November 2010

News

UK Statistics Authority asked to look at government use of school sports stats

Shadow education secretary Andy Burnham today told the Commons he had written to the UK Statistics Authority to look at the government's use of statistics in school sport. Mr Burnham was speaking during the Opposition Day School Sports Funding Debate, in which he implored education secretary Michael Gove to rethink his decision to abolish School Sport Partnerships.

Shamik Das ·

The real threat to living standards for those on low to middle incomes

Ed Miliband’s attempt on Friday’s Today programme to define the ‘squeezed middle’ has made some people question the point of the term. Shadow chief secretary Liam Byrne tried again on Sunday to pin down the concept. But the big question remains: is the ‘squeezed middle’ just a political slogan – as meaningless as ‘the deserving majority’ – or does it refer to something real, and a big, new challenge for political leaders?

James Plunkett ·

Thin end of the wedge? Private firm to run NHS hospital

Imagine the letters “NHS” were removed from your local hospital’s name. Would that worry you as a prospective patient? This scenario has not happened yet - but is getting closer. Last week saw the announcement of England’s first district hospital where all clinical services will be run by a private company. With the coalition’s Health Bill imminent, concerns about NHS local care becoming a franchise for big private operators are moving centre stage.

Trevor Cheeseman ·

Double debt bombshell of Cable’s HE reforms

The OBR yesterday showed that the Higher Education reforms will increase net debt by £13bn. The findings contradict Vince Cable's claims that the policy switch was motivated by the "current economic climate".

Guest ·

OBR: Recovery “at a slower pace” than in the 70s, 80s and 90s

Tomorrow’s papers will probably note the forecast that, by 2015, public sector employment will fall by 330,000, one hundred and sixty thousand less than the 490,000 forecast in June. 30,000 of the difference is down to “methodological refinements”. The remaining 130,000 reduction is because the Spending Review cut more from social security and less from Departmental budgets than OBR expected – a different balance of misery, rather than a genuine improvement.

Richard Exell ·
Scroll to Top