Tax Credits

mwpt

Pennywise wrote: »

So, rather than throw the baby out with the bath water, as said above, why didn't they improve the secondary schools rather than scrap the grammars? There was absolutely NOTHING to stop a secondary/technical school offering a foreign language or science lessons. Secondary/technical schools could have been improved or turned into comps whilst at the same time leaving grammars unaffected.

I know nothing about this issue but my guess would be that it's more important to a lot of the population that equality is maximised, rather than overall wealth maximised. Same concept.

Pennywise

mwpt wrote: »

I know nothing about this issue but my guess would be that it's more important to a lot of the population that equality is maximised, rather than overall wealth maximised. Same concept.

But by doing so, you're dragging down the most able into a one-size-fits-all system, which has clearly failed anyway, as there's massive differences in outcomes between supposedly "equal" schools. Social engineering at it's worst.

ukcarper

Pennywise wrote: »

So, rather than throw the baby out with the bath water, as said above, why didn't they improve the secondary schools rather than scrap the grammars? There was absolutely NOTHING to stop a secondary/technical school offering a foreign language or science lessons. Secondary/technical schools could have been improved or turned into comps whilst at the same time leaving grammars unaffected.

Because grammar schools draw resources out of the overall system you can easily argue that if you improve all education the need for grammar schools become redundant.

michaels

No cuts to tax credits = an hour of my life wasted closing and reopening savings accounts to shift interest payments between tax years At least it means I won't have to do it again next April.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

Because grammar schools draw resources out of the overall system you can easily argue that if you improve all education the need for grammar schools become redundant.

what resources are theses?
there is no reason for a grammar to be allocated more 'resources' per capita compared to other schools

and no, the logic of grammar school is that they take the most academically able : not all children are the most able

WHA

ukcarper wrote: »

Because grammar schools draw resources out of the overall system

How? Our local grammars get the same funding per pupil as other local comps. In fact, because fewer pupils are on free school meals, they are actually getting less these days. Both local grammars are suffering old buildings and run down amenities, whereas the local comps are constantly getting new blocks built by virtue of grants. It seems round here, it's the grammars who are suffering lower resources at the expense of the comps.

chris_m

End of discussion - Osborne's scrapped his changes.

wotsthat

The money tree remains in full bloom.

michaels

Apparently the chancellor looked down the back of the sofa and found the Housing Associations and by treating them as part of the govt cut the debt to gdp/ratio at the stroke of an acountants pen (ironic smile smilie)

Pablosammy

What a weak showing from the Tories. They've proved themselves to be utterly spineless and lacking conviction. More handouts, more bungs to his city mates in house-building. No wonder this country is going down the pan.

The welfare state has pushed living costs, and therefore wages, higher and higher to the point that our companies cannot compete on the world stage. This country is being systematically dismantled in the interests of the 1%.

Osborne fiddled while London burned.