Forum menu
In fairness, the class size as an average can be misleading - you can easily have class sizes of single digits or 10's in some subjects at A level, whereas compulsory subjects in Y7 or Y8 might be 30-odd.
More interesting to me is that counter to the 'swamping schools' narrative, we're more in danger of needing to close them.
Here is a nice and simple primer of gov spending v taxation.
The fact that spending happens before taxation is a trivial point though. It mostly doesn't matter in which order it happens. This Labour govt, - like very Labour govt before it, and most other western govts, is going to try to stick to a pretty basic rule for departmental spending, and that's; try to spend more or less what you can recover in tax. Or if you can't or don't want to, have some idea about how you'll manage it.
c.f. Kwarteng et al and the 'Barber Boom' of the 1970's for instances of what the consequences are when that doesn't happen.
All this theory, interesting as it is and useful to economists and political pundits and folks who like a natter on the internetsweb, matters little to politicians though. They, as they always have, will use what elements of this or any other economic theory that supports their agenda.
It mostly doesn’t matter in which order it happens.
This is like trying to argue that someone who lives in the North Pole needs to stick to a strict ice cube quota. It's not the creation of ice cubes, but rather how these are distributed. That's the political choice, and is why it is apparently so difficult for people to accept that government spending is the inverse of a household budget, is because ipso facto they must accept that Labour, really, are not fundamentally different to the Tories, at least on political economy.
When there's a political will, governments issue themselves money and spend it on infrastructure, on a pandemic, on a war — you use Western economics as an example, so tell me the last one that ever ran out of money in the post-war period?
What's curious is that Reeves herself stood up and highlighted that Osbourne et al.'s rational for austerity was nonsense in 2011, but now, in 2024, she's using the same nonsense to justify its continuation. Why? I think we all know the answer.
you use Western economics as an example, so tell me the last one that ever ran out of money in the post-war period?
None of the ever have, but like the tax/spend cycle the fact that they can't technically run out of money is again, a trivial point, Look at what has happened to Greece and Argentina, Sri Lanka, Italy, etc etc though, all these countries defaulted on their loans, Greece's banks were closed for 20 days and there was limits to how much money you could take from cash machines.
But none of them were ever bankrupt...I'm sure the folks in Greece were relived to hear it. It'd like telling flood victims that the UK can't actually sink into the sea...
What’s curious is that Reeves herself stood up and highlighted that Osbourne et al.’s rational for austerity was nonsense in 2011, but now, in 2024, she’s using the same nonsense to justify its continuation
Well, technically no she's not. Osbourne's justification for Austerity was the size of the deficit, Reeves spending cuts are becasue of unfunded departmental spending. But as I said, Politicians will use whatever suits their purpose for thier own ideological ends
@anagallis_arvensis
Years 9–11 boarding £46,455 pa
Funny really, that’s pretty much my salary as a teacher with pushing 20 years experience.Years 9–11 day £30,495 pa (£10,165 per term)
Would leave me with about 3k to live on if my son went. Still just need to make a few sacrifices and such…..
As I've been saying, not ALL private schools charge that much.
My salary is similar to yours - my Daughters fees are less than £10k/year - not per term - but still a bit of a stretch.
But you appear to have made your mind up about independent schools and those of us that choose to use them.....
But you appear to have made your mind up about independent schools and those of us that choose to use them…..
I have yes, not sure you know what my views are on anything other than VAT on fees though.
my Daughters fees are less than £10k/year – not per term – but still a bit of a stretch.
So likely to go up to less than 12k? I'm sure working hard, making a few sacrifices and such and you will be fine. You could always work a bit more.
So, 205 billion for Trident, but no money to address child poverty — I wonder who sets the department budgets, Nick? Austerity is a political choice, not a limitation of our financial system — given the basic facts at hand, how can it be understood in any other way?
So, 205 billion for Trident, but no money to address child poverty
But those are different budgets - say the economists. If you believe that the very first role of govt is to keep everyone safe, and Trident's the way to do that, then yeah, I suppose so.
Austerity is a political choice, not a limitation of our financial system
Reeves would argue that it's not austerity, it's balancing the checking account. As I said, this Labour govt, like every previous govt is going to aim to balance departmental spending with tax receipts, she would argue that that's what's she's doing now, and next budget, parliament votes for a different set of spending and tax rounds.
If you believe that the very first role of govt is to keep everyone safe, and Trident’s the way to do that, then yeah, I suppose so.
So countries without Trident nuclear weapons aren't safe?
Only one other country in Europe has nuclear weapons which means that there must be lot of very worried people in Europe. And a lot of governments with cash that can be spent on tackling child poverty instead of spunking it on WMDs
Reeves would argue that it’s not austerity
So very similar to the last Tory government which also argued that austerity wasn't austerity then.
thestabiliser
Free Member
Apart from all those european countries are in NATO and are effectively protected by those two nuclear armed countries and possibly America
Not nitpicking you, more shaking my head at the current state if America.
Apart from all those european countries are in NATO and are effectively protected by those two nuclear armed countries and America
So the £205 billion for Trident is to also protect other European countries? Blimey they must be laughing at us.
We spend money which could otherwise be used on tackling child poverty to save other countries the trouble (and cost) of having their own WMDs.
How does Ireland manage btw, without being part of NATO or having their own WMDs? Would you say their government is failing "the very first role of government"?
I'd say the Irish are reasonably comfortable that Russia wouldn't invade galway and start working their way east
So what about Germany then? Despite being considerably closer to Russia than the UK they won't be spending £bns on Trident.
Is the German government abdicating the very first role of government by not spunking money on nuclear weapons, or does leaving it to UK taxpayers cover their arses?
You say £205 billion, but that's just another number that's been created by CND to counter the need for Trident and not the actual costs of 'Trident'.
It's also not a first strike capability for the UK, as the title goes, it's a deterrent, and the way the world's going just now, potentially quite a useful tool to have.
So what about Germany then? Despite being considerably closer to Russia than the UK they won’t be spending £bns on Trident.
Is the German government abdicating the very first role of government by not spunking money on nuclear weapons, or does leaving it to UK taxpayers cover their arses?
There's kind of a bit of history around why Germany are not a nuclear power, the fact they are currently reviewing if they should have their own nuclear deterrent answers your other question, they are contemplating spending a lot on developing their own deterrent due to the current climate.
No, they meet their NATO spending commitments on conventional weapons. As per the treaties we and others have signed with them.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons
But then you knew that and are just being argumentative because someone pointed out you were wrong
So the £205 billion for Trident is to also protect other European countries? Blimey they must be laughing at us.
It seems teh UK and France are the only Nuclear capable countries in Europe....
In Europe, France and the UK are the only countries with nuclear weapons. Together they are estimated to have 515 nuclear warheads, of which 400 are deployed, according to SIPRI.
That said, I would expect other countries would have to comit reletivley more to troops, general harware and ammo etc, for example I think the F-16 fighter jets going to Ukraine right now are mostly Danish, German and someone else, swiss? I don't know the exact details.
Is that not the whole point of cooperation? we have some nukes, someone else has loads of tanks, someone else has boats or planes etc...
All work together to be quite formidable indeed.
So countries without Trident nuclear weapons aren’t safe?
Do you say those sort of things in real life out loud to other people, or do you save it up for here?
No one in Whitehall has ever sat down chewing a pencil thinking "bombs or child poverty". Bombs is just a one of, do we want them, yes, Cool we'll have half a dozen, pay them off over their 30 years life span. it's Cheap defence. at just .68% of one years GDP.
The eradication of child poverty is the work of how many depts? the NHS, the education system, work, benefits, money to councils, money for drug rehabilitation, prisons, to name just a few...Heaps and heaps of cash.
I think the F-16 fighter jets going to Ukraine right now are mostly
From todays news: Correction:
Six (F-16) jets, which will be retro-fitted fitted with more modern US weaponry, were delivered to Ukraine from the Netherlands, with more to follow shortly from Denmark.
The two countries, as well as Belgium and Norway, have promised to provide Kyiv with more than 60 of the American-made planes over the next few months.
But then you knew that and are just being argumentative because someone pointed out you were wrong
Wrong about what? That other countries don't have nuclear weapons?
90% of countries in the world do not have nuclear weapons. Nick's claim that having nuclear weapons satisfies the very first role of govt is to keep everyone safe is clearly nonsense.
Having nuclear weapons, like everything else, is a political choice. 90% of countries choose not to have them. The UK's ruling elite choose to have nuclear weapons because they believe, with some justification, that it gives them global power and influence, which in turn has economic benefits for them.
Do you say those sort of things in real life out loud to other people, or do you save it up for here?
Since we are predictability descending into personalising the discussion on the value of having nuclear weapons I would suggest that this echo chamber attracts you because most people who don't share your narrow viewpoint are long gone. You obviously come on here to reaffirm your beliefs, hence the low tolerance threshold should anyone have an opinion which doesn't match yours
Carry on.....
Is that a flounce?
I think you are wrong there Ernie... Just looking at nukes is ignoring the other 90% of the picture....yes we have tham, and they are expensive, but we don't have much of a navy or army, relativley speaking...
So it's a question of pooling resources between various European countries according to our stregnths and weaknesses in certain areas.
You obviously come on here to reaffirm your beliefs, hence the low tolerance threshold should anyone have an opinion which doesn’t match yours
It’s not about your “opinions”, but rather the straw man games you play. Stop trying to put words into people’s mouths and debate the actual points they make.
No, you said European countries dont have any but they do, as part of a shared defence treaty.
That's not a belief or an opinion but a fact.
I’d say the Irish are reasonably comfortable that Russia wouldn’t invade galway and start working their way east
and, tbf, we haven’t finished fighting the British yet 😉
Reeves would argue that it’s not austerity, it’s balancing the checking account.
That's the problem — there isn't a checking account. That's nonsense.
Austerity doesn't "save" money, it means that the money isn't created in the first place.
We've had this imposed on us for fourteen years — how's that been working out?
Poverty in the UK today is systematic and is largely a political choice, not an economic one.
No, you said European countries dont have any but they do, as part of a shared defence treaty.
That’s not a belief or an opinion but a fact.
Nine countries in the world have nuclear weapons. And that's not an opinion btw
It’s also not a first strike capability for the UK, as the title goes, it’s a deterrent, and the way the world’s going just now, potentially quite a useful tool to have.
LOL! I think the British "cousin" on the other side of the sea (the one that loves AR-15) is more likely to strike first while others would counter. Nobody is going to strike the British first because it is simply not worth the effort. Having said that there is another country that will strike first and they are located in the Middle East. You know who they are.
Nine countries in the world have nuclear weapons. And that’s not an opinion btw
It kind of is, North Korea haven't been verified as having a nuclear weapons capability and Israel do not admit to having any as of yet, so only 7 nations in
Nine countries in the world have nuclear weapons. And that’s not an opinion btw
I don't think anyone is debating which countries have nuclear weapons, and which don't. The point you seem to be conveniently ignoring is that the rest of the UK military power is a little it, errm, ... lack lustre?
That's why it's important to have close ties and agreements with our neighbours, as invididual coutries can lean on thier allies when they are lacking, in return for reciprocal support in areas where they too are lacking.
That all sounds terribly socialist though, which makes me wonder why Corbyn is so anti EU and anti Trident.... yes we want socialism BUT NOT THAT KIND!!! I have to BE IN CHARGE!!!! That makes him more an autocrat than a socailist in my book.
I am not sure what the STW centrist line will be on this but it is certainly not something which I expected.
So I am looking forward to being told why Starmer is in fact completely right not to criticise trouble causing hate-monger Nigel Farage
Starmer refuses to criticise Farage after Southport conspiracy theory accusations
I couldn't be more opposed to George Osborne politically but I think he has got this completely correct:
“Farage is a mortal threat to the Tory party, as we’ve just seen at the last general election,” Osborne said on the Political Currency podcast. “He may well be a massive threat to Labour at the next general election. And yet all of the political establishment is saying: ‘Oh, please pipe down a bit and behave yourself, and you’re supposed to be an MP now’ rather than saying: ‘This is an absolute outrage, Farage.’ He’s not going to be deterred by all this. He’s going to thrive on it.”
And also the former counter-terror police chief Neil Basu :
On Wednesday, Basu accused Farage of “giving the EDL [English Defence League] succour, undermining the police, creating conspiracy theories and giving a false basis for the attacks on the police”.
It’s a zero sum game for Starmer with that one
Osborne is not in power so he say what he thinks without repercussions from the right wing press and certain (many?) member's of the Tory party, similar for the “former counter terror police chief Neil Basu” who, if still employed in that position most likely would not be able to criticise a current MP without being forced out, whereas Starmer would get crucified by all the right wingers coalescing against him.
whereas Starmer would get crucified by all the right wingers coalescing against him.
Sorry are you saying that Starmer won't criticise Nigel Farage and his dangerous rhetoric because he is scared of right wingers ganging up on him?
The only person at a risk of getting crucified is Nigel Farage for feeding dangerous misinformation which has had appalling consequences.
Well at least you appear to agree with George Osborne - the political establishment are scared of Nigel Farage.
Edit:
It’s a zero sum game for Starmer with that one
As Osborne points out, Nigel Farage is likely to be a massive threat to Labour at the next general election.
oh, cock off...
*NEWS FLASH*
the Uk electorate is pretty moderate, despite what you may read from certain sources, trying to make your left, or right. trying to start some shit...
..basicaly being a dick head...
The left or right thing is just a simple tag line .... grow the **** up.
Leo Varadkar had the correct response for the right wing arseholes who were rioting in Dublin last year
https://twitter.com/zoejardiniere/status/1818403967308591378?s=46&t=qvPR6lBfBXtAWZ-6beFWyA
Can we re-join the EU yet?
BoE just recently put out a paper explaining what really happened to gilt prices during sept - Oct 22 which were totally attributed to the Truss budget at the time by the media.
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/working-paper/2024/fire-sales-of-safe-assets
Turns it wasn't quite what everyone was saying who repeatedly cited the Truss budget over and over as the cause.
I knew this ages ago but the damage has been done going forward with concept of 'unfunded' spending or cuts.
We all lose now because of the gross over simplification of false concept of 'unfunded.'
Like you lot have been saying about Reform simple solutions to complex problems.
Reeves is still reporting this now even with this document as the complete reason the economy is in a terrible place.
(Truss's tax cuts were stupid though - they don't work.)
Certainly interesting timing with the BoE cut yesterday - I thought the FED might go before. Looks like the BoE are not doing conflict with Labour I would say, and want to see growth asap or everyone is on the block. I feel this decision has sneaked forward a bit.
@ernie
I saw something yesterday more about the rioters but applied to Stamer not directly criticising Farage.
He basically said rioter/ protesters shouting and causing trouble and misinformation give an opportunity for mistrial to be called on grounds that a fair trail could not be established.
Similar for Farage, to directly criticise would show bias in any/ if any action had to be taken against him.
That’s the problem — there isn’t a checking account. That’s nonsense.
Each year the government(of which ever stripe) decides what they'll spend, and what they'll tax, once that's agreed in Parliament and becomes law, they BoE essentially creates an overdraft for the amount they want, and writes it down with the taxes the govt has decided it will collect. That's how govt departmental spending is done each year.
Reeves could pass new legislation to create the missing billions, or she could announce new taxes to cover the difference. The effect is the same after all... Reeves is doing the latter I think to do to the Tories exactly what the 2010 Tory govt did to Labour - ram home the message to the public that they aren't to be trusted with money, and to make sure that Tory profligacy isn't just swept under the carpet because they knew that they (the tories) themselves wouldn't have to do it. But also at the same time sends a message to the financial markets, that this govt is not going to 'do a Kwarteng' as I believe it's about to be called any minute now...
"See these new Taxes? This is the Tories fault, I'm just having to tidy up"
The irony of Osborne calling for a head-on confrontation with Farage is particularly amusing.
When his, and Cameron's cowardice in the face of Farage's rise facilitated the biggest political win for the UK far right in decades. Easy to pipe up from the safety of Lebedev's rag.