Sunday, September 20, 2009

Why now?

Apparently, Ed Balls has maintained that Labour could save schools money.
Education spending could be cut by £2bn by axing thousands of senior staff and "discipline" over pay, the schools secretary for England has indicated.

Ed Balls, the first minister to suggest possible cost-cutting moves, told the Sunday Times one option was to merge comprehensives to form "federations".

In the Times interview, Mr Balls warned of post-general election pay curbs, saying: "It is going to be tougher on spending over the next few years."

Well, I am very happy that Ed can save schools some £2 billion of our money, but why is this acceptable now?

Because, as far as your humble Devil is concerned, the subtext here is...
"We have to urge restraint now, because we've buggered up the finances. But, of course, it is absolutely fine to piss £2 billion of taxpayers cash up the wall when times are good."

So, Eddie-baby, perhaps you would like to explain to the cash-strapped majority in this country why pissing their money away unnecessarily is absolutely A-OK when your political career isn't riding on it?

And this is one of the crucial things about politicians: their incentives are even worse than the bankers. The only thing that politicos care about is the next election—which occurs in a maximum of five year intervals.

Until then, they are more than happy to waste your money—after all, they didn't have to work hard to earn it, did they?


john in cheshire said...

I agree with your argument : if it is not acceptable now to waste money, why has it been acceptable for the past 12+ years.
I absolutely hate socialists. They are genetically incapable of learning from experience and have an inherent desire to punish people; all people; for perceived misdeeds. Except those in power, of course.
God damn them all.

tipple said...

It's actually a £2 billion spending CUT. Only the fuckin' beeb could spin Cut to Save, bloody marxist shitbags. My kid will suffer for it too. The day we can nail Ed's balls & Yvonne's tongue to a plank with a rusty nail I will sleep easy.

Anonymous said...

Ed Balls if I was that ugly i'd fucking hang myself.
Imagine having two glass eyes what a freak.

Dick Puddlecote said...

Very good point, DK.

It's part of a new ploy from Labour with an election looming. To offer policies which they know full well they will not be able to implement. Quite a few have been announced recently as a sweetener for the voters.

With the prospect of a generation in opposition approaching, they are acting exactly as the Lib Dims do and just saying what we want to hear.

Morally corrupt as well as financially so.

Anonymous said...

Labour didn't wasted the money. They invested it. Mostly, they invested it in buying votes for the Labour Party.

rub me down with a p45 said...

But it isn't entirely a saving...

Some of the teachers thrown out of work will go on the dole, and at the Jobs Place (whatever it's called) they will be told that there are no jobs for teachers. But, Mr Snodgrass* you can be a towel boy for Nude Liebour. How does that sound?

Anyway, it gets BallsUps department to be seen to be saving money early, neatly transferring the problem to another office of the UberSocialists.

*Made up name. Any resemblance to real people, etc...

Miss Snuffleupagus said...

That's exactly right. You've hit the nail on the head.

Favfly said...

"...The only thing that politicos care about is the next election—which occurs in a maximum of five year intervals."

Wouldn't this always be the case in a democracy? Are you advocating something else? Perhaps a monarchy, where our 'rulers' would have longer term self-interests.

Great blog, by-the-way. I try to visit daily.

Will Orr-Ewing said...

Completely agree, and think there is an interesting discussion to be had on the relationship between investment in schools and their results.

In an interesting video from ex-Blair head of policy, Matthew Taylor, he makes the same point: