We know what the broad borrowing plans for each of the main parties are.
No we don't. We haven't the faintest clue what Labour's plans are. We have some top-level figures, but those do not constitute plans. Plans involve doing something. What would they do (other than the Mansion Tax and increasing the top tax rate, neither of which is significant in terms of tax take)? Any idea?
Ed Miliband's economic approach is the correct one for Labour to adopt. His challenge is that Labour has been spending four years giving exactly the opposite smoke signals by opposing numerous specific cuts. How is he going to persuade the public that he means what he now says?
Quite. Also since most of the same things will have to be cut as he voted against when the Tories proposed it, he is going to struggle to name anything without looking more of a fool than he does, hence his desire to leave it until after the election.
Some fairly predictable tweets (and equally predictable re-tweets from the usual suspects) during and after Ed Milliband's speech. I don't recall George Osborne being too precise on the content of his June 2010 Emergency Budget in December 2009 yet everyone expects Ed Balls to have the 2016 Budget ready for consideration now.
The economic situation, tax take, and near-term growth are much better understood, and much more stable, than in 2009. Viewing them as comparable is a little shakey, IMHO.
Yes and as Morris states, we have the OBR as an independent arbiter. Said OBR have already cast doubt on Osborne's plans and no doubt those of Ed Balls and Danny Alexander will also be subject to scrutiny (and rightly so).
@paulwaugh: EdM vows to keep Lab cuts plans secret b4 elxn? "The right way to make these decisions is, frankly, in government".
So much like the Tories and the Lib Dems then. Thanks for your efforts and all but surely anyone who desperately wants to read tweets criticising Ed can find these on twitter themselves?
Indeed, the problem is finding ones praising him
I'll find a tweet praising Ed when you find the Tories' specific plans for cuts over the next Parliament.
No-one is expecting either Ed to write the 2018 Budget, but, given that Labour spend their entire time criticising Osborne's plans, and opposing nearly every concrete measure taken to save money, it's not unreasonable to ask what Labour would do differently.
The answer may well be 'Not much, Osborne was right all along, and we apologise for ever saying anything different'.
Or it might be 'We would slash the NHS budget and spend more on welfare'. Or vice versa.
Who knows? Do Labour know?
I'm sorry, Richard. There arent the specifics I was asking about. We know what the broad borrowing plans for each of the main parties are. We know some specifics within that. But none of the parties have set out clearly what will be cut and by how much over the course of the next Parliament. You are criticising Miliband for being in the same position as Cameron.
True, but Milliband has opposed every cut made by the present government. So if he disagrees with cuts to Defence, Home Office, Welfare, you name it, then it is not unreasonable to ask what he does think should be cut. Its is a credibility issue not one of detailed budget making.
Some fairly predictable tweets (and equally predictable re-tweets from the usual suspects) during and after Ed Milliband's speech. I don't recall George Osborne being too precise on the content of his June 2010 Emergency Budget in December 2009 yet everyone expects Ed Balls to have the 2016 Budget ready for consideration now.
It's also entirely reasonable for an incoming Government to want to look at the books or amusing letters from the outgoing Chief Secretary before making firm decisions. Given Osborne's propensity for smoke and mirrors, I suspect the public finances are much worse than he is letting on.
That said, and without reading the detailed speech, I still don't get the sense Labour are prepared to consider the inconsiderable and look at the NHS or Education Budgets for cuts. On the other hand, the Osbornian "slash and burn" approach isn't without its flaws either.
The introduction of the OBR has made transparency about the public finances much better and so there is less scope for manipulating the presentation of the reality - so I don't think there are the nasty surprises you seem to be imagining.
Miliband has spent too long ignoring the economic realities and has made far too many unfunded spending pledges. How many times has Labour promised to spend the Banker Bonus Tax? Is he going to take back all of those pledges? Of course not.
They have lost the right to be heard - and it will take a huge amount of detail and consistency of approach for them to regain trust on that issue.
'Forgetting' to mention the deficit in his conference speech is far more telling than the vague words of today. The devil is always in the detail - and there is no detail. Without detail, there is no credibility.
People know that Labour leaves office with the economy in a worse state than when they take power. Is that a risk people are willing to take again? There is nothing in the Balls-Miliband approach to indicate that anything different would happen this time round.
Of course, back in 1997 55% of kids getting free school meals failed to hit KS2 targets in English and Maths. By 2010 that had fallen to 30% and 28% respectively:
So what we are seeing is, in fact, sustained and very welcome long term improvement. This should begin to feed through to secondary schools soon, if it is not already.
Also interesting to note that, yet again, it is the inner London boroughs that do the best and the Shires that do the worst.
We know what the broad borrowing plans for each of the main parties are.
No we don't.
I'm sorry but we do - we know when they want to eliminate the deficit (and what they mean by that) so, yes, we can turn that into what that will mean for borrowing figures. (Indeed the Tories have been attacking them on this very basis.)
Labour havent made it clear what proportion of that will be made up of spending cuts (and where) and what proportion in tax rises. But they have given some specifics here and there (such as spending more on the NHS than the Tories).
The Tories presumably intend to do all their deficit reduction through spending cuts seeing as they are starting to talk about tax cuts. They have also given some specifics about the amount of spending cuts that will come from welfare and what will be ring-fenced (allowing us to see what that means for non-ring-fenced departments). But they havent spelt out those cuts in any detail either.
We know about as much about the Labour plans as we do about the Tories, you must surely see that.
1. Osborne: I will continue to cut spending. Actually I'll acclerate it. I will attempt to bring the state to 35% of GDP. I may get pushed off course but the plan / endpoint will remain, willy nilly. I effing mean it. I'm a Tory and I think the state is a giant monster that needs cutting back to size and I believe in individual responsibility. We MUST live within our means or go bankrupt.
2. Miliband. I 'will balance the books' because I am forced into making this statement. I reject the basic economics of it because my ideology is all about expanding the state and collective responsibility and not the individual. I make lip service to cuts for electoral reasons but once in power you can all sit and swivel. My dad was a hero.
1. Osborne: I will continue to cut spending. Actually I'll acclerate it. I will attempt to bring the state to 35% of GDP. I may get pushed off course but the plan / endpoint will remain, willy nilly. I effing mean it. I'm a Tory and I think the state is a giant monster that needs cutting back to size and I believe in individual responsibility. We MUST live within our means or go bankrupt.
2. Miliband. I 'will balance the books' because I am forced into making this statement. I reject the basic economics of it because my ideology is all about expanding the state and collective responsibility and not the individual. I make lip service to cuts for electoral reasons but once in power you can all sit and swivel. My dad was a hero.
Put like that is there an opportunity for the Lib Dems??
Of course, back in 1997 55% of kids getting free school meals failed to hit KS2 targets in English and Maths. By 2010 that had fallen to 30% and 28% respectively:
So what we are seeing is, in fact, sustained and very welcome long term improvement. This should begin to feed through to secondary schools soon, if it is not already.
Also interesting to note that, yet again, it is the inner London boroughs that do the best and the Shires that do the worst.
The figures for East Anglia, in particular, seem very poor. Why?
Said OBR have already cast doubt on Osborne's plans and no doubt those of Ed Balls and Danny Alexander will also be subject to scrutiny (and rightly so).
Balls wanted the OBR to review Labour's manifesto but this is not going to happen now.
Its is a credibility issue not one of detailed budget making.
Personally I dont think Balls has any less credibility on this than Osborne (I accept that's a judgement everyone will have their own view on) and hence doesnt need to be any more specific than him.
The Lib Dems won't allow an EU vote. They're EU sycophants to their core.
I think they will. Why shouldn't they? You think it would be won by the Stay In side, thanks to David Cameron's uniquely powerful persuasive powers, and no doubt they would agree with you.
As long as it's on a fair basis: an agreed situation for what EU membership we're voting to be a part of or not, then we will vote to leave. Of course, David Cameron won't offer that.
The fact is that the Lib Dems, Labour and the Tories all try to dodge referenda on Europe as much as possible. They all try to promise them only for times when they won't be in power, and if they are in power, they dodge them.
You're tying yourself in absurd knots, arguing simultaneously that the 'Europhiles' (whoever they are) are terrified of an EU referendum, and that it can't be won by the Out side because Cameron will fix it. One moment you post links saying how much support there is for leaving, or how distrusted Cameron is, or how useless he is at politics, or how the renegotiation can't achieve anything, and the next moment you're saying that if he recommends staying in on the basis of a flaky renegotiation, there's nothing the BOOers and the peoples' army can do to dissuade the public from following his advice.
I'm striving hard to be polite to Kippers, so I'll refrain from saying this is fruitcake-loon bonkers, but it is, shall we say, intellectually inconsistent.
It's easy to argue with strawmen, isn't it? I have said several times in the last couple of weeks that we can win one on the basis of a flaky renegotiation, as soon as the results of the renegotiation are in. But Cameron, if he even bothers to have a referendum, will likely do it on the basis of a renegotiation yet to come. And I've never said a rigged referendum can't be won by the out side. Just that it's a lot more likely to be won if it's not rigged.
How you can you possibly 'rig' a referendum when the question is simply whether to stay in or leave the EU?
Well, we've seen it done. You panic at the last moment and get behind Gordon Brown who produces a big fat misleading all-party Vow to con the referenderate and make Her Majesty purr with pleasure.
1. Osborne: I will continue to cut spending. Actually I'll acclerate it. I will attempt to bring the state to 35% of GDP. I may get pushed off course but the plan / endpoint will remain, willy nilly. I effing mean it. I'm a Tory and I think the state is a giant monster that needs cutting back to size and I believe in individual responsibility. We MUST live within our means or go bankrupt.
2. Miliband. I 'will balance the books' because I am forced into making this statement. I reject the basic economics of it because my ideology is all about expanding the state and collective responsibility and not the individual. I make lip service to cuts for electoral reasons but once in power you can all sit and swivel. My dad was a hero.
We know what the broad borrowing plans for each of the main parties are.
No we don't.
I'm sorry but we do - we know when they want to eliminate the deficit (and what they mean by that) so, yes, we can turn that into what that will mean for borrowing figures. (Indeed the Tories have been attacking them on this very basis.)
Labour havent made it clear what proportion of that will be made up of spending cuts (and where) and what proportion in tax rises. But they have given some specifics here and there (such as spending more on the NHS than the Tories).
The Tories presumably intend to do all their deficit reduction through spending cuts seeing as they are starting to talk about tax cuts. They have also given some specifics about the amount of spending cuts that will come from welfare and what will be ring-fenced (allowing us to see what that means for non-ring-fenced departments). But they havent spelt out those cuts in any detail either.
We know about as much about the Labour plans as we do about the Tories, you must surely see that.
That is a very selective interpretation of the situation - you must surely see that.
We know very, very little about the detail of any Labour plan. There are no figures for the costs of the introduction of the Mansion Tax. They can't agree how many times over they will spend the Banker Bonus Tax (is it 5 times, is it 7? Perhaps 10 - they just don't know)
We know for certain that a lot of their plans will take time to implement - so the tax take (if there is any) will be slow to come in.
The lack of Balls-Miliband detail just increases their credibility gap.
No opposition can be expected to produce a full budget ahead of an election. But when you have opposed every single spending cut for 4 years - no-one is going to believe you when you say you will cut spending. Particularly when you look at their past records.
There are no real plans from Labour. There are lots of words - but no detail. Still.
1. Osborne: I will continue to cut spending. Actually I'll acclerate it. I will attempt to bring the state to 35% of GDP. I may get pushed off course but the plan / endpoint will remain, willy nilly. I effing mean it. I'm a Tory and I think the state is a giant monster that needs cutting back to size and I believe in individual responsibility. We MUST live within our means or go bankrupt.
2. Miliband. I 'will balance the books' because I am forced into making this statement. I reject the basic economics of it because my ideology is all about expanding the state and collective responsibility and not the individual. I make lip service to cuts for electoral reasons but once in power you can all sit and swivel. My dad was a hero.
Put like that is there an opportunity for the Lib Dems??
Of course, back in 1997 55% of kids getting free school meals failed to hit KS2 targets in English and Maths. By 2010 that had fallen to 30% and 28% respectively:
So what we are seeing is, in fact, sustained and very welcome long term improvement. This should begin to feed through to secondary schools soon, if it is not already.
Also interesting to note that, yet again, it is the inner London boroughs that do the best and the Shires that do the worst.
We know what the broad borrowing plans for each of the main parties are.
No we don't. We haven't the faintest clue what Labour's plans are. We have some top-level figures, but those do not constitute plans. Plans involve doing something. What would they do (other than the Mansion Tax and increasing the top tax rate, neither of which is significant in terms of tax take)? Any idea?
We know what the broad borrowing plans for each of the main parties are.
No we don't.
I'm sorry but we do - we know when they want to eliminate the deficit (and what they mean by that) so, yes, we can turn that into what that will mean for borrowing figures. (Indeed the Tories have been attacking them on this very basis.)
Labour havent made it clear what proportion of that will be made up of spending cuts (and where) and what proportion in tax rises. But they have given some specifics here and there (such as spending more on the NHS than the Tories).
The Tories presumably intend to do all their deficit reduction through spending cuts seeing as they are starting to talk about tax cuts. They have also given some specifics about the amount of spending cuts that will come from welfare and what will be ring-fenced (allowing us to see what that means for non-ring-fenced departments). But they havent spelt out those cuts in any detail either.
We know about as much about the Labour plans as we do about the Tories, you must surely see that.
No, I don't accept that. Osborne has published quite detailed spending plans, which Labour have criticised in intemperate terms. Presumably that means they'd do something different. (Alternatively they might be cynical hypocrites). It's not unreasonable to ask what they would do differently, beyond the couple of minor fripperies they've so far announced.
Bear in mind also that they have made substantial increased spending commitments on specific areas such as the spare-room subsidy. That can only mean either than they plan to cut something else more than Osborne would do, or (more likely) that they haven't a clue and are just saying populist things at random.
We know what the broad borrowing plans for each of the main parties are.
No we don't.
I'm sorry but we do - we know when they want to eliminate the deficit (and what they mean by that) so, yes, we can turn that into what that will mean for borrowing figures. (Indeed the Tories have been attacking them on this very basis.)
Labour havent made it clear what proportion of that will be made up of spending cuts (and where) and what proportion in tax rises. But they have given some specifics here and there (such as spending more on the NHS than the Tories).
The Tories presumably intend to do all their deficit reduction through spending cuts seeing as they are starting to talk about tax cuts. They have also given some specifics about the amount of spending cuts that will come from welfare and what will be ring-fenced (allowing us to see what that means for non-ring-fenced departments). But they havent spelt out those cuts in any detail either.
We know about as much about the Labour plans as we do about the Tories, you must surely see that.
That is a very selective interpretation of the situation - you must surely see that.
I dont have a dog in this fight so I'm not being deliberately selective.
My point is simply that neither they nor the Tories have fully worked up plans. They both have areas of specifics that they trumpet when asked for specifics but it leaves us all guessing as to what will actually happen under either party because neither want to explain what it would actually mean.
One of the predictions to come out of the recent BES conference was a low turnout election.
In that scenario, the health of the various political party machines would be a bigger factor. That seems to favour Labour over the Conservatives, and the SNP over Labour.
Four and a half years in the making, after criticising everything the coalition has done, Labour's alternative is to do essentially everything the Tories plan on doing — with a few tweaks that in the round will be insignificant, like the Mansion Tax, and 50% top rate — but to claim it will be "fairer" and hope that there are enough idiots out there to get them elected.
The mansion tax I can sort of understand even though its idiotic, unfairly hits the land-rich/cash-poor segment of society, and is generally a sledgehammer to crack a walnut, but atleast it will raise some money, £300m if Balls sticks to his threshold and rate, but not many people believe that he will.
The 50% tax is nothing more than envy, and I say this as someone who has never been anywhere near earning enough to be in that band. The fact of the matter is the 50% tax rate brought in less tax than the 40% rate did. The total declared taxable income of those earning more than £150,000 a year slumped from £116bn in 2009-10, to £87bn in 2010-11 as the tax was introduced. 50% of 87bn is a less than 40% of 116bn. Which means from the view of paying off the deficit, the issue de jour, its worse than useless.
Labour - Good for Class Envy, Bad for paying off the deficit.
Your analysis of the impact of the 50p rate is skewed by Osborne's typically foolish pre announcement of his intention to cut it.
The Tory mantra:
Raising tax on very top earners = envy
Taking money off the poor through benefit cuts = common sense.
Ok got it.
No it's not skewed as Osborne didn't announce anything until after 2010-11 had long finished. So unless those affected had a Tardis your claim is economically ignorant.
It is skewed. As the spike in receipts in the tax year after reduction showed. The income was shifted. It couldn't have been shifted forever. Osborne was an idiot. Economically, fiscally and politically.
If the 50p tax rate was such a good idea then why did Labour leave it at 40p for 13 years and only raised it just days before the GE they knew they were not going to win. Nothing to do with trying to feck up anyone following behind I suppose.
Unsurprising then that it was Labour that did away with the 10p tax rate despite the warnings and at the stoke of Browns hand doubled the tax on the lowest earners of this country overnight while continuing to keep the 40p tax band for millionaires. Tax cuts for millionaires indeed !
Of course, back in 1997 55% of kids getting free school meals failed to hit KS2 targets in English and Maths. By 2010 that had fallen to 30% and 28% respectively:
So what we are seeing is, in fact, sustained and very welcome long term improvement. This should begin to feed through to secondary schools soon, if it is not already.
Also interesting to note that, yet again, it is the inner London boroughs that do the best and the Shires that do the worst.
The figures for East Anglia, in particular, seem very poor. Why?
They are appalling. Of course, what we do not know is the percentage of kids on free school meals in each council area. If there are fewer it may mean it is less of a priority or that the expertise has not been developed. Not that either is an acceptable excuse.
We know what the broad borrowing plans for each of the main parties are.
No we don't.
I'm sorry but we do - we know when they want to eliminate the deficit (and what they mean by that) so, yes, we can turn that into what that will mean for borrowing figures. (Indeed the Tories have been attacking them on this very basis.)
Labour havent made it clear what proportion of that will be made up of spending cuts (and where) and what proportion in tax rises. But they have given some specifics here and there (such as spending more on the NHS than the Tories).
The Tories presumably intend to do all their deficit reduction through spending cuts seeing as they are starting to talk about tax cuts. They have also given some specifics about the amount of spending cuts that will come from welfare and what will be ring-fenced (allowing us to see what that means for non-ring-fenced departments). But they havent spelt out those cuts in any detail either.
We know about as much about the Labour plans as we do about the Tories, you must surely see that.
1. Osborne: I will continue to cut spending. Actually I'll acclerate it. I will attempt to bring the state to 35% of GDP. I may get pushed off course but the plan / endpoint will remain, willy nilly. I effing mean it. I'm a Tory and I think the state is a giant monster that needs cutting back to size and I believe in individual responsibility. We MUST live within our means or go bankrupt.
2. Miliband. I 'will balance the books' because I am forced into making this statement. I reject the basic economics of it because my ideology is all about expanding the state and collective responsibility and not the individual. I make lip service to cuts for electoral reasons but once in power you can all sit and swivel. My dad was a hero.
Put like that is there an opportunity for the Lib Dems??
To take the worst bits of both ?
Or the best. It seems irrelevant given their polling position but I have been impressed by Danny Alexander's positioning on this. Yes, the deficit is really important and needs to be tackled as quickly as we can without crashing the economy but no, it is not possible to do this by spending cuts alone without imposing unacceptable levels of hardship on the most vulnerable in our country.
A party which accepts that taxes have to go up if we are to moderate the spending cuts. No wonder they are tanking in the polls. The great British public on both sides of the divide prefer to dream on.
And as for our media...their level of economic ignorance and incompetence would make you weep. The idea that Balls (or Osborne) is going to get found out by penetrating questions during an election campaign is just another part of the fantasy.
More contempt for people with so little self-respect that they are willing to publish a significsnt quantity of incoherent gibberish from people without even a working knowledge of their own subjects.
And that's without starting on the hypocrisy.
So let me do it for you.
Considering the comment Rusbridger's private education has attracted, he deserves the sauce bottle award for this little gem:
1. Osborne: I will continue to cut spending. Actually I'll acclerate it. I will attempt to bring the state to 35% of GDP. I may get pushed off course but the plan / endpoint will remain, willy nilly. I effing mean it. I'm a Tory and I think the state is a giant monster that needs cutting back to size and I believe in individual responsibility. We MUST live within our means or go bankrupt.
2. Miliband. I 'will balance the books' because I am forced into making this statement. I reject the basic economics of it because my ideology is all about expanding the state and collective responsibility and not the individual. I make lip service to cuts for electoral reasons but once in power you can all sit and swivel. My dad was a hero.
Shall we put you down as undecided?
I am indeed undecided. I'll probably vote UKIP unless I thought for moment there's a risk that Dominic Raab (Tory) will not be my MP - in which case I'll vote for him.
Of course, back in 1997 55% of kids getting free school meals failed to hit KS2 targets in English and Maths. By 2010 that had fallen to 30% and 28% respectively:
So what we are seeing is, in fact, sustained and very welcome long term improvement. This should begin to feed through to secondary schools soon, if it is not already.
Also interesting to note that, yet again, it is the inner London boroughs that do the best and the Shires that do the worst.
Of course, back in 1997 55% of kids getting free school meals failed to hit KS2 targets in English and Maths. By 2010 that had fallen to 30% and 28% respectively:
So what we are seeing is, in fact, sustained and very welcome long term improvement. This should begin to feed through to secondary schools soon, if it is not already.
Also interesting to note that, yet again, it is the inner London boroughs that do the best and the Shires that do the worst.
Mr. Observer, The source you gave seems only to give figures up to the year 2010. As included in the notes, the schools 25% that boycotted the tests in 2010 are not included. The graph by region show London as the second worst performing region. I think I must be missing something.
As a side note have you seen this article in the Telegraph this morning:
On the other hand, the Osbornian "slash and burn" approach isn't without its flaws either.
What slash and burn approach?
The current government has over the last five years reduced government spending by ~2%.
It is indeed silly to say 'slash and burn'. But in fact the govt have made significant progress. Total managed expenditure, is 40.5% of gross domestic product this year, having come down steadily from 45.3% in 2009-10. According to the OBR it needs to come down to 36% of GDP by 2018-19 to eliminate the budget deficit. This is achievable. Labour on the other hand will continue to misrepresent Tory policy whilst realising that the cuts being made are not that draconian. Spending on current expenditure needs to come down to 32% of GDP to achieve surplus. This last happened in 1972. The economy is 2.5 times the size of what it was then. Public spending on this measure has come down from its peak of 40% of GDP in 2009-10 to an estimated 36.9% this year and a projected 36% in 2015-16. So reducing it further, by just over three percentage points of GDP to eliminate the deficit, is not impossible.
Lets be clear - there is no slash and burn. The tory govt is being quite rational, but it nis making the significant and necessary cuts.
Of course, back in 1997 55% of kids getting free school meals failed to hit KS2 targets in English and Maths. By 2010 that had fallen to 30% and 28% respectively:
So what we are seeing is, in fact, sustained and very welcome long term improvement. This should begin to feed through to secondary schools soon, if it is not already.
Also interesting to note that, yet again, it is the inner London boroughs that do the best and the Shires that do the worst.
The figures for East Anglia, in particular, seem very poor. Why?
They are appalling. Of course, what we do not know is the percentage of kids on free school meals in each council area. If there are fewer it may mean it is less of a priority or that the expertise has not been developed. Not that either is an acceptable excuse.
Why the implication that receipt of free school meals is some sort of legitimate excuse for poor performance at school? It should make no difference how well off your parents are.
Of course, back in 1997 55% of kids getting free school meals failed to hit KS2 targets in English and Maths. By 2010 that had fallen to 30% and 28% respectively:
So what we are seeing is, in fact, sustained and very welcome long term improvement. This should begin to feed through to secondary schools soon, if it is not already.
Also interesting to note that, yet again, it is the inner London boroughs that do the best and the Shires that do the worst.
Mr. Observer, The source you gave seems only to give figures up to the year 2010. As included in the notes, the schools 25% that boycotted the tests in 2010 are not included. The graph by region show London as the second worst performing region. I think I must be missing something.
As a side note have you seen this article in the Telegraph this morning:
1. Osborne: I will continue to cut spending. Actually I'll acclerate it. I will attempt to bring the state to 35% of GDP. I may get pushed off course but the plan / endpoint will remain, willy nilly. I effing mean it. I'm a Tory and I think the state is a giant monster that needs cutting back to size and I believe in individual responsibility. We MUST live within our means or go bankrupt.
2. Miliband. I 'will balance the books' because I am forced into making this statement. I reject the basic economics of it because my ideology is all about expanding the state and collective responsibility and not the individual. I make lip service to cuts for electoral reasons but once in power you can all sit and swivel. My dad was a hero.
Put like that is there an opportunity for the Lib Dems??
To take the worst bits of both ?
the deficit is really important and needs to be tackled as quickly as we can without crashing the economy but no, it is not possible to do this by spending cuts alone without imposing unacceptable levels of hardship on the most vulnerable in our country.
Not sure that is absolutely true. Australia manages it. We need to move from 'we spend 700bn and need to find that much' on to 'we have 600bn to spend - what is the best way to spend it?'.
600bn a year is still a gargantuan sum of money. How about X% pay cuts for all earning over 25,000 in the public sector? How about vouchers for schools and disband the DoE? How about leaving the EU and saving 19bn? How about stopping all elective surgery in the NHS? Trim aid. Etc. Etc -> We need to re-imagine the role of the state in a very very competitive world where our economy must survive and can only sustainably offer up 600bn to spend. If you had a blank sheet of paper, no history and someone said 'here's 600bn - design an equitable state that works' we could do it.
Of course, back in 1997 55% of kids getting free school meals failed to hit KS2 targets in English and Maths. By 2010 that had fallen to 30% and 28% respectively:
So what we are seeing is, in fact, sustained and very welcome long term improvement. This should begin to feed through to secondary schools soon, if it is not already.
Also interesting to note that, yet again, it is the inner London boroughs that do the best and the Shires that do the worst.
Mr. Observer, The source you gave seems only to give figures up to the year 2010. As included in the notes, the schools 25% that boycotted the tests in 2010 are not included. The graph by region show London as the second worst performing region. I think I must be missing something.
As a side note have you seen this article in the Telegraph this morning:
The graph shows % of students not making the standard, so the higher the bar, the worse the area is doing
The reason London does (marginally) better is probably a lot to do with a lot more parents in London coming from a background where failure to do well at school means a life in poverty with no welfare state support &, a more religious background... It's also the reason why the Trojan horse schools in Birmingham and Tower Hamlets do so well academically
Of course, back in 1997 55% of kids getting free school meals failed to hit KS2 targets in English and Maths. By 2010 that had fallen to 30% and 28% respectively:
So what we are seeing is, in fact, sustained and very welcome long term improvement. This should begin to feed through to secondary schools soon, if it is not already.
Also interesting to note that, yet again, it is the inner London boroughs that do the best and the Shires that do the worst.
The figures for East Anglia, in particular, seem very poor. Why?
They are appalling. Of course, what we do not know is the percentage of kids on free school meals in each council area. If there are fewer it may mean it is less of a priority or that the expertise has not been developed. Not that either is an acceptable excuse.
Why the implication that receipt of free school meals is some sort of legitimate excuse for poor performance at school? It should make no difference how well off your parents are.
Of course, back in 1997 55% of kids getting free school meals failed to hit KS2 targets in English and Maths. By 2010 that had fallen to 30% and 28% respectively:
So what we are seeing is, in fact, sustained and very welcome long term improvement. This should begin to feed through to secondary schools soon, if it is not already.
Also interesting to note that, yet again, it is the inner London boroughs that do the best and the Shires that do the worst.
Mr. Observer, The source you gave seems only to give figures up to the year 2010. As included in the notes, the schools 25% that boycotted the tests in 2010 are not included. The graph by region show London as the second worst performing region. I think I must be missing something.
As a side note have you seen this article in the Telegraph this morning:
On my reading, the graphs show London as the equal best performing in English and second in maths.
Sorry, my mistake. Misread the graph header. Still wonder what what the situation would be if those 25% of schools who failed to complete the tests would be (where were they predominantly?) and what the situation today is (2010 figures are interesting but have they be sustained?).
Of course, back in 1997 55% of kids getting free school meals failed to hit KS2 targets in English and Maths. By 2010 that had fallen to 30% and 28% respectively:
So what we are seeing is, in fact, sustained and very welcome long term improvement. This should begin to feed through to secondary schools soon, if it is not already.
Also interesting to note that, yet again, it is the inner London boroughs that do the best and the Shires that do the worst.
The figures for East Anglia, in particular, seem very poor. Why?
They are appalling. Of course, what we do not know is the percentage of kids on free school meals in each council area. If there are fewer it may mean it is less of a priority or that the expertise has not been developed. Not that either is an acceptable excuse.
Why the implication that receipt of free school meals is some sort of legitimate excuse for poor performance at school? It should make no difference how well off your parents are.
From the article I quoted:
"Another reason for failure is what some people call the Sympathy Syndrome: excusing a child’s low achievement because of their troubled background. I was at a conference recently where an inspirational American head teacher told the story of the girl whose academic performance was falling off the edge of a cliff. Summoned to his office, she recited a litany of troubles – absentee father, mother a drug addict, siblings in jail and so. The principal heard her out, and then said: “And?” The best heads in the state sector – including Michael Wilshaw in his teaching days – don’t see hardship as an excuse, but as a challenge."
Of course, back in 1997 55% of kids getting free school meals failed to hit KS2 targets in English and Maths. By 2010 that had fallen to 30% and 28% respectively:
So what we are seeing is, in fact, sustained and very welcome long term improvement. This should begin to feed through to secondary schools soon, if it is not already.
Also interesting to note that, yet again, it is the inner London boroughs that do the best and the Shires that do the worst.
The figures for East Anglia, in particular, seem very poor. Why?
They are appalling. Of course, what we do not know is the percentage of kids on free school meals in each council area. If there are fewer it may mean it is less of a priority or that the expertise has not been developed. Not that either is an acceptable excuse.
Why the implication that receipt of free school meals is some sort of legitimate excuse for poor performance at school? It should make no difference how well off your parents are.
Every indication is that it does.
Its an proxy for a load of other important factors. Children on free school meals have parents on benefit or low incomes. People on benefit and low incomes generally speaking have lower than average academic ability, generally score lower on IQ tests, generally have less books at home, generally are read to less by their parents, and generally have parents who left school early and value education less, plus a lot of similar factors. The wealth of the parents is a proxy for a number of educationally relevant factors, it doesn't make a lot of difference in itself.
Of course, back in 1997 55% of kids getting free school meals failed to hit KS2 targets in English and Maths. By 2010 that had fallen to 30% and 28% respectively:
So what we are seeing is, in fact, sustained and very welcome long term improvement. This should begin to feed through to secondary schools soon, if it is not already.
Also interesting to note that, yet again, it is the inner London boroughs that do the best and the Shires that do the worst.
Mr. Observer, The source you gave seems only to give figures up to the year 2010. As included in the notes, the schools 25% that boycotted the tests in 2010 are not included. The graph by region show London as the second worst performing region. I think I must be missing something.
As a side note have you seen this article in the Telegraph this morning:
On my reading, the graphs show London as the equal best performing in English and second in maths.
Sorry, my mistake. Misread the graph header. Still wonder what what the situation would be if those 25% of schools who failed to complete the tests would be (where were they predominantly?) and what the situation today is (2010 figures are interesting but have they be sustained?).
If you look at the annual figures (scroll down) you'll see drops throughout the period covered. From today's BBC report it seems as if these have been maintained.
"Cost of living crisis" belongs with those other hauntingly moronic Labour mantras "no more boom and bust" and "too far too fast".
It is just as pointless saying that UK average standard of living has risen as it is to say that the GDP has risen . It is no good for the majority of the population if GDP increases by x million if the directors of companies and bankers award themselves greater than x million in increased salaries and bonuses , the majority of people will be worse off and have a lower standard of living ..
Of course, back in 1997 55% of kids getting free school meals failed to hit KS2 targets in English and Maths. By 2010 that had fallen to 30% and 28% respectively:
So what we are seeing is, in fact, sustained and very welcome long term improvement. This should begin to feed through to secondary schools soon, if it is not already.
Also interesting to note that, yet again, it is the inner London boroughs that do the best and the Shires that do the worst.
The figures for East Anglia, in particular, seem very poor. Why?
They are appalling. Of course, what we do not know is the percentage of kids on free school meals in each council area. If there are fewer it may mean it is less of a priority or that the expertise has not been developed. Not that either is an acceptable excuse.
Why the implication that receipt of free school meals is some sort of legitimate excuse for poor performance at school? It should make no difference how well off your parents are.
Well, it does - ask any teacher. Think about stuff like getting enough to eat, decent sleeping conditions, space in which to do homework, etc etc etc. Poor people are, actually, poor.
Of course, back in 1997 55% of kids getting free school meals failed to hit KS2 targets in English and Maths. By 2010 that had fallen to 30% and 28% respectively:
So what we are seeing is, in fact, sustained and very welcome long term improvement. This should begin to feed through to secondary schools soon, if it is not already.
Also interesting to note that, yet again, it is the inner London boroughs that do the best and the Shires that do the worst.
The figures for East Anglia, in particular, seem very poor. Why?
They are appalling. Of course, what we do not know is the percentage of kids on free school meals in each council area. If there are fewer it may mean it is less of a priority or that the expertise has not been developed. Not that either is an acceptable excuse.
Why the implication that receipt of free school meals is some sort of legitimate excuse for poor performance at school? It should make no difference how well off your parents are.
From the article I quoted:
"Another reason for failure is what some people call the Sympathy Syndrome: excusing a child’s low achievement because of their troubled background. I was at a conference recently where an inspirational American head teacher told the story of the girl whose academic performance was falling off the edge of a cliff. Summoned to his office, she recited a litany of troubles – absentee father, mother a drug addict, siblings in jail and so. The principal heard her out, and then said: “And?” The best heads in the state sector – including Michael Wilshaw in his teaching days – don’t see hardship as an excuse, but as a challenge."
Indeed; clearly in some parts of the UK - inner city London, in particular - schools do much better at meeting this challenge. You wouldn't want to be on free school meals in Suffolk, Norfolk or Cambridgeshire. In Westminster, Camden and Islington it is far less of an obstacle.
"Cost of living crisis" belongs with those other hauntingly moronic Labour mantras "no more boom and bust" and "too far too fast".
It is just as pointless saying that UK average standard of living has risen as it is to say that the GDP has risen . It is no good for the majority of the population if GDP increases by x million if the directors of companies and bankers award themselves greater than x million in increased salaries and bonuses , the majority of people will be worse off and have a lower standard of living ..
The average weekly wage for employees, including bonus payments, rose by 1.7% comparing January to March 2014 with the same period a year earlier. Average weekly wages including bonus payments before taxes and other deductions from gross pay were £474 in March 2014, up from £467 a year earlier.
Average weekly earnings excluding bonus payments rose by 1.3% comparing January to March 2014 with the same period a year earlier. In cash terms, average weekly earnings excluding bonus payments were £449 in March 2014, before taxes and other deductions from gross pay, up from £444 a year earlier.
The annual inflation rate over the same period is 1.7% so pay is keeping up with prices.
Of course, back in 1997 55% of kids getting free school meals failed to hit KS2 targets in English and Maths. By 2010 that had fallen to 30% and 28% respectively:
So what we are seeing is, in fact, sustained and very welcome long term improvement. This should begin to feed through to secondary schools soon, if it is not already.
Also interesting to note that, yet again, it is the inner London boroughs that do the best and the Shires that do the worst.
The figures for East Anglia, in particular, seem very poor. Why?
They are appalling. Of course, what we do not know is the percentage of kids on free school meals in each council area. If there are fewer it may mean it is less of a priority or that the expertise has not been developed. Not that either is an acceptable excuse.
Why the implication that receipt of free school meals is some sort of legitimate excuse for poor performance at school? It should make no difference how well off your parents are.
Well, it does - ask any teacher. Think about stuff like getting enough to eat, decent sleeping conditions, space in which to do homework, etc etc etc. Poor people are, actually, poor.
Surely the message from the paper to which Mr. Observer has kindly drawn our attention is that being from a poor family need not be a barrier to educational attainment.
Of course, back in 1997 55% of kids getting free school meals failed to hit KS2 targets in English and Maths. By 2010 that had fallen to 30% and 28% respectively:
So what we are seeing is, in fact, sustained and very welcome long term improvement. This should begin to feed through to secondary schools soon, if it is not already.
Also interesting to note that, yet again, it is the inner London boroughs that do the best and the Shires that do the worst.
Mr. Observer, The source you gave seems only to give figures up to the year 2010. As included in the notes, the schools 25% that boycotted the tests in 2010 are not included. The graph by region show London as the second worst performing region. I think I must be missing something.
As a side note have you seen this article in the Telegraph this morning:
The reason London does (marginally) better is probably
Tim couldnt be here but I know he'd want someone to point out that London schools do better because they have a higher proportion of ethnic minority pupils.
"Schools with large numbers of migrants and pupils from ethnic minorities gain the best GCSE results because they have a stronger work ethic, according to research.
A study by Bristol University found that schools with a diverse pupil population performed significantly better than those filled with white British children.
It was claimed that the ethnic composition of pupils – combined with the influx of large numbers of recent migrants – had created a “London effect” that boosted grades in the capital. When the effect of ethnicity was taken into account, the increase in results disappeared, it emerged.
The findings cast doubt over claims from the previous government and teachers’ leaders that Labour’s flagship “London Challenge” programme – extra funding to promote collaborative working between schools – was the main reason for improved results in the capital"
IF the sh8t hits the fan early in the new year (courtesy of a Tsipras government), all bets could be off.
The Conservatives don't appear to want a two-tier EU. I don't know why Mr Oborne thinks they do.
Would be a bit off to tell others how to manage their affairs - approach of this is what we want or we are off, suit yourselves on how you interact seems reasonable.
King Cole, when an American friend of mine visited England (managing to time his holiday with the worst winter in a century) he was astounded to see so many girls walking around with mini-skirts and bare legs amidst the snow and ice.
We all know that Labour are economically incompetent by why are the Tories allowing this 1930's crap to take hold as a meme? Share of spending back to 1999/2000 levels is the reality. Why not say it?
"Cost of living crisis" belongs with those other hauntingly moronic Labour mantras "no more boom and bust" and "too far too fast".
It is just as pointless saying that UK average standard of living has risen as it is to say that the GDP has risen . It is no good for the majority of the population if GDP increases by x million if the directors of companies and bankers award themselves greater than x million in increased salaries and bonuses , the majority of people will be worse off and have a lower standard of living ..
The average weekly wage for employees, including bonus payments, rose by 1.7% comparing January to March 2014 with the same period a year earlier. Average weekly wages including bonus payments before taxes and other deductions from gross pay were £474 in March 2014, up from £467 a year earlier.
Average weekly earnings excluding bonus payments rose by 1.3% comparing January to March 2014 with the same period a year earlier. In cash terms, average weekly earnings excluding bonus payments were £449 in March 2014, before taxes and other deductions from gross pay, up from £444 a year earlier.
The annual inflation rate over the same period is 1.7% so pay is keeping up with prices.
And what is the point you are making ? If as it says the average weekly wage has matched the inflation rate , then all those with below average wage increase will have had a lower standard of living than the previous year . That will be a substantial number of people feeling worse off and actually being worse off .
Of course, back in 1997 55% of kids getting free school meals failed to hit KS2 targets in English and Maths. By 2010 that had fallen to 30% and 28% respectively:
So what we are seeing is, in fact, sustained and very welcome long term improvement. This should begin to feed through to secondary schools soon, if it is not already.
Also interesting to note that, yet again, it is the inner London boroughs that do the best and the Shires that do the worst.
Mr. Observer, The source you gave seems only to give figures up to the year 2010. As included in the notes, the schools 25% that boycotted the tests in 2010 are not included. The graph by region show London as the second worst performing region. I think I must be missing something.
As a side note have you seen this article in the Telegraph this morning:
The reason London does (marginally) better is probably
Tim couldnt be here but I know he'd want someone to point out that London schools do better because they have a higher proportion of ethnic minority pupils.
Of course, back in 1997 55% of kids getting free school meals failed to hit KS2 targets in English and Maths. By 2010 that had fallen to 30% and 28% respectively:
So what we are seeing is, in fact, sustained and very welcome long term improvement. This should begin to feed through to secondary schools soon, if it is not already.
Also interesting to note that, yet again, it is the inner London boroughs that do the best and the Shires that do the worst.
Mr. Observer, The source you gave seems only to give figures up to the year 2010. As included in the notes, the schools 25% that boycotted the tests in 2010 are not included. The graph by region show London as the second worst performing region. I think I must be missing something.
As a side note have you seen this article in the Telegraph this morning:
The reason London does (marginally) better is probably
Tim couldnt be here but I know he'd want someone to point out that London schools do better because they have a higher proportion of ethnic minority pupils.
We all know that Labour are economically incompetent by why are the Tories allowing this 1930's crap to take hold as a meme? Share of spending back to 1999/2000 levels is the reality. Why not say it?
Comparing it to the 1930's is meaningless for anyone under 94. Is Ed saying there will be prohibition and Bugsy Malone ruling the roost ? More Charleston dancing ?
King Cole, when an American friend of mine visited England (managing to time his holiday with the worst winter in a century) he was astounded to see so many girls walking around with mini-skirts and bare legs amidst the snow and ice.
"Cost of living crisis" belongs with those other hauntingly moronic Labour mantras "no more boom and bust" and "too far too fast".
It is just as pointless saying that UK average standard of living has risen as it is to say that the GDP has risen . It is no good for the majority of the population if GDP increases by x million if the directors of companies and bankers award themselves greater than x million in increased salaries and bonuses , the majority of people will be worse off and have a lower standard of living ..
The average weekly wage for employees, including bonus payments, rose by 1.7% comparing January to March 2014 with the same period a year earlier. Average weekly wages including bonus payments before taxes and other deductions from gross pay were £474 in March 2014, up from £467 a year earlier.
Average weekly earnings excluding bonus payments rose by 1.3% comparing January to March 2014 with the same period a year earlier. In cash terms, average weekly earnings excluding bonus payments were £449 in March 2014, before taxes and other deductions from gross pay, up from £444 a year earlier.
The annual inflation rate over the same period is 1.7% so pay is keeping up with prices.
And what is the point you are making ? If as it says the average weekly wage has matched the inflation rate , then all those with below average wage increase will have had a lower standard of living than the previous year . That will be a substantial number of people feeling worse off and actually being worse off .
It doesn't say the average rise was 1.7%, its says the average pay packet increased by 1.7%, a below average pay packet may in percentage terms have gone up by more or by less, you can't tell from the information given.
Of course, back in 1997 55% of kids getting free school meals failed to hit KS2 targets in English and Maths. By 2010 that had fallen to 30% and 28% respectively:
So what we are seeing is, in fact, sustained and very welcome long term improvement. This should begin to feed through to secondary schools soon, if it is not already.
Also interesting to note that, yet again, it is the inner London boroughs that do the best and the Shires that do the worst.
Mr. Observer, The source you gave seems only to give figures up to the year 2010. As included in the notes, the schools 25% that boycotted the tests in 2010 are not included. The graph by region show London as the second worst performing region. I think I must be missing something.
As a side note have you seen this article in the Telegraph this morning:
The reason London does (marginally) better is probably
Tim couldnt be here but I know he'd want someone to point out that London schools do better because they have a higher proportion of ethnic minority pupils.
"Immigrants performed poorly compared to Finnish majority population
Disparities in problem-solving between students of Finnish origin and those with an immigrant background were significant in all participating countries. In Finland the average score was 526 points among the majority population whereas the score for second-generation immigrant students was 461 points, and that for first-generation immigrants was 426 points. The disparity between immigrants and native students in Finland was wider than the average for all participating countries. Finnish-speaking and Swedish-speaking schools both performed almost equally well."
It is utterly ludicrous for Ozzy's outriders to demand a detailed budget from Labour unless he is prepared to do likewise. I look forward to seeing the details.
It is utterly ludicrous for Ozzy's outriders to demand a detailed budget from Labour unless he is prepared to do likewise. I look forward to seeing the details.
Labour will have 2 months after the March budget to prepare their alternative - should be interesting.
We all know that Labour are economically incompetent by why are the Tories allowing this 1930's crap to take hold as a meme? Share of spending back to 1999/2000 levels is the reality. Why not say it?
We all know that Labour are economically incompetent by why are the Tories allowing this 1930's crap to take hold as a meme? Share of spending back to 1999/2000 levels is the reality. Why not say it?
It is utterly ludicrous for Ozzy's outriders to demand a detailed budget from Labour unless he is prepared to do likewise. I look forward to seeing the details.
No. It is ludicrous to spend 4.5 years opposing every single spending cut proposed and then to promise to cut spending without providing any detail of how you would do it.
When you have lost the trust of the nation with regards to your economic policies, you have to work hard to regain the right to be heard. Vague words are not enough.
No-one is asking for a full, detailed budget. Just some details. Some proof that there is more to this 'announcement' than just words
We all know that Labour are economically incompetent by why are the Tories allowing this 1930's crap to take hold as a meme? Share of spending back to 1999/2000 levels is the reality. Why not say it?
For people who like seeing Labour getting absolutely chewed up and spat out, or those who are holding nice priced betting slips for UKIP in Thurrock, this video is gold...
The editing is quality whoever you support
"Labour parachuted Miliband aide Polly Billington down to Thurrock with the expectation she would take the seat from the Tories, but the carpet-bagging candidate’s campaign is going from bad to worse. Not only is she trailing UKIP’s Tim Aker in the Ashcroft constituency polling, not only were Labour well behind UKIP in a recent local council by-election, now Billington is losing the student vote. “I don’t need to consult a folder to tell you what I believe in,” said Aker during today’s debate at a local college, skewering Polly on Labour’s PFI shocker after she spent two minutes reading attack lines from her notes about UKIP privatising the NHS. No doubt as to who the room preferred – the Thurrock Gazette reports “student support for UKIP and Mr Aker at the event appeared strong”. If Polly can’t even convince Thurrock’s students to vote for her…"
@tnewtondunn: Ed Balls coming unstuck on #r4today by attacking state shrink to 35% of GDP but refusing to say what it should be. Same as Danny Alexander.
@IanDunt: Balls sounded terrible in that interview. Stroppy, unclear, point-scoring. And nothing of any substance behind it.
What can Labour say?
Absolutely nothing, they have completely lost the economic argument again.
No, they havent.
I think you'll find that their approach of fewer cuts than the Tories or Lib Dems over the course of the next Parliament would poll best of all the main parties' offerings.
Something that is supported by all IQ testing that has ever been done.
Hardly a revelation, IQ Tests are not culturally neutral. They can give some useful indication within a culturally homogenous population, they are mostly next to useless for comparing people of different cultures. Consider one of the questions on the verbal reasoning section of a Cattell type test:
INSOLVENT A. Poor B. Bankrupt C. Penniless D. Broke
Not going to be easy if English isn't your primary language.
1. Osborne: I will continue to cut spending. Actually I'll acclerate it. I will attempt to bring the state to 35% of GDP. I may get pushed off course but the plan / endpoint will remain, willy nilly. I effing mean it. I'm a Tory and I think the state is a giant monster that needs cutting back to size and I believe in individual responsibility. We MUST live within our means or go bankrupt.
2. Miliband. I 'will balance the books' because I am forced into making this statement. I reject the basic economics of it because my ideology is all about expanding the state and collective responsibility and not the individual. I make lip service to cuts for electoral reasons but once in power you can all sit and swivel. My dad was a hero.
Put like that is there an opportunity for the Lib Dems??
To take the worst bits of both ?
the deficit is really important and needs to be tackled as quickly as we can without crashing the economy but no, it is not possible to do this by spending cuts alone without imposing unacceptable levels of hardship on the most vulnerable in our country.
Not sure that is absolutely true. Australia manages it. We need to move from 'we spend 700bn and need to find that much' on to 'we have 600bn to spend - what is the best way to spend it?'.
600bn a year is still a gargantuan sum of money. How about X% pay cuts for all earning over 25,000 in the public sector? How about vouchers for schools and disband the DoE? How about leaving the EU and saving 19bn? How about stopping all elective surgery in the NHS? Trim aid. Etc. Etc -> We need to re-imagine the role of the state in a very very competitive world where our economy must survive and can only sustainably offer up 600bn to spend. If you had a blank sheet of paper, no history and someone said 'here's 600bn - design an equitable state that works' we could do it.
One way to reduce long-term spend is to convert to a policy of early intervention across government involving early identification of problems with timely resolution.Thus long-term spend becomes short-term interventions.It is pleasing to note Ed Miliband is adopting this prudent approach.A "Nip it in the bud" approach has the potential to save a lot of money.
Something that is supported by all IQ testing that has ever been done.
Hardly a revelation, IQ Tests are not culturally neutral. They can give some useful indication within a culturally homogenous population, they are mostly next to useless for comparing people of different cultures. Consider one of the questions on the verbal reasoning section of a Cattell type test:
INSOLVENT A. Poor B. Bankrupt C. Penniless D. Broke
Not going to be easy if English isn't your primary language.
None of those is synonymous with insolvent. I'm not even sure which is closest - possibly C?
1. Osborne: I will continue to cut spending. Actually I'll acclerate it. I will attempt to bring the state to 35% of GDP. I may get pushed off course but the plan / endpoint will remain, willy nilly. I effing mean it. I'm a Tory and I think the state is a giant monster that needs cutting back to size and I believe in individual responsibility. We MUST live within our means or go bankrupt.
2. Miliband. I 'will balance the books' because I am forced into making this statement. I reject the basic economics of it because my ideology is all about expanding the state and collective responsibility and not the individual. I make lip service to cuts for electoral reasons but once in power you can all sit and swivel. My dad was a hero.
Put like that is there an opportunity for the Lib Dems??
To take the worst bits of both ?
the deficit is really important and needs to be tackled as quickly as we can without crashing the economy but no, it is not possible to do this by spending cuts alone without imposing unacceptable levels of hardship on the most vulnerable in our country.
Not sure that is absolutely true. Australia manages it. We need to move from 'we spend 700bn and need to find that much' on to 'we have 600bn to spend - what is the best way to spend it?'.
600bn a year is still a gargantuan sum of money. How about X% pay cuts for all earning over 25,000 in the public sector? How about vouchers for schools and disband the DoE? How about leaving the EU and saving 19bn? How about stopping all elective surgery in the NHS? Trim aid. Etc. Etc -> We need to re-imagine the role of the state in a very very competitive world where our economy must survive and can only sustainably offer up 600bn to spend. If you had a blank sheet of paper, no history and someone said 'here's 600bn - design an equitable state that works' we could do it.
One way to reduce long-term spend is to convert to a policy of early intervention across government involving early identification of problems with timely resolution.Thus long-term spend becomes short-term interventions.It is pleasing to note Ed Miliband is adopting this prudent approach.A "Nip it in the bud" approach has the potential to save a lot of money.
1. Osborne: I will continue to cut spending. Actually I'll acclerate it. I will attempt to bring the state to 35% of GDP. I may get pushed off course but the plan / endpoint will remain, willy nilly. I effing mean it. I'm a Tory and I think the state is a giant monster that needs cutting back to size and I believe in individual responsibility. We MUST live within our means or go bankrupt.
2. Miliband. I 'will balance the books' because I am forced into making this statement. I reject the basic economics of it because my ideology is all about expanding the state and collective responsibility and not the individual. I make lip service to cuts for electoral reasons but once in power you can all sit and swivel. My dad was a hero.
Put like that is there an opportunity for the Lib Dems??
To take the worst bits of both ?
the deficit is really important and needs to be tackled as quickly as we can without crashing the economy but no, it is not possible to do this by spending cuts alone without imposing unacceptable levels of hardship on the most vulnerable in our country.
Not sure that is absolutely true. Australia manages it. We need to move from 'we spend 700bn and need to find that much' on to 'we have 600bn to spend - what is the best way to spend it?'.
600bn a year is still a gargantuan sum of money. How about X% pay cuts for all earning over 25,000 in the public sector? How about vouchers for schools and disband the DoE? How about leaving the EU and saving 19bn? How about stopping all elective surgery in the NHS? Trim aid. Etc. Etc -> We need to re-imagine the role of the state in a very very competitive world where our economy must survive and can only sustainably offer up 600bn to spend. If you had a blank sheet of paper, no history and someone said 'here's 600bn - design an equitable state that works' we could do it.
One way to reduce long-term spend is to convert to a policy of early intervention across government involving early identification of problems with timely resolution.Thus long-term spend becomes short-term interventions.It is pleasing to note Ed Miliband is adopting this prudent approach.A "Nip it in the bud" approach has the potential to save a lot of money.
Prudent???
After Brown, you would think Labour would avoid that word like the plague...
1. Osborne: I will continue to cut spending. Actually I'll acclerate it. I will attempt to bring the state to 35% of GDP. I may get pushed off course but the plan / endpoint will remain, willy nilly. I effing mean it. I'm a Tory and I think the state is a giant monster that needs cutting back to size and I believe in individual responsibility. We MUST live within our means or go bankrupt.
2. Miliband. I 'will balance the books' because I am forced into making this statement. I reject the basic economics of it because my ideology is all about expanding the state and collective responsibility and not the individual. I make lip service to cuts for electoral reasons but once in power you can all sit and swivel. My dad was a hero.
Put like that is there an opportunity for the Lib Dems??
To take the worst bits of both ?
the deficit is really important and needs to be tackled as quickly as we can without crashing the economy but no, it is not possible to do this by spending cuts alone without imposing unacceptable levels of hardship on the most vulnerable in our country.
Not sure that is absolutely true. Australia manages it. We need to move from 'we spend 700bn and need to find that much' on to 'we have 600bn to spend - what is the best way to spend it?'.
600bn a year is still a gargantuan sum of money. How about X% pay cuts for all earning over 25,000 in the public sector? How about vouchers for schools and disband the DoE? How about leaving the EU and saving 19bn? How about stopping all elective surgery in the NHS? Trim aid. Etc. Etc -> We need to re-imagine the role of the state in a very very competitive world where our economy must survive and can only sustainably offer up 600bn to spend. If you had a blank sheet of paper, no history and someone said 'here's 600bn - design an equitable state that works' we could do it.
One way to reduce long-term spend is to convert to a policy of early intervention across government involving early identification of problems with timely resolution.Thus long-term spend becomes short-term interventions.It is pleasing to note Ed Miliband is adopting this prudent approach.A "Nip it in the bud" approach has the potential to save a lot of money.
It is utterly ludicrous for Ozzy's outriders to demand a detailed budget from Labour unless he is prepared to do likewise. I look forward to seeing the details.
Labour will have 2 months after the March budget to prepare their alternative - should be interesting.
IIRC Labour prevented the Tories from looking over the books prior to the 2010 election.
@tnewtondunn: Ed Balls coming unstuck on #r4today by attacking state shrink to 35% of GDP but refusing to say what it should be. Same as Danny Alexander.
@IanDunt: Balls sounded terrible in that interview. Stroppy, unclear, point-scoring. And nothing of any substance behind it.
What can Labour say?
Absolutely nothing, they have completely lost the economic argument again.
No, they havent.
I think you'll find that their approach of fewer cuts than the Tories or Lib Dems over the course of the next Parliament would poll best of all the main parties' offerings.
Mr. X, yeah, some IQ test questions are a little dubious.
There's also the underlying and common issue that they're meant to require zero knowledge and just assess mental ability, but often you do need some degree of knowledge to have any hope (beyond guessing) of getting the answer right.
IQ tests are interesting but shouldn't be taken too seriously.
Comments
My reference was to the planned reduction in public spending during the course of the next Parliament.
Miliband has spent too long ignoring the economic realities and has made far too many unfunded spending pledges. How many times has Labour promised to spend the Banker Bonus Tax? Is he going to take back all of those pledges? Of course not.
They have lost the right to be heard - and it will take a huge amount of detail and consistency of approach for them to regain trust on that issue.
'Forgetting' to mention the deficit in his conference speech is far more telling than the vague words of today. The devil is always in the detail - and there is no detail. Without detail, there is no credibility.
People know that Labour leaves office with the economy in a worse state than when they take power. Is that a risk people are willing to take again? There is nothing in the Balls-Miliband approach to indicate that anything different would happen this time round.
"Take an axe to public services"
mhhhhhh
Of course I believe him... not
http://www.poverty.org.uk/25/index.shtml
So what we are seeing is, in fact, sustained and very welcome long term improvement. This should begin to feed through to secondary schools soon, if it is not already.
Also interesting to note that, yet again, it is the inner London boroughs that do the best and the Shires that do the worst.
Labour havent made it clear what proportion of that will be made up of spending cuts (and where) and what proportion in tax rises. But they have given some specifics here and there (such as spending more on the NHS than the Tories).
The Tories presumably intend to do all their deficit reduction through spending cuts seeing as they are starting to talk about tax cuts. They have also given some specifics about the amount of spending cuts that will come from welfare and what will be ring-fenced (allowing us to see what that means for non-ring-fenced departments). But they havent spelt out those cuts in any detail either.
We know about as much about the Labour plans as we do about the Tories, you must surely see that.
1. Osborne: I will continue to cut spending. Actually I'll acclerate it. I will attempt to bring the state to 35% of GDP. I may get pushed off course but the plan / endpoint will remain, willy nilly. I effing mean it. I'm a Tory and I think the state is a giant monster that needs cutting back to size and I believe in individual responsibility. We MUST live within our means or go bankrupt.
2. Miliband. I 'will balance the books' because I am forced into making this statement. I reject the basic economics of it because my ideology is all about expanding the state and collective responsibility and not the individual. I make lip service to cuts for electoral reasons but once in power you can all sit and swivel. My dad was a hero.
Learn from recent history or repeat its mistakes.
We know very, very little about the detail of any Labour plan. There are no figures for the costs of the introduction of the Mansion Tax. They can't agree how many times over they will spend the Banker Bonus Tax (is it 5 times, is it 7? Perhaps 10 - they just don't know)
We know for certain that a lot of their plans will take time to implement - so the tax take (if there is any) will be slow to come in.
The lack of Balls-Miliband detail just increases their credibility gap.
No opposition can be expected to produce a full budget ahead of an election. But when you have opposed every single spending cut for 4 years - no-one is going to believe you when you say you will cut spending. Particularly when you look at their past records.
There are no real plans from Labour. There are lots of words - but no detail. Still.
http://reports.weforum.org/global-competitiveness-report-2014-2015/rankings/#indicatorId=EOSQ129
Bear in mind also that they have made substantial increased spending commitments on specific areas such as the spare-room subsidy. That can only mean either than they plan to cut something else more than Osborne would do, or (more likely) that they haven't a clue and are just saying populist things at random.
My point is simply that neither they nor the Tories have fully worked up plans. They both have areas of specifics that they trumpet when asked for specifics but it leaves us all guessing as to what will actually happen under either party because neither want to explain what it would actually mean.
In that scenario, the health of the various political party machines would be a bigger factor. That seems to favour Labour over the Conservatives, and the SNP over Labour.
If the 50p tax rate was such a good idea then why did Labour leave it at 40p for 13 years and only raised it just days before the GE they knew they were not going to win. Nothing to do with trying to feck up anyone following behind I suppose.
Unsurprising then that it was Labour that did away with the 10p tax rate despite the warnings and at the stoke of Browns hand doubled the tax on the lowest earners of this country overnight while continuing to keep the 40p tax band for millionaires. Tax cuts for millionaires indeed !
@paulwaugh: Tories point out this is Lab's 8th 'point plan' in 3 years. (inc 5-point plans on immigration, squeezed middle, jobs/growth) #bulletpoints
A party which accepts that taxes have to go up if we are to moderate the spending cuts. No wonder they are tanking in the polls. The great British public on both sides of the divide prefer to dream on.
And as for our media...their level of economic ignorance and incompetence would make you weep. The idea that Balls (or Osborne) is going to get found out by penetrating questions during an election campaign is just another part of the fantasy.
Considering the comment Rusbridger's private education has attracted, he deserves the sauce bottle award for this little gem:
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/dec/11/britons-who-went-to-fee-paying-schools-dominate-mediaguardian-100
As a side note have you seen this article in the Telegraph this morning:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationopinion/11285915/We-dont-need-education-reform-we-need-a-whole-new-system.html
But in fact the govt have made significant progress. Total managed expenditure, is 40.5% of gross domestic product this year, having come down steadily from 45.3% in 2009-10.
According to the OBR it needs to come down to 36% of GDP by 2018-19 to eliminate the budget deficit. This is achievable.
Labour on the other hand will continue to misrepresent Tory policy whilst realising that the cuts being made are not that draconian.
Spending on current expenditure needs to come down to 32% of GDP to achieve surplus. This last happened in 1972. The economy is 2.5 times the size of what it was then.
Public spending on this measure has come down from its peak of 40% of GDP in 2009-10 to an estimated 36.9% this year and a projected 36% in 2015-16. So reducing it further, by just over three percentage points of GDP to eliminate the deficit, is not impossible.
Lets be clear - there is no slash and burn. The tory govt is being quite rational, but it nis making the significant and necessary cuts.
Although "no ifs, no buts" and "cast iron guarantee" will be thrown at the Tories a few times in the next 6 months I would think
600bn a year is still a gargantuan sum of money. How about X% pay cuts for all earning over 25,000 in the public sector? How about vouchers for schools and disband the DoE? How about leaving the EU and saving 19bn? How about stopping all elective surgery in the NHS? Trim aid. Etc. Etc -> We need to re-imagine the role of the state in a very very competitive world where our economy must survive and can only sustainably offer up 600bn to spend. If you had a blank sheet of paper, no history and someone said 'here's 600bn - design an equitable state that works' we could do it.
The reason London does (marginally) better is probably a lot to do with a lot more parents in London coming from a background where failure to do well at school means a life in poverty with no welfare state support &, a more religious background... It's also the reason why the Trojan horse schools in Birmingham and Tower Hamlets do so well academically
IF the sh8t hits the fan early in the new year (courtesy of a Tsipras government), all bets could be off.
"Another reason for failure is what some people call the Sympathy Syndrome: excusing a child’s low achievement because of their troubled background. I was at a conference recently where an inspirational American head teacher told the story of the girl whose academic performance was falling off the edge of a cliff. Summoned to his office, she recited a litany of troubles – absentee father, mother a drug addict, siblings in jail and so. The principal heard her out, and then said: “And?” The best heads in the state sector – including Michael Wilshaw in his teaching days – don’t see hardship as an excuse, but as a challenge."
Looks like the kids are using "Ukip" as slang for "creepy" these days
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B4cBfaTCYAETkys.jpg
https://news.tes.co.uk/b/news/2014/11/11/success-of-london-schools-explained-by-pupil-ethnicity.aspx
Immigration helps too:
http://www.bristol.ac.uk/media-library/sites/cmpo/migrated/documents/wp333.pdf
Is that why the stock market's shed more than 15% in the past three days?
A study by Bristol University found that schools with a diverse pupil population performed significantly better than those filled with white British children.
It was claimed that the ethnic composition of pupils – combined with the influx of large numbers of recent migrants – had created a “London effect” that boosted grades in the capital. When the effect of ethnicity was taken into account, the increase in results disappeared, it emerged.
The findings cast doubt over claims from the previous government and teachers’ leaders that Labour’s flagship “London Challenge” programme – extra funding to promote collaborative working between schools – was the main reason for improved results in the capital"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/11223747/Schools-with-large-migrant-intake-get-better-GCSE-results.html
I'm agreeing with Nick Griffin, who is endorsing a guardian article
@nickjgriffinbnp ISIS spawned in US prisons http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/11/-sp-isis-the-inside-story?CMP=share_btn_tw … By accident or design doesn't matter in a way, everything the neo-cons touch turns to shit
Share of spending back to 1999/2000 levels is the reality. Why not say it?
And what is the point you are making ? If as it says the average weekly wage has matched the inflation rate , then all those with below average wage increase will have had a lower standard of living than the previous year . That will be a substantial number of people feeling worse off and actually being worse off .
"Professor Smith, he's a bit, you know, Yewtree, isn't he, sir?"
ND: 29.6
Syriza: 35.7
PASOK: 6.0
ANEL: 4.2
Paging RichardT
Essex Jack? Whooooose Essex Jack?
It doesn't say the average rise was 1.7%, its says the average pay packet increased by 1.7%, a below average pay packet may in percentage terms have gone up by more or by less, you can't tell from the information given.
The return of the outside toilet? Didn;t you know the tories wanted to bring back polio?
If anyone bothers to check what life for working class people was like in the 1930s, they will realise how ludicrous the comparison is.
What will be the 1930s equivalent - Cameron as Indiana Jones ?
http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/PISA-2012-results-volume-V.pdf#page=211
"Immigrants performed poorly compared to Finnish majority population
Disparities in problem-solving between students of Finnish origin and those with an immigrant background were significant in all participating countries. In Finland the average score was 526 points among the majority population whereas the score for second-generation immigrant students was 461 points, and that for first-generation immigrants was 426 points. The disparity between immigrants and native students in Finland was wider than the average for all participating countries. Finnish-speaking and Swedish-speaking schools both performed almost equally well."
http://www.minedu.fi/OPM/Tiedotteet/2014/04/Pisa_ongelmanratkaisu.html?lang=en
Something that is supported by all IQ testing that has ever been done.
1999 |332.65
2000 |340.8
2001 |366.09
2002 |389.07
2003 |420.48
2004 |455.07
2005 |491.8
2006 |523.51
2007 |549.4
2008 |582.23
2009 |633.81
2010|673.1
2011 |694.2
2012 |694.39
2013 |673.92
2014 |713.97
So, 30% off 713.97bn is 499.77bn
Just a little bit more than we were spending in 2005, not even back to 1999/2000 levels.
Total public spending in 1930 was £1.35bn
When you have lost the trust of the nation with regards to your economic policies, you have to work hard to regain the right to be heard. Vague words are not enough.
No-one is asking for a full, detailed budget. Just some details. Some proof that there is more to this 'announcement' than just words
In other words no real plan to make cuts - Danny will be pleased.
The editing is quality whoever you support
"Labour parachuted Miliband aide Polly Billington down to Thurrock with the expectation she would take the seat from the Tories, but the carpet-bagging candidate’s campaign is going from bad to worse. Not only is she trailing UKIP’s Tim Aker in the Ashcroft constituency polling, not only were Labour well behind UKIP in a recent local council by-election, now Billington is losing the student vote. “I don’t need to consult a folder to tell you what I believe in,” said Aker during today’s debate at a local college, skewering Polly on Labour’s PFI shocker after she spent two minutes reading attack lines from her notes about UKIP privatising the NHS. No doubt as to who the room preferred – the Thurrock Gazette reports “student support for UKIP and Mr Aker at the event appeared strong”. If Polly can’t even convince Thurrock’s students to vote for her…"
http://order-order.com/2014/12/11/pfi-pollys-paper-pitch-picked-apart-by-ukip/
Explain to me their plan if you would be so kind.
INSOLVENT
A. Poor
B. Bankrupt
C. Penniless
D. Broke
Not going to be easy if English isn't your primary language.
"nip it in the bud"?
Ok, so don't vote Labour.
That'll nip it in the bud.
After Brown, you would think Labour would avoid that word like the plague...
Please put spaces after full stops.
There's also the underlying and common issue that they're meant to require zero knowledge and just assess mental ability, but often you do need some degree of knowledge to have any hope (beyond guessing) of getting the answer right.
IQ tests are interesting but shouldn't be taken too seriously.