At the start of this week details of the Pupil Premium to help the education of the most disadvantaged children were published. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has now run its eye over those details and come up with its verdict:
Pupil premium: simple and transparent financial incentive
The Government’s chosen pupil premium is simple, amounting to £430 per pupil eligible for free school meals no matter which local authority children live in. The Government originally proposed a pupil premium that would have varied in generosity across local authorities, been relatively complex to understand, and gone against the Government’s stated aim of evening out differences in funding for deprived pupils. In a welcome move, the actual pupil premium announced this week will be much simpler and more transparent, potentially sharpening the financial incentives generated by the pupil premium.
Welcoming simplicity over giving extra support to particular parts of the country is more than a mere technical evaluation, highlighting how the IFS’s views on topics quickly stray into areas of political debate – even if in this case, I think they are right about the importance of simplicity, a much under-rated feature of policies.
The IFS also look at the change in funding levels, with more pupils qualifying for the Pupil Premium than previously planned but the payment per head reduced as a result:
The pupil premium is lower than expected. The main reason given is that the Department for Education are now expecting a large increase in the number of children registered for free school meals, from 17.4% of pupils in January 2010 to about 20% in January 2011 (it is the number of pupils registered with their school for free school meals on 20 January 2011 that will determine precise allocations of pupil premium funding in 2011-12). This 15% increase in children registered for free school meals is significantly larger than has taken place in recent years, and is expected to arise through the stronger financial incentive generated by the pupil premium for schools to ensure all pupils entitled to free school meals are indeed registered as such with the school (i.e. the increase is amongst children in households with incomes low enough to qualify for free school meals, but who are simply not registered at present).
Getting more children who are already in theory entitled to free school meals registered for them sounds like it may be a helpful knock-on result of the policy, though file away this explanation as there is a fair chance an increase in the number of children will at some point be quoted as if it is bad news rather than a result of a welcome increase in take-up.
You can read the full IFS policy note here.
Note: the reliability or otherwise of the IFS’s evaluations was the subject of a series of posts earlier this year (see our IFS page), though the main issues discussed in those posts are not relevant to this Pupil Premium analysis.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Joy of Six 1313
SSE PLC all at sea!!
Michael's weekly ward surgeries today! #dundeewestend
The past continues to haunt the UK's anti-corruption ministers
Katharine Pindar
Mohammed Amin
Roland
John Waller
40 Comments
It’s worth noting that the DfE confirmed this week that the schools budget is now projected to fall in real terms across the Parliament – even incorporating the Pupil Premium.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11983026
Mark (not Pack) is right.
Worse news is within the body of the IFS report:
– with the projected 15% increase in Free School meals claimants, school budgets will be cut by 0.75%
– if this doesn’t happen – the cut rises to 1.0%
– 1 in 6 pupils will see a 2% cut in their funding
– only 1 in 4 pupils will see a real-terms increase
– the increase in FSM registrations must happen by Jan 20th 2011. This is notoriously difficult – as there is a stigma attached to FSM registration that many parents do not want to face – again flying the face of Coalition orthodxy which is “we’re all benefit scroungers”
– If the FSM regs are lower – the Pupil Premium will be lower
All in all – the devil is in the detail. And for Lib Dems who campaigned on the PP (foolishly – like me) the policy is more than disappointing – it’s a slap in the face. I campaigned with teaching colleagues on rising school budgets. I now find I helped to cut them.
@Mark, @Cuse – do those figures account for rising pupil numbers? In other words, is that an absolute 1% cut in schools budget, or a 1% cut per pupil?
very important distinction…
@Prateek – it’s an absolute cut. There was already a real terms cut per pupil even with the original announcement, because pupil numbers are rising. But the new figures show that it’s also a real terms cut to the overall schools budget.
A point worth repeating (from Cuse’s comment) is that schools and pupils will not benefit from the Pupil Premium unless children eligable for Free School Meals register with the school. Local Lib Dems should urge all eligable parents to register their children for Free School Meals immediately so that they can benefit.
“And for Lib Dems who campaigned on the PP (foolishly – like me) the policy is more than disappointing – it’s a slap in the face. I campaigned with teaching colleagues on rising school budgets. I now find I helped to cut them.”
Have you seen this £155 billion deficit we have? Do you think it is a joke, or something the Tories have invented?
This policy will focus resources where it is needed in a clear and simple manner. It is to be welcomed as a clear, progressive improvement on the system of school funding in the UK.
@ Niklas Smith
“A point worth repeating (from Cuse’s comment) is that schools and pupils will not benefit from the Pupil Premium unless children eligable for Free School Meals register with the school. Local Lib Dems should urge all eligable parents to register their children for Free School Meals immediately so that they can benefit.”
I hope to god that schools are more discrete these days on how they deliver free school meals.
I was a Free school meal student and I remember the sheer embarrassment that was caused to myself and others like me
At Lunch, The students eligible for a free school meal, used to have to line up separably in order to have their name marked of a register, they where then given a token, which was worth 75pence when I was at school, and this could be used to purchase what you wanted from the canteen.
Having to line up separately was a humiliating experience because everyone then knew which students came from families on welfare. It was deeply cruel and I witnessed many people being bullied for this.
I only ever claimed mine for my first year, after that we used to sneak out of school and go to the fish and chip shop instead at lunch times.
I seriously hope schools no longer use this method of issuing free school meal tokens as there must be better more discrete ways.
The way people who are on welfare as it is, are constantly vilified by the government and the media as scroungers. Some students need little or no encouragement for an excuse to bully others.
I don’t doubt for 1 minute that there are many parents out there who refuse to subject their children to this and so will not register their child for free school meals, with the school. That in itself is a problem for the pupil premium and is an indication that the policy was ill thought out, The money should be automatic for those who are eligible not those that actually claim.
The pupil premium is a great idea that has been butchered.
A real term 0.75% – 1% budget cut as opposed to retention of the real terms budget plus the premium means that a significant number of pupils will miss out. Only some schools will see any true additional money so the impact on children will be pretty insignificant at best and negative in some areas.
That’s not a total moan at the Lib Dems in Government. I’m pretty sure they have achieved a better settlement than would have been made under the Tories. But let’s not shout from the rooftops that this is a great leap forwards, more a restraining hand slowing the great leap back to schools as they were pre 1997. Labour made numerous mistakes but as a Father of two kids six and eighteen I have seen the changes made by the investment over the ’97 – 2010 period and it has made things better.
@matt: I can only agree – stigmatising children is a thoroughly bad idea. I can’t speak for any other schools, but in my school we paid for our lunches with lunch tokens, which were bought in books from the school office each term. Under such a system a book of tokens can simply be given to each eligable child privately and they can line up with the other children in the canteen.
As for the money ideally being automatic, the problem is that eligibility for free school meals is based on the parents’ receipt of means tested benefits. There is no way for a school to know when a parent starts getting (say) Jobseekers Allowance unless the parent tells them.
@Stephen W
“This policy will focus resources where it is needed in a clear and simple manner. It is to be welcomed as a clear, progressive improvement on the system of school funding in the UK.”
progressive improvement?
How is it progressive to cut the education budget? Without the Pupil Premium, Education Budgets would have 1% Cuts to their Budgets not the measly 0.1% rise claimed at CSR. With the Pupil Premium those cuts will now only be 0.75%
How can you call that progressive?
And that is providing that all the parents who children are eligible for free school meals, Register them with the school, for free meals, If the Parent chooses to send their child to school with a pack lunch, Then the school will miss out on that students Pupil Premium.
And lets not forget, that people on welfare have been bashed and vilified something chronic by this coalition government, labelled as scroungers and responsible for our huge budget deficit. And now you want those same people to come forward publicly as welfare dependants to insure that schools get their pupil premium.
Maybe this coalition needs to stop and think for 1 minute about the stigma that they have caused to those on welfare with 1 hand
and now they need these same people to mitigate the cuts to schools.
It is disgraceful and makes me so angry
Stephen W
Your aggression is misplaced.
The deficit is not digital. To not agree with the Coalition’s austerity plan is not a denial of the problem – no matter how much the Coalition’s supporters try to paint it as such. The solution to the deficit involves choices and the Coalition’s choices are both wrong to my mind and wilfully misleading – as Miliband proved yesterday as he proved the Coalition’s NHS cash-rise as a hoax.
The Liberal Democrat party campaigned to win the General Election. Nick Clegg said as much. They campaigned to win on a set of policies that they claimed were fully costed + viable – based on a pretty clear deficit level. The Coalition cry of “but the deficit was worse than we thought” was comprehensively destroyed within a month as the OBR proved the economy was better than they thought.
I believed in the party and believed in their policies. These have been torn apart day after day. Not winning the election is immaterial. “Don’t make a promise if you can’t keep it” strikes a chord with normal people. Clegg has forgotten this since May 14th. “No more broken promises” he said on his video. How foolish his supporters must feel now.
I actually understand school budgets as I have run one for many, many years. The simplicity of a funding stream matters nought. The overall funding level does. It will be cut. That is simple.
The Lib Dems told us the PP would be a real-terms increase on existing budgets – leading to a real-terms cash rise for all. They were wrong – again. I can’t forgive Nick Clegg.
@ Niklas Smith
“@matt: I can only agree – stigmatising children is a thoroughly bad idea. I can’t speak for any other schools, but in my school we paid for our lunches with lunch tokens, which were bought in books from the school office each term. Under such a system a book of tokens can simply be given to each eligable child privately and they can line up with the other children in the canteen”
If all students had to buy lunch tokens from the school office instead of using Cash, then I am sure that is a much more discrete system.
But like i said, that was not how it worked at my school, students paid cash at the till for their meals, unless you where a free school meal student who had lined up earlier for a free token.
I think it raises a good point and should be something that is looked into further,
How many people whose children are still at school, use cash at the canteen?
There seem to be an awful lot of people here who would have benefited from the One-to-One Maths Tuition the Pupil Premium is designed to provide….
Sorry Martin Land.
I don’t get your point. Is it the “the PP is a real-terms cash reduction” people who are wrong or the “PP is a real terms cash injection”?
@Prateek Buch
“@Mark, @Cuse – do those figures account for rising pupil numbers? In other words, is that an absolute 1% cut in schools budget, or a 1% cut per pupil? very important distinction…”
From reading the IFS report, I think it’s clear they mean per pupil.
“the schools settlement for 2011 implies a 0.75% real-terms cut in funding per pupil, on average, across schools. But if the increase does not take place, there would instead be a 1% real-terms cut, on average.”
The pupil premium is, on average, planned to make up the shortfall of 0.75%, but if the increase in free schools numbers doesn’t take place, then there’ll be a 0.25% real terms cut this year (presumably made up by a higher pupil premium next year).
In my opinion, ministers have oversold the pupil premium as extra money. In the context of a £150bn deficit, and a spending review where we were expecting a 10% cut in the education budget, the fact the schools budget is broadly remaining the same is very good news.
Incidentally, if there’s an increase in take-up of free schools means, that’s good news. And I think matt makes a good point about how schools could increase take-up.
So, to summarise… The Government is giving schools more money. But not really as they are actually reducing funding really. Awesome!
Hands up who else is looking forward to fairer and more progressive control orders…
@George – the IFS isn’t directly relevant to the claim that the overall schools budget is being cut in real terms. The reason for the cut, as DfE admits, is that the OBR’s updated inflation forecast means that what was previously projected to be a very small overall real terms rise is now projected to be a real terms cut. It has nothing to do with per-pupil funding.
This is exactly the same argument that Ed Miliband was using yesterday to point out that on the Government’s own preferred forecast, there’s no longer a projected real terms rise in NHS funding.
Ministers, And Clegg especially, should never have kept repeating the same old line, that the pupil premium was new money and it was going to be additional money on top of the per pupil funding.
People have been arguing for months now that this was not going to be the case, even when chancellor George Osbourne was claiming so with a 0.1% rise to the education budgets.
All these lies are coming back to bite the party in the backside.
And is nobody else bothered by the sheer hypocrisy, of stigmatising those reliant on welfare as being spongers and scroungers, And now schools and Education Budgets are going to be reliant on those very students from welfare dependant families, to mitigate those cuts through the Pupil Premium.
Those parents who are on sickness and Disability Benefits and other out of work benefits, who are being vilified by this government, are the ones whose children are entitled to free school dinners.
This coalition has been party to stirring up public anger towards benefit claimants,
The whole thing stinks of hypocrisy
Just for clarity, Matt, can you specify when and where and how the LibDems have been labelling all welfare recipient as “spongers and scroungers”?
@ Squirrel Nutkin
There have been plenty of examples of this coalition government, vilifying benefit claimants.
Ian Duncan Smith said in the Sun News paper only a couple of weeks ago, That it was people on Incapacity benefits who where part of the reason, Britain has such a high budget deficit.
If that is not vilifying the sick and disabled, then I don’t know what is.
There have been plenty attacks on those on welfare through the media, Has a Single Liberal Democrat Minister come forward to defend the sick and disabled? Not one.
In Fact Danny Alexander {before jumping into his ministerial car} was very vocal towards the incompetence of ATOS and how the sick and disabled where being let down by the Work Capability Test, and he was very quick to take peoples votes, by making promises to do all he could in parliament to address this. And what has he done or said to come to the aid of those people? Nothing
This coalition government has done nothing but add fuel to the fire, by announcing proposals like, cutting people’s Housing Benefit by 10% if they have not found a job within 12 months, All adding to the illusion that Britain is in the state it is in because of our large welfare bill and the amount of people who are sick or unemployed.
Not 1 Minister from the coalition government, has come out in defence of these people.
So yes as far as I am concerned, Liberal Democrats have played there part in vilifying those on welfare.
And now that Education Budgets face real terms cuts, which is something more important to the Liberal Democrats, than welfare,
And it is going to take welfare claimants, to apply for free school meals, to mitigate those school cuts.
It is a real slap in the face and an embarrassment to the party, and there is no point pretending otherwise
@George Kendall
“In my opinion, ministers have oversold the pupil premium as extra money. In the context of a £150bn deficit, and a spending review where we were expecting a 10% cut in the education budget, the fact the schools budget is broadly remaining the same is very good news.”
My point exactly. Now it is how this is sold. If the Lib Dems continue the love in approach to the coalition then we get the current over selling. I believe they have gained significant concessions on school funding. It’s not great but they should shout from the rooftops that they stopped the Tories making large cuts to schools.
Unfortunately they seem to have fallen into the new liebour trap of putting spin onto everything…
To not agree with the Coalition’s austerity plan is not a denial of the problem
I have not seen many people offering alternatives. All that happens is that after every actual cut someone pops up to say “we accept there muct be cuts in spending -but not this cut.”
Nobody ever suggests an alternative spending cut or tax rise.
Apparently the government should save money without ever spending less money on anything.
@ Matt
It seems to have escaped your attention that Iain Duncan Smith is not a Liberal Democrat.
By the way, if Labour spent even more money here, where would they make even greater cuts than are being made by the coalition instead?
So far they have opposed:
1) Higher tuition fees;
2) Benefit changes;
3) The current education funding proposals;
4) Increased VAT.
So we are talking about tens of billions each year that would need to be cut elsewhere. Or they would be planning to borrow even more. Or they would be planning tens of billions of further tax increases.
Which is it, exactly, so we can all know why Labour’s plans are so much better than the ones of the current government?
@Robert C
I am well aware that Ian Duncan Smith is a Conservative and that is why I said in my original post
“This coalition has been party to stirring up public anger towards benefit claimants”
You are all part of the same government, so whatever 1 minister say’s is a reflection on both of your parties.
And as Cameron and Clegg have reminded us on numerous occasions, That the 2 parties in Government have 1 Policy.
And yes Labour have opposed the area’s you mention
1) Higher tuition fees;
2) Benefit changes;
3) The current education funding proposals;
4) Increased VAT
because all 4 effect the poorest in society the most
1) Effects disproportionally those who will go on to earn modest incomes, compared to those that go on to higher incomes and can afford to pay off fee’s early, or not incur loans at all
2) Effects the poorest, sick and disabled people in society
3) The coalition is about to destroy our Education system and the aspirations of our young
There are many alternative cuts that could have been made and tax increases that could have been implemented.
There is simply no excuse for targeting those cuts disproportionally at the young, the poor, the sick and disabled and the unemployed. Which is what the Tories always do, and the Liberal Democrats are now aiding and abetting.
Incidentally the only people the Tories have decided to give a reprieve too this time, are the pensioners, And I wonder why that is, Maybe because there are now Thousands more Millionaire Tory Supporting Pensioners from the Thatcher era.
Pensioners make up over £90 Billion pounds worth of the£185 Billion welfare Bill, and that is without their stake in the Housing Benefit Bill and Council Tax Bill. And yet we are not hearing for calls to cut that bill, Why is that?
@matt
“Progressive improvement?
How is it progressive to cut the education budget? Without the Pupil Premium, Education Budgets would have 1% Cuts to their Budgets not the measly 0.1% rise claimed at CSR. With the Pupil Premium those cuts will now only be 0.75%
How can you call that progressive?”
Okay, let’s try this again. There is a massive deficit. Spending must be cut. Even under Darling’s (in my opinion insufficient) plans there were £50 billion of spending cuts. This means budgets fall. I’m presuming you support the ringfences on ID, Health and EU spending. That means there must be cuts in Education among other areas. Hell, even if these areas weren’t ringfenced there would still have to be some cuts. Getting the deficit down is progressive, by any definition worth a damn, because it doesn’t drown our children in debt and risk pushing us towards an Ireland style catastrophe.
Considering that budgets must be cut. The Pupil Premium slants the funding we do have more in favour of poorer pupils than it previously was. This is a progressive change. Once we have even more money, and can push the education budget back up again, this progressive structural change will remain, slanting the funding towards poorer pupils. For any level of funding this change makes the system more progressive than would otherwise have been the case.
@Cuse
“The deficit is not digital. To not agree with the Coalition’s austerity plan is not a denial of the problem – no matter how much the Coalition’s supporters try to paint it as such. The solution to the deficit involves choices and the Coalition’s choices are both wrong to my mind and wilfully misleading – as Miliband proved yesterday as he proved the Coalition’s NHS cash-rise as a hoax.”
I never mentioned the Coalition’s deficit plan. You did. Even Darling’s deficit plan involved £50 billion of cuts. Do you really think that this could have been achieved without cutting the Education budget at all? Presuming you think things like Health and ID are equally deserving. Miliband proved nothing yesterday. Inflation will be higher therefore in ‘real’ terms the public spending totals will be lower. This is no more the government’s fault than the bad weather. Current monetary conditions are the fault of the Bank of England and the monetary structure put into place by Gordon Brown. How does it have anything to do with Cameron?
@matt
“And yes Labour have opposed the area’s you mention
1) Higher tuition fees;
2) Benefit changes;
3) The current education funding proposals;
4) Increased VAT
because all 4 effect the poorest in society the most”
Of course they do. That’s because British public spending is highly progressive. We take money from the Rich to give it to the poor. Any sizeable public spending cuts will hit the poor. They are necessary however because of the deficit. Even Darling was planning £50 billion of them. Do you really think he could have done that without hitting the poor? Labour are ducking every difficult choice they can. They have no plan and no policies. They left the UK finances in a complete mess and now have no plan to clear it up again.
Your attack on pensioners just makes you look ridiculous. Ah yes, the government hasn’t cut pensioners because of all those “Millionaire Tory Pensioners”, that’s definitely the reason. It’s not because Labour went out of their way before the election to scaremonger about the Conservatives planning cuts to elderly benefits, and hence it’s a massive issue of trust. It’s not because Labour would scream from the rooftops about another broken Tory promise. You’re so deep in your own political tribalism you can’t see the wood for your own bias, let alone the trees.
George K – We have just had the discussion about the deficit and what it actually means in practical terms. We don’t agree on how necessary it is to “leap into action” immediately on it, but I sense we do agree that there are other ways to choose to deal / not deal with it. My point is that we have had that debate. My issue is with Stephen W and others of his ilk who seem to believe there is no such alternative. May I remind him, that despite Maggie’s dictum “There is no alternative”, there always is. This discussion underlies all the individual policy debates we have here, as the TINA people are determined that any public spending above a bare minimum will cause armageddon. They seem to have forgotten all the lessons learned in the slump of the 1930s, and are determined to condemn many people to penury. As Liberals, we should also be encouraging action such as that of UKUncut, to ensure that tax avoidance by rich individuals such as Philip Green is reversed. Moral and other pressure should be intensified. How can we “all be in this together” without such action?
Cuts could have been made that would have brought down spending without all this damage. There’s no will however to look closely at Philip Green’s observations and to save money without cutting jobs or trying to privatise parts of the public sector.
It’s not a “premium” if it’s moving money around the existing budget.
But with the latest report of 900,000 more people to fall into poverty the orange book Thatcherites will be toasting George Osborne tonight.
What is particularly interesting is that the IFS think the PP will ensure that schools do their utmost to ensure all eligible pupils are registered for free school meals. That alone is a welcome side effect IMHO.
@Tim13 “but I sense we do agree that there are other ways to choose to deal / not deal with it.”
You’re right. It’s been a theme in the articles I’ve written for this site, for example in:
https://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-so-you-want-to-be-chancellor-20969.html
To be fair, though, I suspect that Stephen W and others like him would agree that there are options.
@Anthony
I thought the coalition were looking closely at Philip Green’s observations. But surely, with a structural deficit of £100bn, however hard you work at efficiency savings, they are only going to help on the margins.
@Stephen W
You are a Tory arnt you?
I did not attack pensioners, I said that considering they make up over half of the total welfare budget, If cuts to welfare need to be made, then we should also look at Pensioners.
You seem extremely concerned about Cameron and the Tories being made to look bad, And considering It was Cameron, who made all those promises to Pensioners Benefits, and he doesn’t want to be seen breaking those promises. And yet here he is willing to break every other promise, and usually uses a Liberal Democrat, to announce it for him.
Yes I do think, Pensioners could give up free bass passes, and Winter Fuel Payments should be means tested, through the current pensions credit system, stopping millionaire pensioners from receiving a benefit that they do not need. How is that attacking Pensioners.
There are alternative things to cut and taxes to increase, and to deny it otherwise just shows how arrogant some people can be.
OK, to have presented the pupil premium as “new money” at the election was over-optimistic. All the parties were wildly over-optimistic at the election. Remember the IFS telling the nation that we were being marginally less dishonest than the other two? We can’t take pride in the way we fought the election, but on issues like the pupil premium at least, nor should we be especially ashamed.
Far too much is made of this magic phrase “new money”. Basically, there ain’t no such thing. “New money” could mean raiding the health budget or the defence budget in order to pay the pupil premium: “Old money” means raiding other parts of the education budget. Quite why it should be portrayed as morally superior to raid the health budget escapes me.
“New money” could of course also mean putting up taxes. The horror! Nobody wants to claim that is a good thing, do they? (That is why we don’t charge as much tax as we should do!)
How are you attacking pensioners?
“Maybe because there are now Thousands more Millionaire Tory Supporting Pensioners from the Thatcher era.”
Those evil millionaire tory pensioners hogging the welfare bill and corrupting the government. If that is not an attack I don’t know what is. I also think pensioners should give up universal benefits. Help should be targeted at the poor. But that is a very Tory attitude, not at one with the universal principles of the welfare state (according to many lefties) are you sure you’re not secretly a Tory yourself?
“There are alternative things to cut and taxes to increase, and to deny it otherwise just shows how arrogant some people can be.”
I know there are alternatives. I have repeatedly quoted Alistair Darling’s figure for deficit reduction, and not mentioned the Coalition, so I’m not so sure why you’re convinced I’m an evil Tory (evil, evil people that they are). Your own obsession with the Coalition has led you to assume that anyone supporting spending cuts must be a Tory. Even under Darling’s plan there must be £50 billion of cuts. How is this to be done if Education is to be increased? Cut Health? cut ID? Cut welfare? I don’t think any of these options are more noble than the current plans.
Did I refer to the Pensioners who make up over £90 Million pounds as being Evil Millionaire Hogs?
No I don’t think so.
Until you can participate in grown up debate, you do not warrant a response.
Your wasting my time, along with others who have to sift through your Dross.
@Stephen W
Getting the deficit down is progressive, by any definition worth a damn, because it doesn’t drown our children in debt and risk pushing us towards an Ireland style catastrophe.
Pardon?
Is that not the main argument against the rise in tuition fees where you are drowning our children in debt? The welfare reforms are also pushing our children into poverty along with the sick and disabled being pushed idealogically onto a jobs market where they are unable to and will never find work along with the 19% of 18 – 24 year olds. two and a half milion unemployed and rising. This coalition so ably supported by Lib Dems is supporting this, making people so desperate they wil take any low paid job (and watch for the minimum wage being scrapped) which will benefit the elite who again will make their fortunes on the backs of the poor. This is what you have signed up to. New politics? No, very old politics.
@George Kendall, efficiency savings and there are many the public sector could do with, will create savings year on year, things like the absurd situation where departments spend their budget on anything possible because if they don’t, they’ll have their budget cut next year, this should have been addressed years ago.
Shopping around for the best deals, most medium to large sized public sector organisations would save money simply by enjoying someone in the back office who shopped around, they’d easily pay back their salary, however back office staff appear to be the scapegoats at the moment.
“Did I refer to the Pensioners who make up over £90 Million pounds as being Evil Millionaire Hogs?
No I don’t think so.
Until you can participate in grown up debate, you do not warrant a response.
Your wasting my time, along with others who have to sift through your Dross.”
Save your disaproval for someone who cares. You have yet to answer a single actual point I have made in multiple paragraphs. Just complaining about a comment I made about a silly comment you made does not equate to reasoned debate. Nor does accusing me of being a Tory count as a reasoned argument.
I accept you were not meaning to attack pensioners in general. I still think bizarre conspiratorial thinking like ““Maybe because there are now Thousands more Millionaire Tory Supporting Pensioners from the Thatcher era.”” is a ridiculous line to take. As is automatically assuming bad faith on behalf of Conservatives or claiming that “Tories” are intent on deliberately disproportionately targeting cuts on the poor, sick, young disabled etc.
If you don’t actually want to respond to any of the points I’ve made then by all means keep quiet.
Actually I did I answer your point, but for whatever reason, you seem very short sighted when it comes to someone else having a point of view.
I understand that schools already receive extra funding for social deprivation which is determined by their Local Authourity and is included in its funding formula. I believe that this social deprivation allowance is based on the incidence of of Free School Meals children within an LEA’s area and on other local factors. The allowance varies from LEA to LEA. Is the Pupil Premium to be in addition to this existing funding? Or does it replace it? Can any councillor who is an LEA member enlighten me, please?
It does kind of make a mockery of the policy by asking those in receipt welfare to sign on the FSM registration especially after all the “welfare scroungers” we hear from the coalition government…
Was this the PP Liberal Democrats envisaged, I am quite certain this is not what the voters envisaged for PP… ah well Liberal Democrats only have 57 seats and you did your best.
Didn’t you?
I am sure the electorate will understand, you did your best, oh I forgot you are a coalition government, I wonder if Conservatives have to say we only had, nope, I am sure I have not heard that.
90% of conservative policy, by god, you must be proud.
All said and done, you did your best….
Perception is a funny thing at times.