Not knowing what house prices there are Prague, I have no idea? Quick Google says average flat is 268k. 50k salary per year inc student loan is 2900 take home. So yes, that is do-able even while moving up the ladder.
I lived at home for 4yrs after uni before moving out, while paying back my student loans (24k in total). You know it's coming out so you budget for it. Deposit was roughly 20k. If you want to be a new home owner these days you have to make sacrifices but it's certainly not impossible and paying back somewhere between £10 and £100 month should not stop that. If it does then debt repayments are not the real issue.
I'd say 90% of my mates at uni have achieved the same as me and a few of those have done it in London too.
What's the cost of Prague housing got to do with this? I am referencing the experience of my sister's kids, whose fees I help pay for. They live in Eltham.
Trying to work out what the fees would have been that you had to pay back. Nothing like 27k, were they.
Sorry, bad punctuation. I was addressing you as Prague, not talking about house prices there.
If you had read my post fully you'd have seen that my loans were 24k in total.
Ok, blame the heads for not being financially savy! Wetting myself with laughter here, but it is a serious Tory tactic - just deny things are bad and blame everybody else!
You sure you aren't a politician? Twisting whats said and ignoring parts
I said 'you can't blame the heads'.......... as I say, when you've worked with heads on budgeting amongst other things for 10 years let me know and we can have a chat and compare notes.
Some heads are very good at the budgeting process, better than me, some are awful, just like some very intelligent people wouldn't necessarily make a good teacher. I worked under two heads, one was very good at it, the other was terrible and effectively handed over all budget setting and work to the governing body. (All Governing bodies 'agree' the budget but it is generally the Heads who propose the budget)
To expect an experienced teacher to be able to run multi million pound budgets doesn't always come out with a positive outcome. If you think all heads simply because they are fantastic teachers/leaders means they make what is in effect a great CEO and Chief Accountant you are sadly deluded.
I've never said some things aren't bad, just don't always agree that throwing money at it always improves things, you need to look at the underlying issues (and sometimes that will need more funding).
By the way, I wouldn't class myself as a torie (or a labour supporter, or lib dem etc), I will vote torie this time around, the first time in 3 general elections, last two times were labour.
That's a bit rude to people like my mum who are very good at their job. They struggle to balance books year on year and year on year pressure is increased by the people above them as the budgets are squeezed.
Less money for books, less money for school trips, less money to hire quality calibre teachers.
See above, I've not said all heads are not good at their jobs at all? We are very lucky in this country to have some 1st rate teachers, heads and educationalists.
Be interested where your mums school is in respect of budget cuts in the past so I can look at it in more detail.
Heads become heads because of expertise in Education, not finance. Heads generally know what is needed for their schools, there ought to be financial people out there able to help heads address those needs.
Interestingly over the past 30 years or so, total tax receipts as a % of GDP have remained in a very consistent 35-40% range regardless of which party was in government suggesting that it is not as easy as it is made out on here to raise tax receipts (not the same as raising tax rates).
It chimes with one of my big issues. Are we collecting the tax Parliament intended from corporations? We know the answer is "no" in some high profile cases. Maybe this is one reason why people appear to have a lower standard of living than 20 years ago despite GDP/head more than doubling.
I won't bore everyone overmuch re the ad industry. Your assessment is reasonable in comparative terms. Nevertheless, while it faces challenges, it remains a thriving and aspirational career in most developed countries. In the UK very bright grads are still recruited into it. But when you say "Very high standard of living", well then it's relative. When I was 31 and on the way up, I was able to afford to buy, on a 95% mortgage, a 3 bedroom 70's town house in Surbiton. And trust me, a lot of my colleagues looked at me and said "Surbiton?". Even the secretaries tended to live in places like Fulham or Barnes. I don't see how my equivalent in 2017 can remotely get the funds to buy my house off me. That's what I'm getting at.
New York - I respect your position much more because you are open and honest about it. You don't try to pretend schools or the NHS are well funded.
Thanks, but I don't really have a view on whether they are or are not well funded - those numbers are not very meaningful in isolation.
The more interesting/relevant point is probably the one about tax receipts - in short whichever party is in power, tax receipts typically merely go up and down in line with nominal GDP growth due to some combination of behavioural effects (tax planning, early retirement etc.) and economic effects (higher taxes [potentially!] leading to lower growth and thus lower receipts etc.).
This is true, but they do learn and the issues are not because there is enough money and they waste it all as one poster on here wants us to believe. I agree though, I would like to see schools get the best financial advice and allow the heads - who are generally great teachers, to spend some time in classrooms!
"Official figures released as the part of consultation on the changes show 9,045 schools will lose money while 10,653 will get more"
It's not easy to delve into education numbers, but honestly, if you get under the skin you'd be outraged at how schools literally within a mile or two of each other get vastly different funding amounts.
If each school had a procurement expert (or at least at the local council) there'd be no issues with the overall current funding in schools, I can't reiterate enough the wastage, it's not the heads fault, they are ultimately teachers after all, not procurement or budget management experts. If you have those skills, go and help them!
My response
Thanks, isn't that just a reporting of government press release rather than analysis?
Also (and I may be moving the goalposts here) but the figures I have been looking at include all cuts to school budgets (inc. pupil premium cuts) as well as manifesto promises https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9252 and the effect of inflation. These are extrapolated to 2022 which is obviously the end of the next parliament whilst the BBC figures are for next year only when some of the cuts will occur after this time.
Also what makes me really suspicious of the source you quote is that is says that Torbay will be one of the few areas that benefit. I work in Torbay and can assure you that this is not the case with even the local Grammar Schools expecting severe cuts.
Heads become heads because of expertise in Education, not finance. Heads generally know what is needed for their schools, there ought to be financial people out there able to help heads address those needs.
Someone, somewhere, will suggest that, rather than having lots of schools operating alone, there might be a benefit to having some kind of local support structure for schools, encompassing things like budgeting and procurement, etc., taking the weight of such pressures of head teachers in individual schools.
Obviously, it would have to be some kind of authority, and would have to be named in such a way that reflected both its educational and local nature.
That would be the sort of thing that the Government supports wouldn't it?
"Official figures released as the part of consultation on the changes show 9,045 schools will lose money while 10,653 will get more"
It's not easy to delve into education numbers, but honestly, if you get under the skin you'd be outraged at how schools literally within a mile or two of each other get vastly different funding amounts.
If each school had a procurement expert (or at least at the local council) there'd be no issues with the overall current funding in schools, I can't reiterate enough the wastage, it's not the heads fault, they are ultimately teachers after all, not procurement or budget management experts. If you have those skills, go and help them!
My response
Thanks, isn't that just a reporting of government press release rather than analysis?
Also (and I may be moving the goalposts here) but the figures I have been looking at include all cuts to school budgets (inc. pupil premium cuts) as well as manifesto promises https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9252 and the effect of inflation. These are extrapolated to 2022 which is obviously the end of the next parliament whilst the BBC figures are for next year only when some of the cuts will occur after this time.
Also what makes me really suspicious of the source you quote is that is says that Torbay will be one of the few areas that benefit. I work in Torbay and can assure you that this is not the case with even the local Grammar Schools expecting severe cuts.
It is tory bullshit mate - make it look like you know what you are talking about and talk the reality down. Schools are not suffereing -outside London they have never been richer and the London cuts are only making things fairer. He just doesn't want to pay a few quid more in taxes - has said as much in previous posts.
An evil murderous dictator once said that if you tell a lie often enough, people will believe it.
Not knowing what house prices there are Prague, I have no idea? Quick Google says average flat is 268k. 50k salary per year inc student loan is 2900 take home. So yes, that is do-able even while moving up the ladder.
I lived at home for 4yrs after uni before moving out, while paying back my student loans (24k in total). You know it's coming out so you budget for it. Deposit was roughly 20k. If you want to be a new home owner these days you have to make sacrifices but it's certainly not impossible and paying back somewhere between £10 and £100 month should not stop that. If it does then debt repayments are not the real issue.
I'd say 90% of my mates at uni have achieved the same as me and a few of those have done it in London too.
What's the cost of Prague housing got to do with this? I am referencing the experience of my sister's kids, whose fees I help pay for. They live in Eltham.
Trying to work out what the fees would have been that you had to pay back. Nothing like 27k, were they.
Sorry, bad punctuation. I was addressing you as Prague, not talking about house prices there.
If you had read my post fully you'd have seen that my loans were 24k in total.
Sorry, I missed that.
Hopefully you are aware that students like my niece will leave with debts of more than double that, since the fees alone will come to 27k, and under the Tories are set to rise further, as will accom. costs.
The per pupil funding is getting cut, the redistribution of Education spending is there to obfuscate and confuse the issue, as is the mantra about how many children are in so called good or outstanding schools, as is the stuff about Grammar schools. The per pupil funding is being cut, it is as simple as that.
"Official figures released as the part of consultation on the changes show 9,045 schools will lose money while 10,653 will get more"
It's not easy to delve into education numbers, but honestly, if you get under the skin you'd be outraged at how schools literally within a mile or two of each other get vastly different funding amounts.
If each school had a procurement expert (or at least at the local council) there'd be no issues with the overall current funding in schools, I can't reiterate enough the wastage, it's not the heads fault, they are ultimately teachers after all, not procurement or budget management experts. If you have those skills, go and help them!
My response
Thanks, isn't that just a reporting of government press release rather than analysis?
Also (and I may be moving the goalposts here) but the figures I have been looking at include all cuts to school budgets (inc. pupil premium cuts) as well as manifesto promises https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9252 and the effect of inflation. These are extrapolated to 2022 which is obviously the end of the next parliament whilst the BBC figures are for next year only when some of the cuts will occur after this time.
Also what makes me really suspicious of the source you quote is that is says that Torbay will be one of the few areas that benefit. I work in Torbay and can assure you that this is not the case with even the local Grammar Schools expecting severe cuts.
There's plenty of non torie press that will confirm, locally ask Edith school who will benefit to the tune of nearly £300k more.
Heads become heads because of expertise in Education, not finance. Heads generally know what is needed for their schools, there ought to be financial people out there able to help heads address those needs.
Someone, somewhere, will suggest that, rather than having lots of schools operating alone, there might be a benefit to having some kind of local support structure for schools, encompassing things like budgeting and procurement, etc., taking the weight of such pressures of head teachers in individual schools.
Obviously, it would have to be some kind of authority, and would have to be named in such a way that reflected both its educational and local nature.
That would be the sort of thing that the Government supports wouldn't it?
Keep twisting mutely.
The LA are largely that body but in my experience they largely leave the schools to it, they simply rubber stamp the proposed budget as long as it isn't negative.
The Governing Body have the biggest say/responsibility. So as I say, anyone who has the skills get involved and help.
Not knowing what house prices there are Prague, I have no idea? Quick Google says average flat is 268k. 50k salary per year inc student loan is 2900 take home. So yes, that is do-able even while moving up the ladder.
I lived at home for 4yrs after uni before moving out, while paying back my student loans (24k in total). You know it's coming out so you budget for it. Deposit was roughly 20k. If you want to be a new home owner these days you have to make sacrifices but it's certainly not impossible and paying back somewhere between £10 and £100 month should not stop that. If it does then debt repayments are not the real issue.
I'd say 90% of my mates at uni have achieved the same as me and a few of those have done it in London too.
What's the cost of Prague housing got to do with this? I am referencing the experience of my sister's kids, whose fees I help pay for. They live in Eltham.
Trying to work out what the fees would have been that you had to pay back. Nothing like 27k, were they.
Sorry, bad punctuation. I was addressing you as Prague, not talking about house prices there.
If you had read my post fully you'd have seen that my loans were 24k in total.
Sorry, I missed that.
Hopefully you are aware that students like my niece will leave with debts of more than double that, since the fees alone will come to 27k, and under the Tories are set to rise further, as will accom. costs.
I do appreciate that yes and it is a lot however, it's largely irrelevant as the loan repayments will expire after 30years and two people earning the same money will still have the same repayments regardless of debt levels which given my experience and many others i know is more than manageable.
I am sure we both know that the main issue is house prices these days, I have just being trying to dispel the belief that student loan debts are crippling to university graduates.
New York - I respect your position much more because you are open and honest about it. You don't try to pretend schools or the NHS are well funded.
Thanks, but I don't really have a view on whether they are or are not well funded - those numbers are not very meaningful in isolation.
The more interesting/relevant point is probably the one about tax receipts - in short whichever party is in power, tax receipts typically merely go up and down in line with nominal GDP growth due to some combination of behavioural effects (tax planning, early retirement etc.) and economic effects (higher taxes [potentially!] leading to lower growth and thus lower receipts etc.).
...and sorry I should have added that whilst I don't want to open a whole debate on it here, I have a strong and rather controversial view that the NHS should be at least partly funded by private insurance since millions of us can afford it. The burden thus taken off the NHS budget could be spent on improving care overall including those who can't afford it and would thus be exempt from paying.
Unlike education which every child needs some agreed minimum level of, the amount of healthcare an individual will require is both relatively random and results in an extremely wide range of outcomes (from those who blissfully need very little care throughout their lives, to those who cost the govt millions in care/drugs).
This is a dynamic which is perfectly suited to the insurance industry and which in turn would encourage better lifestyle choices, yet instead we have a free at point of use system which creates multiple perverse incentives and spiralling costs.
@Rob7Lee is right about the very serious waste that was prevalent in schools. The contracts for telephones, internet and photocopying could be outrageous. This is one of the pillars of the academy system, bring schools together, and centralise services like HR and procurement to save money. The Academy group takes in all funding for schools in their group and redistributes it where it is needed. Fundamentally, schools get more money this way, and naughty salesmen from BT and Xerox had a more formidable customer.
These efficiency savings have allowed per pupil funding to be cut in real terms. It also means that a new layer of bureaucracy has to be paid to manage the schools, so now schools can have a head teacher, an executive head teacher, an HR officer and a procurement team, all paid for by the same shrinking budget.
Interestingly over the past 30 years or so, total tax receipts as a % of GDP have remained in a very consistent 35-40% range regardless of which party was in government suggesting that it is not as easy as it is made out on here to raise tax receipts (not the same as raising tax rates).
It chimes with one of my big issues. Are we collecting the tax Parliament intended from corporations? We know the answer is "no" in some high profile cases. Maybe this is one reason why people appear to have a lower standard of living than 20 years ago despite GDP/head more than doubling.
I won't bore everyone overmuch re the ad industry. Your assessment is reasonable in comparative terms. Nevertheless, while it faces challenges, it remains a thriving and aspirational career in most developed countries. In the UK very bright grads are still recruited into it. But when you say "Very high standard of living", well then it's relative. When I was 31 and on the way up, I was able to afford to buy, on a 95% mortgage, a 3 bedroom 70's town house in Surbiton. And trust me, a lot of my colleagues looked at me and said "Surbiton?". Even the secretaries tended to live in places like Fulham or Barnes. I don't see how my equivalent in 2017 can remotely get the funds to buy my house off me. That's what I'm getting at.
Unfortunately and don't take this in a way that it's not intended, a graduate job in an advertising agency is just not that lucrative (from a pure financial perspective) when so much of the wealth in the past 20-30 years has been generated in other fields (finance, sport, technology/internet, entertainment etc.). Again these industries benefit from one key trait, namely huge economies of scale.
Put it another way, the salaries of advertising graduates over that period have presumably risen roughly in line with nominal GDP growth, but salaries of say Premiership Academy footballers or brilliant software engineers have increased exponentially. The simple explanation is that one career has 'scale' and another doesn't.
With regard to corporation tax, whilst this may be precisely your point (!) it only represents a very small single-digit percentage of total tax receipts. Given that these companies are very footloose fiscally but their employees are generally not, we may have to acknowledge the compromise whereby it's better for say Google to employ 3,000 highly paid staff here (all contributing PAYE/NI) but pay most of its corporation taxes elsewhere, than move the whole office to Dublin.
however, it's weird that only last night a mate of mine who is a Labour member sent an email to the Labour party calling them clowns because if they didn't have DA there would of been a slim chance of actually wining but with her you have no chance.
so now he is expecting to be recognised in the speech Jeremy Corbyn will give to the nation after a landslide victory to the Labour Party Friday morning.
...or @PragueAddick to put it another way, the huge wealth generated by the internet revolution has almost entirely flowed to the new media companies (ie. Facebook, Google, Baidu, Tencent etc.), the makers of the software/hardware that enable us to access this new media (ie. Apple, Google, Samsung etc.) or the clever AI start-ups that are helping media buyers know where to spend their clients' cash.
The ad agencies have been playing a fairly frantic game of 'catch up' trying to work out what it all means for their traditional business model**
(**WPP share price since 1999 up 3.6% pa - Facebook/Google not even in existence in 1999, now worth over $1tn combined)
"Jeremy Corbyn was monitored by undercover officers for two decades amid fears that he was attempting to undermine democracy, the Telegraph can disclose."
"Jeremy Corbyn was monitored by undercover officers for two decades amid fears that he was attempting to undermine democracy, the Telegraph can disclose."
"Jeremy Corbyn was monitored by undercover officers for two decades amid fears that he was attempting to undermine democracy, the Telegraph can disclose."
"Jeremy Corbyn was monitored by undercover officers for two decades amid fears that he was attempting to undermine democracy, the Telegraph can disclose."
"Jeremy Corbyn was monitored by undercover officers for two decades amid fears that he was attempting to undermine democracy, the Telegraph can disclose."
this and their previous story of MI5 having a file on him about the IRA seems very American Republic party smearing. similar to Clinton having her emails looked at by their home security organisations. also that previous democratic party members were commies. another link that has been used against Corbyn.
Comments
Blaming on ill health, Hope it's nothing too serious.
If you had read my post fully you'd have seen that my loans were 24k in total.
Yeah cos you'd have run out and called them 'libtard, snowflake, terrorist loving traitors' and really hurt their feelings
I said 'you can't blame the heads'.......... as I say, when you've worked with heads on budgeting amongst other things for 10 years let me know and we can have a chat and compare notes.
Some heads are very good at the budgeting process, better than me, some are awful, just like some very intelligent people wouldn't necessarily make a good teacher. I worked under two heads, one was very good at it, the other was terrible and effectively handed over all budget setting and work to the governing body. (All Governing bodies 'agree' the budget but it is generally the Heads who propose the budget)
To expect an experienced teacher to be able to run multi million pound budgets doesn't always come out with a positive outcome. If you think all heads simply because they are fantastic teachers/leaders means they make what is in effect a great CEO and Chief Accountant you are sadly deluded.
I've never said some things aren't bad, just don't always agree that throwing money at it always improves things, you need to look at the underlying issues (and sometimes that will need more funding).
By the way, I wouldn't class myself as a torie (or a labour supporter, or lib dem etc), I will vote torie this time around, the first time in 3 general elections, last two times were labour. See above, I've not said all heads are not good at their jobs at all? We are very lucky in this country to have some 1st rate teachers, heads and educationalists.
Be interested where your mums school is in respect of budget cuts in the past so I can look at it in more detail.
I heartily agree with your comment:
Interestingly over the past 30 years or so, total tax receipts as a % of GDP have remained in a very consistent 35-40% range regardless of which party was in government suggesting that it is not as easy as it is made out on here to raise tax receipts (not the same as raising tax rates).
It chimes with one of my big issues. Are we collecting the tax Parliament intended from corporations? We know the answer is "no" in some high profile cases. Maybe this is one reason why people appear to have a lower standard of living than 20 years ago despite GDP/head more than doubling.
I won't bore everyone overmuch re the ad industry. Your assessment is reasonable in comparative terms. Nevertheless, while it faces challenges, it remains a thriving and aspirational career in most developed countries. In the UK very bright grads are still recruited into it. But when you say "Very high standard of living", well then it's relative. When I was 31 and on the way up, I was able to afford to buy, on a 95% mortgage, a 3 bedroom 70's town house in Surbiton. And trust me, a lot of my colleagues looked at me and said "Surbiton?". Even the secretaries tended to live in places like Fulham or Barnes. I don't see how my equivalent in 2017 can remotely get the funds to buy my house off me. That's what I'm getting at.
The more interesting/relevant point is probably the one about tax receipts - in short whichever party is in power, tax receipts typically merely go up and down in line with nominal GDP growth due to some combination of behavioural effects (tax planning, early retirement etc.) and economic effects (higher taxes [potentially!] leading to lower growth and thus lower receipts etc.).
@Rob7Lee can you provide the evidence that demonstrates that over 50% of schools will receive an increase in funding. This website https://www.schoolcuts.org.uk/#!/ would disagree with that analysis, their sources of data seem OK as well https://www.schoolcuts.org.uk/#!/method .
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-39339819
"Official figures released as the part of consultation on the changes show 9,045 schools will lose money while 10,653 will get more"
It's not easy to delve into education numbers, but honestly, if you get under the skin you'd be outraged at how schools literally within a mile or two of each other get vastly different funding amounts.
If each school had a procurement expert (or at least at the local council) there'd be no issues with the overall current funding in schools, I can't reiterate enough the wastage, it's not the heads fault, they are ultimately teachers after all, not procurement or budget management experts. If you have those skills, go and help them!
My response
Thanks, isn't that just a reporting of government press release rather than analysis?
Also (and I may be moving the goalposts here) but the figures I have been looking at include all cuts to school budgets (inc. pupil premium cuts) as well as manifesto promises https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9252 and the effect of inflation. These are extrapolated to 2022 which is obviously the end of the next parliament whilst the BBC figures are for next year only when some of the cuts will occur after this time.
Also what makes me really suspicious of the source you quote is that is says that Torbay will be one of the few areas that benefit. I work in Torbay and can assure you that this is not the case with even the local Grammar Schools expecting severe cuts.
Obviously, it would have to be some kind of authority, and would have to be named in such a way that reflected both its educational and local nature.
That would be the sort of thing that the Government supports wouldn't it?
@Rob7Lee can you provide the evidence that demonstrates that over 50% of schools will receive an increase in funding. This website https://www.schoolcuts.org.uk/#!/ would disagree with that analysis, their sources of data seem OK as well https://www.schoolcuts.org.uk/#!/method .
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-39339819
"Official figures released as the part of consultation on the changes show 9,045 schools will lose money while 10,653 will get more"
It's not easy to delve into education numbers, but honestly, if you get under the skin you'd be outraged at how schools literally within a mile or two of each other get vastly different funding amounts.
If each school had a procurement expert (or at least at the local council) there'd be no issues with the overall current funding in schools, I can't reiterate enough the wastage, it's not the heads fault, they are ultimately teachers after all, not procurement or budget management experts. If you have those skills, go and help them!
My response
Thanks, isn't that just a reporting of government press release rather than analysis?
Also (and I may be moving the goalposts here) but the figures I have been looking at include all cuts to school budgets (inc. pupil premium cuts) as well as manifesto promises https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9252 and the effect of inflation. These are extrapolated to 2022 which is obviously the end of the next parliament whilst the BBC figures are for next year only when some of the cuts will occur after this time.
Also what makes me really suspicious of the source you quote is that is says that Torbay will be one of the few areas that benefit. I work in Torbay and can assure you that this is not the case with even the local Grammar Schools expecting severe cuts.
It is tory bullshit mate - make it look like you know what you are talking about and talk the reality down. Schools are not suffereing -outside London they have never been richer and the London cuts are only making things fairer. He just doesn't want to pay a few quid more in taxes - has said as much in previous posts.
An evil murderous dictator once said that if you tell a lie often enough, people will believe it.
Hopefully you are aware that students like my niece will leave with debts of more than double that, since the fees alone will come to 27k, and under the Tories are set to rise further, as will accom. costs.
The per pupil funding is being cut, it is as simple as that.
@Rob7Lee can you provide the evidence that demonstrates that over 50% of schools will receive an increase in funding. This website https://www.schoolcuts.org.uk/#!/ would disagree with that analysis, their sources of data seem OK as well https://www.schoolcuts.org.uk/#!/method .
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-39339819
"Official figures released as the part of consultation on the changes show 9,045 schools will lose money while 10,653 will get more"
It's not easy to delve into education numbers, but honestly, if you get under the skin you'd be outraged at how schools literally within a mile or two of each other get vastly different funding amounts.
If each school had a procurement expert (or at least at the local council) there'd be no issues with the overall current funding in schools, I can't reiterate enough the wastage, it's not the heads fault, they are ultimately teachers after all, not procurement or budget management experts. If you have those skills, go and help them!
My response
Thanks, isn't that just a reporting of government press release rather than analysis?
Also (and I may be moving the goalposts here) but the figures I have been looking at include all cuts to school budgets (inc. pupil premium cuts) as well as manifesto promises https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9252 and the effect of inflation. These are extrapolated to 2022 which is obviously the end of the next parliament whilst the BBC figures are for next year only when some of the cuts will occur after this time.
Also what makes me really suspicious of the source you quote is that is says that Torbay will be one of the few areas that benefit. I work in Torbay and can assure you that this is not the case with even the local Grammar Schools expecting severe cuts.
There's plenty of non torie press that will confirm, locally ask Edith school who will benefit to the tune of nearly £300k more. Keep twisting mutely.
The LA are largely that body but in my experience they largely leave the schools to it, they simply rubber stamp the proposed budget as long as it isn't negative.
The Governing Body have the biggest say/responsibility. So as I say, anyone who has the skills get involved and help.
I am sure we both know that the main issue is house prices these days, I have just being trying to dispel the belief that student loan debts are crippling to university graduates.
Unlike education which every child needs some agreed minimum level of, the amount of healthcare an individual will require is both relatively random and results in an extremely wide range of outcomes (from those who blissfully need very little care throughout their lives, to those who cost the govt millions in care/drugs).
This is a dynamic which is perfectly suited to the insurance industry and which in turn would encourage better lifestyle choices, yet instead we have a free at point of use system which creates multiple perverse incentives and spiralling costs.
These efficiency savings have allowed per pupil funding to be cut in real terms. It also means that a new layer of bureaucracy has to be paid to manage the schools, so now schools can have a head teacher, an executive head teacher, an HR officer and a procurement team, all paid for by the same shrinking budget.
Put it another way, the salaries of advertising graduates over that period have presumably risen roughly in line with nominal GDP growth, but salaries of say Premiership Academy footballers or brilliant software engineers have increased exponentially. The simple explanation is that one career has 'scale' and another doesn't.
With regard to corporation tax, whilst this may be precisely your point (!) it only represents a very small single-digit percentage of total tax receipts. Given that these companies are very footloose fiscally but their employees are generally not, we may have to acknowledge the compromise whereby it's better for say Google to employ 3,000 highly paid staff here (all contributing PAYE/NI) but pay most of its corporation taxes elsewhere, than move the whole office to Dublin.
however, it's weird that only last night a mate of mine who is a Labour member sent an email to the Labour party calling them clowns because if they didn't have DA there would of been a slim chance of actually wining but with her you have no chance.
so now he is expecting to be recognised in the speech Jeremy Corbyn will give to the nation after a landslide victory to the Labour Party Friday morning.
The ad agencies have been playing a fairly frantic game of 'catch up' trying to work out what it all means for their traditional business model**
(**WPP share price since 1999 up 3.6% pa - Facebook/Google not even in existence in 1999, now worth over $1tn combined)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/06/exclusive-special-branch-monitored-jeremy-corbyn-20-years-amid/