Budget 2016

[Otta]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/12196768/Headteachers-to-be-given-the-power-to-hire-unqualified-teachers-paper-suggests.html

[Blah Blah]

I don't disagree with any of that DaveR, but often these things are the result of things going wrong in other parts of the economy. And anything that stays a certain way for any period of time becomes entrenched. The only real answer would be enough jobs for all (and ones that pay enough to live on), but we are as far away from that as we've ever been.

On acadmeies, I'm a bit on the fence. What matters to me is outcomes. I do wish though that the great experiment with children's state run education would stop. You are never going to match the oucomes of private educaton while you continue to have a shortage of teachers and huge class sizes in the state sector.

[ratty]

?115 million to combat rough sleeping is BS apparently. ?100m of it already exists in existing schemes and budgets. Sigh. Meanwhile homelessness soars.

[Blah Blah]

The issue here is that the money doesn't provide what the homeless need, which is affordable and secure accomodation. There are 75,000 families for example, currently in expensive temporary B&B accomodation because local authorities have nowhere to house them. New Labour pretty much eradicated this, but now we are back to where we were 30 years ago, but in higher numbers. The continued sell off of social housing, the continued stranglehold on not allowing councils to replace those homes, and welfare caps making much of the private rented sector unaccessible to those people are all factors.

Rough sleepers are often those with other problems, with alcohol, drugs or mental health and they need specialist support along with sheltered accomodation at a time when all of those services have been cut back because of the 40% cut in central funding to LAs.

The bottom line is this. We have a government that doesn't really believe in a welfare state. It thinks charities should increasingly play that role - which takes us back to Victorian thinking on these things. It doesn't see anything wrong with millions of people needing food parcels for that very reason, and doesn't think it really needs to care about the poor because the poor don't traditionally vote Conservative.

Nothing makes my blood boil more than hearing some MP who was born into privilege going on about personal responsibility. They just don't understand the poor, or poverty or really how much is against those born into it.

BUT, most voters are not affected by most of these things and too many have been conditioned to think the poor only have themselves to blame. The media has a lot to answer for as well.

[Blah Blah]

Iain Duncan Smith has resigned. The fallout begins.

[????]

A moral and politically bankrupt budget - Osbourne will never be leader now I reckon. I am no fan of the left and generally support the overarching philosophy of reducing the defeceit but I don't want a tax cut whilst disabled people lose their benefits and I suspect that's how many, including conservatives feel. How did Osbourne think this made any sense at all on political grounds (let alone moral ones). It's a disaster for him and pretty bad for the conservatives.

[Blah Blah]

I think that's spot on ????. Osborne is finished and Boris will absolutely be challenging for the leadership in the summer I think.

[Loz]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think that's spot on ????. Osborne is finished and Boris will absolutely be challenging for the

> leadership in the summer I think.

Boris has a problem in that he has backed Brexit. Should the remain vote win, Boris' leadership plans will hit a rather big setback.

[Blah Blah]

It's precisely because of the challenge he wants to make that he has backed Brexit. The consensus seems to be the that the result won't matter because at least 100 Tory MPs look set to vote for Brexit and Boris would have their support. If Osborne and Teresa May run too, and split votes with Cameron, then Boris would definitely go through to the second round. The question is whether Osborne and May would jump into a leadership challenge rather than waiting for Cameron to step down first imo.

[uncleglen]

(The sell off of council homes was in a Labour manifesto FIRST fyi Blah)

When my elderly father developed diabetes and COPD due to smoking and he was retired, a man came to his door and told him he could claim ?200 a month- this was 10 years ago. He is on a large pension and owns property which he rents out. He is married to someone who is also on a large pension. The ?200 a month (probably more now as it is 10 years since he first told me). He is very generous to family members- although they do not need the money......

[Otta]

It's not so much the selling off of homes, it's the not building new ones which has been the issue imo.

[Blah Blah]

That's not quite true Uncleglen. People have always been able to apply to buy a council home but the council were under no obligation to sell. RTB not only took away the councils right to refuse it also forced them to sell at a discount and under Thatcher they weren't allowed to use the money from the sale to build or buy new homes. So let's not go down the path of trying to pin the loss of 2 million plus council homes on Labour shall we?

I think it's both Otta. But we now have a government totally opposed to council homes, who also thinks social rents are subsidised when they are not, and that private market rent is where rent should be. They bang on about low inflation but housing inflation is never included in the figures. If it were it would be off the scale.

They also fail to understand that it is in the interests of property developers to keep supply low, which is one reason why the private market can not be left to fix the supply problem and is also the reason why the government is going to give billions to private companies to build starter homes (so they don't lose out on market profits). Our taxes would be better spent building homes for social rent. At least the equity and rental income from those sees a return to the taxpayer. Giving a subsidy to private developers so that a few people can get a home for 20% below market rate does not.

[Loz]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> That's not quite true Uncleglen.

Technically, uncleglen is correct. RTB was originally a Labour idea, though they lost the election the proposed it in. It was then picked up by the Tories.

[Blah Blah]

What was being proposed in 1959 isn't really relevant to what Thatcher's government brought in. The key figure in it all though was Conservative councillor Horace Cutler, who started selling council homes to tenants once he became leader of the GLC in 1977, and it was he that purusuaded Thatcher's government to adopt it as policy, through Hesaltine, who had to work to pursuade an initially resistant Thatcher round to the idea.