Jump to content

No new schools?


vic
 Share

Recommended Posts

We also give billions to India which they spend on their space programme and stockpile of nuclear weapons. That so much of our money is being thrown away like this is nothing short of criminal :twisted::twisted::twisted:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Baz, it's taken less than 6 weeks (not 6 months) for you to realise that this lot are just as pathetic as the last lot: still locked into a futile war in Afghanistan; still spending ?billions on two bit dictators to buy our arms sales or syphon into their Swiss bank accounts; still allowing all comers to settle here! They are all a set of unprincipled, smarmy liberal liars, who would sell their souls for your vote - time for a change?! :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well by your logic Vic, they all lied and none of them should be in power except the UKIP or BNP candidates?

Not sure what it's got to do with UKIP and the BNP (BNP didn't have candidates in Warrington). I don't think Labour would have stopped the BSF spending; if they had, yes the candidate might have lied, but his party isn't now in power, so you can't accuse him, whereas we know Mowat and Crotty made promises which - it would now appear - neither party meant to keep. Either they made reckless promises, not knowing what their party would do, or they knew the BSF programme would be stopped, and lied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Seems the national policy isn't going too well with Liberals and Tories at local level: there's a Special Executive Board on 21 June to speed up decisions on the Building Schools for the Future programme (trying to get in before an official freeze on schemes is announced?)

 

Plus, the ministers will have had loads of new Tory MPs - including Mr Mowat one hopes - saying, don't cut these schemes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Now this couldn't possibly have anything to do with a huge budget deficit, due to a borrowing and spending spree by the previous Government - could it?! :roll:

 

I'm sure that Darling will say that there was plenty of money and the Tories have gone and lost it all somewhere or given it to rich people as tax cuts...... :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, rich people...

 

Like the one that's going to lead the review into schools capital spending. Here he is: Sebastian James (old Etonian, member of same Bullingdon Club as Cameron), Group Operations Director of DSGi. Prior to working at DSGi he was Chief Executive of Synergy Insurance Services Limited, a private equity-backed insurance company. Sebastian has wide retail experience as Strategy Director responsible for developing and implementing the turnaround strategy at Mothercare plc. He started his career at The Boston Consulting Group having completed an MBA at INSEAD. The government do point out that "Sebastian managed the Currys store building and transformation programme, improving quality and customer experience while reducing costs by over 25 per cent". Ideal man for the job, then - to lead this new quango!

 

Yes, someone in charge of Currys electrical stores is now in charge of reviewing building new schools. (Helped by Kevin Grace of Tesco's Director of Property Services; Barry Quirk, Chief Executive of Lewisham; John Hood former Vice-Chancellor of University of Oxford (a manager not an academic), and Sir John Egan, former Chief Executive of Jaguar.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ahh yes, rich people; Ask Peter Mandelson and Tony Blair who were near paupers when they entered Parliament about rich people........Look at them now; multi millionaires. All for saying that they represent the poor when all along the only people they have represented is themselves.

 

Vic, we can't capitally spend money we don't have; building something which in many cases we don't need. How many people on here fought to save the old Stockton Heath primary? an old school, but still with many years left according to many, but the new building was built anyway........

 

A lot of the spending promises and plans of the last bunch were based on borrowing even more money; regardless of the future costs and consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Better to have people with experience of running businesses at profit running such programmes than career politicians who only have experience of spending other people's money :wink::wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instead of resorting to schoolboy jibes about individuals, perhaps Vic could tell us where he would get the money from to actually pay for this capital spending programme? Could it be by Gordy's PFI schemes, spend now, then get our grand-kids to pay - Mickey Mouse economics? :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instead of resorting to schoolboy jibes about individuals, perhaps Vic could tell us where he would get the money from to actually pay for this capital spending programme? Could it be by Gordy's PFI schemes, spend now, then get our grand-kids to pay - Mickey Mouse economics? :roll:

 

The majority of the planned Warrington schemes were not to be funded by PFI.

 

Out of interest are you against the purchase of a house using a mortgage?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instead of resorting to schoolboy jibes about individuals, perhaps Vic could tell us where he would get the money from to actually pay for this capital spending programme? Could it be by Gordy's PFI schemes, spend now, then get our grand-kids to pay - Mickey Mouse economics? :roll:
Well, I'm not exactly a fan of PFI schemes (the Warrington/Halton BSF programme included a mix of financing methods) but when it's the only game in town...

 

While the repayments are a burden on the taxpayer for years to come, PFI does have the dubious advantage of transferring risk to the private sector (meaning that if a PFI contractor fails, someone else has to pick up the contract - but perhaps with a better deal, the sort that would have kept the initial contractor afloat).

 

I suppose the principle isn't that horrendous - rather like wanting a new house, getting a builder to build it, then agreeing to pay off the cost over 25 years. That's how most private housing is paid for, but - if taxpayers weren't so keen to have low taxes, direct government funding would always seem preferable to me.

 

The problem now is that (a) we don't get new schools and (B) we'll get construction workers on the dole, drawing benefit and not paying tax, so the public finances are still screwed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...