Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Dave was doing OK at PMQs but he raised Unite just too many

SystemSystem Posts: 12,183
edited July 2013 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Dave was doing OK at PMQs but he raised Unite just too many times

The most interesting feature of PMQs today was actually the new line of attack from EdM on free schools. Why are the government funding news schools in areas where there are surplus places when at the same time when there are parts of the country with desperate shortages?

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,667
    Food banks and overcrowded classes are ignored by the PM, who prefers to talk about Len McCluskey. Hmmm
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    TEST
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    What clips are they showing on the news? If you want to make certain they carry your message you have to make sure you don't talk about anything else...
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    Dave needs to keep hammering it home, until everyone is aware of how corrupt the Labour selection process is..Lets not forget Mr Dromeys selecion from an AWL
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,667

    Dave needs to keep hammering it home, until everyone is aware of how corrupt the Labour selection process is..Lets not forget Mr Dromeys selecion from an AWL

    Yes, Dave should talk about nothing else. He needs to let people know what he really cares about.

  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    SO and The Cheshire Farmer wouldn't know a food bank if it hit them on the head, apparently they are on every stret corner.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    Not sure the Tories should be running with this in any case though, it just tees Labour up for the standard, scheduled 18-months-before-the-election confrontation with the unions. This is such a deeply embedded Labour tradition I think even the unions would get upset if Ed Miliband didn't do it...
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    SO..Like your beloved Leader.. Weak
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    How many people don't know who McCluskey is but DO watch the whole 30 minutes?

    Those who watch the whole 30 minutes will know who he is. Those who watch the highlights will have it in a highlight.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,366

    People join a trade union for three reasons ...

    (1) You get special offers on insurance, holidays etc (a very minor reason).
    (2) The union negotiates professionally on terms and conditions (an important reason)
    (3) As an insurance policy against victimisation. Ambitious managers can show their credentials by cutting costs and this can result in collateral damage. In my experience, this is a major reason in the public services. The bosses are seen to have their own agenda, and the union is a fall-back safety option.

    Union members are representative of the population at large, many are apathetic politically and those who vote cover a wide spectrum. I was a rep for 15 years and a member of the branch council of a white-collar union unaffiliated to Labour. We took personal cases and defended members. We had a couple of SWPers on council who were militant, but in general our full time officials were pragmatic rather than politically motivated. We never advocated strike action without knowing that the membership would support it, and then only as a last resort.

    In return we received loyalty from the members. Had we been affiliated to Labour and recommended, however indirectly, whom to support in a leadership election, we would have influenced the vote. I suspect Unite has a solid core of loyal supporters too.

    The problem only occurs when the SWP-types take control but that's still the exception not the rule.

  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,318
    FPT but just as relevant to this one.

    Tim and SO and OGH are right: voters will care far more about schools/shortages of places etc than the latest internal Labour rift. What the Unite/Labour squabble may do is affect internal Labour party morale and give the Tories a stick to beat them up with but I'd have thought that most voters (insofar as they care) already assume that the unions play a big role in running/funding Labour. It will reinforce existing perceptions rather than change anything much or at all.

    Tories should not get over-excited by such stories - come September they will be hit hard if there are lots of stories of children being made to learn in playgrounds/parks etc because there are no school places.

    Not sure the public care too hoots about PMQs right now: it's nearly the end of term / holidays are on us and the weather is still dismal.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    I suppose it's the prerogative of the site owner to be inconsistent, but the last two threads do smack of our host having his cake and eating it.

    If the Conservatives are going to make anything of this, they're going to have to go in hard precisely because Len McCluskey isn't yet that well-known. By taking this approach, David Cameron has this week obliterated the awkward questions that Ed Miliband was asking.

    By the way, the title of the video is probably defamatory.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,441
    Len Miliband won't be able to motivate Labour until he presents some policies. Could be a long wait.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Just off the back of an envelope calculations from what was quoted in PMQ's:

    Ed: 240,000 place shortage coming up
    PM: 500,000 new places coming up
    Ed: But 1/3 of those places will go where "not needed".

    With my basic calculations that means 330,000 will go where needed (to cover 240,000) and then there's extra 170k on top elsewhere. If that's the case I don't see any problem whatsoever. The idea that no new schools can be built if older schools aren't "full" is patently silly and so long as enough go to where they're required why are extras a problem?
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    Alex Smith @alexsmith1982

    @MSmithsonPB How many people watch all of PMQs?! If it's in BBC News once he's done what he meant to.

  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,885
    "Thieving Liar Cameron"

    Seems like a great video. Might want to rehost it Mike...
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    edited July 2013
    PMQs is largely entertainment for MPs and the Westminster hangers-on, a sort of Wimbledon for those who can't hit a ball. The ritual is that Labour MPs ask brain-dead questions, trying to shoe-horn in fatuous phrases such as the 'bedroom tax' and nonsense about food banks, and the PM tries to return the serve with an accurately-judged slam. With luck, one side or the other gets in a good sound-bite for the evening news, but mainly the purpose of the game is to entertain your own side and discomfort the other side.

    Today it was Labour who were most discomforted, for the very good reason that they know the Unite malarkey is deeply embarassing for the Labour Party.

    Meanwhile, life goes on.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,773
    This isn't directly about the unions. It's about Ed being weak and not in control of his own party


    Which he isn't...
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,366
    I think Labour need to be careful if they bleat about over-crowded primary schools. That allows UKIP to claim it's the result of uncontrolled immigration five years ago.

    Unless it's a clever plan by Labour to big-up UKIP and win on 30% of the vote in 2013?
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Whining lefties don't like it up 'em.

    Your boy got a spanking from the PM who was clearly enjoying himself.

    It was a Crosbytastic performance - and made rEd look like the wee tiddler in the big boys pond that he is.

    rEd insists that he bumbles on with no policies and no vision - there is nothing for the PM to attack - apart from their awful record, their dubious practices and their crap leader.

    If Labour want to debate policies - they should get some.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,441

    This isn't directly about the unions. It's about Ed being weak and not in control of his own party


    Which he isn't...

    Labour is safe with Ed Milicluskey; the activists have got their party back Len Kinnock says so.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Mike make a useful point but his final contention is wrong.

    Len clearly isn't too well known presently but that will change and that is what Cameron wants.

    Having a union leader tied at the hip to the Labour leader with added difficulties is a win/win for Cameron and that is why Ed is reaching for the largest barge poll he can find.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    tim said:

    Cameron fixates on McCluskey
    Gove fixates on tiny Free Schools

    Meanwhile class sizes rise and a primary school places crisis has taken them by surprise.
    Great strategy.

    "Taken them by surprise"?

    No, tim. The shortage of school places is yet another legacy of the incompetent Labour government.

    David Laws explains:

    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."

    He said that the government had more than doubled spending on new school places compared with the previous government.

    The government announced on Thursday that as a result of the Spending Review, it would be spending £7.5bn creating 500,000 additional school places by 2021. This was on top of the £5bn that would have been spent by 2015.


    Once again, the Coalition government has been left to clear up Labour's mess.
  • Interesting how 'statist' so many left-wing LDs are. Also amused at the manic spinning by the usual suspects on the left today. A clear sign of how rattled they are.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    Smithson posted - How many people know who Len McCluskey actually is?

    The most interesting feature of PMQs today was actually the new line of attack from EdM on free schools. Why are the government funding new schools in areas where there are surplus places when at the same time when there are parts of the country with desperate shortages?

    How many people on here remembered what ed said at PMQ's ? (until mike brings it up in the headliner for the thread)

    I got from PMQ's labour on the backfoot over they unite problem and mike Smithson's thread header of trying to change the attack on Cameron/gove than miliband and labour,nice try mike.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,441
    AveryLP said:

    tim said:

    Cameron fixates on McCluskey
    Gove fixates on tiny Free Schools

    Meanwhile class sizes rise and a primary school places crisis has taken them by surprise.
    Great strategy.

    "Taken them by surprise"?

    No, tim. The shortage of school places is yet another legacy of the incompetent Labour government.

    David Laws explains:

    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."

    He said that the government had more than doubled spending on new school places compared with the previous government.

    The government announced on Thursday that as a result of the Spending Review, it would be spending £7.5bn creating 500,000 additional school places by 2021. This was on top of the £5bn that would have been spent by 2015.


    Once again, the Coalition government has been left to clear up Labour's mess.
    So Ed screwed up school places, the other Ed screwed up energy and both Eds helped screw up the economy. Shouldn't Labour just stop promoting people called Ed ?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    Why are the government funding new schools in areas where there are surplus places

    Why are the unions Labour insisting that places at crap schools be filled? What do they have against parental choice and aspiration?

    It's a great line of attack. I wonder how long they can keep it up?
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    edited July 2013

    So Ed screwed up school places, the other Ed screwed up energy and both Eds helped screw up the economy. Shouldn't Labour just stop promoting people called Ed ?

    That's unfair namism. It was a Margaret who screwed up the Rural Payments Agency, an Yvette who screwed up on HIPs, a John who screwed up housing, a Gordon who screwed up everything he touched, and a Tony who screwed up much of Asia.
  • dugarbandierdugarbandier Posts: 2,596
    o/t

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/03/ban-qat-theresa-may-ban-cats

    I believe this article has been made with Tim in mind...

    though to be serious, the May plan does look like a transparent attempt to make it easier to harrass people originating in east africa..
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Djokovic v Del Potro in top half semi. McEnroe to commentate ?!?

    Titters
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,763

    Food banks and overcrowded classes are ignored by the PM, who prefers to talk about Len McCluskey. Hmmm

    It is not demand for food banks that has gone up, it is supply. Once you give something for nothing, it's not surprising that people start taking it up, especially if there's little or no local social stigma to doing so.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,971
    FPT:

    It is a shame that Tim thought Wolmar had had a sudden anti-HS2 conversion. Here is one of Christian's articles from July 2010 about it, where he think Milton Keynes may end up like a little French village:

    http://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/2010/07/hs2-may-result-in-the-unexpected/

    Also note that a full third of the piece is an advertisement for his latest book.

    I leave it to the reader to see where his argument goes wrong. He is a good writer with many excellent thoughts, but he does seem to ignore the effect of the motorcar and the scale of the country.

    A simple rule for Wolmar: England != France (I will leave it to others to say whether France>England or England>France)
  • On topic:

    Mike you know damn well that that PMQs is 30 minutes long, of which mere seconds of highlights end up on the news bulletins. Dave knows this too. And why do you think Redward always refers to 'the part-time chancellor'? They need their sound bites and need to be sure the sound bites chosen will contain the words they want to convey.

    We live in a world of spin and deliberate message management. We can thank Tiny Blair and Alastair Campbell for that.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    PMQs sketch: Tories unite against Unite

    Michael Deacon watches David Cameron torment Labour with attack after attack on Len McCluskey and the unions.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10157458/PMQs-sketch-Tories-unite-against-Unite.html?x
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,400
    The 250,000 children with no school to go to seems one of the more contrived hysterias, with little evidence in reality.

    Still it does seem to have resulted in this beautiful line of questioning from Austin Mitchel.

    "Q19 Austin Mitchell: It is not falling. The birth rate went up. It might have been falling under the Conservative Government, but it went up under the Labour Government because people had more confidence in the future. That is causing the problems."

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmpubacc/359/359.pdf
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    BBC Breaking News ‏@BBCBreaking 16m

    The chief executive of Tameside hospital in Greater Manchester resigns amid claims of poor patient care.


  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    edited July 2013
    .............

  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,763
    Scott_P said:

    Why are the government funding new schools in areas where there are surplus places

    Why are the unions Labour insisting that places at crap schools be filled? What do they have against parental choice and aspiration?

    It's a great line of attack. I wonder how long they can keep it up?
    Very good point. There's an excellent question to be asked as to why there are surplus places at these schools in the first place. Why are parents so keen to avoid them? It is not a lack of school places that's the problem; it's a lack of good ones. But then Miliband / Labour / the union's line is entirely typical of the bureaucrat's mindset: a child is a child and a place is a place and preference and quality don't come into it even if they're admitted to existing at all.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,667
    AveryLP said:

    tim said:

    Cameron fixates on McCluskey
    Gove fixates on tiny Free Schools

    Meanwhile class sizes rise and a primary school places crisis has taken them by surprise.
    Great strategy.

    "Taken them by surprise"?

    No, tim. The shortage of school places is yet another legacy of the incompetent Labour government.

    David Laws explains:

    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."

    He said that the government had more than doubled spending on new school places compared with the previous government.

    The government announced on Thursday that as a result of the Spending Review, it would be spending £7.5bn creating 500,000 additional school places by 2021. This was on top of the £5bn that would have been spent by 2015.


    Once again, the Coalition government has been left to clear up Labour's mess.

    29 per cent of local authorities were funded less than the Department had assessed they needed for new school places in 2012-13 using authorities’ own forecasts for pupil numbers.

  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 1,191
    "Labour is opposed to any new school in an area where there are a surplus of places—regardless of the quality of them. Miliband simply wants to fill up existing schools regardless of whether they are any good at getting the best out of children. It was proof that he doesn’t believe in choice or competition driving up standards."

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/07/pmqs/
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Places offering free food become popular ?

    What capitalist witchcraft is this ?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,667

    Food banks and overcrowded classes are ignored by the PM, who prefers to talk about Len McCluskey. Hmmm

    It is not demand for food banks that has gone up, it is supply. Once you give something for nothing, it's not surprising that people start taking it up, especially if there's little or no local social stigma to doing so.

    I strongly urge the Tories to adopt this line of argument.

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,971
    tim said:

    Scott_P said:

    Why are the government funding new schools in areas where there are surplus places

    Why are the unions Labour insisting that places at crap schools be filled? What do they have against parental choice and aspiration?

    It's a great line of attack. I wonder how long they can keep it up?
    Is there any evidence that the Free Schools which have opened in areas with surplus places are better than the existing schools?
    Is there any evidence for your contention on the last thread that Christian Wolmar had suddenly had a road to Damascus conversion against HS2?

    No, I thought not.
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,400
    Worth reading the Spectator article on Food Banks

    "True, Mould [Trussel Trust CEO] was unimpressed with some of the government’s benefit cuts, which he worries will have unintended and costly consequences. But most of all, he was keen to impress upon me that food banks are not a scandal. In fact, the real scandal is that they haven’t existed for longer in this country. And the problems they address are so varied and complex that even when the good times roll again, we will still need food banks because government is incapable of solving every problem. It creates a fair few problems itself through inefficiency."

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/06/food-banks-and-political-failure/
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    tim said:

    Scott_P said:

    Why are the government funding new schools in areas where there are surplus places

    Why are the unions Labour insisting that places at crap schools be filled? What do they have against parental choice and aspiration?

    It's a great line of attack. I wonder how long they can keep it up?
    Is there any evidence that the Free Schools which have opened in areas with surplus places are better than the existing schools?
    Well if the aren't any better then parents won't send their kids to them and they will close - and the best schools will thrive.

    Anyone outside Unite-Labour would agree with that.

  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    CD13 said:

    I think Labour need to be careful if they bleat about over-crowded primary schools. That allows UKIP to claim it's the result of uncontrolled immigration five years ago.

    Unless it's a clever plan by Labour to big-up UKIP and win on 30% of the vote in 2013?

    Other way round i think. The school places thing will automatically promote the uncontrolled immigration line for obvious reasons. What Labour need to do is *deflect* the argument in a different direction. Dunno why the Tories are falling for it. They should just point out it's a result of Labour's immigration policy.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    @tim

    Is there any evidence that the Free Schools which have opened in areas with surplus places are better than the existing schools?"

    Do you wish to deny the parents their choice over where and how they are educated?
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Gadfly said:

    "Labour is opposed to any new school in an area where there are a surplus of places—regardless of the quality of them. Miliband simply wants to fill up existing schools regardless of whether they are any good at getting the best out of children. It was proof that he doesn’t believe in choice or competition driving up standards."

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/07/pmqs/

    Decent post in the replies

    "The two issues are linked, mainly because the unions do not want new schools competing for pupils, especially if those new schools have non-union teachers. This would result in substitution of teachers and loss of union members. Loss of union members would result in reduction of union levies and loss of income for the Labour Party. Therefore Labour has a political interest in keeping poor unionised schools opened while keeping new non-unionised schools out."

    It all comes back to that Union cash...
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453


    Do you wish to deny the parents their choice over where and how they are educated?

    Yes. That's the union line that Ed and Twiggy are joyfully toeing
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    LOL

    @YvetteCooperMP
    Very positive news if Jordanian treaty now means Abu Qatada can be there by Sunday to face fair trial
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,667
    tim said:

    AveryLP said:

    tim said:

    Cameron fixates on McCluskey
    Gove fixates on tiny Free Schools

    Meanwhile class sizes rise and a primary school places crisis has taken them by surprise.
    Great strategy.

    "Taken them by surprise"?

    No, tim. The shortage of school places is yet another legacy of the incompetent Labour government.

    David Laws explains:

    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."

    He said that the government had more than doubled spending on new school places compared with the previous government.

    The government announced on Thursday that as a result of the Spending Review, it would be spending £7.5bn creating 500,000 additional school places by 2021. This was on top of the £5bn that would have been spent by 2015.


    Once again, the Coalition government has been left to clear up Labour's mess.
    So Ed screwed up school places, the other Ed screwed up energy and both Eds helped screw up the economy. Shouldn't Labour just stop promoting people called Ed ?
    So on Goves watch 3.5 years is not long enough to provide primary school places, and he expected the work to have been done for him by the last govt, despite the fact that many children start 3-7 aged Primary schools?

    They have known since September 2010 there was going to be a problem:

    In September 2010, the Department forecast a 330,000 rise in the number of
    children attending primary school between 2010/11 and 2014/15 to 4.2 million, and
    an increase in the number starting school from 584,000 to 633,000. It estimated that
    260,000 new places would be needed in primary and 64,000 in secondary schools by
    September 2014 (a total of 324,000 new places).

    ...

    The places required were not evenly spread across England. Although all regions
    predicted need for more primary places, the greatest pressure was in London, which
    accounted for a third of places required.
    1.16 The Department compiled its estimate of places required by examining local
    authorities’ forecast data for pupil numbers in 2014/15 and existing capacity in May 2010
    in each authority, and, for county councils, for each district within that authority. It
    then calculated the number of extra places needed to achieve a surplus of places of
    at least 5 per cent in each authority or district. The Department adopted this planning
    assumption in the context of a challenging spending review when preparing its funding
    bid to HM Treasury. It considered that on average 5 per cent was the bare minimum
    needed for authorities to meet their statutory duty with operational flexibility, while
    enabling parents to have some choice of schools. As at September 2010, 37 of 152
    authorities were forecasting a surplus of primary places of below 5 per cent by 2014/15
    without any spending on new places, while another 62 would be in deficit, with fewer
    primary places than children.

    http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/10089-001_Capital-funding-for-new-school-places.pdf

    Note this too:

    Many local authorities also told us that increasing numbers of Academies and Free
    Schools may make providing new places more difficult as authorities have no powers to
    direct them to expand to take more pupils. Reviews by the Department in 2012 found
    examples of Academies which were keen to expand, but also examples of Academies
    not wishing to expand. The Department argues that schools have a range of very valid
    individual reasons for these decisions.

    While this rather blows Gove and laws out of the water:

    In the 2000s, the Department recognised that, although the overall need was for
    the removal of surplus places, local pockets of growth in school-age population could
    occur, particularly in larger local authorities. It therefore provided core capital funding
    to authorities totalling £400 million a year from 2007-08 to 2010-11, to help cover local
    growth in need for places.6
    2.3 The Department also operated an annual ‘safety valve’ whereby local authorities
    could apply for extra funding to address exceptional growth. Until 2009, very few
    authorities applied for this additional grant funding. In autumn 2009, in response
    to the first forecasts that substantial numbers of new places would be required,
    the Department ran a larger safety valve exercise, allocating an extra £266 million
    for 2010‑11 to 36 authorities to provide primary places for September 2010 and
    September 2011.
    2.4 Under its 2010 Spending Review settlement in October 2010, the Department
    doubled its specific core funding for new places to £800 million a year from 2011-12 to
    2014-15. In total £3.2 billion was expected to be paid over the period to local authorities
    through non-ringfenced capital grants (Figure 9). In parallel, it reduced planned
    spending on its other capital programmes to reflect the 60 per cent real-terms reduction
    in its overall capital budget under the settlement.
    2.5 The Department reduced Devolved Formula Capital funding for schools’
    maintenance, and cancelled the Primary Capital Programme and many Building
    Schools for the Future projects (Figure 10 overleaf). The primary purpose of these
    two programmes was the refurbishment of existing schools, but some local authorities
    had started to consider how they could be used to expand schools to provide extra
    places in areas of need. The Department did not assess the impact of reducing
    these programmes on the provision of new places as it lacked the necessary data.
    Consequently, there is no complete evaluation of how total funding which may have
    contributed to new places changed across all the Department’s capital funding streams.



  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    edited July 2013
    There must be hundreds of food banks in rural Cheshire..
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    There must be hundreds of food banks in rural Cheshire..

    I think they are closing the food banks to open free schools. Or something...

  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    edited July 2013
    @Southam: Err, I think you missed the key sentence:

    Under its 2010 Spending Review settlement in October 2010, the Department doubled its specific core funding for new places to £800 million a year from 2011-12 to 2014-15.

    i.e. Laws was right.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,667
    TGOHF said:

    Gadfly said:

    "Labour is opposed to any new school in an area where there are a surplus of places—regardless of the quality of them. Miliband simply wants to fill up existing schools regardless of whether they are any good at getting the best out of children. It was proof that he doesn’t believe in choice or competition driving up standards."

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/07/pmqs/

    Decent post in the replies

    "The two issues are linked, mainly because the unions do not want new schools competing for pupils, especially if those new schools have non-union teachers. This would result in substitution of teachers and loss of union members. Loss of union members would result in reduction of union levies and loss of income for the Labour Party. Therefore Labour has a political interest in keeping poor unionised schools opened while keeping new non-unionised schools out."

    It all comes back to that Union cash...

    It's a great theory with one tiny flaw: none of the teaching unions donate to Labour.

  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,914
    edited July 2013
    @Mike

    "Dave was doing OK at PMQ's but he raised Unite just too many times"

    Didn't he just! I don't want to be accused of being a class warrior but it's the first time since he became PM that I really found his plummy accent grating.

    Sneeing at the Unions with a voice that sounded like a Victorian mill owner just didn't work for him. He just sounded patronising.

    I can only think the instruction came from Lynton Crosby who wouldn't understand the nuance and therefore wouldn't comprehend what a turn off it was.
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523

    tim said:

    AveryLP said:

    tim said:

    Cameron fixates on McCluskey
    Gove fixates on tiny Free Schools

    Meanwhile class sizes rise and a primary school places crisis has taken them by surprise.
    Great strategy.

    "Taken them by surprise"?

    No, tim. The shortage of school places is yet another legacy of the incompetent Labour government.

    David Laws explains:

    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."

    He said that the government had more than doubled spending on new school places compared with the previous government.

    The government announced on Thursday that as a result of the Spending Review, it would be spending £7.5bn creating 500,000 additional school places by 2021. This was on top of the £5bn that would have been spent by 2015.


    Once again, the Coalition government has been left to clear up Labour's mess.
    So Ed screwed up school places, the other Ed screwed up energy and both Eds helped screw up the economy. Shouldn't Labour just stop promoting people called Ed ?
    So on Goves watch 3.5 years is not long enough to provide primary school places, and he expected the work to have been done for him by the last govt, despite the fact that many children start 3-7 aged Primary schools?

    They have known since September 2010 there was going to be a problem:

    In September 2010, the Department forecast a 330,000 rise in the number of
    children attending primary school between 2010/11 and 2014/15 to 4.2 million, and
    an increase in the number starting school from 584,000 to 633,000. It estimated that
    260,000 new places would be needed in primary and 64,000 in secondary schools by
    September 2014 (a total of 324,000 new places).

    ...

    The places required were not evenly spread across England. Although all regions
    predicted need for more primary places, the greatest pressure was in London, which
    accounted for a third of places required.
    1.16 The Department compiled its estimate of places required by examining local
    authorities’ forecast data for pupil numbers in 2014/15 and existing capacity in May 2010
    in each authority, and, for county councils, for each district within that authority. It
    then calculated the number of extra places needed to achieve a surplus of places of
    at least 5 per cent in each authority or district. The Department adopted this planning
    assumption in the context of a challenging spending review when preparing its funding
    bid to HM Treasury. It considered that on average 5 per cent was the bare minimum
    needed for authorities to meet their statutory duty with operational flexibility, while
    enabling parents to have some choice of schools. As at September 2010, 37 of 152
    authorities were forecasting a surplus of primary places of below 5 per cent by 2014/15
    without any spending on new places, while another 62 would be in deficit, with fewer
    primary places than children.

    http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/10089-001_Capital-funding-for-new-school-places.pdf

    Note this too:

    Many local authorities also told us that increasing numbers of Academies and Free
    Schools may make providing new places more difficult as authorities have no powers to
    direct them to expand to take more pupils. Reviews by the Department in 2012 found
    examples of Academies which were keen to expand, but also examples of Academies
    not wishing to expand. The Department argues that schools have a range of very valid
    individual reasons for these decisions.

    While this rather blows Gove and laws out of the water:

    In the 2000s, the Department recognised that, although the overall need was for
    the removal of surplus places, local pockets of growth in school-age population could
    occur, particularly in larger local authorities. It therefore provided core capital funding
    to authorities totalling £400 million a year from 2007-08 to 2010-11, to help cover local
    growth in need for places.6
    2.3 The Department also operated an annual ‘safety valve’ whereby local authorities
    could apply for extra funding to address exceptional growth. Until 2009, very few
    authorities applied for this additional grant funding. In autumn 2009, in response
    to the first forecasts that substantial numbers of new places would be required,
    the Department ran a larger safety valve exercise, allocating an extra £266 million
    for 2010‑11 to 36 authorities to provide primary places for September 2010 and
    September 2011.
    2.4 Under its 2010 Spending Review settlement in October 2010, the Department
    doubled its specific core funding for new places to £800 million a year from 2011-12 to
    2014-15. In total £3.2 billion was expected to be paid over the period to local authorities
    through non-ringfenced capital grants (Figure 9). In parallel, it reduced planned
    spending on its other capital programmes to reflect the 60 per cent real-terms reduction
    in its overall capital budget under the settlement.
    2.5 The Department reduced Devolved Formula Capital funding for schools’
    maintenance, and cancelled the Primary Capital Programme and many Building
    Schools for the Future projects (Figure 10 overleaf). The primary purpose of these
    two programmes was the refurbishment of existing schools, but some local authorities
    had started to consider how they could be used to expand schools to provide extra
    places in areas of need. The Department did not assess the impact of reducing
    these programmes on the provision of new places as it lacked the necessary data.
    Consequently, there is no complete evaluation of how total funding which may have
    contributed to new places changed across all the Department’s capital funding streams.



    If el Tories have got any sense then whenever this comes up all they have to do is start off saying it's obviously difficult trying to keep up with the result of Labour's immigration policy but we're dealing with their legacy as quickly as we can. Easy win.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    tim said:

    Food banks and overcrowded classes are ignored by the PM, who prefers to talk about Len McCluskey. Hmmm

    It is not demand for food banks that has gone up, it is supply. Once you give something for nothing, it's not surprising that people start taking it up, especially if there's little or no local social stigma to doing so.
    Good to hear a PB Tory who recognises basic laws of economics.
    You mean Say's law? ("supply creates its own demand").

    Not sure I would classify it as a "basic law" but it's a pretty fundamental part of economic theory

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Say's_law
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,667

    @Southam: Err, I think you missed the key sentence:

    Under its 2010 Spending Review settlement in October 2010, the Department doubled its specific core funding for new places to £800 million a year from 2011-12 to 2014-15.

    i.e. Laws was right.

    Laws was right that it was doubled. That does not make it enough. Neither does it show that the problem exists because of decisions taken by the previous Labour government, which certainly cannot be blamed for the fact that "29 per cent of local authorities were funded less than the Department had assessed they needed for new school places in 2012-13 using authorities’ own forecasts for pupil number", or that the DoE (though clearly not the Education Secretary) has known since September 2010 that hundreds of thousands of new school palces would be needed.


  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,400
    edited July 2013

    @Southam: Err, I think you missed the key sentence:

    Under its 2010 Spending Review settlement in October 2010, the Department doubled its specific core funding for new places to £800 million a year from 2011-12 to 2014-15.

    i.e. Laws was right.

    Yes, the DoE seems to have been on the ball with regard to this problem.


    "Hodge:. One is you have delivered 80,000 net additional places in the first
    half of this Parliament.

    Chris Wormald [Head Civil Servant at DoE]: No, that is the September 2011
    number.

    Q103 Chair: The September 2011 number. So what are you up to now?


    Chris Wormald: We have not collected the data on September 2012. That is collected in our next data return for local authorities, so I cannot estimate that number at the moment. We do have completely unaudited returns, so I am not going to claim any more than that, but local authorities tell us that they have approximately 110,000 primary school places in
    the pipeline. So if you look at the 81,500 places and those 110,000, then you probably have, for September 2014, which will be our toughest year, somewhere around 130,000 further places to create.

    Then, by September 2015, to take us to the end of the Parliament, there are probably a further somewhere around 80,000 places. Now, I am not going to put too
    much science on those numbers because, as I say, some of the numbers I have just used are unaudited.

    Q104 Chair: Do you feel confident you can stick to that programme and therefore deliver?


    Chris Wormald: Yes. As I have tried to emphasise all the way through, this is a huge challenge for the system as we have the unique circumstances of a rapidly rising birth rate, local effects and a tough public spending environment. With all those things taken together and looking at the situation, we think it is under control and that local authorities are delivering the numbers of places that are required.

    Given the level of the challenge that the National Audit Office has identified, I do not really want to use words like “confidence”, because I think this is an area that requires constant vigilance both from the Department and from local authorities. But I will say I have not seen anything that has caused me to worry yet. That is not going to stop me worrying."

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmpubacc/359/359.pdf
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    @tim
    If the local school is crap it will have spare places as parents wont want to send their kids to it. For far too long, crap schools have existed because there was no alternative. Now there is, and a good thing too.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,667
    Genius ...

    The Department’s capital priorities have changed since 2010 and new capital
    programmes will deliver some additional places by 2014/15. The Department has
    changed its capital priorities since 2010, including cancelling many Building Schools
    for the Future projects and the Primary Capital Programme. These programmes were
    primarily aimed at enhancing the quality of school buildings and the Department has
    not estimated how the total number of school places available may have been affected.
    The Free Schools Programme has been allocated capital funding of £1.7 billion to
    2014-15. It is expected to increase the number of available places, although this is
    not the primary purpose of the programme. We estimate that Free Schools opened
    in September 2012 could provide up to 24,500 places, 58 per cent in local authorities
    with a shortage of places. However, only 8,800 of the 24,500 places are in primary
    schools and most Free Schools will not be operating at their full capacity by 2014/15
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,667
    Double genius ...

    For 2012-13 only, the Department sought to provide local authorities with
    some funding stability, and consequently allocated some £56 million (7 per cent
    of core funding) away from authorities with most need. The Department introduced
    a transitional mechanism to afford authorities some protection as it changed the method
    of allocating core funding. As a result, 57 per cent of authorities received more funding
    than the Department assessed them to need according to authorities’ own forecasts of
    pupil numbers, while 29 per cent received less. These forecasts were not at a detailed
    enough level to identify demand ‘hotspots’

    But, to be fair, Gove does write some very good letters to Stephen Twigg.
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    tim said:

    So Gove's priority is and always has been purely ideological, but that shouldn't come as a surprise.

    Yes, he has a deeply ideological priority: to improve children's education. Shocking, isn't it?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Remind me, what was Ed's line on this?

    @MichaelLCrick
    Two more Plebgate arrests - a woman police officer, 37, from Diplomatic Protection Group and a female civilian, 46.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,667
    MrJones said:

    tim said:

    AveryLP said:

    tim said:

    Cameron fixates on McCluskey
    Gove fixates on tiny Free Schools

    Meanwhile class sizes rise and a primary school places crisis has taken them by surprise.
    Great strategy.

    "Taken them by surprise"?

    No, tim. The shortage of school places is yet another legacy of the incompetent Labour government.

    David Laws explains:

    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."

    He said that the government had more than doubled spending on new school places compared with the previous government.

    The government announced on Thursday that as a result of the Spending Review, it would be spending £7.5bn creating 500,000 additional school places by 2021. This was on top of the £5bn that would have been spent by 2015.


    Once again, the Coalition government has been left to clear up Labour's mess.
    So Ed screwed up school places, the other Ed screwed up energy and both Eds helped screw up the economy. Shouldn't Labour just stop promoting people called Ed ?
    So on Goves watch 3.5 years is not long enough to provide primary school places, and he expected the work to have been done for him by the last govt, despite the fact that many children start 3-7 aged Primary schools?

    They have known since September 2010 there was going to be a problem:

    In September 2010, the Department forecast a 330,000 rise in the number of
    children attending primary school between 2010/11 and 2014/15 to 4.2 million, and
    an increase in the number starting school from 584,000 to 633,000. It estimated that
    260,000 new places would be needed in primary and 64,000 in secondary schools by
    September 2014 (a total of 324,000 new places).

    ...

    The places required were not evenly spread across England. Although all regions
    predicted need for more primary places, the greatest pressure was in London, which
    accounted for a third of places required.
    1.16 The Department compiled its estimate of places required by examining local
    authorities’ forecast data for pupil numbers in 2014/15 and existing capacity in May 2010
    in each authority, and, for county councils, for each district within that authority. It
    then calculated the number of extra places needed to achieve a surplus of places of
    at least 5 per cent in each authority or district. The Department adopted this planning
    assumption in the context of a challenging spending review when preparing its funding
    bid to HM Treasury. It considered that on average 5 per cent was the bare minimum
    needed for authorities to meet their statutory duty with operational flexibility, while
    enabling parents to have some choice of schools. As at September 2010, 37 of 152
    authorities were forecasting a surplus of primary places of below 5 per cent by 2014/15
    without any spending on new places, while another 62 would be in deficit, with fewer
    primary places than children.

    http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/10089-001_Capital-funding-for-new-school-places.pdf

    Note this too:

    Many local authorities also told us that increasing numbers of Academies and Free
    Schools may make providing new places more difficult as authorities have no powers to
    direct them to expand to take more pupils. Reviews by the Department in 2012 found
    examples of Academies which were keen to expand, but also examples of Academies
    not wishing to expand. The Department argues that schools have a range of very valid
    individual reasons for these decisions.

    While this rather blows Gove and laws out of the water:

    In the 2000s, the Department recognised that, although the overall need was for
    the removal of surplus places, local pockets of growth in school-age population could
    occur, particularly in larger local authorities. It therefore provided core capital funding
    to authorities totalling £400 million a year from 2007-08 to 2010-11, to help cover local
    growth in need for places.6
    2.3 The Department also operated an annual ‘safety valve’ whereby local authorities
    could apply for extra funding to address exceptional growth. Until 2009, very few
    authorities applied for this additional grant funding. In autumn 2009, in response
    to the first forecasts that substantial numbers of new places would be required,
    the Department ran a larger safety valve exercise, allocating an extra £266 million
    for 2010‑11 to 36 authorities to provide primary places for September 2010 and
    September 2011.
    2.4 Under its 2010 Spending Review settlement in October 2010, the Department
    doubled its specific core funding for new places to £800 million a year from 2011-12 to
    2014-15. In total £3.2 billion was expected to be paid over the period to local authorities
    through non-ringfenced capital grants (Figure 9). In parallel, it reduced planned
    spending on its other capital programmes to reflect the 60 per cent real-terms reduction
    in its overall capital budget under the settlement.
    2.5 The Department reduced Devolved Formula Capital funding for schools’
    maintenance, and cancelled the Primary Capital Programme and many Building
    Schools for the Future projects (Figure 10 overleaf). The primary purpose of these
    two programmes was the refurbishment of existing schools, but some local authorities
    had started to consider how they could be used to expand schools to provide extra
    places in areas of need. The Department did not assess the impact of reducing
    these programmes on the provision of new places as it lacked the necessary data.
    Consequently, there is no complete evaluation of how total funding which may have
    contributed to new places changed across all the Department’s capital funding streams.



    If el Tories have got any sense then whenever this comes up all they have to do is start off saying it's obviously difficult trying to keep up with the result of Labour's immigration policy but we're dealing with their legacy as quickly as we can. Easy win.

    Not really ...

    The need for school places has increased in recent years, reversing previous
    trends. The number of children starting primary school is closely linked to the number
    of children born five years previously. Throughout the 1990s the birth rate declined,
    with fewer children starting school each year. However, between 2001 and 2011, the
    population of England and Wales showed the largest ten-year growth since the census
    began in 1801. In that period the number of live births in England rose by 22 per cent
    from 564,000 to 688,000, the largest ten-year increase since 1954 to 1964 (31 per cent).
    Reasons for this include a 6 per cent increase in the number of childbearing women
    since 2003 and women who postponed having children in their twenties in the 1990s
    having children in the 2000s. The effect of the increased births has been a 16 per cent
    increase in the number of children starting reception classes in primary school since
    2006, with almost 606,000 starting in 2011/12, up from 523,000 (Figure 3 overleaf).
    The number of births is projected to carry on increasing to levels last seen in the 1970s.

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,441
    Roger said:

    @Mike

    "Dave was doing OK at PMQ's but he raised Unite just too many times"

    Didn't he just! I don't want to be accused of being a class warrior but it's the first time since he became PM that I really found his plummy accent grating.

    Sneeing at the Unions with a voice that sounded like a Victorian mill owner just didn't work for him. He just sounded patronising.

    I can only think the instruction came from Lynton Crosby who wouldn't understand the nuance and therefore wouldn't comprehend what a turn off it was.

    Just because you have West Midlands accent you shouldn't feel inferior Roger.
  • FensterFenster Posts: 2,115
    If I were Cameron I'd be ramming home who Len McCluskey is and what he's up to over and over and over again.

    I doubt anyone knew who Michael Ashcroft was in 2008, until Gordon Brown shouted out his name at PMQs each week. By the election his name hung round Cameron like a bad smell.

    McCluskey is an equally - and less charitable - open target.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    edited July 2013
    Vote Ed..Get Len..it does have a certain ring to it and the populace must be told..
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    I must say, I'm particularly enjoying the irony of über-Blairite tim trashing Academy Schools, Blair's only major public-sector reform success.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,971
    tim said:

    tim said:

    Scott_P said:

    Why are the government funding new schools in areas where there are surplus places

    Why are the unions Labour insisting that places at crap schools be filled? What do they have against parental choice and aspiration?

    It's a great line of attack. I wonder how long they can keep it up?
    Is there any evidence that the Free Schools which have opened in areas with surplus places are better than the existing schools?
    Is there any evidence for your contention on the last thread that Christian Wolmar had suddenly had a road to Damascus conversion against HS2?

    No, I thought not.
    I didn't say anything of the sort, obviously.

    You reproduced Waugh's tweet:

    "Even leading rail expert Christian Wolmar is now against HS2. http://bit.ly/10zk7WX" and added: "This is starting to look like a bit of a trend."

    Which implies a change of opinion on his part. The words 'even' and 'now' give it away, compounded by you stating that there is a trend.

    You might as well have said: "Even Len McCluskey is now against the Conservatives. This is starting to look like a bit of a trend."
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,667

    tim said:

    So Gove's priority is and always has been purely ideological, but that shouldn't come as a surprise.

    Yes, he has a deeply ideological priority: to improve children's education. Shocking, isn't it?

    More precisely, he has a fixed ideology on how that can be achieved and will countenance no evidence that suggests there are other ways or that his way may not be optimal.

  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,543
    TGOHF said:

    Gadfly said:

    "Labour is opposed to any new school in an area where there are a surplus of places—regardless of the quality of them. Miliband simply wants to fill up existing schools regardless of whether they are any good at getting the best out of children. It was proof that he doesn’t believe in choice or competition driving up standards."

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/07/pmqs/

    Decent post in the replies

    "The two issues are linked, mainly because the unions do not want new schools competing for pupils, especially if those new schools have non-union teachers. This would result in substitution of teachers and loss of union members. Loss of union members would result in reduction of union levies and loss of income for the Labour Party. Therefore Labour has a political interest in keeping poor unionised schools opened while keeping new non-unionised schools out."

    It all comes back to that Union cash...
    You're under the impression that the teaching unions are affiliated to the Labour Party, or give money to it? I wish.

    D'oh. We had this the other day with the PCS.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,667
    This is just great:

    For 2012-13 only, the Department sought to provide local authorities with
    some funding stability, and consequently allocated some £56 million (7 per cent
    of core funding) away from authorities with most need. The Department introduced
    a transitional mechanism to afford authorities some protection as it changed the method
    of allocating core funding. As a result, 57 per cent of authorities received more funding
    than the Department assessed them to need according to authorities’ own forecasts of
    pupil numbers, while 29 per cent received less. These forecasts were not at a detailed
    enough level to identify demand ‘hotspots’

    The good news is that 14% of local authorities got what they needed and Stephen Twigg got an "hilarious" letter.

    No wonder Dave wants to talk about Len McCluskey.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Miliband moved from the land of the Pharoahs to an even more ancient and intractable muddle – Britain’s education system. He accused Cameron of building good schools in places where Labour has already built plenty of bad ones. And though he uses the term ‘spare capacity’ to signify failure it amounts to the same thing. Parents shun lousy schools for the same reason they shun empty bistros, abandoned swimming pools and toy-shops that are on fire. Pretty simple, really.

    Cameron could hardly believe his luck when Ed attacked him on education. Miliband has not only forgotten that his party created the free schools programme but he has yet to discover that teachers are not the universally admired figures they once were. Miliband doesn’t know this because he spends too much time listening to teachers.
    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/07/pmqs-sketch-another-wretched-day-for-ed-miliband/
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,914
    edited July 2013
    @Alanbrooke

    West Midland? Would that take in Ludlow and the social coterie which includes the
    incestuous collection of louche, affluent, power-hungry and amoral wastrels known as the Chipping Norton Set?

    Like Jasper Carrot?
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413

    tim said:

    So Gove's priority is and always has been purely ideological, but that shouldn't come as a surprise.

    Yes, he has a deeply ideological priority: to improve children's education. Shocking, isn't it?

    More precisely, he has a fixed ideology on how that can be achieved and will countenance no evidence that suggests there are other ways or that his way may not be optimal.

    He's seen the great success of Labour's Academy Schools initiative (sadly hobbled by Brown and the unions under the last government), and is building on that.

    Just think, if Blair had been a bit bolder seeing off the vested interests, this could have been a big Labour success story and many thousands of children would have got a better education, rather than the very limited number that Blair and Adonis managed.

    But Blair flunked it, and Gove will be the one who gets all the glory. It's just a pity that thousands of children have lost out in the meantime.
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523

    MrJones said:

    If el Tories have got any sense then whenever this comes up all they have to do is start off saying it's obviously difficult trying to keep up with the result of Labour's immigration policy but we're dealing with their legacy as quickly as we can. Easy win.

    Not really ...

    The need for school places has increased in recent years, reversing previous
    trends. The number of children starting primary school is closely linked to the number
    of children born five years previously. Throughout the 1990s the birth rate declined,
    with fewer children starting school each year. However, between 2001 and 2011, the
    population of England and Wales showed the largest ten-year growth since the census
    began in 1801. In that period the number of live births in England rose by 22 per cent
    from 564,000 to 688,000, the largest ten-year increase since 1954 to 1964 (31 per cent).
    Reasons for this include a 6 per cent increase in the number of childbearing women
    since 2003 and women who postponed having children in their twenties in the 1990s
    having children in the 2000s. The effect of the increased births has been a 16 per cent
    increase in the number of children starting reception classes in primary school since
    2006, with almost 606,000 starting in 2011/12, up from 523,000 (Figure 3 overleaf).
    The number of births is projected to carry on increasing to levels last seen in the 1970s.

    Well i dare say a person could argue the individual points if they wanted but it's not necessary - all they have to do is make sure to mention immigration first before the usual flannel and that's that.
  • carlcarl Posts: 750

    Food banks and overcrowded classes are ignored by the PM, who prefers to talk about Len McCluskey. Hmmm

    It is not demand for food banks that has gone up, it is supply. Once you give something for nothing, it's not surprising that people start taking it up, especially if there's little or no local social stigma to doing so.
    Blimey. That famous Tory empathy with the less fortunate on full display on PB today.

    Yep, queues of grasping scroungers, who have plenty of money for food but fancy a free tin of nearly out of date tuna on top, lining up for a free lunch. That's EXACTLY how food banks work.

    Though, of course, the charities concerned say themselves that demand is soaring because more and more people don't have enough money for food. Which, given that these poor souls are referrals by poverty charities or health workers, kinda makes sense. Perhaps they're all Labour stooges, eh.
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    edited July 2013
    tim said:

    Have I mentioned Academy schools?

    No, you haven't, because you know full well that they are the major thrust of what Gove is achieving. The free schools are (as you keep saying) relatively tiny in number for the moment.

    But not tiny enough to prevent you losing your bet, I'm pleased to say!
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,667

    tim said:

    So Gove's priority is and always has been purely ideological, but that shouldn't come as a surprise.

    Yes, he has a deeply ideological priority: to improve children's education. Shocking, isn't it?

    More precisely, he has a fixed ideology on how that can be achieved and will countenance no evidence that suggests there are other ways or that his way may not be optimal.

    He's seen the great success of Labour's Academy Schools initiative (sadly hobbled by Brown and the unions under the last government), and is building on that.

    Just think, if Blair had been a bit bolder seeing off the vested interests, this could have been a big Labour success story and many thousands of children would have got a better education, rather than the very limited number that Blair and Adonis managed.

    But Blair flunked it, and Gove will be the one who gets all the glory. It's just a pity that thousands of children have lost out in the meantime.

    He has persuaded/forced a lot of already good schools to become academies. There is no evidence this has made them any better than they were.

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Roger said:

    West Midland? Would that take in Ludlow....and the Chipping Norton Set?

    Yes, along with the Jimmy Saville Children's home, the 1977 Lancaster House Agreement, the 1978 Zimbabwe elections and the 1998 release of Nelson Mandela at the behest of British PM Tony Blair.....
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413


    He has persuaded/forced a lot of already good schools to become academies. There is no evidence this has made them any better than they were.

    There's plenty of evidence, from the last government.

    Of course, you can always point to the academy-free zone of Wales to support your argument. Labour's central-control system is doing really well there, I hear. Or not.
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307
    Egypt: Military Broadcasting Corporation

    It looks as if the Military are not bluffing or playing very high stakes poker. Apparently some of their number have taken up residence at State TV offices in preparation for some announcements should they be required.

  • carl said:

    Food banks and overcrowded classes are ignored by the PM, who prefers to talk about Len McCluskey. Hmmm

    It is not demand for food banks that has gone up, it is supply. Once you give something for nothing, it's not surprising that people start taking it up, especially if there's little or no local social stigma to doing so.
    Blimey. That famous Tory empathy with the less fortunate on full display on PB today.

    Yep, queues of grasping scroungers, who have plenty of money for food but fancy a free tin of nearly out of date tuna on top, lining up for a free lunch. That's EXACTLY how food banks work.

    Though, of course, the charities concerned say themselves that demand is soaring because more and more people don't have enough money for food. Which, given that these poor souls are referrals by poverty charities or health workers, kinda makes sense. Perhaps they're all Labour stooges, eh.
    And what is the great solution that Labour is offering the country? What are the easy answers that they wont tell us about? Surely the best way to help those facing tough times is to get the economy growing again. Which is precisely what the Coalition is doing, much to the chagrin of the opposition no doubt.
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    @tim - Give them a chance! Even Michael Gove can't work miracles that fast.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,817
    I am not going to post until everybody puts down their mobile phones
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,667


    He has persuaded/forced a lot of already good schools to become academies. There is no evidence this has made them any better than they were.

    There's plenty of evidence, from the last government.

    Of course, you can always point to the academy-free zone of Wales to support your argument. Labour's central-control system is doing really well there, I hear. Or not.

    Labour's policy was to convert poorly performing schools into academies. This did, indeed, yield stronmg results. Gove decided that was not his priority and changed the policy, so that poorly performing schoos have not been prioritised.

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    "Well, he would say that, wouldn't he"....

    "Unite General Secretary Len McCluskey has hit out at David Cameron over his jibes about Unite today, accusing the Prime Minister of misusing his office and PMQs to indulge in shameful cheap political shots. McCluskey also used the opportunity to reaffirm his support for Ed Miliband, saying that ”There can be absolutely no question about who runs the Labour party: it is Ed Miliband and he has my full support”:

    http://labourlist.org/2013/07/mccluskey-hits-back-at-cameron-over-pmqs-jibes/

    Indeed, I'm surprised tha such an august personage as Mr McCluskey has demeaned himself to respond to such baseless tittle-tattle....

    Anyone would think Ed Miliband was weak....
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,850
    Good afternoon, everyone.

    Watched most of the Del Potro/Ferrer match, but missed the early fall. Very impressive win, but I hope his knee's ok.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Scott_P said:

    Miliband moved from the land of the Pharoahs to an even more ancient and intractable muddle – Britain’s education system. He accused Cameron of building good schools in places where Labour has already built plenty of bad ones. And though he uses the term ‘spare capacity’ to signify failure it amounts to the same thing. Parents shun lousy schools for the same reason they shun empty bistros, abandoned swimming pools and toy-shops that are on fire. Pretty simple, really.

    Cameron could hardly believe his luck when Ed attacked him on education. Miliband has not only forgotten that his party created the free schools programme but he has yet to discover that teachers are not the universally admired figures they once were. Miliband doesn’t know this because he spends too much time listening to teachers.
    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/07/pmqs-sketch-another-wretched-day-for-ed-miliband/

    "What should worry Labour is that when Miliband gets creamed at PMQs it no longer seems like news."

    Ouch.

  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited July 2013
    Good to see tim and SO trawl through the NAO and other parliamentary publications to try to find supporting evidence for DOE negligence under Gove and Laws.

    The fact remains that there would have been no problem had Ed Balls, when Education Secretary, recognised the upcoming capacity problems and had he taken steps to allocate resources in time for the extra places to be made available when needed.

    The failure to identify the cause of the problem and to take action to avert it is at the root of the subsequent and costly exception management.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Sunny Hundal appears to disagree with OGH and tim:

    "What would really help Labour now is picking a fight with the unions, rather than hammering the govt over the economy #westminsterpunditry"
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699

    carl said:

    Food banks and overcrowded classes are ignored by the PM, who prefers to talk about Len McCluskey. Hmmm

    It is not demand for food banks that has gone up, it is supply. Once you give something for nothing, it's not surprising that people start taking it up, especially if there's little or no local social stigma to doing so.
    Blimey. That famous Tory empathy with the less fortunate on full display on PB today.

    Yep, queues of grasping scroungers, who have plenty of money for food but fancy a free tin of nearly out of date tuna on top, lining up for a free lunch. That's EXACTLY how food banks work.

    Though, of course, the charities concerned say themselves that demand is soaring because more and more people don't have enough money for food. Which, given that these poor souls are referrals by poverty charities or health workers, kinda makes sense. Perhaps they're all Labour stooges, eh.
    And what is the great solution that Labour is offering the country? What are the easy answers that they wont tell us about? Surely the best way to help those facing tough times is to get the economy growing again. Which is precisely what the Coalition is doing, much to the chagrin of the opposition no doubt.
    Well the easy answer that seems to be coming from pbtories is that it is the fault of food banks
    opening that causes people to use them . No doubt you would be happier if they were all closed and the poor starved out of sight behind closed doors .
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @BBCNormanS
    Labour sources confirm that Ed Miliband's briefing notes were left behind in the toilet.

    @BBCNormanS
    Labour say it was Ed Miliband's Parliamentary aide Jonathan Reynolds who left behind the Labour leaders #PMQs briefing notes

    Jonathan, in addition to being a Labour Party Member (since 1998) is a member of Unite the Union
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    carl said:

    Food banks and overcrowded classes are ignored by the PM, who prefers to talk about Len McCluskey. Hmmm

    It is not demand for food banks that has gone up, it is supply. Once you give something for nothing, it's not surprising that people start taking it up, especially if there's little or no local social stigma to doing so.
    Blimey. That famous Tory empathy with the less fortunate on full display on PB today.

    Yep, queues of grasping scroungers, who have plenty of money for food but fancy a free tin of nearly out of date tuna on top, lining up for a free lunch. That's EXACTLY how food banks work.

    Though, of course, the charities concerned say themselves that demand is soaring because more and more people don't have enough money for food. Which, given that these poor souls are referrals by poverty charities or health workers, kinda makes sense. Perhaps they're all Labour stooges, eh.
    And what is the great solution that Labour is offering the country? What are the easy answers that they wont tell us about? Surely the best way to help those facing tough times is to get the economy growing again. Which is precisely what the Coalition is doing, much to the chagrin of the opposition no doubt.
    Well the easy answer that seems to be coming from pbtories is that it is the fault of food banks
    opening that causes people to use them . No doubt you would be happier if they were all closed and the poor starved out of sight behind closed doors .
    Most people have no desire to ban things - if people want to set up and use food banks then fine.

    They aren't WMD - like say - chinese lanterns.
  • carl said:

    Food banks and overcrowded classes are ignored by the PM, who prefers to talk about Len McCluskey. Hmmm

    It is not demand for food banks that has gone up, it is supply. Once you give something for nothing, it's not surprising that people start taking it up, especially if there's little or no local social stigma to doing so.
    Blimey. That famous Tory empathy with the less fortunate on full display on PB today.

    Yep, queues of grasping scroungers, who have plenty of money for food but fancy a free tin of nearly out of date tuna on top, lining up for a free lunch. That's EXACTLY how food banks work.

    Though, of course, the charities concerned say themselves that demand is soaring because more and more people don't have enough money for food. Which, given that these poor souls are referrals by poverty charities or health workers, kinda makes sense. Perhaps they're all Labour stooges, eh.
    And what is the great solution that Labour is offering the country? What are the easy answers that they wont tell us about? Surely the best way to help those facing tough times is to get the economy growing again. Which is precisely what the Coalition is doing, much to the chagrin of the opposition no doubt.
    Well the easy answer that seems to be coming from pbtories is that it is the fault of food banks
    opening that causes people to use them . No doubt you would be happier if they were all closed and the poor starved out of sight behind closed doors .
    Yeah Mark. Course I'd be happy if people were starving. Idiot.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,441

    carl said:

    Food banks and overcrowded classes are ignored by the PM, who prefers to talk about Len McCluskey. Hmmm

    It is not demand for food banks that has gone up, it is supply. Once you give something for nothing, it's not surprising that people start taking it up, especially if there's little or no local social stigma to doing so.
    Blimey. That famous Tory empathy with the less fortunate on full display on PB today.

    Yep, queues of grasping scroungers, who have plenty of money for food but fancy a free tin of nearly out of date tuna on top, lining up for a free lunch. That's EXACTLY how food banks work.

    Though, of course, the charities concerned say themselves that demand is soaring because more and more people don't have enough money for food. Which, given that these poor souls are referrals by poverty charities or health workers, kinda makes sense. Perhaps they're all Labour stooges, eh.
    And what is the great solution that Labour is offering the country? What are the easy answers that they wont tell us about? Surely the best way to help those facing tough times is to get the economy growing again. Which is precisely what the Coalition is doing, much to the chagrin of the opposition no doubt.
    Well the easy answer that seems to be coming from pbtories is that it is the fault of food banks
    opening that causes people to use them . No doubt you would be happier if they were all closed and the poor starved out of sight behind closed doors .
    my children at uni use foodbanks because they can't afford the Lib Dem fees.
This discussion has been closed.