Austerity

[El Kabong]

That is the whole point of this thread that austerity has resulted in the government not supporting people who struggle.

NHS has been short staffed and underfunded, school classes are too big, lack of investment in teachers, police officer, transport, prisons and welfare benefits have been dramatically cut. The people who want to get out of their situation have a very difficult time.

Well that's something open borders will absolutely solve

More funding for schools to recruit teachers would solve the problem.

https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publi...comms/R150.pdf
otal spending on schools in England represented just under £42 billion in 2017–18 (in 2018–19 prices). This represents £4,700 per pupil at primary school and £6,200 per pupil at secondary school.

So just pour more money on the problem then? How much is "enough"? Is it a hard number or one of those "We'll know when we get there" situations?

And I only bring that up to say....


https://www.census.gov/newsroom/pres...nsus%20Bureau.
The amount spent per pupil for public elementary and secondary education (prekindergarten through 12th grade) for all 50 states and the District of Columbia increased by 3.7% to $12,201 per pupil during the 2017 fiscal year, compared to $11,763 per pupil in 2016, according to new tables released today by the U.S. Census Bureau.


We've got the exact same problem and JUST money ain't solving jack shit.....it would be lovely if it did, but it doesn't because if it did we'd see improvement due to increased spending, we haven't we've seen the opposite.

[Master]

The report you cited said 'Education spending has since fallen in real terms as spending cuts began to take effect from 2010 onwards' which is because of austerity.

All parties including the instigators of under funding have said they will invest more to recruit more teachers, improve buildings and increase pay.

[El Kabong]

The report you cited said 'Education spending has since fallen in real terms as spending cuts began to take effect from 2010 onwards' which is because of austerity.

All parties including the instigators of under funding have said they will invest more to recruit more teachers, improve buildings and increase pay.

Although spending by schools themselves has risen by 5% or £220 per pupil between
2009–10 and 2017–18, they have taken responsibility for many services previously provided
by local authorities, where spending has fallen by more than 50% or £650 per pupil.
Incorporating cuts to local authority spending and sixth-form funding, total school
spending per pupil has fallen by 8% in real terms over the same period and was only
about 14% higher in 2017–18 than in 2003–04.




Looks like the spending is on the rise, but spending on solely EDUCATION has fallen due to the schools being expected to provide more than just schooling (cradle to grave government socialism). Also the number of students is expected to rise quite a bit as well.


Families should be responsible for raising their children, they should house and feed and clothe and bathe and all the things PROVIDE for their children....I'd feel worthless if I couldn't do that for my family, but some people love that sweet life treating the social safety net like a hammock, I find it disgraceful.

[Master]

The report you cited said 'Education spending has since fallen in real terms as spending cuts began to take effect from 2010 onwards' which is because of austerity.

All parties including the instigators of under funding have said they will invest more to recruit more teachers, improve buildings and increase pay.

Although spending by schools themselves has risen by 5% or £220 per pupil between
2009–10 and 2017–18, they have taken responsibility for many services previously provided
by local authorities, where spending has fallen by more than 50% or £650 per pupil.
Incorporating cuts to local authority spending and sixth-form funding, total school
spending per pupil has fallen by 8% in real terms over the same period and was only
about 14% higher in 2017–18 than in 2003–04.




Looks like the spending is on the rise, but spending on solely EDUCATION has fallen due to the schools being expected to provide more than just schooling (cradle to grave government socialism). Also the number of students is expected to rise quite a bit as well.


Families should be responsible for raising their children, they should house and feed and clothe and bathe and all the things PROVIDE for their children....I'd feel worthless if I couldn't do that for my family, but some people love that sweet life treating the social safety net like a hammock, I find it disgraceful.

So local authorities have been spending less because they have been given less by the government. Which is what austerity has caused. "Malnourished pupils with grey skin are "filling their pockets" with food from school canteens in poor areas due to poverty" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-43611527

No one said families should not provide the basics for children but there are more families facing poverty and inequality has increased with austerity.

[El Kabong]

The report you cited said 'Education spending has since fallen in real terms as spending cuts began to take effect from 2010 onwards' which is because of austerity.

All parties including the instigators of under funding have said they will invest more to recruit more teachers, improve buildings and increase pay.

Although spending by schools themselves has risen by 5% or £220 per pupil between
2009–10 and 2017–18, they have taken responsibility for many services previously provided
by local authorities, where spending has fallen by more than 50% or £650 per pupil.
Incorporating cuts to local authority spending and sixth-form funding, total school
spending per pupil has fallen by 8% in real terms over the same period and was only
about 14% higher in 2017–18 than in 2003–04.




Looks like the spending is on the rise, but spending on solely EDUCATION has fallen due to the schools being expected to provide more than just schooling (cradle to grave government socialism). Also the number of students is expected to rise quite a bit as well.


Families should be responsible for raising their children, they should house and feed and clothe and bathe and all the things PROVIDE for their children....I'd feel worthless if I couldn't do that for my family, but some people love that sweet life treating the social safety net like a hammock, I find it disgraceful.

So local authorities have been spending less because they have been given less by the government. Which is what austerity has caused. "Malnourished pupils with grey skin are "filling their pockets" with food from school canteens in poor areas due to poverty" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-43611527

No one said families should not provide the basics for children but there are more families facing poverty and inequality has increased with austerity.

Has immigration increased as well? Why does that not play a role here?

[Gandalf]

In terms of the hungry children, people like me and Brett Anderson used to have free school meals. We would have to feel the ignominy with our little peasant coupons, but you could eat chips, chicken burger, and even a chocolate eclair every single day washed down with a can of cherry coke. The government provided that and it was incredibly generous of them. It was still a Tory government too. Of course it was very bad for me and I now regret that kind of nutrition, but nobody taught you any better. But still, you cannot be starving when you eat that much even as one meal a day. Malnourished for sure, but calorie plenty. I could have obtained nutrition if I had learned what it was and how it would help me.

Thatcher might have taken the milk but the chips were in profligate abundance under Major.