• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Tony Blair

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by SueEllen View Post
    You can easily find the facts via Google if you don't know anyone who owns a nursery in England.

    When the policy came out nurseries where complaining there was insufficient funding. Then as the minimum wage increased yearly their voices got louder.

    It is like Surestart - a good idea but it was monopolized by the middle classes who didn't need the help as they had "normal" healthy children.
    Maybe, maybe not...it was a good idea, just needed a bit more work: https://www.theguardian.com/educatio...hools.children

    The Labour Government in power from 1997 to 2010 spent significant amounts of money on children
    under five, in a strategy which invested in both cash and services (to a remarkably even degree). By
    2010 more than £3,500 was being spent per year on cash benefits for each child, and roughly £2,600
    per child on Sure Start, early education and childcare, plus more than £900 on health.
    ...

    Sure Start provides another example of the challenge of finding a balance between universalism and
    targeting. When Sure Start Children’s Centres were rolled out to the rest of the country (partly to reach
    disadvantaged children in non-disadvantaged areas), resources were not increased by enough to
    sustain levels of funding to the existing Centres: services now reached more children, at greater cost
    overall, but were more thinly spread. These examples underline the basic trade-off policymakers face: in
    general, providing improved services for more children will cost more money, and there is no right
    answer about which corner of this triangle should give way.
    Nevertheless there may be ways in which money could have been spent ‘smarter’. One question mark
    hangs over Labour’s decision to expand the provision of childcare and early education in England using
    a demand-side strategy which actively promoted private and voluntary sector providers of childcare and
    early education, rather than developing the maintained sector, which had been shown to deliver better quality. The importance of ‘choice for parents’ was given considerable emphasis, echoing approaches to
    the delivery of other public services. In practice, it is not clear either how much parents really value
    choice or how far having a range of providers, including for-profit providers, manages to ensure this.
    Quality of childcare certainly improved under Labour policies, particularly in the voluntary sector, but
    these improvements seem to have resulted from government investment and regulations, not from
    competition between providers. It is quite plausible that the same level of resources could have achieved
    more if they had been invested in direct state provision.
    Brexit is having a wee in the middle of the room at a house party because nobody is talking to you, and then complaining about the smell.

    Comment


      A bit more evidence.
      Originally posted by darmstadt View Post
      Is that true? In this new world of post-truth and alternative facts surely proof is needed...

      Comment


        Originally posted by GB9 View Post
        Evidence of what? Nothing to do with the 50 points I posted so totally irrelevant. However it is evidence that he's a media seeking whore like most politicians...
        Brexit is having a wee in the middle of the room at a house party because nobody is talking to you, and then complaining about the smell.

        Comment


          Disagree with SueEllen. There has been a lot of change in Early years care much of it in the last 6 years.

          EYFS is definitely exhibit 1.
          EYFS Statutory Framework

          This basically changes child minding / Nursery providers from babysitters to pre school teachers. Personally I think its great for parents who have no idea how to be good parents (plenty of willingness just no good role models)

          As many at risk families are entitled to free care with Surestart etc paying a premium we see the childcare providers adding value by fixing families that need help.

          Mrs V is Den mother for many families who need her help, many of them would falter without her help.

          Personally I see it as social services on the cheap, truly the big society.
          Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.

          Comment


            Originally posted by GB9 View Post
            Over 1m homes bought on btl mortgages as investments why is that bad?

            Low interest rates to stave off economic disaster.
            Economic disaster.
            Biggest banking collapse in UK history. yeah that wasn't at all related to other countries. It was all Tony.

            Highest debt in UK history. in inflation-adjusted terms?

            Plus quite a lot of dead Iraqis and over 400 uk soldiers. I'd have thought a Trump-apologist like you would have loved all the Iraqis getting a thumping.

            Even his own party hates him. So what, it hasn't stopped Corbyn being elected twice
            ...
            Originally posted by MaryPoppins
            I'd still not breastfeed a nazi
            Originally posted by vetran
            Urine is quite nourishing

            Comment


              Originally posted by d000hg View Post
              ...
              Why is 1m homes bought with btl mortgages bad? Are you joking?

              Because they have a massive tax subsidy

              Because they then push up the price of living somewhere for other people......they're not bought for kindness you know

              Because it wrecks community areas......

              Because btl mortgages are a margined product which are risky in themselves.

              Because it transfers home ownership from the many to far fewer at the tax payers expense.


              If it weren't somewhere to live and if people weren't borrowing money to disadvantage others there I would say go for it. But there are certain basics such as housing, food and fuel that I personally think shouldn't be hoarded.

              It also contributed to a massive financial crash. Or was it all the other countries that did it to us?

              Comment


                Originally posted by GB9 View Post
                Why is 1m homes bought with btl mortgages bad? Are you joking?

                Because they have a massive tax subsidy

                Because they then push up the price of living somewhere for other people......they're not bought for kindness you know

                Because it wrecks community areas......

                Because btl mortgages are a margined product which are risky in themselves.

                Because it transfers home ownership from the many to far fewer at the tax payers expense.


                If it weren't somewhere to live and if people weren't borrowing money to disadvantage others there I would say go for it. But there are certain basics such as housing, food and fuel that I personally think shouldn't be hoarded.

                It also contributed to a massive financial crash. Or was it all the other countries that did it to us?
                BTL has raped Britain.
                http://www.cih.org/news-article/disp...housing_market

                Comment


                  Originally posted by GB9 View Post
                  It also contributed to a massive financial crash. Or was it all the other countries that did it to us?
                  The financial crash was triggered primarily by US sub-prime mortgages and trading thereof. It was exacerbated by the general easy availability of credit and other factors like self-cert mortgages. BtL took advantage of easy credit/self-cert, and made the credit crunch worse. How much it made it worse is a matter of debate.
                  Down with racism. Long live miscegenation!

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by NotAllThere View Post
                    The financial crash was triggered primarily by US sub-prime mortgages and trading thereof. It was exacerbated by the general easy availability of credit and other factors like self-cert mortgages. BtL took advantage of easy credit/self-cert, and made the credit crunch worse. How much it made it worse is a matter of debate.
                    Wasn't RBS the worlds biggest bank at one point before the financial crash?

                    The spin that the US was almost entirely to blame is a complete joke.

                    Credit to the Americans, at least they let their banks go to the wall.

                    How much did our bail out cost? £135bn. Then maybe another £500bn QE.
                    http://www.cih.org/news-article/disp...housing_market

                    Comment


                      I like Blair, made a mistake with a failed war and a bit of a god botherer but still he was successful.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X