"But those who voted for Nick Clegg’s party in 2010 now back Labour by a 12-point margin over the Lib Dems and a whopping 22 points over the Tories, which suggests this is one area where being in Coalition is doing the junior partner a good deal of harm."
What PBTory-Boy Neil didn't mention was that we ended up eating Latvian (OK, Baltic) where we could entertain our collective predilections concerning homophobia (naturally in deference to our Merseyside paymaster).
But after the fifth cocktail, it all rather became a blur, as did the pub thereafter, and a final snorteroonie at Waterloo station.
I can confirm the story, up to the bit about the fifth cocktail. After that I made my excuses and left....
"The headline news is that we need an additional 250,000 primary schools places by September 2013. However, what Hodge's report omitted to say is that the reason for this shortfall is because Labour reduced the total number of primary school places by 207,000 between 2003/04 and 2009/10 and, in the same period, cut the funding for extra school places by £150 million. This, in spite of the fact that he population of England grew at a faster rate under the last government than at any time since 1801 – thanks, in large part, to Labour's open-door immigration policy. The present government has been doing it's best to cope with the resulting crisis, committing over £5 billion to funding new places."
Now we all know that Toby Young is hardly neutral in all this, but his arguments don't hold water.
Remember that the problem is primary school places for this autumn - those kids will be 3 or 4 (depending on whether they will be going into nursery or reception classes) so at the earliest they'd have been born in the last year of the Labour administration, many born after May 2010.
And trying to divert attention by claiming vast numbers of places lost between 2003 and 2010 with a hand-waving 'in spite of the fact that he population of England grew at a faster rate under the last government than at any time since 1801' simply wont do. Much of the population rise is about people living longer, not about increasing birth rate. What is relevant isn't the total population size, but the numbers of school aged kids in the UK. In fact the population of school-aged kids in the UK fell from 1998 to 2008, so it isn't unreasonable to reduce the number of places available.
Numbers are now rising so extra places need to be found - but at a time when money is tight they must be prioritised to areas with the most pressing need, which is not what is happening with the free schools programme.
It does occur to me though, that if the tories want to highlight what a Labour government looks like they might do worse than highlight the level of (non) achievement in the Principality.
Wales is labour's dirty little secret. Education is a complete catastrophe - there are no academies or free schools. The NHS is on its back because labour robbed it to subsidise students from coalition fees.
Goodness knows where the economy is going - even before the government's attempts to rein in the public sector, the state was 60%.
Wales is a basket case because of labour - and all the government there does is wail about the level of subsidy it gets from England.
The tories have to be careful in making critiques that the people of wales aren't blamed - Wales is potentially fertile territory ii the future because of de-industrialisation. Labour's zombie constituencies in the valleys are finally shrinking
Remember that the problem is primary school places for this autumn - those kids will be 3 or 4 (depending on whether they will be going into nursery or reception classes) so at the earliest they'd have been born in the last year of the Labour administration, many born after May 2010.
Err, Professor, didn't anyone ever tell you where babies come from?
Btw, surely it is better to back Verdasco for Tournamnet winner on Betfair? I got 350/1 and of course it will be very easy to lay off if he goes close.
[For newcomers to PB I should point out that Henry is like a number of posters here - a specialist in certain betting areas whose tips are very helpful. MorrisD (F1) Roger (Oscars) and OGH (cycling) are others. My own occasional racing tips have had their moments too, but you do have to kiss quite a few frogs...)]
"But the committee points out that although England's birth rate began to rise in 2001, that was not reflected in figures from the Office for National Statistics, on which DfE forecasts are based, until 2008.
Schools Minister David Laws said: "Margaret Hodge is right that there is a severe need to ensure there are enough school places but she has failed to pin the blame where it belongs - at the door of the last government of which she was a member.
"Her report correctly states that the department 'failed to adequately plan' for the rising population, but does not explain that the responsibility for this failure lies with the previous schools secretary, Ed Balls, who ignored the rising birth rates reported by the ONS."
Remember that the problem is primary school places for this autumn - those kids will be 3 or 4 (depending on whether they will be going into nursery or reception classes) so at the earliest they'd have been born in the last year of the Labour administration, many born after May 2010.
Err, Professor, didn't anyone ever tell you where babies come from?
Hmm - I think I know that one, ask me, ask me.
But what actually is your point.
Toby Young is trying to blame the current situation on the previous administration's decision to reduce primary school places by about 200,000 between 2003 and 2010. But that was entirely reasonable as at that time the numbers of primary school-aged children was dropping (from just over 4.3 million in 2003 to 4.1 million by 2008). It is only an increase in birth rates over the past few years that has seen that declining trend in demand for primary school places first level off and then begin to rise. The responsibility to ensure that kids born in from 2009 onwards have a place at in a nursery or reception class has to rest with the current government who have been in power for virtually all (and in many cased all) of the time they've been around. To suggest otherwise is completely misplaced blame.
Unless of course you'd have thought the previous administration should have pumped money into retaining places that weren't needed throughout the 'noughties' - somehow I think the PB-tories here would have accuse a government that did this of wasting money on provision that isn't needed.
Remember that the problem is primary school places for this autumn - those kids will be 3 or 4 (depending on whether they will be going into nursery or reception classes) so at the earliest they'd have been born in the last year of the Labour administration, many born after May 2010.
Err, Professor, didn't anyone ever tell you where babies come from?
This was entirely predictable as couples cut down on their budgets for socialising during the recession and made their own entertainment.
Incidentally, what're your thoughts on what'll happen at Silverstone?
I'm all shaken up by your reaction to my post. I'll have to go outside to cola down.
As for Silverstone: this morning's practice session was pretty much washed out, and this afternoon's doesn't look much better. For this reason, expect teams who brought new bits to Silverstone not to get enough learning experience to use and set them up properly. Indeed, if FP2 is wet as well, some teams will abandon the upgrades and go what they know with for FP3 and qualifying. This will hurt them more the longer they leave the decision.
For this reason, I don't expect any stellar improvements from any team, except where the track suits them anyway. I'd go for a Red Bull for the win (i.e. Vettel), either Mercedes to do well, and then Renault, although the latter will be hampered in the set-up of their new pieces. Ferrari are fourth on my list.
But it's hard to know, really. I'd love Williams to do well as a surprise, but I'd also like FI to have a good showing.
I don't rate McLaren's chances much. Which probably means they'll get a 1-2. ;-)
0.2% up on the month and 2% up on the year. As services make up 75% of our economy this should be more than enough to offset any fall in the north sea or construction and pretty much guarantee reasonable growth in Q2.
How much longer is Balls going to persist with his flatlining gesture at PMQs?
OT, Labor 48, Coalition 52. Rudd leading for best PM. Looks like a race - hard to say but you'd expect the bounce to keep growing for a while.
Particularly hard to assess because this is not a normal 'new leader' bounce, but a 'retread bounce'. I suppose that should mean that the shift is fairly stable (voters, after all, already know what they would be getting), but it presumably also limits the extent to which the bounce would keep growing.
I guess much will depend on what Rudd does and says in the next few weeks, and how his colleagues behave.
"But the committee points out that although England's birth rate began to rise in 2001, that was not reflected in figures from the Office for National Statistics, on which DfE forecasts are based, until 2008.
Schools Minister David Laws said: "Margaret Hodge is right that there is a severe need to ensure there are enough school places but she has failed to pin the blame where it belongs - at the door of the last government of which she was a member.
"Her report correctly states that the department 'failed to adequately plan' for the rising population, but does not explain that the responsibility for this failure lies with the previous schools secretary, Ed Balls, who ignored the rising birth rates reported by the ONS."
Beyond parody - the problem is for kids born in 2009 and 2010 and minister for current government (in power since 2010) somehow thinks this is all down to the last government.
There is a nice graph in this link which shows that there was no need for additional reception class places throughout the noughties - the increased need kicks in 2010 when numbers of reception age kids increases beyond its early 'noughties' level. Oh and who has been in power since 2010?
Bring in lots of women of child-bearing age and from groups who have higher numbers of babies than the existing population.... wait five years... what do you think might happen?
This wonderful Friday weather has finally allowed me a modicum of respite from the purgatory of hayfever, which afflicts, I believe, some 7 million people in one form or another. I've no problem with summer as long as it starts in 3-4 weeks. For now, I much prefer rain.
On the subject of burgers, the best one I've ever had anywhere was at Red Robin in Palm Springs. Betther than the one at "Five Guys" to be honest but more expensive I'll grant.
Slightly more substantive - school places. The problem has been in the forecasting of demand and the consequence of that failure. When demand for infant and junior achool places was falling in the 2000s, LEAs took the decision to close schools, merge others and sell off any land (which was valuable for potential residential development).
The surge in demand has now caught out these same LEAs so you either have stacked demountable or temporary classrooms if there is no actual space available or you have the grotesque situation of Councils having to hunt round for land, often having to pay top dollar for that land and having to build a school.
Another consequence of the recession, especially but not exclusively in the SE, was that some parents, who had been able to keep their children in the independent sector, were forced back into the State sector with the attendant increase in demand on primary and secondary spaces.
the increased need kicks in 2010 when numbers of reception age kids increases beyond its early 'noughties' level. Oh and who has been in power since 2010?
So you don't think it was incumbent on the government in, say, 2007, 2008, or 2009 to plan for a future increase in birthrate.
Just okay to leave a little landmine for the other lot?
OT, Labor 48, Coalition 52. Rudd leading for best PM. Looks like a race - hard to say but you'd expect the bounce to keep growing for a while.
Particularly hard to assess because this is not a normal 'new leader' bounce, but a 'retread bounce'. I suppose that should mean that the shift is fairly stable (voters, after all, already know what they would be getting), but it presumably also limits the extent to which the bounce would keep growing.
I guess much will depend on what Rudd does and says in the next few weeks, and how his colleagues behave.
I know very little of Australian politics but the idea that you can have a coup and a counter coup in the same party and it is then in a position to provide either a stable government or a stable image seems very far fetched.
Surely some of those Gillard supporters are going to cause problems.
Cold weather should suit Red Bull, likewise the tyres. That, plus the probably qualifying bonus (ahead of Ferrari and Lotus) make me think they'll do well.
"But the committee points out that although England's birth rate began to rise in 2001, that was not reflected in figures from the Office for National Statistics, on which DfE forecasts are based, until 2008.
Schools Minister David Laws said: "Margaret Hodge is right that there is a severe need to ensure there are enough school places but she has failed to pin the blame where it belongs - at the door of the last government of which she was a member.
"Her report correctly states that the department 'failed to adequately plan' for the rising population, but does not explain that the responsibility for this failure lies with the previous schools secretary, Ed Balls, who ignored the rising birth rates reported by the ONS."
There is a nice graph in this link which shows that there was no need for additional reception class places throughout the noughties - the increased need kicks in 2010 when numbers of reception age kids increases beyond its early 'noughties' level. Oh and who has been in power since 2010?
Useful chart - shows live births started increasing from the early 00's - and the 2006 estimate was too low. Reception age children started increasing sharply in 2007 - but Balls did not plan for this as the DoE stats didn't use ONS data until 2008. Even then, Labour had cut primary places but did not respond to this growing need. And in 2010 the new government is supposed to magic new places out of thin air?
Cold weather should suit Red Bull, likewise the tyres. That, plus the probably qualifying bonus (ahead of Ferrari and Lotus) make me think they'll do well.
Which is a shame. I'd prefer a closer title race.
Pah. There's only one Lotus, and they'll always be staffed by yokel in-breds from Norfolk rather than those too-bright-for-their-boots Oxfordshire types. ;-)
Yes, I'm still bitter about that palaver from a couple of years ago.
"But the committee points out that although England's birth rate began to rise in 2001, that was not reflected in figures from the Office for National Statistics, on which DfE forecasts are based, until 2008.
Schools Minister David Laws said: "Margaret Hodge is right that there is a severe need to ensure there are enough school places but she has failed to pin the blame where it belongs - at the door of the last government of which she was a member.
"Her report correctly states that the department 'failed to adequately plan' for the rising population, but does not explain that the responsibility for this failure lies with the previous schools secretary, Ed Balls, who ignored the rising birth rates reported by the ONS."
There is a nice graph in this link which shows that there was no need for additional reception class places throughout the noughties - the increased need kicks in 2010 when numbers of reception age kids increases beyond its early 'noughties' level. Oh and who has been in power since 2010?
Useful chart - shows live births started increasing from the early 00's - and the 2006 estimate was too low. Reception age children started increasing sharply in 2007 - but Balls did not plan for this as the DoE stats didn't use ONS data until 2008. Even then, Labour had cut primary places but did not respond to this growing need. And in 2010 the new government is supposed to magic new places out of thin air?
Labour failed on this. I'm not sure why anyone would try particularly hard to refute that. You can't blame anyone else for the lack of school places in September 2010.
On the other hand, it doesn't take 3 years to open a new school. And as far as I understand it, the problem for September 2013 is bigger than it was in September 2010. That's not a Labour failure.
I can see that the pre-2010 problems give some justification for considering that this isn't going to be a huge electoral problem for the blues, as it's hard to go on the attack on an issue from opposition when your record in government is also poor; but the longer you're in opposition, the easier it gets, because people tend to blame the bloke who's been busy opening schools for several years... just not where they're needed.
"But the committee points out that although England's birth rate began to rise in 2001, that was not reflected in figures from the Office for National Statistics, on which DfE forecasts are based, until 2008.
Schools Minister David Laws said: "Margaret Hodge is right that there is a severe need to ensure there are enough school places but she has failed to pin the blame where it belongs - at the door of the last government of which she was a member.
"Her report correctly states that the department 'failed to adequately plan' for the rising population, but does not explain that the responsibility for this failure lies with the previous schools secretary, Ed Balls, who ignored the rising birth rates reported by the ONS."
There is a nice graph in this link which shows that there was no need for additional reception class places throughout the noughties - the increased need kicks in 2010 when numbers of reception age kids increases beyond its early 'noughties' level. Oh and who has been in power since 2010?
Useful chart - shows live births started increasing from the early 00's - and the 2006 estimate was too low. Reception age children started increasing sharply in 2007 - but Balls did not plan for this as the DoE stats didn't use ONS data until 2008. Even then, Labour had cut primary places but did not respond to this growing need. And in 2010 the new government is supposed to magic new places out of thin air?
You need to understand the difference between reception age capacity (just 3-4 year olds) and total primary capacity. The dip in reception class numbers through the mid noughties will work its way through the primary system only exiting about now, as kids who entered primary school in 2005/6 transfer to secondary school. Hence it is entirely reasonable to have reduce overall primary capacity against 2003 numbers.
Until 2010 there is slack in the system in reception classes as these will have had reduced numbers. Indeed until recently reception classes averaged 27, giving a 10% buffer on capacity until 'full' at 30. Only once this capacity is reached (beyond about 2010 is there a genuine need for additional places, rather than the capacity to fill unfilled ones). This isn't rocket science, but the current government has massively taken it's eye off the ball on this one. Quarter of a million (completely predictable and predicted) additional places needed in September for crying out loud - what on earth have they been doing for the past 3 years.
"Dysfunctional", "deeply flawed" and "a psychopath with a giant ego" are some of the comments which have been reported. From his own side.
From the time they moved against him 3 years ago or since the latest heave? I hope GIllard and her supporters show more loyalty to the cause than Rudd did!
Mr. Jessop, that's fair enough. I've got to say I disliked the way Tony Fernandes banged on about it being more than a name and even having Colin Chapman's cap ready to throw in the air after their first victory, only to ditch the name the moment it was more convenient to be called Caterham.
@ tim Although Poland as a whole has a lower birth rate - you still have to consider the age bias . Just to very clear though I think the outrag shown in the DM article is bordering on ridiculous . "Those people they come here they have children " etc (posted from mobile )
"But the committee points out that although England's birth rate began to rise in 2001, that was not reflected in figures from the Office for National Statistics, on which DfE forecasts are based, until 2008.
Schools Minister David Laws said: "Margaret Hodge is right that there is a severe need to ensure there are enough school places but she has failed to pin the blame where it belongs - at the door of the last government of which she was a member.
"Her report correctly states that the department 'failed to adequately plan' for the rising population, but does not explain that the responsibility for this failure lies with the previous schools secretary, Ed Balls, who ignored the rising birth rates reported by the ONS."
There is a nice graph in this link which shows that there was no need for additional reception class places throughout the noughties - the increased need kicks in 2010 when numbers of reception age kids increases beyond its early 'noughties' level. Oh and who has been in power since 2010?
Useful chart - shows live births started increasing from the early 00's - and the 2006 estimate was too low. Reception age children started increasing sharply in 2007 - but Balls did not plan for this as the DoE stats didn't use ONS data until 2008. Even then, Labour had cut primary places but did not respond to this growing need. And in 2010 the new government is supposed to magic new places out of thin air?
On Tuesday evening I went to a public meeting of the Silk Commission who are looking at further devolution for Wales. Their review is split into two parts: taxation and other non-devolved matters (e.g. Justice, Broadcasting, large Energy etc.)
Their report on devolving taxation is now in the hands of the SoS at Westminster (heaven help all inhabitants of Wales if any of that is approved.)
On Tuesday we discussed Justice, Broadcasting. Major Transport, Major Energy, Major Economic policy, Defence, Foreign Affairs and Immigration.
I was horrified to discover that recommendations (or not) on devolving further powers to Cardiff Bay are not allowed to take into account the performance of the Welsh Assembly & Government over the last 14 years.
Also no provision is made for more Scrutiny or for any modification of the Welsh Assembly and Government.
You would not give a six-year-old who has been given a cap gun, which he still cannot use properly, a shotgun or anything with real bullets. So why such a programme to reward a history of incompetence (of policy, money management and delivery).
Labour's Chuka Umunna is seen in some quarters (mainly by people called Chuka Umunna) as a future Prime Minister......."Oh great. The answer is for politicians who have never run anything, such as a shop, to spend more money the country doesn't have on telling business people who do run things what they should be doing.
Any thoughts on why Wales appears to have made such a horlicks of devolution while Scotland hasn't?
Wales is quite real labour. The politicians there do not have to moderate their policies for fear of startling the middle class horses. The Welsh middle class is a very thin layer - the private sector middle class no more than a veneer.
AS such, the gesture politics that have blighted the lives of so many (particularly young) welsh people are rampant. The politicians are far more interested in flouting westminster than governing in the interests of their constituents.
There are cultural things too - the Welsh love a committee and a talking shop. Many Welsh people know this and have been sceptical of devolution all along.
At the same time as pouring scorn on Cameron and Blair before him, the locals still have their hands out for the PMs money, of course. They are also wailing about tax raising powers
"But the committee points out that although England's birth rate began to rise in 2001, that was not reflected in figures from the Office for National Statistics, on which DfE forecasts are based, until 2008.
Schools Minister David Laws said: "Margaret Hodge is right that there is a severe need to ensure there are enough school places but she has failed to pin the blame where it belongs - at the door of the last government of which she was a member.
"Her report correctly states that the department 'failed to adequately plan' for the rising population, but does not explain that the responsibility for this failure lies with the previous schools secretary, Ed Balls, who ignored the rising birth rates reported by the ONS."
There is a nice graph in this link which shows that there was no need for additional reception class places throughout the noughties - the increased need kicks in 2010 when numbers of reception age kids increases beyond its early 'noughties' level. Oh and who has been in power since 2010?
Useful chart - shows live births started increasing from the early 00's - and the 2006 estimate was too low. Reception age children started increasing sharply in 2007 - but Balls did not plan for this as the DoE stats didn't use ONS data until 2008. Even then, Labour had cut primary places but did not respond to this growing need. And in 2010 the new government is supposed to magic new places out of thin air?
Labour failed on this. I'm not sure why anyone would try particularly hard to refute that..
They didn't fail on the economy either - didn't you know?
Well, that one is at least a little less binary than a metric of number of births in 2006 vs reception places in 2010, (or 2009 vs 2013). I'm not quite sure what your point is though - it sounds a bit like you're arguing that, because some Labour tribalists will attempt to argue that Labour didn't get anything wrong, it somehow makes sense for you to argue that the Tories aren't getting it wrong either, now they own it. It *might* not be the best approach in the 2015 GE campaign.
Here are some statements that different people make about different political parties. In each case, which party do you think it applies to most - the Conservatives, Labour or the Liberal Democrats?
The kind of society it wants is broadly the kind of society I want Cons: 26(-1) LAB: 25(-2) LD: 11(0) None: 24(+2) DK: 14(0)
It is led by people of real ability Cons: 20(+1) LAB: 13(-2) LD: 4(0) None: 47(+2) DK: 16(0)
Its leaders are prepared to take tough and unpopular decisions Cons: 45(+2) LAB: 9(-2) LD: 4(-1) None: 26(+1) DK: 15(-1)
It seems to chop and change all the time: you can never be quite sure what it stands for Cons::22(-2) LAB: 25(-2) LD: 28(+1) None: 9(+2) DK: 17(+2)
Those "prepared to make tough" decisions numbers for Labour are trully dire
Number of live births - mother from Poland (rank mothers born outside UK)
2005: 3,403 #9 (first year in top 10) 2006: 6,620 #4 2007: 11,952 #3 2008: 16,101 #2 2009: 18,159 #2 2010: 19,762 #1 2011: 20,495 #1
Over the same period, the numbers of births from mothers born in the next most frequent country - Pakistan - has been broadly stable ±18,000.
To be clear - I think the last government did the right thing by Poland (we owe them from WWII) - but failed spectacularly to plan or build for the influx.
'Any thoughts on why Wales appears to have made such a horlicks of devolution while Scotland hasn't?
Scotland voted significantly in favor of devolution,the vote in Wales was marginal.
In addition to the Assembly there are 22 local authorities which must give Wales the highest ratio of elected representatives per capita in the UK. The overlap and duplication must be massive..
Walesonline
'Do we in a region of just over three million really need 22 local authorities and hundreds of councillors? New York City, for example, with a population of over eight million employs 250,000 staff and is controlled by an elected mayor and 51 councillors representing wards with 157,000 electors.'
"The headline news is that we need an additional 250,000 primary schools places by September 2013. However, what Hodge's report omitted to say is that the reason for this shortfall is because Labour reduced the total number of primary school places by 207,000 between 2003/04 and 2009/10 and, in the same period, cut the funding for extra school places by £150 million. This, in spite of the fact that he population of England grew at a faster rate under the last government than at any time since 1801 – thanks, in large part, to Labour's open-door immigration policy. The present government has been doing it's best to cope with the resulting crisis, committing over £5 billion to funding new places."
I am moving shortly and trying to get a primary school place for my youngest has not been easy. Most schools were effectively turning us away and not returning calls.
County are at present trying to FORCE the local school to take him
'Any thoughts on why Wales appears to have made such a horlicks of devolution while Scotland hasn't?
Four reasons leap to mind: aspiration, competence, capability and corporate governance.
Aspiration is almost an unknown word. In education average is viewed as OK - no real need to do better, and that culture goes across much of the public sector. I have heard of children being discouraged to apply for the top universities - almost an inferiority complex. Indeed, the Welsh feel that all is right if they beat England at rugby and mentally are still fighting the battles of the Middle Ages. There is a tremendous amount of inward looking and feeling regarding what the world can do for Wales, rather than what Wales can do for the world - they have to realise that they are part of the global society and as such are competing for jobs and lifestyle.
This lack of aspiration (and skill sets) leads to a lack of competence. European grants have been wasted on useless bureaucracy instead of infrastructure projects - like Spain and Ireland.
Capability is deficient at many levels and really many of the Assembly members are not as capable as many parish councilors. The same applies to the Welsh Civil service.
Corporate governance is very weak and scrutiny almost minimal. Massive sums of money (£millions) have been found to be fraudulently used by grant receiving pseudo-public sector organisations or charities.
Best PM etc and approval ratings are both good indicators but it's no use knowing whether Lib Dems and Kippers give Osborne and his burgers a thumbs down if they will choose the Tories over Labour to sort out the economy
Good news for the government from those YouGov numbers.
Osborne chosen over Balls in every group (apart from Labour voters) The coalition chosen over Labour on the deficit and the economy generally in every group (apart from Labour voters)
Although there is a big "neither" or "none of the above" contingent as always amongst Lib Dems and Ukip voters.
I realise the PB Tories will want to concentrate on Best PM/Best Chancellor, with their incumbency bonus and 45% don't knows, they always do.
But the closest you have to approval ratings on this are Good Job/Bad Job figures for quarter pound George.
53% of 2010 Tories think he's doing a good job. Among 2010 Lib Dems he's at -43 with one in six thinking he's doing a good job.
No the important numbers are forced choices - and the blues win most of these. You like approval numbers because they will be worse for incumbents.
I like approval numbers because they predict VI better.Thats why no US polling companies use "Best President" but favorability or approval. But you can write me 500 words on how Jim Callaghan beat Margaret Thatcher in 1979 following his Best PM lead if you want despite thatchers lead in the approval ratings
As for the forced choice well asking people whether they prefer the Lib Dems plus the Tories on one hand or Labour on the other is fine if the Lib Dems and Tories are putting up joint candidates in 2015. Are they?
Comments
Remember that the problem is primary school places for this autumn - those kids will be 3 or 4 (depending on whether they will be going into nursery or reception classes) so at the earliest they'd have been born in the last year of the Labour administration, many born after May 2010.
And trying to divert attention by claiming vast numbers of places lost between 2003 and 2010 with a hand-waving 'in spite of the fact that he population of England grew at a faster rate under the last government than at any time since 1801' simply wont do. Much of the population rise is about people living longer, not about increasing birth rate. What is relevant isn't the total population size, but the numbers of school aged kids in the UK. In fact the population of school-aged kids in the UK fell from 1998 to 2008, so it isn't unreasonable to reduce the number of places available.
Numbers are now rising so extra places need to be found - but at a time when money is tight they must be prioritised to areas with the most pressing need, which is not what is happening with the free schools programme.
Wales is labour's dirty little secret. Education is a complete catastrophe - there are no academies or free schools. The NHS is on its back because labour robbed it to subsidise students from coalition fees.
Goodness knows where the economy is going - even before the government's attempts to rein in the public sector, the state was 60%.
Wales is a basket case because of labour - and all the government there does is wail about the level of subsidy it gets from England.
The tories have to be careful in making critiques that the people of wales aren't blamed - Wales is potentially fertile territory ii the future because of de-industrialisation. Labour's zombie constituencies in the valleys are finally shrinking
Thanks for the tennis tips, Henry. I'm on.
Btw, surely it is better to back Verdasco for Tournamnet winner on Betfair? I got 350/1 and of course it will be very easy to lay off if he goes close.
[For newcomers to PB I should point out that Henry is like a number of posters here - a specialist in certain betting areas whose tips are very helpful. MorrisD (F1) Roger (Oscars) and OGH (cycling) are others. My own occasional racing tips have had their moments too, but you do have to kiss quite a few frogs...)]
"But the committee points out that although England's birth rate began to rise in 2001, that was not reflected in figures from the Office for National Statistics, on which DfE forecasts are based, until 2008.
Schools Minister David Laws said: "Margaret Hodge is right that there is a severe need to ensure there are enough school places but she has failed to pin the blame where it belongs - at the door of the last government of which she was a member.
"Her report correctly states that the department 'failed to adequately plan' for the rising population, but does not explain that the responsibility for this failure lies with the previous schools secretary, Ed Balls, who ignored the rising birth rates reported by the ONS."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-23081631
Ed Balls.....the gift that keeps on giving.....
Its amazing how many thousands of my compatriots can suddenly afford long and big spending rugby trips to Australia when its suits.
If I was the benefits agency I'd be meeting the b*ggers off the plane!!
But what actually is your point.
Toby Young is trying to blame the current situation on the previous administration's decision to reduce primary school places by about 200,000 between 2003 and 2010. But that was entirely reasonable as at that time the numbers of primary school-aged children was dropping (from just over 4.3 million in 2003 to 4.1 million by 2008). It is only an increase in birth rates over the past few years that has seen that declining trend in demand for primary school places first level off and then begin to rise. The responsibility to ensure that kids born in from 2009 onwards have a place at in a nursery or reception class has to rest with the current government who have been in power for virtually all (and in many cased all) of the time they've been around. To suggest otherwise is completely misplaced blame.
Unless of course you'd have thought the previous administration should have pumped money into retaining places that weren't needed throughout the 'noughties' - somehow I think the PB-tories here would have accuse a government that did this of wasting money on provision that isn't needed.
http://m.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/the-rudd-effect-labor-bounces-back-in-poll-but-coalition-still-on-course-for-election-win-20130628-2p0xv.html
The Scots have their share of feck-ups - but no more than Westminster - and neither on the industrial scale of Wales.....
I have just filled in a survey. I put my good cypriot/oirish self down as white.
Nothing to see here you might profer: You'd be surprised. "White - Scottish" is now an ethnic group...!
:shudders:
As for Silverstone: this morning's practice session was pretty much washed out, and this afternoon's doesn't look much better. For this reason, expect teams who brought new bits to Silverstone not to get enough learning experience to use and set them up properly. Indeed, if FP2 is wet as well, some teams will abandon the upgrades and go what they know with for FP3 and qualifying. This will hurt them more the longer they leave the decision.
For this reason, I don't expect any stellar improvements from any team, except where the track suits them anyway. I'd go for a Red Bull for the win (i.e. Vettel), either Mercedes to do well, and then Renault, although the latter will be hampered in the set-up of their new pieces. Ferrari are fourth on my list.
But it's hard to know, really. I'd love Williams to do well as a surprise, but I'd also like FI to have a good showing.
I don't rate McLaren's chances much. Which probably means they'll get a 1-2. ;-)
0.2% up on the month and 2% up on the year. As services make up 75% of our economy this should be more than enough to offset any fall in the north sea or construction and pretty much guarantee reasonable growth in Q2.
How much longer is Balls going to persist with his flatlining gesture at PMQs?
I guess much will depend on what Rudd does and says in the next few weeks, and how his colleagues behave.
There is a nice graph in this link which shows that there was no need for additional reception class places throughout the noughties - the increased need kicks in 2010 when numbers of reception age kids increases beyond its early 'noughties' level. Oh and who has been in power since 2010?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-21785796
Bring in lots of women of child-bearing age and from groups who have higher numbers of babies than the existing population.... wait five years... what do you think might happen?
This wonderful Friday weather has finally allowed me a modicum of respite from the purgatory of hayfever, which afflicts, I believe, some 7 million people in one form or another. I've no problem with summer as long as it starts in 3-4 weeks. For now, I much prefer rain.
On the subject of burgers, the best one I've ever had anywhere was at Red Robin in Palm Springs. Betther than the one at "Five Guys" to be honest but more expensive I'll grant.
Slightly more substantive - school places. The problem has been in the forecasting of demand and the consequence of that failure. When demand for infant and junior achool places was falling in the 2000s, LEAs took the decision to close schools, merge others and sell off any land (which was valuable for potential residential development).
The surge in demand has now caught out these same LEAs so you either have stacked demountable or temporary classrooms if there is no actual space available or you have the grotesque situation of Councils having to hunt round for land, often having to pay top dollar for that land and having to build a school.
Another consequence of the recession, especially but not exclusively in the SE, was that some parents, who had been able to keep their children in the independent sector, were forced back into the State sector with the attendant increase in demand on primary and secondary spaces.
Half Cypriot, half Irish? Jeez, that is some inflammable combination.
Have you ever tried peace talks with yourself?
Surely some of those Gillard supporters are going to cause problems.
Interesting thoughts.
Cold weather should suit Red Bull, likewise the tyres. That, plus the probably qualifying bonus (ahead of Ferrari and Lotus) make me think they'll do well.
Which is a shame. I'd prefer a closer title race.
Must be squirrel Friday.
Cam being pro-active on Europe again L
Open Europe @OpenEurope 12m
Cameron: the UK is establishing a business task force made up of 6 of our best business leaders to recommend how to best cut regulation
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/66409000/gif/_66409646_rep_class_child_eng_464.gif
Bend over but hold the vaseline ?
Yes, I'm still bitter about that palaver from a couple of years ago.
On the other hand, it doesn't take 3 years to open a new school. And as far as I understand it, the problem for September 2013 is bigger than it was in September 2010. That's not a Labour failure.
I can see that the pre-2010 problems give some justification for considering that this isn't going to be a huge electoral problem for the blues, as it's hard to go on the attack on an issue from opposition when your record in government is also poor; but the longer you're in opposition, the easier it gets, because people tend to blame the bloke who's been busy opening schools for several years... just not where they're needed.
@TelePolitics
Chuka Umunna MP: let them eat wheat-free, fat-free almond cake http://bit.ly/15MDhas
The opposition seems deeply uninspired but this is soap opera, not government.
Until 2010 there is slack in the system in reception classes as these will have had reduced numbers. Indeed until recently reception classes averaged 27, giving a 10% buffer on capacity until 'full' at 30. Only once this capacity is reached (beyond about 2010 is there a genuine need for additional places, rather than the capacity to fill unfilled ones). This isn't rocket science, but the current government has massively taken it's eye off the ball on this one. Quarter of a million (completely predictable and predicted) additional places needed in September for crying out loud - what on earth have they been doing for the past 3 years.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/iainmartin1/100223886/chuka-umunna-urges-himself-to-have-a-conversation-with-himself-about-shopping-at-tesco/
https://twitter.com/BenSweeneyF1/status/350567441560133632
On Tuesday evening I went to a public meeting of the Silk Commission who are looking at further devolution for Wales. Their review is split into two parts: taxation and other non-devolved matters (e.g. Justice, Broadcasting, large Energy etc.)
Their report on devolving taxation is now in the hands of the SoS at Westminster (heaven help all inhabitants of Wales if any of that is approved.)
On Tuesday we discussed Justice, Broadcasting. Major Transport, Major Energy, Major Economic policy, Defence, Foreign Affairs and Immigration.
I was horrified to discover that recommendations (or not) on devolving further powers to Cardiff Bay are not allowed to take into account the performance of the Welsh Assembly & Government over the last 14 years.
Also no provision is made for more Scrutiny or for any modification of the Welsh Assembly and Government.
You would not give a six-year-old who has been given a cap gun, which he still cannot use properly, a shotgun or anything with real bullets. So why such a programme to reward a history of incompetence (of policy, money management and delivery).
Wales is quite real labour. The politicians there do not have to moderate their policies for fear of startling the middle class horses. The Welsh middle class is a very thin layer - the private sector middle class no more than a veneer.
AS such, the gesture politics that have blighted the lives of so many (particularly young) welsh people are rampant. The politicians are far more interested in flouting westminster than governing in the interests of their constituents.
There are cultural things too - the Welsh love a committee and a talking shop. Many Welsh people know this and have been sceptical of devolution all along.
At the same time as pouring scorn on Cameron and Blair before him, the locals still have their hands out for the PMs money, of course. They are also wailing about tax raising powers
Raising tax from who FFS? nobody has any money!
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=WuzsOdasn24&desktop_uri=/watch?v=WuzsOdasn24
Indeed. Imagine fiscal powers! !!
'The risk for the politician who does this is that he or she might make themselves sound like a pillock'
Is there any doubt?
Chuka the comedy toff, London night clubs full of trash ,shops at the co-op,at least his posturing gives us a good laugh.
2005: 3,403 #9 (first year in top 10)
2006: 6,620 #4
2007: 11,952 #3
2008: 16,101 #2
2009: 18,159 #2
2010: 19,762 #1
2011: 20,495 #1
Over the same period, the numbers of births from mothers born in the next most frequent country - Pakistan - has been broadly stable ±18,000.
To be clear - I think the last government did the right thing by Poland (we owe them from WWII) - but failed spectacularly to plan or build for the influx.
'Any thoughts on why Wales appears to have made such a horlicks of devolution while Scotland hasn't?
Scotland voted significantly in favor of devolution,the vote in Wales was marginal.
In addition to the Assembly there are 22 local authorities which must give Wales the highest ratio of elected representatives per capita in the UK.
The overlap and duplication must be massive..
Walesonline
'Do we in a region of just over three million really need 22 local authorities and hundreds of councillors? New York City, for example, with a population of over eight million employs 250,000 staff and is controlled by an elected mayor and 51 councillors representing wards with 157,000 electors.'
The consensus was this lot might not be great but the alternative would be appaling.
County are at present trying to FORCE the local school to take him
Another major feck up by Labour
'Any thoughts on why Wales appears to have made such a horlicks of devolution while Scotland hasn't?
Four reasons leap to mind: aspiration, competence, capability and corporate governance.
Aspiration is almost an unknown word. In education average is viewed as OK - no real need to do better, and that culture goes across much of the public sector. I have heard of children being discouraged to apply for the top universities - almost an inferiority complex. Indeed, the Welsh feel that all is right if they beat England at rugby and mentally are still fighting the battles of the Middle Ages. There is a tremendous amount of inward looking and feeling regarding what the world can do for Wales, rather than what Wales can do for the world - they have to realise that they are part of the global society and as such are competing for jobs and lifestyle.
This lack of aspiration (and skill sets) leads to a lack of competence. European grants have been wasted on useless bureaucracy instead of infrastructure projects - like Spain and Ireland.
Capability is deficient at many levels and really many of the Assembly members are not as capable as many parish councilors. The same applies to the Welsh Civil service.
Corporate governance is very weak and scrutiny almost minimal. Massive sums of money (£millions) have been found to be fraudulently used by grant receiving pseudo-public sector organisations or charities.
Need I say more?