LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

verylonglegs

I do regard it as a postitive, the school buildings issue, if it awakens a few more people, or parents mainly that is, to how bad the state of the country has become under the current bunch of incompetent clowns. It shouldn't matter if you are voting blue, green, yellow, red or anything else, a massive shake up is needed where this kind of thing is tackled head on.

focuszing723

In a new study, researchers drilled down into the chemistry of Roman concrete to find out what makes it so resilient. As suspected, the key ingredient is the specific blend of limestone and volcanic ash used in the mortar, says Gail Silluvan for the Washington Post.

Mixing mortar according to the recipe of 1st century Roman architect Vitruvius, the scientists' analyses unveiled that the mortar included “dense clusters of a durable mineral called strätlingite.”

“The crystals formed because of a reaction that took place over time between the lime and volcanic matter in the mortar,” says Sullivan, and “helped prevent the spread of microscopic cracks by reinforcing interfacial zones, which researchers called 'the weakest link of modern cement-based concrete.'"

Sullivan says that the Roman technique actually has some benefits over modern mixes:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/scientific-reason-why-pantheon-hasnt-crumbled-180953627/
Interesting. I must have heard about it before but had forgot.

rick_chasey

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

Fairly sure the Romans used concrete which is still standing.

Isn’t the pantheon concrete?

I know they make it differently etc

I think you are completely misunderstanding the issue. It's not about the concrete it's about the cuts in capital spending. As Pross said, getting 50-60 years out of a product designed to last 30 is good going. Nothing lasts forever. Victorian hospitals are still standing but are no longer suitable for the requirements of a modern hospital. Buildings having a lifespan is fine.
Not having a plan for replacement is the mistake.

Ya ya I was being facetious.

rick_chasey

verylonglegs said:

I do regard it as a postitive, the school buildings issue, if it awakens a few more people, or parents mainly that is, to how bad the state of the country has become under the current bunch of incompetent clowns. It shouldn't matter if you are voting blue, green, yellow, red or anything else, a massive shake up is needed where this kind of thing is tackled head on.

Very few people who are affected by this are voting Tory anyway.

Not gonna change much.

surrey_commuter

verylonglegs said:

I do regard it as a postitive, the school buildings issue, if it awakens a few more people, or parents mainly that is, to how bad the state of the country has become under the current bunch of incompetent clowns. It shouldn't matter if you are voting blue, green, yellow, red or anything else, a massive shake up is needed where this kind of thing is tackled head on.

Agreeing to tackle it head on is easy.

What do you want to cut to get the spare money from.
What taxes would you raise to pay for it.
Borrowing more is probably counter productive as the rise in rates would cost too much.

Pross

To be fair it sounds like the sort of thing Rick was always saying we should be borrowing to do for the past decade when interest rates were low.

The design life of the buildings was known so surely there should have been planning for their replacement rather than relying on them outliving their expectation and literally starting to fall down? Ultimately it is down to local education authorities rather than central government but Government funding would be needed. Successive governments have ignored the need to replace schools and other public buildings / infrastructure although at least Blair and Brown did try to get a programme in place for renewals albeit using the much maligned PFI process.

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

verylonglegs said:

I do regard it as a postitive, the school buildings issue, if it awakens a few more people, or parents mainly that is, to how bad the state of the country has become under the current bunch of incompetent clowns. It shouldn't matter if you are voting blue, green, yellow, red or anything else, a massive shake up is needed where this kind of thing is tackled head on.

Agreeing to tackle it head on is easy.

What do you want to cut to get the spare money from.
What taxes would you raise to pay for it.
Borrowing more is probably counter productive as the rise in rates would cost too much.

Wouldn't have raised the tax thresholds. Capital expenditure should be the last thing to cut, not the first. Choking off BSF was one of the stupidest cuts.

As the government has said it will cover the cost of temporarily rehousing schools, hospitals and other public buildings *and* replacing the expired RAAC structures, I'm not sure we can claim this as a saving. Quite the opposite: the spare money is coming from somewhere.

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

verylonglegs said:

I do regard it as a postitive, the school buildings issue, if it awakens a few more people, or parents mainly that is, to how bad the state of the country has become under the current bunch of incompetent clowns. It shouldn't matter if you are voting blue, green, yellow, red or anything else, a massive shake up is needed where this kind of thing is tackled head on.

Agreeing to tackle it head on is easy.

What do you want to cut to get the spare money from.
What taxes would you raise to pay for it.
Borrowing more is probably counter productive as the rise in rates would cost too much.

Cut stuff to harm productivity for a decade and then proclaim you have no money to improve it because of low productivity.

They really have been the worst.

focuszing723

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

verylonglegs said:

I do regard it as a postitive, the school buildings issue, if it awakens a few more people, or parents mainly that is, to how bad the state of the country has become under the current bunch of incompetent clowns. It shouldn't matter if you are voting blue, green, yellow, red or anything else, a massive shake up is needed where this kind of thing is tackled head on.

Agreeing to tackle it head on is easy.

What do you want to cut to get the spare money from.
What taxes would you raise to pay for it.
Borrowing more is probably counter productive as the rise in rates would cost too much.

Cut stuff to harm productivity for a decade and then proclaim you have no money to improve it because of low productivity.

They really have been the worst.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9Ty-tbv4YQ
Lol, Cleggy p1ss1n on your chips again.

Jezyboy

surrey_commuter said:

verylonglegs said:

I do regard it as a postitive, the school buildings issue, if it awakens a few more people, or parents mainly that is, to how bad the state of the country has become under the current bunch of incompetent clowns. It shouldn't matter if you are voting blue, green, yellow, red or anything else, a massive shake up is needed where this kind of thing is tackled head on.

Agreeing to tackle it head on is easy.

What do you want to cut to get the spare money from.
What taxes would you raise to pay for it.
Borrowing more is probably counter productive as the rise in rates would cost too much.

You're now in a situation where schools either have to close, spend extra money renting extra space, or I guess get temporary buildings on site.

And once that's done, the original buildings will still need long term replacements or fixing.

So the total expenditure will be more than had you fixed the problem in time in the first place.

But hey, at least everyone feeling poor after "austerity" brought us brexit.

surrey_commuter

Jezyboy said:

surrey_commuter said:

verylonglegs said:

I do regard it as a postitive, the school buildings issue, if it awakens a few more people, or parents mainly that is, to how bad the state of the country has become under the current bunch of incompetent clowns. It shouldn't matter if you are voting blue, green, yellow, red or anything else, a massive shake up is needed where this kind of thing is tackled head on.

Agreeing to tackle it head on is easy.

What do you want to cut to get the spare money from.
What taxes would you raise to pay for it.
Borrowing more is probably counter productive as the rise in rates would cost too much.

You're now in a situation where schools either have to close, spend extra money renting extra space, or I guess get temporary buildings on site.

And once that's done, the original buildings will still need long term replacements or fixing.

So the total expenditure will be more than had you fixed the problem in time in the first place.

But hey, at least everyone feeling poor after "austerity" brought us brexit.

This is not aimed specifically at you but the level of comprehension on here makes me despair.

My apologies if you have responded to the wrong comment

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

verylonglegs said:

I do regard it as a postitive, the school buildings issue, if it awakens a few more people, or parents mainly that is, to how bad the state of the country has become under the current bunch of incompetent clowns. It shouldn't matter if you are voting blue, green, yellow, red or anything else, a massive shake up is needed where this kind of thing is tackled head on.

Agreeing to tackle it head on is easy.

What do you want to cut to get the spare money from.
What taxes would you raise to pay for it.
Borrowing more is probably counter productive as the rise in rates would cost too much.

Cut stuff to harm productivity for a decade and then proclaim you have no money to improve it because of low productivity.

They really have been the worst.

Improving productivity really is the new efficiency gains

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

verylonglegs said:

I do regard it as a postitive, the school buildings issue, if it awakens a few more people, or parents mainly that is, to how bad the state of the country has become under the current bunch of incompetent clowns. It shouldn't matter if you are voting blue, green, yellow, red or anything else, a massive shake up is needed where this kind of thing is tackled head on.

Agreeing to tackle it head on is easy.

What do you want to cut to get the spare money from.
What taxes would you raise to pay for it.
Borrowing more is probably counter productive as the rise in rates would cost too much.

Wouldn't have raised the tax thresholds. Capital expenditure should be the last thing to cut, not the first. Choking off BSF was one of the stupidest cuts.

As the government has said it will cover the cost of temporarily rehousing schools, hospitals and other public buildings *and* replacing the expired RAAC structures, I'm not sure we can claim this as a saving. Quite the opposite.

All valid points, but what are we going to cut to pay for it.

As you know I have a long list at the ready

surrey_commuter

Pross said:

To be fair it sounds like the sort of thing Rick was always saying we should be borrowing to do for the past decade when interest rates were low.

The design life of the buildings was known so surely there should have been planning for their replacement rather than relying on them outliving their expectation and literally starting to fall down? Ultimately it is down to local education authorities rather than central government but Government funding would be needed. Successive governments have ignored the need to replace schools and other public buildings / infrastructure although at least Blair and Brown did try to get a programme in place for renewals albeit using the much maligned PFI process.

Of course all of Rick’s borrowing was spent on improving productivity.

focuszing723

Nick Clegg has persuaded his party to stick to the path of austerity after promising he would argue for higher taxes on the rich and reject Conservative plans for spending cuts going into the next election.

The deputy prime minister won a controversial motion saying the Liberal Democrats were right to sign up to reduce the deficit through cuts to public spending.

After two hours of intense debate at the party's conference in Glasgow, members backed Clegg and rejected an amendment that proposed relaxing the "fiscal mandate" – the coalition's plan to reduce Britain's debts and deficit.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/sep/16/nick-clegg-lib-dems-austerity
I think I've mentioned it before, but did you denounce his stance to sign up to austerity at the time when he was in coalition?

So how can you attack the Tories and skip out the Lib Dems?

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

Pross said:

To be fair it sounds like the sort of thing Rick was always saying we should be borrowing to do for the past decade when interest rates were low.

The design life of the buildings was known so surely there should have been planning for their replacement rather than relying on them outliving their expectation and literally starting to fall down? Ultimately it is down to local education authorities rather than central government but Government funding would be needed. Successive governments have ignored the need to replace schools and other public buildings / infrastructure although at least Blair and Brown did try to get a programme in place for renewals albeit using the much maligned PFI process.

Of course all of Rick’s borrowing was spent on improving productivity.

😜

I think we can all agree cutting spending on stuff like this has been a false economy.

rick_chasey

focuszing723 said:

Nick Clegg has persuaded his party to stick to the path of austerity after promising he would argue for higher taxes on the rich and reject Conservative plans for spending cuts going into the next election.

The deputy prime minister won a controversial motion saying the Liberal Democrats were right to sign up to reduce the deficit through cuts to public spending.

After two hours of intense debate at the party's conference in Glasgow, members backed Clegg and rejected an amendment that proposed relaxing the "fiscal mandate" – the coalition's plan to reduce Britain's debts and deficit.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/sep/16/nick-clegg-lib-dems-austerity
I think I've mentioned it before, but did you denounce his stance to sign up to austerity at the time when he was in coalition?

So how can you attack the Tories and skip out the Lib Dems?

Because coalition politics is thus.

You’d struggle to vote for anyone in Holland with this attitude.

Austerity would have been even more brutal without the LDs and doing at least something is better than pretending you would in opposition.

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

verylonglegs said:

I do regard it as a postitive, the school buildings issue, if it awakens a few more people, or parents mainly that is, to how bad the state of the country has become under the current bunch of incompetent clowns. It shouldn't matter if you are voting blue, green, yellow, red or anything else, a massive shake up is needed where this kind of thing is tackled head on.

Agreeing to tackle it head on is easy.

What do you want to cut to get the spare money from.
What taxes would you raise to pay for it.
Borrowing more is probably counter productive as the rise in rates would cost too much.

Wouldn't have raised the tax thresholds. Capital expenditure should be the last thing to cut, not the first. Choking off BSF was one of the stupidest cuts.

As the government has said it will cover the cost of temporarily rehousing schools, hospitals and other public buildings *and* replacing the expired RAAC structures, I'm not sure we can claim this as a saving. Quite the opposite.

All valid points, but what are we going to cut to pay for it.

As you know I have a long list at the ready

I think I have answered that. Am not a fan of removing large chunks of the population from paying tax and raising the thresholds has reduced everyone's tax so not all that progressive anyway.

Also we are clearly paying for it anyway, so the question is not what do we cut but why are we adding to expenditure by putting off essential repair and replacement.

focuszing723

rick_chasey said:

focuszing723 said:

Nick Clegg has persuaded his party to stick to the path of austerity after promising he would argue for higher taxes on the rich and reject Conservative plans for spending cuts going into the next election.

The deputy prime minister won a controversial motion saying the Liberal Democrats were right to sign up to reduce the deficit through cuts to public spending.

After two hours of intense debate at the party's conference in Glasgow, members backed Clegg and rejected an amendment that proposed relaxing the "fiscal mandate" – the coalition's plan to reduce Britain's debts and deficit.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/sep/16/nick-clegg-lib-dems-austerity
I think I've mentioned it before, but did you denounce his stance to sign up to austerity at the time when he was in coalition?

So how can you attack the Tories and skip out the Lib Dems?

Because coalition politics is thus.

You’d struggle to vote for anyone in Holland with this attitude.

Austerity would have been even more brutal without the LDs and doing at least something is better than pretending you would in opposition.

Nope, when you slag off the Tories for Austerity again I want to see:

"The Tories and the Pothead Horse Eaters were really the worst"

focuszing723

I still can't believe you lot eat horse.

pblakeney

What's wrong with eating Dobbin?
Quite happy to eat Daisy, Piglet, Bambi, Thumper, Shaun.... Seems strange priorities.

veronese68

focuszing723 said:

I still can't believe you lot eat horse.

Have you ever tried horse? It's really good.

Dorset_Boy

RJST - which are these tax thresholds that were increased?
The Personal Nil Rate Band did increase initially but has remained fairly static since.
The basic rate band hasn't changed, so far, far more are now paying higher rate.
Inheritance Tax NRB hasn't increased in a decade or so.
Capital Gains Allowance has been cut dramatically
Dividend tax has increased
Pension contribution allowances were cut massively

Jezyboy

surrey_commuter said:

Jezyboy said:

surrey_commuter said:

verylonglegs said:

I do regard it as a postitive, the school buildings issue, if it awakens a few more people, or parents mainly that is, to how bad the state of the country has become under the current bunch of incompetent clowns. It shouldn't matter if you are voting blue, green, yellow, red or anything else, a massive shake up is needed where this kind of thing is tackled head on.

Agreeing to tackle it head on is easy.

What do you want to cut to get the spare money from.
What taxes would you raise to pay for it.
Borrowing more is probably counter productive as the rise in rates would cost too much.

You're now in a situation where schools either have to close, spend extra money renting extra space, or I guess get temporary buildings on site.

And once that's done, the original buildings will still need long term replacements or fixing.

So the total expenditure will be more than had you fixed the problem in time in the first place.

But hey, at least everyone feeling poor after "austerity" brought us brexit.

This is not aimed specifically at you but the level of comprehension on here makes me despair.

My apologies if you have responded to the wrong comment

Unless the governments plan was to cut the service of educating children in some kind of habitable building/shelter, then cutting the budget for said buildings is likely to not be saving money, but simply delaying spending the money.

Delaying spending for a short time could be necessary perhaps even sensible, obviously we don't want to prematurely replace expensive public buildings.

It seems we've gone way past that point where it could be sensible and headed straight to the point that the spending has been delayed for so long, we've got a load of buildings that can't be used, because they might fall down on the children.

Now you've got here, you need to spend more money because you need a fast (and probably temporary) fix, as well as a long term fix.

Also the public finances are not in a noticeably better place, because some other crises came along in the meantime.

rjsterry

Dorset_Boy said:

RJST - which are these tax thresholds that were increased?
The Personal Nil Rate Band did increase initially but has remained fairly static since.
The basic rate band hasn't changed, so far, far more are now paying higher rate.
Inheritance Tax NRB hasn't increased in a decade or so.
Capital Gains Allowance has been cut dramatically
Dividend tax has increased
Pension contribution allowances were cut massively

Nicely summarised. Here's a bit more on the raising of the Nil Rate band.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06569/

Up from £6,457 in 2010 to £12,570.

Sounds progressive, but VAT went up to 20% not long after, so very much robbing Peter to pay Paul.

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

verylonglegs said:

I do regard it as a postitive, the school buildings issue, if it awakens a few more people, or parents mainly that is, to how bad the state of the country has become under the current bunch of incompetent clowns. It shouldn't matter if you are voting blue, green, yellow, red or anything else, a massive shake up is needed where this kind of thing is tackled head on.

Agreeing to tackle it head on is easy.

What do you want to cut to get the spare money from.
What taxes would you raise to pay for it.
Borrowing more is probably counter productive as the rise in rates would cost too much.

Wouldn't have raised the tax thresholds. Capital expenditure should be the last thing to cut, not the first. Choking off BSF was one of the stupidest cuts.

As the government has said it will cover the cost of temporarily rehousing schools, hospitals and other public buildings *and* replacing the expired RAAC structures, I'm not sure we can claim this as a saving. Quite the opposite.

All valid points, but what are we going to cut to pay for it.

As you know I have a long list at the ready

Hunt has confirmed that the government will cover 'whatever it takes', although TBF I'm not sure he had any choice. Will at least deal with a chunk of the asbestos problem at the same time.

briantrumpet

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

verylonglegs said:

I do regard it as a postitive, the school buildings issue, if it awakens a few more people, or parents mainly that is, to how bad the state of the country has become under the current bunch of incompetent clowns. It shouldn't matter if you are voting blue, green, yellow, red or anything else, a massive shake up is needed where this kind of thing is tackled head on.

Agreeing to tackle it head on is easy.

What do you want to cut to get the spare money from.
What taxes would you raise to pay for it.
Borrowing more is probably counter productive as the rise in rates would cost too much.

Wouldn't have raised the tax thresholds. Capital expenditure should be the last thing to cut, not the first. Choking off BSF was one of the stupidest cuts.

As the government has said it will cover the cost of temporarily rehousing schools, hospitals and other public buildings *and* replacing the expired RAAC structures, I'm not sure we can claim this as a saving. Quite the opposite.

All valid points, but what are we going to cut to pay for it.

As you know I have a long list at the ready

Hunt has confirmed that the government will cover 'whatever it takes', although TBF I'm not sure he had any choice. Will at least deal with a chunk of the asbestos problem at the same time.

I wonder if they've thought about a VIP Lane to speed the process up... I think Michelle Mone is an expert in concrete and asbestos.

rick_chasey

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

verylonglegs said:

I do regard it as a postitive, the school buildings issue, if it awakens a few more people, or parents mainly that is, to how bad the state of the country has become under the current bunch of incompetent clowns. It shouldn't matter if you are voting blue, green, yellow, red or anything else, a massive shake up is needed where this kind of thing is tackled head on.

Agreeing to tackle it head on is easy.

What do you want to cut to get the spare money from.
What taxes would you raise to pay for it.
Borrowing more is probably counter productive as the rise in rates would cost too much.

Wouldn't have raised the tax thresholds. Capital expenditure should be the last thing to cut, not the first. Choking off BSF was one of the stupidest cuts.

As the government has said it will cover the cost of temporarily rehousing schools, hospitals and other public buildings *and* replacing the expired RAAC structures, I'm not sure we can claim this as a saving. Quite the opposite.

All valid points, but what are we going to cut to pay for it.

As you know I have a long list at the ready

Hunt has confirmed that the government will cover 'whatever it takes', although TBF I'm not sure he had any choice. Will at least deal with a chunk of the asbestos problem at the same time.

Draghi he is not

rjsterry

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

verylonglegs said:

I do regard it as a postitive, the school buildings issue, if it awakens a few more people, or parents mainly that is, to how bad the state of the country has become under the current bunch of incompetent clowns. It shouldn't matter if you are voting blue, green, yellow, red or anything else, a massive shake up is needed where this kind of thing is tackled head on.

Agreeing to tackle it head on is easy.

What do you want to cut to get the spare money from.
What taxes would you raise to pay for it.
Borrowing more is probably counter productive as the rise in rates would cost too much.

Wouldn't have raised the tax thresholds. Capital expenditure should be the last thing to cut, not the first. Choking off BSF was one of the stupidest cuts.

As the government has said it will cover the cost of temporarily rehousing schools, hospitals and other public buildings *and* replacing the expired RAAC structures, I'm not sure we can claim this as a saving. Quite the opposite.

All valid points, but what are we going to cut to pay for it.

As you know I have a long list at the ready

Hunt has confirmed that the government will cover 'whatever it takes', although TBF I'm not sure he had any choice. Will at least deal with a chunk of the asbestos problem at the same time.

Update: no new money for the education department so I guess that's the answer to SC's question: we'll cut schools spending. Lessons or buildings: pick one.

tailwindhome

Superb call back

The writers are on fire this season