On the end of "Building Schools for the Future"
Hat Tip to Iain Dale for pointing out this blog post by John Redwood on the demise of the BSF (Building Schools for the Future) programme.
Contrary to the disingenuous statements by the MP for Copeland, the last Labour government did not give a firm "pledge" of £61.5 million for schools in Cumbria. They tried to give the impression that they had done so, but the small print of what Ed Balls actually announced was an "indicative allocation" of £61.5 million within an unfunded capital programme which the government admitted in the supporting papers for their last budget would have to take some heavy cuts.
Here is John Redwood's conclusion:
"In the statement I heard Michael Gove make he was clear in saying he was cancelling the approach of Building Schools for the future because it was an expensive, long winded and inefficient way of building schools. He did not say he was cancelling all new schools building. Indeed, if he is right and he can save substantial sums on the box ticking detailed regulatory approach of the old programme this could leave him with more moeny to spend on bricks and mortar. This message has got entirely lost in the broadcasts and newspaper stories about cuts, leading most people to think there will now be no new schools.
This needs turning round as quickly as possible. According to the figures the Coaliton government is going to spend as much on new capital projects as the outgoing Labour government. In that case they might end up building more schools than Labour for the same amount of money if Mr Gove is right about how to do it more cheaply. I asked him what savings he expected from stopping the BSF approach. He said he would write to me with the answer. The sooner I get that letter the sooner he can tell the country about the waste that is being eliminated and the extra money that should then be available for bricks and mortar."
You can read the full article here.
Contrary to the disingenuous statements by the MP for Copeland, the last Labour government did not give a firm "pledge" of £61.5 million for schools in Cumbria. They tried to give the impression that they had done so, but the small print of what Ed Balls actually announced was an "indicative allocation" of £61.5 million within an unfunded capital programme which the government admitted in the supporting papers for their last budget would have to take some heavy cuts.
Here is John Redwood's conclusion:
"In the statement I heard Michael Gove make he was clear in saying he was cancelling the approach of Building Schools for the future because it was an expensive, long winded and inefficient way of building schools. He did not say he was cancelling all new schools building. Indeed, if he is right and he can save substantial sums on the box ticking detailed regulatory approach of the old programme this could leave him with more moeny to spend on bricks and mortar. This message has got entirely lost in the broadcasts and newspaper stories about cuts, leading most people to think there will now be no new schools.
This needs turning round as quickly as possible. According to the figures the Coaliton government is going to spend as much on new capital projects as the outgoing Labour government. In that case they might end up building more schools than Labour for the same amount of money if Mr Gove is right about how to do it more cheaply. I asked him what savings he expected from stopping the BSF approach. He said he would write to me with the answer. The sooner I get that letter the sooner he can tell the country about the waste that is being eliminated and the extra money that should then be available for bricks and mortar."
You can read the full article here.
Comments