In other words, to achieve this goal is equivalent to increasing the school starting age to 11. That’s ludicrous.
But even more absurd is he idea that the teachers and teaching assistants who lose their jobs will have to then sit on the dole watching the children of this country go uneducated when there is nothing at all – I stress no reason whatsoever – why hey should not enjoy the education they deserve.
He\’s taken his data from this FT piece:
Under Labour, education became one of the fastest rising budgets in Whitehall. The budget has almost quadrupled since 2004, paying for a big expansion of teachers and the creation of teaching assistants.
A 25% cut in the current planned expenditure would mean that the budget would only be 3 times, rather than four times, what it was in 2004.
Now I\’m not a great fan of the current education system, this is true, nor of the one we had those 6 years ago to be honest.
But I am fairly sure that in 2004 kiddies still went to school around their fifth birthday, not their eleventh. So I\’m pretty sure that with three times the budget they\’d still be able to make plasticine snakes at 5 rather than 11.
Now there is an important point here, over and above the raggin\’onRitchie.
Whine about \”the cuts\” all you like: I\’ll start taking such whining seriously when y\’all start comparing the post cuts levels of spending to to the pre-spluge levels. Not only compare them to the levels left by the drunken sailor from Fife.
Actually, perhaps there\’s someone with greater data retrieval and charting skills than myself (shouldn\’t be tough).
Can we have a graph which shows spending levels from 97 to 2000 say, simply upgraded for inflation, through to 1012/3 or so? And on that same chart, see spending levels as they actually were and are planned to be after the cuts?
I don\’t actually know but I strongly suspect that….we\’ll find that planned expenditures for a couple of years ahead are pretty much on that straight line and actual expenditures will show a huge ballooning over it and then he cuts bringing it back down to the straight line.
In fact, here\’s a little start.
Note that this is real terms, adjusted for inflation to 2005-2006 levels.
The current proposals are that we chop something like £100 billion off that. Ignoring inflation from 2006 to today that means we\’re trying to get spending back down to about, umm, 2005 levels.
We\’re not, in fact, trying to have a bonfire of public services. We\’re just trying to reverse the past five years of drunken sailoring.