School closures due to crumbling concrete

[HoliHormonalTigerLillyTheSecond]

JFC you are kidding me?!

https://amp.theguardian.com/education/2023/aug/31/english-schools-told-to-close-buildings-made-with-crumble-risk-concrete]

Surveyors don't work weekends. It's going to take time for all the reports to be done. They're going to be flat out. It's going to be time consuming when you think of the size of a school. Builders long gone, architects too. What a mess.

In an era when the public sector represents 40% of the economy, I think the triple lock has to be dialled back to a single RPI ratchet, the same as index-linked public sector pensions.

As an OAP, albeit a young one, that seems fair to me @TheThinkingGoblin . Maybe with slightly more for the over 80 cohort who will mostly be elderly women (traditionally less likely to have proper pensions), needing to stay warm but unlikely to be living the high life, and who are on the pre-2016 rates. In which case, it would be more thrifty to shift the weighting increase to pension credit.

If the triple lock is diluted, it won't mean much for current pensioners or those close to retirement age. Because it takes time for the creeping erosion to occur

It will have an enormous adverse effect on those in their 30s and younger (and possibly all those under 50ish).

I think we should not harm the younger generations in this way

You seem to not have been paying attention.

The people in their 30s and 40s and 50s are already being harmed.

The ability to pay any taxpayer funded pension is directly linked to the productivity of the UK economy, as its current taxpayers that pay for current retirees.

If these buildings are not fixed now, that productivity will not improve, and the pensions will not be able to be paid out. Its not a matter of "if". That is what will happen.

So its in everybodies best interest to fix it now by prioritising capital investment into infrastructure.

Because they are already been harmed is not really a good argument to increase that harm.

They are reaping what they sow.
This should not be happening in a highly developed nation.

Perhaps the multi million pound renovation of Buckingham palace should be put on hold whilst this is sorted.

Gillian Keegan has been caught swearing about this. Maybe she didnt realise ITV left the camera running.

If you do not understand the economics, my suggestion is start reading and learning because its very relevant. There is no "magic pot of money" now.

Have people still not understood this?

The UK cannot borrow anymore. The costs are too high.

The only way you will be able to pay the pension of the people now in their 20s to 40s is if you improve the UKs productivity.

And the primary way to do that is via the UKs infrastructure.

This is serious now. The UK is in a economic triage situation due to having skimped on investment for decades to fund too many short-term political bungs.

Universal benefits for OAPs will have to go
Triple lock will have to be replaced
NHS will adopt a public-private model

There is NOTHING more important to the health of the country and economy than its infrastructure. Look at the state of the roads, railways, bridges, schools, hospitals, sewage etc. It has all be run down.

Worth repeating:

Even if you prioritise infrastructure spending now over the benefits I just mentioned, it will take 10+ years to fix the capital stock in the UK due to how dysfunctional the planning process is.

Thats 10+ years of managed decline.

Old apartment blocks don't have correct cladding, schools aren't built properly, and the Gov still pisses funds away.

My sons school is affected but luckily just the dinner hall and kitchens the ICT suit and the library it’s a medium sized primary school and what’s annoyed me the most is nobody can say how long it will take to fix things! The children have to have a packed lunch from home and no PE until the foreseeable future, I don’t blame the school one bit but it will affect learning as I can’t see how they can fix this area of school without closing the school. It’s ok to cordon it off but when it’s being fixed it another matter.

It's crazy that parents are being asked to willfully send their children in to schools that may or may not be at risk of imminent collapse. None of my DCs schools have told us either way. If I sent DS off to play in the burnt out pub down the road someone would call social services, and rightfully so.

Perfect example there of the hypocrisy of it

The gov and labour if they get in need to actually pay for investment, pay all not through pfi which means private companies pay and the tax payer pays them back with massive interest over decades. Labour's use of pfi is still being paid now, not capital loans ie gov bonds but private companies. Tony Blair bankrupted us with pfi and that continues today. Real investment with actual capital not pfi is needed.

Yes. And there is the crux of the problem.

1. The UK cannot borrow to fund the extra costs (interest rates are too high and will remain high for at least a few more years)
2. Labour and material costs are now very high (and will remain high due to labour shortages)
3. The school locations are geographically dispersed (adds to the costs)

So the only real "solution" is to divert taxpayer funding towards fixing the schools based on a priority list of "worst affected" to "least affected".

That means less tax money for other things (pensions, healthcare, defense etc)

It is going to cost the UK about 5-10x as much to fix these problems now

vs

If they had maintained and upgraded the capital stock as any competent Govt would have done.

Lets not kid ourselves. The UK just got a hell of a lot poorer.

@TheThinkingGoblin

"• The UK cannot borrow to fund the extra costs (interest rates are too high and will remain high for at least a few more years)"

+++

Depressingly you are right. The UK now spends more on just servicing the interest payments for the national debt than it does on the entire education budget.

Borrowing more money is not an option and neither is increasing taxes which are a 70 year high.

We are truly screwed.

I'd rather we not let schools fall on children's heads than worry about pensions that probably won't exist anyway.
We're at a point now where harm is inevitable and we must choose who to harm.

It's crazy that parents are being asked to willfully send their children in to schools that may or may not be at risk of imminent collapse. None of my DCs schools have told us either way. If I sent DS off to play in the burnt out pub down the road someone would call social services, and rightfully so.

then perhaps we should write am open letter to social services about this. Honestly. It's mismanagement on a global scale
The government found money for eat out to help out, and billions for their pals in contracts that never materialised.

I'm not sure how it's legal to enforce children back into buildings whose structural integrity is in doubt? Surely the start of term should be delayed until schools have been declared safe to be in? For the staff as well as the children. I wouldn't feel safe going in to work at a school right now. I'm so angry about the whole thing. I'm so upset that another start to the school year is mired with anxiety and I can't understand how the government seem to be getting away with this. These are children who are legally obligated to be at these places and the government aren't even able to tell us if it's safe for them to be there.

Govt debt is not household debt. It’s nothing like it.

Borrowing more and spending it well can actually result in a lower debt because it stabilises and stimulates different parts of the economy.

Some public spending should happen just because it’s a public good and brings about the kind of society we want to live in. Some public spending drives economic growth and investment and therefore raises tax revenue. Wise public spending means that you invest ahead of problems and they end up being sorted for lower cost.

Borrowing to spend isn’t necessarily a bad thing on a national level.

We can also raise taxes on the wealthy and do more to tackle tax avoidance and corruption.

@PumpkinSoup21
"Govt debt is not household debt. It’s nothing like it.

Borrowing more and spending it well can actually result in a lower debt because it stabilises and stimulates different parts of the economy.

Some public spending should happen just because it’s a public good and brings about the kind of society we want to live in. Some public spending drives economic growth and investment and therefore raises tax revenue. Wise public spending means that you invest ahead of problems and they end up being sorted for lower cost.

Borrowing to spend isn’t necessarily a bad thing on a national level.

We can also raise taxes on the wealthy and do more to tackle tax avoidance and corruption"

+++++

The "only borrow to invest" policy has been incredibly popular with voters over the past 24 years. However it simply does not work for the following reasons:

Governments (and large organisations) typically do not spend money well. We can all come up with examples of wasteful Gov spending (£600 million on eat out to help out, £37 billion on track and trace, £5.5 billion on the Ajax tank etc). But very few of us can come up with examples of wise Government spending.

In addition on a strict borrow to spend model should the Government have borrowed £450 billion for Covid measures or £70 billion to pay for energy bills help?

Right now as Liz Truss found out the hard way raising Government debt will not go down well with the money markets and is not an option.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/there-are-no-signs-of-government-borrowing-shrinking-any-time-soon/

https://amp.theguardian.com/business/2023/apr/12/uk-national-debt-will-continue-to-rise-over-next-five-years-says-imf

Plus the Government now spends more on just debt interest payments than it does on the entire education budget.

Raising taxes on the wealthy has also always been a popular electoral message so long as the "rich or wealthy" are not them with a typical voter position as follows:

Voter: "I think the Government should spend more on [insert area where voter's selfish interest is - for example the retired want higher pensions, young families want more on education and everyone wants more on the NHS]
Question: OK how are we going to pay for it?
Voter : By increasing taxes on the rich
and cutting spending in other areas
Question: OK so who are the rich ?
Voter : Basically anyone earning about 30% more than me but most definitely not me.
Question: what areas would you cut spending on?
Voter: Basically any area that I don't benefit from for example the retired wouldn't spend any more on education and young families wouldn't spend anymore on the retired.

In addition currently the top 1% of income earners pay 30% of all income tax revenues, 48% of income earners don't pay any income tax because they don't earn enough. So to make any significant increases in income tax revenue the level of tax rises required on the top 1% would simply be unworkable. Current levels of taxation are at their highest for 70 years.

In short the old popular policies of borrowing to invest or taxing the rich are broken and are no longer an option (see the Spectator article).

There is a very good quote from Alexander Fraser Tytler in 1799 which is neatly summarises our current position:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy"

I disagree about not being able to raise taxes, just about raising personal income/NI taxes. Corporate taxes for some sectors of the economy could be increased, and windfall ones for those profiteering such as oil companies. SUVs could be taxed much more (say tax PCPs) as about 99% of people with them have no need at all, never go off-road or carry large items.

Increasing corp taxes will simply mean they partly pass on the cost to consumers.

The ship has sailed for windfall taxes.

The only obvious groups to get money from are the wealthier retired (make them pay NI) and the ultra-wealthy (equalize capital gains tax with income taxes and get rid of non-dom).

The rest (low earners) are already quite poor and don't make enough for it to matter. Middle earners are also struggling (due to childcare and mortgage costs), with higher earners already being taxed too high (which makes people work less).

If anything, you need to reduce tax on income so that work pays (for all income earners).

She might be swearing a bit more

https://eastangliabylines.co.uk/keegan-keeps-the-lid-on-raac/

@TheThinkingGoblin

"The only obvious groups to get money from are the wealthier retired (make them pay NI) and the ultra-wealthy (equalize capital gains tax with income taxes and get rid of non-dom)."

++++

Whilst I fully agree with your post and absolutely yes the qualifying retired should pay NI and also I agree on your capital gains view, the problem is that in the grand scheme of things this won't raise much money.