I thought the coalition was meant to be saving money?

antrobus

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

You thought wrong then.

Tories = Shrink the state, relax business laws, reduce business taxes, make their mates richer

Lib Dems = Pacification role, spreading some peanuts around

What's more Angela Harrison, the Education correspondent for BBC News, notes under her analysis of the proposal that;

Giving free nursery care to two-year-olds is an extension of schemes introduced by Labour.

Seems a bit churlish to complain that the Coalition government is simply doing more of the same thing as the last lot. At least there's a few more peanuts being distributed.

chucky

Generali wrote: »

How do you mean old chap?

that discussing the facts that the Coalition may be in fact be over spending is distracted by the usual response that Labour were much worse (which they probably were). just because the Coalition aren't spending as much as them so that makes it ok.

Cameron, Cable and Osborne have done it all this week when their spending has been questioned or criticised - it's also done daily on this forum.

Sir_Humphrey

I would have thought that the money for this will simply be taken from another part of the education budget.

Spin spin spin...

Sir_Humphrey

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/7910538/Schools-to-receive-pupil-premium-for-teaching-poorest-children.html

Schools to receive 'pupil premium' for teaching poorest children

By Nick Collins
Published: 7:30AM BST 27 Jul 2010

This policy has in fact already been announced - last July.

Seems Nick Clegg has been learning from Gordon "announce it twice" Brown.

Spin spin spin spin...

Really2

I don't think this should be offered to family that has no one in work personally.

Free childcare places (15H) should be an incentive to work IMHO.

It does do children well to interact but what stops non working parents getting their children interacting with other children?

1984ReturnsForReal_2

antrobus wrote: »

What's more Angela Harrison, the Education correspondent for BBC News, notes under her analysis of the proposal that;

Giving free nursery care to two-year-olds is an extension of schemes introduced by Labour.

Seems a bit churlish to complain that the Coalition government is simply doing more of the same thing as the last lot. At least there's a few more peanuts being distributed.

There goes another one.

Why do you insist on picking on my comment?

Its not my fault you can't read a full set of accounts & make sense of them.

The same as its not Labours' fault what the ConDems authorise & cut.

It is called ability & responsibility.

You lack ability & they have to take responsibility.

antrobus

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

This policy has in fact already been announced - last July.

Seems Nick Clegg has been learning from Gordon "announce it twice" Brown.

Spin spin spin spin...

Not sure that Brown ever limited himself to two annoucements. I imagine we can look forward to another annoucement after the next Budget (how clever we are to have found the money), another one a year later about how succesful the spending has been. Then it will be wrapped up together with some other changes in an annoucement about how £x billion has been pledged to combat social disadvantage (or something like that), followed by .....

antrobus

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Why do you insist on picking on my comment?

I had to do a bit of research here. Oddly enough, I don't take that much notice of which 'online persona' stands behind any particular comment. But here goes;

You claimed that Royal Mail Group was profitable, when in fact it's making a loss, as its published accounts clearly show.
(To any passers by, page 47 of the RMG accounts for the year ended 28 March 2010, see
ftp://ftp.royalmail.com/Downloads/public/ctf/rmg/2009_10_RM_Holdings_Group_Accounts_Final.pdf
states that it made a "Total comprehensive loss for the period" of £1.625 billion)

You tried a cheap shot against Margaret Thatcher by claiming that the Senghenydd mine diaster of 1913 took place on the same day as Thatcher was born twelve years later. You were a day out.

So the answer would be; because you keep saying things that aren't true.

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Its not my fault you can't read a full set of accounts & make sense of them.

Well I know that when the number at the foot of the profit and loss account is in brackets and clearly labelled as a 'loss', then that means that the entity in question has made a loss. I think that's a good start.

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

The same as its not Labours' fault what the ConDems authorise & cut.

Seems rather a strange remark to make in the context of a news report about the Coalition government spending even more money on extending a scheme first introduced by the previous Labour government.

bendix

setmefree2 wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11548062




OMG :eek: £7 bn. Obviously, everyone wants poor kids to be well educated but this seems mental.

Maybe it's not new money?

I'm so confused. The child benefit cuts only amounted to £1bn and this is £7bn!?

So let me get this right. Tories committing to investing in education for young kids is wrong? Tories deciding that middle class and high income earners don't need £20 a week child benefit is wrong too, right?

But Labour's profligacy of stoking a welfare state which has effectively destroyed a generation's future prosperity by removing any need or desire to work, is a good thing?

You've got your priorities a bit wrong.

Degenerate

It's great to hear that our poorest children will be given the opportunity to flourish and grow, to develop a love for learning and achieve their full potential, right up to the age of 18 when they discover that they cannot afford to go to university whilst dumber, richer kids can.