If the UK coalition government were ever under the impression that they would get a ‘honeymoon’ period in office they were very mistaken.
The savage cuts they are being forced to make are going to impact on every facet of our lives. Labour may have spent the money but the coalition parties are picking up both the financial and political bills. The shortness of the electorate’s memory will ensure that it is the names of those in the coalition that will echo down the corridors of time as the ones responsible for destroying our social infrastructure. “They chose Trident over schools and hospitals!” you can hear the condemnation already. Let’s just forget that was also Labour’s plan.
Michael Gove, as Education Secretary, is at the vanguard of the coalition’s attempts to bring some order to the public finances. Schools are probably one of the most sensitive areas to be meddling in, maybe even more so than the HNS as it obviously involves children.
The government has to make cuts. Whether it be now or tomorrow it has to be done. Within weeks of coming to power the new government has identified those areas destined for cost paring and as sure as eggs is eggs out come the knives.
“But we must repair our destitute and crumbling schools!” comes the cry. Funny, but they weren’t crumbling and destitute a few months ago. Under the last education, education, education government weren’t they having record funds thrown at them? What has happened since? Obviously the Tory presence in government has somehow accelerated their decrepitude. What was perfectly acceptable under Labour has become a crime against children under the Tories. And do you think it would have been much different had Labour miraculously remained in power?
If Labour had spent the money on school buildings correctly then putting off refurbishment for a couple of years would have little impact on them. For example, one of the schools featured on a recent news article was over 40 years old and had been designed to be a temporary 25 year building. How is that the fault of the new coalition?
But of course local government has its part to play and many of the complainers are, I suspect, those who would have profited nicely from the refurbishment work.
The coalition has been put there to make the choices in the long term interests of the country. They also took the job on knowing this would make them almost unelectable at some time in the future. We are going to have to let them get on with it, not try to force them to continue on the well trodden and discredited path of their predecessors.
------ Other articles of interest ------
Vince’s graduate tax
Question Time audience and panel gang up on Vince Cable
University and student debt
Tories to send unruly kids to boot camp
Tags: coalition government, Comment, education, Michael Gove, News
How right you are Jeff!
Blair’s mantra sounded real in the nineties but turned out to be hollow political rhetoric. Education is not about the buildings or computers it’s about the quality of the teachers and the necessity of discipline in the classroom to foster an environment for learning. The core subjects of Maths, English, Sciences, Humanities (History, Geography) are as relevent today as they were when I was at school. Nothing has changed except the discipline and the teachers, and perhaps the children themselves.
Blair failed a generation by allowing the dumming down of education. I was a product of the Thatcher years and have no complaints except that the road map was not set out clearly enough, early enough. I thought you went to school until 16 then got a job. As it turned out I went to college for 2 years after that and studied part time for a dozen more years. Now I learn because I want to.
Considering the state of the global economy and the UK economy in particular and the ways in which our armed forces are deployed today I find it difficult to justify a replacement for Trident in the form that we understand it – 4 SSBNs, Vanguard, Victorious, Vigilent, and Vengeance in round the clock, round the globe deployment. The cold war MAD argument was easy to understand. If there was a modern enemy, Al Qaeda was it and if there was a remote, lightly populated target country it was Afghanistan. So what is Trident for?
I’m with you on core subjects Phil, as well as dumbing down.
As to Trident, the nuclear cat is out of the bag and we can’t get it back in and just forget about it. Deterrence is all about it being there continuously. And maybe without it we’d need a larger even more expensive conventional force.
Al Qaeda id today’s enemy, an enemy we would have discounted decades ago. Tomorrow may bring back a justification for the Mutually Assured Destruction concept. Who knows?
Only the conventional force gets used, and more and more in the last 13 years. Our nuclear deterrent has never been used. Okay you don’t want to use it, that’s the point of a deterrent.
My question, like others, is how can we justify the cost of the replacement of our own independent nuclear deterrent which helped to keep the peace for over 40 years of the cold war? Under what circumstances would any future PM press the red button (Jim)? We have taken huge financial risks, borrowing from the future. I for one would rather take a risk with national security and save some cash. Nuclear defence, yes but not on a submarine platform.
[...] Education! Education! Education! | The Economic Voice [...]
[...] Education! Education! Education! | The Economic Voice [...]
[...] Education! Education! Education! | The Economic Voice [...]