It's an impossible fight to win because all political parties are almost entirely dependant on donations from those same rich a--holes for their continued existence, which is why so much policy is directed to making the rich richer
I believe that's not true - apparently Reform are a party of the people with no dodgy dealings or money running uphill at all ...
To get back on topic. The table of costing vs funding shown earlier indicates that 1.8% of the pay rises will effectively come out of existing budgets, the rest will be out of the annual rise issued to schools (basically to cover inflation) ... In no way can this be regarded as anything other than a cut with the income (fixed) and expenditure (increasing) being controlled by the same entity.
Choices: pay your existing staff (try to deal with an overall budget cut); cut staff (to preserve current funding levels at the rock face); reduce educational materials and estate costs (reduce ability to deliver at the rock face). These are all called "making efficiencies" instead of "cuts" which has been a mantra since Maggie and Blair. At some point efficiency turns into scraping through the bottom of the barrel so it doesn't hold water ...
The question arises - where do staff costs go? How does maximising administration and management increase efficiency? I am aware of situations where a single head of a MAT is paid hundreds of thousands yet, to save money, a dozen staff on £15k are let go (any visions of the failing coxed 8 being replaced with a management consultant, 7 rowing consultants and a part-time rower are purely coincidental). It may be revolutionary to ask the question but which adds more value to a school, a dozen cleaners and dinner persons or a MAT figurehead? A full time technician or the "additional pension" paid to the Head of the MAT?
Strikes don't normally work as the media will be fed with headlines based on long holidays and "They don't know how good they've got it". But what would happen if, instead of striking for a bigger pay rise, school staff were striking because they'd had enough and were looking for reduced admin and management overheads, stopping the creaming off the top and "Less of That Sort of Stuff" so more of the education pot goes to, as a wild suggestion, the kids' education and wellbeing ... ? I don't personally care whether I get 2.5% or 3% pay rise if there are not enough staff and materials to allow me to do the job I love doing and I get ground into the dirt ...
I think retirement has gone to my head ...
