If you read
this or
this press release you are left, at least on first impression, that the Government is spending lots of money on education, more than ever before indeed, and that they're just simply marvelous, wonderful, and generally on the side of the angels all round. However, on Thursday in a
ministerial statement, Ed Balls told Parliament that, (emphasis mine),
Subject to Parliamentary approval of any necessary Supplementary Estimate, the Department for Children, Schools and Families Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) will be decreased by £14,106,193,000 from £64,665,498,000 to £50,559,305,000, the administration cost budget will be decreased by £45,221,000 from £237,698,000 to £192,477,000. The Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (OFSTED) which has a separate Estimate and DEL, will be increased by £16,790,000 from £205,000,000 to £221,790,000 the administration cost budget will be increased by £485,000 from £28,470,000 to £28,955,000.
For an explanation of Departmental Spending Limits see
here. So basically we have DCSF press releases being put out saying how much the Government is spending using words like "boost", "additional" and "further funding", whilst in Parliament, Ed Balls announces that the amount of money in total that he has to spend has been cut by approximately £14.15 billion? How does that work then?
If you read this or this press release you are left, at least on first impression, that the Government is spending lots of money on education, more than ever before indeed, and that they're just simply marvelous, wonderful, and generally on the side of the angels all round. However, on Thursday in a ministerial statement, Ed Balls told Parliament that, (emphasis mine),
6 comments:
Bacause £17bn of spending is being moved to another department. If you read a little further in the ministerial statement:
"Following the machinery of government changes, a net movement of £17,247,858,000 to DIUS."
So not much of a story there.
Balls should be renamed Bollocks!
Alex did you randomly pick that line out of the statement or did you add all the figures up and work out that the 14.15bn decrease was actually a net movement of 17.2bn? Not saying you;re wrong, just want to see some working out.
Also, as I said in my post, the point reamins regarding the use of language i the press releases and the figures available in budgets, surely?
no doubt it will be re announced about 10 times making it the mostest money ever spent nya nya na naaa .
I'm stunned at your cynicism Mr Thinks. New Labour have been telling us about the investment in schools and hospitals for 10 years. Of course a decrease in funding is not the same as a cut in investment...
I didn't pull it out randomly. If you read through the whole statement it is clear that funding for skills and universities has been moved to DIUS, and the bulk of it is explained in that single line.
Assuming that there was previously no funding in DIUS that could have been cut at the same time, it looks as thought the total funding might have increased. That is not to say it is all being well spent.
Post a Comment