dentists are all free.
The figure includes support for council tax, ie you still have to pay council tax out of it. Child benefit is included in the total.
I think Labour have made a mistake by ruling out any tax increases. This is a hostage to fortune. They really should have re-instated the 50% rate and given recent events put that towards the schools .
I think Keegan is safe. It’s a fuck-up, but she does “human” reasonably ok, which is a rare thing in Tory politics.
As for Sunak, he is of course fucked. Unlike Keegan, he’s *personally* responsible for slashing school repair budgets.
The Mail AND the Telegraph are turning against him. Not just with these front pages, you can see the commentariat start to re-position itself, too.
Meanwhile, Keir’s re-shuffle has quietly impressed the more thoughtful analysts with its decisive and lack of sentimental focus on being a government-in-waiting.
I would not rule out a kamikaze leadership bid by Suella Braverman, but not until after next year’s locals.
In the shorter-term, I think the Tories lose Mid-Beds even if Labour/LD cannot agree who to rally behind.
Tories third? If so, they are not even in for a 97 shellacking, but something worse...
Third is very possible. It would be interesting to see a betting market on that.
Why would anyone vote for this shitshow?
Because it's in me and my family's interests to do so.
I don't share the values of SKS, or their hangers-on quite frankly, and I know Labour will be coming for me.
Playing devil's advocate: why is it bad for Labour to come for you?
You're apparently in a well-paid job, and have a comfortable life. You live in a society where lots - millions, in fact - of people don't have the advantages you have. Yes, you pay lots of tax. But many of the things that are wrong with this country can only be fixed with an increased tax take - and the question is where that comes from.
Someone has to pay tax - the question, as always, is how much of the burden falls on which individuals.
I pay 62% marginal rate on my income at the moment.
How much would you like me to pay? 70%? 80%? 100%?
Sentiments like this are stagnating the country and will lead to a brain drain from Britain, which will cost the exchequer not add to it.
If you're paying the 62% marginal tax rate you earn between £100k and £120k; your take home pay will be around £70-75k? That's double the median average household income; double the average income of a nurse or teacher.
And about 1/10th that of a senior consultant performing also in private practice.
So what? Nurses can become investment bankers if they so wish, or project managers.
It's not like the nursing payscales are a state secret, only revealed upon qualification.
I am reminded of the Oscar Wilde quote: you know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
If every nurse had decided to be an investment banker instead, our society wouldn't function. If every investment banker had instead decided to be nurses, whilst I'm sure society would be wildly different, I think it would still function.
Again, so what. People make choices. Nurses decided to be nurses, knowing the pay scale. If they want to overthrow the current system and pay themselves £1m/yr then go for their lives. Form that party and agitate for it.
But as it stands, as an 18yr old (or 16yr old) you have the choice of being anything you want.
Lecherous banker = $$$ Saintly nurse = not much enough to scrape by, perhaps.
I don't see what the whining is about. "Oh but nurses earn XX% less than investment bankers (or project managers)" is fatuous in the extreme.
I'd have some time for that argument if being a merchant banker was open to all. It isn't: it's still very much in the who-you-know or which-school-you-went-to style of job.
Very funny but actually if anyone bothered to think about it, it's absolutely true and counts against Lab's point. Or should do for thinking people. Or are you saying that all (or even a huge majority of) beachgoers should be worried about big sharks and mitigation actions put in place on all beaches?
Slightly different when the reference is, clearly, to Jaws - as others have noted.
But you can, of course, use the kind of slogan used by the DfE for many things.
Covid update: Most people will not die.
Post Office Scandal update: Most postmasters not jailed.
Cost of living update: Most people not starving.
If we only cared about issues with dire consequences for most people then governing would be a lot easier.
I think Keegan is safe. It’s a fuck-up, but she does “human” reasonably ok, which is a rare thing in Tory politics.
As for Sunak, he is of course fucked. Unlike Keegan, he’s *personally* responsible for slashing school repair budgets.
The Mail AND the Telegraph are turning against him. Not just with these front pages, you can see the commentariat start to re-position itself, too.
Meanwhile, Keir’s re-shuffle has quietly impressed the more thoughtful analysts with its decisive and lack of sentimental focus on being a government-in-waiting.
I would not rule out a kamikaze leadership bid by Suella Braverman, but not until after next year’s locals.
In the shorter-term, I think the Tories lose Mid-Beds even if Labour/LD cannot agree who to rally behind.
Tories third? If so, they are not even in for a 97 shellacking, but something worse...
Third is very possible. It would be interesting to see a betting market on that.
Why would anyone vote for this shitshow?
Because it's in me and my family's interests to do so.
I don't share the values of SKS, or their hangers-on quite frankly, and I know Labour will be coming for me.
Playing devil's advocate: why is it bad for Labour to come for you?
You're apparently in a well-paid job, and have a comfortable life. You live in a society where lots - millions, in fact - of people don't have the advantages you have. Yes, you pay lots of tax. But many of the things that are wrong with this country can only be fixed with an increased tax take - and the question is where that comes from.
Someone has to pay tax - the question, as always, is how much of the burden falls on which individuals.
I pay 62% marginal rate on my income at the moment.
How much would you like me to pay? 70%? 80%? 100%?
Sentiments like this are stagnating the country and will lead to a brain drain from Britain, which will cost the exchequer not add to it.
It depends on how much you earn (as it happens, we're in a similar situation).
But if you want improved public services, it will hurt people financially. The questions become: do you want improved public services, and do you want people who can already not afford to put food on the table to have *less* money, or reduced services?
You're in a blooming fortunate position. Yes, there are iniquities in the way tax brackets are arranged, which should be fixed. But lots of people work just as hard as you, or even harder, and don't get the same rewards.
And comments like this highlight the death of the aspiration society.
I have only been in the position I am in now for the last 22 months. It took nearly 20 years of building a career to get there. Now I am there, you think there's no level of taxation I cannot bear because I earn a bit more than you.
This is a socialist sentiment and it's a well-worn path that ends up impoverishing the whole country.
Work has to pay and be rewarded. Both @MaxPB and myself, and even @NickPalmer, have highlighted on here before how the current tax burden is distorting incentives to work and leading people to work fewer hours, and thus holding back productivity, whilst also contributing to a brain drain.
Your guttural politics will lead to less tax, and worse public services, not more. That's what happens when you put envy at the heart of it.
Your politics has led to a country where you feel you pay too much tax, and yet the schools, the roads, and the hospitals are crumbling, much of the NHS aren't able to attract good staff, the train service is not quite getting there and the water companies are shitting into the rivers and coastal waters.
What then *has* the Conservative government done with your tax money in the last 13 years?
Covid, cost of living or did you miss that ?
Yes. important to remember the Covid crisis, which the Tories used to shovel our taxes to their chums for dodgy PPE contracts.
Thats right, all the money was spent on dodgy PPE, Furlough did not happen, the vaccine did not happen, the huge business support scheme did not happen. the increase in Benefits did not happen. .
Is there anything that this Government has executed that you couldn't apply a 10/10 to?
A huge number of things, for example UC is too generous and they were far too weak when a footballer earning £250k per week was demanding yet more benefits. Due to its generosity UC is now a lifestyle, there needs to be more incentive to work.
The HMRC is a complete joke and needs reforming.
The Child Maintenance Service is pathetic.
Your use of the word "generous" is satire, surely? The big crisis in education isn't these crumbling schools. They are acute in a handful of places. Across the country schools have pupils coming in hungry. Schools are having to feed them because there is no food in the house. Some are dirty.
This is the generous welfare system you speak of. It is generous - to the CEO of Asda and other businesses who get to pay starvation wages which are topped up by government.
I've proposed that we stop subsidising the likes of Asda and instead incentivise them to pay a living wage through targeted Corporation Tax rebates. If your alternative proposal is "cut UC" then it would rather expose a teeny tiny problem in your worldview. Work doesn't pay.
That isn't because of UC. Its because people can work absurd hours doing grafting jobs and not have enough money to feed their kids before they go to school. Making these kids go ever more hungry will cost more money as the economy shrinks because of a generation of morons. Taking these kids off their parents (usually described as "feckless" or "workshy" also costs more money.
So whats the plan? Other than angry slogans about why the plebs aren't working hard enough?
Kids go hungry because their parents choose to not feed them. A non working mother of 2 living in a 2 bedroom house with rent of £800 per month gets £2500 per month in benefits. That is a fact. Tell me how a person in such a situation cannot feed their children?
You may be correct. But you can't get away without a citation. Citation please.
I used an online benefits calculator recommended by DWP and got £2000 per month based on the hypothetical situation described. That's £1200 after rent, or £276 per week for food, utilities, council tax, transport, clothes, birthdays, school trips... Probably just about okay with careful budgeting and meal planning as long as there are no financial emergencies but a thin margin away from hunger.
Council tax would be free, plus Child Benefit, plus the regular Cost of living allowances, £300 will be paid next week. Presrciptions, glasses, dentists are all free.
The figure includes support for council tax, ie you still have to pay council tax out of it. Child benefit is included in the total.
Here a mother with 2 kids on Housing Benefit gets a maximum of £450 of LHA a month, depending slightly on ages and sexes of the kids. She gets 2 bedrooms of benefits no matter how big the house is.
When did spending within your means become a non-thing? Most populous council in the country (and Europe), the only one with more than a million people.
Logically it doesn't make any sense for Sunak to call a general election just because the Tories scrape home in Mid Beds with 35% of the vote compared to 60% at the GE. But it's the sort of odd thing that does sometimes happen in politics. Any sort of good news is better than none.
I mean, how many political decisions are based on logic? If this is the first two days back after the summer holiday, it ain't getting better. Does the party want to rip the plaster off and clean up quickly, or allow things to keep festering?
Sunak wants 2 years as PM - which is why the next election is on October 24 /31 2024
Logically it doesn't make any sense for Sunak to call a general election just because the Tories scrape home in Mid Beds with 35% of the vote compared to 60% at the GE. But it's the sort of odd thing that does sometimes happen in politics. Any sort of good news is better than none.
I mean, how many political decisions are based on logic? If this is the first two days back after the summer holiday, it ain't getting better. Does the party want to rip the plaster off and clean up quickly, or allow things to keep festering?
Sunak wants 2 years as PM - which is why the next election is on October 24 /31 2024
Is there a special reason you think he wants two years specifically?
I think Labour have made a mistake by ruling out any tax increases. This is a hostage to fortune. They really should have re-instated the 50% rate and given recent events put that towards the schools .
Fiscal drag will do their work for them.
Not drastic enough.
They have the chance to tell the nation that the Tories have trashed the Economy and radical measures are needed to repair the damage. There is even some truth in this,so it is definitely worth a try.
The burden should of course be shoved most heavily on those who have benefited the most these past thirteen years - and yes, that will certainly include people like me - and as long as they are open about it, and clear as to why it is being done, i think they have a good chance of getting away with it.
Do we have anyone from Hemel Hempstead or the area on PB?
I'm visiting and trying to understand parking on the High Street. It seems to be a 20 mph zone open to all traffic with motor vehicle parking, but they also seem to have a weird PSPO banning cycles from the High Street.
Can I drive in and park my car on the High Street? Can I cycle in and park my bicycle on the High Street?
I suspect not for him, but for the Conservative party? Schools are fully back by tomorrow at the latest. Step outside No. 10 and call a GE for mid-October. Get it out the way...........
Very funny but actually if anyone bothered to think about it, it's absolutely true and counts against Lab's point. Or should do for thinking people. Or are you saying that all (or even a huge majority of) beachgoers should be worried about big sharks and mitigation actions put in place on all beaches?
I think you are in danger of overthinking it somewhat
Hypothetically if there was an empty office block relatively near a school, maybe awaiting permission to be turned into flats or just empty due to WFH changes, how quickly could a school take it over for a temporary period?
For example would there have to be a million surveys and studies etc for health and safety etc (assuming it was clear of RAAC) and then would there have to be planning meetings for change of use and people nearby complaining about more traffic or is there the possibility to ride a bit roughshod and say “ok it’s not ideal but it’s for a year and we can fit the equivalent of 30 classrooms and a cafeteria set up in it” and just get on with it rather than months of admin and consultations?
Something else that I’d like to see journalists pushing on: there are something like 32,000 state schools in the UK. Replacing 50 a year means it takes 650 years to get through them all. How many school buildings do you know that have a 650 year design life?
It’s plainly ridiculous on its face. A replacement rate of 50 a year is a joke, a sop to claim that the government is doing something when in fact it is inevitably storing up vast trouble for the future, RAAC or no RAAC.
“We put in a bid for 200 buildings but what Rishi agreed to was to continue the rebuilding programme at 50 a year." Schools minister Nick Gibb on @BBCr4today .
Fucking hell. That's quite a thing for a minister to say.
Can I dream that Gibb will be fired by lunchtime?
It is different to what our civil servant was saying though.
He said that the budget was for more and it was cut.
It looks more like the budget was for 50 and Rishi kept it at 50.
Departments put "bids" into the Treasury all the time. How many of them actually get all the money?
HMT: Budget was 50
DoE: We need to rebuild 200 schools for x years because of we have x00 schools about to fall down killing people
HMT: Regardless of that your budget is 50
Looks like Sunak has a problem because the problem sat on his desk at the time the decision was made.
Surely this is a huge problem for Sunak? If he was aware but did nothing to resolve or, at the very least, mitigate. This is a problem a long time in the making where has been unfortunate that it has landed upon him to address. But it has, and had to be, addressed.
Yesterday we were told on the today program by the “former top civil servant” that the building program was running at 100 schools / year & that was cut to 50 by Sunak instead of being increased to the necessary replacement rate requested by DfE.
So someone is being economical with the actualités here, I wonder who?
There was an explicit statement by the minister - it’s very rare for politicians to directly lie on a provable fact.
My guess is that the standard budget was always 50 schools. But there was a temporary programme on top of that for a further 50 which wasn’t renewed or something.
I think Keegan is safe. It’s a fuck-up, but she does “human” reasonably ok, which is a rare thing in Tory politics.
As for Sunak, he is of course fucked. Unlike Keegan, he’s *personally* responsible for slashing school repair budgets.
The Mail AND the Telegraph are turning against him. Not just with these front pages, you can see the commentariat start to re-position itself, too.
Meanwhile, Keir’s re-shuffle has quietly impressed the more thoughtful analysts with its decisive and lack of sentimental focus on being a government-in-waiting.
I would not rule out a kamikaze leadership bid by Suella Braverman, but not until after next year’s locals.
In the shorter-term, I think the Tories lose Mid-Beds even if Labour/LD cannot agree who to rally behind.
Tories third? If so, they are not even in for a 97 shellacking, but something worse...
Third is very possible. It would be interesting to see a betting market on that.
Why would anyone vote for this shitshow?
Because it's in me and my family's interests to do so.
I don't share the values of SKS, or their hangers-on quite frankly, and I know Labour will be coming for me.
Playing devil's advocate: why is it bad for Labour to come for you?
You're apparently in a well-paid job, and have a comfortable life. You live in a society where lots - millions, in fact - of people don't have the advantages you have. Yes, you pay lots of tax. But many of the things that are wrong with this country can only be fixed with an increased tax take - and the question is where that comes from.
Someone has to pay tax - the question, as always, is how much of the burden falls on which individuals.
I pay 62% marginal rate on my income at the moment.
How much would you like me to pay? 70%? 80%? 100%?
Sentiments like this are stagnating the country and will lead to a brain drain from Britain, which will cost the exchequer not add to it.
If you're paying the 62% marginal tax rate you earn between £100k and £120k; your take home pay will be around £70-75k? That's double the median average household income; double the average income of a nurse or teacher.
And about 1/10th that of a senior consultant performing also in private practice.
So what? Nurses can become investment bankers if they so wish, or project managers.
It's not like the nursing payscales are a state secret, only revealed upon qualification.
I am reminded of the Oscar Wilde quote: you know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
If every nurse had decided to be an investment banker instead, our society wouldn't function. If every investment banker had instead decided to be nurses, whilst I'm sure society would be wildly different, I think it would still function.
Again, so what. People make choices. Nurses decided to be nurses, knowing the pay scale. If they want to overthrow the current system and pay themselves £1m/yr then go for their lives. Form that party and agitate for it.
But as it stands, as an 18yr old (or 16yr old) you have the choice of being anything you want.
Lecherous banker = $$$ Saintly nurse = not much enough to scrape by, perhaps.
I don't see what the whining is about. "Oh but nurses earn XX% less than investment bankers (or project managers)" is fatuous in the extreme.
I'd have some time for that argument if being a merchant banker was open to all. It isn't: it's still very much in the who-you-know or which-school-you-went-to style of job.
Not in my experience
Privilege is often blind to privilege. That's how it soothes itself.
Has Paula Vennells appeared yet? She must be an interesting character.
No. None of the people one would really like to see at the inquiry have appeared so far. Recently it seems to be mostly legal experts.
For all the slightly silly ‘force convicts to attend sentencing’ legislation, you’d think compelling fairly obviously culpable people to submit to public enquiry would be at least as pressing an issue.
It is an incredibly complex case and beyond my tiny smooth brain to comprehend. What isn’t hard to comprehend is the scale of the impact in terms of lives ruined.
I think Labour have made a mistake by ruling out any tax increases. This is a hostage to fortune. They really should have re-instated the 50% rate and given recent events put that towards the schools .
Fiscal drag will do their work for them.
They have a chance to reform the tax system though. Probably once in a generation.
Everyone knows council tax is outdated, and it's obvious to the economically literate we need some form of wealth/property/land value tax.
“We put in a bid for 200 buildings but what Rishi agreed to was to continue the rebuilding programme at 50 a year." Schools minister Nick Gibb on @BBCr4today .
Fucking hell. That's quite a thing for a minister to say.
Can I dream that Gibb will be fired by lunchtime?
It is different to what our civil servant was saying though.
He said that the budget was for more and it was cut.
It looks more like the budget was for 50 and Rishi kept it at 50.
Departments put "bids" into the Treasury all the time. How many of them actually get all the money?
HMT: Budget was 50
DoE: We need to rebuild 200 schools for x years because of we have x00 schools about to fall down killing people
HMT: Regardless of that your budget is 50
Looks like Sunak has a problem because the problem sat on his desk at the time the decision was made.
Surely this is a huge problem for Sunak? If he was aware but did nothing to resolve or, at the very least, mitigate. This is a problem a long time in the making where has been unfortunate that it has landed upon him to address. But it has, and had to be, addressed.
Yesterday we were told on the today program by the “former top civil servant” that the building program was running at 100 schools / year & that was cut to 50 by Sunak instead of being increased to the necessary replacement rate requested by DfE.
So someone is being economical with the actualités here, I wonder who?
There was an explicit statement by the minister - it’s very rare for politicians to directly lie on a provable fact.
My guess is that the standard budget was always 50 schools. But there was a temporary programme on top of that for a further 50 which wasn’t renewed or something.
50 / year cannot be a “standard budget” because it’s impossible to maintain a workable school estate with that replacement rate.
After a few decades of 50 / year schools around the country will be falling down. Of course, that’s what Labour’s “building schools for the future” program was supposed to fix last time around. I wonder who was in power before them & what the school building replacement rate under their government was?
There does seem to be something of a pattern here sadly. Conservative governments cut spending on the maintenance of national infrastructure & Labour governments get to pick up the pieces & get labelled as profligate tax & spenders as a result. That’s politics for you I guess; we get the politicians we so richly deserve.
Has Paula Vennells appeared yet? She must be an interesting character.
No. None of the people one would really like to see at the inquiry have appeared so far. Recently it seems to be mostly legal experts.
About 30 years ago I met the then head of The Post Office, in a work capacity. He was an impressive individual, with a strong business and accountance background.
Vennells gives the impression of having been plucked from the obscurity of middle management for a position that was well beyond her capabiliites. It would be nice to think those that appointed her will face a similar grilling to the one she will be facing in due course, but somehow I reckon they will go unnoticed.
Something else that I’d like to see journalists pushing on: there are something like 32,000 state schools in the UK. Replacing 50 a year means it takes 650 years to get through them all. How many school buildings do you know that have a 650 year design life?
It’s plainly ridiculous on its face. A replacement rate of 50 a year is a joke, a sop to claim that the government is doing something when in fact it is inevitably storing up vast trouble for the future, RAAC or no RAAC.
Not yet 650 years by my old place still using school buildings that are 636 years old. Oxbridge colleges even older still in use so it can be done - just maybe not glass, steel and concrete boxes that look the part.
Has Paula Vennells appeared yet? She must be an interesting character.
No. None of the people one would really like to see at the inquiry have appeared so far. Recently it seems to be mostly legal experts.
For all the slightly silly ‘force convicts to attend sentencing’ legislation, you’d think compelling fairly obviously culpable people to submit to public enquiry would be at least as pressing an issue.
It is an incredibly complex case and beyond my tiny smooth brain to comprehend. What isn’t hard to comprehend is the scale of the impact in terms of lives ruined.
It's not really that complex.
Software was written and released that had bugs in it.
However because the software cost serious money the end client and the author of the software went all in on blaming users rather than the software...
And that resulted in the mess the post office is in...
Has Paula Vennells appeared yet? She must be an interesting character.
No. None of the people one would really like to see at the inquiry have appeared so far. Recently it seems to be mostly legal experts.
For all the slightly silly ‘force convicts to attend sentencing’ legislation, you’d think compelling fairly obviously culpable people to submit to public enquiry would be at least as pressing an issue.
It is an incredibly complex case and beyond my tiny smooth brain to comprehend. What isn’t hard to comprehend is the scale of the impact in terms of lives ruined.
It's not really that complex.
Software was written and released that had bugs in it.
However because the software cost serious money the end client and the author of the software went all in on blaming users rather than the software...
And that resulted in the mess the post office is in...
I get the fundamentals, it’s more the vast number of individual court cases involved that make my head spin.
Something else that I’d like to see journalists pushing on: there are something like 32,000 state schools in the UK. Replacing 50 a year means it takes 650 years to get through them all. How many school buildings do you know that have a 650 year design life?
It’s plainly ridiculous on its face. A replacement rate of 50 a year is a joke, a sop to claim that the government is doing something when in fact it is inevitably storing up vast trouble for the future, RAAC or no RAAC.
Not yet 650 years by my old place still using school buildings that are 636 years old. Oxbridge colleges even older still in use so it can be done - just maybe not glass, steel and concrete boxes that look the part.
Oxbridge colleges cost a sodding fortune to keep running. Without their endowments, they’d all be bankrupt from the maintenance burden.
I’m not sure exactly what the problem is with Heathener’s posts according to some. Yes they’re very Labour-biased/anti-Tory but then lots of posts are pro-Tory and they don’t have the same predictable replies.
This site is as its best when we have a variety of opinions, I really think the attacking of Heathener really has gone on too long when the posts are far more interesting to read than “why is everything so woke” or “aliens” or “COVID was started in a lab this far-right blog post says so”.
Does writing "yawn" constitute an attack?
On every thing they write, I would say yes.
Surely has nothing to do with the fact you disagree with everything @Heathener says.
I suspect not for him, but for the Conservative party? Schools are fully back by tomorrow at the latest. Step outside No. 10 and call a GE for mid-October. Get it out the way...........
It could only possibly end in a huge defeat if he did.
He's set out the strategy pretty clearly. He set out five promises for 2023 that he was going to be judged by. Success is pretty mixed, but he's got a case on several of them. At the start of 2024, he gives his progress report, says he's the kind of guy to set stretching targets for himself and goes about methodically achieving them, and starts to talk about a more ambitious programme for the next five years. He then calls an election based on these - whether in the spring or a bit later I don't know (I suspect spring but betting markets disagree).
That's not a particularly thrilling plan, and not likely to work. But that's his plan, it isn't a ludicrous one in terms of giving a glimmer of a chance, and he isn't an instinctive improviser by any means. So that's what is very likely to happen.
Ludlow not getting any uglier. Pevsner called this stretch of street “unforgettable”
On topic, Starmer’s Labour are now so right wing I am tempted to vote for them as ideologically preferable to the Tories. I dunno how that makes PB lefties feel….
Has Paula Vennells appeared yet? She must be an interesting character.
No. None of the people one would really like to see at the inquiry have appeared so far. Recently it seems to be mostly legal experts.
For all the slightly silly ‘force convicts to attend sentencing’ legislation, you’d think compelling fairly obviously culpable people to submit to public enquiry would be at least as pressing an issue.
It is an incredibly complex case and beyond my tiny smooth brain to comprehend. What isn’t hard to comprehend is the scale of the impact in terms of lives ruined.
It's not really that complex.
Software was written and released that had bugs in it.
However because the software cost serious money the end client and the author of the software went all in on blaming users rather than the software...
And that resulted in the mess the post office is in...
I get the fundamentals, it’s more the vast number of individual court cases involved that make my head spin.
As with Pringles once you start with the court cases you just can't stop....
Michael Crick @MichaelLCrick · 11h Sad news. Psephologist Michael Steed has died. A research student under David Butler, he later developed a rival type of swing - "Steed swing", as opposed to traditional "Butler swing" - & from 1964 to 2005 helped edit the statistical appendix to the Nuffield election books.
Ludlow not getting any uglier. Pevsner called this stretch of street “unforgettable”
On topic, Starmer’s Labour are now so right wing I am tempted to vote for them as ideologically preferable to the Tories. I dunno how that makes PB lefties feel….
Someone wrote it's one of the few towns in the country without any concrete buildings. Not sure if that's 100% true.
I’m not sure exactly what the problem is with Heathener’s posts according to some. Yes they’re very Labour-biased/anti-Tory but then lots of posts are pro-Tory and they don’t have the same predictable replies.
This site is as its best when we have a variety of opinions, I really think the attacking of Heathener really has gone on too long when the posts are far more interesting to read than “why is everything so woke” or “aliens” or “COVID was started in a lab this far-right blog post says so”.
Does writing "yawn" constitute an attack?
On every thing they write, I would say yes.
Surely has nothing to do with the fact you disagree with everything @Heathener says.
Ludlow not getting any uglier. Pevsner called this stretch of street “unforgettable”
On topic, Starmer’s Labour are now so right wing I am tempted to vote for them as ideologically preferable to the Tories. I dunno how that makes PB lefties feel….
It makes me feel like my assessment of SKS and his handling of the Labour party is correct
Comments
Sadly for the few remaining Tories it is much worse. For the last 13 years the schools budget has been slashed. The new schools program was axed and money diverted into building free schools and paying hipster/crook CEOs of trusts. Actual front line budgets cut and cut and cut again whilst pressure was ramped up on service provision by making so many schools have kids coming in growing states of crisis.
Yes, we have these specific buildings now in a state of collapse. But that isn't the end of the problem. The backlog in maintenance is vast, the holes in the budgets even of schools not in this state of near collapse are vast.
A one-off specific issue with Sunak's fingerprints on would be bad for Sunak. Instead we have a general state of decay over a decade-plus period, and that is bad for the whole party. If education was an outlier and all was rosy elsewhere, then perhaps less bad. But decay is everywhere in every service...
He doesn't need the money. He manifestly isn't any good at the job. He's not achieving anything.
Literally the only point of Rishi Sunak right now is postponing a Labour Government. And yes, if you're a Conservative, that's a pretty big deal. But it's just putting off the inevitable. There's an argument to say that the sooner the Tories embark on their process of rebuilding in opposition, the better it'll be for the party. It's not like they're going to be any more harmonious (or competent) in 2024/2025.
I guess stepping down would require some degree of self-reflection, which - going on his public performances - doesn't appear to be a skill that Sunak has.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgijUpaux8X4Nvjx3TmrHhg
Seems it is the real official portrait for HoC.
Putting unpleasant shit in the written record and making people aware of it officially, is the biggest offence in NU10K world. Burning their mothers house down, for LOLs would less gross.
I actually made this mistake early in my career. I commented, out loud, in a minuted meeting, on the effects of a certain action. My manager saved my job. Just.
This bid troubles me because it was for an increase from 50 to 200. That's a huge increase. Now it may be DoE are just exceptionally cheeky in their departmental bids. But the scale of this one raises the distinct possibility that they had a serious concern - not necessarily about RAAC but end of life buildings.
The LA point is a bit of a red herring. Firstly, LA's aren't responsible for coming up with rebuilding money - that is specifically the DoE budget line we're talking about. Secondly, the Government advice changed on this material at short notice.
Still, academy chains did alright. Shiny management tiers added and an awful lot of education cash diverted away from stupid things like education and into more beneficial things like their spivvy pockets. Doubly so for the Free Schools.
Centralisation means that you end up responsible when things go wrong, as the government is now discovering.
I thought it was about to make an unscheduled stop at Luton.
So it's not surprising if it's difficult to wean people off it given they would almost certainly be earning much less for much more work.
So either our economic model is completely broken or we need to have a fairly radical think about how our benefits system works.
Or both...
It is nothing to do with what school you went to. It is how you did at school and uni, I would say it is 95% meritocratic (sure, you might get your father to introduce you to someone who will interview you, but you will only get the job if you are better than other candidates).
If it suits you to think that it is somehow loaded against those who went to the wrong school then by all means stay in that comfort zone but that ain't how it is.
https://twitter.com/labourpress/status/1698986726985757034
See my post upthread about how I would approach this if this were a proper whistleblowing investigation.
I appreciate that the political consequences are very different and it is politics which largely matter here. But I would also say that one or two statements from whistleblowers may not necessarily accurately describe the totality of the discussions, statements made or the reasons for the decisions taken.
As secondaries also tend to be much larger than primary schools, they suck a greater pile of cash out of LEAs when they convert, leaving more schools with diseconomies of scale chasing rather fewer resources.
Finally, many of the primary schools that are academised were religious foundations, where the sponsoring church paid the fabric costs anyway, so it's even worse than described.
And the operator is responsible for the maintenance of the fabric. Maybe they shouldn't be, but they are.
And therefore we're back to, if we didn't have such a damn silly (to use your word) structure dreamed up by the less than brilliantly intelligent Sam Freedman after he'd had a few, we could legitimately blame LAs. But we can't.
Sorry, as I know you hate them for other reasons.
She’s the education secretary. Even if the problem is not of her making, it’s her responsibility to sort out. That is leadership. I recently changed jobs and found all manner of nonsense left for me by my predecessor. Yes, I had a private moan, uttered rude words under my breath from time to time. But the idea that it was not my problem would not have occurred to me, nor would it to most normal people.
This is the state of the Tory party. They have no interest in running the country, only in saving their arses.
"Leadership".
What quaint old-fashioned notions. Largely out of fashion now. Like cheques and cash.
** runs away **
So, I know who I believe.
But that confusion is still a function of the flawed system which has smashed management into a million tiny pieces and left things like this in limbo.
I am in no doubt things wouldn't have gone more smoothly under our bankrupt local councils, but at least there'd be one clearly defined group we could tell to get their shit together.
I'm guessing the answer is 'no'...
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/sep/05/birmingham-city-council-financial-distress-budget-section-114
I will only make a few general points, based on my experience with many whistleblowers.
The motives for doing something like this may be mixed. There is usually - though not always - some element of self-preservation involved, particularly for more senior people. It does not make what they say untrue but there may be more going on.
What is missing here is what the other options facing the Chancellor were and who else was involved in the decisions. For instance, there may have been two equally unpalatable options and a very fine judgment to be made between an item in the Education budget and one in another budget. I don't know. And Jonathan Slater may not know either.
Statements made in hindsight can be very clear and people can genuinely believe that they were also clear in their recommendations at the time. Sometimes though what was understood - or intended to be understood - at the time was not clearly set out in writing. That may or may not have been the case here.
To me what has already come out seems damning enough and the chances of there being a comprehensive review of all the relevant evidence is unlikely to happen.
But it is damning largely because it reinforces a widespread perception that the government has been penny wise/pound foolish, that it wastes money and that it is uninterested in spending money on unflashy projects like maintenance, repair etc in favour of nonsense, eye-catching initiatives or shovelling money to intermediaries.
Even if the Treasury has some compelling answer to what Slater is saying that perception is not going to be unwound because it is largely true. That is why this story resonates so much. It is yet another example of two deep seated problems we have:-
- the shoddy way we approach vital tasks in this country and
- our disregard for our children - the country's future.
Good headline from the Metro.
The only question is how honest and willing to reveal the truth are senior management and local councillors.
We are going to discover over the next year that Austerity was a very stupid idea...
But you can, of course, use the kind of slogan used by the DfE for many things.
Covid update: Most people will not die.
Post Office Scandal update: Most postmasters not jailed.
Cost of living update: Most people not starving.
If we only cared about issues with dire consequences for most people then governing would be a lot easier.
They never learn, do they? And it turns out the system in question is Oracle. Quelle surprise.
More details at https://www.cxtoday.com/data-analytics/the-story-of-birmingham-city-councils-disastrous-erp-rollout/ . The suggestion that Oracle stands for “One Rich Asshole Called Larry Ellison” is of course completely unfounded.
They have the chance to tell the nation that the Tories have trashed the Economy and radical measures are needed to repair the damage. There is even some truth in this,so it is definitely worth a try.
The burden should of course be shoved most heavily on those who have benefited the most these past thirteen years - and yes, that will certainly include people like me - and as long as they are open about it, and clear as to why it is being done, i think they have a good chance of getting away with it.
I'm visiting and trying to understand parking on the High Street. It seems to be a 20 mph zone open to all traffic with motor vehicle parking, but they also seem to have a weird PSPO banning cycles from the High Street.
Can I drive in and park my car on the High Street?
Can I cycle in and park my bicycle on the High Street?
I suspect not for him, but for the Conservative party?
Schools are fully back by tomorrow at the latest. Step outside No. 10 and call a GE for mid-October. Get it out the way...........
(I love the logo in the top left too!)
Hypothetically if there was an empty office block relatively near a school, maybe awaiting permission to be turned into flats or just empty due to WFH changes, how quickly could a school take it over for a temporary period?
For example would there have to be a million surveys and studies etc for health and safety etc (assuming it was clear of RAAC) and then would there have to be planning meetings for change of use and people nearby complaining about more traffic or is there the possibility to ride a bit roughshod and say “ok it’s not ideal but it’s for a year and we can fit the equivalent of 30 classrooms and a cafeteria set up in it” and just get on with it rather than months of admin and consultations?
There are many, many rich arseholes at Oracle. Lovable Larry is just the richest and biggest arsehole.
It’s plainly ridiculous on its face. A replacement rate of 50 a year is a joke, a sop to claim that the government is doing something when in fact it is inevitably storing up vast trouble for the future, RAAC or no RAAC.
My guess is that the standard budget was always 50 schools. But there was a temporary programme on top of that for a further 50 which wasn’t renewed or something.
It is an incredibly complex case and beyond my tiny smooth brain to comprehend. What isn’t hard to comprehend is the scale of the impact in terms of lives ruined.
Everyone knows council tax is outdated, and it's obvious to the economically literate we need some form of wealth/property/land value tax.
After a few decades of 50 / year schools around the country will be falling down. Of course, that’s what Labour’s “building schools for the future” program was supposed to fix last time around. I wonder who was in power before them & what the school building replacement rate under their government was?
There does seem to be something of a pattern here sadly. Conservative governments cut spending on the maintenance of national infrastructure & Labour governments get to pick up the pieces & get labelled as profligate tax & spenders as a result. That’s politics for you I guess; we get the politicians we so richly deserve.
I hope the UK is by now enjoying the heat
Vennells gives the impression of having been plucked from the obscurity of middle management for a position that was well beyond her capabiliites. It would be nice to think those that appointed her will face a similar grilling to the one she will be facing in due course, but somehow I reckon they will go unnoticed.
Who did appoint her?
Software was written and released that had bugs in it.
However because the software cost serious money the end client and the author of the software went all in on blaming users rather than the software...
And that resulted in the mess the post office is in...
Edit: Vanilla not letting me post pic of dog in flat field with sunny skies.
That would bankrupt anyone..
Anyhow, lunch of cheese, sausage and beer in the Alm is about to arrive...
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/birmingham-city-council-effectively-declares-bankruptcy-after-being-hit-by-760m-bill/ar-AA1ggjDy
Surely has nothing to do with the fact you disagree with everything @Heathener says.
He's set out the strategy pretty clearly. He set out five promises for 2023 that he was going to be judged by. Success is pretty mixed, but he's got a case on several of them. At the start of 2024, he gives his progress report, says he's the kind of guy to set stretching targets for himself and goes about methodically achieving them, and starts to talk about a more ambitious programme for the next five years. He then calls an election based on these - whether in the spring or a bit later I don't know (I suspect spring but betting markets disagree).
That's not a particularly thrilling plan, and not likely to work. But that's his plan, it isn't a ludicrous one in terms of giving a glimmer of a chance, and he isn't an instinctive improviser by any means. So that's what is very likely to happen.
On topic, Starmer’s Labour are now so right wing I am tempted to vote for them as ideologically preferable to the Tories. I dunno how that makes PB lefties feel….
NEW
Just four schools have been completed under the government's School Rebuilding Programme started in 2021, DfE confirm to me.
@MichaelLCrick
·
11h
Sad news. Psephologist Michael Steed has died. A research student under David Butler, he later developed a rival type of swing - "Steed swing", as opposed to traditional "Butler swing" - & from 1964 to 2005 helped edit the statistical appendix to the Nuffield election books.
https://twitter.com/MichaelLCrick/status/1698831774619410676