The linked press release comes from Labour's main website.
It is entitled:
"Tories' £35bn cut to public spending just the tip of the iceberg"
What confuses me is that the Conservative proposals called the James Report include the £21bn in the Gershon Report. The "Howard Flight Redacted" version only finds an additional £13-14bn on top of what Labour already propose.
The Lib Dem Treasury team have read the report and find that £8bn of that is bogus.
It still remains, however, that Labour are concentrating on the £35bn figure when they really should recognise that this implicitly criticises their own £21bn proposals.
The real debate should be do we want to have teachers in classrooms or would classroom supervisors do. Labour appear to be committed to this change as a gradual process. This is evidenced throughout government policy and particularly in DfES documents.
Now that would be a useful debate to have. Labour intend gradually phasing out teachers in certain circumstances (starting with when someone is sick).
This is not in itself new Lutterworth Grammar School have tried this and confirm that the scheme is "very cost effective".
The big problem for Michael Howard, however, is that it is not clear that Howard Flight actually said the party was hiding the scale of its proposed spending cuts/savings.
This actually is much more damaging for the Tories than had he done so. If he has been tried, convicted and sentenced by one person (Michael Howard) and actually did not do what he was claimed to have done then the person concerned has very bad judgement.
It is entitled:
"Tories' £35bn cut to public spending just the tip of the iceberg"
What confuses me is that the Conservative proposals called the James Report include the £21bn in the Gershon Report. The "Howard Flight Redacted" version only finds an additional £13-14bn on top of what Labour already propose.
The Lib Dem Treasury team have read the report and find that £8bn of that is bogus.
It still remains, however, that Labour are concentrating on the £35bn figure when they really should recognise that this implicitly criticises their own £21bn proposals.
The real debate should be do we want to have teachers in classrooms or would classroom supervisors do. Labour appear to be committed to this change as a gradual process. This is evidenced throughout government policy and particularly in DfES documents.
Now that would be a useful debate to have. Labour intend gradually phasing out teachers in certain circumstances (starting with when someone is sick).
This is not in itself new Lutterworth Grammar School have tried this and confirm that the scheme is "very cost effective".
The big problem for Michael Howard, however, is that it is not clear that Howard Flight actually said the party was hiding the scale of its proposed spending cuts/savings.
This actually is much more damaging for the Tories than had he done so. If he has been tried, convicted and sentenced by one person (Michael Howard) and actually did not do what he was claimed to have done then the person concerned has very bad judgement.
Comments