It seems the debate has moved on from the very facile "Labour investment versus Tory cuts" to the merely somewhat facile nasty Tory cuts versus Labour's caring ones.
The reality is this:
Labour have been spending money like it was water over the last 12 years and have now run out. Thing is, its our money not theirs.
They seem to have measured success less by what they have achieved and more by what they have spent. We now have the best paid doctors in the OECD and spend more per head on education than most countries in Europe to less effect.
Now up pops Lord Mandelson who claims Labour must be wise spenders not big spenders. Well, up until now they have been both big and stupid spenders.
Take for example prison policy. One day a prisoner will be released. In fact pretty much every day prisoners are released. You will bump into them. Someone was running a course on comedy in prisons. The project was cancelled when Jack Straw got to hear about it. Now ask yourself this: Could you rather an ex con told you a really good joke or mugged you?
See what I mean.
The BBC has this.
Showing posts with label Government Spending. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Government Spending. Show all posts
Monday, September 14, 2009
Monday, June 29, 2009
Labour promises 100,000 new teachers?
I heard this on a BBC Radio 4 on Friday, but could find no written information on it, but today the Daily Telegraph steps in.
In its article it suggest that Labour and in particular, Gordon Brown will try and spend his way back to number 10.
So, what about 100,000 new teachers? What will they do? Well apparently they are a part of a child's right to learn. So if they are not getting on well enough in English or Maths they get one to one tuition.
What will 100,000 teachers cost?
Well, if they cost £20,000 each a year that's £2 billion. If, as is likely they cost £30,000 a year (take into account paying them, employers national insurance, desk space and admin fees and that is a conservative estimate) then that makes £3 billion a year.
Where is this money supposed to come from? £3 billion, in terms of the amounts that has been thrown away by New labour over the years may seem like small beer, but it is still £3 billion that would need to be borrowed or printed by the Bank of England.
However, I personally doubt the veracity of the claim or its ability to achieve anything useful. For a start it looks like they are going to claim it is a right, which means only switched on parents will claim it, and those will have more successful children, and so the cost will be less.
Then again the idea is not wrong in itself. Had it been carefully proposed a number of years ago you could make a great tax saving case for it, but only if it was not a right of the pupil, but the duty of the state. (How are we going to work that out?)
Prisons are full to bursting with the thick, mentally ill and unemployable. If you could treat the failed education system, then surely that would reduce the cost of the prison estate and hey presto the scheme would over time pay for itself. However as we are talking about New Labour education, A level history students appear not to know what a despotic tyranny is, so it is somewhat doubtful what 1,000,000 new teachers would be able to achieve.
In its article it suggest that Labour and in particular, Gordon Brown will try and spend his way back to number 10.
So, what about 100,000 new teachers? What will they do? Well apparently they are a part of a child's right to learn. So if they are not getting on well enough in English or Maths they get one to one tuition.
What will 100,000 teachers cost?
Well, if they cost £20,000 each a year that's £2 billion. If, as is likely they cost £30,000 a year (take into account paying them, employers national insurance, desk space and admin fees and that is a conservative estimate) then that makes £3 billion a year.
Where is this money supposed to come from? £3 billion, in terms of the amounts that has been thrown away by New labour over the years may seem like small beer, but it is still £3 billion that would need to be borrowed or printed by the Bank of England.
However, I personally doubt the veracity of the claim or its ability to achieve anything useful. For a start it looks like they are going to claim it is a right, which means only switched on parents will claim it, and those will have more successful children, and so the cost will be less.
Then again the idea is not wrong in itself. Had it been carefully proposed a number of years ago you could make a great tax saving case for it, but only if it was not a right of the pupil, but the duty of the state. (How are we going to work that out?)
Prisons are full to bursting with the thick, mentally ill and unemployable. If you could treat the failed education system, then surely that would reduce the cost of the prison estate and hey presto the scheme would over time pay for itself. However as we are talking about New Labour education, A level history students appear not to know what a despotic tyranny is, so it is somewhat doubtful what 1,000,000 new teachers would be able to achieve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
