The Labour Government

metalblue said:
And that’s good. When my now 21 yo was at primary she went to a breakfast club for £2 a day - that was under the last Labour government - it was fantastic. Personally (for the free element) I’d rather see them focus on areas with greater poverty than a blanket policy but accept poverty exists everywhere so it’s not that simple. Perhaps a voluntary contribution from parents who are happy to afford it will help the school coffers a bit.
Click to expand...
Coincidentally and bizarrely my daughter has just give her kids school a donation for that
 
bluenova said:
Aren't you comparing the pilot for a universal programme, with the current full extent of the old targeted one?

The new programme isn't 4% v 12%. The 4% is the pilot for a full 100% programme.

As far as I'm aware the current programme covers 75% of a "food only" programme for 12% of schools, and the schools make up the rest. The IFS suggest that covering the full cost of a food only offer, based on the current one would be 29p per pupil - so I assume they're currently paying approx 23p per pupil for that 75%.

The IFS have said that the new programme would cover 100% of a a food only programme for ALL schools, so comparing like for like it's a huge expansion, and better funded per school. (*Their figures suggest it would actually cover 120% of schools).

The 60% figure comes in if all schools wanted to provide full breakfast club "child care" in addition to the food, and is based on just the money Labour discussed for this project in their manifesto. I'd say that's quite possible, but as the pilot covers a range of different models (many schools will go for the food only option, which would of course raise that 60% considerably), and also overlaps with other promises Labour have made around extended school days, and extra nurseries, it appears that the 100% funding rate is possible.

Obviously as it's only a pilot, and the IFS figures are based on pre-election figures, and don't take into account overlapping funding, it's difficult to be absolutely sure of the exact figures, but it's definitely a huge advance on the current scheme.
Click to expand...

I am. I was replying on a thread that was talking about the new clubs launching today so could only really compare those that launch to what already exists elsewhere.

You are quite right it’s a pilot scheme - assuming it will go ahead to be a fully rolled out scheme it will of course be much more wide reaching. I believe the issue of funding only the food element ignores (at a minimum) staffing and energy costs however the purpose of any pilot is to iron out any crinkles so it would be premature to say it will still be a problem when it is rolled out nationally.

The existing NSBP funds food at no cost to schools - plus there are some additional start up and break through costs schools are entitled to. Staffing is the responsibility of the school - here they ask for a parent contribution - or perhaps absorb the costs where they feel able to. The new breakfast club pilot scheme doesn’t (currently) offer the school any funding regarding staff, energy costs or training. It does provide for break through costs.

On the flip side the parent contribution to the NSBP scheme might put off parents and and the new scheme, being free at delivery, may become a victim of its own success if take up is much higher than the 39% currently where NSBP is running which has attendance likely in triple figures (110 based on average primary school populations).

I do like that it has national reach but I’m not a huge fan of the more fortunate being able to access it for free. Time will tell if it’s really any better.
 
metalblue said:
I am. I was replying on a thread that was talking about the new clubs launching today so could only really compare those that launch to what already exists elsewhere.

You are quite right it’s a pilot scheme - assuming it will go ahead to be a fully rolled out scheme it will of course be much more wide reaching. I believe the issue of funding only the food element ignores (at a minimum) staffing and energy costs however the purpose of any pilot is to iron out any crinkles so it would be premature to say it will still be a problem when it is rolled out nationally.

The existing NSBP funds food at no cost to schools - plus there are some additional start up and break through costs schools are entitled to. Staffing is the responsibility of the school - here they ask for a parent contribution - or perhaps absorb the costs where they feel able to. The new breakfast club pilot scheme doesn’t (currently) offer the school any funding regarding staff, energy costs or training. It does provide for break through costs.

On the flip side the parent contribution to the NSBP scheme might put off parents and and the new scheme, being free at delivery, may become a victim of its own success if take up is much higher than the 39% currently where NSBP is running which has attendance likely in triple figures (110 based on average primary school populations).

I do like that it has national reach but I’m not a huge fan of the more fortunate being able to access it for free. Time will tell if it’s really any better.
Click to expand...

The IFS suggested that the proposed breakfast scheme alone (not counting any of the extra funding from overlapping services), was well over ten times as much as the current scheme's funding, so it's definitely a much bigger deal. Their calculations also appear to be based on pupils, not schools, so they're suggesting the funding could cover 100% of the food cost, for 100% pupils at 100% of schools, with tens of millions left over.

I understand what you mean with the "more fortunate", although, alongside the extended school day, nursery places etc., and the expansion of free childcare, there's probably quite a large percentage of the population where the benefits would make a difference, and if the "more fortunate" are only a minority then it probably makes financial (and political) sense to make it universal.

As you say, time will tell - another one where we'll have to see what happens by the end of the Parliament.
 
inbetween said:
A Tesla Model 3 weighs 1.7 tonnes and for comparison an Audi A3 that is full of petrol also weighs around 1.7 tonnes. At worse a Tesla Model Y EV is absolutely massive and yet only weighs 2 tonnes. That weight is better used versus an ICE 4x4 because it's all utilised in the body to carry things and people instead of carrying petrol.
Click to expand...
Probably needs to be not on this thread but an Audi A3 doesn't weigh 1.7 tonnes it has an unloaded weight of 1355 kg https://www.audi-mediacenter.com/en/audi-a3-sportback-15, it has a 50 litre fuel tank, which weighs an additional (0.74kg per litre = 37kg).

With this it has a range of (50 litres = 11 uk gallons) at 40mpg = 440 miles.

A Tesla model 3 has an unloaded weight of 1760kg and has a range of around 300 miles.

Anyway this thread is getting like Whatcar rather than about the current government. The direction of travel, regardless of if you prefer EV or ICE to drive is clearly towards EV, for better or worse when it comes to driving pleasure is as with all things a personal preference.
 
Last edited:
Kompany Car said:
Probably needs to be not on this thread but an Audi A3 doesn't weigh 1.7 tonnes it has an unloaded weight of 1355 kg https://www.audi-mediacenter.com/en/audi-a3-sportback-15, it has a 50 litre fuel tank, which weighs an additional (0.74kg per litre = 37kg).

With this it has a range of (50 litres = 11 uk gallons) at 40mpg = 440 miles.

A Tesla model 3 has an unloaded weight of 1760kg and has a range of around 300 miles.

Anyway this thread is getting like Whatcar rather than about the current government. The direction of travel, regardless of if you prefer EV or ICE to drive is clearly towards EV, for better or worse when it comes to driving pleasure is as with all things a personal preference.
Click to expand...
Wife has a 1.4 petrol A3 and she is averaging 47mpg. So a range of 517miles?
 
So while Kier tries to convince us ( unconvincingly) that he knew all along what a woman was, seems to me he has had similar difficulty in understanding what an Economist looks like.
Now you may know from my previous posts, I am not a fan of IMF forecasts but some of you seemingly are, and yesterday the IMF revised down their UK growth forecast for this year from 1.6% to 1.1%. Yes, they revised down every other major economy, in most cases due to their anticipation of the impact of Tump's tariffs, but not the UK..
The IMF's Chief economist said " Domestic factors" were the main driver for the UK's downgrade. He also added that UK inflation would be the highest of the G7 economies.
So it seems that talking down the economy, borrowing heavily into rising interest rates, directly taxing Business with an employment tax and threatening tax increases to the countries wealth creators amongst other things doesn't actually add up to " Growth is our number now priority " after all . Wow, who knew?
Back in January when those naive enough to believe the IMF were trumpeting that 1.6 growth estimate I told you then that 0.7% would be optimistic and I stand by that now, many other posters said something similar. Since then any vaguely optimistic piece of positive economic news has been trumpeted on here by the same blinkered posters oblivious to what can be seen and heard around you with your own eyes and ears. No comments now are there ?
Now today, if that was not bad enough, we have the Public borrowing figures, I'll let the Guardian do it ( it must be right then , no ?)...

Screenshot 2025-04-23 at 16.02.03.png
So in the financial year the Government borrowed £152 Billion. The third highest total on record. Are we at war ? Is there a Pandemic ? No. Just to keep the shitshow on the road a bit longer.
The root causes of most of this horrendous number are not down to her but she has not helped herself and only made things worse.
There is no growth, she has no idea how she may generate any ( other than spend money she doesn't have) and everyday spending is out of control.
They have no answers. The solutions are simply unpalatable to them.
Kier needed the courts to tell him what a woman is , he will need the IMF to order him how to get on top of this.
Reeves will be the first casualty.
 
Just watching Breakfast TV and they are interviewing Ed Milliband the energy secretary.
I know he's a politician and they never answer the question that is being asked, but fuck me, he's a baffling buffoon, for a man in such a high powered job, he's a fuckwit.
 
red 2 hats said:
Just watching Breakfast TV and they are interviewing Ed Milliband the energy secretary.
I know he's a politician and they never answer the question that is being asked, but fuck me, he's a baffling buffoon, for a man in such a high powered job, he's a fuckwit.
Click to expand...

Was he eating a bacon butty, holding a stone or looking like someone off Wallace and Gromit?
 
red 2 hats said:
Just watching Breakfast TV and they are interviewing Ed Milliband the energy secretary.
I know he's a politician and they never answer the question that is being asked, but fuck me, he's a baffling buffoon, for a man in such a high powered job, he's a fuckwit.
Click to expand...

Love the option to change my inept responses posts to professional [emoji2]

Indeed, it is prudent for a nation to not rely solely on foreign sources of energy. However, the current state of wind farms presents challenges. While they generate clean energy, they require subsidies and face periods of low output. The primary issue lies in the inability to store excess energy generated during these periods. Why can’t we construct large-scale battery storage facilities? Once nuclear power stations are operational, we will inevitably need to import energy.
 
Hertzblue said:
So while Kier tries to convince us ( unconvincingly) that he knew all along what a woman was, seems to me he has had similar difficulty in understanding what an Economist looks like.
Now you may know from my previous posts, I am not a fan of IMF forecasts but some of you seemingly are, and yesterday the IMF revised down their UK growth forecast for this year from 1.6% to 1.1%. Yes, they revised down every other major economy, in most cases due to their anticipation of the impact of Tump's tariffs, but not the UK..
The IMF's Chief economist said " Domestic factors" were the main driver for the UK's downgrade. He also added that UK inflation would be the highest of the G7 economies.
So it seems that talking down the economy, borrowing heavily into rising interest rates, directly taxing Business with an employment tax and threatening tax increases to the countries wealth creators amongst other things doesn't actually add up to " Growth is our number now priority " after all . Wow, who knew?
Back in January when those naive enough to believe the IMF were trumpeting that 1.6 growth estimate I told you then that 0.7% would be optimistic and I stand by that now, many other posters said something similar. Since then any vaguely optimistic piece of positive economic news has been trumpeted on here by the same blinkered posters oblivious to what can be seen and heard around you with your own eyes and ears. No comments now are there ?
Now today, if that was not bad enough, we have the Public borrowing figures, I'll let the Guardian do it ( it must be right then , no ?)...

View attachment 153826
So in the financial year the Government borrowed £152 Billion. The third highest total on record. Are we at war ? Is there a Pandemic ? No. Just to keep the shitshow on the road a bit longer.
The root causes of most of this horrendous number are not down to her but she has not helped herself and only made things worse.
There is no growth, she has no idea how she may generate any ( other than spend money she doesn't have) and everyday spending is out of control.
They have no answers. The solutions are simply unpalatable to them.
Kier needed the courts to tell him what a woman is , he will need the IMF to order him how to get on top of this.
Reeves will be the first casualty.
Click to expand...

The public finance data released yesterday were certainly very interesting, and appear to have been ignored by a few on here.

Actually, the data were remarkably bad and worthy of greater attention. The OBR’s forecast for borrowing in the last fiscal year - importantly a forecast that’s only a month old - was surpassed by £14.6bn.

That’s the sort of forecast error that you would expect to see develop over the course of a year, not a single month, and the fact that revisions accounted for only around £3bn of the overshoot for the year shows how appalling the March data were. Even on a CGNCR basis borrowing was £8bn above forecasts, again a remarkable overshoot in the space of a month, and so that will likely be added onto this year’s gilt remit and thereby pushing it above £300bn.

Given the amount of press and political cover generated by a supposed £22bn fiscal black hole (half of which actually was the product of Labour’s actions) - and which allegedly developed over 14 years of government- I would have thought that a £15bn fiscal hole which developed over a single month would have received more attention. So much for fixing the foundations.
 
Brewster's millions said:
The public finance data released yesterday were certainly very interesting, and appear to have been ignored by a few on here.

Actually, the data were remarkably bad and worthy of greater attention. The OBR’s forecast for borrowing in the last fiscal year - importantly a forecast that’s only a month old - was surpassed by £14.6bn.

That’s the sort of forecast error that you would expect to see develop over the course of a year, not a single month, and the fact that revisions accounted for only around £3bn of the overshoot for the year shows how appalling the March data were. Even on a CGNCR basis borrowing was £8bn above forecasts, again a remarkable overshoot in the space of a month, and so that will likely be added onto this year’s gilt remit and thereby pushing it above £300bn.

Given the amount of press and political cover generated by a supposed £22bn fiscal black hole (half of which actually was the product of Labour’s actions) - and which allegedly developed over 14 years of government- I would have thought that a £15bn fiscal hole which developed over a single month would have received more attention. So much for fixing the foundations.
Click to expand...
Be careful, be very careful, there are those on here that will now classify you as a radical right wing looney.

How dare you suggest that Labour could be held responsible for what is a clear and obvious OBR error.... its all down to mess they inherited don't you know?
 
BigJoe#1 said:
Be careful, be very careful, there are those on here that will now classify you as a radical right wing looney.

How dare you suggest that Labour could be held responsible for what is a clear and obvious OBR error.... its all down to mess they inherited don't you know?
Click to expand...
I think Brewster would happily admit to being a right wing looney.
 
hilts said:
Was he eating a bacon butty, holding a stone or looking like someone off Wallace and Gromit?
Click to expand...

Him arguing that 78% tax on profits wasn’t contributing to the high prices we pay was spectacularly amusing and when it was put to him, what would happen to food prices if we taxed the supermarkets at 78% he doubled down again saying it wouldn’t affect prices.

He had a nightmare this morning frankly.
 
Brewster's millions said:
The public finance data released yesterday were certainly very interesting, and appear to have been ignored by a few on here.

Actually, the data were remarkably bad and worthy of greater attention. The OBR’s forecast for borrowing in the last fiscal year - importantly a forecast that’s only a month old - was surpassed by £14.6bn.

That’s the sort of forecast error that you would expect to see develop over the course of a year, not a single month, and the fact that revisions accounted for only around £3bn of the overshoot for the year shows how appalling the March data were. Even on a CGNCR basis borrowing was £8bn above forecasts, again a remarkable overshoot in the space of a month, and so that will likely be added onto this year’s gilt remit and thereby pushing it above £300bn.

Given the amount of press and political cover generated by a supposed £22bn fiscal black hole (half of which actually was the product of Labour’s actions) - and which allegedly developed over 14 years of government- I would have thought that a £15bn fiscal hole which developed over a single month would have received more attention. So much for fixing the foundations.
Click to expand...
To be fair when Reeves said she would now go “ further and faster” she didn’t specify in which direction.
Now we know .
 
The Chancellor's stance doesn't fill me with confidence, reducing tarriffs on US imports before negotiations start. So we are not retaliating just seemingly rolling over. I would not have started any negotiations like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top